Understanding the change in dissimilarity in participation and - - PDF document

1 Understanding the change in dissimilarity in participation and inclusiveness in labour market for disabled in India

1Srei Chanda,

Research Scholar, International Institute for Population Sciences, India, email- srei1988@gmail.com

Background: Inclusion is the basic agenda for the development of the deprived. The disabled in India shares more than 2% of Indian population which is oddly 27 million and its decadal growth rate is 20% (Census of India, 2011) (Awasthi et al., 2017). The worrisome increasing count shows severity of disease burden, poor urban development, demographic change and many

• ther social conditions. With the fast changing socio-economic scenario of the country, the

pace of inclusion of these population is dismal (Dawn, 2012). Disabled in India faces multiple deprivation, oppression and marginalization on several grounds (Elwan, 2011). The inclusive attitude of the market and society has not been clearly understood yet. The importance of that remains in the interest of India’s problem of poverty and low employment generation, specially in the rural sector and socio-cultural ground. Though India has long been a signatory to different conventions like United Nations Conventions for Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) (2006) (Gurpur & Sekhar, 2017), and one of the few implementing country of various welfare schemes and policies for the person with disability since last two

• decades. It introduces the disability act named Person with Disabilities Act (PWD Act) as

Equal opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation in the year 1995, which is first among all the south Asian nations. Recently, the act is being modified to The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Acts (2016). Talking about the work opportunities, UNCRPD is equivocal about the reservation of the right for the disabled persons through article 27. Reservation of the disabled (locomotor, hearing, speech) is increased from 3% to 4% in the public sector recently after the new act implementation. It widens the chance of the persons with disabilities to safe guard themselves. It is utmost important to understand that health conditions or discrimination, which is to be measured for the study of disabled participation. Work participation is always lower in disabled population than the non-disabled (Sophie Mitra, Posarac, & Vick, 2013). In global market, India is known for its demographic window and untapped opportunity for human capital generation through its youth (Mitra & Nagarajan, 2017). However, the growth

• f young disabled, especially in the early working age groups, is a concern for inclusive

development and capital generation. Burden of disability in the productive ages forces family to adapt alternative way through deprivation turn poverty or forces the members to work for

2 extra hours or out of stipulated productive ages. To address the severe development dilemma, it has become essential for government to make an effective measure more than renaming the disabled as “divyanganj”. The disabled are prone to suffer from deprivation, inequality and poverty. The work loss reduces per capital consumption of the households (Raut, Pal, & Bharati, 2014). The sustainable development goals have set inclusion limit by the year 2030 for achieving full and productive employment with equal pay for equal work (United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals). The distance of achieving the target is far away for us, while persistent gap furrows deeply. The PWD Acts (1995) has certain loop holes regarding the authority for any development has given upon states. That misses restriction or corrective measure to be taken by any other authority (Naraharisetti & Castro, 2016). That’s also investigates the step taken for the employment of the disabled. Gross perception of the volume of the disabled individuals is a vital question for the data and methods in research. Whom to include or not gives rise to the problem of comparability of data in several large-scale surveys or enumerations. Disability is attached with the social stigma, avoidance and negligence that sometimes become a cause of unrevealed identity (Shenoy, 2011). Gender, caste and space adds another dimension to explain the depth of deprivation and exclusion. This explains social model of disability over medical model. The idea of disability is more vivid with the inclusion of biopsychosocial model by International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) (Ustün, Chatterji, Kostansjek, & Bickenbach, 2003). Encountering all those recognition of actual disabled and determining the eligibility is an important task. The manipulation of the disability certificates to reach minimum cut off of 40% is a common norm for many. That restricts benefit of the eligible candidates to acquire privilege. Especially, among the lower income and rural groups who are poorly informed or not at all informed about the benefits and programs. Thus, potentially it excludes from the market. The labour market in India shows dismal situation, as many youths are out of the labour force due to job shrinking. Older surveys have already proved that PWD employment rate has fall down to 42.7% to 37.6% over 1991 to 2002, considering inclusion of extra group i.e. mental

• disability. In that duration, however, there is no significant change among the employment rate
• f those sub-groups (World Bank, 2007).

Lack of infrastructure, employment generation, built environment, adaptive job structure

• etc. are the few dimensions which are the drivers of the employment of the disabled in the
• market. The feeling of less potential of the disabled employees, wastage of time and money,

3 additional emotional support and required modification are the main features of non-inclusive employment, unequal treatment and negative stereotyping. In rural set up, the lack of

• pportunity, low education, agri-based work, distance to work place, poor mode of transport is

a barrier. Discrimination is cited through poor employment rate, wages, promotion, type of

• ccupation they are involved in etc. (Grammenos, 2003). To contribute into the labour market

educational and vocation support is of utmost importance. There also it fails to achieve full

• participation. This scenario is similar in many other parts of the world, which suffers from non-

inclusive policies and poor welfare practices. In India, study regarding disability and employment based on large scale data is few. Over the decade change in participation of the disability in employment shows synchronization of the disabled with the present labour market. The change in disability definition is also a challenge to measure the dynamics of change with Census data. Through the employment exchange information, the paper tries to reveal job seeker, job gain etc. along with the disability benefits given during that time. The study is an effort to see the change in the employment participation, whom we can include in the labor market and how functional is our employment exchange and different benefit schemes in the country. This paper tries to find out the level of participation among different disability in the working ages. The dissimilarity in labor participation across gender and place of residence also needs to be seen to understand how inclusive our society is. To understand the benefits of welfare scheme in different states of India. Data and methodology: For the study, I have used Census of India (2001 & 2011) data. This is full enumeration of the disabled has been done in 5 categories in previous census and 8 categories in last census. The 5 categories are seeing, speech, hearing, movement and mental disability. For 2011 Census, the disability categories are seeing, hearing, speech, movement, mental illness, mental retardation, any other and multiple disability. Most common definition for disabled in India is considered for suffering from more than 40% of the disability. The criteria for selecting the specific disability has been changed over two censuses. The outcome variable considered here is employment defining as the participation in an economically productive activity with or without compensation, wage or profit. Any types of participation is considered while collecting the data. Among the working population the population is divided into main worker (more than 6 months of age), marginal worker (divided into two groups: below 3 months and 3-6 months) and non-workers. The information regarding

4 disability shows, type of disability, age distribution, gender, place of residence etc. among the typology of the worker as cultivator, manual worker etc., and among the non-worker the count has been made on student, household works, dependent, pensioner and beggar, other workers. I have merged pensioner, beggar, rentier and other workers as other merge. The work force participation rate has been calculated in the age group of 15-59 years. The formula for this is the number of disabled working among total number of population at the ages for any particular disability. The data regarding the number of employment from special exchange and its report has been taken. Along with that state-wise different types of scholarship have been considered into the policy analysis. Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has been considered for collecting data on unemployment benefit for the available report on 2011-12 and 2012-13. For the employment registration, I have used data from Employment Exchange Statistics Report of Government of India (2015). To check the index of dissimilarity (DI) for gender we have considered the following formula 𝐸𝐽 = 1 2 ∑ |𝑄

𝑗𝐵

𝑄

𝐵

− 𝑄

𝑗𝐶

𝑄

𝐶

|

𝑂 𝑗=1

where, i is the states of India, PiA is the population at group A and state i and similar for PiB. I have considered gender for the group comparison for the labour force participation among the main and marginal worker in different space and major disabilities. The gender ratio has been seen for employment disparity among disabled. It includes employment of female disabled per 100 male disabled. Results: Over the decades almost 5 million disabled population is being added (Table 1). Among the total population of disabled speech, hearing and locomotion shares the greatest percentage

• point. With increased disabled population, the share of population at the working age groups

also increases by 2% percentage point from 2001, in total. In speech and movement has higher percentage share of population at the working ages among total population in both of the census and their change in 2011 is quite higher than the 2001. The strict demarcation is that there is no change in the labour participation rate in the overall population. In seeing disabled, the work participation rate has increased by 5% and in hearing (3%), in speech (7%) and in movement (6%) this has declined. Among disabled 58.96% of population are in working age group of 15- 59 years. Among males, share of working age population (15-59 years) is more than female

5 (63.32% vs. 32.18%) of that age group, which is almost half. The gender gap in work force participation is more than 37% for the disability in hearing in 2011, which was only 34.85% for 2001. Mostly in 2011, in seeing, hearing and speech has shown major gender gap in work participation rate. Overall, in compare to 2001 the work force participation rate has increased

• ver various disability.

The activity by non-worker shows the change in various activity over 2001 and 2011 in total, urban and rural population and among gender. A clear dissimilarity in participation across gender and place of residence is prominent through this bar graph (Figure 1). The positive sign has been seen in the percentage share of students, although it is only 3%. The performance of male and female participation as students among the non-worker is higher in rural areas. At very obvious reason male are always less involved in the household activities than female disabled, which is clear from the plot. The higher percentage share of the male disabled non- worker due to dependence explains the chronic and limiting disability. Among males and females this percentage share has declined in rural areas over 7 percentage points, which is a good indication for betterment in health and productivity is concerned. Strikingly, in urban areas the percentage share of the dependent is lesser, specially among the female population. But it also has more than 30% of the population involved in household chores in the urban areas. The state-wise presentation of disabled population over the year 2001 and 2011 shows that, many of the states has good number increase in total population count (Table 2). The work participation rate in the working age group remains almost same over all. But, among the states there are large variability in the WFP rate in India. Mainly, smaller states and north-eastern states shows decline in WFP rate. But the bigger states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh which has larger disability population share (more than 4%) has reduced WFP rate over last decade. Generally, gender ratio at the marginal work over the two census years are higher than the main worker. But a clear dissimilarity has been seen in the working population since many of the states show, a clear cut indication for decreased gender ratio at the marginal worker, not for the main work. The count includes new categorization and redefinition of the different types of disabled population. Since, marginal work considers part time work and small duration activity it might be a demotivating factor for the female and disabled to get engaged in the activity. The unemployment benefit for the disabled is not well implemented cases in half of the Indian states. The amount is also poor that

6 ranges from meagre around 100 rupees to 2000 rupees, which very limited for sustain their

• wn living.

The value for the index of dissimilarity shows (Table 3), the decreasing values over 2001 and 2011 in the urban and rural areas. It depicts, the change in distribution pattern among the

• states. Among the main disabled group, which is considered in several reservations for

employment, in seeing and in hearing both main and marginal worker dissimilarity index has been decreased. But for the work participation in the speech and movement for the marginal work across gender has increased more than .02 points. Discussion: Study has two sides to discuss, one is to include the present working population among the disabled which has high dissimilarity and less privilege and at other has potential to join labour force in some other way but highly excluded on the basis of social, economic and structural inequality and unfavorable conditions. India witnesses demographic change and epidemiological shift. The increase in the road- traffic accidents, industrial accidents, degenerative joint deformities imparts effect on incidence of locomotor disabilities. More mobility and engagement with the different

• ccupation increases the chance of these incidence more. The study includes definitional

changes that might decreases the rate of disability in speech and hearing. Apart from seeing disability, there are no increase of work force participation among different disability groups. Since disability in seeing has more employability thus it increases the work participation rate higher (Naraharisetti & Castro, 2016). Decomposing the group, the overall improvement among the disabled across gender is not satisfactory. Although keeping inclusive policy in the educational and employment sectors, it seems to be less effective. Main reasons, apart from the market and economic barrier, can be effect of the households and social attitude towards the inclusion and motivation of the disabled (Mitra & Sambamoorthi, 2006). The persistent gap shows double whammy of being female and disabled. Women specific programs cannot function maximally when societal rejection is high for a gender biased society. While looking into the group of disabled by non-work which includes dependent, household works, students etc., the study finds out that more number of female disabled are mainly restricted towards the doing household works, which confirms the untapped potential can be included in human capital generation. However, over the decades the inclusiveness and escalation of opportunities through Sarva Sikhsha Abhiyan, Rights to education shows positive mark on the education of the female with disabilities. It may give better capital generation if appropriate work environment, standard remuneration and opportunity is provided (Menon,

7 Parish & Rose, 2014), along with the health care mechanism. The urban based training and working avenues must be changed for the equal reach of all the possible corners to increase accessibility of the services (Naraharisetti & Castro, 2016). Inclusiveness in the main work is possible when there are proper certification and measurement of the extent of disability. In the main work by Census definition major types of work in public and private requires disability certification for availing the reservation and other

• benefits. The report of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment depicts, only few states

like Goa, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Chandigarh, Andaman & Nicobor, Haryana, Karnataka has better score for getting disability certification by the end of 2010. It is also interesting to see the fund disbursed by the National Handicapped & Finance Development Corporation (NFHDC) has various funding option for opening up a new venture. But it has a gap across gender and space. It explains the social barrier to promote and motivate the disabled into the financial sector. Lack of awareness and effort of the local administration to effective implementation of all resources. The presence of 40 special employment exchange by the end

• f 2012 shows skewed picture of the population enrollment. From 2009-13, in the special

employment exchange number of placements has decreased (among 9.1 thousand registered

• nly .6 thousand applicants has got place through this exchange on 2009 and in 2013. Sudden

drop in 5.7 thousand registrations and only 0.2 thousand placement shows dismal figure), confirms nonfulfillment of the several posts in the public sectors or finding out an employment which has more barrier free structure. In the general employment exchange a significant decline in registration has occurred over the years. It proves less awareness, demotivation and wage related dissatisfaction that restricts further participation. The employment exchange report vividly gives number of registration and placement of the

• employment. Here, number of registration and employment has information on physically

handicapped, misses out the other types of information of disabled. The role of vocational rehabilitation often shows increasing number of job opportunity and accessibility. Report of employment exchange for the disabled founds out immense demand for the job among the disabled which increased from 5.7 lakh in 2004 to 7.1 lakh is 2013. It was possible to arrange few thousand employment opportunities for the job seeker by that time (Employment Exchange Statistics, 2015). Although many Indian states shows positive increase in the labour force participation rate. Still a dissimilar structure persists for main and marginal worker. The marginal work inclusiveness specially in the rural areas are quite higher. It is easy to include the persons with disabilities to invest in small scale work of short duration. The short term work has less pressure

8 and commitment. There may be a reason of discontinuation of the work also persists. In urban areas, the competition with the quality, time, productivity is highly valued which sideline the participation of them. The policy is also secondary for their inclusiveness and maintaining strict norms in the urban areas. Region-wise, the north-eastern states shows a good over all work participation and more female participation than the rest of the states in India. But, over the time the trend excludes female with disabilities from the market, even though that is from marginal type of labour. Grossly, 11 states in India has shown declined in the work participation rate among the working age disabled groups. However, among these states only 2 states provide unemployment benefit for the disabled which is very meagre amount. Only half of the states altogether gives some amount of disability benefit considering the educational qualification or types of disability. Across gender the dissimilarity in the work participation has declined in rural and urban

• areas. However, it is not sufficient when we see gender ratio and the gap in work participation.

The effect of the inclusive laws and policies are far-fetched and slow. The gender wise dissimilarity in the work participation in the marginal worker for the speech and movement

• ver the decades shows increasing values, which introspects the pattern of development of

disability, stigma and non-adaptability of the disabled in various part of India. The policies, programs, insurance related information has limited awareness and

• disbursement. It is to see in coming future how effect the disability policies like financial

security and lifelong financial institution safe guard like “Asmita” or others can be implemented adequately. Moreover post 2011 agendas of development describe the more inclusive step of the government. The critical point remains around the social development and awareness, which needs vigorous change and support. The most important step is towards this is the new act “Right of Persons with Disabilities Act” (2016), which evokes equal opportunity, strict measure for grievance redressal. It is expected to make the opportunities for the disabled accessible and non-discriminatory. As these population are at lower rate of employment and at disadvantageous position, thus, they are more likely to suffer economic deprivation (WHO, 2011). The sustainability and equality among the beneficiary is highly required for disabled to be a part of the mainstream society. Conclusion: The article has presented a detail over view of the disabled work participation in various part of the country. It is evident from the study, a high inequality exists in the several parts of the country and with wide range of outcome of developmental indicators. It is a dilemma in

9 deciding a coherent picture of the situation with exact causation. The norms of different benefits for the disabled are handle by the state government, thus have different criterions. The social disparity led to economic dissimilarity for all the marginalized group. Hence, it is highly important to uplift the status of the persons with disabled in the social arena. The non- functionality of the state mechanism is the responsibility of both the state and public. A demand from the beneficiary’s side should always be considered for the development of scenario. Thus, makes the policies more effective. The study is limited for the definitional changes over the decades which cannot be addressed

• n the same ground. Lack of data in the year 2001 regarding employment exchange and

different benefits compromise the study for its comparison. The study has future prospect to understand the asset holding and inequality in material conditions, which directly decides the need for employment and level of deprivation. Indian states have an inequality which is varying and thus, research is needed to be more multidimensional and coherent. Disability is always a complex matter. It demands several cause and effect relationship for imparting a comprehensive rehabilitation.

10 Reference: Awasthi, A., Pandey, C. M., Dubey, M., & Rastogi, S. (2017). Trends, prospects and deprivation index of disability in India: Evidences from census 2001 and 2011. Disability and Health Journal, 10(2), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.10.011 Bank, W., & Nations, U. (2007). Review of Literature : The realm of the known , a critique of existing literature, 25–49. Director General of Employment & Training, Government of India (2015). Employment Exchange Statistics, New Delhi. Elwan, A. (2011). Poverty and disability. Disability & Society, 26(7), 888–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2011.618747 Grammenos, S. (2003). Illness , disability and social inclusion. Economic Policy. Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0335.htm Gurpur, S., & Sekhar, V. (2017). Empowerment of the Disabled. Economic & Political Weekly, 52(8), 17–21. Menon, N., Parish, S. L., & Rose, R. a. (2014). The “State” of Persons with Disabilities in

• India. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 15(4), 391–412.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2014.938729 Mitra, S., & Nagarajan, R. (2017). Special articles Making Use of the Window of Demographic Opportunity An Economic Perspective. Economic & Political Weekly, 40(50), 5327–5332. Mitra, S., Posarac, A., & Vick, B. (2013). Disability and Poverty in Developing Countries: A Multidimensional Study. World Development, 41(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.024 Naraharisetti, R., & Castro, M. C. (2016). Factors associated with persons with disability employment in India: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 1063. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3713-6 Dawn, R. (2012). Challenges in the Employment of Persons with Disabilities. Economic and Political Weakly, 47(36), 20–22. Raut, L., Pal, M., & Bharati, P. (2014). The Economic Burden of Disability in India : Estimates from the NSS Data. SSRN Electronic Journal, (January). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2432546 Shenoy, M. (2011). Persons with Disability & The Indian Labour Market: Challanges & Opportunities. Ustün, T. B., Chatterji, S., Kostansjek, N., & Bickenbach, J. (2003). WHO’s ICF and functional status information in health records. Health Care Financing Review, 24(3), 77–88.

• WHO. (2011). World Report on Disability 2011. World Health Organization (Vol. 91).

https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2007.018143 World Bank (2007). People with disabilities in India: From Commitments to Outcome (2007). The Human Development Unit, South Asia Region.

11

Table 1: Share of disabled population and work participation rate across gender in 2001 & 2011

Person Total Male Female Age group 15-59 15-59 15-59 Share of population (%) WPR Share of population (%) WPR Share of population (%) WPR Types of disability Total Total Total 2011 Total 26814994 58.96 50.24 14988593 61.19 63.32 11826401 56.13 32.18 Seeing 5033431 52.01 55.10 2639028 54.58 71.92 2394403 49.18 34.52 Hearing 5072914 56.37 57.34 2678584 57.77 74.51 2394330 54.81 37.09 Speech 1998692 65.75 55.51 1122987 65.64 71.00 875705 65.88 35.72 Movement 5436826 63.35 49.34 3370501 66.48 60.06 2066325 58.25 29.39 Mental- Retardation 1505964 67.64 27.96 870898 68.24 34.81 635066 66.81 18.36 Mental-Illness 722880 76.17 24.69 415758 77.97 30.56 307122 73.72 16.28 Any-Other 4927589 61.09 57.37 2728125 62.37 72.64 2199464 59.50 37.51 Multiple- Disability 2116698 46.95 28.58 1162712 50.36 35.36 953986 42.79 18.86 2001 Total 21906769 56.75 50.97 12605635 58.99 63.75 9301134 53.72 31.96 Seeing 10634881 54.93 60.80 5732338 56.88 78.92 4902543 52.65 37.90 Speech 1640868 58.09 48.83 942095 58.46 61.50 698773 57.59 31.50 Hearing 1261722 45.59 60.57 673797 47.67 75.96 587925 43.21 41.11 Movement 6105477 57.60 43.81 3902752 60.41 53.18 2202725 52.62 24.76 Mental 2263821 68.27 27.87 1354653 69.83 34.96 909168 65.95 16.69

12

Table 2: State wise split up of work participation rate, gender ratios in types of work with unemployment benefit

2001 2011 15-59 years 15-59 years Total Type of worker Total Type of worker Unemployment benefit (in Rupees) Main Marginal Main Marginal 2011-12 2012-13 States Total disabled WP GR GR Total disabled Share in Population WP GR GR Amount (PM) Eligibility Amount (PM) Eligibility INDIA 21906769 34.49 26814994 36.34 INDIA (15-59) 12391360 51.14 15728243 50.50 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 4048 66.39 30.20 182.89 3294 0.01 51.43 21.79 130.00 Daman & Diu 3171 53.04 15.50 222.58 2196 0.01 48.64 16.86 60.61 Lakshadweep 1678 28.30 11.17 18.92 1615 0.01 55.94 18.25 30.33 Andaman & Nicobar Island 7057 48.78 15.62 50.43 6660 0.02 44.73 18.48 47.35 400 Chandigarh 15538 49.80 15.41 25.86 14796 0.06 44.03 17.89 43.15 150-400 Educational degree/ Disability type Mizoram 16011 62.03 49.39 146.40 15160 0.06 64.65 46.57 107.68 250.00 250.00 Sikkim 20367 65.01 40.13 170.05 18187 0.07 61.23 40.10 124.84 Arunachal Pradesh 33315 79.91 24.70 79.13 26734 0.1 61.32 53.90 103.19

• Nagaland

26499 57.67 57.93 112.27 29631 0.11 40.52 62.03 108.95 Pondicherry 25857 46.08 21.36 60.86 30189 0.11 42.14 25.66 54.79 200-500 Educational degree Goa 15749 31.63 28.82 69.05 33012 0.12 48.53 34.83 66.08 Meghalaya 28803 57.85 46.59 138.57 44317 0.17 46.90 53.74 104.93 50.00 500.00 Manipur 28376 49.50 38.42 141.32 58547 0.22 52.97 53.43 124.10 66.00 100-200 Tripura 58940 49.34 16.27 98.16 64346 0.24 46.59 19.59 94.32 1000* 1000 Himachal Pradesh 155950 58.78 32.42 119.47 155316 0.58 48.54 37.21 94.15 Uttarakhand 194769 50.24 29.20 81.59 185272 0.69 47.43 33.29 77.40 Delhi 235886 45.16 11.20 23.32 234882 0.88 41.24 13.72 31.51 1500 Jammu & Kashmir 302670 51.07 14.59 115.92 361153 1.39 54.69 11.08 63.13 Assam 530300 48.42 16.10 95.79 480065 1.79 47.35 22.53 92.73 500* 500* Haryana 455040 51.54 18.06 100.31 546374 2.04 60.31 16.97 62.88 1000-2000 Educational degree 1000-2000 Educational degree Chhattisgarh 419887 52.74 33.78 138.15 624937 2.33 54.66 34.65 100.17 500 Punjab 424523 42.42 17.32 78.44 654063 2.44 44.19 16.42 59.04 250-600 Educational degree Kerala 860794 36.31 22.75 40.02 761843 2.84 29.07 25.86 51.71 1000.00 Jharkhand 448377 50.35 17.28 80.22 769980 2.87 51.87 25.99 68.69 Gujrat 1045465 53.56 18.80 182.21 1092302 4.07 44.92 19.29 119.02 Tamil Nadu 1642497 52.70 62.22 155.15 1179963 4.4 47.50 37.66 70.72 300-450 Educational degree 300-450 Orissa 1021335 47.87 15.30 106.53 1244402 4.64 50.04 19.89 83.70 Karnataka 940643 52.70 27.68 124.54 1324205 4.94 33.22 36.27 91.89 Madhya Pradesh 1408528 57.00 23.82 122.45 1551931 5.79 56.89 29.00 81.91 Rajasthan 1411979 60.64 20.16 132.86 1563694 5.83 55.00 28.20 102.71 600

13

West Bengal 1847174 48.32 14.94 76.94 2017406 7.52 46.45 17.99 60.03 Andhra Pradesh 1364981 52.44 31.26 96.38 2266607 8.45 51.97 42.39 91.20 Discontinue Discontinue Bihar 1887611 53.33 14.36 85.13 2331009 8.69 53.55 21.58 52.31 200.00 BPL 200.00 Maharashtra 1569582 49.91 28.96 88.54 2963392 11.05 57.72 36.79 80.70 Uttar Pradesh 3453369 49.55 10.74 74.71 4157514 15.5 47.60 20.11 57.02 500* * Unemployment benefit given, but not on monthly basis, GR Gender Ratio, WP Work Participation Rate

Table 3: Dissimilarity score for different space and disability in the year 2001 & 2011

Place/ Disability 2001 2011 Main Marginal Main Marginal Total 0.166 0.127 0.146 0.111 Rural 0.180 0.126 0.181 0.129 Urban 0.194 0.149 0.105 0.081 Major disabled in the labour force In seeing 0.231 0.144 0.151 0.069 In hearing 0.213 0.123 0.140 0.110 In speech 0.198 0.100 0.161 0.124 In movement 0.163 0.134 0.142 0.146

14

24.84 27.17 31.31 33.32 18.75 21.86 23.88 26.86 30.36 32.66 17.65 21.65 27.43 27.85 33.99 34.81 21.62 22.29 14.51 15.34 2.33 2.82 25.98 26.16 13.46 13.58 2.51 2.88 24.00 23.17 17.33 19.10 1.82 2.69 31.09 32.24 52.28 45.74 55.68 49.96 49.09 42.08 55.55 47.94 58.39 51.52 52.81 44.72 43.51 41.03 48.06 46.41 39.47 36.72 8.36 11.75 10.68 13.90 6.18 9.90 7.11 11.63 8.74 12.93 5.54 10.46 11.73 12.01 16.13 16.09 7.83 8.75 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 Person Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Total Rural Urban

FIGURE 1: ACTIVITY BY NON-WORK 2001 & 2011

Student Household duties Dependent Others merge