Skip to main content

World Bank: India's GDP drains 2.6% due to fewer females in jobs

Substantial variation in labour force participation rate among states
World Bank report, “India Development Update: Unlocking Women’s Potential” (May 2017), notes that an approximate 10 percentage points decline in female labour force participation rate (LFPR) between 2004-05 and 2011-12 has imposed “constraints on a country’s growth”, and is proving to be a “drag on GDP growth” to the tune of 2.6%.
Pointing out that the “obstacle” means that India’s GDP per annum could “accelerate from 7.4% currently to over 9% the report, prepared by Frederico Gil Sander as the main author, says, “Considering that 42% of India’s science and technology graduates are women”, there is “a significant ‘brain drain’ for modern services sectors”.
The ‘brain drain’ is happening even though Indian women “have highly sought-after skills”, the report claims, quoting a 2014 World Bank Enterprise Survey to note that only 9.4% of firms identified Indian women as having “inadequately educated” as a major constraint, “compared to 15.7% in Bangladesh and 21.7% globally.”
Quoting Breakthrough Index for Women in the Workplace by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the report says, high female workforce participation in states like Sikkim, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu is because in these states there are “fewer restrictions on women’s working hours and high conviction rates for workforce crimes against women.”
In sharp contrast, in some states, social security offered to women is quite low, leading to low LFPR. Thus, an enterprise survey undertaken by the World Bank in Madhya Pradesh revealed that “very few enterprises (40 of the 618 interviewed) offered maternity leave”, the report says.
“Among those that did, only two in every five paid salaries during leave”, the report says, adding, “The provision for childcare was even lower – only 7 firms offered such facilities. Of the firms that provided either maternity leave or childcare facilities (46), the average share of female employees was 20.5%, slightly more than the share of those that did not (14.7%, 2016).
Suggesting how labour laws do not favour higher LFPR in India, the report says, “First, they do not afford the same levels of maternity benefits as other countries. Second, in many cases they prevent women from taking up certain types of jobs in the formal economy. And third, labour laws reduce the flexibility of regular wage jobs: while in the Republic of Korea parents are entitled by law to flexible or part-time work schedules, the same is not available in India.”
Quoting from a survey, the report says, while “around 90% of employers said that men and women deserve equal wages and benefits for the same job”, when asked “whether men have a greater right to a job than women, especially if jobs are scarce, employers were more divided: 53% agreed with the statement, while another 34 percent refrained from offering an opinion.”
“Similarly, when asked whether men made better employees than women, 42% of the employers interviewed responded in the affirmative, while 30 percent did not have a view (the rest disagreed)”, the report says, adding, “There was no significant variation on this subject by firm size, sector or city.”
“In general, employers perceived men to be more suited for jobs in the production/ technical/ operational domain (82% said so); and slightly lesser so for jobs involving procurement/ purchase (71 percent); business development, marketing, sales and HR (62%) and IT support (57%)”, says the report.
“The attitudes and opinions that employers hold about women appear to influence women’s employment outcomes”, the report says, adding, “Across all firms interviewed for the enterprise survey, women comprised a small proportion of total workers (under 16%) with service sector enterprises employing a slightly higher share of women than manufacturing (18% compared with 15%).”

Comments

TRENDING

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual.  I don't know who owns this site, for there is nothing on it in the About Us link. It merely says, the Nashik Corporation  site   "is an educational and news website of the municipal corporation. Today, education and payment of tax are completely online." It goes on to add, "So we provide some of the latest information about Property Tax, Water Tax, Marriage Certificate, Caste Certificate, etc. So all taxpayer can get all information of their municipal in a single place.some facts about legal and financial issues that different city corporations face, but I was least interested in them."  Surely, this didn't interest...

Beyond the 'plum' posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success

Following my recent blog on former IAS bureaucrat Atanu Chakraborty’s sudden exit as non-executive chairman of HDFC Bank, a few colleagues from the Gujarat cadre — mostly those I interacted with during my Gandhinagar stint (1997–2012) as the Times of India representative — reacted rather sharply. Most of them sent their responses directly on WhatsApp, touching upon on the merits and demerits of Chakraborty’s controversial move. One former IAS officer, a Dalit, however, went further, raising a broader question: why do some officials like Chakraborty secure plum post-retirement assignments, while others are overlooked?

Blaming RTE, not underfunding: Education groups hit back at NITI Aayog working paper

A preliminary working paper by Arvind Virmani, economist and member of the Government of India think tank NITI Aayog, has concluded that the Right to Education (RTE) Act — enacted to guarantee free and compulsory schooling for children between six and fourteen — has actually worsened learning outcomes rather than improved them. The paper, published in March 2026 and reported by The Print on 16 April, has drawn sharp pushback from education rights advocates, who argue it builds a politically motivated narrative against constitutionally guaranteed entitlements.