On the eve of the journey towards
sun: Myth or reality
In the context of developing countries like
India, where market integration is relatively less and substantial amount of
goods and services are not marketed, women’s contribution to productive
activity remains unrecognized, invisible and unpaid in terms of market criteria
or even the socially dominant concept of what constitutes “work”- its value and
perception.
Written by Arindam
Ghosh.
INTRODUCTION
Women contribute to development not only through remunerated work
but also through a great deal of unremunerated work. Women’s contribution to
development is seriously underestimated, and thus its social recognition is
limited. The full visibility of the type, extent and distribution of this
unremunerated work will also contribute to a better sharing of responsibilities.-
-The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, United
Nations, 1996.
The Beijing Platform for
Action from the 1995 Fourth World Conference of Women has been a major driving
force in recognizing social and economic disparities arising from gender roles.
More importantly, this action agenda called on governments, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), civil society groups and all those who could and should
participate in translating national commitments into tangible programmes for
achieving gender equality. The social and cultural constructs of gender are
manifested in the differential nature of participation of women and men in the
labour market (United Nations 2000; Floro 1999).
 |
| Photo: Arindam Ghosh |
Women’s work remains
unrecognized and formally disorganised regardless of the fact that women’s
contributions to the family are vital; in many cases women are the bread
winners and work longer hours than men (UNDP 1995). This underestimation
reflects women’s lower status in the family and locality; they have very little
or no say in household decision-making. Disparities in responsibilities and
income share received ample attention in the Human Development Report 1995:
‘‘Men received the lion’s share of income and recognition for their economic
contribution while most women’s work remains unpaid, unrecognized and
undervalued’’ (UNDP 1995: 93). A significant
contribution of a large section of society that is women, towards household
economy remains unvalued or at best undervalued owing to the limited scope of
the definition of 'economic activity' as used in the national income
accounting. For the purpose of calculating household income, market value of
goods and services which are sold in the market only are taken into
consideration. Much of the household and community work which is not marketed
and thus has no market value attached to it remains unvalued. Hence, a
significant portion of the invisible work being done by women in the society
remains unknown and women who are engaged in this work are deprived of
recognition or monitory benefit.
In the context
of developing countries like India, where market integration is relatively less
and substantial amount of goods and services are not marketed, women’s
contribution to productive activity remains unrecognized, invisible and unpaid
in terms of market criteria or even the socially dominant concept of what
constitutes “work”- its value and perception (Choudhary and Parthasarathy 2007).
Further, due to inadequate employment opportunities a large part of
economically active population, especially women is engaged in home-based
unpaid works in developing countries (Agarwal 1997). Undervaluation of the
unpaid works is reflected into low pay for similar work done on a paid basis
such as care, domestic services, cleaning etc. Though the Indian constitution grants women equal
rights with men, but a strong patriarchal system persists which shapes the
lives of women with traditions that are millennia old. In most Indian families,
daughters are viewed as liabilities and girls are conditioned to believe that
they are inferior and subordinate to men. In addition to the patriarchal
culture, common in different degrees throughout the world, is the equally
common problem that while women typically carry out most of the work involved
in caring for the home and its residents, such work is given little or no
social or economic importance, and as a result, women are perceived with little
importance. While the work done by men is widely acknowledged and most men are
considered as economically productive, women who are engaged in full-time
household work are classified by the Government of India as economically
unproductive (Census 2001). Yet the same tasks performed by these housewives,
if done at another house, become a paid job and therefore valued. This is the
result of a faulty concept of participation in the labor force that does not
include household or domestic work as economic activity, mainly because of the
focus on use value rather than exchange value (Donahoe 1999). This indicates a
reason for the neglect of women’s economic contributions to the household in
particular and to society in general (Ironmonger 1999). As a result, over 367
million women in India – or 32% of the entire population and 65% of all females
– have been classified by the Census of India (2001) as non-workers, placed in
the same category as beggars, prostitutes, and prisoners. Of the total of those
listed as non-workers in India, 74.3% are women. Such a categorization of the
majority of women cannot fail to have consequences in policies and programs
aimed at women. In India, there are two categories of unpaid workers. Those
self-employed women who are mere helpers in the family enterprises and do not
earn any regular wages and those women who are out of the purview of the
definition of workers but are engaged in domestic work, some of which are
economically gainful to the households are considered as unpaid workers. The
unpaid workers, particularly the latter have been substantially underestimated
in the labor force surveys and national income accounting statistics. Though
there had been efforts to “count” the work, its “valuation” to demonstrate its contribution
to the economy has been largely ignored. Unpaid work has not been sufficiently
accounted primarily because of absence of time-use data, lack of standard
concepts and methods for the collection of time-use data, reluctance to use
existing data, non-recognition of the integration of the paid and unpaid work.
The paper analyses the
extent, nature and trends of female unpaid work in the rural context of
Jharkhand, the underlying factors behind taking up these activities and its
implications in the context of structural adjustment of household
responsibilities as the household economy put significant emphasis on
home-based work, assuming that women’s labour is flexible. The paper will also
attempt to analyse the social security measures required to enhance the
well-being and ensure decent work for the female unpaid workers.
Several studies have been
conducted in the context of assessing women’s contribution to the society in
general and household economy in particular through invisible and unpaid work. Buvinic
(1999) identified gender bias in intra-household allocation of resources,
participation in decision-making, and time spent within and outside the house.
The most striking characteristic of household labor is that, whether employed
or not, women continue to do most of the housework around the globe (Shelton
and John 1996). Women in Nepal rise before dawn to fetch water and firewood.
They are usually the first in the family to get out of bed and the last to
rest. Women in poor households work more hours than men, and the poorer the
household the longer women work (Buvinic 1999). All women spend more time on
housework, have more responsibility for child rearing, have less access to many
social and material resources, and have less access to public spaces and public
power (Krishnaraj 2006). Omvedt (1992) found 239 women workers in one area
where the census counted 38 and 444 women workers. Sudarshan (1997) shows that
while the 1991 census gave the Female Work Force Participation Rate for Punjab
as 4.4 percent, NCAER, during a probe, got 28.8 percent. Mukhopadhyay (1998)
survey of 5,981 women workers in six cities found that the Labour Force
Participation Rate of women was four times greater than that stated in the
Census. According to Leavitt (1971) the most important clue to a woman’s status
anywhere in the world is her degree of participation in economic life and her
control over property and the product she produces. To enhance efficiency and
aid survival, every known society divides and specializes labour tasks to some
extent and these division of labour has knowingly or unknowingly been done
along sex lines where men carry out tasks that take them outside the home and
women are largely restricted to homecare, childbearing and childrearing. Women
are generally perceived to be patient, dependent and passive and their work
considered to be unexciting and repetitive. In fact, women are naturally
mothers, and their greatest pleasure and true fulfilment lies in maternity, the
one out of a few things that women are good at (Deckard 1983). These kinds of
ideologies about women have tended to marginalize women and have belittled
women’s work in the home and outside the home and therefore women’s
contribution to economic wellbeing of the home and society.
The term ‘care economy’
refers to the distribution of care services, and includes both the providers
and the recipients. The latter may be either dependent —the elderly, the sick
and children- or active in the labour market. On the provision side, there are
four agents: the State, the market, civil society and the family. In the case
of this last, however, the prevailing gender system means that it is not
entirely accurate to say that families are responsible for the care of children
or older adults. Rather, this responsibility falls directly on women as unpaid
workers (Costa-Font and Rico 2006). Throughout history, four types of
institutions have been involved in the provision of care: civil society
institutions (churches, volunteers and foundations), the State, the market and
families, with families invariably playing the greatest role. In all four
cases, most care giving —whether inside or outside the home, paid or unpaid— is
done by women. As societies become more complex, institutionalized care
mechanisms improve, while in less modern societies it is care in the home that
will predominate (Giménez 2003).
After exploring the literature on women’s unpaid work, the gender
division of labor, and the care economy pertaining to developing countries and
India, we carried out the present empirical study in the selected villages of
Jharkhand to quantify women’s unpaid household work and women’s significant and
unrecognized contributions to the household (Krishna 2002; Sati 2008).
In a study it has been observed that more than in any other area,
it is in the recording of the work done by women that serious inaccuracy and
measurement failures occur. As a result, their participation in the economy is
undermined. Non-market household production falling under the general
production boundary generally consists of the activities like household
maintenance, management and shopping, care of children and of the old, disabled
and sick persons, community services etc.
These activities are of two types,
namely, activities which are normally performed by household members only (such
as, cooking, shopping for the family, pet care etc.), and activities which are
frequently provided by market producers also (such as, repairs, interior decoration,
child care etc.) Valuation of both these types of unpaid work poses several
problems: To start with, there is no market value of this work in the form of
wages. It is difficult therefore to determine the wage rates at which this work
can be converted in monetary value. Also, market wage rates cannot be strictly
applied to this work as this work is performed outside the market in a
non-competitive environment without any profit motive. The efficiency of the
production of this work is likely to be less than the efficiency of the market production.
On the other hand, however, this unpaid domestic work is backed by emotions,
love and care as well as a sense of responsibility, and in that sense its real value
is much more than its market value. In short, valuation of unpaid work involves
borrowing price of one system for valuing work of an altogether different
system. Census after Census, women's contribution has been rendered invisible
by failing to quantify their work inputs, especially in agriculture and the
unorganized sector. Women are known to work longer hours than men and to
participate in the work force to a far greater extent than is measured by the
data gathered in the census. But a lot of the work they do is unrecognised,
leave alone rewarded with equal remuneration. Thus, these mechanisms of data
collection cause a loss of significant information.
 |
| Photo: Arindam Ghosh |
Time use in different seasons:
The study found that a typical woman’s day starts at about 5 a.m.
and ends after 10 p.m. Women often spend six to eight hours per day on paid
activities: 50% of women in this study were involved in paid activities after
which they carried out their household activities. This double burden left
these women with only a negligible amount of time for them. Half the female
respondents got up between 4:30 and 5:30 a.m., and 85% of female respondents
were up by 6:30 a.m., as compared to 70% of men who were up by this time. Among
those not engaged in paid work, many were full-time housewives and most worked
in their own fields (not for pay). Majority of the male respondents worked for
pay for 6 to 8 hours a day and some for more than 8 hours. Among the female
respondents, around 41% worked for pay for 6 to 8 hours a day, while only few
worked more than 8 hours a day for pay.
The study depicted that most
of the women of productive age group were spend their 5-8 hours a day during
non-agriculture season as a paid worker. Most of them spend the same working
hours as unpaid worker also. As a reason it was found that they usually go for
wage labour in nearby city. During agriculture season, most of the women were
spend their 13-16 hours a day in agriculture field.
Housework:
Women are far more involved in domestic activities than men. They
said, men do contribute to domestic work despite prevalent attitudes that such
work is the responsibility of women. Such participation, however, was far less
common than for women. For instance, 26% of men participate in housecleaning on
a daily basis as compared to 90% of women. Only 6% of men ever wash the dishes,
28% cook and 24% carry water. While it is encouraging to see that men do play
some role in domestic tasks, it is clear that such tasks continue to be
considered as mainly the domain of women, with men “helping” their wives,
rather than husbands and wives sharing the responsibility — even in cases where
women, like men, work a considerable number of hours per day for pay.
Table 1: Percentage distribution of Housework between
adult Male and Female
Task
|
Male (%)
|
Female (%)
|
|
Cleaning the house
|
Yes/Daily
|
26
|
90
|
No/Occasionally
|
74
|
10
|
|
Cleaning around the
home
|
Yes/Daily
|
20
|
81
|
No/Occasionally
|
80
|
19
|
|
Tending mud floors
|
Yes/Daily
|
0
|
41
|
No/Occasionally
|
100
|
59
|
|
Making beds, hanging
and
taking down mosquito
nets
|
Yes/Daily
|
14
|
55
|
No/Occasionally
|
86
|
45
|
|
Washing dishes
|
Yes/Daily
|
6
|
87
|
No/Occasionally
|
94
|
13
|
|
Sorting, washing and
drying
|
Yes/Daily
|
20
|
85
|
No/Occasionally
|
80
|
15
|
|
Preparing food items
for
Cooking
|
Yes/Daily
|
16
|
87
|
No/Occasionally
|
84
|
13
|
|
Collecting firewood
or other
materials for fuel
|
Yes/Daily
|
14
|
29
|
No/Occasionally
|
86
|
71
|
|
Carrying water
|
Yes/Daily
|
24
|
55
|
No/Occasionally
|
76
|
45
|
|
Supervising
household work
|
Yes/Daily
|
34
|
35
|
No/Occasionally
|
66
|
65
|
|
Cooking and serving
food
|
Yes/Daily
|
28
|
86
|
No/Occasionally
|
72
|
14
|
Caring of Family Members:
Table 2 shows the self-reported frequency of participation by men
and women in caring for family members. As shown, 60% of the female respondents
reporting taking care of their young children (bathing, feeding, tending),
whereas 40% of the women had children who were independent and could care for
themselves. Only 24% of the male respondents reported engaging in child care
activities. While the figures are very low, both men and women reported equal
involvement in caring for sick family members and in looking after guests.
Virtually none of the respondents performed voluntary work for the welfare of
their community, i.e. by engaging in organizing religious programmes on festive
days or conducting recreational activities for the people residing in the
community. While 6% of men participated in voluntary work, only 1% of women
reported doing so. The even lower figure for female participation could be due
to restrictions on female mobility as well as women’s heavy workload.
Table 2: Gender-wise
involvement in caring for family members
Task
|
Response
|
Male (%)
|
Female (%)
|
Caring for children
|
Yes
|
24
|
60
|
No
|
76
|
40
|
|
Caring for the sick
|
Yes
|
4
|
7
|
No
|
96
|
93
|
|
Feeding, looking
after guests
|
Yes
|
4
|
5
|
No
|
96
|
95
|
|
Managing the
household (organizing
activities,
expenses, etc.
|
Yes
|
40
|
27
|
No
|
60
|
73
|
|
Taking the sick to
the doctor
|
Yes
|
12
|
7
|
No
|
88
|
93
|
Age-Gender based daily routine in different seasons:
In most of the respondents’
families, it was women who got up first, especially wives or daughters-in-law.
In only very few of the families was it the male respondent who got up first.
Both male and female respondents said that it was mainly the duty of women to
get up first in order to ensure that her family members received breakfast on
time, to clean the home and its surroundings, prepare lunch, and so on. The
woman’s employment status did not affect these results; the woman was in charge
of all these early morning domestic tasks even if she also worked outside the
home.
Table 3: Average time use
per week by women in different seasons
Type of work
|
Hours/ week
|
Hours/ day
|
||
NA
|
A
|
NA
|
A
|
|
Cleaning of house
|
12
|
12
|
1.71
|
1.71
|
washing cloth
|
4
|
4
|
0.57
|
0.57
|
Cooking
|
18
|
20
|
2.57
|
2.85
|
Fetching water
|
7
|
7
|
1
|
1
|
personal & child care
|
5
|
5
|
0.71
|
0.71
|
Labour
|
40
|
42
|
5.71
|
6
|
Forest product
|
10
|
7
|
1.42
|
1
|
Cattle
|
7
|
8
|
1
|
1.14
|
Market
|
7
|
7
|
1
|
1
|
Watching TV
|
5
|
5
|
0.71
|
0.71
|
Sleep
|
53
|
51
|
7.57
|
7.28
|
NA – Non-Agriculture; A- Agriculture.
It is interesting to note
that the data perspectives from the above tables showed that women spent their
“leisure” time in folding clothes, helping children and aged, sewing, and in
other activities that would seem to pass for work. Even watching TV may not be
a fully leisure-time activity, as many women take their work in front of the TV
set. It has already been noted that virtually all housework is performed by
women. Many women said that they do not get the time to go out for family
outings or vacations. Another reason for not going for outings is that many of
the respondents are unable to afford the extra expenditure. It should be
included that they usually spent 42 hours (per week) in agricultural field.
They used to go local market to sell their vegetable. Similarly in
non-agriculture season they usually work 5 days in a week as wage labour
because they use to go market twice in a week to sell the forest product like Mohua, Leaf, timber etc. as well as to
parch the vegetables and other products for their household. During the
cropping season, women used to bring the cattle in the field. Female members of
the families were often involved in the collection of leaves, twigs and other
forest produces. During this period of time, they used to bring the cattle for
grazing. In spite of these, women worked as the seasonal labour. It generally
happens during non-agricultural season. The women were going for work as wage
labour to nearby city. During this season, children used to look after cattle
as well as other activities. Overall, the fact that the most common response to
the use of free time is to rest or to sleep suggests difficult and exhausting
schedules, rather than the sort of leisure.
In case of younger girls of 10-15 yrs., it was found that they
usually awake at 5:00 am. Thereafter, they used to help their mother in
domestic work.
Around 9:00 am they started for their school. Usually they
return back from the school during 4:00 pm. After that, they involved in
domestic works. Usually they spent very few time in self-study. They spent
their leisure time by watching TV. But,
in agriculture season some of them use to work in agricultural field. By far
the most common use of free time, are to rest or sleep.
 |
| Photo: Arindam Ghosh |
The rural women, meanwhile, expressed with great disappointment
that they seldom had an opportunity to go out and enjoy themselves. Two main
problems they faced were the lack of recreational facilities and the numerous
societal restrictions placed on the mobility of rural women. As a result,
vacations for rural women mainly consisted of visiting their maternal village
or their relatives in another village once or twice a year.
In Indian society, as elsewhere, culture, attitudes, and day-to-day
activities are inseparably intertwined. Some interesting issues that emerged
during the study, which may be worth exploring in future behavioural or
psychological studies, include the following:
Many of the female
respondents, irrespective of their locality, said that they were paid for their
contribution. They considered the satisfactions of rearing a child and looking
after the well-being of the family as the greatest rewards. The existence and
value of non-monetary rewards is of vital importance, as the monetization of
society is in fact a cheapening of many of people’s deepest values. The lives
of Indian women revolve about their families. From the earliest age, girls are
culturally conditioned to believe that they have no right to free time, leisure,
or entertainment independent of their families. Women in Indian society feel
that ultimately the unpaid work that they perform is for the betterment of
their own family. The love and respect that they receive from their husband and
children are they are ward considered more important than money. Women in
Indian society live for the wellbeing of their family.
Many of the female
respondents’ attitudes towards their husband’s involvement in domestic work
were formed from societal role expectations. Thus while many women complained
that their husbands were not supportive, they simultaneously did not want their
husbands to do such work as washing clothes, sweeping or mopping. Such tasks
are considered by an average Indian to be undignified for men, and if a woman
were to allow her husband to engage in them, society would judge her as not
being a good wife. It would be interesting to explore which aspects of
household work would be acceptable for men to undertake, and how to encourage
such involvement by men. There may also be a related issue of the
self-perception of full-time housewives, whose feelings of self-esteem may
dependent part on feeling that their husbands are helpless in the home and that
all domestic tasks are dependent on them alone
Regardless of the details, one issue is clear: women throughout
India work hard, and that work has tremendous value to society and the nation.
The magnitude of the work and of that contribution suggests that women should
be accorded far more value and importance in society than currently, and that a
number of policies and programmes should be considered to acknowledge and award
this essential contribution.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite the magnitude of work, the financial value of the domestic
work done by women without pay continues to go unnoticed, and women continue to
be treated as if they contribute nothing of value to society or the nation. But,
in the ceaseless flow of time social, economic, and legislative improvements
and scientific advances have allowed women to gain greater control over their
lives. Women are much more valued and respected in the family than before.
Women seem to have a more active role in family decision making, and even to
enjoy the freedom of leisure time and vacation that were previously only
experienced by men. But sadly, this promising picture is far from universal
across different strata of Indian society. This changing trend among Indian
families is mostly limited to the upper and upper middle classes, which form
only a miniscule portion of the Indian population. The present study shows,
most rural women are reluctant to change their attitudes about themselves; as
such attitudes are deeply rooted in culturally-determined gender roles. Change
in women’s roles would necessitate change in women’s psychology and in women's
ability to assert them in a male-dominated society. But such change is
difficult given the nearly universally-accepted gender constructs and the
persistence of traditional gender roles. Perceived threats to male dominance
make many in Indian society, as elsewhere, highly resistant to change. However,
poverty cannot be reduced or eliminated without the involvement of women.
Overall, women remain the largest group that experiences poverty, despite the
fact that women constitute 50% of the work force. But growth in women’s jobs
has mainly been in low-paid, part-time, temporary work that does little to
improve women’s desperate poverty, much less offer them a way out (“Women,
Family and Poverty” 1998). Women’s vulnerability to poverty and their low
positions in the labour market are a result of a combination of economic,
social and cultural factors, including their continued role as homemakers and
primary caregivers. A division of labour by gender within both paid and unpaid
work exists in almost all societies, although the nature of the specialized
work done by women and men differs substantially by place, time, and in some
cases over the life cycle. Whatever the cultural, economic, caste-based,
religious, social, and other differences, a few factors are universal: women
are seen as being responsible for the home and family, and the image of women
earning as much as or more than men would threaten many men. The economic
dependence of women on men harms many, but is absolutely devastating for women
such as widows or wives of abusive partners, for whom there is no steady and
safe support available from male relatives. Meanwhile, the belief that women
perform a mainly negligible function in society, living off the hard work of
males while contributing little of value, clearly contributes to the
undervaluing of women and their subsequent poor treatment. It is difficult to
raise the status of women without raising their perceived value. Since
virtually all women spend a significant amount of their time engaged in some of
the most critical tasks in society — those of cleaning, preparing food, and
caring for others —the importance of those tasks must be emphasized as well as
the valuable contribution of those who carry out such work without hope or
expectation of economic return. Unpaid work performed by women in and around
their homes should be valued to improve the conditions of these unpaid workers
and to support policy creation and implementation. If the amount and value of
unpaid work were known, the impact of governmental policy changes such as
cutbacks in health care and welfare could be better measured. As such, the
valuation of unpaid labour should be done keeping in mind the aim to increase
access to social benefits for all, while also increasing and ensuring women’s
full participation in the policy –making process. A benefit system should be
created which recognizes women’s diverse roles in society, accepts that
housewives are workers, and offers adequate support for families and children.
At the same time, the government and employers should adopt family-friendly
initiatives based on international models such as European pro-family social
policies. Proper importance must be accorded to issues of welfare and social
provision in order to work towards a system that is inclusive of all in
society. Such a system should recognize the value of women’s unpaid labour in
ensuring that people’s most basic needs are met. The importance of caring in
addition to earning must be recognized, as well as of activities that have no price
tag attached. In particular, the value of the people who ensure that the house
is a home must be widely acknowledged. Through such actions it is hoped that
the status of women will finally improve, not just for the wealthy but for all
women. Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations have
been made:
·
Education is an essential
tool for change. Educated women are better able to care for their families and
family finances, experience more opportunities indecision-making, and make better
home managers.
·
The Government of India
should continue to increase efforts to educate the girl child.
·
The educational curriculum
should be restructured in order to emphasize gender equality rather than
reinforcing gender stereotypes.
·
Adequate recognition should
be made of the unpaid contributions of women to increase their self-esteem and
to improve their image in the family and society at large. Access to and
control over production and market resources (access to training, credit,
employment, technical skills, entrepreneurship, etc.) by women should be
increased while recognizing that the goal is not to burden women with two
full-time jobs.
·
Full participation of women
in the policy-making process should be enabled and ensured.
·
The minimum wage should be
set at a level sufficient to allow workers to escape from the poverty trap.
·
Affordable and adequate
childcare and family-friendly employment policies should be ensured which allow
parents to reconcile caring and work.
·
A benefits system which
recognizes women's diverse roles in society and offers adequate support for
families and children should be established.
·
The gender-related problems
of unemployment (allocation of financial resources, entrepreneurship, legality
of various types of informal work, etc.) should be addressed in order to
liberate women from their financial dependence on men, particularly for widows,
women in abusive relationships, and other particularly vulnerable women.
·
Strategies should be
developed that address women’s access to resources in the agriculture,
fisheries, and environment sectors.
------------------------
REFERENCES CITED
Agarwal B. 1997.
Environmental action, gender equity and women’s participation.
Development and Change, 28:1–41.
Budlender D. 2007. A Critical Review of Selected Time Use
Surveys. Gender and
Development
Programme Paper Number 2. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations
Research
Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).
Buvinic M. 1999. Promoting
gender equality. International Social
Science Journal, 51:567-
574.
Choudhary N and
Parthasarathy D. 2007. Gender, work and household food security.
Economic and Political Weekly, 42(6):523–531.
Costa-Font, J and Rico, A. 2006. Vertical Competition in the Spanish
National Health System (NHS). Public Choice, 128 (3-4): 477-498.
Craig L, Mullan K.
2010. Shared family leisure and eating
time in comparative perspective.
Unpublished
paper presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the Population
Association
of America, Dallas, TX, 15–17 April. http://paa2010.
princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId5100138;
accessed in March 2011.
Deckard, Barbara S. 1983. The Women’s Movement: Political,
Socio-economic and
Psychological Issues. Harper & Row Publishers: NY.
Donahoe DA. 1999. Measuring
women’s work in developing countries. Population
and
Development Review, 25(3):543–576.
Floro, M.S., 1999. Dynamic interaction between
sectoral policy and gender issues: Empirical evidence in the Asia-Pacific
region. In: M.F. Guerrero (Ed.), Integrating
Paid and
Unpaid Work into National Policies: Selected Papers, p. 145-161.
Hirway I. 2003. Integrating Unpaid Work into National
Policies. Economic and Social
Commission
for Asia and the Pacific, United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP):
New York.
Ironmonger D. 1999. An Overview of Time Use Surveys. Ministry
of Statistics and
Programme
Implementation: New Delhi, India.
Krishna S. 2002. Economic
profile of Uttarakhand. Economic and
Political Weekly,
37(19):1843–1849.
Krishnaraj M. 2006. Is
‘gender’ easy to study? Some reflections. Economic
and Political
Weekly,
41(42):4440–4443.
Kulshreshtha AC and Singh
G. 1999. Valuation of Non-Market
Household Production.
Central
Statistical Organization: New Delhi, India.
Leavitt, R. B. 1972. Women
in other cultures. In: Vivian Gornick and Barbara K. Moran
(Eds.),
Woman and Sexist Society. New American Library: New York.
Mendez Giménez, A. 2003. New proposals for recreational physical education curriculum development.
Games with alternative material, games and multicultural games.
Pre-deportivos
Paidotribo: Barcelona.
Mukhopadhyay, S. & Savithri, R. 1998. Poverty, gender and reproductive choice: an analysis
of linkages. Manohar Publications: New Delhi.
Omvedt, G. 1992. Green earth women’s power
human liberation: women in peasant movements in India. Development Dialogue,
1 & 2: 116-30.
Pandey, R.N. 1999. Estimating Workforce Using Time Use Survey
Data—Indian Experience.
Central
Statistical Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation:
New Delhi, India:
Report of the Women’s Procurator of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. 2007. Presented at the sub regional
preparatory meeting for Central America and Mexico for the tenth session of the
Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean,
Guatemala
City, 17 and 18 May.
Sati VP. 2008. Traditional intramontane
mobility in Garhwal Himalaya: A survey of subsistence practices in the Pindar
basin, Uttaranchal. Singapore Journal of
Tropical
Geography,
29(2):173–185.
Shelton BA, John D. 1996.
The division of household labor. Annual
Review of Sociology,
22:299–322.
Sikoska T. 2003. Measurement
and valuation of unpaid household production: A methodological contribution.
In: Guitterrez M (Ed.), Macroeconomics.
Making
Gender Matter: Concepts, Policies and
Institutional Change in Developing Countries.
Zed
Books: London, United Kingdom.
Sudarshan, R. 1997. Contribution
of the Informal Sector to the Economy. NCAER-SEWA
Project.
Margin, 30: 1-4.
UNDP [United Nations
Development Programme]. 1995. Human
Development Report 1995.
Gender and Human Development. Oxford University Press: New York.
United Nations, 1996. The
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. Fourth World
Conference on Women, Beijing, 4-15 September 1995: New York.
United Nations, 2000. The
World’s Women 2000: Trends and Statistics. Social
Statistics and
Indicators Series K, No. 16: New York.
Women, Family and Poverty,
SPIU Briefing Sheet 3, March 1998. Women
and the economy.
unpac.ca/economy/valuingunpaidwork.html
World Bank Human Development
Report 1995.
World Bank. 2001. Engendering development through gender.
World March of Women, Women & The Economy.
2003. UN Platform for Action Committee (UNPAC).
Manitoba.
------------------------------
Arindam Ghosh.Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University.Faculty centre for
IRTDM. Morabadi, Ranchi-08, Jharkhand.
Email- arindamrohit.05@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment