‘Cybertariats’ or ‘Virtual’ Slaves? Gender Inequalities in the
New Global Economy
Sweta Rajan[1]
This article examines gender inequalities and work-life balance among call centre employees in South India, using a political economy perspective. Existing literature indicates gender-differentiation in call centre work, with women employed as ‘front-line workers’ while men are ‘knowledge workers’. Gender differences exist in levels of autonomy, mobility, working environments and health-impacts. Invasiveness of paid work (mostly night shift) affects gender division of labour in the home, with women experiencing time-squeeze to care, while men report burnout, isolation and loss of leisure time. Extended family and domestic servants form a nexus of informal-formal care provision to fill this care-deficit. Work-life balance policies in call centres provide gym membership and stress counselling catering largely to the male worker, while only piece-meal provisions for maternity leave and child-care services are available for the female worker. This article directs the attention of policy-makers to the deficit in care policies for working mothers in India.
Introduction
This article examines the processes by which globalization, information technology and outsourcing of foreign business, has shaped gendered identities (masculinity and femininity), work-family culture and gender inequalities in paid work and care in two major call centres in South India. The article is divided into five segments. Section 1 provides an overview of the main debates concerning globalization, gender inequality and new technologies. Section 2 traces recent trends in labour market participation and changing family dynamics in India. Section 3 describes call centre work and gender inequalities in paid work. Section 4 examines the usefulness of work-life balance literature in contrast to the gender equity approach, and details social policies and work-life balance programs in Indian call centres. Section 6 ties together the main themes and sets out the argument for developing a feminist political economy approach towards work and care to promote gender equity in call centres.
1. Globalization, Gender Inequality and New Technologies
A growing body of literature has been concerned with gender inequalities in the new global economy.[1] Globalization and international flow of goods and services, hypermobility of capital, global communications and technology revolutions[2] have recast gender relations and altered power structures between men and women in relation to new technologies. Technology driven ‘knowledge economies’, the creation of the world wide web and expansion of telecommunications sectors, have revolutionized the culture of ‘doing business from a distance’, shrinking the globe by space and time into a single world order.[3] The emergence of new technologies has made the boundaries within and across cultures and countries increasingly porous, leading to greater social, political, economic and cultural connectedness among people. This ‘new’ global economy is a paradoxical world offering “geography without boundaries, history without time, value without weight (and) transactions without cash”.[4]
1.1 Weightless Economy
Two main schools of thought have emerged which explain the transformation of this ‘new’ economic order. Globalists and neo-classical proponents argue that technological revolution has, dematerialised the world into a ‘weightless economy’, where ‘knowledge’ is the main currency, and human labour is delocalised.[5] This weightless economy is characterized by dematerialization (the shift from material goods to services), the production paradox (reproduction of knowledge workers) and globalization and outsourcing of work.[6]
Sceptics from heterodox macroeconomics and the radical Left challenge these claims by unmasking the ‘virtual world’ of cyberspace, to make more visible the challenges faced by the men and women working within it. Ursula Huws’ powerful disaggregated analysis of the ‘weightless economy’ proves to be an effective counter-point. Dematerialization is criticized for failing to account for the division of labour accompanying technological change. The alienation of the human labour from the knowledge it creates relegates the worker to be assimilated into the new technology as nothing more than a cyborg.[7] The systematized educational system required to create a ‘knowledge worker’ is deeply unequal, with females typically having lower access to higher education and skill- training. Finally, ‘de-commodification’ or the degree to which individuals and families can exist independent of the market[8] is incomplete as low-paid cyber workers are unable to ‘commodify’ their services and the unpaid domestic labour in the home into material goods.
1.2 Gender Inequalities and New Technologies
Gender inequalities in the ‘new’ global economy have revealed several complex and contradictory trends. IT-enabled services and software industries have generated increased employment opportunities in white-collar jobs, even though global capital tends to seek cheaper labour, mostly from developing countries. Women have been entering paid employment in large numbers, but with paradoxical consequences, especially across different spatial locations. Studies comparing female employment between the North and South, have found increasing employment for women in the service sectors (especially manufacturing) in the South, while women workers in the North face job insecurity and redundancy. [9] However proponents of the ‘view from the South’ argue that the effects of globalization are highly uneven, with countries from the North disproportionately reaping its benefits while countries in the South, disproportionately bear the cost of adjustment.[10] Certain dominant patterns of gender inequality however can be seen across countries, with the North increasingly witnessing working conditions of the South, especially in low-paid domestic labour and service sectors; while female-employment patterns in the South are increasingly beginning to resemble patterns in the North. Some valuable studies have begun to bridge the gaps between gendered interactions in global consumption and production at the local level in developing countries, and the implications of gender on macroeconomic policies at the global level. [11]
1.3 Feminization of Labour
Globalization and new technologies have also been strongly linked with informalization of work, and casualization of labour. [12] Informal work in low-paid jobs with non-standardized hours and minimal social protection has been rising globally, predominantly among women workers, reinforcing the link between informality, gender and poverty.[13] The dual burden of women workers employed in low-paid flexible and irregular work, with caring responsibilities in the home, further heighten the risk of women to poverty. Within globalizing sectors such as export promotion zones (EPZ) and informational communications technology (ICT) sectors, employers prefer women workers who are willing to accept informal work, work longer than standardized hours and are discouraged from unionising. [14] These trends cumulatively refer to the ‘feminization of labour’, which involves processes of rising female employment but with increasing informality of working conditions. [15]
1.4 Inter-sectionality of gender and class inequalities
Existing studies have indicated that new technologies give rise to new hierarchies of gender and class differences in the new economy sectors. Globalization has been associated with increasing commodification of domestic labour and migration of low-paid women workers serving as domestic servants in the cities.[16]Due to the care deficit in the household when well-paid working mothers are unable to care in the home, an informal network of care arrangements are created with extended family members (mostly grandmothers) and formal care provision by maids, nannies and servants.[17] This has led to the creation of a class-hierarchy between the hi-tech ‘mistress’ in the new global economy and the low-paid ‘maid’, where the rich women works and the poor women cares for her children.[18] Gender inequalities and the difference in status, living conditions and life chances between men and women in relation to economic globalization has been usefully summarized by Amartya Sen as ‘far from homogenous, but a disparate and interlinked problem’. They range widely in across all aspects of life including mortality inequality, natality inequality, basic facilities inequality, special needs inequality, professional inequality, ownership inequality and within household inequalities.[19] With this overview of the main debates concerning the relationship between globalization and gender inequalities, specific focus will be given to the case of India.
2. Recent Trends
This section briefly describes the recent trends of labour market participation and changing family structures in India since the 1990s. After independence, India adopted import substitution policies and protectionist regimes following the Nehruvian ‘mixed economy” approach with a low ‘Hindu rate’ of growth of 3%.[20] During the 1973 OPEC oil crises and the Gulf War in 1990, India along with many other oil-importing countries experienced debt crises, and adopted the IMF and World Bank structural adjustment loans with conditionalities to engage in macro-economic restructuring, liberalize all external sectors and globalize[21]. While the impact of economic reforms on employment, poverty and inequalities is highly debated[22], a detailed examination of the same is beyond the scope of this study. This section aims to examine gender inequalities in work-force participation in India, to provide a context for the current study.
Employment patterns since the 1990s show a mixed picture, with rise in female employment but mostly in the informal sector. Vertical and horizontal sex-segregation of labour has been prevalent, with women working typically in public sector service jobs, while men are employed in the private sector in managerial positions. Gender wage gaps are also significant with women earning lesser wages for the same job compared to men in all sectors. Social and demographic factors in the Indian economy have a major role in shaping normative ideologies towards women’s subordinate role in paid work, including access to education, land rights, gender, caste and class religion. Some stylised facts about gender inequalities are provided below.
2.1 Employment in Formal/Informal Work
The Indian economy is highly stratified, with over 80% primary workers employed in the unorganised sector [23], while only 20% workers employed in the organized or formal economy. Studies have indicated that the divide between formal and informal work is deeply gendered. Around 92% of women are employed in informal work, while only 8% are employed in formal sector work, compared to 80% men in informal work and a much larger 20% employed in the formal sector. Urban-rural employment trends also vary, with urban women receiving more income and higher savings than rural women, although it still remain lower than male workers. [24]
2.2 Sex-Segregation of Work
Employment trends have revealed occupational sex-segregation of labour with gender differences in the types of occupations within which male and female workers are employed. Table 2 describes the occupational distribution of the female labour force using data from the 50th and 55th round of the National Sample Survey[25] (a major nation-wide survey of employment and unemployment trends conducted by the Indian Government) from 1961, 1993-94 and 1999-2000. Employment trends suggests an overall increase in female employment from 59,505 in 1961 to over 123,038 female workers per 1000 workers in 2000. Women are predominantly employed in agriculture, crop cultivation and livestock. A notable difference in the 1993-94 survey data is the addition of women workers in export sectors including manufacturing, beverages and tobacco sectors. In sharp contrast female labour participation in the formal sectors of education, medicine and personal services has been depressingly low. Vertical sex-segregation of labour also exists, as women are more likely to be employed in assembly-line work (297 women per 1000 men), compared to administrative, executive or managerial positions (2.8 women /1000 men).26
Table 2: Industrial Distribution of Female Work-Force: All India
Industry Division/Group / 1961 / 1993-94 / 1999-2000No. of Workers
(000) / Share
(Per 1,000) / No. of Workers
(000) / Share
(Per 1,000) / No. of Workers
(000) / Share
(Per 1,000)
0. Agriculture, forestry and fishing / 51,022 / 857 / 94,065 / 774 / 92,212 / 749
0.0-01 Crop-production and plantations / 50,030 / 841 / 81,303 / 666 / 79,130 / 643
02 Livestock / 822 / 14 / 11,855 / 97 / 11,074 / 90
03 Agricultural Services / NIL / NIL / 784 / 6 / 1449 / 12
04-06 Logging, forestry and fishing / 170 / 3 / 433 / 4 / 559 / 5
1. Mining and Quarrying / 172 / 3 / 580 / 4 / 389 / 5
2.2+3+97 Mfg + repair services, Of which: / 4857 / 82 / 11,500 / 95 / 12,510 / 102
Food products / 785 / 13 / 1353 / 11 / 1317 / 11
Beverages and Tobacco / 380 / 6 / 3,019 / 25 / 3,676 / 30
Textile and products / 2404 / 40 / 3624 / 30 / 3479 / 28
Wood products and furniture / 582 / 10 / 1129 / 9 / 1147 / 9
Leather, fur and products / 67 / 1 / 87 / 0.7 / 114 / 0.9
Non-metallic mineral products / 416 / 7 / 798 / 7 / 900 / 7
Metal products and parts / 53 / 1 / 35 / 0.3 / 180 / 1
Repair Services / 8 / 0.1 / 35 / 0.3 / 38 / 0.3
4. Electricity, gas and water / 9 / 0.1 / 52 / 0.4 / 38 / 0.3
5. Construction / 308 / 5 / 1648 / 14 / 2057 / 17
6. Trade, hotels and restaurants / 865 / 15 / 3919 / 32 / 5253 / 43
Retail trade / 799 / 13 / 3122 / 26 / 4228 / 34
Hotel and restaurants / 53 / 0.9 / 556 / 5 / 834 / 7
7. Trspt, storage and communication / 74 / 1 / 329 / 3 / 446 / 4
8. Finance, insurance and real-estate and business services / 11 / 0.2 / 433 / 4 / 474 / 4
9. Community, social and personal services of which: / 2188 / 37 / 9136 / 75 / 9662 / 79
Public adm + defence / 103 / 2 / 1248 / 10 / 1157 / 9
Education + research / 341 / 341 / 6 / 2322 / 19 / 3290
Medical and health / 153 / 3 / 624 / 5 / 853 / 7
Community services / 45 / 0.8 / 173 / 1 / 199 / 2
Personal services / 1373 / 23 / 4422 / 36 / 3925 / 32
Total work-force / 59,505 / 1000 / 121,602 / 1000 / 123,038 / 1000
(Source: K.Sundaram, “Employment and Poverty in the 1990s”, Economic and Political Weekly, August 11, 2001, p3043-3044.)
2.3 Gender wage differentials
Women are more likely to receive lower wages across most sectors compared to men. In the public sector, women receive 1.23 times lower wages compared to men, and wage-differentials worsen at 1.6 times less than men in the private sector. Table 3 shows the sex-differences in wages in public and private sector
Table 3 : Wages by Sex in Public and Private Sectors
Industry / Public SectorMen/ Women / Private Sector
Men / Women
Agriculture / 1.01 / 1.47
Manufacturing / 1.28 / 1.61
Services / 1.27 / 1.58
Administration / 1.17 / 1.31
All / 1.23 / 1.60
(Source: Siddiqui, “Women Workers”, New Delhi: Anamika Publishers, 2004) p74
2.4 Educational Attainment by Sex
Studies on the educational profiles of the work force shows clear evidence that women are far less likely to receive an education up to the middle school level compared to male workers. Table 4 indicates that over 74% rural women and 43.9% urban women are illiterate, with barely 15.8% having attended school till the primary level, and 14.9% reaching secondary education; compared to over 41.3% male workers who have been educated up to middle school.