Category: India

On Disguised Unemployment: Some Issues

This post discusses some of the broad theoretical issues underlying the category of ‘disguised unemployment’. The discussion is made clear by closely examining the hypothesis that Indian agriculture is plagued by the presence of high disguised unemployment.

Let us take a glimpse at the Economics textbook for class XI published by the NCERT. (NCERT 2006, p 131, Indian Economic Development)

‘Economists call unemployment prevailing in Indian farms as disguised unemployment. What is disguised unemployment’ Suppose a farmer has four acres of land and he actually needs only two workers and himself to carry out various operations on his farm in a year, but if he employs five workers and his family members such as his wife and children, this situation is known as disguised unemployment. One study conducted in the late 1950s showed about one-third of agricultural workers in India as disguisedly unemployed.’ (italics mine)

Is disguised unemployment unemployment’

A thought experiment. Suppose A and B are two similar countries ‘ both are equally populated. Now, a study has estimated disguised unemployment in country A to be 30% and in country B to be 10%. This implies that employment in country A is more than that of country B. Should this be of concern’ Must we try and reduce disguised unemployment in country A’

If so, what is the basis of ‘disguised unemployment” Do we see the principle of allocative efficiency present in disguise’ Disguised unemployment means that ‘labour’ is ‘inefficiently’ utilised. Attestation of this claim is done by showing the high share of workers employed in agriculture alongside the low contribution of agriculture to GDP.

The first draft of National Employment Policy (2008) reads thus: ‘Over half the workforce continues to depend on the agriculture even though it accounts for less than a fifth of the total GDP. This implies a vast gap in incomes and productivity between agriculture and non-agriculture sectors. This is mainly due to inadequate growth of productive employment opportunities outside agriculture.’ Is employment the need of the hour or is it contribution to GDP’ Which variable (employment or GDP) should be the criterion’ Why not improve the quality of employment in agriculture’ To attain quality, provision of infrastructural support is absolutely essential- credit facilities, good roads and increased railroad connectivity, storage houses, institutions so as to enable the farmers get a ‘decent’ price for their produce, etc.

In 1960-61, the share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in total GDP was 53% (at 1993-94 prices). This came down by around 30 percentage points to 22% in 2002-03. On the other hand, the share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in total employment was 75.9% in 1961; by 1999-2000, it had come down to 59.9%. [The Oxford Companion to Economics in India, ed Kaushik Basu, OUP: New Delhi, 2007, p. 11]

The above discussion attains significance when we view agricultural workers as those who are trying to make a livelihood out of various jobs ‘ farm and non-farm employment and self-employed and casual labour. ‘Employment’ mainly refers to wage employment. In India, out of total employment, the share of self-employment is the highest. As Amit Bhaduri writes, the economic activities predominant in the agricultural sector (or rural or informal) can be called as ‘survival strategies’. [Bhaduri 2006, Employment and Livelihood, in Employment and Development: Essays from an Orthodox Perspective] He cautions the policy makers on the use of dual-sector models in framing development policies for India owing to the heterogeneity prevalent in rural India and also because of the specificities present in the unorganised agricultural sector. Hence, the notion of ‘surplus labour’ loses much of its weight. In turn, we need to carefully look at ‘disguised unemployment’ for it disguises a lot of specificities of rural India.

On the Unorganised Sector in India

This post very briefly touches some aspects of the informal sector in India. Since, this sector is not organised strictly on the lines of capitalist systems, theoretical models find it difficult to accommodate them. And owing to the wide cultural and social differences in India, the informal sector is to that extent heterogeneous and differentiated. But, the first step is to identify such a sector and to broadly identify similarities, especially with respect to the production process and the organisation of the production process. It should be noted that the existence of a large ‘unorganised sector’ is not a problem; rather, it is a peculiar characteristic of the Indian Economy. And theory is supposed to be made in accordance with specificities of an economy and not the other way around.

The significance of the unorganized sector is seen when one takes a look at the NSS survey 1999-2000 ‘ around 92% the Indian workforce (around 370 million workers) is employed in the unorganised sector. This is an extremely large section of India. Hence, any macroeconomic analysis (fiscal policy, monetary policy, international trade, etc) ought to look at this section of the Indian society.

The unorganized sector consists of small economic entities which are diverse and differentiated in nature. This sector (a.k.a. informal sector) is larger than the organized sector in terms of the relative share in GDP as well as the workforce. Moreover, the unorganised sector produces about 60 per cent of India’s GDP and also provides livelihood to nearly 93 per cent of the work force. [Kabra 2003] Whereas a report by National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) ‘estimated the un-organised/informal sector workers as comprising about 86% of work force in the Indian economy in 2004-2005 and informal employment both in the organised and unorganised sector as 92%.’ How can any macroeconomic analysis/model leave this sector out’

Now, let us move on to how data is generated for this sector. As the ‘establishments’ in the informal sector are not governed by any legal provisions, no regular data is available such as that of the corporate (organised) sector. The Annual Survey of Industries (ASI) ‘provides statistical information to assess and evaluate, objectively and realistically, the changes in the growth, composition and structure of organised manufacturing sector comprising activities related to manufacturing processes, repair services, gas and water supply and cold storage’ pertaining to the organised sector. [ASI 2005-06] Based on the Population Census (PC), the Economic Census (EC) is prepared which forms the reference for carrying out surveys to capture the informal sector. These surveys are conducted by the NSSO and are called as enterprise surveys.

To sum up, it is evident that the informal sector is an important contributor towards GDP as well as in terms of providing ‘livelihood’ to a large section of the Indian populace. And, we have data sources such as NSSO data which try to capture the process of production in the informal sector and their economic characteristics, which need to be looked at urgently. For any development process that does not explicitly address the informal sector will be blind towards the Indian reality!

References:

Kabra, Kamal Nayan (2003), The Unorganised Sector in India: Some Issues Bearing on the Search For Alternatives, Social Scientist, Vol. 31, No. 11/12 (Nov. – Dec., 2003), pp. 23-46.

ASI 2005-06, Introduction, Accessed at http://www.mospi.nic.in/stat_act_t3.htm on 26th September, 2009.

Inflation: Theory vs Reality

The shift of focus from employment generation to inflation targeting seem to have taken place during the period India was being liberalised. Inflation, however, is a concern to the populace of any nation where wages are not indexed to inflation. In India, inflation poses problems as a rise in prices reduces the real wages and hence their purchasing power. Life, itself, can become difficult.

This post briefly tries to clarify how inflation is conceptualised in economics (neoclassical). Initially, it needs to be pointed out that neoclassical economics analyses equilibrium positions and differences between them – commonly termed as comparative statics. Another significant issue is that, in neoclassical demand and supply, the analysis is entirely carried out in logical time. Now, let us take a look at how prices are formed in equilibrium. In equilibrium, it is required that total demand of a commodity equals its total supply. And, if demand is more than the supply, prices are caused to rise, in order to restore equilibrium. Surprisingly, it is this insight that forms the basis of the current theory of inflation, which is mentioned in the media and talked about by economists.

Thinking through this ‘insight’, a few points come to my mind. First, an economy is never in a state of equilibrium. And neoclassical theory does not have the necessary tools to understand disequilibrium. Though, neoclassical theory can point out the characteristics of disequilibrium positions vis-a-vis equilibrium position. I doubt whether this is adequate. Secondly, prices in an economy does not rise, just because demand increases. Such a behaviour is commonly seen in markets for vegetables, fruits, meat, etc. It seems absurd to posit that prices of manufactured commodities will move according to changes in demand.

This much said, let us examine the impact of money supply on prices in an economy. Is there a relation between money supply and prices’ The first question which needs to be answered is how are prices formed. According to neoclassical economics, when demand rises, it implies that money supply in the economy has risen compared to the equilibrium state of affairs. The quantity theory of money seems to corroborate the hypothesis that money supply and prices are directly related. But what if they are not’ Wouldn’t the policies fail’

It is dangerous to build flimsy theories; for, policies draw arguments from these theories. For instance, the central bank tries to reduce money supply during inflationary conditions by raising the interest rates (indirectly) or through open market operations. How far are they effective’ Or, is inflation just a temporary phenomenon’ It needs to be mentioned that cases of hyperinflation is significantly different as they are strongly correlated with the breakdown of institutions.

This post ends by asking whether an increased rate of interest leads to decreased money supply’ Or whether an increased rate of interest causes prices to rise because the cost of borrowing increases’ Also, high interest rates attract capital from abroad. Very often, causes of inflation are not properly identified, which makes policy construction very difficult.

On the ‘Invisible’ Adam Smith

This post mainly deals with the common misconception about Adam Smith, whose name is known to all students and professors of Economics; the misconception being the notion that he advocated laissez-faire. Sadly, his works are not as known. (Though the names of his two major works are widely known) So, this post tries to makes visible what is commonly invisible regarding Smith.

In the Indian Schools, textbooks in Economics associate him with the ‘wealth definition’. In Frank ISC Economics, which is authored by D K Sethi and U Andrews, Adam Smith is supposed to have defined Economics as ‘A science which enquires into the nature and causes of wealth of nations.’ Definition is ‘a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol’. [Dictionary.com] Adam Smith has never defined Economics is the afore mentioned way. Is it ‘right’ to teach such ideas’ Isn’t it against the ethics of academics’ A large number of students are programmed in such a way in school, whereby their notion of economics is constituted only by neoclassical economics. Plurality in economics has been totally done away with. Teachers teach what is printed in the textbooks. No questions are asked.

Also, it is not surprising to see classical economists (Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, etc) being seen as ‘classical’ or rather irrelevant, because of either their naive assumptions or their bad theories.

The primary focus of this blog post is to argue that Adam Smith never advocated Laissez-faire. Let me put forth two instances where such a misconception has been put forth.

The following paragraph was published in The Hindu Young World, a widely read Indian Newspaper.

Adam Smith’s fundamental proposition was that a free market is a self-regulating mechanism and tends to produce the most desirable types and quantities of goods.

The second instance is from Economy professor, an online dictionary of economics.

Adam Smith’s fundamental argument was that individuals should be allowed to pursue their own private economic interests as much as possible and so long as they do not violate basic principles of justice.

Smith called this the invisible hand of the market – although everyone is acting in their own self-interest, they are led to achieve the good of all as if by an invisible hand of economic forces. Therefore, outside interference will inevitably lead to disaster. This became known as laissez-faire economic policy.

Instances like these are numerous. One reason could be that, the only paragraph(s) that such people read by Smith is this (are these):

Every individual…generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

-The Wealth of Nations, Book IV Chapter II

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.

-The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter II

In fact, there is very little evidence to state that Smith advocated ‘free markets’ through stating the importance of self-interested behaviour. Also, he viewed individuals as a part of the society and not like an individual that is cut off from the society-the Homo economicus. Sen rightly points out that ‘it is precisely the narrowing of broad Smithian view of human beings, in modern economies, that can be seen as one of the major deficiencies of contemporary economic theory.’ [Sen 1987]

To conclude, Adam Smith tried to understand his society and also tried to prescribe ways by which the society could grow-morally and economically through his two masterpieces. In short, he was a great scholar, who ideas are still prevalent; despite what school textbooks and some academicians posit.

References

Sen, A.K. 1987: Economic Behaviour and Moral Sentiments. On Ethics and Economics. OUP.

Further Reading

Prof. Gavin Kennedy’s Blog-a must read for those who want to ‘know’ Adam Smith.

The Prospects of Homo economicus-a scientific American piece which uses behavioural economics.

Myth and Fact about Homo economicus