Register with us
Close
Enter your
text here
Posts By :

iwwage_admin

Gender-Based Occupational Segregation: A Barrier for Women’s Economic Empowerment

Gender-based occupational segregation refers to a situation when female and male workers are distributed differently across various occupations in a labour market, resulting in clustering of women or men around certain occupations [1]. Occupational segregation can be distinguished into two forms – horizontal and vertical. While horizontal segregation is measured by considering the differences in distribution of men and women across occupations, vertical segregation considers the distribution of men and women across hierarchies within the same occupation. Gender-based occupational segregation often creates labour market rigidities and economic inefficiencies, which leads to wastage of human capital. This also makes labour markets less flexible towards adjusting to structural changes happening nationally and globally. More specifically, it creates additional barriers for women to join the workforce by limiting the occupational choices available for them. As a result, in a highly segregated labour market, the supply of women tends to be higher for occupations where concentration of women is already high, which negatively impacts their bargaining power. A negative effect of occupational segregation is the creation of gender wage-gaps negatively biassed towards women, especially in developing countries [2]. A study exploring the interlinkages between gender-based segregation and wage differentials in India found that while a relatively large part of the rural wage gap was due to differences in educational attainment between males and females, a considerable part of the urban wage gap was explained by differences in occupational profiles across gender. At the same time, overall discrimination against women was also found to contribute to wage differences [3]. It can also create a mismatch between women’s education attainment and the type of occupation they engage in [4].

 

Contributing Factors

To a large extent, gender-based occupational segregation reflects the gendered division of labour in societies. Gendered norms are so deep-rooted in people’s minds that they often take up occupations that may align with specific roles expected by society from a particular gender. Women’s occupations are often a mirror of the common stereotypes associated with women and their supposed abilities- caring nature, greater housework skills etc. Without adequate support for care work from the State or the market, women often end up clustering around occupations that can provide them enough flexibility to manage care responsibilities at home. Again, boys tend to take into consideration future expected financial returns more than girls while choosing their educational path and occupations [3]. Moreover, gendered perceptions of employers can also lead to discriminatory hiring practices. Job roles offered to women tend to have either lower prospects of growth or pay less, as compared to those offered to men. Employers often perceive that women cannot give longer hours to jobs or cannot take up highly demanding managerial roles due to their primary responsibility as caregivers.

 

Another factor contributing to occupational segregation is gendered human capital investment by households, not only in terms of differences in levels of education attainment, but also choices of fields of education across gender. For instance, findings from All India Higher Education Survey (AIHES), 2021-22 [5] revealed that the proportion of females enrolled in technology and engineering related courses was far less than that of males. Similarly, the share of females enrolled in sociology or humanities courses, has been considerably higher than that of males. Therefore, the employability of women for jobs that require technical skills has been relatively low, which eventually contributes to segregation. Again, highly informal work conditions and lack of social security associated with jobs in India’s highly informal labour market, also hinder women’s participation in certain occupations or sectors. For instance, some manufacturing and construction sector occupations demand extensive physical labour without adequate safety standards, social protection measures, or decent work conditions in terms of work hours, basic facilities etc. Moreover, certain sectors are traditionally male-dominated, and women often find it difficult to adjust to workplace practices that may not always be gender-sensitive.

 

 

Extent of segregation in India

To capture the level of occupational segregation, a number of measurement indices can be used. While there is a lack of consensus regarding which index reflects occupational segregation better, the Duncan Dissimilarity Index [6], is one of the most widely used measures. It is interpreted as the proportion of women (or men) workers who would have to shift occupations for the occupational distribution of men and women to be the same. For the indices to be comparable over time, the occupational classifications captured in labour surveys have to be identical. India’s latest labour survey (Periodic Labour Force Survey or PLFS, 2022-23) used an updated occupational classification (National Classification of Occupation-2015 or NCO-2015), as compared to the codes used in earlier rounds between 2011-12 and 2021-22. These surveys used occupational codes as defined by NCO-2004. Even though the broad occupations at 1-digit level were comparable, the detailed occupational categories at 3-digit level captured by NCO-2004 and NCO-2015, were not exactly comparable. Again, there was great volatility in the occupational pattern of workers during 2020-21 and 2021-22 as the economy was severely hit by COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, to understand the long-term trend in segregation during the pre-COVID decade, the surveys conducted in 2011-12 and 2019-20, were explored.

Figure 1 presents the distribution of male and female workers across broad occupations during 2019-20. Two occupations with relatively higher concentration of female workers were skilled agricultural & fishery workers, and agricultural labourers, which together constituted 58% of total female workforce in India, compared to 36% of total male workforce. Similarly, school teachers and personal services & care workers had relatively higher concentrations of female workers, although this category constituted a much smaller share of the overall workforce. Personal services & care workers include waiters in restaurants, bartenders, cooks, house-keepers, hair-dressers, beauticians, barbers, child care workers, institution-based and home-based care workers etc. Therefore, it is evident that similar to unpaid care work within the households, women’s engagement in paid care services has also been much higher than men, thereby contributing to occupational segregation.

 

Figure 1: % Distribution of Male and Female Workers (15 to 59 Years) across Broad Occupations: All India, 2019-20

 

Considering workers in the 15 to 59 years age-group, India’s overall gender-based occupational segregation in 2019-20 was 35.3%, as per Duncan Dissimilarity Index. The segregation was relatively higher in urban areas (41.7%) as compared to that in rural India (30.6%). Between 2011-12 and 2019-20, occupational segregation had risen from 31.6% to 35.3%, primarily due to increased segregation in rural areas, while that in urban areas had slightly decreased. Again, there was a steep rise in segregation among casual labourers (24.1% to 40.8%), while that among the regular-salaried (28% to 27%) or the self-employed (49% to 47%) did not change much.

 

Policy Approach towards Occupational Segregation

An integrated labour market with minimum gender-based segregation, can undoubtedly contribute to overall gender equality in a country. Two key concerns for women in a segregated labour market are limited access to work opportunities and lower average earnings compared to men. However,depending on the economic structure of a nation and formalisation of the labour market, desegregation and higher work participation of women, may not always be positively associated. Similarly, the contribution of segregation in accentuating gender wage gap, depends on a country’s wage structure characterised by setting of minimum wages, transparency of wage machinery, and coordination across firms and industries. The extent to which occupational segregation is problematic for women, depends largely on whether women are disadvantaged because of segregation in terms of poor working conditions, and lower wages, reflecting gendered hierarchies of power and discrimination [7]. Unfortunately, this is the case for many developing countries including India. Therefore, there should be a careful consideration regarding whether there should be equal policy focus on reducing gender-based occupational segregation, closing gender wage gap, and increasing female employment, or there should be trade-offs among them. The evidence that occupational segregation can boost female employment at certain stages of development, complicates such policy choices. Further, as compared to other forms of gender inequality, any reduction in occupational segregation takes much longer to achieve. This is reflected in a more even distribution of men and women across sectors in many developing countries as more women join the workforce, but into a limited number of occupations within these  sectors [8].

 

Considering India’s current situation where women’s work participation is much lower than that of men, it might be more effective to focus on policy interventions at facilitating access to decent work conditions for women, as well to provide equal opportunities for growth across all sectors and occupations that women participate in. Immediate emphasis should be to reduce vertical segregation across occupational hierarchies, which can contribute immensely in reducing gender wage gaps. At the same time, there should be a longer-term effort to reduce horizontal segregation so that women can explore a wider range of occupations. However, to achieve this, development of the care sector through public and private sector engagement, in order to make care services affordable and accessible across all economic strata, is crucial. In parallel, there should be equal focus on awareness generation through multiple channels to reduce and eliminate some of the traditional gendered norms that have impeded women’s overall empowerment and agency-building.

This blog has been authored by Mridusmita Bordoloi, Economist, IWWAGE

National Conclave on Gender Mainstreaming

National Conclave on Gender Mainstreaming

The Gender Snapshot Report by the United Nations (2023) highlights slow progress towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030. It projects that by 2030, over 340 million women and girls may live in extreme poverty, and close to one in four will face food insecurity. Urging immediate action, the report calls for integrated approaches, greater collaboration, sustained funding, and policy reforms to achieve gender equality and empowerment.

The G20 declaration reinforces this urgency with a focus on reducing gender gaps in labour force participation, promoting equal access to education, and increasing women’s participation in STEM and digital fields. It also emphasizes promoting access to social protection, eliminating gender-based violence, and ensuring women’s inclusion in the formal financial system.

Background

In recent years, the Gender Programme under Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-National Rural Livelihood Mission has made significant strides, moving from policy integration to large-scale implementation. Notable achievements include the establishment of Gender Resource Centres across 15 states, and estabilishment of 44,528 Gender Point Persons collectives, 33,736 and 1,461 Block level Gender Forums respectively as platforms for dialogue and action.

The national campaign ‘Nayi Chetna,’ launched in 2022, has seen widespread engagement, fostering inter-ministerial convergence and community action to combat gender-based violence. The campaign, actively carried out in 32 states has seen close to 6 crore participation in activities over the two years advocating the need to speak up and take action against all forms of gender-based violence. Four editions of the ‘Gender Samvaad’ have further amplified advocacy efforts, drawing participation from community resource persons, practitioners, and policymakers.

 

Overview and objective

As the programme enters its second phase, the conclave will draw insights from practitioners, policy makers, experts and cluster level federations and explore:

  1. Building Gender Responsive Community Institutions through stronger institutional mechanisms.
  2. Enhancing inter-ministerial convergence to address gender issues collaboratively.
  3. Integrating gender perspectives into NRLM’s thematic verticals to shift gender norms at the household level.
  4. Expanding stakeholder engagement through alliances and advocacy, with a focus on engaging men and youth.

Event Proceedings of The National Conclave on Gender Mainstreaming

Our Publications

Handbook for Institutional Mechanisms for Addressing Gender Issues

Gender Resource Centre: An Advisory

An Assessment of the National Gender Campaign for DAY-NRLM

Nayi Chetna- Coffee Table Book Year One Snapshot

SWAYAM Process Evaluation

Process Documentation Report

An Assessment of the Compiled Case Stories

Gender Modules
Workshop on Capturing Women’s Work (CWW) held at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi on July 24, 2024

Workshop on Capturing Women’s Work (CWW) held at India Habitat Centre,
New Delhi on July 24, 2024

 

The workshop on Capturing Women’s Work (CWW) took place on July 24, 2024, at the Indian Habitat Centre, New Delhi. Hosted by IWWAGE, the event aimed to address the complexities and challenges in accurately measuring women’s work.

 

The inaugural session featured key insights from Radha Chellappa, Executive Director, IWWAGE, Neeta Goel, Country Lead – Measurement, Learning and Evaluation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Foundation and Sona Mitra, Director – Policy and Research, IWWAGE focusing on findings from the IWWAGE study.

 

Led by Sona Mitra, the IWWAGE research team showcased their findings from the study titled ‘Capturing Women’s Work to Measure Better’ which aimed at developing better mechanisms for data collection by employing innovative probing techniques and sampling frames tailored to capture the nuances of women’s work. Additionally, the session emphasized on the importance of creating a robust framework for conducting women-specific surveys that could be aligned with national Labour Force Surveys (LFS). This would help in obtaining more comprehensive estimates of women’s labor force participation. The session concluded with a series of participant inquiries. The presentation of time use findings sparked discussions about how women’s time allocation evolves with age, specifically when unpaid domestic work becomes a daily routine, and the factors contributing to the transition from ‘girl’ to ‘woman’.

The second half of the presentation focused on findings around identifying and addressing the significant perception bias that often underestimates women’s economic contributions (in cases where the respondent is not the woman herself) were presented. Through these efforts, the sessions aimed to advance methodologies that more accurately reflect women’s roles in the economy.

Findings from the CWW study revealed notable gaps between self-reported data and societal perceptions, highlighting the need to include unpaid domestic work in workforce measurements for greater accuracy.

 

Discussions also covered the economic valuation of unpaid work, the impact of household characteristics on perceptions, and the significance of detailed recovery questions. Key points included discrepancies between the PLFS 2022-2023 and CWW survey estimates of female labor force participation rates, as well as concerns about the lack of a 180-day principal activity benchmark and the survey’s ability to accurately capture women’s work, particularly in Jharkhand.

 

 

The workshop ended with a panel discussion, moderated by Yamini Atmavilas, bringing together experts like Jeemol Unni, Madhura Swaminathan, Rosa Abraham, Neetha N, and PC Mohanan. They discussed innovations in measurement methods and the limitations of current survey instruments. Emphasis was placed on the need for regular Time Use Surveys (TUS) and refining survey tools to capture the dynamic nature of women’s work, including unpaid care and domestic activities. The panel concluded that improving measurement accuracy and recognizing the economic value of women’s work are essential for addressing historical underreporting and better informing policy decisions.

Related Resources
CWW Summary of Findings
CWW Report

Improving Women’s Employment Possibilities: A Sectoral Analysis

This research paper explores the intersection of sectoral growth and gendered employment in India, analysing how economic changes impact women’s participation in the workforce. Using time-series data from CPHS, CMIE CAPEX, PLFS, and NAS, the study forecasts employment trends across key sectors from 2024 to 2027, with a particular lens on sectors employing large numbers of women. It highlights an overall projected decline in women’s employment, especially in agriculture, education, ICT, and several manufacturing industries due to mechanisation and automation. However, it also identifies potential growth in sectors such as wholesale and retail trade, and selected manufacturing sub-sectors like footwear and detergents, driven by women’s increasing entrepreneurial presence in e-commerce. The paper calls for urgent upskilling and targeted investments in sectors with high potential to absorb women workers.

Why should we follow a cautious approach while interpreting the ‘usual status’ employment measures?

According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) rounds, the Indian economy witnessed a significant rise in female work force participation rate (FWPR) over the recent years, reaching 36% in 2022-23 from 22% in 2017-18.This rise is notably higher in rural areas, increasing from 24% to 41%, compared to the urban FWPR, which rose from 18% to 24% over the same period.However, concluding that this increase represents an unambiguous improvement in women’s labour market conditions would be misleading. This is partially due to these employment measures not informing on various other aspects of quality of employment, including the extent of underemployment. These FWPR estimates are based on identifying economic participation under the ‘usual principal and subsidiary status’ or interchangeably called the ‘usual status’ measure of employment.

The ‘usual status’ is the most widely reported statistical measure of employment across all domains. Although the recent ‘usual status’ trends indicate higher engagement of women in economic activities overall, these estimates should be interpreted with caution as these measures assign the status of being employed to  individuals with significantly different durations of economic engagements. The usual activity status of a person is determined based on both usual principal status and usual subsidiary status.  According to the definition of usual status, a person is considered employed if they meet either the principal status criterion (employed for at least six months in a year) or the subsidiary status criterion (employed for at least 30 days but less than six months in a year).  The subsidiary economic engagement is considered to define the employment status of a person only when the individual isn’t employed according to the principal status criterion. But the duration of   engagement in subsidiary activities is mostly significantly less than principal employment.  The usual status approach doesn’t differentiate between principal status and subsidiary status workers and adds them together to estimate the workforce participation rates. Consequently, the usual status measures fail to reveal the underemployment existing among subsidiary workers without any principal engagement. Therefore the drawback of a broad measure like usual status which includes the subsidiary engagement in defining employment is the inability to capture the underemployment.

We understand the risk with narrower measures like usual principal status as it undercounts the extent of activities taking place in the informal and subsistence economies, which are mostly seasonal in nature.  Thus the usual principal status measure gives us a closer picture for only those with stable employment conditions all throughout the year as it happens largely for working-age men. But it fails to measure women’s workforce participation adequately and this underestimation is significant for rural women because of their high share of engagement in short-term seasonal opportunities majorly in the agricultural sector. As the PLFS 2022-23 reveals, among the rural women solely engaged in subsidiary activities, approximately 82% are involved in agricultural activities majorly as unpaid family workers/own account workers. So, while it is important not to gloss over the subsidiary engagements where women participate significantly and capture the various activities extensively, as the broad employment measures do, we must also be mindful of the perils of interpreting the changes in these broad measures without looking into the granular details. We need to delve deeper to understand whether the change is driven by principal or subsidiary engagements. This is imperative for a better understanding of the extent of underemployment among the workers as the duration of economic engagement is one of the metrics of underemployment and it differs significantly between principal and subsidiary activities.

As we distinguish among women workers based on the principal and subsidiary engagements, we find that over the period of 2017-18 to 2022-23, the share of women solely in subsidiary engagement has risen from 10% to 23% at all-India level, with the share rising from 12% to 26% among rural women and 6% to 12% among urban women. This indicates that the increase in FWPR over the recent years, is significantly driven by an increase in subsidiary engagements. These shares are much lower for men as the shares of male workers engaged only in subsidiary activities are 3% at all-India level, 3% in rural areas, and 2% in urban areas in 2022-23. The shares reveal the higher underemployment existing among women workers, and more so in rural areas, in comparison to male  workers.

Also, when we compare women’s labour market participation across the states based on usual status estimates, we need to tread with caution. According to PLFS 2022-23 usual status measures, in case of few states with rural FWPR above national average like Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, and Gujarat, the shares of women with sole engagement in subsidiary activities range between 2-14%. And, in case of few other states, similarly with rural FWPR above national average like Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Uttarakhand, a very high share of rural women workers are engaged only in subsidiary activities, with the shares lying between 36-52%. Thus, the nature of women’s labour market participation is very different between these two sets of states, but it remains uncaptured if one looks at the usual status estimates alone.

In India’s context, because of the empirical realities of a developing nation like high prevalence of informal employment, seasonal activities, the broad employment measures  especially underemployment often don’t reveal the various aspects of quality of employment including underemployment. Any attempt to interpret these employment estimates and changes in these estimates should be undertaken with granular level inspection, otherwise it would be inadequate and misleading. This is particularly true for women who are majorly engaged in these ill-paid or unpaid short-term marginal activities where the increase in their participation is more often distress-driven and less in response to generation of good-quality, long-term employment opportunities. It is therefore critical that policymaking takes into account the usual status estimates in conjunction with usual principal status estimates in order to ensure a comprehensive consideration of women’s work.

This blog is written by Bidisha Mondal[1] works as a Senior Research Fellow with IWWAGE,
Aneek Choudhury[2] works as a Research Associate with IWWAGE.

karunakar
Karunakar Rao

Communication Manager

Karunakar Rao is a Communication & Convenings Manager at LEAD. Previously, he worked with organisations including ACCESS Development Services, AIACA and Oxfam India.

Karunakar holds a Master’s and Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and Mass Communication from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi.

His core experience lies in brand communications. Karunakar is passionate about strategic planning, design, content development and dabbles in photography and videography. In his free time, he likes to pamper dogs, travel, binge-watch on OTT platforms and party.