Under Enumeration of Women’s Work in Indian Data Collection

Imagine being part of a workforce of millions, contributing hours of labor every day, yet remaining largely uncounted in official records. This is the reality for countless women across India whose economic contributions have been systematically underestimated for over a century. Despite extensive data collection efforts through the decennial census and the National Sample Survey, a significant portion of women’s work remains invisible in India’s official statistics.

A century of counting, yet missing millions 🔗

India has a long history of attempting to measure its economically active population. For more than a hundred years, the country has conducted regular censuses and surveys to understand who works and what they do. The decennial census and the National Sample Survey have been the primary sources of data on work participation, providing breakdowns by sex, region, and age.

These efforts appear comprehensive on paper. Every ten years, census enumerators fan out across the country, recording information about households and their members. The National Sample Survey Organization conducts regular surveys to capture employment patterns. Yet despite these extensive mechanisms, something fundamental has been going wrong when it comes to counting women’s work.

The academic alarm: flawed frameworks and inappropriate measures 🔗

Feminist scholars and economists have long raised concerns about how India collects data on women’s work. The criticism centers on a troubling premise: the conceptual frameworks and procedures used by data collection agencies are fundamentally unsuited for capturing the full extent of women’s productive activities in the Indian context.

Consider what happened between Census 1991 and the National Sample Survey’s 50th Round. The census showed significantly lower female participation rates compared to the NSS data. Why? The exclusion of certain non-market economic activities from the census definition of work meant that many activities women performed were simply not counted as “work” at all. This wasn’t a small oversight-it represented millions of working women being statistically erased.

The problem runs deeper than just missing a few categories. Research has shown that more than ninety percent of Indian women participated in unpaid domestic work in 2019, compared to just twenty-seven percent of men. Yet when it came to “employment and related activities,” only twenty-two percent of women were counted as participating, versus seventy-one percent of men. This massive discrepancy highlights how traditional definitions of “economic activity” fail to capture the reality of women’s contributions.

When international standards don’t fit local realities 🔗

Part of the problem lies in how India defines what counts as economic activity. While the United Nations System of National Accounts considers activities like processing primary products for household consumption as economic work, India’s own system has historically used a narrower definition. This means that when a woman processes grain for her family’s consumption or makes pickles for household use, this productive labor often goes uncounted.

The International Labour Organization updated its standards in 2013 at the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, specifically to address how women’s work was being undercounted globally. These new gender-sensitive standards included refined definitions and additional categories designed to better capture how individuals-particularly women-contribute to the economy. However, India’s Periodic Labour Force Survey, launched in 2017-18, has largely stuck to the older methodology, missing an opportunity to adopt more inclusive measurement approaches.

The invisible architecture: how customs shape data collection 🔗

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of women’s work under-enumeration is how deeply it’s rooted in social perceptions. Customs and traditions regarding the sexual division of labor have made much of women’s work invisible-not just to data collectors, but often to women themselves.

Think about a woman who tends to livestock, processes agricultural products, helps in the family shop, and manages household tasks throughout the day. When a census enumerator asks about her work, she might report herself as “not working” because she doesn’t receive a separate wage, or because she views these activities as simply part of household duties rather than “real work.” This perception problem isn’t just individual-it’s baked into how questionnaires are designed and how enumerators are trained.

The design that works for men but fails for women 🔗

The machinery of data collection in India was largely designed with male work patterns in mind. Men are more likely to work in formal employment, in clearly defined workplaces, for regular wages. The questions asked and the categories used work reasonably well for capturing this type of work. But women’s work patterns are often different-more fragmented, combining multiple activities, moving between productive and reproductive labor throughout the day.

Research has revealed that women frequently view their work as part of household duties and systematically under-report it. Additionally, earlier surveys and the current Periodic Labour Force Survey were not equipped to collect data on multiple jobs performed by people, especially when work was performed alongside other activities. When a woman is simultaneously supervising children, preparing food, and processing vegetables for sale, which activity does she report? The survey design often forces a choice that erases much of her productive contribution.

The real cost of invisibility 🔗

This isn’t just an academic problem or a matter of statistical accuracy. When women’s work is uncounted, it has real consequences for policy and planning. Resources aren’t allocated to support sectors where women work. Training programs don’t address their actual occupations. Economic policies are made based on incomplete pictures of who contributes what to the economy.

The under-enumeration also affects how we measure economic progress. When Census 2011 showed a female workforce participation rate of just 25.51% compared to 53.26% for males, these numbers influenced everything from labor market policies to development priorities. But what if the actual rate of women’s economic participation is much higher, simply counted differently or not counted at all?

Moving toward better measurement 🔗

Recognizing these problems, experts have called for several reforms. The census definitions need to align better with those used by the National Sample Survey to enable cross-checking and validation. Enumerators need better training to recognize and record women’s work in all its forms. The questionnaires themselves need redesigning to capture multiple activities and intermittent work patterns.

Most fundamentally, there needs to be a shift in how we think about “work” itself. Economic activity isn’t just what happens in factories and offices for regular wages. It includes the processing, producing, and value-adding activities that women perform daily, even when these happen within household boundaries and don’t result in direct monetary compensation.

What do you think? How might your own understanding of “work” be shaped by these same biases? And what would change in your community if all forms of women’s productive labor were fully recognized and counted?

References

1. https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/reconceptualising-womens-work-national-sample-survey
2. https://mospi.gov.in/socio-economic-statistics