Social Exclusion and Earnings Balwant Singh Mehta 1.

Background The sixty-two year journey of post-colonial India presents a mixed picture. On the one hand, the country has substantial achievement in some of the sectors and dimensions of economic development. On the other hand, it has failed more or less in addressing the problems of poor, marginalized and deprived groups and communities, who have remained excluded from the fruits of high economic growth. There is an ongoing debate among the researchers, whether the recent economic development hasd benefited only a small section of the Indian population and whether it has led to increasing disparities and inequalities among different groups and communities over the years. Several research studies in the past have highlighted the close link between inequality and social exclusion, wherein unequal societies certain groups and communities are discriminated (Gore, 1994; dDe Haan, 1995; Nayak, 1995; Nayak, 1994; ILO, 1996; Mishra, 1999; Atkinson, 1998; Bhalla & and Lapeyre, 1999; Mishra, 1999; Kabeer, 2000; Majumdar, 2007; Carr &and Chen, 2004; Buvinic, 2005QUERY: Not included in the reference list.; Mutatkar, 2005; Borooah et al., 2005; Mutatkar, 2005; Majumdar, 2007; TakahiroItoLO, 2007; Thorat et al, 2008; Buvinic 2005). This summarizses the meaning of social exclusion as the inability of an individual to participate in basic, political, economic and social functioning of society, and goes on to add that social exclusion is the denial of equal access to opportunities imposed by certain groups of society upon others. This definition captures the three distinguishable features of social exclusion: firstly, the effects on culturally defined groups; secondly, that it is embedded in the social relations (the processes through which individuals or groups are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society in which they live), and finally, that it delineates its outcome in terms of low income and high degree of poverty among the excluded groups (Hann, 1997; QUERY: Not included in the reference list.; Sen 2000QUERY: Not included in the reference list.).

20

In the context of labour market, exclusion may operate along a number of socioeconomic attributes -- social groups, religion, age -- which effectively reduce the opportunity for such groups to gain access to social services and limit their participation in the labour market. In the labour market, exclusion can occur in hiring, for instance, when two persons with similar education qualification and experience apply for employment they face discrimination because of some non-economic (social origins like such as caste, race, ethnicity and religious background) characteristics of an individual. This kind of discrimination in the labour market can not be ignored, mainly because of its adverse consequences on access to employment, earnings and working conditions (Thorat, 2008). The pertinent questions arises that at till what extent inequalities in employment and earnings occurs due to this discrimination. It is important to de-mystify labour market discrimination in the context of inter-group inequalities in employment and wage earnings. This kind of discrimination and disparity has been practiced in India since time immemorial. The Schedule Caste (SCs) and Schedule Tribes (STs) has been pariah in the development process of India for a quite a long time. Affirmative actions in the form of reservation in education and employment were taken after Independence to provide them space in the mainstream and trigger self- sustaining growth of these groups. In recent years, the issue has again come to centre -stage in view of the debate between pro- and anti-reservation lobbies with a point that of exclusion of Other Backward CastesGroup (OBCs) in social category and Muslims in religious groups from main-stream development (Majumdar, 2007). Therefore, how various measures for the welfare of such deprived sections of the Indian society have helped in the labour market would be worth to be examineding. To unearth whether such disparities exist and at what extent, there is an urgent need to address this issue. An attempt has been made in this paper chapter to address some of these key questions surrounding on the labour market discrimination with the following objectives/hypothesis. 2. Objectives/Hypothesis 2.1 Objectives The main objectives of the paper are outlined as follows:

21

( a). Exploring the trend and pattern in wage/earning differential in the labour market in terms of access to employment and wage earnings among various socio-religious groups. (b). Determining the inter-group inequality in employment and earning among various socio-religious groups. (c). Exploring the contribution of other factors including socio-religious groups to earning inequality in labour market.

2.2 Hypothesis Following are some of the hypotheses that need to be examined with the above objectives: ( a) There is a selective inclusion or hiring with unequal wages, i.e. lower than those posited in the market or the wages received by higher socio-religious groups. (b) The quality of work, i.e. more number of excluded groups in casual or contractual work than other socio-economic categories or exclusion from regular or permanent work with higher wages. (c) Exclusion in certain categories of jobs and mainly involved in the menial occupations (Thorat, et al., 2003QUERY: Not included in the reference list.) (mainly involved in as Hair Dressers, Barbers, Sweepers, Cleaners and Related Workers, Sweepers, etc.). The paper chapter is divided into seven main sections, Section I 1 presents the background detail, Section II 2 outlines the objectives and Section III 3 tells about data and methodology. Section 4IV highlights the current situation of socio-religious groups in terms of employment and earnings and the fifth section presents a detail picture of wage/earnings inequality among these socio-religious groups. Section VI explores the contribution of the various other excluded groups including socio-religious groups towards explaining earnings or wages inequality. The last section concludes the pchapter with some major policy remarks. 3. Data and Methodology

22

The data for this pchapter is have been taken from two rounds of National Sample Survey (NSS), i.e. the 50th round (1993--94) and the 61st round (2004--05), which is available at individual level with different socio-religious groups. Six socio-religious categories namely Others, Schedule caste (Dalit), Adivasi (ST), Other Backward Class (OBC) of Hindus, Muslims and other religious groups are included for the analysis. The data for the OBC category wereas not available in 1993--94. Therefore for the comparison of data over the time, OBC has been combined with others. Advanced statistical techniques such as Gini coefficients, General Entropy Measures, Kernel Density Function and decomposition analysis have been used to analysze the extent of inequality among the socio-religious groups. The data at the disaggregated level permits us to see the changes and progress made by specific groups over time. This information also draws attention to exclusion, strengthening influencing strategies. This also raises the profile and visibility of excluded groups, which is an important input for researchers and policy- makers. 4. Disparities Aacross Various Socio-Religious Groups A brief look at the disparities in the employment opportunities of different socio-religious groups would be appropriate before analyszing the differential in their labour markets outcome in terms of employment and earnings. Table 13.11 shows share of population, employment and earnings by socio-religious groups. Table 13.1: Share in Population, Employment and Earnings by Socio-Religious Groups in India- (1993-- 2004) (15--59 Age Groups)
Share in Population 1993 8 18 58 11 5 100 2004 7 18 56 13 5 100 Share in Employment 1993 10 18 58 9 5 100 2004 9 18 57 10 5 100 Share in Earning (constant 1993 prices) 1993 2004 6 5 16 16 63 63 7 8 8 8 100 100

Scheduled Tribes Scheduled Caste Others* Muslim Other Religion Total

Source: Data calculated from unit level data CD of various NSS rounds. *Includes OBC.

23

The results indicate that the share of population, employment and earning of the Excluded Groups (Muslims, SCs, STs: Henceforth EGs), is lower than that of the Included Group (Upper Caste and OBC Hindu: Henceforth IGs). In wage employment and earnings, the share of EGs is lower than their corresponding share in population. However, a contrary trend has been observed in the case of IGs. The gap between IGs and EGs has been increasing over the period, from 1993 to 2004. It is quite clear from the above analysis that the EGs are marginalized in the job market, and employment opportunities are restricted for them. The share of EGs in the population increased with the decline in the share of employment and earnings indicating discrimination in the labour market.

24

Table 13.2: Distribution by Status of Wage Workers (15--59 Age Groups)

Regular 1993 2004 Scheduled Tribes 12.00 13.06 Scheduled Caste 15.16 20.87 Others* 41.26 43.32 Muslim 31.03 33.54 Other Religion 38.22 44.20 Total 30.46 33.87 Source: Data calculated from unit level data CD of various NSS rounds. Casual 1993 88.00 84.84 58.74 68.97 61.78 69.54 2004 86.94 79.13 56.68 66.46 55.80 66.13

*Includes OBC.

The tTable 13.2 presents the distribution of wage workers by their status of employment. It is observed that the workers belonging to IGs are proportionately more in regular jobs with secured wages, while the EGs are largely employed into casual jobs, which does not have any surety regarding availability of jobs, and hence suffer from uncertainty regarding earnings too. Since total earning depends both on rate of wages and job availability, those with casual jobs earn much less because of non-availability of jobs for a major part of the week/month/year. This indicates that the predominance of cCasual workers among the EGs with poor quality of work is the main reasons for the existing disparity in earning. As discrimination leads to disparities in capability formation and ownership of assets, the EGs are unable to participate in the growing economic affluence and are being increasingly marginalized (Mazumdar, 2008QUERY: Not included in the reference list.). For examining this phenomenon further, Table 13.3 presents per day wages and weekly earnings of workers by their socio-religious groups and stats of employment. As explained earlier, the shares of EGs in employment are lower than their share in population - - their shares in total earnings are even further lower. This implies that even when they are getting jobs, they earn relatively less than the IGs. The disparity is also alarmingly high as earning per day of EGs is far lower than IGs. This clearly indicates significant disparity and discrimination in the wage market resulting in further deprivation of the EGs (Table 13.3).

25

Table 3: Earnings by Social Groups for Regular and Casual Workers in India (15--59 Age Groups in RsQUERY: Please insert rupee symbol & and at constant 1993 prices)
Daily Earning Regular Casual 1993 2004 1993 2004 54 77 54 77 52 67 52 67 73 100 73 100 54 72 54 72 74 103 74 103 68 92 68 92 Weekly Earning Regular Casual 1993 2004 1993 2004 367 535 111 138 351 470 121 159 497 701 126 166 368 503 148 185 503 719 164 198 464 643 127 164

Scheduled Tribes Scheduled Caste Others* Muslim Other Religion Total Source: Data calculated from unit level data CD of various NSS rounds.

*Includes OBC.

It also emerges clearly from Table 13.3 that among regular workers, average daily wage and weekly earning of EGs haves been far lower than the IGs. The gap in the regular earrings between IGs and EGs has also been widening over the period, from 1993 to 2004. However, among the casual workers, the wage per day and earning differences between EGs and IGs is far lower in comparison to regular workers. There are more disparities in regular workers than casual wage workers among different socio-religious groups. The reasons may be the variety of occupations they involves. The reasons for these glaring disparities need to be further explored. One important reason could be the type of occupations ion which workers of such groups are engaged. It is seen that the occupational distribution is highly skewed with very few from the EGs present in the decent jobs (professional, technical, administrators, and managers, etc.) An overwhelming majority of the workers from EGs are in occupations like such as services workers, farming, sales and labours. Since the wages in these occupations are relatively much lower. (Table 13.4).

26

Table 13.4: Occupational Distribution of Wage Workers by Socio-Religion in India (15--59 Age Groups)
Earners ST SC 1993 Muslim 2004 Muslim 8.3 4.3

Others

Professional, 3.11 6.50 6.14 75.24 3.7 technical and related workers Administrative 1.15 3.46 2.41 83.44 9.53 1.9 , eExecutive and mManagerial wWorkers Clerical and 3.10 9.72 5.43 74.14 7.62 3.2 related workers Sales 1.61 6.75 10.82 74.75 6.06 2.3 wWorkers Service 4.85 23.38 6.50 57.23 8.04 5.0 wWorkers Farmer, 5.43 14.89 10.43 63.12 6.13 10.9 fFishermen, hHunter, lLogger and rRelated workers Workers not 5.20 14.61 7.69 68.11 4.39 4.1 classified Total 4.13 12.51 7.90 68.20 7.26 9.0 Source: Data calculated from unit level data CD of various NSS rounds.

Other Religi on 9.01

ST

SC 9.9 4.3

Others 68.7 80.4

Other Religi on 9.5 9.1

12.1 11.7 28.1 27.8

6.0 14.1 7.6 9.5

70.8 67.3 52.4 46.3

7.9 4.6 6.8 5.5

30.7 24.4

17.5 9.2

45.3 51.4

2.4 6.0

Over the period among the IGs , the proportion of services workers (workers involved in low- paid job and menial jobs ( mainly involved asin Hair Dressers, Barbers , Sweepers, Cleaners and Related Workers , Launderers, Dry-cleaners and, Pressers, etc.) has gone up. The distribution of wage by occupations also shows that the wage/earning of service workers, farming and labourers is significantly lower than other occupations (Table 13.56). The occupational distribution of wage workers somewhat holds up the hypothesis that workers belonging to EGs are mostly working in menial jobs as service workers, farm workers and labourers, which are low paid (Table 613.5).

27

Table 613.5: Distribution of Wage pPer dDay by Occupation (15-- 59 Age Groups)
Earners ST SC 1993 Muslim Others Other Religio n 91 ST SC 2004 Muslim 112 198 Others 150 281 Other Religio n 135 293

Professional, 77 78 88 105 119 114 technical and related workers Administrative, 126 153 123 167 188 296 165 Eexecutive and Mmanagerial Wworkers Clerical and 70 70 72 83 85 110 98 related workers Sales Wworkers 28 27 31 40 50 33 36 Service 45 39 39 45 46 43 48 wWorkers Farmer, 21 24 30 30 35 26 32 fFishermen, hHunter, lLogger and rRelated workers Workers not 36 28 33 42 47 47 26 classified Total 24 27 36 46 49 33 39 Source: Data calculated from unit level data CD of various NSS rounds.

107 46 50 38

118 51 56 39

126 61 59 45

35 48

48 65

93 69

Lastly, whether the governments affirmative actions haves been benefited theto EGs , this can be seen by the employment pattern of regular workers by enterprise type in 2004--05 (Table 713.6). Table 713.6 : Distribution of Regular Workers in Government/Public Sector Jobs Scheduled Tribes Scheduled Caste Muslim Others* Other Religion Total Govt./Public Sector 42.8 35.3 23.4 32.8 33.4 32.8 Others 57.2 64.7 76.6 67.2 66.6 67.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Data calculated from unit level data CD of NSS 61st round.

Note: In 1993, data wereas not available by enterprise type. *Includes OBC.

The tTable 7 13.6 clearly indicates that how the reservation policy of government has benefited the socially EGs. In the government and public sector, the proportion of total wage workers within EGs isare substantially higher than others. Within EGs, among 28

scheduled tribes the proportion of government/public sector is highest followed by scheduled castes. 5. Earning Inequality aAmong Socio-Religious Groups The Gini coefficient presented in Table 13.77 shows that there is a high incidence of disparities in earning among IGs in comparison to EGs. More importantly, the inequality has also been increased over the period among all the groups. The high increase in inequality among IGs indicates that wage/earning of higher wage groups has gone up faster than EGs. The overall income inequality shows continuous increase in all measures (G (0) to G (2)) over the years. The increase in inequality is sharper in GE (1) and GE (2), pointed that higher income inequality in upper distribution of earnings of IGs. Table 13.7: Generalized Entropy Measures for Regular and Casual Workers by SsocioRreligious Ggroups ((15--59 Age Groups)
Gini GE(0) GE(1) 1993 2004 1993 2004 1993 2004 0.40 0.45 0.27 0.35 0.32 0.45 Scheduled Tribes 0.42 0.45 0.30 0.35 0.32 0.40 Scheduled Caste 0.42 0.47 0.30 0.38 0.31 0.43 Others* 0.51 0.55 0.47 0.55 0.45 0.56 Muslim 0.47 0.53 0.41 0.51 0.39 0.52 Other Religion All 0.50 0.54 0.43 0.51 0.44 0.55 Source: Data calculated from unit level data CD of various NSS rounds. GE(2) 1993 2004 0.56 0.94 0.48 0.67 0.42 0.75 0.63 0.90 0.54 0.86 0.67 0.97

Note: GE classes of measurements are Generalizsed Entropy measures. GE(0) gives more weights to lower tail of the income distribution, GE(1) gives equal weights and GE(2) gives more weights to the upper tail of income distribution. *Includes OBC.

Further, this shows that workers earnings inequality is increasing with income distribution. The inequality of casual workers has declined over the years for EGs, which is sharper in the upper part of the distribution, which shows that more concentration of EGs in the lower income distribution. SecondAlso, inequality of regular wage workers has increased over the period and substantially rises in the upper income distribution. Inequality among regular wage is consistently higher for all socio-religious groups than casual wage in both the years (Annex Table A2.3).

29

Figure 13.1: Kernel Density Graph of Regular and Casual Workers by Socio-Religious Groups in 2004--05

The inequality among the socio-religious groups has been further explored by KDF (Kernel Density Function) distribution of earning over time for wage workers. This type of graph gives a visual idea about the nature of inequality. The KDF distribution may be viewed as histograms that have been smoothened to iron out minor irregularity in the observed data (Deaton, 1997QUERY: Not included in the reference list.) and it draws the eye to the essential features of the distribution. The weekly earnings of workers have been taken because this is a better indicator for wage/earning (Figure 13.1). The KDF graphs shows that workers of EGs have higher concentration at lower level of earnings and IGs are significantly present at middle and higher levels of earnings. This 30

reveals that workers of excluded groups are involved in low- paid job in comparison to others. Over the period, the mode of EGs at the lower end has gone up, which explains theat higher concentration of low- paid workers. The KDF shows that over the period, the distance between EG and IG has increased showing that the concentration of EG has gone up at lower level of earnings and declined at middle and higher levels of earnings (Figure 13.1). 6. Decomposition Analysis In the earlier sections, details of earnings inequality among wage earners of different socio-religious categories have been discussed. Further, apart from socio-religious groups various other factors like such as educational level, employment status, settlement (rural or urban), industry groups, gender, days of work, age, etc. have also contributed to earning of wage workers. In order to understand the contribution of each of these attributes, a decomposition analysis has been performed by using Field approach. Field (20032) developed a new approach that considers simultaneously the impact of several characteristic of earnings and allows distinguishing contribution of each of these characteristics. The approach is useful as it helps to know the contribution of various factors including categorical factors that enter as a string of dummy variables (Uma Rani, 2008). The fFigure 13.2 presents the decomposition of factors (excluding residuals) that contribute to earnings disparity of all wage earners. Two major factors that contributed to the differences in earnings are educational level and intensity of work (total days of work). Regular workers generally get paid for all days in a week whether they work or are on leave, but casual workers are paid only for the days they actually work. Apart from the daily wage rate, the earnings of the casual workers directly get affected by the number of days work and this factor had turned out to be the second most important factor contributing to earnings inequality. The level of education emerged as the most dominant factor contributing to the level of inequality in the earnings of wage workers. The employment status (regular or casual) was the third- most important factor. It showed that even after controlling days of work, daily wage differential between regular and casual wage workers was substantial. Interestingly, the relative importance of these factors in

31

explaining part of contribution to earning inequality has not changed much over the period. The socio-religious group contribution is only 2 two per cent, lowest among all the factors and has not changed over the period. This is possibly due to two factors, one is high presence of EGs in regular jobs, which are the consequences of affirmative actions taken by the government (reservation policy -- Table 713.6), and another education level (graduate and above shows very high contribution appendix tTable A2.1). Further, the detailed results of regression also shows that the relative contribution of EGs has gone up over the period, which is possibly again due to the same reasons elicited above (appendix tTable A2.1).

32

Figure 13.2: Contribution to Earning of Various Factors of Wage Earners

Figure 2:Contribution to Earnings of Various Factors to Wage/ Earnings
100% 90% 80% Contribution 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 17 11 8 5 1993 Sector Gender Industry Status Year Education No of days 13 11 9 4 2004 Age Socio-religious group 32 33 2 5 20 2 7 22

7. Conclusions The overall analysis shows that there is a significant presence of social exclusion among the wage earners of different socio-religious groups. The EGs are getting lower wages in similar type of jobs and mostly involved in casual wages. Occupation-wise results also indicate that significant proportions of EGs are involved in low- paid and menial occupations. Further, the inequality analysis shows that the inequality among EGs at lower level of earning is almost similar to IGs, however, at higher level of earning inequality among EGs is far lower than IGs, indicating concentration of EGs at lower level. This phenomenon has been further proved through the KDF graph , which clearly indicates that at lower earning level, the concentration of EGs is substantially higher than that of IGs (mMode of EGs is higher than IGs), which has increased further over the period. This analysis shows that disparity or inequality is increasing between IGs and EGs. Lastly, the decomposition analysis reveals that the contribution of the socioreligious groups in overall earning inequality is not substantial (only 2 per cent) but a detailed analysis shows that the contribution of EGs has been increased over the period, which is possibly due to the reservation policy of the government. 33

Therefore, it is necessary to not only provide more jobs to EGs through reservation policy, but also to make them more employable through imparting quality education and hands-on skill formation. Unless skills and efficiency among EGs can be build up, the labour market will continue discriminating them and bereft of earrings, a vicious cycle of low human capital-, therefore, low earning will continue over generations. The human capital formation can not be done alone by reservation policy, better social infrastructure education and health at their reach is also necessary. References Appasamy, P., S. Guhan, R. Hema, M. Majumdar and A. Vaidyanathan. (1996.) Social exclusion from a welfare rights perspective in India., IILS Research Series, No.106, Geneva, Switzerland. QUERY: Not cited in the text. Atkinson, A.B. (1998.) - Social Exclusion, Poverty and Unemployment in A.B. Atkinson and J. Hills (editors.) Exclusion, Employment and Opportunity, (CASE Ppaper 4)., London : Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics,, London.QUERY: Please provide the page span for this article.pp 1-20

Banerjee, B. and J.B. Knight. (1985.) - Caste Discrimination in the Indian Labor Market.. Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 17 QUERY: Not cited in the text and also provide the page span for the article. Beall, J. & and C. Clert. (2000) -. Globalization and Social Exclusion: Implications for Urban Social Policy., Paper prepared for African Families II: Macroeconomics. World Bank QUERY: Not cited in the text and also provide the publisher location. Beall, J. (2002.) Globalisation and Social Exclusion in Cities: Framing the Debate with Lessons from Africa and Asia, Working Paper No. 02--27, DESTIN, London School of Economics, London. QUERY: Not cited in the text Bhalla, A.S. & and F. Lapeyre. (1999.) - Global Integration and Social Exclusion with Special Reference to Poland and Hungary., European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 11, No.( 1). pp QUERY: Please provide the page span for this reference. 101-124 Borooah, V.K., A. Dubey and S. Iyer. 2005. Has Job Reservation Been Effective? Caste, Religion, and Economic Status in India. Unpublished mManuscript, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, November 2005, (cited from Takahiro, 2007).

34

Buvnic Mayra ( 2005) Social Exclusion in Latin Aamerica ,in Mayara Buvinic and Jacqueline Mazzaand Ruthanne Deutsch ( 2005) Social Inclusion and Economic Development in Latin Aamerica,Inter-Aamerican Development Bank,Newyork , Carr, M. and M. Chen. 2004. Globalization, Social Exclusion and Work: with Special Reference to Informal Employment and Gender, Working Paper No. 20, Policy Integration Department, World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, International Labour Office, Geneva, May 2004. Haan, De Arjan 1995. Bibliographical Review on Social Exclusion in South Asia: Annotated IILS / ILO, www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/papers/1994/dp77/index.htm Haan, De Arjan (1997.): Poverty and Social Exclusion: A Comparison of Debates on Deprivation, Poverty Research Unit, Working Paper No 2, University of Sussex, Brighton. Deaton, Angus (1997):. The Analysis of Household Surveys: A Microeconometric Approach to Development Policy, (Washington: Johns Hopkins Press, (WWorld Bank.). Fields, G.S. 2003. Accounting for Income Inequality and its Changes: A New Method with Application to the Distribution of Earnings in the United States. Research in Labor Economics 22: pp138. Gottschalk Peter & Mary Joyce, 1995. "Is Earnings Inequality Also Rising in Other Industrialized Countries? -- tThe Role of Institutional Constraints," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 306., Boston College Department of Economics. Gore, C. 1994. Social Exclusion and Africa South of the Sahara: A Review of the Literature, IILS / ILO, www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/papers/1994/dp62/index.htm ILO. 1996. Social Exclusion and Anti-Poverty Strategies: A Synthesis of Findings, Geneva .International Labour Organization), Geneva QUERY: Please provide other details such as the name of publisher, etc. for this reference

Ito, T. 2007. Caste Discrimination and Transaction Costs in the Labor Market: Evidence from Rural North India, Discussion Paper Series No. 200, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University Kabeer, N. 2000. The pPower to cChoose: Bangladeshi Women and Labour Market Decisions in London and Dhaka. London: Verso.

35

Katz, Lawrence F & Murphy, Kevin M, 1992. "Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and Demand Factors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vVol. 107(1), pages 35-78, February. Majumdar, R. 2007. Earning Differentials Across Social Groups: Evidences from India. MPRA Paper 12811, University Library of Munich, Germany. Mazumdar, Dipak and Sandip Sarkar ( 2008.): Globalisation, Labour Markets and Inequality in India (London: Routledge, 2008). Mishra, R. 1999. Beyond the Nation State: Social Policy in an Age of Globalization in C. Jones-Finer (ed.) Transnational Social Policy. Oxford: Blackwell. QUERY: Please provide the page range of this chapter. pp 29-48 Mutatkar, R. 2005. Social Group Disparities and Poverty in India. Working Paper no. WP-2005-004, Published by Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research., MumbaiQUERY: Please provide the place publication of this report. Nayak, P. 1995. Economic Development and Social Exclusion in India, in Social exclusion and South Asia, Geneva, ILO. Rani, U. 2008. Impact of Changing work pattern on income inequality, Discussion Paper 193/2008, International Institute of Labour Studies, Geneva. Sen, Amartya (2000): Social Exclusion: Concept, Application, and Scrutiny, Working Paper, Social Development Paper No 1, Asian Development Bank, Bangkok, June. Thorat, SukhadeoS. 2008. Labour Market discrimination: concept, forms and remedies in Indian situation. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 51, (1), .pp QUERY: Please provide the page span for this article.31-52 Thorat, Sukhadeo (2003.), Caste, Ethnicity, and Religion: An Overview Paper on Exclusion/Discrimination and Deprivation Concept Paper for DFID, Delhi,. May., pp 62 - 85

Borooah, V.ani K., A. Dubey, and S. Iyer. (2005.) - Has Job Reservation Been Effective? Caste, Religion, and Economic Status in India. Unpublished manuscript, Northern Ireland: University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, November 2005, (cited from Takahiro, 2007).

36

Carr, M. & and M. Chen. (2004.) Globalization, Social Exclusion and Work: with Special Reference to Informal Employment and Gender, Working Paper No. 20, Policy Integration Department, World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, International Labour Office, Geneva, May 2004. Clert, C. (2000.) - Policy Implications of a Social Exclusion Perspective In Chile: Priorities, Discourse And Methods In Question. PhD Thesis. Social Policy Department, London School of Economics and Political Science, London (cited from Beall, 2002). QUERY: Not cited in the text de Haan, A. 1995. Bibliographical Review on Social Exclusion in South Asia: Annotated IILS / ILO, www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/papers/1994/dp77/index.htm de Haan, A. (1999.) - Social Exclusion: an Alternative Concept for the Study of Deprivation? IDS Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. (1) QUERY: Not cited in the text and also provide page span of the article de Haan, A. and S. Maxwell., (1998.) - Poverty and Social Exclusion in North and South., IDS Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. (1) QUERY: Not cited in the text and also please provide the page span of the article de Haan, A. (1995) Bibliographical Review on Social Exclusion in South Asia: Annotated IILS / ILO, www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/papers/1994/dp77/index.htm Dunlop, J.ohn E., and& V.A. Velkoff. (1999.) - Women and the Economy in India, U.S. Census Bureau, Official Statistics. QUERY: Not cited in the text Duraisamy, M. & and P. Duraisamy. (1996.) - Sex Discrimination in Indian Labour Markets., Feminist Economics, 2 (2):, pp. 41--61. QUERY: Not cited in the text Esteve-Volart, B. (2004.) Gender Discrimination and Growth: Theory and Evidence from India., DEDPS 42, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, London School of Economics and Political Science. QUERY: Not cited in the text Fields, G. S. (2003.): Accounting fFor Income Inequality and iIts Changes: A New Method with Application to the Distribution of Earnings in the United States.. Research in Labor Economics 22: 138. Gore, C. 1994. Social Exclusion and Africa South of the Sahara: A Review of the Literature, IILS / ILO, www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/papers/1994/dp62/index.htm

37

Gore, C. and J. Figueiredo (eds.). , (1997.) (ed) Social Exclusion and Anti-Poverty Policy: A Debate., IILS Research Series 110, International Labour Organisation, Geneva. QUERY: Not cited in the text Gore, C. (1994) Social Exclusion and Africa South of the Sahara: A Review of the Literature, IILS / ILO, www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/papers/1994/dp62/index.htm ILO., (1996.) Social Exclusion and Anti-Poverty Strategies: A Synthesis of Findings, Geneva. QUERY: Please provide other details such as the name of publisher, etc. for this reference Ito, T. 2007. Caste Discrimination and Transaction Costs in the Labor Market: Evidence from Rural North India, Discussion Paper Series No. 200, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University Joint-Lambert, M. (1995.) - Exclusion: Pour une Plus Grane Rigueur dAnalyse, Droit Social, No. 3. (cited from Beall, 2002) QUERY: Not cited in the text and also please provide the name and location of the publisher Kabeer, N. (2000.) The power to choose: Bangladeshi Women and Labour Market Decisions in London and Dhaka., London:, Verso. Kaijage, F. and A. Tibaijuka. , (1996.) Poverty and Social Exclusion in Tanzania., IILS Research Series, No.109, Geneva, Switzerland QUERY: Not cited in the text Kumar, A.run, S. Prushothaman, S. Purohit, Padma, and A. Kumar. , (1999.) - Women Workers: Inequalities at Work -- Report of the Survey of Women Workers, Working Conditions in Industry, Best Practices Foundation, Bangalore, India. QUERY: Not cited in the text Lovering, J. (1998.) - Globalization, Unemployment and Social Exclusion in Europe: Three perspectives on the current policy debate., in International Planning Studies,. 3 (1): 35--56. QUERY: Not cited in the text Madheswaran, S. and& T. Lakshmanasamy. (1996.) - Occupational Segregation and Earnings Differentials by Sex: Evidence from India., Artha Vijnana, 38 (4):, pp. 372--386. QUERY: Not cited in the text Majumdar, R. 2007. Earning Differentials Across Social Groups: Evidences from India. MPRA Paper 12811, University Library of Munich, Germany. Mathur, A. (1999.) - Economic Reforms, Employment and Non-Employment: Theory, Evidence and Policy, Keynote paper for Technical Session VI of 82nd Annual Conference of the Indian Economic Association, December, 1999. QUERY: Not cited in the text and also please provide the place where this session was held.

38

Mishra, R. (1999.) - Beyond the Nation State: Social Policy in an Age of Globalization in C. Jones-Finer (ed.itor) Transnational Social Policy., Blackwell, Oxford: Blackwell. QUERY: Please provide the page range of this chapter. Mukherjee, D. (2003.) - The Changing World of Work and No-Work., Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol. 46, No. (4), 2003. QUERY: Not cited in the text and also please provide the page span for this article Mutatkar, R. (2005.) Social Group Disparities and Poverty in India., Working Paper no. WP-2005-004, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research.QUERY: Please provide the place publication of this report. Nayak, P. (1995.) - Economic Development and Social Exclusion in India, in Social exclusion and South Asia,. Geneva, ILO. Majumder, Rajarshi, (2007), "Earning Differentials Across Social Groups: Evidences from India," MPRA Paper 12811, University Library of Munich, Germany. Rani, UmaU. (2008).: Impact of Changing work pattern on income inequality, Discussion Paper 193/2008, International Institute of Labour Studies, Geneva. Sharma, A. & and T.S. Papola. (1999.) - Gender and Employment in India, . New Delhi: Indian Society of Labour Economics and Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi .QUERY: Not cited in the text Sundaram, K. & and S.D. Tendulkar. (2003.) Poverty Among Social and Economic Groups In India in the Nineteen Nineties, Working Paper No. 118, QUERY: Not cited in the text and also please provide organisation ad the place for this reference. Takahiro, Ito (2007) Caste Discrimination and Transaction Costs in the Labor Market: Evidence from Rural North India, Discussion Paper Series No. 200, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University Thoroat, S. (2008.), Labour Market discrimination: concept, forms and remedies in Indian situation., Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol 51, No. (1).QUERY: Please provide the page span for this article. Willis, M. (2000.) - Meddling with the Media, Democratic Left Discussion Zone., from the website http://www.democratic-left.org.uk/discuss/mwillis.html. QUERY: Not cited in the text World Bank. (2000) -. World Development Report 2000--2001: Attacking Poverty, World Bank QUERY: Not cited in the text and also please provide the place of publication.

39

Appendix 1: Technical Notes Income Inequality Measures: The trends in inequality are examined using the Gini coefficient and three Generalized Entropy measures the mean log deviation (MLD), the Theil index and half the squared coefficient of variation. The Gini coefficient can be computed as follows:

Inequality trends according to the Generalized Entropy measures depend on the measures used because of the different weighting given to different parts of the income distribution. The formula for computing is:,

The parameter represents weight given to income differences at different points of the income distribution of workers. The GE (0), the mean log deviation, and it gives more weight on income differences at the lower end of the distribution, and is more sensitive to changes at that distribution. The GE (2), half of the square of the coefficient of variation, and it gives more weight on income differences at the upper end of the distribution. The GE (1), Theil index, gives equal weights on income differences across the entire distribution and exhibits a constant responsiveness across all ranges of income. 2. Decomposition: Fields (2003) has proposed an alternative approach that considers simultaneously the impact of several given characteristics on incomes, and allows us to distinguish the contributions of each characteristic. The approach is useful as it helps us to factor in the contribution of different explanatory variables including variables with non-linear effects and categorical variables entered as a string of dummy variables.

40

As some of the differences in incomes between the different employment statuses can be attributed to workers educational attainment and to the occupation or industry, this approach allows us to simultaneously account for these differences. We adopt the method developed by Fields (2003), which decomposes the contribution of various explanatory variables to the level and change in inequality within a standard semi- logarithmic wage (or earning) regression model. The first step in the regression- based decomposition methodology is the estimation of a semi- logarithmic Mincerian (standard or augmented) wage/earning function,

Where, ln Yit is the log variance of earnings; at = [t 1t 2t . . . Jt 1] and Zit = [1 xi1t xi2t . . . xiJt it] are vectors of coefficients and explanatory variables, respectively. A general approach to analysze household earning inequality would be to regress the log income on the characteristics of the household head likesuch as, gender, age, socioreligious category, education, industry, etc. (Fields, 2003; Gottschalk and Joyce 1995; Katz and Murphy 1992; Murphy and Welch 1992; Gottschalk and Joyce 1995;QUERY: Not included in the reference list; Fields, 2003). However, we have modified this standard approach in two ways. One, as our interest is to understand the factors that contribute to inequality at the earning level; we have included the characteristics of the wage workers in the regression. Two, several other factors like such as days of work and employment status are also included in the regression to understand the impact of changing work pattern on inequality. In the second step, the estimated standard semi-log regression is decomposed to compute the relative factor inequality weights (i.e., the percentage of inequality that is accounted for by the jth factor), which is as follows,

41

where, sj (lnY) denotes the share of the log-variance of income that is attributable to the jth explanatory factor; cov [.] denotes the covariance, cor (.) the correlation coefficient and (.) the standard deviation. The above decomposition, in other words, computes how much income inequality is accounted for by each explanatory factor, which is the levels question. We have excluded the residual and made the total of sub- categories of explanatory variables 100 and thean calculate the contribution of each factors and later combined each attributes and plot graph to show the difference over the period. (The detail of regression results are following.)

42

43

Appendix 2: Tables Table A2.1: Result of Regression Analysis Dependent variable: log of weekly earnings
Factors Sector Gender Industry Variables Rural Urban Male Female Agriculture Mining & and Quarrying Manufacturing Electricity Construction Trade, Hotel and Restaurant Transport, Storage and Comm. Finance, Real esState, and Business Pub Admin, Edu and Health Regular Casual Illiterate Upto primary Upto middle Upto higher and higher secondary Graduate and above Total days Age ST SC Muslim Other Other Religion 1993--94 (Share ) (reference category) 0.025 0.037 (reference category) (reference category) 0.002 0.004 0.005 --0.001 0.000 0.009 0.008 0.027 0.085 (reference category) (reference category) --0.003 --0.002 0.048 0.114 0.099 0.024 (reference category) 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.005 0.511 2004--05 (Share) 0.025 0.056

Status of Employment Education

0.003 0.000 0.010 --0.009 0.001 0.008 0.010 0.040 0.075

Total No. of Days Worked Age of worker Social religious category

--0.004 --0.005 0.041 0.163 0.130 0.040 -0.002 0.000 0.003 0.008 0.407

Residual

44

Table A2.2: Final contribution of factors to earning inequality (after excluding residual)
Factors Sector Gender Industry Status Education No. of days Age Socio-religious group All 1993 5 8 11 17 32 20 5 2 100 2004 4 9 11 13 33 22 7 2 100.00

Table A2.3: Generalized Entropy Measures for Regular and Casual Workers by socioreligious groups
GE(1) GE(2) 1993 2004 1993 Regular Scheduled Tribes 0.31 0.42 0.28 0.41 0.31 Scheduled Caste 0.31 0.37 0.26 0.35 0.30 Others* 0.27 0.38 0.24 0.38 0.28 Muslim 0.30 0.43 0.26 0.40 0.30 Other Religion 0.27 0.42 0.25 0.38 0.30 All 0.31 0.42 0.27 0.40 0.31 Casual Scheduled Tribes 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.25 Scheduled Caste 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.20 Others* 0.36 0.18 0.33 0.18 0.44 Muslim 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.36 Other Religion 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.22 All 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.28 Source: Data calculated from unit level data CD of various NSS rounds. *Includes OBC. GE(0) 1993 2004 2004 0.55 0.44 0.56 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.22 Gini 1993 2004 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.38 0.40 0.27 0.32 0.43 0.33 0.36 0.33 0.49 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.47 0.48 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.33

45