This article examines income disparities by considering both employer and employee perspectives of informality to scrutinize labor market segmentation in India. Additionally, the research investigates the impacts of varying degrees of urbanization, migration patterns, and industrial structures on formal and informal employment in the labor force. Utilizing data from the National Sample Survey Employment and Unemployment Survey rounds, specifically the 2004–2005 (61st) and 2011–2012 (68th) rounds, along with the Periodic Labour Force Survey 2018–2019 round, quantile regression models and the Recentred Influence Function decomposition method were employed to analyze wage inequality. A selection-corrected wage equation and its estimate were also presented by applying Bourguignon, Fournier, and Gurgand’s model-based selection correction. The study’s findings indicate that by 2019, the labor market had divided into two groups: organized formal workers and others. Further, the study reports wage convergence at lower quantiles and a widening gap at higher quantiles between organized formal and unorganized informal workers. Organized formal workers witness rising earnings, indicating positive wage growth, yet their share in overall employment remains small, which is significant given low job creation and high educated unemployment. At higher wage quantiles, there is a premium for being an informal worker in the organized sector compared to the unorganized sector, indicating a queue for formal employment opportunities in the organized sector. Despite the service sector’s significant role in Indian growth, it lags in creating formal job opportunities, unlike the manufacturing and construction sectors, which emphasize their substantial contribution to formal job generation. This study underlines that categorizing a firm as merely organized or a worker as formally employed is insufficient. Upgrades in these classifications should be accompanied by premiums, with wages being a key consideration.
AbrahamR. (2019). Informal employment and the structure of wages in India: A review of trends. Review of Income and Wealth, 65(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12435
2.
AhmedN., & NauriyalD. K. (2024). The impact of parents’ educational and occupational footprints on children: Evidence from India. Journal of South Asian Development, 19(1), 7–43.
3.
AlmJ. (2019). What motivates tax compliance?Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(2), 353–388.
4.
BargainO., & KwendaP. (2011). Earnings structures, informal employment, and self-employment: New evidence from Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa. Review of Income and Wealth, 57(Suppl. 1), S100–S122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2011.00454.x
5.
BhattacharyaP. C. (2011). Informal sector, income inequality and economic development. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 820–830.
6.
BlinderA. S. (1973). Wage discrimination: Reduced form and structural estimates. Journal of Human Resources, VIII(4), 436–455.
7.
BourguignonF., FournierM., & GurgandM. (2007). Selection bias corrections based on the multinomial logit model: Monte Carlo comparisons. Journal of Economic Surveys, 21(1), 174–205.
8.
BrownR. S., MoonM., & ZolothB. S. (1980). Incorporating occupational attainment in studies of male-female earning differentials. Journal of Human Resources, 15(1), 3–28.
9.
CardD. (2009). Immigration and inequality. American Economic Review, 99(2), 1–21.
Dell’AnnoR. (2022). Theories and definitions of the informal economy: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 36(5), 1610–1643.
12.
DeshingkarP., & AkterS. (2009). Migration and human development in India(Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Research Paper no. 19193). https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/19193/1/MPRA_paper_19193.pdf
13.
FieldsG. S. (1990). Labour market modeling and the urban informal sector: Theory and evidence [Electronic version]. InTurnhamD., SaloméB., & SchwarzA.(Eds.), The informal sector revisited (pp. 49–69). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5131061.pdf
14.
FineB. (1998). Labour market theory: A constructive reassessment (1st ed.). Routledge.
FirpoS. P., FortinN. M., & LemieuxT. (2018). Decomposing wage distributions using recentered influence function regressions. Econometrics, 6(2), 28.
17.
FunkhouserE. (1996). The urban informal sector in Central America: Household survey evidence. World Development, 24(11), 1737–1751. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00074-5
18.
GoelM. (2017). Inequality between and within skill groups: The curious case of India. World Development, 93(May), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.024
19.
HarrisJ. R., & TodaroM. P. (1970). Migration, unemployment and development: A two-sector analysis. American Economic Review, 60(1), 126–142.
20.
ILO (International Labour Organisation). (2018). India wage report: Wage policies for decent work and inclusive growth. International Labour Office.
21.
KannanK. P., & RaveendranG. (2019). From jobless to job-loss growth: Gainers and losers in India’s employment performance during 2012–2018. Economic & Political Weekly, 54(44), 38–44.
22.
KapoorR. (2019). An employment data strategy for India. In India policy forum. NCAER. https://www.ncaer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/An-Employment-Data-Strategy-for-India_Radhicka-Kapoor_India-Policy-Forum-2019-Vol-16-192-240.pdf
23.
KesarS., & BhattacharyaS. (2020). Dualism and structural transformation: The informal manufacturing sector in India. The European Journal of Development Research, 32(3), 560–586.
24.
KumarM., & PandeyS. (2021). Wage gap between formal and informal regular workers in India: Evidence from the National Sample Survey. Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, 13(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974910121989458
25.
LevensonA. R., & MaloneyW. (1998). The informal sector, firm dynamics, and institutional participation(Policy Research Working Paper Series No. 1988). World Bank Group. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:1988
26.
MachadoJ. A., & MataJ. (2005). Counterfactual decomposition of changes in wage distributions using quantile regression. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20(4), 445–465.
27.
MaloneyW. F. (1999). Does informality imply segmentation in urban labor markets? Evidence from sectoral transitions in Mexico. The World Bank Economic Review, 13(2), 275–302.
28.
MeghirC., NaritaR., & RobinJ. M. (2015). Wages and informality in developing countries. American Economic Review, 105(4), 1509–1546.
29.
MehrotraS., ParidaJ., SinhaS., & GandhiA. (2014). Explaining employment trends in the Indian economy: 1993-94 to 2011-12. Economic & Political Weekly, 49(32), 49–57.
30.
MellyB. (2006). Estimation of counterfactual distributions using quantile regression. Review of Labor Economics, 68(4), 543–572.
31.
NakosteenR. A., & ZimmerM. (1980). Migration and income: The question of self-selection. Southern Economic Journal, 46(3), 840–851.
32.
NarayananA. (2015). Informal employment in India: Voluntary choice or a result of labor market segmentation?Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 58(1), 119–167.
33.
NayyarG., & KimK. Y. (2018). India’s internal labor migration paradox: The statistical and the real[World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 8356]. World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/429181519662555108/pdf/WPS8356.pdf
34.
NCEUS (National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector). (2008). Report on definitional and statistical issues relating to the informal economy. Government of India. https://msme.gov.in/national-commission-enterprises-un-organised-sectornceus/
35.
NSSO. (2005). Employment and unemployment situation in India; sixty-first round (July 2004–June 2005). Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. http://microdata.gov.in/nada43/index.php/catalog/EUE
36.
NSSO. (2012). Employment and unemployment situation in India; sixty-eighth round (July 2011–June 2012). Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. http://microdata.gov.in/nada43/index.php/catalog/EUE
37.
OaxacaR. (1973). Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. International Economic Review, 14(3), 693–709.
38.
ParidaJ. K. (2019). Rural-urban migration, urbanization, and wage differentials in urban India. InJayanthakumaranK., VermaR., WanG., & WilsonE.(Eds.), Internal migration, urbanization and poverty in Asia: Dynamics and interrelationships (pp. 189–218). SpringerOpen. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/50064/1/978-981-13-1537-4.pdf#page=194
39.
PiresR. (2008). Promoting sustainable compliance: Styles of labour inspection and compliance outcomes in Brazil. International Labour Review, 147(2–3), 199–229.
40.
PLFS. (2019). Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2018– June 2019). Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. http://microdata.gov.in/nada43/index.php/catalog/EUE
41.
PostiL., MaitiA., & PatraS. (2024). An empirical study of firm characteristics, degree of informality, and productivity heterogeneity in the Indian informal sector. Applied Economics, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2024.2333709
42.
RabbaniG., & RajS. N. R. (2024). Productivity and wage gaps between informal and formal firms in India: Trends and determinants. Journal of the International Council for Small Business, 5(3), 1–22.
43.
RobinsonC., & TomesN. (1982). Family labour supply and fertility: A two-regime model. Canadian Journal of Economics, 15(4), 706–734.
44.
SahooN. (2016). A tale of three cities: India’s exclusionary urbanisation(Orf issue brief no. 156). Observer Research Foundation. https://www.orfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ORF_IssueBrief_156.pdf
SheikhR. A., GauravS., & MishraT. (2021). Race among equals? An inquiry into the segmentation of Indian labor market. Review of Development Economics, 25(4), 2180–2206. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12804
47.
SiggelE. (2010). The Indian informal sector: The impact of globalization and reform. International Labour Review, 149(1), 93–105.
48.
SinghariS., & MadheswaranS. (2017). Wage structure and wage differentials in formal and informal sectors in India: Evidence from NSS data. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 60(3), 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-018-0110-y
49.
SrivastavaR. (2016a). Structural change and non-standard forms of employment in India (Conditions of work and employment series no. 68). International Labour Office. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ilo/ilowps/994897513402676.html
50.
SrivastavaR. (2016b). Myth and reality of labour flexibility in India. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 59(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-016-0048-x
51.
SrivastavaR. (2019). Emerging dynamics of labour market inequality in India: Migration, informality, segmentation and social discrimination. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 62(2), 147–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-019-00178-5
52.
Tannuri-PiantoM., & PiantoD. M. (2002). Informal employment in Brazil—A choice at the top and segmentation at the bottom: A quantile regression approach. Anais Do XXIV Encontro Brasileiro de Econometria, 2(15), 77.
53.
TiwariC., BhattacharjeeS., SethiP., & ChakrabartiD. (2022). Internal migration and rural inequalities in India. Population Research and Policy Review, 41(4), 1673–1698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-022-09707-5
54.
TodaroM. P. (1969). A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries. The American Economic Review, 59(1), 138–148.
55.
Tonet MacielF. (2021). Occupational segregation and wage differentials by gender and race in Brazil: Evidence from a quantile decomposition. International Journal of Manpower, 42(5), 810–841.
56.
Tsafack-NanfossoR., & Zamo-AkonoC. (2009). Migration and wages differentials in urban Cameroon. Research in Applied Economics, 1(1), 1–20.
57.
UlysseaG. (2018). Firms, informality, and development: Theory and evidence from Brazil. American Economic Review, 108(8), 2015–2047.
58.
VijayG. (2005). Migration, vulnerability and insecurity in new industrial labour markets. Economic & Political Weekly, 40(22/23), 2304–2312.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
