Social Science (087) — AI-generated practice question

Industrial output in India grew by more than nine times between 1977–78 and 2017–18, yet this did not resolve the problem of surplus labour in agriculture. The reasons are as follows:

1. Limited employment growth in secondary sector: Even though industrial production rose over nine times, employment in the secondary sector grew by only around three times. This gap shows that growth in output did not translate proportionately into jobs.

1. Similar trend in tertiary sector: Production in the service sector rose 14 times, but employment rose only about five times, further limiting absorption of surplus agricultural workers.

1. Consequence for agriculture: Since secondary and tertiary sectors could not absorb enough workers, more than half the workforce remained in agriculture, producing only about one-sixth of GVA — a classic case of disguised unemployment (underemployment).

1. Nature of underemployment: Workers like Laxmi appear employed but contribute less than their potential, as more people than necessary are engaged in the same farm work.

Thus, output growth without matching employment growth left the agricultural sector burdened with surplus, underemployed labour.

Source: Sectors of the Indian Economy, Chapter 2 — "Where are most of the people employed?"

---

• The key figures examiners expect: 9× industrial output, 3× industrial employment; 14× service output, 5× service employment; primary sector = 50%+ workforce but only ~1/6 of GVA.
• Always link the data to the consequence — disguised/hidden unemployment in agriculture — using the textbook term.
• Avoid just describing underemployment generally; connect it specifically to the failure of secondary/tertiary sectors to absorb surplus labour.
• Laxmi's example can be briefly cited to illustrate underemployment but don't over-explain it in a 5-mark answer.