India biggest job-spinner among BRIC nations?

[gorah_pindu]

NEW DELHI: India may be lagging behind China in terms of economic growth or becoming a global manufacturing hub, but it has outpaced the Communist giant in creating the maximum number of jobs among the BRIC nations. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in its Employment Outlook 2007 report released on Tuesday said India, the world's second-fastest growing economy after China, generated more than 11 million new jobs every year during 2000 and 2005 - higher than Brazil, Russia and China. The four countries together created over 22 million net new jobs on an average per year during 2000 and 2005, which is more than five times the net employment gains recorded in the OECD area as a whole over the same period. India generated 11.3 million net new jobs per year on an average during this period, higher than 7 million in China, 2.7 million in Brazil and 0.7 million in Russia. In contrast, the average was 3.7 million in the OECD area as a whole. Paris-based OECD comprises 30 developed countries including the US, UK, France, Germany and Japan. The famour-four emerging nations club of BRIC account for about 42 per cent of world population and 45 per cent of the world's total workforce. This is far more than the 19 per cent share of the 30-member club of developed economies for both population and labour force, OECD said. OECD economists said in the report "the rapid recent economic expansion in the BRIC countries has led to significant employment gains in these countries". These significant net employment gains have translated into higher employment rates in the BRIC region. The employment rates have gone up in Brazil, India and Russia, while it has remained high in China.

[gorah_pindu]

Indian economy highest employment generator in the World In another study, it said that the country's booming construction industry, currently at US$70 billion, will rise to US$120 billion by 2010, requiring manpower of over 90 million from the current 30 million. The OECD report says that India also has the lowest rate of jobless people among BRIC nations. The country's unemployment rate stood at 6 per cent in 2005, compared with China's 8.3 per cent, Russia's 7.9 per cent and Brazil's 9.3 per cent. Moreover, the employment to population ratio is also lowest in India, the world's second-most populous country after China, at 50.5 per cent in 2005. In contrast, it stood at between 66-71 per cent in the other three BRIC countries. The study "Job Opportunities in Emerging Sectors" by Assocham said that high consumer spending has resulted in big interest in the retail sector, 97 per cent of which is still unorganised. It is estimated that the organised segment alone will add up to US$14 billion in market size by 2010 to cross US$21.5 billion, creating two million jobs directly. The hotel sector will need a new workforce of at least 94,000 by 2010-11.The aviation space is growing at 25 per cent yearly. The industry is expected to add 130 planes to the current fleet of 270 airliners and create 200,000 jobs by 2017, the study also said. The information technology (IT) and IT-enabled sector - the biggest employment generator - with a work force of 1.63 million in recent times, will continue to hire most aggressively and is expected to fall.

[gorah_pindu]

9% GDP growth is widely inclusive The leftist critics are right when they say India's record GDP grow-th is bypassing rural millions. This tragedy arises from massive government failure to provide decent education and infrastructure to every village despite 60 years of gargantuan but wasteful spending. India's cities have been connected to the global economy and have taken off. The villages have not. But does this justify criticism that 9% GDP growth benefits only a thin upper crust of the population? Not at all. No economy can grow at 9% unless a wide swathe of people simultaneously increase their productivity and output. Caveat: in small economies, a single mineral deposit can raise GDP without widespread citizen involvement. These exceptions apart, 9% growth is rare across the world precisely because it is so difficult to rapidly improve the productivity of most of the population. The plain fact is that 9% growth cannot be non-inclusive. It can be achieved only by aggregating the efforts of hundreds of millions. Now, widespread inclusion is not the same thing as complete inclusion. Significant sections are excluded in India, especially in badly-governed states. Still, 9% growth is widely inclusive, and could never have been achieved by a thin upper crust. Mobile phone connections in India are growing at the rate of six million per month, or 72 million per year. With telecom towers coming up in rural areas, the number of mobile connections is expected to soon hit 500 million. Clearly, this represents wide inclusion, not a thin upper crust. The number of households with TV sets was just one million in 1980, mostly black and white TVs. Today, 120 million households have TV sets, mostly colour TV. When close to two-thirds of all households have what was an elite privilege in the heyday of socialism, let us celebrate this as a success of inclusion. Forbes magazine's list of dollar billionaires has two new Indian entrants, K P Singh of DLF and Ramesh Chandra of Unitech. Critics find it awful that Singh and Chandra have so much wealth when others have so little. But Singh and Chandra used to be non-entities, and have become billionaires only because the price of the few thousand acres they own has skyrocketed. The same price rise has benefited every home and farm owner. Urban land in Delhi goes for Rs 2 lakh/square yard, and rural land in Haryana sells for up to a crore per acre. So, rising real estate prices are actually very inclusive. They benefit all from the jhuggi owner to the small farmer. Even those recorded as landless in rural India have homesteads. A small minority with no house or land at all have missed the bonanza. But the vast majority of Indians have gained. India's 9% growth is not, as some people think, due largely to the information technology (IT) exports. Indeed, India's National Accounts do not even list IT services as a separate category. These services are lumped into the category 'real estate, ownership of dwellings, business and legal services'. The real impact of IT is grossly underestimated by official data, since GDP is based on a historical composition of the economy, where IT had a tiny role. If you exclude IT altogether from GDP, the growth of the rest of the economy will probably be 9%. Services account for most of the economy. The largest services sector is 'trade hotels and restaurants', which has been growing at 8-10% for many years. This is not run by the Ambanis or software giants. Millions of urban and rural folk are employed in trade. Hotels and restaurants mean, overwhelmingly, dhabas, pavement vendors in cities and tea-shop owners in villages. Our formal statistics have no good way of measuring this unorganised sector, and so unfortunately miss large parts of it. Activist Madhu Kishwar estimated some time ago that almost half the households in Delhi were engaged in street hawking and cycle rickshaws. Both these activities are largely illegal, and hence, poorly captured properly by official data. The fastest-growing sector is communications (23.9% in 2005-06). The telecom revolution benefits a wide swathe of people, not an upper crust. Transport, another fast-growing sector, also benefits a wide swathe. Finance and insurance are booming. Millions of the uninsured now have cover. Consumer credit has spread the benefits of credit to millions of buyers of TV, white goods, vehicles and homes. Micro-credit has reached over 10 million poor women. Official data show that almost 60% of Indians are engaged in agriculture. This is misleading. Agriculture is a seasonal occupation. Most rural workers do multiple casual jobs. A rural worker who spends 51% of his time in agriculture is classified as agricultural, even though 49% of his work may be in services, construction and rural processing. One study estimated that 70% of new rural jobs for women were in construction (which is growing by 14%, and employs millions). If all Indians participated in today's boom, i imagine GDP growth would be 15%. Clearly, we need more inclusion of those left out today. But equally we must scotch the notion that only a thin upper crust of Indians is benefiting. India's growth is widely, though not fully, inclusive.

[Dhondy]

I found this bit ridiculous. Forbes magazine's list of dollar billionaires has two new Indian entrants, K P Singh of DLF and Ramesh Chandra of Unitech. Critics find it awful that Singh and Chandra have so much wealth when others have so little. But Singh and Chandra used to be non-entities, and have become billionaires only because the price of the few thousand acres they own has skyrocketed. The same price rise has benefited every home and farm owner. Urban land in Delhi goes for Rs 2 lakh/square yard, and rural land in Haryana sells for up to a crore per acre. So, rising real estate prices are actually very inclusive. They benefit all from the jhuggi owner to the small farmer. Even those recorded as landless in rural India have homesteads. A small minority with no house or land at all have missed the bonanza. But the vast majority of Indians have gained. Who's buying that land in the rural areas? If not, surely that's just a notional increase in wealth, i.e. only on paper. If anything, the urban rise in the price of land has put all but the most basic of properties out of the reach of the common man. And then, it gets even more bizzare. Activist Madhu Kishwar estimated some time ago that almost half the households in Delhi were engaged in street hawking and cycle rickshaws. Both these activities are largely illegal, and hence, poorly captured properly by official data. Half the households in the national capital engaged in illegal street hawking and plying cycle rickshaws (a primitive and degrading mode of transport)? And this is supposed to be proof of how the benefits of development are percolating down to the common man?

[CC1981]

India's biggest challenge is to make sure that the furious economic development doesnt leave significant areas/people behind. This is the root of friction in a society- when one section is becomming richer and richer while the other is standing still. The root cause of Maoist insurgencies and insurgencies in North-East are this. India needs to improve its transportation and retail sector- something like 40% of Indian food produced is wasted because it rots on the roadside. Efficient management of this will not only see far more people being fed better, it will also be the ideal land-optimisation scheme .

[Ram]

Yes , a 10% growth is said to be widely inclusive , touching most sections of the society. But, referring to number of TV sets a indicator of growth is a bit silly. The years that India didnt grow well, It is no surprise that Agriculture dragged it down. Its a pity that that agricultural output in India is still largely dependent on monsoon. And the figures quoted about India having the lowest Unemployment rate has to be taken with a pinch of salt. A Retail shop owner in the countryside employs all his/her family members in that same shop. Now , can that be considered employment ? I am not too sure since it doesnt generate wealth since they dont get paid. If we take this into account , then the unemployment figures will increase significantly i think.

[CC1981]

GP, check your PM.

[Dhondy]

The real test of a country like India is what proportion pf people has it managed to lift above the poverty line. The poverty line is unique for each country, depending on the average income, and denotes people who spend over 2/3 to 3/4 of their income in basic services like housing, clothes, food, rental etc. Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen developed what he called the poverty index. It takes into account both the number of poor and the extent of their poverty. Sen defined the index as: I = (P/N)(B − A)/A where: P = number of people below the poverty line N = total number of people in society B = poverty line income A = average income of those people below the poverty line The official poverty index for India is around 28.6%. Sen feels it's higher, around 35%. It has improved very slowly since independence. And this is not considering absolute poverty. Fully 80% of India's population lives on less than $2 a day, and 34.7% live on less than $1 per day. Even in countries like Azerbaijan or Kazakhistan, the latter figure is around 2%. Why are we so desperate to proclaim our "development" to the world? It's nonsensical, to be honest.

[CC1981]

Indians gotto stop breeding too....a lot of poverty-stricken households have 6-8 kids !

[gator]

Dhonds> Forbes magazine's list of dollar billionaires has two new Indian entrants, K P Singh of DLF and Ramesh Chandra of Unitech. Critics find it awful that Singh and Chandra have so much wealth when others have so little. But Singh and Chandra used to be non-entities, and have become billionaires only because the price of the few thousand acres they own has skyrocketed. The same price rise has benefited every home and farm owner. Urban land in Delhi goes for Rs 2 lakh/square yard, and rural land in Haryana sells for up to a crore per acre. So, rising real estate prices are actually very inclusive. They benefit all from the jhuggi owner to the small farmer. Even those recorded as landless in rural India have homesteads. A small minority with no house or land at all have missed the bonanza. But the vast majority of Indians have gained. Who's buying that land in the rural areas? If not, surely that's just a notional increase in wealth, i.e. only on paper. If anything, the urban rise in the price of land has put all but the most basic of properties out of the reach of the common man. And then, it gets even more bizzare.

dhonds... a lot of nris, tht i know as well as upper middle class back in india are buying up rural land and investing in agriculture..... u r guaranteed atleast 7-8% return per year and it aint too bad and can improve with better technology and investments from these folks... the farmers and small landowners in villages are gaining immensely....

[gorah_pindu]

GP' date=' check your PM.[/quote'] I cant reply to PMs yet due to the 300 posts rule, so I hope you see this. Ive updated the links, and they are also here: http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=4008 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=3963 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=3952 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=3951 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=3950 EDIT: Fixed now!

[CC1981]

I dunno if it my computer effing up...but the problem remains..first link take me to the thread with your picture collection pt-II. Last 4 threads lead to ICF homepage.

[gorah_pindu]

Fixed :)

[CC1981]

Yay! many thanks, GP!

[Ram]

Why are we so desperate to proclaim our "development" to the world? It's nonsensical, to be honest.

The politicians back home want to paint a rosy picture of the country so that people feel that devolopment is actually taking place , feel good and hence , vote for that party. The foreign media has done its bit too in hyping up China and India. The politicians from the west are using the "rise of China and India" as a means to create paranoia among their people and hence push through some of the social/political policies that would have otherwise been difficult to sell. I remember , Tony Blair , in one the annual labor party conference speeches , referred to India and China atleast 15-20 times. Things like " There are more technical graduates in India than all of europe put together. Therefore we have to reform our education system" and " India is investing $5 billion a year into research into biotechnology, we have to do the same too." The weirdest part was when they cited India and China as a reason to push forward with the European constitution, and project a concept of "One Europe" to counter our rise. It is kinda amusing that those guys act as though they are genuinely concerned about the rise of India and China , when in reality , they coudnt care less. The story across the atlantic is a bit different though. US politicians constantly use the China-India story to increase trade barriers, implement more anti-free trade policies. Number one criminals , all these guys ! :haha:

[Dhondy]

That's a pretty insightful post, Sriram. The media here though, never fails to seize on any chance to show the backwardness of these two countries. With China, it's usually a tale of state oppression, with India it's a story about child labour or something similar. It creates a feel good factor among domestic readers.

[Guest dada_rocks]

To say that growth has bypassed rural folks is either ignorance or exaggeration. Yes growth is not as visisble as in urban life but it most certainly has not bypassed rural india. Trust me on this because I don't get information about villages from some message board I come from quitessential village and have lived that life all along and can see the change.

[CC1981]

Its not just that villages have developed. All of India is developing, its indisputable. But if some areas (cities) develop a lot faster than other areas (villages), it will increase the social 'gap'. Social 'gap' is the root to so many problems. That should not be forgotten either.

[The Outsider]

Ofcourse, there has been growth in the villages but certainly not in proportion to urban growth. If that was the case we wouldn't have had one third of central India ruled by Naxalites today.

[gorah_pindu]

Its not just that villages have developed. All of India is developing, its indisputable. But if some areas (cities) develop a lot faster than other areas (villages), it will increase the social 'gap'. Social 'gap' is the root to so many problems. That should not be forgotten either.

The main thing that holds rural per capita growth back: 1). Basic education. 2). Connectivity. The latter problem can be fixed: - Move to cities. The former problem however needs government and private help. In the meantime "better to be unequal and rich and equal and poor". I.E. at least they are growing at all :)