Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Voice After a Long Silence: Measuring Surplus Labour in the India’s Unorganised Sector

  • Article
  • Published:
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There appears to be long silence in this field ever since the eighties. It is acknowledged perhaps that the yardstick of measuring surplus labour is highly subjective. This created serious doubts as to how to build up major theoretical and empirical conundrums on a subjective ground. The advent of efficiency analysis provided a rigid norm for defining what is “optimal” and hence “sub-optimal”. However, the only problem of efficiency is that it is a radial measure. Ray (in: Hosh, Neogi (eds) Theory and application of productivity and efficiency: econometric and DEA approach, Macmillan India Limited Chennai, 2005) introduced sub-vector efficiency to tackle this problem. Basically, the sub-vector defines the input requirement set when some of the inputs are fixed. Sub- vector efficiency is conditional to the choice of the prefixed inputs. This can then be used for assessing the extent of surplus labour. This method has been used by Sengupta et al. (Sarvekshana 29(95), 20–39, 2009, 2011) on a limited sphere. Our aim is to extend this methodology to the NSSO 73rd round data, covering all the states of India and with entire informal sector. We found significant instances of surplus labour. Among the factors that explain the surplus labour are the constraints that the firm have to deal with. Smallness can curb the desire to fly with open wings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. One can find the names of Sir Arthur Lewis, Theodore W. Schultz and Amartya Kumar Sen in this regard.

  2. Even this assumption is fraught with a number of inconsistencies. A Banerjee and Duflo (2019) have shown that migration is a very complex decision never simply dependent on economic questions.

  3. Georgescu-Roegen (1960) “Economic theory and agrarian economics”, Oxford Economic Papers 12(1): 1–40.

  4. Sengupta, Atanu, Soumendra Kishor Dutta, Susanta Mondal (2011), “Male Female Quality Differential in Informal Service Sector: A State Level Study from India”, Indian Economic Review, Vol. XXXXVI, No. 1, 2011, pp. 153–176.

  5. The justification of the value of pseudo-R2 is given in the Appendix.

  6. It might be difficult to ascertain job boundaries of various types of labours and their use. Thus overemployment can easily accrue.

References

  • Banerjee A. and E Duflo (2019) Good Economics for Hard times, Public-Affairs NewYork.

  • Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. 1984. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30 (9): 1078–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, Pranab. 1978. Labour absorption in Indian Agriculture: Some exploratory analysis. Bangkok: ILO-ARTEP Publications: Asian Employment Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, A. 1970. Urbanisation and Employment Trends: A Case-study of Asansol-Durgapur region. Economic and Political Weekly 5 (67): 345–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, M. 1977. Some Aspects of Employment and Unemployment in Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly 12 (39): A66–A76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desai, M., Mazumdar, D.1970. A Test of the Hypothesis of Disguised Unemployment. Economica, New Series, 37(145): 39–53

  • Farrell, M. J. 1957. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 120 (3): 253–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1960. Economic theory and agrarian economics. Oxford Economic Papers 12 (1): 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazumdar, D. 1959. The marginal productivity theory of wages and disguised unemployment. Review of Economic Studies 26 (3): 190–197. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehra, S. 1966. Labour in Indian Agriculture. Indian Economic Review 1 (1): 111–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayark, P., and B. Chatterjee. 1986. Disguised Unemployment in Agriculture: A Case Study of Rural Orissa. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations 21 (3): 310–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paglin, M. 1965. ‘Surplus’ Agricultural Labor and Development: Facts and Theories. The American Economic Review 55 (4): 815–834. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230226203.0037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, D. 1998. Development economics. Oxford, New York: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, Subash C. 2005. Surplus labour in Indian manufacturing: Evidence from the Annual Survey of Industries. In Theory and application of productivity and efficiency: Econometric and DEA approach, ed. R. Hosh and Chiranjib Neogi. Chennai: Macmillan India Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudra, A. 1973. Direct Estimation of Surplus Labour in Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly 8 (4/6): 277–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, T. W. (1964). The Doctrine of Agricultural Labour of Zero Value. InTransforming Traditional Agriculture.

  • Sen, A.K. 1966. Peasants and Dualism with or without Surplus Labor. Journal of Political Economy 74 (5): 425–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, A., S.K. Datta, and S. Mondal. 2009. Gendering Disguised Unemployment: A Study of Informal Service Sector in India. Sarvekshana 29 (95): 20–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, A., S.K. Datta, and S. Mondal. 2011. Male Female Quality Differential in Informal Service Sector: A State Level Study from India. Indian Economic Review 46 (1): 153–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H. R. 1984. The Nonparametric Approach to Production Analysis. Econometrica 52(3): 579–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wonnacott, P. 1962. Disguised and Overt Unemployment in Underdeveloped Economies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 76 (2): 279–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ujjwal Seth.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

(https://www.stata.com/support/faqs/statistics/pseudo-r2/)

In the STATA programme for estimating the pseudo-R2, we use the formula

$${\text{pseudo}} - R^{2} = 1 - L1/L0$$

where L0 and L1 are the constant-only and full model log-likelihoods, respectively.

So far as discrete distributions are concerned, the log likelihood is the log of a probability, making it is always non-positive. Thus for such distributions, 0 ≥ L1 ≥ L0, implying 0 ≤ L1/L0 ≤ 1, hence 0 ≤ pseudo-R2 ≤ 1.

For continuous distributions the issue is different. Here the log likelihood is the log of a density. It is easily seen that density functions can be greater than 1 (cf. the normal density at 0) Thus the log likelihood can be positive or negative. Similarly, mixed continuous/discrete likelihoods like tobit can also have a positive log likelihood.

If L1 > 0 and L0 < 0, then L1/L0 < 0, and 1 − L1/L0 > 1.

If L1 > L0 > 0 and then L1/L0 > 1, and 1 − L1/L0 < 0.

So, if the above formula is used for pseudo-R2, it is possible to get it > 1 or < 0 for continuous or mixed continuous/discrete likelihoods like tobit.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sengupta, A., Seth, U. Voice After a Long Silence: Measuring Surplus Labour in the India’s Unorganised Sector. Ind. J. Labour Econ. 65, 951–966 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-022-00404-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-022-00404-7

Keywords

Navigation