Women in the changing world of work

International Women’s Day is an opportunity to recognize the changing world of work, and the new challenges it throws up for women

n 2016, Kumari, 41, went from an unpaid agriculture and house-worker in Vedireswaram village of East Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh, to a paid domestic worker in Qatar. She left behind her ailing husband, young children, and a run-down house. An unregistered recruitment agent helped her migrate, albeit on a visit visa. In the absence of a verified contract, Kumari found herself unable to negotiate her monthly wage or living conditions. Her illegal travel documents discouraged her from registering at the Indian Embassy in Doha.

Soon, she was caught in a vicious cycle of abuse and was trafficked from one employer to another. It took Kumari a whole year to stage an escape and secure shelter at the Indian mission.

Experiences of women like Kumari illustrate how the world of work is changing, especially for women. While innovations in technology and globalization bring significant benefits, the growing informality of labour and women’s disproportionate share of informal work is a major barrier to inclusive and sustainable development.

Every year, nearly 700,000 people—men and women—in the Emigration Clearance Required Category (ECR) migrate internationally, mainly to the Persian Gulf, in search of decent work. This is because they have few options for livelihoods and employment in rural areas.

The agriculture sector has been facing a crisis due to climate change and limited investments, among other things. While the early 2000s were characterised by the ‘feminization of agriculture’, in more recent years, this trend has also changed. Rural female labour force participation is rapidly declining, and stands at 35.8% as compared to 81.3% for men. More women than men now migrate in search of jobs.

The Indian government’s flagship programme, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), goes a long way in supporting the survival and subsistence of families like Kumari’s.

Currently, women’s participation in MGNREGA stands at 56% . In states where women’s participation in MGNREGA has not even touched the 33% legal mandate, UN Women supports governments to include more women, particularly from marginalized communities, in the scheme.

Research and training inputs provided by UN Women as part of this project, led to an increase in women’s participation in pilot blocks; three to 21% in Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh), 12-16% in Budgam (Jammu and Kashmir) and 17-30% in Murshidabad (West Bengal). UN Women also works with civil society alliances such as MAKAAM (Mahila Kisan Adhikar Manch: Forum for the Rights of Women Farmers), to address the persistent poverty and vulnerability of women farmers and rural women, and to build their resilience in the face of rising insecurities brought on by agricultural distress.

Even as rural livelihoods are being revived, women continue to move away from subsistence and farm-based livelihoods to jobs in the services sector, both within and outside the country. The government plans to support this movement by skilling the nearly 4.2 million domestic workers seeking employment in the domestic and the international markets.

While Kumari and others like her would benefit from certified skill training, her story underscores the larger continuum of vulnerabilities that dominate India’s informal labour market: an absent universal social protection system, manifested in this case by the lack of public healthcare for her husband and education for her children; poor housing facilities for the family; lack of access to decent work; prevalence of unsafe transit; human trafficking; and gender-based violence.

Positive policy shifts can help women realize their full economic potential, resulting in more equal and inclusive work environments. For example, workers who choose to migrate are rarely aware of their rights to freedom from violence, to privacy, nutrition, adequate housing, and fair wages, and do not have access to remedial measures.

To address the gap in awareness and information, UN Women, in partnership with the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, will provide human rights based training to potential migrants as part of pre-departure orientation trainings. Further, when workers are in transit or at their destinations, stronger protection and regulatory mechanisms would ensure that they do not become targets of abuse and trafficking.

Back in her village, Kumari, still not fully aware of the systemic loopholes that exist, spends her spare time educating aspiring women domestic workers on how to undertake safe international migration. She has two messages: “Mobility and safety are your rights” and “undertaking legal migration is your duty”.

While these messages are in line with international conventions and constitutional rights and freedoms, aspiring women migrant workers would also be helped by national laws and policies that ensure safe migration as well as access to sustainable livelihoods at home.

International Women’s Day is an opportunity for us to recognize the changing world of work, and the new challenges it throws up for women. The Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 requires that all governments, the UN, civil society and the private sector ‘Step It Up’ to ensure that the world of work, works for all women.

India’s manufacturing opportunity

There is a considerable gap between India’s manufacturing potential and its realization

The effects of years of rapid growth are being felt increasingly in China’s manufacturing sector. According to a recent report by research group Euromonitor International, Chinese factory wages—which have trebled over the past decade—now exceed those of almost every major Latin American country and are closing in on pay levels in the weaker Eurozone countries. Thus far, China has leveraged its abundant supply of cheap labour to emerge as the world’s leading manufacturing destination. But the fact that labour is no longer so cheap could potentially have multiple ramifications.

Low-cost production jobs, especially in the apparel, toys and cheap electronics sectors, are now moving out to other countries, mostly in South and South-East Asia, which have a steady supply of cheap labour. There is research to suggest that India could potentially be one of the countries to benefit from this realignment in manufacturing trends.

Last year, the Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index published by Deloitte Touche and the Council on Global Competitiveness indicated the rise of the “Mighty Five”—Malaysia, India, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam (MITI-V). According to the report, this group will emerge as the “New China” by 2020 given its abundant supply of cheap labour, favourable demographic profiles, and market and economic growth. And the World Bank echoed similar sentiments in a 2016 report.

These are intriguing possibilities. The government aims to increase the share of the manufacturing sector in gross domestic product (GDP) to 25% from its current level of 15%, supporting just 12% of the workforce. But there is a considerable gap between India’s manufacturing potential and its realization. After all, the United Progressive Alliance had set up the National Competitiveness Council in 2004 with similar aims, to little effect. And that wasn’t the first time the government of the day has missed the bus on this issue.

The ‘Mighty Five’—Malaysia, India, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam—will emerge as the ‘New China’ by 2020 given its abundant supply of cheap labour, favourable demographic profiles, and market and economic growth

There are three key challenges. The first is the gamut of internal problems. These are well-known and include numerous regulatory roadblocks, unfavourable land and labour laws, inadequate transport, communication and energy infrastructure, among others.

A combination of these internal problems has also caused a structural imbalance: Small and medium enterprises, not large factories, dominate the Indian economic scenario. About 131.29 million people are employed in as many as 58.5 million establishments, according to the sixth economic census released last year. Some of these enterprises are “babies” that can be scaled up but many may be “dwarfs” that will not grow. If India has more dwarfs than babies, this will prove to be a serious drag on its manufacturing potential; only large enterprises have the economies of scale that can make India truly competitive.

Second, India faces stiff competition from South-East Asian and other South Asian countries which may be smaller in size but are better integrated into global supply chains. Indeed, the Economic Survey 2016-17 sounds a warning here. It starts by noting that “India is well positioned to take advantage of China’s deteriorating competitiveness”, particularly in the apparel and footwear segments. But it goes on to say: “The space vacated by China is fast being taken over by Bangladesh and Vietnam in the case of apparels; Vietnam and Indonesia in the case of leather and footwear. Indian apparel and leather firms are relocating to Bangladesh, Vietnam, Myanmar, and even Ethiopia. The window of opportunity is narrowing and India needs to act fast if it is to regain competitiveness and market share in these sectors.”

India faces stiff competition from South-East Asian and other South Asian countries which may be smaller in size but are better integrated into global supply chains

The third challenge is perhaps the most difficult—global technological and geo-economic changes. The former has led to an increasing quantum and quality of automation at every level of the manufacturing process. Robots are fast becoming the norm on factory floors, and it is only a matter of time before they take over today’s labour-intensive sectors. The latter, meanwhile, points to greater trade protectionism and shortening global value chains—both inimical to the sort of manufacturing success China has enjoyed.

It has been argued that India should not be locked into becoming a low-cost manufacturing hub—the world’s shop floor, as China is sometimes pejoratively called—but shoot for high-value manufacturing and innovation.

This, however, is not a binary choice. The latter is important—but the jobs needed to keep pace with a young population as vast as India’s, and with its depressing socio-economic indicators, cannot come entirely from the top end of the manufacturing value chain. Low-cost manufacturing is important for India. To harness the opportunity, the present government—and its successors will have to deal with a complicated tangle: internal reform; deft diplomacy and trade negotiations; and the vexed question of how to deal with the jobless growth that automation will bring, diminishing the advantage of labour arbitrage. It will not be easy.
Do you think India can realize its potential in low-cost manufacturing?

The evolving story of economics

Kenneth Arrow, the grand old man of economics, died last month in Palo Alto, California at the age of 95. He received the Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences in 1971 at the age of 51, the youngest ever then or since. In perhaps the same way that economics aspires to be a science, the prize for economic sciences itself was instituted 67 years after the original Nobel Prizes were first awarded, when the Swedish Central Bank made a donation to the Nobel Foundation to sponsor a prize called the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”. Alfred Nobel’s will had only included chemistry, physics, literature, medicine and peace.

One way to tell the story of contemporary economics is to tell it through a Nobel prism. Of the 78 prize winners in economics so far, 28 are from the University of Chicago, Elinor Ostrom (2011) is the only woman and Amartya Sen (1998) is the only developing-world economist. Friedrich Hayek (1974), ever humble, said in his acceptance speech, “If I had been consulted whether to establish a Nobel Prize in economics, I should have decidedly advised against it. The prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.”

Precisely when the mathematization of economics began is a topic of some debate. In a widely read paper in the American Economic Review, Gérard Debreu (who received the Nobel Prize in 1983 for his general theory of equilibrium), traces events that relate to this and dates it sometime before World War II. I date this phenomenon to the writings of Irving Fisher that began in the teens, almost 100 years ago. If stories need characters, then Fisher would be a lead candidate for protagonist. Fisher was an economist, statistician and inventor. A polymath, he had one doctoral thesis adviser who was a theoretical physicist and another a sociologist.

Fisher wrote widely about monetary economics (he formulated the quantity theory of money), debt deflation, intertemporal choice, theory of interest and investment, price indexing, consumption taxes and nominal versus real interest rates. He was an uber successful businessman, who lost all his wealth in the stock market crash of 1929. Since Fisher’s time, the pre-20th century social science emphasis has given way to an emphasis on economics as mathematical physics. Many of the modern greats in economics are mathematicians; Arrow, Debreu and John Nash, to name but a few.

In a 2011 survey that asked a question about which pre-20th century economists other economists most respected and admired, the top five names were Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Alfred Marshall, John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx. The post-20th century names that rose to the top were J.M. Keynes, Milton Friedman, Paul Samuelson, Hayek, Joseph Schumpeter, Arrow and Ronald Coase. Those still alive from the latter list are Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz.

Among the young economists of today, several new threads of research suggest a diversification away from mathematization. Jesse Shapiro, a behavioural economist at Brown University, has written a famous paper on obesity, in the mould of Gary Becker from the University of Chicago. Raj Chetty from Stanford University works on public economics, and the so-called “randomistas” of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, (because they use a technique called randomized control tests) led by Esther Duflo and Amy Finkelstein work on development economics. Ivan Werning, a macroeconomist from MIT, and Marc Melitz from Harvard University, a trade economist, continue the mathematical tradition. More lawyers, sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and Big-Data scientists may have to enter the field of economics if it is to return to a social studies arena. Some believe that the era of Big Data will permit economists to conduct the laboratory simulations to convert it from pseudo-science to full science. Others believe that tomorrow’s economics will be written (once again) in prose and not equations.

India has had a long tradition of well-recognized economists. From the list of central bank governors, C.D. Deshmukh, I.G. Patel, Manmohan Singh (also, of course, as prime minister), Y.V. Reddy and Raghuram Rajan are famous names. Outside India, Jagdish Bhagwati (trade), Avinash Dixit (game theory) and Amartya Sen (development) have made a significant impact. Except for Y.V. Reddy, everyone else on this list has been trained and received their doctorates outside India. The Delhi School of Economics and the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), Delhi, are the only institutes that meaningfully figure in the global ranking of peer-reviewed research papers in economics. The Infosys Prize that recognizes rigorous contributions in various fields has awarded only one prize to an Indian economist working in India since its inception (Arunava Sen, ISI, Delhi).

The sheer lack of Indians from India punching at or above their weight in economics points to access to universities outside for the best Indian students and the paucity of quality in our own higher-education institutions. For economists from India, the story has not yet begun.

P.S. “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable,” said John Kenneth Galbraith, economist and former US ambassador to India.

Business leaders must learn to listen In the new globalization, businesses with global ambitions must learn to be loca

When Jimmy Carter was president of the US, the shadow of recession was looming on the economy. The president’s advisers feared that even the use of the word “recession” while explaining the state of the economy would alarm the bulls, bring out the bears, and deepen recessionary conditions. So, at a press conference the secretary of commerce said that since he could not use “the ‘R’ word”, he would refer to what was happening as “the ‘banana’ thing”. Globalization is going through a “banana” moment. Cheerleaders of globalization have been reluctant to admit that globalization, in the form they celebrated it, is in deep recession already. Some say globalization has merely changed into a “new globalization”. Some others say that what has passed is “hyper-globalization” and we are still in “globalization”. There is a reluctance to let go of the word “globalization” and use another one for the forces shaping the world now. Though, as Geoffrey G. Jones, professor of business history at the Harvard Business School, says “we are in a ‘de-globalization’ period”.

Jones’ explanation of why globalization of the sort celebrated in Davos in the last 20 years had to pass is that the gap between globalization’s prime beneficiaries and the rest of humanity had increased too much. Globalization’s elite was “People Like Us” from around the world. They cocooned themselves within ideologically and physically gated communities. They lost sight of those far below them. Meanwhile, surveys (they did not heed) were reporting that people were losing trust in the “Establishment”, which people saw as a nexus between leaders of governments and large business interests. The disconnect between the people and the establishment led to the rise of populist movements in many countries, the election of Donald Trump in the US, and to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s extreme sensitivity about his government being branded a “suit-boot sarkar”.

Globalization’s elite was ‘People Like Us’ from around the world. They cocooned themselves within ideologically and physically gated communities

The world is not the same as it was 10 years ago. Despite globalization, it is more divided and less united. Social media, which innocents expected would unite people who had different histories, cultures and points of view merely by enabling them to connect with each other on the Internet, is exacerbating divisions. People band together with others like themselves on social media and lob hate-bombs across the walls at those they do not like. Samuel P. Huntington’s prediction of a “clash of civilizations” seems to be happening. Geopolitics, on the decline after the fall of the Berlin Wall, is back on stage. The world has changed: Business corporations must develop new capabilities to succeed in a post-globalization world.

The eclipse of globalization requires corporations to be more “local” in their strategies. They must respond to demands from national governments to create more jobs within the countries in which they operate. President Trump and Prime Minister Modi (with the “Make In India” campaign) are on the same page here. Multinational corporations (MNCs) will face increasing pressures to pay domestic taxes. Tax avoidance by shopping among tax jurisdictions will not be acceptable. Nor will intrusive adjudication of domestic policies with investor-settlement procedures that businesses were pushing for under international trade agreements. Business leaders will have to prove that they are aligned with domestic stakeholders’ needs. To say that they follow international norms, as MNCs are wont to, will not be good enough. They must listen better to local stakeholders, to learn local realities and adapt to them.

Social media, contrary to perception, is exacerbating divisions—people band together with others like themselves on social media and lob hate-bombs across the walls at those they do not like

Multifarious reactions to globalization from environmentalists and defenders of human rights are compelling businesses to develop capabilities to listen to a broad group of stakeholders. The thrust of good corporate governance so far has been to make business managers more transparent and accountable to their financial investors, and fairer to their small shareholders. This will not be good enough. Businesses must be more transparent and more fair to other stakeholders too—such as local communities, small suppliers, and those who work in their enterprises (such as Uber’s drivers, whether or not they are legally “employees”). Two per cent of profits donated to corporate social responsibility will not be enough to win society’s trust. Full accountability is required for how 100% of revenue was obtained and profits made. Donation of a small sliver of their profits to social causes will not excuse businesses for the damage their operations may cause to the environment and the social compact. Therefore, good corporate governance will require broader score cards.

The freedom and the power businesses acquired with hyper-globalization was founded on many ideas. Milton Friedman’s dictum, “The business of business must be only business”, has often been cited to focus business managers on a narrow score card of revenue, profit, and shareholder value. Friedman also expressed his difficulty in accepting the notion that people should desire to speak to make their views known. He would much rather they resorted to “efficient market mechanisms”, rather than to “cumbrous political channels” to make their voices heard.

The old globalization that sought to tear down national boundaries for the free flow of finance and trade has passed. In the new globalization, businesses with global ambitions must learn to be local

A world that is good for global businesses must be a world that is good for everyone too. Nations are societies: not merely markets and economies. In the market, we are customers. In society, we are citizens. All that citizens value cannot be expressed in monetary terms. Equity, trust, dignity and compassion are qualities that citizens value in good societies. Corporations, which claim to be global citizens themselves, must learn to listen, cumbersome though it may be, to the voices of citizens within their customers who speak of many things not convertible into money.
The old globalization that sought to tear down national boundaries for the free flow of finance and trade has passed. In the new globalization, businesses with global ambitions must learn to be local. Businesses must adopt broader score cards. And they must learn to listen to the voices of diverse citizens wherever they operate

UKPCS -2012 INTERVIEW PROGRAMME by samveg ias

UKPCS -2012 INTERVIEW PROGRAMME
we were with you during your mains preparation,we will be with you during your interview preparation too. This is Last EFFORT to secure your seat in UKPSC EXAM.BE Patient,confident and prepare well before interview with samveg ias.for free biodata analysis and guidance contact samveg ias.quality of guidance is well proved from our mains result.
This programme will consist of

* Guidance for communication improvement and presentation of idea.
* How to tackle tactical and stressful question
* Discussion on all relevant topic of indian polity,economics,social programs,IR etc
* Discussion on issues related to Uttarakhand economics,geography,social dimension.
* Analysis of Bio data related questions
* Personal sitting with candidate and personal feedback
*Mock interview with expert
* Video graphy of mock interview.
*Guidance for communication improvement and presentation of idea
http://samvegias.com/interview-guidance-for-ukpcs/

Work on brain’s reward system wins scientists a million euro prize

The scientists’ research found that dopamine neurons are at the heart of the brain’s reward system, like ‘little devils in the brain that drive people towards more rewards’

Three neuroscientists won the world’s most valuable prize for brain research on Monday for pioneering work on the brain’s reward pathways—a system that is central to human and animal survival as well as disorders such as addiction and obesity.

Peter Dayan, Ray Dolan and Wolfram Schultz, who all work in Britain, said they were surprised and delighted to receive the Brain Prize, which they said was a recognition of their persistent curiosity about how the human brain works.
The scientists’ research, spanning almost 30 years, found that dopamine neurons are at the heart of the brain’s reward system, affecting behaviour in everything from decision-making, risk-taking and gambling, to drug addiction and schizophrenia.
“This is the biological process that makes us want to buy a bigger car or house, or be promoted at work,” said Schultz, a German-born professor of neuroscience who now works at the University of Cambridge. He said dopamine neurons are like “little devils in our brain that drive us towards more rewards”.

Dayan, director of the Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit at University College London, added to Schultz’s findings with research showing how humans update and change their goals through a dopamine-driven system “reward prediction error”.
He showed that our future behaviour is dictated by constant brain feedback on whether anticipated rewards are as expected, or better or worse than expected. The one million euro Brain Prize, given by the Lundbeck Foundation in Denmark, is awarded annually and recognises scientists for outstanding contribution to neuroscience.
Colin Blakemore, chairman of the selection committee, said the three scientists’ work had helped decipher the way people use and respond to rewards across many aspects of life. “The implications of these discoveries are extremely wide-ranging, in fields as diverse as economics, social science, drug addiction and psychiatry,” he said in a statement.
Dolan, director of the new Max Planck Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing, and Dayan, cracked open a bottle of champagne in London after being told of the prize. Schultz described the news as a fantastic reward. “I can hear our dopamine neurons jumping up and down,” he said. Reuters

Food Processing Policy and World Food India 2017

Food Processing Policy and World Food India 2017

Addressing a meeting with the State Food processing Ministers on World Food India, being organized by MoFPI during 3 – 5 November 2017, in New Delhi, Smt. Harsimrat Kaur Badal, Minister of Food Processing Industries unveiled the Draft Food Processing Policy of India and shared the same with state government representatives. The Minister said the National Policy apart from documenting footprints of the food processing sector has drafted considering best practices across states and the world. She said our government is poised to bring about comprehensive National Policy on food processing. We would like all states to follow and be part of the comprehensive National Food Processing Policy. We have brought an Approach Paper on the National Food Processing Policy which is uploaded on the website of Ministry and have invited suggestions from all stakeholders and general public.

Speaking at the session Smt. Badal, said India provides most conducive environment to food processing given parameters and conditions like abundance of food production, abundance of manpower engaged in agriculture and low cost of processing. At the same time Government’s initiative to make India Global Food Factory and Global Food Market brings immense opportunities for food processing sector.The Minister said India isushering in an era of Zero Tolerance towards Post Harvest Wastage, Zero Tolerance on Delays in Commissioning of Food Processing Projects,Zero Tolerance in Delays in obtaining Licenses/Statutory Clearances for Food Processing/ Food Retail Markets by Central/State/Local authority. She said We are bringing in National Food Processing Policy which shall focus on building India’s NATIONAL FOOD GRID and NATIONAL COLD CHAIN GRID and create Retail Markets every nook and corner of the country.

Smt. Badal said the government has introduced reforms like allowing 100% FDI in Multi Brand Retail. Additionally Government has taken several initiatives and announced attractive incentives including capital subsidies, tax rebates, and reduced custom and excise duties. Increasing focus is also being given to supply-chain related infrastructure, such as cold chains, abattoirs and food parks. The whole idea is to spur greater growth in the food processing sector as well as connect farmers with the value chain to increase their returns. It is with this objective that the event ‘World Food India’ has been conceptualized to provide a platform to showcase India’s strengths in the sector and to attract major investments in the sector.

She said Government is organizing BIGGEST EVER GLOBAL FOOD FAIR - WORLD FOOD INDIA 2017 – where all small, big and multinational companies from world over would represent and meet Indian potential companies to partner with. At the same time we expect all state governments and their departments to allow single window clearances and other statutory clearances. Apart from this, all our raw produce and processed food shall be showcased. The Minister added that World Food India 2017 is the step aimed at creating India a Global Food Factory and Global Food Retail Market. Smt. Badal, further shared that the Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MoFPI) was in the process of collating and addressing issues related to the sector, with an aim to facilitate investors and help build investors confidence to boost engagement of foreign investors, at the World Food India, later this year. On this occasion, the Minister launched the website and the Logo of World Food India 2017.

The meeting witnessed participation of the Ministers from Odisha, West Bengal and Jharkhand, as well as senior bureaucrats and officers from more than 25 States and Union Territories, from all across the country. The representatives appreciated the Ministries initiative in organizing ‘World Food India 2017’, timely announcement of the mega event and expressed keen interest in partnering with the mega event.

It may be noted that World Food India 2017 - a three day flagship event is being organized by Ministry of Food Processing Industries in which CII will be event partner from 3-5 Nov 2017 at New Delhi. The event will focus on showcasing achievements and opportunities of the Indian Food Processing Sector and fostering maximum investment commitments. The event will also provide a platform for exhibiting innovative products and manufacturing processes showcasing the entire value chain of food processing industry with a vision to leverage innovation, technology, development & sustainability in the backdrop of achieving food security.