TAMILNADU ECONOMY Contours of Change G a Secondary Data Exploration

8/20/2019 TAMILNADU ECONOMY Contours of Change G a Secondary Data Exploration

1/116

TAMILNADU ECONOMY: Contours of Change – A Secondary Data

Exploration

K.Nagaraj

J.Jeyaranjan


2/116

TAMILNADU ECONOMY: Contours of Change – A Secondary Data

Exploration

Introduction:

Livelihoods of individuals and social groups are a product of natural, socialand economic environment apart from other elements within which the individuals

and social groups function. The present exercise attempts to map the contours ofchanges that the Tamil Nadu economy has experienced over a period of time. It

touches upon several issues that directly impinge on the livelihoods of individuals andsocial groups. It starts with the demographic transition in the state and highlights the

salient characteristics of these changes before proceeding to look into the spatialdistribution of the population and the changes therein in terms of urbanization and

migration processes. Employment is a major livelihood option and we analyse thechanges in its pattern over time as well as differences across sectors and gender. Thisanalysis is necessarily at a broad level constrained by the data availability. Literacy –a source of empowerment – among the population is analysed next. The structural

changes in the economy is sought to be mapped by looking into the state income, itsmagnitude, sectoral composition and changes in it. We analyse, in some detail, thesalient aspects of the structure and changes in the agricultural and industrial sectors.Finally, we have attempted to profile the levels of living of the people in the state andin the districts.

This exercise provides a sort of backdrop- the macro picture- for our study onthe livelihood strategies in the state. Our next phase of our work involves mapping the

livelihood strategies at the micro level. These specifics are to be located in an overallcontext and this exercise is precisely aimed at providing that context prior to our field

exploration. After all, micro and macro conditions are so strongly interconnected thatone without the other is hard to understand.

Tamil Nadu, the southernmost state in the Indian subcontinent covers a little over

130,000 sq. km – about 4 percent of India’s geographical area – and had a population,according to the 2001 census of 62.11 million. The economy of the state is relatively

more modernised – in comparison with most other states in the country – in terms ofindustrialisation, urbanisation, educational attainment and literacy, access to healthcare etc. But the most striking characteristic of the economy – and the process ofeconomic change in the last few decades – appears to be a certain dichotomy ordisjunction in it, which can be stated as follows: While in overall gross terms the

performance of the economy – in terms say, level and increase in percapita income, orthe level and decrease in poverty – is only moderate and modest, more often than not

below par compared to the performance at the all-India level, the economy over theyear has witnessed a relatively high level of diversification and broad-basing. This process of socio-economic diversification and broad-basing in the state has a numberof dimensions: (a) The process of sectoral diversification, viz., a relatively rapid moveaway from the primary sector; (b) diversification within different sectors, like say, the

process of commercialization and marketisation within the agrarian sector; (c) Spatialaspects of diversification and broad-basing: viz., the relatively higher spatial spreadand reach of agricultural and industrial growth, as also relatively strong rural-urbanlinkages, which have got strengthened in the last couple of decades; and (d) a socio-


3/116

political dimension to the process of broad-basing where certain dimensions of old.Power structure – particularly in the caste equations – have got loosened, providingsome space for assertion and participation by the lower castes in the socio-political,and economic processes in the state.

This report attempts to highlight some of the dimensions of this disjunction or

dichotomy in the socio-economic processes in the state, and also point to a couple ofconsequences of it. As for the factors underlying this disjunction – which perhaps

would take us to complex social, economic, political and historical aspects – thereport, we would admit, will have very little to say.

It is useful to start our discussions with the last dimension – viz., the socio-political

dimension – in the process of diversification and broad-basing of the socio-economic process. The socio-political and cultural movement – its emergence, growth and

vicititudes – is absolutely central to any understanding of the socio-economic processes in Tamil Nadu, and the bare outlines of it are the following: This movement – the Self Respect Movement or the Dravidian Movement – with its strong progressive, anti-caste, rationalistic planks, at least in its initial phases, has left its

imprints on all major aspects of Tamil Society. In particular the emergence of thismovement remoulded the caste movements in the state in significant ways. Before itsadvent from around the second quarter of the present century, the various castemovements in the state had strong Sanskritising elements: ‘…. their constant attemptwas to emulate Brahmin or Kshatriya caste status, secure the privileges of entering thetemples and the right to dress and live like members of the upper castes’ [Singh1986:170]. With the Dravidian Movement taking strong roots by incorporating manyof these caste movements within its fold, the lower castes tended to give up ‘their

former orientation to identify with or claim the status of the Kshatriyas or Brahims’;instead, ‘ they….. tend[ed] to reject the whole ideology of upper castes……’. ‘The

earlier aspiration from vertical mobility or Sanskritisation among the lower castes[was] … replaced by a new feeling of self-identity within one’s own caste or

increased horizontal caste identity’. [Ibid:171]. It is undeniable that this movement provided a basis for the middle and lower castes – for at least a section among them –

to gain socially, economically and culturally: or in other words, a basis for broad- basing the socio-economic and political processes in the state. Paradoxically, the

decades of seventies and eighties which saw the political ascendency of the partiesowing allegiance to the Dravidian Movement – the Dravida Munnetra Kazagam(DMK) and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazagam (AIADMK) – alsohappen to be period when the social and cultural thrust of the movement witnessed aconsiderable degree of dilution, and hence, provided the space for the re-emergence ofSanskritising tendencies among many caste groups – in fact, precisely among thosecaste groups which had gained because of the movement earlier 1. And this, as we

shall see later, has important socio-economic consequences.

As we had noted earlier, this socio-political dimension is one among the severalaspects responsible for the broad-basing of the socio-economic process in Tamil

Nadu. One among these other dimensions, we had noted, was the strong rural-urban

1. This, admittedly, is a very sketchy account of a very complex phenomenon. For those interested,there is a considerable body of literature on this topic; see, for example, Rudolph and Rudolph[1967]; Irschick [1969]; Ram [1977]; Singh [1986]; Pandian [1994] etc.


4/116

linkages in the state, which is an aspect of population distribution and movement. Letus turn to some of these issues, related to the demographic regime in the state, now.

I: POPULATION – SIZE, DISTRIBUTION AND CHANGE

1. Size and Growth of Population:

At the time of 2001 census, Tamil Nadu had a population close to 62.11 million. It is

not only among the more populous states (ranking seventh among the states in Indiain terms of the size of total population), but also among the most densely populated.

The population density in Tamil Nadu (at 478 persons per sq. km in 2001) was nearlytwo-thirds higher than the national average and fifth highest among the major states.

The decadal [1991-2001] growth rate of population in TN is 11.19 percent in contrast

to the country’s growth rate of 21.34 percent. The sex ratio [number of females per‘000 males] in TN works out to 986 in 2001 against 933 for the country. The densityof population in TN is 478 persons per sq. km. in 2001, as against 324 persons per sq.km. for All-India. While the percentage of population in urban areas in 2001 for TN

works out to 43.86 percent, the same is only 27.78 percent for the country as a whole.Similarly, while the literacy rate for TN in 2001 is 73.47, for All-India it is just 65.38.[Table 1]

Table 1 Census at a Glance : Tamil Nadu and All India

Sl. No.

Particulars1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Tamil Nadu

AllIndia

Tamil Nadu

AllIndia

Tamil Nadu

AllIndia

Tamil Nadu

AllIndia

Tamil Nadu

AllIndia

Tamil Nadu

All India

1 Total Population (million) 30.12 361.09 33.69 439.23 41.2 548.16 48.41 683.33 55.86 846.3 62.11 1027.02

2 Decennial Growth Rate (%) 14.66 13.31 11.85 21.51 22.3 24.8 17.5 24.66 15.39 23.85 11.19 21.343 Literacy Rate 20.85 16.67 31.41 24.02 39.46 29.45 46.76 36.23 62.66 52.21 73.47 65.38

4 Density per Sq.Km. 232 117 259 142 317 177 372 216 429 267 478 324

5 Sex Ratio(no.of females per 000males)

1007 946 992 941 978 930 977 933 974 927 986 933

Source: Tamil Nadu, Government of.,Tamil Nadu An Economic Appraisal 2001-2002, Department of Evaluationand Applied Research, Cehnnai, 2003, pS-1


5/116

Table 2: Population, Decadal Growth Rate, Sex Ratio and Density, Tamil Nadu

and Districts, 2001.

District Population 2001 Decadal growth rate Sex Ratio Density

Persons Males Females 1981-1991 1991-2001 1991 2001 1991 2001

Thiruvalluvar 2738866 1390292 1348574 31.53 22.35 957 970 654 800

Chennai 4216268 2161605 2054663 17.24 9.76 934 951 22077 24231Kancheepuram 2869920 1455302 1414618 26.14 18.84 962 972 545 647

Vellore 3482970 1743871 1739099 15.14 15.09 978 997 498 573

Dharmapuri 2833252 1462136 1371116 21.61 16.66 942 938 252 294

Tiruvannamalai 2181853 1093191 1088662 14.4 6.8 983 996 330 352

Viluppuram 2943917 1484573 1459344 16.08 6.83 969 983 380 406

Salem 2992754 1551357 1441397 13.43 16.28 925 929 493 573

Namakkal 1495661 760409 735252 12.79 13.08 960 967 386 436

Erode 2574067 1306039 1268028 12.17 10.94 958 971 283 314

The Nilgiris 764826 379610 385216 12.7 7.69 983 1015 279 300

Coimbatore 4224107 2156280 2067827 14.65 20.4 952 959 470 566

Dindigul 1918960 966201 952759 12.54 8.99 976 986 291 317

Karur 933791 464489 469302 12.87 9.32 999 1010 284 311

Trichirapalli 2388831 1194133 1194698 15.57 8.76 982 1000 499 542

Perambalur 486971 242664 244307 17.92 7.97 975 1007 258 278

Ariyalur 694058 345777 348281 11.16 9.06 975 1007 328 358

Cuddalore 2280530 1148729 1131801 16.13 7.43 967 985 582 626

Nagapattinam 1487055 738287 748768 11.68 7.95 993 1014 507 548

Thiruvarur 1165213 578870 586343 12.04 5.92 987 1013 508 538

Thanjavur 2205375 1091557 1113818 11.13 7.38 996 1020 605 649

Pudukottai 1452269 720847 731422 14.72 9.43 1005 1015 285 312

Sivaganga 1150753 565594 585159 10.72 4.32 1033 1035 263 275

Madurai 2562279 1295124 1267155 17.51 6.75 964 978 686 733

Theni 1094724 553118 541606 12.98 4.33 964 979 342 357Virudhunagar 1751548 870820 880728 16.71 11.92 994 1011 365 409

Ramanathapuram 1183321 582068 601253 12.11 5.73 1011 1033 271 287

Thoothukudi 1565743 764087 801656 7.8 7.54 1051 1049 315 339

tirunelveli 2801194 1372082 1429112 12.53 11.97 1034 1042 367 411

Kanniyakumari 1669763 829542 840221 12.43 4.34 991 1013 950 992

Tamil Nadu 62110839 31268654 30842185 15.39 11.19 974 986 429 478Source: India, Government of., Census of India, 2001, Table 1, Provisional Population Total, Series 1, Paper-1 of2001, Supplement: District Totals, pg.116-117

Table 2 profiles the growth and distribution of population, district-wise, within TN[Table 2]. It is clear from Table 2, that, the decadal growth rate of population is the

fastest in Thiruvallur [22.35 percent between 1991 and 2001 as compared to theaverage of 11.19 percent for the state], followed by Coimbatore and Kancheepuram.

Similarly, the density of population per sq. km. for Thiruvallur, Kancheepuram andCuddalore is way above the average for the state as a whole in 1991 as well as in

2001.


6/116

Table 3: Tamil Nadu : Sex Ratio

District

Sex Ratio per 1000 male

All Age Groups 0-6 age group

1991 2001 1991 2001

Thiruvalluvar 957 970NA 954

Chennai 934 951 962 968Kancheepuram 962 972970** 961

Vellore 978 997 962 937

Dharmapuri 942 938 905 878

Tiruvannamalai 983 996 964 952

Viluppuram 969 983NA 969

Salem 925 929849*** 826

Namakkal 960 967NA 896

Erode 958 971 929 936

The Nilgiris 983 1015 968 990

Coimbatore 952 959 966 951

Dindigul 976 986 934 929

Karur 999 1010 NA 923

Trichirapalli 982 1000 955 949

Perambalur 975 1007 NA 945

Ariyalur 975 1007 NA 950

Cuddalore 967 985 970 938

Nagapattinam 993 1014NA 960

Thiruvarur 987 1013 NA 974

Thanjavur 996 1020 968 950

Pudukottai 1005 1015 976 965

Sivaganga 1033 1035 958 946

Madurai 964 978 918 927

Theni 964 979NA 893Virudhunagar 994 1011 946 962

Ramanathapuram 1011 1033 960 964

Thoothukudi 1051 1049 964 953

tirunelveli 1034 1042 955 952

Kanniyakumari 991 1013 970 967

Tamil Nadu 974 986 948 939

Source: Tamil Nadu, Government of, Human Development Report, 2003, Pg.147-148

On the other hand the sex ratio figures give an interesting pattern [Table 3]. In thecase of ‘ All age-group’ sex ratio, while Villupuram and Cuddalore match the statefigure of 985 females per ‘000 males, Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur return below

state average figures of 961 and 970 respectively. But, in the 0-6 age-group category,while Villupuram, Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur are way above the state figure of939 females per ‘000 males, Cuddalore matches that of the state. It would beinteresting to explore why this initial advantage in the three former districts in

particular does not translate into a better future as the girl children transcend intoadulthood.


7/116

At the turn of the century, the areas which constitute the present state of Tamil Naduhad barely 19 million people. There has been a more than three-fold increase in

population during the last 100 years, close to three fourths of this increase occurringsince Independence. But a comparison with the All-India picture clearly shows thatthe growth rate of population in the state is of a lower order compared to the rest ofthe country, and this is particularly so in the post-Independence period.

Table 1: Population of Tamil Nadu and India, 1901-2001:

Population (in

millions)

Decadal change in

population (percent)

Additions to population

over the decade (in millions)

Year Tamil

Nadu

India Tamil

Nadu

India Tamil

Nadu

India

1901 19.25 238.40 - - - -1911 20.90 252.09 8.57 5.74 1.65 (100) 13.69 (100)

1921 21.63 251.32 3.49 -0.31 0.73 (44) -0.77 (-6)1931 23.47 278.98 8.51 11.01 1.84 (112) 27.66 (202)

1941 26.27 318.66 11.93 14.22 2.80 (170) 39.68 (290)

1951 30.12 361.09 14.66 13.32 3.85 (233) 42.43 (310)

1961 33.69 439.23 11.85 21.64 3.57 (216) 78.14 (571)

1971 41.20 548.16 22.29 24.80 7.51 (455) 108.93 (796)1981 48.41 685.18 17.50 25.00 7.21 (437) 137.02 (1001)

1991 55.86 846.30 15.39 23.51 7.45 (452) 161.12 (1077)2001 62.11 1027.02 11.19 21.34 6.25(378) 180.72(1301)

Note: Figures in brackets give the index for decadal increase in population with 1901-1911= 100.

Source: Census of India.

It is also noteworthy that there is a distinct downward trend in the growth rate of population from 1971 onwards in Tamil Nadu; in fact the net additions to the

population in the state in the seventies through nineties have remained at the samelevel as in the sixties. And the contrast in this regard with the country as a whole is

very striking: the growth rate of population has declined only marginally in thecountry since 1971, and the decadal additions to the population have witnessed a

steady increase over this period.

With net migration from the state accounting for only a small proportion of the total population, this decline in the rate of growth of population in the state in the seventiesand the eighties should be very largely related to the behaviour of the vital rates – the

birth rate and the death rate – over this period. Let us look into this issue in somedetail.

2. Vital Rates in Tamil Nadu:

While both birth and death rates have registered a decline from around early seventiesin Tamil Nadu – in the rural as well as urban areas – the order of decline issignificantly higher in the case of birth rates, and hence the natural rate of growth of

population has witnessed a decline over this period [Table 2]. But a closer look at thedata


8/116

Table 2: Birth Rates and Death Rates in Tamil Nadu, 1971-2001:

(Three year moving averages; per mile)

Rural Urban Combined

Mid-Year

Birthrate

Deathrate

Birthrate

Deathrate

Birthrate

Deathrate

1972 33.4 16.9 26.2 8.9 31.3 14.5

1973 32.9 16.8 25.0 8.7 30.6 14.41974 32.1 16.7 25.0 8.7 30.0 14.3

1975 32.1 16.8 25.8 9.2 30.2 14.5

1976 31.9 16.5 26.9 9.6 30.4 14.4

1977 30.9 15.4 27.0 9.7 29.8 13.71978 30.1 14.3 27.0 9.3 28.9 12.9

1979 29.6 13.4 26.0 8.7 28.5 12.01980 29.6 13.1 25.2 8.3 28.3 11.7

1981 29.4 13.1 24.4 7.9 27.8 11.4

1982 29.3 13.4 24.9 7.9 27.9 11.61983 28.9 12.9 26.0 8.2 27.8 11.2

1984 27.5 12.1 25.6 8.0 26.9 10.71985 25.9 11.2 24.7 7.6 25.5 9.9

1986 24.4 10.9 23.3 7.1 24.1 9.6

1987 23.8 10.7 22.5 7.2 23.5 9.5

1988 23.6 10.3 22.2 7.0 23.3 9.3

1989 22.9 9.9 21.6 6.8 22.5 8.81990 22.0 9.6 21.4 6.9 21.8 8.7

1991 21.2 9.4 20.6 6.9 21.0 8.61992 20.4 9.3 19.9 6.7 20.2 8.4

2000 20 8.7 18.1 6.5 19.3 7.92001 19.6 8.5 13.8 6.0 19.1 7.7

Source: Sample Registration System.

reveals that rapid declines in the birth rates in the state is a recent phenomenon,discernible from around the mid-eighties onwards. While the decline in the birth ratehad set in from around early seventies – if not earlier – the magnitude of decline wasonly modest till about the early or mid-eighties, a rapid decline setting in onlythereafter. Thus, taking the state as a whole, from the triennium 1971-73 to 1982-84the birth rate declined by only 3.5 points; the decline in the next decade was of theorder of 7.6 points, i.e., more than double the decline in the earlier decade. The deathrate as noted earlier, also registered a steady decline from the early seventies in thestate, but did not witness any perceptible increase in the magnitude of decline in theeighties as compared to the seventies. Thus, the decline in the death rate from 1971-73to 1982-84 was 3.3 points, and from 1982-84 to 1991-93 was just 2.8 points. Giventhis, the natural rate has witnessed a much more steeper fall in the eighties ascompared to the seventies in Tamil Nadu.

A striking feature of the decline in the birth rate in Tamil Nadu over the seventies andthe eighties is the distinct patterns displayed by the birth rates in the rural and theurban areas. While the birth rate in urban Tamil Nadu has consistently been lowerthan the rate in its rural areas, the decline in the latter appears to have set in muchearlier. Thus, the rural birth rate registered a substantial decline in the seventies (of


9/116

the order of 4.5 points between 1971-73 and 1982-84); and the decline continued, atan accelerated pace, from the early or mid-eighties, the decline being by 8.5 points

between 1982-84 and 1991-93. In sharp contrast, the urban rate virtually stagnated –with considerable amount of fluctuations – in the seventies, but started declining atrapid rates from around the early or mid-eighties. The urban birth rate declined by ameagre amount, of 0.2 points, between 1971-73 and 1982-84; but the decline between

1982-84 and 1991-93 was much higher, at 6.1 points. In sum, while the moderatedecline in the overall birth rate in Tamil Nadu in the seventies was solely due to the

decline in the rural rate, the rapid decline in the eighties was the resultant of the rapiddecline in both the rural and the urban rates. It is also noteworthy that the pattern of

decline in the death rate, either in rural or urban Tamil Nadu, follows more or less the pattern in the birth rate, pointing to the possibility that the decline in death rate –

which is also associated with a decline in the infant mortality rates in both rural andurban Tamil Nadu over this period – was a factor underlying the decline in birth rates.

We shall come back to this issue shortly.

It is also clear that precisely because of the distinct patterns in the decline of the vitalrates in the rural and urban areas of the state, the gap between the rural and the urban

vital rates has declined very sharply, particularly in the eighties and 1990s. And this phenomenon is noticeable particularly in the case of the birth rate. And this, we believe, reflects a larger phenomenon, of the homogenisation of the demographicregime in Tamil Nadu over the seventies and the eighties. The available data indicatethat the differentials in most of the demographic variables have declined sharply inthe state across space – i.e., between rural and urban areas as well as across districts –and also across social groups, like say groups with different levels of educationalattainment, or groups belonging to different castes. And this homogenisation is

noticeable particularly in the case of, what may be called for want of a better term,‘volitional’ indices of fertility, as for example, the desired family size. The amazing

spread of the small family norm across space and social groups – with very littlevariation across them in terms of the desired family size, with almost all desiring just

about 2 children – is a striking feature of Tamil Nadu economy in recent times.

Two important implications of this process of homogenisation of the demographicregime in Tamil Nadu may be noted. The first is that it is a reflection – an outcome, as

we shall point out later – of diversification and broad-basing of the socio-economic processes in the state. And as we shall see later, the increasingly strong rural-urbanlinkages have played a major role in this process. The second implication is that if thesocially disadvantaged sections – like the illiterate population, the Scheduled Castes,the rural population etc – had higher levels of fertility earlier – and there is someevidence to this effect – the decline in birth rate or fertility would be sharper for thesesections compared to the rest. So in order to understand the factors underlying the

decline in birth rates in Tamil Nadu, one has to look particularly for socio-economicforces responsible for the sharp decline in fertility of the more disadvantaged sectionsin the state.

While we shall deal with the issue of the factors underlying the decline in birth rate –and hence, of fertility – in Tamil Nadu later in the report, it is useful to provide somedetails on the exact manner in which the fertility decline has come about – thecomponents of this decline etc – in the state: These details would provide some cluesas to the factors responsible for fertility decline in the state.


10/116

3. Components of Fertility Decline:

The decline in birth rate – and the associated decline in fertility levels – in Tamil Nadu in the seventies and eighties are largely due to a decline in marital fertility rates,with nuptiality playing only a secondary role in this [Table 3]. In the seventies, when

fertility declined by a

Table 3: Marital Fertility Rate and Nuptiality Rate in Tamil Nadu, 1972-1991

Rural Urban

Year

Total

Fertility

Rate

Total

Marital

Fertility

Rate

Nuptiality

Rate

Total

Fertility

Rate

Total

Marital

Fertility

Rate

Nuptiality

Rate

1972 4.1 5.9 85.6 2.9 5.1 69.8

1984 3.6 5.3 72.6 3.1 4.9 70.9

1991 2.3 4.1 71.1 2.0 4.1 69.31995-97 2.2 1.3

Source: 1. Registrar General of India: Level, Trends and Differentials in Fertility, 1979. (for 1972)2. Registrar General of India: Fertility Differentials in India, 1984. (for 1984)3. For 1991, the Sample Registration System.

moderate level in rural Tamil Nadu, it was due to a decline in both marital fertilityand nuptiality rates; when the fertility declined rapidly from around the early or mid-eighties here it was almost solely due to a decline in the marital fertility rate. Thedecline in fertility in urban Tamil Nadu, which had set in only in the eighties, wasalmost solely due to a decline in the marital fertility rate. Given the universality of

marriage in India – Tamil Nadu being no exception to this – this would imply that ageat marriage (for the female) has not played any major role in the fertility decline in

Tamil Nadu. The singulate mean age at marriage for females registered a modestincrease from 19.6 years in 1971 to 20.3 years in 1981 in Tamil Nadu, and remained

virtually stagnant thereafter. The value, according to the National Family HealthSurvey, being 20.5 years in 1992-93. This value is only marginally higher than the all-

India figure of 20.0 years, but significantly lower than the figure for Kerala where itstood at 22.1 in 1992-93. In Kerala, an increase in female age at marriage played a

significant role in the initial phase of its fertility decline, and it was attributed to highfemale literacy. The fact that Tamil Nadu presents a different scenario in this regard

would imply that female literacy – or social sector advances in general – did not playthe same central role in its fertility decline.

Now, there is considerable evidence to the effect that the decline in marital fertility inthe state has come about essentially through family limitation by recourse to terminalmethods of contraception – overwhelmingly to female sterilisation – with spacing of

births playing very little role in it. If anything it appears that there is a tendency for births to be “bunched” around lower birth intervals. The norm, which appears to begetting increasingly generalised, is a relatively early marriage (compared to Kerala,say); two or at most three children in quick succession after that; and go in for femalesterilisation after that.


11/116

This rapid generalised – and rather unexpected – fertility decline in the state fromaround the mid-eighties has given rise to a considerable amount of debate andliterature, particularly on the factors underlying this phenomenon. There is one view,which ascribes the decline largely to an “efficient” and “successful” family welfare

programme in the state, which in itself is due to the requisite political will and anefficient bureaucracy2. This, we believe, is at best a partial explanation for the simple

reason that while an efficient family planning programme may be necessary for arapid decline in fertility, it cannot explain the rather amazing spread of the small

family norm in Tamil Nadu in recent times; one has to look for more basic socio-economic factors to explain this phenomenon.

The relatively high level of social sector development – of literacy, health care etc – is

also often adduced as one of the reasons for the rapid fertility decline in the state. Aswe shall see later the level of social sector development in the state is indeed higher

than the all-India average, but a comparison with Kerala would show that while therole of the social sector advances in fertility decline in the state cannot be completelydiscounted, they would again provide only a partial explanation. While Tamil Nadutoday has a fertility level almost as low as Kerala, in terms of social sector advances –

like female literacy, health care development etc – it is a distant second.

It is also often claimed that some important state interventions in the social sector inthe eighties have led to considerable improvements in the health status of women andchildren, and hence have resulted in rapid fertility decline. One such intervention isthe noon meal programme, covering children in the age-group 3 to 15 years, whichwas introduced in 1982. This noon meal scheme, along with the almost totaluniversalisation of immunisation programme – including the programme for tetanus

toxoid coverage of pregnant women – it is claimed, improved the general health statusof infants and children, and hence was a major factor behind fertility decline

[Ramasundaram, 1995]. The behaviour of the infant mortality rate – a very sensitiveindicator of the health status of a society – would throw some light on this issue, and

let us turn to a brief discussion on it.

2 .See, for example, Srinivasan (1995).


12/116

4. Infant Mortality Rate in Tamil Nadu:

The infant mortality rate in Tamil Nadu has witnessed a steady decline in theseventies through 1990s (Table 4); and this decline has occurred both in the rural andurban areas.

While there is, thus, a link between decline in infant mortality and decline in birth ratein Tamil Nadu, we may just emphasise that the decline in infant mortality – or

advances in social sectors in general – cannot be seen as the major factor

Table 4: Infant Mortality Rates, 1971-2001

Rural Urban Combined

Year Tamil

Nadu

Kerala India Tamil

Nadu

Kerala India Tamil

Nadu

Kerala India

1971 127 60 138 77 48 82 113 58 129

1972 133 66 150 85 43 85 121 63 139

1973 122 58 142 68 46 88 109 54 1331974 118 56 136 71 44 74 106 54 126

1975 129 57 151 65 36 84 112 54 140

1976 121 58 139 81 47 80 110 56 129

1977 114 49 140 79 37 81 103 47 130

1978 120 45 137 63 29 74 105 42 127

1979 114 45 130 63 30 72 100 43 120

1980 103 41 124 64 34 65 93 40 114

1981 104 40 119 55 24 62 91 37 110

1982 97 32 114 51 24 65 83 30 105

1983 100 35 114 59 26 66 87 33 105

1984 90 29 113 53 27 66 78 29 104

1985 95 32 107 53 30 59 81 31 971986 93 28 105 54 20 62 80 27 96

1987 86 29 104 54 25 61 76 28 95

1988 84 20 102 54 22 62 74 28 94

1989 80 23 98 51 15 58 68 21 91

1990 70 17 86 43 15 50 59 17 80

1991 65 17 87 42 16 53 57 16 80

1992 66 17 85 42 13 53 58 17 79

1993 66 15 82 38 7 45 56 13 74

2000 56 14 38 14 51 14 68

2001 55 12 35 9 49 11Source: Sample Registration System.

underlying fertility decline in Tamil Nadu. A comparison of Tamil Nadu with Keralashould bring it out very clearly. While the fertility levels in the two states are not verydifferent, the infant mortality rates are. The IMR in Tamil Nadu in 1993 (at 56) wasmore than four times as high as the IMR in Kerala (13).

And a disturbing tendency that is discernible, at least from the beginning of thenineties, is that this decline in the infant mortality rate seems to have been arrested, at


13/116

this relatively high level, in the state. This stagnation in IMR – which is largely due tostagnation in the neo-natal mortality rate – may be due to a relatively high incidenceof high-risk pregnancies in the state – which in itself may be largely due to increasing‘bunching’ of births around low birth intervals – as also the level of social sectordevelopment, which at best can be characterised as being only modest. Thus, furthersubstantial declines in IMR from the relatively high levels prevalent in the state today

would require a reorientation of state policies towards better social sectordevelopment, as also towards later marriages and higher birth spacing as means for

fertility decline, rather than an almost total reliance on female sterilization as in thecase of the official family planning programme in the state today.

In sum, either social sector development or the ‘efficiency’ of the official family

planning programme can at best be partial explanations for the rapid fertility declinein Tamil Nadu. As we shall argue later the basic explanation for this phenomenon has

to be sought in what we have termed the disjunction in the economy, between therather poor overall performance of the economy and the diversification and broad-

basing experienced by it. One of the dimensions of this broad-basing, we had notedearlier, was the spatial dimension, viz., the rural-urban linkages in the state. Let us

now turn to this issue.

5. Urbanisation in Tamil Nadu:

Tamil Nadu happens to be one of the relatively more urbanised states in the country.According to the 1991 census slightly more than a third (34.2 percent) of its

population lived in urban areas only Maharastra and Gujarat were more urbanised,with a degree of urbanisation of 38.7 percent and 34.4 percent respectively. But Tamil

Nadu has a better spread of urbanisation. it has a larger number of towns per unit areaand a better mix of small, medium and large towns, as also a better spatial spread of

these towns, compared to either Maharastra or Gujarat. In fact if a composite index ofurbanisation taking into account (a) the degree of urbanisation, (b) rural population

served by a town and (c) the average distance to a town from the village, is used forcomparison across the states, Tamil Nadu ranks first among the major states in the

country both in 1981 and 1991 [Rukmani, 1994]. An important consequence of thisgood spread of towns in Tamil Nadu is that the rural-urban linkages in the state are

quite strong compared to other states in the country (with the possible exception ofKerala). And there is reason to believe that the rural-urban linkages in the state havegot strengthened in the recent past, from the seventies onwards in particular. Thesixties, seventies and the eighties witnessed a very significant increase in the spreadand development of the road network – of the ‘minor’ roads, viz., roads other thanhighways and major district roads, in particular – and of transportation facilities – of

public transportation in particular – in the state [Table 5]. According to the census, in

1971 nearly a third (32.4 percent) of the villages in Tamil Nadu had a town less than10 kilometres away [Rukmani, 1996]; this proportion had increased to nearly half(49.0 percent) by 1992-93 according to the National Family Health Survey.


14/116

Table 5: Development of Road Network in Tamil Nadu, 1960-1992:

(Kilometres)Major roads Minor roads

Year

Nationalhighways

Statehighways

Majordistrictroads

Municipal,P.W.D andothers

Total Otherdistrict roads

Panchayatunionroads

Total Totalfor allroads

Minorroadsas a

percentof allroads

1960-61 1754 1754 13742 5827 23077(100)

1194 19748 20942(100)

44019(100)

47.6

1965-66 1754 1780 13591 6423 23548(102)

6859 35160 42019(201)

65567(149)

64.1

1970-71 1804 1780 13776 7235 24595(107)

9537 40032 49569(237)

74164(168)

66.8

1975-76 1865 1745 13866 7956 25432(110)

15833 53468 69301(331)

94733(215)

73.2

1980-81 1865 1814 14028 7956 25663(111)

18118 71527 39645(428)

115308(262)

77.7

1985-86 1884 1864 14004 9169 26921(117)

21927 99112 121039(578)

147960(336)

81.8

1988-89 1884 1885 14008 15022 32799(142)

29254 102515 131769(629)

164568(374)

80.1

1989-90 1884 1885 14008 15022 32799(142)

30420 102515 132935(635)

165734(377)

80.2

1990-91 1884 1896 13923 15156 32859(142)

31733 102515 134248(641)

167107(380)

80.3

1991-92 2002 1915 13930 15156 33003(143)

33110 102515 135625(648)

168628(383)

80.4

2001-02 3850 7163 48325 37122 82859 179319

Note: Figures in brackets give indices with 1960-61=100.Source: Tamil Nadu: An Economic Appraisal, 1992-93; Government of Tamil Nadu; Madras.

We should hasten to add that the high level of urbanisation in Tamil Nadu should beseen solely in relative terms, viz., relative to other states in the country. It is obviousthat with just about a third of its population living in urban areas, Tamil Nadu is still a

predominantly rural society, and what is more, even at this modest level ofurbanisation there are clear indications of deceleration of urban growth in the state inthe last two decades [Table 6]. In the post-Independence period the rapid urbangrowth of the large urban agglomerations in particular in the sixties – and a moderategrowth in the seventies – may be related to the

Table 6: Degree of Urbanisation and Rate of Urban Growth in Tamil Nadu, 1951- 2001

Year Degree ofurbanisation

(percent)

Decadal variation inurban population

(percent)1951 24.4 -

1961 26.6 22.3

1971 30.2 38.6

1981 33.0 28.4

1991 34.2 19.3

2001 43.86Source: Census of India.


15/116

expansion and diversification in the industrial sector, and the growth and increasingmarket orientation associated with the green revolution in the agricultural sector. Andsharp decline in urban growth in the eighties may again be linked to fortunes of theindustrial sector which, as we show later, witnessed a sharp decline in its growth inthis period.

In sum, the strong – and strengthening – rural-urban linkages in Tamil Nadu in the

recent past appear to provide a contrast to a decelerating or a stagnant picture of urbangrowth in this period. This contrast, we believe, is an instance of what we have called

the disjunction between the broad-basing of the socio-economic processes on the onehand, and a poor or modest real sector performance on the other. And this dichotomy

has led to – or is associated with – certain other changes in the demographic regime inthe state. And one such change relates to migratory patterns.

6. Migration:

The strong – and strengthening – rural-urban linkages and the decelerating urban

growth in the seventies and the eighties in the state were associated with significantchanges in the patterns of migration or mobility in the state. The sharp decline in therate of urban growth in the seventies and the eighties – after a decade of rapid urbangrowth in the sixties – was accompanied by a significant decline in the net urban-wardmigration in the state. A simple component analysis of the urban growth in the stateshows that decadal net rural-urban migration rate was of the order or 8.6 percent inthe sixties, and had declined marginally to 7.9 percent in the seventies; but theeighties witnessed a very sharp decline in this rate to – 0.2 percent. But a sharp

decline of this order in the net rural-urban migrant stream is consistent with a situationwhere the relative importance of different mobility streams would have undergone

drastic changes, but the overall volume of migration – a summation of all the mobilitystreams – would not have declined to any significant extent. While we do not have

any data to test this contention – we have not been able to obtain the census migrationdata for 1991 – this we believe is a safe surmise in the context of Tamil Nadu. with

continuing high levels of unemployment and poverty in the state – an issue we shalldeal with later – and with its strong and improving spatial connectivity, the overall

volume of migration would not have witnessed any drastic decline, but better rural-urban linkages – among other things – would have induced significant changes in therelative importance of different migrant streams. More to our point, a sharp decline innet rural-urban migration in the state is consistent with

a) An increase in both rural-urban and urban-rural migration streams, with theincrease in the latter being larger than in the former. An analysis of the census

migration data for 1971 and 1981 lend support to such a surmise for the sixties andthe seventies [Rukmani, 1993:54]. Unfortunately we have not been able to obtainmigration data from the 1991 census to test whether a similar scenario would hold forthe eighties.

b) A change in the nature of rural-urban migration i.e., short-terms circulatorymovements – like daily commutation to work in a nearby urban area, or seasonalmigration to an urban area – which would be largely left out in a census, would

become relatively more and more important over time within the rural-urban mobility


16/116

streams. While we do not have any data on this for the state as a whole, some villageresurveys done recently do lend some support to this hypothesis. Thus, a resurveyconducted in 1993-95 in three villages – Nesal, Vinayagapuram and Veerasambanur –in northern Tamil Nadu points to ‘the increased spatial mobility of labour, in

particular daily commuting, seasonal and permanent outmigration of male labour,which increasingly avoids agricultural work ….’ in these villages [Harris – White and

Janakarajan, 1997:1474]

Now, a context like this – where circulatory movements between rural and urbanareas as also urban-rural migrant streams become increasingly important – would

facilitate better rural-urban linkages. But apart from that it can also have importantimplications for sectoral distribution of workers, particularly in the rural areas, an

issue we turn to now.

7. Distribution of workers:

Eventhough Tamil Nadu is more industrialised and modernised compared to most ofthe other states in India, in terms of distribution of workers it is still largely

agricultural: slightly more than 60 percent of its workers are in the primary sector, andwithin this the agricultural sector proper accounts for the lion’s share. [Table 7]. But acomparison with the all-India picture


17/116

Table 7: Sectoral Distribution of Workers in India and Tamil Nadu, 1971-1991:

Percentage distribution of workers by sectors

Primary sector

State /country

Year Cultivators Agrl.lab. Livestockforestry etc

Mining andquarrying

Total primary

Tamil Nadu1971 31.3 30.5 2.7 0.3 64.81981 29.2 31.7 2.6 0.2 63.7

1991 24.8 34.6 2.0 0.3 61.7

India1971 43.3 26.3 2.4 0.5 72.5

1981 41.6 24.9 2.2 0.6 69.31991 38.7 26.1 2.1 0.6 67.5

Percentage distribution of workers by sectorsSecondary sector

State /country

Year Householdindustry (HHI)

Manufacturingother than HHI

Construction Totalsecondary

Tamil Nadu

1971 4.5 8.8 1.6 14.9

1981 4.7 10.5 1.6 16.81991 3.5 10.5 2.2 16.2

India1971 3.5 5.9 1.2 10.61981 3.5 7.8 1.6 12.9

1991 2.4 7.7 1.9 12.0


Tertiary sectorState /

country

Year Trade and

commerce

Transport storage

and communication

Other services Total

tertiary

Tamil Nadu1971 7.8 3.2 9.3 20.3

1981 8.5 3.2 7.7 19.4

1991 8.7 3.1 10.2 22.0

India1971 5.6 2.4 8.7 16.7

1981 6.3 2.7 8.8 17.81991 7.5 2.8 10.3 20.6


shows that the workforce is more diversified in Tamil Nadu. It has a lower percentageof workers in the primary sector, and higher percentage in both secondary and tertiarysectors, in comparison with the country as a whole. As for changes in the compositionof workforce over time, Tamil Nadu shares some similarities, and provides somecontrasts, when compared to the all-India situation. The proportion of workers in the

primary sector has declined – and the proportions in the secondary and tertiary sectorshave increased – in both; within the secondary sector the proportion of workers inhousehold industry has declined, and the proportion in ‘manufacturing other thanhousehold industry’ has increased, in both. But a striking difference between the twois observed in terms of the intra-sectoral distribution of the workforce within the

primary sector itself. While there is a decline in the proportion of cultivators in bothTamil Nadu and the country – the magnitude of decline though being of a higherorder in the former – the proportion of agricultural labourers, the other majorcomponent of the agricultural workforce, has registered a substantial increase in


18/116

Tamil Nadu, while in the country as a whole this proportion was more or less constant between 1971 and 1991, and had registered only a modest increase in 1991 comparedto 1981. The net upshot of all this is that while in 1971 in Tamil Nadu cultivators andagricultural labourers constituted the two largest, and roughly equal, occupationalgroups, the picture had changed by 1991: agricultural labourers, accounting forroughly a third of the workforce, constituted the largest occupational group;

cultivators, accounting for a fourth came second; and workers in ‘manufacturing otherthan household industry’ and ‘other services’ – accounting for a tenth each, came

next. And in sharp contrast, cultivators – accounting for more than a third of theworkforce – still constitute the largest occupational group in the country as a whole in

1991; agricultural labourers, accounting for a fourth, come second; ‘other services;the third; ‘manufacturing other than household industry’ and ‘trade and commerce’

accounting for roughly 8 percent of the workforce each, come next. Thus, a higherlevel of diversification away from the primary sector, and a higher level of

proletarianisation within the primary sector seem to be the two importantdistinguishing characteristics with regard to the transformation of the workforce inTamil Nadu.

Now, the urban areas by their very nature – i.e., by definition – represent a much morediversified economy – and workforce – compared to the rural. So, let us concentrateon the rural areas and see the extent and nature of transformation of workforce there[Table 8]. It appears that the extent of diversification of the workforce away from the

primary sector is of a higher order for male workers compared to female workers inrural Tamil Nadu. Not only is the proportion in primary sector significantly lower formale workers, but also the decline in this proportion over time is of a higher ordercompared to female workers. As for the process of proletarianisation within the

primary sector, while the proportion of agricultural labourers is significantly lower –and the proportion of cultivators significantly higher – in the case of male workers,

the transformation of the agricultural workforce – away from cultivators and towardsagricultural labourers – appears to be at work only in their case, and not among the

female workers. Thus the sectoral composition of the workforce and the changes in itvary between male and female workers.

Considering rural Tamil Nadu as a whole, while both the processes – of

diversification away from the primary sector, and the process of


19/116

Table 8: Sectoral Distribution of Workers in Rural Tamil Nadu, 1971-1991:


Primary sector

Sex Year Cultivators Agrl.lab. Livestockforestry etc

Mining andquarrying

Total primary

Persons1971 40.3 38.1 2.6 0.4 81.41981 38.3 40.3 2.3 0.2 81.1

1991 32.8 44.7 1.9 0.3 79.7

Male1971 45.6 30.9 2.5 0.4 79.4

1981 43.8 30.9 2.6 0.2 77.51991 37.4 36.0 2.1 0.3 75.8

Female1971 22.3 62.2 2.6 0.3 87.41981 26.5 60.1 1.7 0.1 88.4

1991 24.3 60.9 1.4 0.2 86.8


Secondary sectorSex Year Household

industry (HHI)Manufacturingother than HHI

Construction Totalsecondary

Persons1971 3.7 4.1 1.0 8.8

1981 3.8 5.0 0.8 9.61991 3.1 5.3 1.1 9.5

Male

1971 3.5 4.6 1.1 9.2

1981 3.5 6.0 1.1 10.61991 2.5 6.4 1.6 10.5

Female1971 4.1 2.3 0.5 6.91981 4.4 2.8 0.3 7.5

1991 4.0 3.2 0.3 7.5


Tertiary sector

Sex Year Trade andcommerce

Transport storage andcommunications

Other services Totaltertiary

Persons1971 3.4 0.8 5.8 10.0

1981 3.8 1.1 4.4 9.31991 3.6 1.3 5.9 10.8

Male1971 3.9 1.0 6.3 11.2

1981 4.9 1.6 5.3 11.81991 5.0 2.0 6.7 13.7

Female1971 1.5 0.1 4.0 5.61981 1.4 0.1 2.6 4.1

1991 1.2 0.1 4.5 5.8


proletarianisation within the primary sector – seem to be at work here, the extent towhich the process of diversification has occurred between 1971 and 1991 seems to belimited the percentage of workers in the primary sector has declined, between 1971and 1991, by just 1.7 percent points from 81.4 percent to 79.7 percent.


20/116

There is reason to believe that the census data understate the process of diversificationof the workforce in rural Tamil Nadu. The National Sample Survey data- which, we

believe, is more reliable than the census data with respect to employment-unemployment characteristics - summarised in Table 9 below appear to support sucha contention. Not only is the proportion of non-agricultural employment in rural

Tamil Nadu as given by the NSS, significantly higher than the figure given by thecensus, the increase in the proportion is also of a higher order. Thus it appears that

there is a clear trend towards diversification – away from agricultural employment –of the workforce in rural Tamil Nadu in the last three decades. We may also note here

that the NSS data support our earlier contention, based on census data, that this process of diversification is significantly stronger for the male workforce compared to

female workers.

Table 9: Non-agricultural Employment in Rural Tamil Nadu, 1977- 2000

Percent of workers in non-agricultural employment

Year Male Female

1977-78 26.1 16.41983 31.1 18.2

1987-88 34.8 22.9

1993-94 36.0 21.5

1999-00 37.9 24.8

Source: Various issues of Sarvekshana.

Now, what could be the factors underlying this phenomenon of diversification of theworkforce in rural Tamil Nadu? In order to understand this, it is useful to get into theissue of the nature or the quality of this transformation of the workforce. In the

quantitative shift towards non-agricultural employment in rural Tamil Nadu in the lastcouple of decades accompanied by a shift to a more skilled, regular workforce? Or isit accompanied by a shift to a more casualised workforce? The answer, it appears, is

both [Table 10]. A striking tendency that is discernible within the non-agriculturallabour force – both in rural and urban Tamil Nadu – from around the late seventiesonwards (if not earlier) is a tendency towards


21/116

Table 10: Composition of Non-agricultural workforce in Tamil Nadu, 1977-1988:

Percentage distribution of the non-agricultural labour force

Persons

Rural / Urban Year Workers in householdenterprises

Casual workers Regular salaried/wage workers

Rural1977-78 58.0 17.5 24.5

1983 46.9 26.8 26.3

1987-88 43.0 24.3 32.6

Urban1977-78 42.4 15.8 41.8

1983 32.8 26.5 40.81987-88 34.9 18.0 47.0

Percentage distribution of the non-agricultural labour force

Males



Rural 1977-78 52.1 17.4 30.51983 43.6 24.9 31.5

1987-88 39.6 25.6 34.8

Urban1977-78 36.8 15.2 48.0

1983 32.1 23.7 44.21987-88 32.2 17.3 50.6

Percentage distribution of the non-agricultural labour forceFemales



Rural

1977-78 70.7 17.6 11.7

1983 54.0 29.3 16.71987-88 49.5 21.9 28.6

Urban1977-78 57.8 17.5 24.6

1983 34.5 35.5 29.9

1987-88 43.1 20.3 36.6 Note: Date refer to the adjusted usual status workers.Source: Various issues of Sarvekshana.

differentiation. On the one hand there is a distinct tendency towards a decline in therelative importance of ‘workers in the household enterprises’, which may beinterpreted as a move away from the traditional non-agricultural occupations as also a

move towards proletarianisation within the non-agricultural workforce. On the otherhand, there are two distinct strands which have got strengthened within the wageworker category: a strand which has got increasingly ‘formalised’ and ‘regularised’;and a strand which has got increasingly casualised.

A closer look at Table 10 brings out couple of other interesting points. First, thechange in the composition of the non-agricultural workforce outlined above is morevisible in the rural areas compared to urban. Secondly, the process of regularisation orformalisation of the workforce is particularly striking for the female non-agricultural


22/116

labour force, and that too in the rural areas in particular. This may in part be due toemployment generation in the government sector – as, for example, in the Noon MealScheme; it may also be related to the point we had made earlier regarding thestrengthening rural-urban linkages in the last two decades or so. We had noted that thestrengthening rural-urban linkages were accompanied by a change in the character ofmigration, with circulatory migration – commutation to work in urban areas in

particular – becoming increasingly important over time. And it appears that this phenomenon – of living in a village and commuting to work, often of a regular nature,

in the nearby town – is particularly strong among female workers. The third important point that comes out from the table is the sharp increase in the proportion of casual

workers –both in rural and urban areas – in 1983. This, we believe, is largely due tothe fact that the monsoons had failed in 1983; and this phenomenon, hence, would

point to the role that agrarian distress would play in the process of casualisation of thenon-agricultural workforce.

The points made above perhaps may be generalised. The increasing incidence of non-agricultural employment in rural Tamil Nadu is accompanied by a) process of

proletarianisation, which is largely a reflection of the decline in the traditional

household industries; and b) a process of differentiation within the wage-workerstream. Factors like agrarian modernisation, strong rural-urban linkages, expansion ofthe state sector etc seem to underlie the tendency towards formalisation or‘regularisation’ of this wage-worker stream; and agrarian distress – due to failure ofmonsoon, or through process of agrarian differentiation itself – appears to be animportant factor underlying the tendency towards casualisation within this stream.

In urban Tamil Nadu, the extent of proletarianisation – move away from employment

within household enterprises – is, as one would expect, significantly higher than inrural areas, and so is the extent of ‘formalisation’ or ‘regularisation’ of the workforce.

All the same, the tendency towards casualisation is also discernible within the urbanworkforce. This is basically a reflection of the informal-formal dichotomy within the

urban economy, which, it appears, is getting strengthened over time.

The discussions above regarding the differentiation of the workforce was confined tothe non-agricultural worker, in both rural and urban Tamil Nadu. Is there a similar

trend in the case of agricultural employment in rural Tamil Nadu? Table 11 belowsummarises the NSS data on this issue. We had noted earlier, on the basis of censusdata, that while the proportion of agricultural labourers within the agriculturalworkforce is higher for female workers, this proportion – as well as the proportion ofcultivators – had remained more or less stable over time in their case; and the processof proletarianisation – in terms of an increase


23/116

Table 11: Composition of Agricultural Workforce in Rural Tamil Nadu, 1977-1988:

Year Percentage distribution of agricultural workforce

Male Female

Selfemployed

workers

Casualworkers

Regularsalaried/ wage

workers

Selfemployed

workers

Casualworkers

Regularsalaried/

wageworkers

1977-78 52.0 42.1 5.9 44.3 54.7 1.01983 44.9 52.2 3.0 41.6 57.6 0.7

1987-88 47.2 50.2 2.5 44.9 54.5 0.6

Source: Various issues of Sarvekshana.

in the proportion of agricultural labourers – was discernible only in the case of maleworkers. The NSS data broadly support this observation. while the composition offemale agricultural labour force has not witnessed any significant change, the

proportion of self-employed workers has declined in the case of the male workforce.But this process of proletarianisation has not been accompanied by the emergence of

duality – as in the case of the non-agricultural labour force. while casualisation hasincreased, the proportion of regular workers – which is low compared to non-agricultural workforce – has in fact registered a decline over time, proletarianisation isonly accompanied by casualisation. Institutional factors – like progressive alienationof land from the small and marginal peasantry – as well as demographic factors –leading to continuous sub-division of holdings – may be the factors underlying this

phenomenon.

Table 11 sketches out for 2001 the distribution of the population in TN as well as forthe country into Workers and Non-workers; within workers, there is a furtherdistribution between Main and Marginal workers. It is clear from the table that the

work participation rates in TN for both men and women are above those for thecountry as a whole. An interesting aspect discernible from the same Table is thefollowing: while the percentage of marginal workers in TN are lower than the averagefor the country, the percentage of marginal workers in urban TN, however, is higherthan that for the country, for both men and women. The issue of marginal workers isextremely important for TN as will be clear from the discussion below.

By the TN government’s own admission in its Human Development Report, 2003,“what is worrisome about the 2001 Census results is that the number of marginalworkers has gone up from 1.4 million in 1991 to 4.1 million in 2001. This suggeststhat the increase in WPR during this time period is largely accounted for by anincrease in marginal workers as opposed to main workers. The number of main

workers has only risen from 22.8 million to 23.7 million, by less than a million”[ibid:20].

The Census 2001, so far, has provided only a four-fold classification of workers [in place of the usual nine-fold classification]. These categories are: Cultivators,Agricultural Workers, Household Industry and Other Workers. A comparison ofworker classification between TN and India into these categories reveals that a larger

proportion of workers in TN [both males and females] belong to the ‘Agricultural


24/116

Labour’ and ‘Household Industry’ category [Table 12]. In the absence on any furtherinformation on the nature of employment in these two categories, and given ourexisting knowledge of the ‘poor quality’ of employment characterizing thesecategories, it is not far from the truth to state, that, the higher WPRs in TN do notnecessarily signify higher/better quality of employment for TN workforce. Further,another worrisome point noted in the government’s Human Development Report and

worth quoting at some length is the following: “Even though agriculture continues toaccount for the bulk of employment, this is not reflected in the income originating

from the sector. Agriculture income declined from 24.82 percent in 1993-94 to 18.16 percent in 1999-2000, whereas the share of income from secondary and tertiary

sectors improved from 33.72 percent to 34.12 percent and from 41.46 percent to 47.72 percent respectively. In per capita terms, this means that the average output per

worker in the primary sector increased only marginally compared to other sectorswhere significant increases were noticed”[ibid: 26].

The district-wise distribution of workers [male and female] into the four-foldclassification gives the following picture: while 31 percent of workers overall for TNare categorized as Agricultural workers, the percentages of agricultural workers for

Villupuram and Cuddalore are way above the state average, at 47 and 46 percentrespectively. In a similar vein, while 45 percent of workers are categorized as ‘OtherWorkers’ for the state as a whole, the percentages for Thiruvallur and Kancheepuramfor the same category are above the state average at 63 and 57 percent respectively[Table 13].

The district and sex-wise distribution of workers into the four-fold classificationindicate the following: while overall for the state, only 24 percent of male workers are

returned as agricultural labourers, almost 45 percent of female workers belong to thiscategory. The bulk of male workers [almost 55 percent] belong to the ‘Other

Workers’ category. In contrast, just 27 percent of women workers belong to the‘Other Workers’ category [Table 14 & 15]. In the case of men workers, the districts

of Thiruvallur and Kancheepuram have returned almost 70 and 65 percent of workers,respectively, as belonging to the ‘Other Workers’ category; in Villupuram and

Cuddalore on the other hand, the share of agricultural workers are above the averagefor the state, as far as men workers are concerned. The female workforce distribution

follows a similar pattern. Here again, while Thiruvallur and Kancheepuram showhigher than state average female workers as ‘Other Workers’, Villupuram andCuddalore have higher than state average female workers in the agricultural labourcategory.

Official data on age-wise distribution of the workers across the industrialclassification as well as across districts has yet to be released. In the absence of such

information it is not possible to state at this juncture whether, say, for the decade ofthe 1990s, child labour has declined; if so, in which districts and in which categoriesof industrial classification. Similarly, since the Social and Cultural Tables of Census2001, have not been released, the distribution of workers, caste-wise, and acrossindustrial category-wise is not possible. A brief discussion of the picture obtaining in1991 however follows more in order to understand the structural nature of theemployment situation then [that is in 1991] and the kind of questions that the datathen raised. With the release of Census 2001, it should be possible to compare the


25/116

decade of the 1990s with that of the 1980s and decide how far questions raised in1991 are relevant for 2001.

Between 1981 and 1991 the WPR increased for women in TN both in rural and urbanareas; for men on the other hand the WPR showed a marginal increase in urban areas

but a marginal decrease in rural areas. However, a district-wise classification of WPR

data for 1991 revealed the following disquieting feature: those districts that showed adistinct increase in female WPR were also the districts where female child and

adolescent work participation rates had increased. For 1991, in 13 of the 21 districtsthat revealed female WPRs higher than state average, also showed higher than

average increases in female child and adolescent WPRs. For males, 7 districts that hadrecorded WPRs higher than state average, showed higher than average male child and

male adolescent WPRs in these districts [Swaminathan, 2002].

Disaggregating the WPR data for 1991 by SC and non-SC categories introducesanother significant dimension to the analysis of the magnitude and pattern of femaleemployment in TN. As far as WPRs for all ages is concerned, the SCs and non-SCsshow different patterns for male and female workers. While the SC male WPR is

marginally lower than the non-SC male WPR, the SC female WPR is significantlyhigher than the non-SC female WPR for rural as well as urban areas. In other words, alarger proportion of SC women ‘work’ [relative to their population] when comparedto non-SC women.More gender related points that emerged from the analysis of 1991 Census incomparison with 1981 included the following: [i] For TN as a whole and for almostevery district across the state, rural child female WPR in the age-group [5-14] ishigher than rural child male WPR in the same age-group. In other words, the

proportion of female child workers is greater than male child workers; [ii]Disaggregating this data by caste, we find that, the proportion of female child and

adolescent workers among SCs is greater than the proportion of female child andadolescent among non-SCs; [iii] The proportion of SC female workers in the farm

sector is greater than among non-SC female workers irrespective of age-groupsignifying less occupational diversification among SC workers; [iv] A glance at the

age-wise and industrial category-wise distribution of female WPR [SC and non-SC]for the state as a whole revealed that, in the case of female participation in non-farm

employment [that is, Census categories ‘Household and Other-than Householdcategories], the bulk of those employed are in the age-group [5-14] followed by thosein the 15-19 age-group; thereafter there is a distinct fall in percentages employed inthese industrial categories from the age-group 20-24 onwards. On the other hand,female employment in farm employment shows no such distinct decline as we gofrom child to adolescents to adult workers. To put it differently, if we equate non-farmemployment with shift into more ‘modern’ employment, then we need to take

cognizance of the fact that such employment is concentrated among the younger agegroups, namely, child and adolescent workers. As we go into the higher age groups,

namely, 20-24 years onwards, the percentage of female employed in non-farm sectors

progressively declines. For SCs and rural SC female workers in particular, the

‘Agricultural Labour’ category still forms the dominant employment category,

whatever the age group [Swaminathan, 2002].


26/116


27/116

Table 11 Distribution of Population Across workers and Non-workers, India and Tamil Nadu: 2001

Sl.No. India/State

Total/Rural/Urban Persons/Males/Females Total

Population

Workers

Nonworkers

%Totalworkers

%Mainworkers

%MarginalWorkers

%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 India Total Persons 1025251059 402512190 39.26 313173394 30.55 89338796 8.71 622738869 60.74

Males 530422415 275463736 51.93 240520672 45.35 34943064 6.59 254958679 48.07Females 494828644 127048454 25.68 72652722 14.68 54395732 10.99 367780190 74.32

Rural Persons 740255371 310655339 41.97 229672348 31.03 80982991 10.94 429600032 58.03

Males 380438194 199199602 52.36 169333233 44.51 29866369 7.85 181238592 47.64

Females 359817177 111455737 30.98 60339115 16.77 51116622 14.21 248361440 69.02

Urban Persons 284995688 91856851 32.23 83501046 29.30 8355805 2.93 193138837 67.77

Males 149984221 76264134 50.85 71187439 47.46 5076695 3.38 73720087 49.15

Females 135011467 15592717 11.55 12313607 9.12 3279110 2.43 119418750 88.45

2 Tamil Nadu Total Persons 62110839 27811647 44.78 23684611 38.13 4127036 6.64 34299192 55.22

Males 31268654 18153275 58.06 16346879 52.28 1806396 5.78 13115379 41.94

Females 30842185 9658372 31.32 7337732 23.79 2320640 7.52 21183813 68.68

Rural Persons 34869286 17572083 50.39 14290211 40.98 3281872 9.41 17297203 49.61

Males 17508985 10396912 59.38 9067457 51.79 1329455 7.59 7112073 40.62

Females 17360301 7175171 41.33 5222754 30.08 1952417 11.25 10185130 58.67

Urban Persons 27241553 10239564 37.59 9394400 34.49 845164 3.10 17001989 62.41

Males 13759669 7756363 56.37 7279422 52.90 476941 3.47 6003306 43.63

Females 13481884 2483201 18.42 2114978 15.69 368223 2.73 10998683 81.58

Source: Tamil Nadu Govt.of - Provisional Population Totals Paper 3 of 2001 Distribution of Workers and Non workers, Census of India, 2001, Series 34, Tamil Nadu pp.101/109


28/116

Table 12 Total Workers and their categories : India and Tamil Nadu by residence and sex - 2001

Sl.No. India/State Total/Rural/Urban Persons/Males/Females Total workers(Main+Marginal)

Categories of Workers Other Workers

CultivatorsAgriculturalLabourers

HouseholdIndustry

No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 India Total Persons 402512190 127628287 31.71 107447725 26.69 16395870 4.07 151040308 37.52

Males 275463736 86328447 31.34 57354281 20.82 8312191 3.02 123468817 44.82

Females 127048454 41299840 32.51 50093444 39.43 8083679 6.36 27571491 21.70

Rural Persons 310655339 124682055 40.14 103122189 33.20 11709533 3.77 71141562 22.90

Males 199199602 84046644 42.19 54749291 27.48 5642112 2.83 54761555 27.49

Females 111455737 40635411 36.46 48372898 43.40 6067421 5.44 16380007 14.70

Urban Persons 91856851 2946232 3.21 4325536 4.71 4686337 5.10 79898746 86.98

Males 76264134 2281803 2.99 2604990 3.42 2670079 3.50 68707262 90.09

Females 15592717 664429 4.26 1720546 11.03 2016258 12.93 11191484 71.77

2 Tamil Nadu Total Persons 27811647 5114384 18.39 8665020 31.16 1458546 5.24 12573697 45.21

Males 18153275 3305413 18.21 4277140 23.56 619096 3.41 9951626 54.82

Females 9658372 1808971 18.73 4387880 45.43 839450 8.69 2622071 27.15

Rural Persons 17572083 4725890 26.89 7565439 43.05 815009 4.64 4465745 25.41

Males 10396912 3028113 29.13 3667853 35.28 324381 3.12 3376565 32.48

Females 7175171 1697777 23.66 3897586 54.32 490628 6.84 1089180 15.18

Urban Persons 10239564 388494 3.79 1099581 10.74 643537 6.28 8107952 79.18Males 7756363 277300 3.58 609287 7.86 294715 3.80 6575061 84.77

Females 2483201 111194 4.48 490294 19.74 348822 14.05 1532891 61.73

Source: Tamil Nadu Govt.of - Provisional Population Totals Paper 3 of 2001 Distribution of Workers and Non workers, Census of India, 2001, Series 34, Tamil Nadu pp. 110-118


29/116

Table 13 Distribution of Total Workers into four main industrial categories at District level, 2001

District Total Workers Cultivators Agricultural labourers Household industries Other workers Percentage to total workers

( C ) ( AL ) (HHI) (OW) C AL HHI OW

Thiruvalluvar 1025961 83701 244572 47876 649812 8.16 23.84 4.67 63.34

Chennai 1441382 788 715 22108 1417771 0.05 0.05 1.53 98.36

Kancheepuram 1142662 130143 305115 63490 653914 11.39 26.70 5.56 57.23

Vellore 1427003 258688 392206 161704 621405 18.13 27.48 11.33 43.55

Dharmapuri 1419617 544627 449540 34414 391036 38.36 31.67 2.42 27.55Tiruvannamalai 1062317 347609 424482 52330 237896 32.72 39.96 4.93 22.39

Viluppuram 1436373 438891 681437 34595 281450 30.56 47.44 2.41 19.59

Salem 1452366 305047 389594 131464 626261 21.00 26.82 9.05 43.12

Namakkal 841816 181204 268953 48493 343166 21.53 31.95 5.76 40.76

Erode 1431276 300443 486580 73388 570865 20.99 34.00 5.13 39.89

The Nilgiris 346669 14269 47902 1771 282727 4.12 13.82 0.51 81.56

Coimbatore 1969332 177211 397614 70255 1324252 9.00 20.19 3.57 67.24

Dindigul 972775 195651 411304 26989 338831 20.11 42.28 2.77 34.83

Karur 495737 106863 187594 19597 181683 21.56 37.84 3.95 36.65

Trichirapalli 1055580 218856 335524 39465 461735 20.73 31.79 3.74 43.74

Perambalur 267042 127662 92111 3616 43653 47.81 34.49 1.35 16.35

Ariyalur 345132 112098 158133 19608 55293 32.48 45.82 5.68 16.02

Cuddalore 974966 190482 454614 28640 301230 19.54 46.63 2.94 30.90

Nagapatt inam 584310 69072 313174 9032 193032 11.82 53.60 1.55 33.04Thiruvarur 489904 68374 286033 8068 127429 13.96 58.39 1.65 26.01

Thanjavur 910414 147918 416052 40297 306147 16.25 45.70 4.43 33.63

Pudukottai 677314 248055 229846 15796 153627 36.62 33.93 2.33 22.68

Sivaganga 509493 187615 147550 10559 167769 36.82 28.96 2.07 32.93

Madurai 1081686 125892 332249 36774 586771 11.64 30.72 3.40 54.25

Theni 519449 53494 281574 11419 172962 10.30 54.21 2.20 33.30

Virudhunagar 880579 84953 197249 49140 549237 9.65 22.40 5.58 62.37

Ramanathapuram 520623 179562 124483 24952 191626 34.49 23.91 4.79 36.81


30/116

Thoothukudi 673682 71315 167407 45783 289177 10.59 24.85 6.80 42.92

Tirunelveli 1310582 144834 363434 288409 513905 11.05 27.73 22.01 39.21

Kanniyakumari 545605 16067 81998 38514 409025 2.94 15.03 7.06 74.97

Tamil Nadu 27811647 5114384 8665020 1458546 12573697 18.39 31.16 5.24 45.21

Source: Census of India, 2001 Provisional Populaiton Total Paper-3, Tamil Nadu, (Series 34) pg.30

Table 14 Distribution of Total male Workers into four main industrial categories at District level, 2001

Males Percentage to total male workersDistrict Total Workers Cultivators Agricultural labourers Household industries Other workers


Thiruvalluvar 763577 61952 136957 26122 538546 8.11 17.94 3.42 70.53

Chennai 1192924 425 416 12912 1179171 0.04 0.03 1.08 98.85

Kancheepuram 810771 85386 156293 38420 530672 10.53 19.28 4.74 65.45

Vellore 956403 176050 192037 80103 508213 18.41 20.08 8.38 53.14

Dharmapuri 856414 335425 204619 13993 302877 39.17 23.89 1.63 35.37

Tiruvannamalai 633227 229754 178369 32722 192382 36.28 28.17 5.17 30.38

Viluppuram 855584 294049 317783 16141 227611 34.37 37.14 1.89 26.60

Salem 943770 182643 183091 82283 495753 19.35 19.40 8.72 52.53

Namakkal 489545 99876 117619 23088 248962 20.40 24.03 4.72 50.86

Erode 872493 177967 232884 35997 425645 20.40 26.69 4.13 48.78

The Nilgiris 209834 8716 25311 827 173980 4.15 12.06 0.39 82.91

Coimbatore 1380139 116369 201174 43543 1019053 8.43 14.58 3.15 73.84Dindigul 587667 119589 192466 12768 262844 20.35 32.75 2.17 44.73

Karur 294150 65898 80774 9534 137944 22.40 27.46 3.24 46.90

Trichirapalli 684117 135081 152891 19560 376585 19.75 22.35 2.86 55.05

Perambalur 139537 70695 37930 1975 28937 50.66 27.18 1.42 20.74

Ariyalur 202592 77120 71114 10315 43043 38.07 35.10 5.09 21.25

Cuddalore 640889 134665 236740 14353 255131 21.01 36.94 2.24 39.81

Nagapattinam 411816 6497 183818 4866 166635 1.58 44.64 1.18 40.46

Thiruvarur 332546 56782 161190 4405 110169 17.07 48.47 1.32 33.13


31/116

Thanjavur 627237 114384 235198 23607 254048 18.24 37.50 3.76 40.50

Pudukottai 418584 159490 101901 7748 149445 38.10 24.34 1.85 35.70

Sivaganga 317168 112006 64367 4731 136064 35.31 20.29 1.49 42.90

Madurai 737871 78400 164810 17656 477005 10.63 22.34 2.39 64.65

Theni 319163 35605 143421 5355 134782 11.16 44.94 1.68 42.23

Virudhunagar 519499 51089 88891 14518 365001 9.83 17.11 2.79 70.26

Ramanathapuram 322437 100568 52447 7997 161425 31.19 16.27 2.48 50.06

Thoothukudi 430386 47050 81574 9554 292208 10.93 18.95 2.22 67.89tirunelveli 760564 106260 210669 28284 415351 13.97 27.70 3.72 54.61

Kanniyakumari 442871 14622 70386 15719 342144 3.30 15.89 3.55 77.26

Tamil Nadu 18153275 3305413 4277140 619096 9951626 18.21 23.56 3.41 54.82


Table 15 Distribution of Total Female Workers into four main industrial categories at District level, 2001

FemalesPercentage to total female workers

District Total Workers Cultivators Agricultural labourers Household industries Other workers


Thiruvalluvar 262384 21749 107615 21754 111266 8.29 41.01 8.29 42.41

Chennai 248458 363 299 9196 128600 0.15 0.12 3.70 51.76

Kancheepuram 331891 34757 148822 25070 123242 10.47 44.84 7.55 37.13

Vellore 470600 75638 200169 81601 113192 16.07 42.53 17.34 24.05Dharmapuri 562703 209202 244921 20421 88159 37.18 43.53 3.63 15.67

Tiruvannamalai 429090 117855 246113 19608 45514 27.47 57.36 4.57 10.61

Viluppuram 580789 144842 363654 18454 53839 24.94 62.61 3.18 9.27

Salem 508596 122404 206503 49181 130508 24.07 40.60 9.67 25.66

Namakkal 352271 81328 151334 25405 94204 23.09 42.96 7.21 26.74

Erode 558783 122476 253696 37391 145220 21.92 45.40 6.69 25.99

The Nilgiris 136835 4553 32591 944 108747 3.33 23.82 0.69 79.47

Coimbatore 589193 60842 196440 26712 305199 10.33 33.34 4.53 51.80


32/116

Dindigul 385108 76062 218838 14221 75987 19.75 56.83 3.69 19.73

Karur 201587 40965 106820 10063 43739 20.32 52.99 4.99 21.70

Trichirapalli 371463 83775 182633 19905 85150 22.55 49.17 5.36 22.92

Perambalur 127505 56967 54181 1641 14716 44.68 42.49 1.29 11.54

Ariyalur 143540 34978 87019 9293 12250 24.37 60.62 6.47 8.53

Cuddalore 334077 55817 217874 14287 46099 16.71 65.22 4.28 13.80

Nagapattinam 172494 12575 129356 4166 26397 7.29 74.99 2.42 15.30

Thiruvarur 157358 11592 124843 3663 17260 7.37 79.34 2.33 10.97Thanjavur 283177 33534 180854 16690 52099 11.84 63.87 5.89 18.40

Pudukottai 258730 88565 127945 8048 34172 34.23 49.45 3.11 13.21

Sivaganga 192325 75609 79183 5828 31705 39.31 41.17 3.03 16.49

Madurai 343815 47492 167439 19118 109766 13.81 48.70 5.56 31.93

Theni 200286 17889 138153 6064 38180 8.93 68.98 3.03 19.06

Virudhunagar 361080 33864 108358 34622 184236 9.38 30.01 9.59 51.02

Ramanathapuram 198186 78994 72036 16955 30201 39.86 36.35 8.56 15.24

Thoothukudi 243296 24265 85813 36229 96989 9.97 35.27 14.89 39.86

tirunelveli 550018 38574 152765 260125 98554 7.01 27.77 47.29 17.92

Kanniyakumari 102734 1445 11613 22795 66881 1.41 11.30 22.19 65.10

Tamil Nadu 9658372 1808971 4387880 839450 2622071 18.73 45.43 8.69 27.15



33/116

We may briefly summarise our discussions so far on the characteristics of the workforcein Tamil Nadu. The important characteristics associated with the workforce in Tamil Nadu are: (a) Diversification of the workforce away from the primary sector (b)Proletarianisation - which is observed in both rural and urban areas, and in agricultural aswell as non-agricultural workforce (c) Differentiation – or an emergence of duality –

where both ‘formalisation ‘ as well as ‘casualisation’ occur within the non-agriculturalworkforce, both in rural and urban areas and (d) Increasing incidence of ‘casualisation’accompanying the process of proletarianisation in the case of the agricultural workforcein the rural areas. These processes within the workforce, we believe, reflect a number of basic socio-economic processes agrarian differentiation; sub-division of landholdings because of demographic pressure; agrarian distress spatial diversification of the economy(strengthening rural-urban linkages being one aspect of it); formal-informal dualitywithin the urban sector; diversification of the economy away from the primary sector etchave all played a role in these processes. We shall deal with some of these basic socio-economic processes later in the report.

As the foregoing discussion points out, strong rural-urban linkages appear to have animportant role to play in the composition and transformation of the rural workforce.Apart from this, these linkages have been a factor underlying other demographic changesalso.

These strong rural-urban linkages in Tamil Nadu can act as an effective mechanism forthe transmission of urban values – in terms of say, the small family norm, but perhapsmore importantly in terms of norms and aspirations regarding lifestyles – to rural areas.They, thus aid the process of ‘Sankritisation’, and hence provide the basis for increasingaspirations of the people, which, as we shall see later is perhaps the most important factorunderlying fertility decline in Tamil Nadu. These increasing aspirations - and the processof Sankritisation in general – have also led to wide ranging socio-economic changes inTamil Nadu. They have been a factor underlying the change observed in the marriagesystem like the emergence of dowry or a decline in the incidence of consanguenousmarriages etc. And these changes have got reflected in the status of women in Tamil Nadu, an index of which is the sex-ratio of the population.

8. Sex-Ratio

The sex-ratio – number of females per 1000 males – in Tamil Nadu while beingconsistently favourable to males from 1961 onwards, nevertheless has been consistentlyhigher than the figure for all-India, at least from the beginning of this century [Table 12].Part of the reason for the


34/116

Table 12: Sex-Ratio in Tamil Nadu, 1901-12001

Tamil Nadu All-India

(combined)Year Rural Urban Combined

1901 1043 1047 1044 972

1911 1044 1032 1042 964

1921 1033 1007 1029 9551931 1034 997 1027 950

1941 1017 990 1012 945

1951 1014 986 1007 946

1961 1003 963 992 941

1971 990 951 978 930

1981 988 957 978 933

1991 981 960 974 927

2001 991 979 986 933Source: Census of India.

higher sex-ratio in Tamil Nadu may be that given the high unemployment rate, as well ashigher levels of educational attainment of the population and the workforce – issues weshall come to later- the propensity for sex-selective, out-migration may be higher inTamil Nadu. In fact this is a major reason why rural Tamil Nadu has a higher sex ratiocompared to urban areas.

But the low level of sex ratio in the country, or in most of the states, is generallyexplained in terms of the prevalence of socio-economic discrimination against females.The relatively more favourable sex ratio does not mean that there is no discriminationagainst females in Tamil Nadu: the fact that it has a sex ratio less than 1000 testifies tothe prevalence of such discrimination. But the extent of such discrimination may be lower

in Tamil Nadu compared to the country as a whole. Some of the basic developmentindicators, for females as well as males, summarised in Table 13 below, show thatcompared to the country as a whole Tamil Nadu performs better with respect to many ofthese indices of development for women; the male-female differentials are also generallyof a lower order in Tamil Nadu. But it is also clear that in terms of many of these genderrelated development


35/116

Table 13: Some Basic Gender Related Development Indicators for Tamil Nadu:

Indicator Tamil Nadu India States which have done better th Nadu

Life expectancy at

birth (1990-92) in years

Female 63.2 (7) 59.4 Kerala, Punjab, Maharastra, Him

Pradesh, Karnataka, HaryanaMale 61.0 (6) 59.0 Kerala, Punjab, Himachal Prade

Maharastra, Haryana

Adult literacy rate, 1991(percent)

Female 35.8 (7) 65.0 Kerala, Maharastra, West BengaGujarat, Karnataka

Male 33.9 (5) 62.4 Kerala, Maharastra, Gujarat, We

Female share in economically active population, 1991 (percent)

34.0 (5) 28.6 Himachal Pradesh, Andhra PradMaharastra, Karnataka

Regular non-agriculturaladult wage rate(Rs per day), 1987-88

Female 13.91 (16) 26.28 Tamil Nadu ranks last among thstates

Male 26.30 (16) 34.90 Tamil Nadu ranks last among thstates

Sex-Ratio (1991) 974 (3) 927 Kerala, Himachal Pradesh

Gender Related Development Index (GDI) 0.402 (7) 0.388 Kerala, Maharastra, Gujarat, HimPradesh, Punjab, Karnataka

Note: Figures in brackets in the column for Tamil Nadu give the ranking of the state among the 16 majorstates in the country.Source: Shiva Kumar (1996).

indicators there are a number of states in the country – Kerala, Maharastra, Punjab,Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, etc – which have performed better than Tamil Nadu. In termsof UNDP’s gender-related index of de

TAMILNADU ECONOMY Contours of Change G a Secondary Data Exploration

Documents

Transcript of TAMILNADU ECONOMY Contours of Change G a Secondary Data Exploration