Most of my time working in the Girl Empowerment Project (GEP) was about exploring the drivers of low female labor force participation (FLFP) in India – with a special focus on Urban India and Delhi. Using the data from the National Sample Survey (NSS) for years within the 2004-18 period, I was able to conduct descriptive and visual analyses on a set of factors that are potential reasons for India’s low FLFP. In this article, I share some of the results we came to in the study. Most of the following content was directly extracted from the presentation created for the project.
I started by looking at trends in labor force participation. In India, the 2004-18 period was marked by large gender disparities in labor force participation (LFP). During these years, men and women from rural India faced a downward trend in LFP, but women were especially affected by it. All over India, gender gaps in LFP were large and persistent. Female labor force participation (FLFP) was more than 50 percentage points lower than male’s in both rural and urban areas in all observed years. Though the period has been more stable for urban areas, with low variation in both male and female LFP, women in urban India have been the least favored group in terms of LFP, with the lowest levels of participation in all observed years. They also faced the highest levels of unemployment in the same period. In Delhi, participation was more stable for both genders, with a slight increase in FLFP.
I used multiple graphs and statistics to try to understand the context behind these trends. Some of my preliminary conclusions based on the material were:
#1 Lack of opportunities
It seems that most new job opportunities are being taken by men, and that they are less inclined to leave the labor force than women.
Even though the service sector is growing, the types of opportunities within Services are more desired by men or suitable to their skills (e.g. construction, transportation, trade).
Stigma could be at play, holding women back from taking up positions for which they don’t feel prepared (e.g. finance, real state and business) or that have a gender-stigma (e.g. construction, transportation, machinery).
There seem to be structural factors preventing women from participating the labor force, particularly in urban areas – where FLFP is lower and unemployment is higher compared to other groups.
#2 Qualification
Barriers other than qualification seem to be preventing women from taking up jobs, which could represent a disincentive to labor force participation. Further investigation is needed to understand these barriers. They could include, for instance, a mismatch between women’s skills and the labor market’s requirements, stigma against certain roles and preferences.
However, inequality in education persists. Women are the majority in the low-skilled population and make up 40-45.7% of the other more skilled groups.
# Culture
Cultural factors also appear to be inducing lower FLFP in urban India and Delhi. FLFP is statistically significantly different across religious groups and different marital statuses. in Urban India, divorced women participate in the labor force much more than other women , followed by widowed, never married and currently married women. Participation levels remained relatively stable in the observed period, with a slight increase only for divorced women.
In Delhi we see similar proportions for each group, with small differences in trends – while divorced women’s FLFP has barely changed, participation has increased for widowed and never married women and remained stable for currently married women. The married women had lower levels of FLFP in Delhi then in Urban India as a whole.
These trends suggest that women who are mostly making themselves available to work may be those with higher financial needs (divorced and widowed), and that women who have the option of not working may be opting to do so (currently and never married). Moreover, the fact that women who are married or have the expectation of marrying have lower FLFP may be a sign of expectations that women fulfill a certain gender role in society, which tends to be associated with not working. Both in Urban India and Delhi, it may be useful to try to understand the reasons behind these choices in the different groups.
The project is ongoing and other findings should complement these preliminary results. So far, the experience with the GEP has taught me a lot about India, data analysis, and gender inequalities in labor outcomes. I can't wait to see the final reflections we will do on this work!