200+
mock exams
29,693
tests completed
3,92,448
questions answered
This editorial argues that India's aspiration to become a developed nation ('Viksit Bharat') by 2047 hinges critically on increasing its **Female Labour Force Participation Rate ()**, which currently sits below 30%. It highlights a structural decline in women's workforce participation between 1983 and 2018, exacerbated by recent economic shocks, and contrasts the high female industrial employment in Southern states like Tamil Nadu with the stark under-participation in the Northern 'Hindi-belt'. The authors posit that excluding half the population from productive employment makes the 'Viksit Bharat' goal unattainable.
The editorial highlights a critical disconnect between India's GDP growth and employment generation, a phenomenon often termed jobless growth. It argues that recent growth has been concentrated in capital-intensive sectors (finance, IT) rather than labour-intensive ones (textiles, food processing), failing to absorb the workforce. The recent uptick in women's participation post-2020 is analyzed not as positive structural change, but as a distress-driven feminisation of agriculture. This occurs when shrinking non-farm opportunities and economic distress (like the COVID-19 pandemic) force women, including educated youth, back into insecure, unpaid family labour in agriculture, rather than productive employment. A 10-percentage point increase in female work participation rate (WPR) could add nearly two percentage points to GDP growth. UPSC mains questions frequently ask candidates to analyze the causes behind India's persistently low FLFPR despite rising education levels, focusing on structural shifts and the quality of employment generated.
The article draws upon the U-shaped curve hypothesis of female labour force participation, a concept associated with Nobel laureate Claudia Goldin. As economies transition from agrarian to industrial, female participation initially falls (due to mechanization and a shift away from family-based agriculture) before rising again as women attain higher education and enter the modern service sector. India is argued to have experienced the downward slope until recently. However, the anticipated upward trajectory is hindered by high unemployment among educated young women. The editorial points to a significant North-South divide, contrasting Tamil Nadu's success—driven by female literacy, mobility, and support infrastructure (hostels, transport) in sectors like textiles—with states like Bihar, where female WPR is a mere 15%. This underscores the necessity of targeted investments in public education and health (reducing stunting/malnutrition) to translate demographic potential into a true demographic dividend.
The piece critiques policy-induced economic shocks, explicitly naming demonetisation and a 'poorly designed' Goods and Services Tax (GST), arguing these disrupted informal sectors and reversed structural transformation (leading to a rise in farm employment). The failure to create sufficient manufacturing jobs, despite initiatives like Make in India and Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes, disproportionately impacts female employment, as manufacturing traditionally provides accessible entry points for less-skilled female labour. Effective governance requires moving beyond welfare-based approaches to structural interventions: providing safe transport, childcare facilities (as mandated by the Maternity Benefit Act), and fostering industries that absorb female labour. UPSC questions may require evaluating the effectiveness of recent government initiatives intended to boost female employment and suggesting further policy reforms.