{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02867383512544803, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012186379928315413, 'mean_word_length': 5.069565217391304, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gender costs: a case study of women's lives in the Indian economy: female labour participation in rural and Urban India: does housewives' work count?

Labour force participation in India responds to economic, social, cultural and demographic mechanisms. Employment, unemployment, and unpaid labour were all measured in the 1999/2000 Indian National Sample Survey. Men’s official labourforce participation stood at 85% and women’s at 35%. The overall rate of labour force participation among women had fallen since 1989. Furthermore, measurement issues create doubt about the real rates of change of women’s self-employment. Women’s domestic and farming work can sometimes arguably be classified as self-employment. However many women instead report themselves as housewives. The statistics reveal a U curve of female employment by education levels. A detailed measurement of both domestic work and other unpaid work is provided. Women in the Muslim cultural group do more extra-domestic work (and are more likely to be ‘inactive’) than women in other cultural groups. Economic poverty causes employment to be more likely. We provide a number of reasons which help explain both the work patterns and the housewifisation pattern. These include both subjective factors as well as economic and demographic factors. Note: all tables and graphs referred in this article can be found in the appendix 1.