CPR Insights: Do Capital Intensive Industries have Less Women Workers?

Source Table 4a in Annual Survey of Industries 2021-22: https://mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/ASI%20Volume%20I%202021-22%20%20Final.pdf

There has been a long-running discussion about the low and falling female labour force participation, especially in the non-farm sector. Simultaneously, it has been claimed that industrial growth in India has not been labour intensive. So, the question arises – does the nature of industrial growth, whether it is capital or labour intensive, affect the gender composition of the workforce, e.g., do capital intensive industries have fewer women workers?

To answer the question, we turn to the Annual Survey of Industries, which collects information from a relatively formal group of industries, i.e., units with ten or more workers (with power), or twenty or more workers without power, registered under Sections 2(m)(i) and 2(m)(ii) of the Factories Act, 1948 or the Bidi & Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. Some large units registered under other acts are also included but, the survey excludes small unregistered units.

Within this group of units, the figure above shows that industries that have a high share of women in directly employed (i.e., non-contractual) women workers, e.g., garments (28%) textiles (16%), food (13%), tobacco (6%), leather (6%), and electronics (2%) do indeed have lower capital intensity (the available data does not allow us to investigate this for contractual workers[1]). Industries where the share of women is above average (dotted line) all have a capital intensity of less than ₹ 0.2 lakh per worker. The figures in parenthesis show the share of women employed in that industry to total female employment and these six industries together employ over 70% of the female workforce (which is why the average is where it is, though many industries have lower shares).

So, the answer is yes, capital intensive industries do indeed employ fewer women and that an increase in labour intensive manufacturing may have the additional benefit of boosting female labour force participation.


  1. It is possible that that the regular workers are more likely to be male and if so, the use of regular workers understates the female-intensity of the workforce, but unless this varies systematically across industries, the conclusion would continue to hold.

In Memoriam

Bibek Debroy (1955-2024)

Around mid-2002, I managed to airdrop myself onto the lap of Prof Bibek Debroy (1955 – 2024) as his ‘colleague’ at the Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies (RGICS) where he was the Director. For a little while I was apprehensive and wondered how long he (‘Bibek’ to his friends) would tolerate me for I was not his choice. Within a couple of weeks he put me at ease and I spent the next four years working closely with him. He very quickly integrated me into the Institute’s work and much later he was also instrumental in bringing me to CPR, once again to be his colleague!

The reports of his death tried to measure the void he left behind and the obituaries by well-meaning scholars are gratifying. More can be added from his public persona but what about the man, Bibek Debroy? Though he walked in the corridors of power and privilege and rubbed shoulders with the rich and famous, he never lost the common touch. And he could be affectionate and caring to people he worked with; he would find nice things to say about his employees who were below the hierarchy.

For two decades, Bibek was my friend and mentor, and also a teacher who never lectured his ideology down my throat. But, truth be told, as the years passed by, thanks to him, I understood the value of limited government, not so much as an article of faith, but as the least detrimental system. The canard that he supported anti-people policies wouldn’t hold much water because the man was decent enough and intelligent enough and ‘pro-people’ enough to advocate liberal policies, firmly believing that they would help people.

He was always reserved, even in his unguarded moments; he wouldn’t reveal much about himself, nor would he ask others about theirs. For people closer to him, he was caring, offering a way out in delicate situations. A minor health issue? Why not take some German-made homeo drops, usually that of Adel brand’s?

Once he visited the then President Abdul Kalam in his jeans and sneakers! Was he being careless or arrogant or unmindful of Delhi’s etiquette? He was simply being himself – humble, self-assured and defiant against being dictated at. He could care less if his defiance was not to the liking of the top brass of Congress Party as well as the BJP. He was never a member of either party but his work drew him closer to their top leadership.

Typical of him is that he joined RGICS, a sister concern of the Congress Party, in the late 1990s when the party was written off politically; in 2006 he left RGICS – on his own terms, one might add – when the Party was on ascendance. Later Bibek became an advisor to Mr. L K Advani during the latter’s campaign as the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate in the 2009 general elections. Here too, nobody thought the BJP stood any chance of winning the election.

Irrespective of his reasons for getting closer to the two national parties, one cannot accuse him of opportunism or his fascination for political power. In fact, throughout his career, Bibek was known to be quitting jobs at any slight, real or imagined. When he left RGICS even though he had been offered another extension, people familiar with him concluded that he decided to leave as he couldn’t figure out how he stayed in one job for such a long time, it was about eight years in this case.

So, when his final job as the Chairman, EAC-PM, was stretching longer, people started guessing when – not if – Bibek would quit. Alas! Untimely death, at a relatively young age, deprived him of that opportunity.

There is the corpus of this prodigious economist, scholar and an Indologist. While Bibek was a Research Professor at Centre for Policy Research during 2007 and 2014, he translated the Mahabharata into English in 10 volumes. It may be weird for a policy think-tank and an economist to indulge in Indology, but in neither case it was not the first instance of dipping into India’s ancient wisdom, nor in the case of CPR the last instance. Bibek spent the later three decades of his life translating other Sanskrit holy texts, including The Bhagavad Gita, while continuing with his policy work as well as popular writing.

Even after he left CPR to work for the government, he continued to guide the Centre and promote its reputation as a think-tank that stood by its highest ideals. Despite the insidious narratives whirling around CPR for the past two years that its stewardship of its finances was not above board; that its commitment to national interest and common good was questionable, and what have you, Bibek continued to repose his faith in the Centre.

CPR too believed in Bibek for his intellectual ambidexterity, his jovial and collegial attitude, and his ability to keep the big picture in focus no matter the trivia that make to the headlines. Above all, we were hoping that Bibek would be back, silently embarking on yet another mega-Indology project, while others only get to read his op-eds.

For once, Bibek disappointed us. RIP, Bibek.