Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Make growth employment elastic

"Mediocre minds usually dismiss anything which reaches beyond their own understanding."
—Francois de La Rochefoucauld (French, 1613-1680)
Word for the day
Longanimity (n)
Patient endurance of hardship, injuries, or offense; forbearance.
Malice towards none
After Congress now SP hires an election strategist with experience of US elections!
What does this reflect?
First random thought this morning
Would it not be appropriate if someone from this side of the border also takes responsibility for loss of precious life in Uri (Jammu)?
After all some General, Minister, Politician, Bureaucrat must be accountable for the grave security lapse, especially after Pathankot had happened.
Is it too much to ask from those who routinely speak of morality, ethics, accountability and transparency in public life, beside claiming to be brave and potent enough to tackle the enemy?

Make growth employment elastic

Continuing from the last Friday (see here), in my view it is critical to take note the June 2014 working paper on Employment Elasticity in India.
In the said working paper RBI highlighted many interesting facts about the status of employment and its elasticity to the GDP growth.
In particular the change in occupation structure of the economy in past 15years is worth noting; because it helps setting up the agenda for future growth. It is important to note that one of the key promise of incumbent government is to make growth job oriented (hence inclusive) as opposed to jobless growth (therefore exclusive) growth achieved during past few years.
The working paper found that aggregate employment elasticity (change in employment due to economic growth) of Indian growth has fallen considerably in post 1991 period. In this period for every 10 per cent change in real GDP, there had been about 1.8-2 per cent change in employment. The current statistic is even poor.
Moreover, elasticity varies considerably across sectors. While agriculture has witnessed negative elasticity, services including construction have generally been employment intensive. Manufacturing employment elasticity has hovered in the range 0.29-0.33.
Within manufacturing, the employment elasticity for organized manufacturing sector based on various estimates seems to be higher, in the range 0.42-0.57 for 2000s and it has risen over the previous two decades. Given the huge productivity and wage differentials between organized and unorganized sectors, greater employment generation in organized manufacturing is crucial as it has larger multiplier effects.
Subsequent to 2011, India has seen significant moderation in its GDP growth rates. While employment numbers are not yet available for the recent years, Labour Bureau quarterly surveys as well as various private agencies’ information point towards moderation in employment generation. If these data sources are any hint, then one might see some changes in employment elasticity depending upon the relative pace of moderation in employment generation vis-à-vis growth.
The working paper suggests that going forward, it is the relative cost of capital vis-à-vis labour and the nature of investment demand that will determine to what extent growth would be job-creating.
Increased capital to labour ratio in the organised sector for a labour abundant country like India is a concern that has been well-highlighted. I have also been highlighting this rather frequently and to the annoyance of some of my government readers.
If India has to meet the demographic dividend challenge, focus should be on industries where employment elasticity is higher. On a rough basis, about 10 million people would need a job every year for the next 15 years. Finding productive jobs for such huge numbers is a big challenge, and clearly the answer lies in stepping up growth, and importantly, stepping up the employment intensity of growth....to continue tomorrow
Also read:

No comments:

Post a Comment