chapter – 4 occupational...

District Spatial Plan - Thrissur OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE

Department of Town & Country Planning, KeralaDepartment of Town & Country Planning, Kerala

In this chapter the existing economic base of

the District based on the occupational structure of

the District as per census 2001 is studied. The

change that has happened in the economic base of

the district over a period of time is also probed

into.

4.1 WORK FORCE OF THE DISTRICT

Population, workforce and employment are

closely interrelated and change in the size, com-

position and distribution of population will alter

the structure of the labour force. In turn, a change

in the size of the labour force, level of employ-

ment and job opportunities will affect components

of population change, particularly fertility and migra-

tion.

The work participation rate of Kerala is 32% as

per 2001 census. As per census 2001, the work partici-

Chapter – 4OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE

Fig 4.1: Work Participation of Thrissur District

Source: Census 2001

Fig 4.2: Work Participation Rate –comparison with surrounding Districts

Sour

ce:

Cen

sus

2001

pation rate of Idukki district is maximum (43%) and

Malappuram district has the lowest work participation

rate (24%). The work participation rate of Thrissur Dis-

trict is equals to that of the state (ie32%) in 2001 (Fig

4.1). That means, out of the total population of 29.74

lakhs, 9.55 lakhs are workers.

In comparison with surrounding districts, WPR

of Thrissur district is greater than that of Malappuram &

less than that of Ernakulam and Palakkad District. (Fig

4.2.)

When the WPR of urban areas are compared, WPR

of Thrissur district (32%) is greater than that of

Malappuram & less than that of Ernakulam and Palakkad

district. (fig 4.3.)

51

admin

Text Box

<< CHAPTER 3

admin

Text Box

< CONTENTS >

OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE District Spatial Plan - Thrissur


Fig 4.3: WPR of Urban Areas –comparison with surrounding Districts

The total workers are further divided in to the

main and marginal workers. Main workers constitute

27 % of the total population and marginal workers con-

stitute 5 % of the total population. This is shown in fig

4.4. Out of the total workers in Thrissur district, 25% are

female workers.

The change in the number of total workers and

main workers during 1981-2001 is shown in fig 4.5

and table 4.1. The graph shows that, though the total

Source: Census 2001

Fig 4.4 Main & Marginal Workers

workers are gradually increasing over last three decades

(from 1981 to 2001), the rate of increase in the number

of main workers shows slightly decreasing trend in be-

tween 1991 and 2001 when compared to 1981-1991

trend, indicating a dim picture about the current eco-

nomic base of the District. The number of total workers

of the district shows increase in figures during 1991-

2001, the growth rate of workers during this period is

9.2% which is above the growth rate of total population

of 8.66% of the same period. This indicates that the

opportunity of working is increasing in proportion to

the growth of population.

Fig 4.5: Temporal variation of total workers and total main workers 1981-2001

Source: Census 2001

52



Table 4.1: Total Workers and Main workers 1981-2001

1981 1991 2001

Total workers 722,784 874,806 955,300

Total Main workers 648,825 804,738 808,965

Source: Census 2001

4.2 OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE

The nine fold classification of workers of Thrissur

district in 1991 is shown in Fig 4.6. From the figure it is

clear that 23% of workers were agricultural labourers

and 20% workers were engaged in other services. For

the purpose of analysis the classification into primary,

secondary and tertiary sector (Fig 4.7). Primary sector

includes agriculture labourers, Cultivators and Live-

stock, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, Plantation, Orchards

Fig 4.6: Nine fold classification of workers – 1991 census

Source: Census 2001

and Allied activities & mining and quarrying. Second-

ary sector includes Manufacturing, Processing, Servic-

ing and repairs in Household industries and other than

household industries. And finally tertiary sector in-

cludes Trade and commerce, Transport, storage and

Communications & other services. As per the above

grouping 39% workers were engaged in primary sector,

19% of workers were engaged in secondary sector and

42% of workers were engaged in tertiary sector. (See

Fig. 4.7)

53



Fig 4.7: Worker Classification – 1991 census

Source: Census 2001

Table 4.2: Four fold classification of workers - 2001, Thrissur District

Cultivators Agricultural HH Industrial Workers Other WorkersLabourers

50,692 108907 48850 746851

Source: Census 2001

Fig 4.8: Classification of workers - 2001 census

Source: Census 2001

However in 2001 census, a four-fold classifica-

tion of workers are only available.

Occupational structure of Thrissur district as per

2001 census is shown in Figure 4.8 and Table 4.2.

54



A comparison of the occupational structure of

districts surrounding Thrissur District is shown in Fig-

ure 4.9.

Fig 4.9: Occupational structure of the surrounding districts - 2001

Source: Census 2001

The percentage of the agriculture labourers and

cultivators together constitute 43%, 24%, 17%, 13% of

the total workers in Palakkad, Malappuram, Thrissur and

Ernakulam districts respectively ( Fig 4.8 and 4.9). The

total percentage of agricultural labourers and cultiva-

tors of Thrissur District is third among the neighboring

districts. But the total percentage of house hold indus-

trial workers of Thrissur District is the highest among

the neighboring districts.

The cultivators and agricultural labourers consti-

tute only 17 % of the total workers whereas major share

of workers (78%) belongs to the other workers category

(See fig 4.8). Other workers category 2001 census will

include some of the primary workers like fishermen,

workers engaged in mining and plantation works. As-

suming that 20 % of the other workers category belong

to such workers, the remaining 58 % of the total work-

ers engage in secondary / tertiary activity. More or less

similar pattern exists with the respect to workers clas-

sification in remaining districts of the state also. This is

in contrast against the national figures where more

than 60% of the total workers engage in primary activ-

55



ity. This is a clear indication of the rural areas being less

rural in Thrissur District as well as in the state.

4.3 OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE - VARIATION INURBAN AND RURAL AREAS OF THRISSUR DISTRICT

The Table 4.3 shows the urban - rural break up of

four-fold category of workers in the District. This is de-

picted in pie diagram in Figure 4.10.

Cultivators Agricultural HH Industrial Other Total

Labourers Workers Workers Workers

Persons % Persons % Persons % Persons % Persons %

Urban 3395 1 9872 4 12920 5 241478 90 267665 100

Rural 47297 7 99035 14 35930 5 505373 74 687635 100

Table 4.3: Workers Classification – Urban and Rural Break up

Source: Census 2001

Fig 4.10: Classification of total workers in urban & rural areas of Thrissur District - 2001

Source: Census 2001

The above table shows that the share of cultiva-

tors and agricultural labourers, in the work force is 5%

and 21% respectively in urban areas and rural areas.

The household industrial workers share is the same at

5% in both the urban and rural areas. This indicates that

as far as the workers classification is considered, all

most all the workers (90%) in urban area belonging to

tertiary sector for their lively hood. Household indus-

trial sector share in both urban and rural areas is found

to be approximately equal. However the above data

clearly points out that both in urban and rural area,

atleast 2/3rd of the population depends on non agricul-

tural pursuits.

4.4 OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE – ESTIMATION OFNINE FOLD CLASSIFICATION OF 2001

Due to the differences in classification of work-

ers in 1991 and 2001, the four fold classification of 2001,

is rearranged to nine categories of workers to facilitate

comparison and analyse of shifts in sectoral composi-

56



tion of workers.

Based on the total number of workers and work

participation rate, the nine fold classification in 2001 is

estimated and it is shown in Fig. 4.11.

Fig 4.11: Nine fold classification of workers(Estimated) – 2001 census

Source: Census 2001

Through the comparison of 9 fold classification

of 1991 and estimated 9 fold classification in 2001 it can

be seen that work force in H.H. Industries other than

H.H. Industries, Trade and Commerce, Transport stor-

age and communication and others show an increasing

trend where as cultivators and agricultural labourers Fig 4.12: Worker Classification – 2001 census (Estimated)

Source: Census 2001

Fig 4.13: Worker Classification – 1991 & 2001 census

Source: Census 2001

shows declining trend. When grouped into primary,

secondary and tertiary sector (Fig 4.12). 28% workers

engaged in primary sector, 23% of workers engaged in

secondary sector and 49% of workers engaged in ter-

tiary sector.

When compared with 1991 census (Fig 4.13) a sig-

nificant shift in the occupational structure of the Dis-

trict, from Primary to Service sector & Secondary Sector

& Secondary Sector can be observed.

57



The LSG wise distribution of workers based on

nine fold classification during 2001 (estimated) shown

in fig 4.14. The LSG wise distribution of primary second-

Fig 4.14: LSG wise distribution of workers based on 9 fold classification (estimated) – 2001 census

Fig 4.15: LSG wise distribution of workers – 2001 census

ary and tertiary workers is shown in Figure 4.15. From

the figure, it is clear that primary workers are more con-

centrated on the eastern region of the district. The per-

58



centage of primary workers in the district is in the range

5 – 75%. Thrissur Muncipal Corporation and six Munici-

pal Councils show very less percentage of primary work-

ers (less than 20%). Percentage of primary workers is

more in Athirapilly Grama Panchayat (74.79%) and least

in Thrissur Muncipal Corporation (5.29%).

Secondary workers are more concentrated in mid

land and coastal regions. The percentage of secondary

workers is least in eastern region. The percentage of

secondary workers in the district is in the range 5 – 50%.

The percentage of secondary workers in Thrissur

Muncipal Corporation and six Municipal Councils lies in

the range 15–30%. Percentage of secondary workers is

more in Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayat (47.87%) and

least in Athirapilly Grama Panchayat (6.15%) where pri-

mary workers are more concentrated.

Tertiary workers are more concentrated in mid

land and coastal regions and the percentage is least in

eastern region. The percentage of tertiary workers in

the district is in the range 15 – 80%. The percentage of

tertiary workers in eastern region is less than 40%. The

percentage of tertiary workers in Thrissur Muncipal Cor-

poration and six Municipal Councils is more than 55%.

Percentage of tertiary workers is more in Guruvayur

Municipal Council (77.31%) and least in Athirapilly

Grama Panchayat (19.06%)

4.5 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAJOR CLASSESOF WORKERS

The concentration index of the four classes of

workers viz: House hold industrial workers, Cultivators,

Agricultural labourers and Other workers are calculated

for each LSGs (See Annexe 4) and its spatial variation is

analyzed. This gives an idea about where a particular

class of workers is concentrated in the district.

Figure 4.16 shows the variation of the concentra-

tion index of house hold industrial workers. From the

figure it is clear that the house hold industrial workers

are concentrated in the coastal region.

The concentration index of house hold industrial

Fig 4.16: Concentration index of HH industrial workers in LSGS, Thrissur District - 2001

59



workers is maximum at Sreenarayanapuram which is

situated in the coastal area. Concentration index of

house holds industrial workers is less in eastern region

of the district except in Thiruvilwamala. It may be due

to the presence of world famous “Kuthampully” (both

handloom type and power loom type) industry there.

Kuthampully is 5kms from Tiruvilwamala and is well

known for kasavu handloom weaving. Kuthampully

Handloom Industrial Cooperative Society was regis-

Fig 4.17: Concentration index of Agricultural labourers in LSGS - Thrissur

tered in Kuthampully village, on the banks of the leg-

endary Bharathappuzha, in the Thiruvilwamala Grama

Panchayat, in the year 1972 with 102 members.

Kuthampully Sarees and other handlooms are

favourites especially among womenfolk not only in

Kerala, but also in other parts of the country.

The concentration index of house hold industrial

workers at Sreenarayanapuram, Edavilangu,

Kaipamangalam, Mathilakam is more than 3. All the

four LSGs are situated in the coastal region. Coir prod-

ucts, Thazhappaya, Handicrafts, Fish products, Food

products, Cement Door frames and Window frames etc.

are the main house hold industries in these regions.

Figure 4.17 shows the variation of the concentra-

tion index of agricultural labourers LSG wise. From the

figure it is clear that agricultural labourers are concen-

trated in north eastern part of Thrissur District. In that

region concentration of house hold industrial workers

are less except Thiruvilwamala.

The concentration index of is maximum at

Kondazhi which is situated in the high land region. The

concentration index is more than 2.8 at Kondazhi,

Chelakkara, Panjal and Pazhayannur Grama Panchayats

which is situated in the high land region. Concentra-

tion index of agricultural labourers in the coastal LSG is

generally less than one.

Figure 4.18 shows LSG wise variation of the con-

centration index of cultivators and the distribution pat-

tern of it shows that cultivators are concentrated in the

mid and high land regions of the district.

60



Fig 4.18: Spatial distribution of the concentration index of Cultivators

Fig 4.19: Spatial distribution of the concentration index of other workers

61



The concentration index of cultivators is maxi-

mum at Alur which is situated in the mid land region.

The concentration index of cultivators is more than 1.5

in Grama Panchayts of Alur, Annamanada, Kodakara,

Kondazhi, Mattathur, Pariyaram, Pazhayannur,

Puthenchira and Thekkumkara. All these LSG are situ-

ated in the high and mid land regions. The concentra-

tion index of cultivators in the coastal region is gener-

ally less than one. Most of the LSGs lie in the range of

concentration index 1.0-1.5.

Figure 4.19 shows LSG wise variation of the con-

centration index of other workers and the distribution

pattern shows concentration of other workers in the

mid and coastal regions of the district.

The concentration index of other workers is maxi-

Table 4.4: Concentration Pattern of Workers

LSGs where HH IndustrialWorkers are concentrated

(Con.Index > 1.5)

LSGs where AgricultureWorkers are concentrated

(Con.Index > 1.5)

LSGs whereCultivators areconcentrated

(Con.Index > 1.5)

LSGs where Other Workers areconcentrated

(Con.Index > 1.1)

SreenarayanapuramMathilakamKaipamangalamEdavilanguThiruvilwamalaParalamCherpuPerinjanamNenmanikkaraParappukkaraEriyadElavallyValappad

KondhazhiPazhayannurChelakkaraPanjalVaravoorThiruvilwamalaVelurDesamangalamChazhurMelurPariyaramKodasseryThekkumkkaraMullasseryKadangodePorkulamMullurkkaraAnnamanadaParalamPanancheryPuthenchiraMattathurKadavallur

AlurKodakaraKondhazhiMattathurPazhayannurAnnamanadaPariyaramThekkumkkaraPuthenchiraVelukkaraKuzhurKodasseryChelakkaraMelurPanancheryMalaTholurParalamChowannur

Guruvayur Municipal councilMethalaKadappuramThrissur Municpal CorporationOrumanayurPavarattyChavakkad Municipal councilKodungallur Municipal councilEngandiyurIrinjalakkuda Municipal councilAthirapillyPoyyaThaikkadVadanappillyPookodeEriyadPerinjanamAvinisseryThalikulamPunnayurValappadNattikkaKunnamkulamMunicipal CouncilVadakkekadChalakkudy Municipal councilKolazhyEdathiruthyKaralamPuthurKadukuttyDesamangalamMuriyadPuthukkad

Source: Census 2001

62



mum at Guruvayur Municipal Council. The concentra-

tion index of other workers is more than 1.1 in 27 LSGS

(Estimated) which includes Thrissur Municipal Corpo-

ration, Guruvayur Municipal Council, Chalakkudy

Muncipal Council, Chavakkad Municipal Council,

Irinjalakkuda Municipal Council, Kodungallur Munici-

pal Council and Kunnamkulam Municipal Council. Other

Fig. 4.19a Concentration of workers in Primary sector - LSG wise distribution

workers are more concentrated in and around urban

areas of the District. The concentration index of other

workers is less in the north eastern part of the district

where cultivators and agricultural labourers are more

concentrated.

The result of the analysis is shown in Table 4.4.

4.6 ACTIVITY PATTERN BASED ON OCCUPATIONALSTRUCTURE OF WORKERS

For analyzing the activity pattern of the district,

the concentration index of three class of workers viz:

Primary sector workers, Secondary sector workers and

Tertiary sector workers are calculated for each LSG (see

Annexe 4.A) and its spatial variation is analyzed

(fig4.19a, 4.19b, 4.19c).

it is clear that primary workers are more concen-

trated in high land region and some mid land LSGS. Sec-

ondary workers are concentrated in the mid land re-

gion and some coastal LSGS and the tertiary workers

are more concentrated in and arround the urban areas.

Overlaying the above concentration pattern of

primary, secondary and tertiary workers an activity pat-

tern based on work force can be evolved as below.

1. Primary Activity

2. Secondary Activity

3. Tertiary Activity

4. Combination of Primary Activity

63



Fig. 4.19b Concentration of workers in Secondary sector - LSG wise distribution

Fig. 4.19c Concentration of workers in Tertiary sector - LSG wise distribution

64



Fig 4.20: Activity Pattern of LSGS evolved based on concentration pattern of workers

Table 4.5: Four fold Classification of workers - 1981 to 2001

Cultivators Agr. labourers HH Industrial Workers Others

1981 60657 166408 34165 387595

1991 74064 183588 35898 511188

2001 50692 108907 48850 746851

Source: Census 2001

& Secondary Activity

5. Combination of Primary Activity & Ter-

tiary Activity

6. Combination of Secondary Activity &

Tertiary Activity

The activity pattern evolved in this manner is

given in figure. 4.20

From the above analysis, it is seen that activity

pattern of 29 LSGs is primary and 21 LSGs is secondary.

Tertiary activity pattern is seen in 11 LSGs. The rest of 38

LSGs have combination of the above activity patterns.

(6 LSGs with combination of primary and secondary ac-

tivity, 15 LSGs with combination of primary and tertiary

and 17 LSGs with combination of secondary and tertiary

activity).

4.7 OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE - TEMPORALVARIATION

The number of various categories of workers

from 1981 to 2001 in the district is given in the table 4.5.

Cultivators and agricultural labourers show decrease in

total numbers (a decrease of approximately 17% and

65



Fig 4.21: Variation in the number of different category of workers in urban area

Table 4.6: Four fold classification of urban workers : 1981-2001

Year Cultivators Agri Labourers HH Industrial Workers Other Workers

1981 4352 11751 6131 113780

1991 7011 17946 9861 172723

2001 3395 9872 12920 241478

Source: Census 2001

35%) during the period from 1981 to 2001, whereas the

other workers show an increase of 93%. This is a clear

indication of the weakening of the primary, mainly the

agricultural sector, in the district.

The Fig 4.21 and table 4.6 shows the variation of

the number of different category of workers in the ur-

ban area from 1981 to 2001. There is significant increase

in the category of other workers during this period,

meanwhile the category of workers in cultivators and

agricultural labourers are in the decline during the same

period. The house hold industrial workers also show an

increase during the period 1981-2001.

The fig 4.22 and table 4.7 shows the variation of

different category of workers in the rural area during

the period from 1981- 2001. The pattern of change in

the number of workers in different category show that

the rural area also exhibit the same pattern as that of

the urban area. This indicates that the primary sector

activity, mainly the agricultural activity is on the de-

cline in the rural area of the District. The back bone of

any economy of a region is the production sector, the

decline of which will have effects in multiple faces like

self sufficiency, economic stability etc. of a region.

66



Table 4.7: Four fold classification of rural workers : 1981-2001

Year Cultivators Agri Labourers HH Industrial Workers Other Workers

1981 56305 154657 28034 273815

1991 67053 165642 26037 338465

2001 47297 99035 35930 505373

Source: Census 2001

Fig 4.22 Variation in the number of different category of workers in rural areas

Sour

ce:

Cen

sus

2001

Fig 4.23: Changes in the occupational structure in urban areas of the district

Sour

ce:

Cen

sus

2001

67



Fig 4.24: Changes in the occupational structure in rural areas of the district

Sour

ce:

Cen

sus

2001

Comparison of the changes in the occupational

structure of the district in urban and rural areas are

shown in fig 4.23 and fig 4.24 respectively.

The above figure clearly indicates that the per-

centage of workers engaged in primary sector in rural

areas is alarmingly decreasing whereas the percentage

of workers in the other workers category is increasing.

This indicates a dilution of the rural nature of the rural

areas of the district. Workers in other workers category

is increasing both in urban and rural area. This has re-

sulted in the narrowing down of the boundary, distin-

guishing the character of rural and urban areas.

4.8 PROJECTION OF OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE(TREND BASED)

Occupational structure of an area determines

whether an area is urban or rural. As per the projection

made earlier in the urbanization studies, the total ur-

ban population of the District is expected to be in-

creased to 732235 and 979310 in 2011 and 2021 respec-

tively. Of course this will be reflected in the occupa-

tional structure of the area also. Before projecting the

possible occupational structure of the District, it is es-

sential to arrive at the work participation rate (WPR)

during 2011 and 2021. WPR of the District over a time

period is shown in Figure 4.25 and Table 4.8

Table 4.8: Value of WPR

68

1981 1991 2001

WPR 29.63 31.96 32.12WPR - Urban 28 31 32WPR - Rural 30 32 32



Fig 4.25: Temporal variation of WPR

Sour

ce:

Cen

sus

2001

From this it is clear that WPR of the urban area is

increasing over the period of time. WPR of rural area

has been increased from 30 % to 32% during the period

from 1981 to 1991 and after that during the succeeding

decade the value of WPR didn’t change, remained at 32

%. The fact that WPR of the urban area is equal to that

of the rural area indicates a uniform picture about the

number of job opportunities created in urban and rural

areas against the popular belief that urban area creates

more job opportunities.

This trend has to be changed in such a way that

urban area creates more job opportunities. Otherwise

it will affect the environmental and economical

sustainability of a region. There will be migration of

Table 4.9 : Number of Workers Projected (WPR)

1981 1991 2001 2011 2021

WPR 29.63 31.96 32.12 32.82 33.26

Source: Census 2001

Fig 4.26 : Projection of WPR

69



people from urban to rural areas resulting in the pos-

sible destruction of the resources like agricultural area,

water bodies and environmentally sensitive areas in

the rural area for residential purpose and thus destroy-

ing the economic base of the District.

It is accepted that a WPR of 40 % indicates a well

off society as far as the job opportunities are concerned.

The present WPR is only 32.12% and attaining a WPR of

40% by two decades is very difficult. In this circumstance

it is assumed that by 2021 the WPR of the District will

Table 4.10 : Number of workers projected

1981 1991 2001 2011 2021

WPR 29.63 31.96 32.12 32.82 33.26Population 2439633 2737311 2974232 3153564 3286439Workers 722784 874806 955300 1035000 1093070

Source: Census 2001

Table 4.11: Projection of workers in urban and rural areas

be a moderate figure of 33.26%. Assuming a uniform

increase in the WPR, the projected WPR of the District

is shown in table 4.9 and fig 4.26.

The number workers based on the projected WPR

is given in table 4.10.

In order to arrest the trend of migration of people

from urban to rural area, it is assumed that the WPR in

both urban and rural areas attain the same value of

33.26% accordingly the number of workers in urban and

rural area are projected. This given in table 4.11.

4.9 INFERENCE

The backbone of any economy of a region is the

production sector. The analysis of the occupational struc-

ture of the District shows a very alarming situation about

the economic base of the district. The production sec-

tor including the agriculture and cultivator sector shows

declining trend in the district. The sectors, which show

growth, are the industrial and the service sector. More

than 50% of the urban population depends on the ser-vice sector for their lively hood. It is observed that ruralarea of the district is also slowly withdrawing from theprimary sector and started depending more on the ser-vice sector. The boundary distinguishing the characterof rural and urban areas is narrowing down. If this trendin the change in the occupational structure of the dis-trict is considered, there won’t be any distinction inthe occupational structure whether it is in an urban or

rural area.

Year Total workers

Urban rural break up of total workers

WPR totalUrban Rural

Number of workers

WPRNumber of

workersWPR

1981 722784 146449 0.28 576335 0.30 0.296

1991 874806 221188 0.31 653618 0.32 0.320

2001 955300 267665 0.32 687635 0.32 0.321

2011 1035000 240759 0.3288 794241 0.3280 0.3282

2021 1093070 325719 0.3326 767351 0.3326 0.3326

70

admin

Text Box

CHAPTER 5 >>

admin

Text Box

< CONTENTS >

chapter – 4 occupational...

Documents