Abstract:
The foregoing analysis examined the process of transformation of rural unorganised manufacturing sector in which artisan-based activities are important components. In the backdrop of industrial sector growing on the pattern of capitalist form of production, the analysis highlighted certain dynamic changes that have characterized the process of transformation. For instance, it indicated the shift from household to non-household sector in which the relatively smaller enterprises (i.e. employing less than six workers) are playing significant role especially in terms of employment generation. Over time, these enterprises have also shifted to urban areas and thereby improved their productivity as well as earnings. The next segment in the size-hierarchy (i.e. employing between six to nine workers) does not seem to be expanding so rapidly. This may be because a significant part of the growing enterprises in this segment might have crossed the threshold size and joined the rank of the organised sector. Thus, the changing size-structure suggests a bi-polar situation where the NDMEs and the organised modern enterprises are growing at the expense of own account enterprises and the DMEs respectively. Despite the upward shift, a substantially large proportion of artisan-based activities still take place in the own account enterprises and in rural areas. Conversely, the OAE- segment is predominantly characterized by the traditional artisan-based activities. These enterprises, by and large, make moderately good earnings except for those involved in cotton textile, basic metal products and transport equipment-parts. Their earnings can be improved if they move to higher scale of production and to urban areas where they can reap the benefits of spatial clustering and collective efficiency. The pertinent question emerging from the analysis is: will the non-household sector, especially in the non-factory enterprises continue to absorb the workforce that gets released from the very small enterprises? If the macro trends are any guide, then the answer is not very encouraging. The immediate concern therefore is to improve the scope of these activities so as to ensure a sustained growth of employment irrespective of the size and spatial characteristics. The analysis of artisan households and K&VI programme highlighted certain important features in this context. For instance, it was observed that the average earnings of the own account enterprises is moderately good. But, this does not ensure employment to all the members within working age groups in an artisan household. Similarly, employment generated by K&VI sector is neither extensive nor intensive though, it has a substantial scope for providing supplementary employment among the weaker sections and women. Overall, the K&VI programme is likely to yield limited results because of the in-built disadvantage in terms of technology and product- quality. It can succeed only if the right kind of objective conditions is created whereby agriculture takes the lead and village economies are placed at the centre of the developmental strategy. In absence of this, a more feasible approach could be to expedite the process of integration of the traditional artisan-based activities with the mainstream industrial production. The process is already on; the need is to modify and strengthen it further. One of the possible ways of attaining this is to promote clustering of rural artisans/industries and help them overcome some of their constraints like access to information, technology and infrastructural facilities through collective dynamism. Earlier, some efforts were already made by the supporting organisations to promote groups or co-operatives of rural artisans by organising common facility centres, technology parks, sale-exhibitions etc. More comprehensive approach and specific emphasis on collective efficiency may perhaps, bring better results. Till then protective measures may have to continue, to provide at least some employment to those who need it the most.