{"title":"Labour Incomes in India: A Comparison of Two National Household Surveys.","authors":"Mrinalini Jha, Amit Basole","doi":"10.1007/s41027-023-00427-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic created a need for high-frequency employment and income data. Policy-makers and researchers of developing countries typically have not had access to such data. In India, a new private high-frequency panel dataset has recently emerged as the dataset of choice for analysis of the economic impact of COVID-19. This is the Consumer Pyramids Household Survey (CPHS) conducted by the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE). But the CPHS has also been criticised for being inadequately representative nationally by missing poor and vulnerable households in its sample. We examine the comparability of monthly labour income estimates for the pre-pandemic year (2018-19) for CPHS and the official Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS). Across different methods and assumptions, as well as rural/urban locations, CPHS mean monthly labour earnings are anywhere between 5 percent and 50 percent higher than corresponding PLFS estimates. In addition to the sampling concerns raised in the literature, we point to differences in the way employment and income are captured in the two surveys as possible causes of these differences. While CPHS estimates are always higher, it should also be emphasised that the two surveys agree on some stylised facts regarding the Indian workforce. An individual earning ₹50,000 per month lies in the top 5 percent of the income distribution in India as per both surveys. Second, both PLFS and CPHS show that half the Indian workforce earns below the recommended National Minimum Wage.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41027-023-00427-8.</p>","PeriodicalId":34915,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Labour Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9961298/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Labour Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-023-00427-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic created a need for high-frequency employment and income data. Policy-makers and researchers of developing countries typically have not had access to such data. In India, a new private high-frequency panel dataset has recently emerged as the dataset of choice for analysis of the economic impact of COVID-19. This is the Consumer Pyramids Household Survey (CPHS) conducted by the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE). But the CPHS has also been criticised for being inadequately representative nationally by missing poor and vulnerable households in its sample. We examine the comparability of monthly labour income estimates for the pre-pandemic year (2018-19) for CPHS and the official Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS). Across different methods and assumptions, as well as rural/urban locations, CPHS mean monthly labour earnings are anywhere between 5 percent and 50 percent higher than corresponding PLFS estimates. In addition to the sampling concerns raised in the literature, we point to differences in the way employment and income are captured in the two surveys as possible causes of these differences. While CPHS estimates are always higher, it should also be emphasised that the two surveys agree on some stylised facts regarding the Indian workforce. An individual earning ₹50,000 per month lies in the top 5 percent of the income distribution in India as per both surveys. Second, both PLFS and CPHS show that half the Indian workforce earns below the recommended National Minimum Wage.
Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41027-023-00427-8.
期刊介绍:
Indian Journal of Labour Economics (IJLE) is one of the few prominent Journals of its kind from South Asia. It provides eminent economists and academicians an exclusive forum for an analysis and understanding of issues pertaining to labour economics, industrial relations including supply and demand of labour services, personnel economics, distribution of income, unions and collective bargaining, applied and policy issues in labour economics, and labour markets and demographics. The journal includes peer reviewed articles, research notes, sections on promising new theoretical developments, comparative labour market policies or subjects that have the attention of labour economists and labour market students in general, particularly in the context of India and other developing countries.