The Economic Survey (ES) 2022-23 prepared the ground for the focus points in the Union Budget 2023-24 presented on February 1. The ES is a mere information provider with little analytical thrust, at least on matters relating to labour. Both the social partners — employers and the trade unions — are frustrated with both the framing process and the framing of the laws themselves and their implementation. It weighs heavily over the minds of the economic players as to what is the roadmap regarding the labour codes. However, the ES ignores the elephant in the room! People with little or no academic training seem to have written the section on ‘Progressing Labour Reform Measures’. The argument continues to be that in response to Supreme Court’s directions, the Union government created the eShram portal for creating a national database of unorganised-sector workers verified through Aadhaar. The government writes in a self-congratulatory manner as if it was imaginative enough to take this historic step; this narrative has crept into the political economy discourse too.
The ES is silent on this important issue. It contends that 280.5 million out of the possible 380–400 million unorganised workers have registered on e-Shram. If we see ‘Figure VI.2’ on page 155, the registrations rose initially — up to January 2022 — and then almost plateaued, with a slight tilt on the rise. Again, there is no analysis of these trends. The message seems to be that the Union government has done the job and if things have failed or are moving at a snail’s pace, then it is not its fault. On the labour market front, ‘broad-based improvements’ have taken place, as evidenced by both supply and demand side databases. The impressive rise in self-employment that the government has indicated shows huge potential for the future of self-help groups (SHGs), which have been glorified. Section 6.39 in the ES speaks of the rising average size of the factory; unlike many famous analysts, it has used ‘persons’ rather than employees or workers for analysis. The first finding is interesting. The critics of the so-called labour laws argue that they keep the size of the factory small to deny economies of scale. Now, the ES has admitted that the average size of the factory has been gradually rising, which is true. But labour laws have not changed so far.
We know that the current regime will never politically endorse any popular scheme of the previous regimes or opposition political parties. When non-profit organisation Oxfam India reports have shown high economic inequality, our government has given bouquets to the super-rich by reducing their tax burden to prevent money from going out to tax havens – will that money still not go? To justify that, some tax sops have been given to the lower classes. By the way, most middle-class people rely heavily on an exemptions-led tax regime as the capitalist class has flooded the market with equated monthly instalments, which has also hurt the capacity to strike! The argument is that investment in infrastructure and capital expenditure would take care of unemployment. I am yet to find a macroeconomic study that provides, using the multiplier approach, the extent of employment generation. It is a budget that cheers all a little if not probed closely. Ideas are bad for cordial industrial relations!
Related Posts:
