Pascal Lamy to focus on Agri and NAMA

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE
Lamy urges “maximum effort” for July meeting of ministers
Director-General Pascal Lamy, at an informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee on 27 June 2008, urged “maximum effort from everyone over the next weeks” to ensure a productive meeting of a number of ministers scheduled for the week of 21 July 2008. He said the immediate challenge is to make progress that “will provide a basis for improved texts in Agriculture and NAMA”.
Exerpts of speech
The focus now is, as I said earlier, to create convergence on Agriculture and NAMA so that the Chairs can prepare texts for ministerial consideration, either with areas where full convergence has been achieved, or with straight choices for Ministers. This means a very intensive phase of work in these areas which should culminate in the circulation of the revised texts. Obviously once the texts are out, you and your capitals will need some time to consider them. There will also be an opportunity for the full membership to react to them before we move to the final intensive phase of preparing issues for consideration by Ministers.
In particular, I believe that it will be important for me to continue with my process of consultations, which will increase in intensity and move from being more of an information exchange, towards focusing more on the substance of the topics, to adequately prepare for a ministerial discussion. I see these horizontal consultations with ambassadors and Senior Officials as key to proper preparations for a successful outcome.
Now, the timing. We are now at the end of June, so the end of July is in one month. We need a timeline to manage expectations if we are to do the deal in July, and in my view, we have to plan on a number of Ministers meeting here in the week starting 21 July. I would recommend that they be here a couple of days before in order to warm up, have bilaterals and prepare the ground.
In line with the importance we all attach to transparency and inclusiveness, the process that week will follow the pattern that has worked in the past — concentric circles of consultations with constant communication among them. This means that there will be informal meetings at the level of Head of Delegation, which will serve both to guarantee transparency and to help build consensus. I will supplement them with continuing dialogue with the regional and other groups as well as with the green room. Time will also be set aside for Group meetings and consultations.
27 June 2008

India Moving towards Debt Trap

INDIA’S EXTERNAL DEBT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 2007
India is gradually moving towards the debt trap as its external debt has increased up to eight lakh crores at the end of December 2007. The import is overshadowing export in each quarte of financial year. India's external debt outstanding at the end of December 2007 was US$ 201.4 billion (Rs.794,017 crore), reflecting a rise of US$ 10.3 billion over the quarter. As compared to the level of US$ 169.7 billion at end-March 2007, India’s external debt at end-December 2007 increased by US$ 31.8 billion. Valuation change, due to the depreciation of US dollar vis-a-vis major international currencies and Indian Rupees, accounted for US$ 1.1 billion of the increase during the quarter and US$ 6.0 billion during April-December 2007. The increase in external debt was mainly brought about by commercial borrowing and short-term debt. Based on original maturity, long-term debt accounted for 82.6 per cent and short-term debt comprised 17.4 per cent. Long-term debt rose by US$ 6.3 billion to US$ 166.2 billion and short-term debt by US$ 4 billion to US$ 35.2 billion over the quarter. Amongst the components of long-term debt, commercial borrowing increased by US$ 4.9 billion (9.4 per cent) to US$ 57 billion. While NRI deposits declined by 1.5 per cent (US$ 0.6 billion) to US$ 43 billion, multilateral debt, bilateral debt and export credit increased marginally to reach US$ 37.9 billion, US$ 17.3 billion and US$ 8.9 billion, respectively, at end-December 2007. Rupee debt continued to remain around the level of US$ 2 billion. Under short-term debt, while trade related credits rose by around US$ 4 billion, FII debt investment in Government papers rose by US$ 262 million over the quarter. In the endeavour to improve the analytical content of the report, the external debt stock at end-December 2007 is provided in terms of residual maturity as well, for the first time in the quarterly debt data release. Based on residual maturity, long-term debt accounted for 64 per cent of total debt at end-December 2007. Short-term debt by residual maturity, consisting of principal repayments due during a one-year reference period under medium and long-term loans, and short-term debt with original maturity of one year or less, accounted for 36 per cent of the total external debt. The share of government debt in total external debt stood at 26.3 per cent (US$ 53 billion). Correspondingly, the share of non-Government (private) debt was 73.7 per cent (US$ 148.5 billion). At end-December 2007, India’s foreign exchange reserves which include foreign currency assets of the Reserve Bank of India, gold, SDRs and Reserve Tranche Position in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stood at US$ 275.3 billion, providing a cover of 137 per cent to total external debt, while the foreign currency assets of the RBI at US$ 266.6 billion provided a cover of 132 per cent. The share of US dollar in India’s external debt portfolio has showed an increasing trend over the last few years. It further increased to 54.5 per cent at end-December 2007 from 52 per cent at end-March 2007. -Vidyanand Acharya

Budget 08-09: Aam Adami Ignored

BUDGET, FARMERS AND SOCIAL SECTOR
Ruddar Datt

Finance Minister Mr. P C Chidambaram presented his 2008-09 budget on 29th February 2008. The budget was hailed as ‘revolutionary’ by the Congress leaders, but ‘irresponsible’ by others who felt that the Finance Minister to satisfy a large section of the farmers has proposed a huge package of Rs. 60,000 crores of relief. So far as the marginal and small farmers (with holdings less than two hectares) are concerned, full waiver of outstanding loans has been promised, while for other farmers there will be one-time settlement (OTS) for all loans that were overdue on December 31, 2007. Under OTS, a rebate of 25 % will be given against payment of balance of 75 percent.
Many questions have been raised by the critics. Firstly, the loan waiver was used during Mr. V P Singh regime and it impacted on the culture of credit. The defaulters were rewarded and honest farmers who repaid their due installments were penalized. Moreover, the defaulters would be eligible for fresh loans after the waiver and they would continue to default and wait for a waiver package in future. Thus it creates a moral hazard since farmer-borrowers are likely to assume that the future outstanding loans will also be written off.
The Government had appointed a Committee headed by Mr. R. Radhakrishna to study the problem of agricultural indebtedness. This Committee, as Mr. Chidambaram himself admitted, did not recommend such a waiver. According to the Report of R. Radhakrishna Committee, 48% of the farmers surveyed were indebted. For more than 49% of the indebted farmers – with holdings up to 2 hectares, also the target of Chidambaram’s waiver – the sources of loans were non-institutional agencies. The package promised by Mr. Chidambaram will thus be available to a little more than half of the marginal and small farmers.
According to the National Sample Survey Organization 59th Report, 43 percent of the farmers obtained loans from non-institutional sources, mainly money lenders. 53 percent of the loans carried an interest rate of more than 15%. The more distressing fact is that 16 percent of the loans from non-institutional sources were burdened with an interest rate of 30 percent. Since the loan-waiver covers only institutional credit taken from commercial banks, rural regional banks and co-operatives, a big proportion of the most vulnerable group of farmers has been left out of the benefit of loan waiver. The Finance Minister intended to produce a dramatic effect for his political adventure of loan waiver in view of the impending general election, rather than take more enduring measures to remove the deep distress of farmers. It would have been far more prudent to take up the non-dramatic measures recommended by Radhakrishna panel.
Radhakrishna Committee had recommended “formalization of non-formal credit of farmers” who have taken loans from moneylenders. The banks could be used to provide one-time long term loans to farmers to enable them to repay their debt to moneylenders. This could be achieved by taking the help of Panchayati Raj institutions, NGOs and farmers organizations to negotiate settlement of loans by the moneylenders. Simultaneously, the committee had recommended the creation of Moneylenders Debt Redemption Fund with a corpus of Rs. 1,000 crores to begin with. But instead of providing more enduring relief to the most vulnerable section of the farmers, the Finance Minister, being in a hurry to produce a ‘magic effect’ opted for a blanket waiver for all loans from banks and co-operatives. Need it be mentioned that two lakh suicide deaths of farmers during the last decade were mainly due to the crushing burden of moneylenders loans on the farmers, according to the Study of Tata Institute of Social Sciences.
Secondly, the National Commission on Farmers had recommended that agricultural credit should be provided at 4% rate of interest. Nothing seems to have been done to move towards this goal so that the poor farmers could be helped on a longterm basis in reducing the burden of debt.
Thirdly, the Finance Minister did not make any distinction on the nature of land i.e. whether it is irrigated or dryland. States like Chattisgarh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan with 53% to 75% of the small and marginal farmers would be adversely affected. Such a distinction was made while fixing ceiling on agricultural holdings in the seventies. This legitimate distinction should have been made by the Finance Minister in view of social justice criterion.
Fourthly, there is a need to improve the minimum support price (MSP) for farmers. The Government is faced with the problem of stagnation of foodgrains production, especially that of wheat, during the last few years. Consequently, the government is forced to import 5 million tonnes of wheat at much higher international prices in comparison with the minimum support price to farmers. As a consequence, our food security is being threatened and a larger proportion of food subsidy will be consumed for food imports. It is, therefore, desirable that MSP for farmers should be raised keeping in view the rising costs of cultivation with an escalation of the prices of agricultural inputs – seeds and fertilizers.
Fifthly, a major cause of suicides, more especially in Vidharbha and other cotton producing regions was due to the very low prices of international cotton. The Government of USA is providing huge subsidies to its cotton producing farmers. As a result, international cotton prices are depressed. There is a strong need to protect Indian farmers against this unhealthy competition.
Last, but not the least, is the decline in public investment in agriculture after the introduction of economic reforms in 1991. Although it was expected that private sector investment would increase, yet it was observed that private sector investment was concentrated in diesel pumping sets, tractors, harvesters etc. which led to the mechanization of agriculture. Excessive use of diesel pumping sets resulted in a decline in water table, even in agriculturally better off state like Punjab which also reduced increase in foodgrains production. Public investment in irrigation and watershed development declined in the post-reform period. Consequently, gross capital formation in agriculture which was 2.45 percent of GDP in 1999-00 indicated a decline to 2.1 percent in 2002-03 and it further declined sharply to 1.61 percent in 2006-07. However, 58% of the population was dependent on agriculture for its livelihood in agriculture. There is a need to reverse this trend, more especially, in agriculturally backward states to improve the lot of farmers.
Although the Finance Minister announced a loan-waiver package of Rs. 60,000, he did not make any provision in the budget to compensate for the loss to the banks. There was speculation among the top bank executives that the Government may be issuing bonds so that the banks can writer off the loans and clean their balance sheets of the non-performing assets created by the defaulter farmers-borrowers. Business Line in its editorial dated March 5, 2008 clarifies the point: “what does this magical figure represent? The entire outstandings of the scheduled banks’ credit to the sector upto December 2007 or are the NPAs a fraction of that – Rs. 7,637 crores by March 2007. The Finance Minister’s figure is the total outstanding credit due to all the three entities – banks, co-operative banks and RRBs.”
But the Prime Minister clarified in the Parliament that the government will pay the lending institutions out of the expected increase in tax revenues over the budgeted provision. There is, therefore, uncertainty about the budgetary provision for loan waiver scheme even now.
From an analysis of the loan-waiver scheme, it follows that the scheme was politically motivated. That is why the opposition described the 2008-09 budget as an “election budget.” The government opted for a dramatic measure of debt relief for all marginal and small borrowers and partial relief for other farmer-borrowers. It was restricted to institutional borrowers and 43% of the non-institutional borrowers were left to shiver in cold. Keeping in view the vulnerability of non-institutional borrowers and the high rate of interest ranging from 15 to 30% charged by the moneylenders, they deserved to be bailed out first. Moreover, an illogical decision was taken to have a uniform cutt-off of less than 2 hectares of landhording, irrespective of the fact whether the holding was irrigated or unirrigated. This runs counter to the concept of social justice. No effort has been made to adopt the recommendation of Radhakrishna Panel to create Moneylenders Debt Redemption Fund and help farmers to come out of the clutches of the moneylenders. Neither did the Scheme emphasize reduction in rate of interest to a level of 4% as recommended by the Swaminathan Commission on National Farmers.
It would have been far better to adopt more enduring measures to improve the plight of farmers, but since the UPA Government seemed to be in a hurry, it presented a half-baked loan waiver scheme intended to have an electrifying effect on farmers. Whether it will be able to provide relief to 4 crore farmers by 30th June 2008 as targeted by the Finance Minister is also considered very doubtful, given the past record of our bureaucracy. The experience of loanwaivers in our country in 1990 underlined the lesson that such schemes are recipes for disaster, rather than becoming instruments in structural change in agriculture.
Social Sector in 2008-09 Budget
The Finance Minister in his budget speech mentioned: “The revenue deficit is estimated at Rs. 55,184 crore, which amounts to 1.0 percent of GDP…. However, because of the conscious shift in expenditure in favour of health, education and the social sector, we may need one more year to eliminate the revenue deficit. In my view, this is an entirely acceptable deferment” (Budget Speech 2008-09, p.22).

Since total expenditure of the budget has increased from Rs.6,80,521 crore in 2007-08 (BE) to Rs.7,50,884 crores in 2008-09 (BE), it implies 10.3% increase in overall expenditure. Total social sector expenditure in the budget has increased from Rs. 61,137 crore in 2007-08 (BE) to Rs. 72,093 crore (BE) – an increase by 17.9%. Due to the overall increase in expenditure by 10.3%, the social sector has been provided 7.6% more than the normal expected increase. In absolute terms, the budget increase in social sector expenditure for 2008-09 works out to be Rs.10,956 crore which is only 19.9% of total revenue deficit of Rs.55,184 crore. The Finance Minister has, therefore, over-estimated the impact of increase in social sector expenditure as the principal cause of revenue deficit. FM should, therefore, find other factors responsible for the remaining 80 percent increase in the revenue deficit.
As a proportion of total budget expenditure, social sector expenditure was 9.0% in 2007-08 (BE) and it has been increased to 9.6% in 2008-09 (BE). This is a very marginal shift in the proportion of social sector expenditure, which cannot be described as “conscious shift”.
However, it may be noted that while Rs. 61,137 crore were budgeted for social sector in 2007-08, the revised estimates now place it at Rs. 57,050 crore – Rs. 4,087 crore less than the budgeted expenditure. This implies that the utilization rate of social sector of the budget provision was 93.3 percent. Consequently, social sector expenditure (revised estimate) accounts for only 8% of total expenditure in 2007-08 (BE). The biggest slippage was in education in which the utilization rate was only 88.7%, followed by health & family welfare 94.8%. The upshot of this analysis is that providing large increases in two major items of social sector – education and health – should also be accompanied by improvements in the utilization rate, failing which the intended objective of higher allocations may not be achieved. It is necessary to improve the absorptive capacity with higher provisions under various heads.
Under-estimation of the Revenue and fiscal deficits
Unlike the Railway Budget (2008-09) which has made a provision for the escalation of expenditure as a consequence of Sixth pay Commission recommendations, the Central government budget has not made any provision for the purpose. However, it has been estimated that this may require Rs. 20,000 to 25,000 crores. Besides this, Rs. 20,000 crores to be paid to commercial banks and co-operative banks due to the loan waiver scheme in 2008-09 have not been provided. Taken together, there is a demand for Rs. 40,000 to 45,000 crores likely to arise due to both these expected expenditures.
Even if it is conceded that as a consequence of better tax compliance, an additional Rs. 15,000 crores becomes available, it still leaves a gap of Rs. 30,000 crores.
The Government is toying with the idea of raising it by marginal disinvestment of public sector enterprises, but due to strong opposition from left parties and trade unions, it may not succeed or achieve its target of generating Rs. 11,065 crores only partially.
Keeping these factors in mind, the inevitable conclusion is that there is an under-estimation of revenue deficit. The Finance Minister has already pleaded for post-ponement of FRBM target of attaining zero revenue deficit by one more year, i.e. instead of 2008-09 to 2009-10. The whole purpose of reducing revenue deficit to zero as per the FRBM target in 2008-09 was to obtain more resources for governments’ capital expenditure. (Fiscal deficit minus revenue deficit is the amount of borrowed money available for capital expenditure, mainly infrastructure) which is very necessary for promoting and sustaining high GDP economic growth.
To conclude, budget (2008-09) has mainly focussed on short-term gains and by a populist measure like the loan waiver, it aimed at reaping political dividend in the forthcoming general election. Obviously, politics has taken precedence over economics in the budget. Professor Shyamal Roy of IIM Banglore is right when he draws the following conclusion: “The 2008-09 budget thus runs the risk of being dubbed as a budget with a short term focus.” (Economic Times, March 4, 2008).
Note:
The Government has now realized the flaws in the Scheme and has been forced by its critics to modify it. The Finance Minister has submitted a proposal in the supplementary budget to provide Rs. 10,000 crores for the debt waiver scheme. The Government is also reconsidering the size of the holding in irrigated and dry areas and thus may cover holdings upto 4-6 hectares for the purpose in dry areas.

Growing unemployment across the globe

Global Unemployment Getting Bigger

· Vidyanand Acharya

Employment generation has become important parameter to measure the success of developmental policies adopted by the governments at state and at national level. However, the approach to tackle the problem of unemployment has varied from time to time and also from place to place. The gap between the GDP growth rate and employment growth rate in any country and also across the globe has attained its peak today. As a result the global unemployment situation have increased to nastiest level. The unemployment across the globe has reached at alarming height as per latest International Labour Organisation’s Global Employment Trends Report. The report warns that there could spur an increase in global unemployment by an estimated 5 million persons in 2008.

As per the report, the new projection for 2008 is in contrast to 2007, a watershed year in which sound global GDP growth – of more than 5 per cent, led to a “stabilization” of global labour markets with more people in work, a net increase of 45 million new jobs and only a slight increase in the number of people unemployed, to a total of 189.9 million persons worldwide.

“This year’s global jobs picture is one of contrasts and uncertainty”, said ILO Director-General Juan Somavia. “While global growth is annually producing millions of new jobs, unemployment remains unacceptably high and may go to levels not seen before this year. What’s more, though more people are in work than ever before, this doesn’t mean that these jobs are decent jobs. Too many people, if not unemployed, remain among the ranks of the working poor, the vulnerable or the discouraged.” Significantly, the ILO report noted that the reduction in the growth in developed economies attributed to credit market turmoil and higher oil prices so far had been “compensated for in the rest of the world”, especially in Asia, where economic and job growth remained strong. However, the ILO report warned that an expected slowdown in growth during 2008 could increase the global unemployment rate to 6.1 per cent, with a resulting absolute increase of at least 5 million unemployed worldwide.

Though the Global economy growth of 5.2 per cent created an estimated 45 million new jobs in 2007, but failed to have any significant impact on the growth of unemployment. Overall, 61.7 per cent of the global populations of working age –or an estimated 3 billion people – were employed in 2007. Although the global unemployment rate remained virtually constant at 6 per cent, that meant an estimated 189.9 million people, compared to 187 in 2006, were unemployed worldwide in 2007.

The report said five out of 10 people in the world are in vulnerable employment, either contributing family workers or own-account workers with a higher risk of being unprotected. In developing countries these two categories are most likely to work informally and hence have jobs that leave them vulnerable to poverty and risks such as low earnings, dangerous working conditions and lack of health insurance. The ILO report said an estimated 487 million workers – or 16.4 per cent of all workers – still don’t earn enough to lift themselves and their families above the US$1 per person, per day poverty line while 1.3 billion workers – 43.5 per cent – still live below the US$2 per day threshold.

The report also underlined that the service sector continued to grow during 2007, further surpassing agriculture as the world’s most prevalent source of employment. The service sector now provides 42.7 per cent of the world’s jobs, compared to agriculture, which provides 34.9 per cent. The industrial sector, which had seen a slight downward trend between 1997 and 2003, has continued a rather slow upward trend in recent years, representing 22.4 per cent of global jobs.

Regional trends

The report has produced a comprensive picture of unemployment prevailed at regional level. The report observed that the Middle East and North Africa still had the highest unemployment rates at 11.8 and 10.9 per cent respectively in 2007, followed by Latin America & the Caribbean, Central & South Eastern Europe (non EU) & the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) at 8.5 per cent. The situation in the Developed Economies & European Union (EU) seemed to be stagnating, the ILO report said, with job growth at its lowest in the last five years and unemployment up by 600,000 over 2006.

The ILO report said it appeared that, on current information, the initial impact of the credit crisis on Developed Economies & EU growth would result in an estimated 240,000 fewer new jobs in the region. However, the ILO analysis also indicated that from a global perspective this downward tendency in the developed economies would be “offset by the rest of the world”, largely due to strong economic and jobs growth in Asia.

ILO’s employment report said that South Asia was the leader in jobs growth during 2007, contributing 28 per cent of the nearly 45 million jobs created during the year worldwide. At the same time, the region has the highest share of vulnerable employment much of which reflects the poor quality of jobs created. More than seven out of 10 people are either own-account workers or contributing family workers, carrying a higher risk of being unprotected, without social security and without a voice at work.

The report said East Asia appeared to be on its way to becoming a middle income region, as sustained productivity growth had increased incomes and helped lift millions of people out of poverty. The ILO said the estimated share of East Asian workers living with their families below the US$2 per day poverty line dropped to 35.6 per cent today from 59.1 per cent 10 years ago, while the percent living below US$1 per day had decreased to 8.7 per cent from 18.8 per cent over the same period.

The report also noted that although the Middle East saw a considerable increase in the employment-to-population ratio the share of people of working age who were employed increased from 46 per cent in 1997 to 50.1 percent in 2007. At the same time, the Middle East was also the only region where labour productivity decreased within the same period.

The global unemployment trends clearly reveal that the process of ongoing globalisation and economic progress based on western developmental model, doesn’t automatically translate into new jobs. This shows once again that labour market policies must be at the centre of macroeconomic policies to ensure that economic growth is inclusive.

Rural India is the backbone of unorganised manufacturing enterprises

Operational Characteristics of

Unorganised Manufacturing Enterprises in India

“Operational Characteristics of Unorganised Manufacturing Enterprises in India”- Report No.524 based on the data of the survey of unorganised manufacturing enterprises carried out by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, as part of the 62^nd round of the NSS, has been released. The fieldwork of the survey was carried out during July 2005-June 2006. This report, first in the series of three reports based on the data on unorganised manufacturing enterprises, provides information on estimated number of enterprises and number of workers, the operational characteristics of the enterprises like location of enterprise, maintenance of accounts, number of working hours, nature of operation, status of registration etc. at all India level for different industry groups and at the States / UT level for all the industry groups taken together. The term ‘unorganised manufacturing enterprises’ referred to all manufacturing enterprises, which were not covered by Annual Survey of Industries (ASI). All government and public sector undertakings were outside the coverage.

All States/Union Territories were covered by the survey except some interior areas of Nagaland, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, and Leh and Kargil districts of Jammu & Kashmir. A dual frame approach was followed in the survey with a view to improving the reliability of the overall estimates by separating out apparently large units into one frame (list frame) and covering the remaining units within the coverage through the area frame. A sample of 82897 enterprises were actually surveyed out of which 2,260 enterprises belonged to the list frame and the remaining were spread over 9,923 sample villages/urban blocks in the area frame.

Some of the important findings of this survey are given below:

· During 2005-06, the number of unorganised manufacturing enterprises was estimated as17.07 million in India. It is seen that during 2005-06, West Bengal had the highest share (16%) of unorganised manufacturing enterprises. The two states, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh together had 30 percent share of all unorganised manufacturing enterprises in the country.

· Of the total estimated enterprises, 71% were in rural India and 29% in urban India.

· Own Account Manufacturing Enterprises (OAME) constituted 86% of all enterprises and the remaining 14% were establishments. (The respective share of NDMEs and DMEs were 10% and 4% of total enterprises)

· About 36.44 million persons were estimated to be working in unorganised manufacturing enterprises during 2005-06. West Bengal had the highest share (15%) of workers in unorganised manufacturing enterprises of the country closely followed by Uttar Pradesh (14%). About 55% of all workers were concentrated in five states viz. West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra.

· The estimated number of workers per enterprise was about 2.13.

· Nearly 94% of all enterprises were perennial enterprises.

· About 98% of all enterprises were proprietary enterprises.

· About 3% of all enterprises had no fixed location of operation.

· About 90% of all enterprises were not registered with any agency.

· About 92% of all enterprises did not receive any assistance from any government or non-government agency.

· About 32% of all enterprises had undertaken at least some work on contract basis and also 28% of all enterprises had undertaken other economic activity.

· Majority (77%) of enterprises having other economic activities as the major source of income derived income from agriculture, hunting, forestry, mining, quarrying etc.

Estimated number of unorganised manufacturing enterprises during 2005-06
State/UT	Estimated number of enterprises
	rural	urban	all
Andhra Pradesh	1085242	447997	1533239
Arunachal Pradesh	541	318	859
Assam	333006	37774	370781
Bihar	663379	109018	772397
Chhatisgarh	172610	34871	207481
Delhi	3639	93997	97636
Goa	4546	5762	10308
Gujarat	300753	353605	654358
Haryana	119687	110423	230110
Himachal Pradesh	100437	7005	107442
Jammu & Kashmir	140468	32944	173412
Jharkhand	540250	45698	585948
Karnataka	663211	298549	961761
Kerala	492777	165914	658692
Madhya Pradesh	564463	290097	854559
Maharashtra	556168	570294	1126462
Manipur	35797	16721	52518
Meghalaya	34513	2474	36987
Mizoram	3291	1810	5101
Nagaland	7167	2739	9906
Orissa	870877	86352	957229
Punjab	150208	143029	293237
Rajasthan	400875	235595	636470
Sikkim	3684	420	4103
Tamilnadu	850353	631580	1481933
Tripura	38900	6470	45370
Uttaranchal	53940	15146	69087
Uttar Pradesh	1704516	654859	2359375
West Bengal	2223768	529025	2752793
A & N Islands	1872	444	2316
Chandigarh	753	621	1373
D & N Haveli	797	172	969
Daman & Diu	1464	1175	2639
Lakshadweep	255	142	397
Pondicherry	4058	9513	13572
all-India	12128266	4942554	17070820

Annex-II

Estimated number of workers in descending order in different States/UT
State / UT	estimated number of workers			% share
	OAME*	Establishment$	All (in descending order)
West Bengal	3980082	1513751	5493833	15.08
Uttar Pradesh	3744877	1543024	5287901	14.51
Tamil Nadu	1760313	1609206	3369519	9.25
Andhra Pradesh	2003229	935716	2938945	8.06
Maharashtra	1235091	1666326	2901417	7.96
Orissa	1836331	187210	2023541	5.55
Karnataka	1107479	866890	1974369	5.42
Gujarat	845248	1006884	1852132	5.08
Madhya Pradesh	1437477	303169	1740646	4.78
Bihar	1311718	141355	1453073	3.99
Kerala	673565	717441	1391006	3.82
Rajasthan	797748	497587	1295335	3.55
Jharkhand	840208	109137	949345	2.61
Assam	472123	160358	632481	1.74
Punjab	313818	286992	600810	1.65
Haryana	234038	309986	544024	1.49
Chhattisgarh	376669	81697	458366	1.26
Delhi	26478	430730	457208	1.25
Jammu & Kashmir	260614	58255	318869	0.87
Himachal Pradesh	125522	39911	165433	0.45
Uttaranchal	80353	67485	147838	0.41
Tripura	55272	89588	144860	0.40
Meghalaya	49894	40543	90437	0.25
Manipur	67836	13534	81370	0.22
Pondicherry	10009	34700	44709	0.12
Goa	8903	19584	28487	0.08
Nagaland	12925	3382	16307	0.04
Mizoram	6037	3410	9447	0.03
Daman & Diu	2239	6311	8550	0.02
Sikkim	5218	2408	7626	0.02
A & N Islands	2466	3571	6037	0.02
Arunachal Pradesh	1081	2220	3301	0.01
Chandigarh	1217	1382	2599	0.01
D & N Haveli	724	1540	2264	0.01
Lakshadweep	491	221	712	0.00
all-India	23687294	12755505	36442799	100.00