Abstract
Gender bias or preferential treatment towards the male child is deeply ingrained in socio-cultural milieu that has exacerbated the discrimination of other forms, namely unequal access to education, health, rights and freedom and eventually leading to labour market bias towards females. The discrimination is experienced not only at the household level but also outside household chores. The phenomenon of increasing gender bias leading to inequality in the labour market with widening differences between male and female is clearly discernible. Women are generally engaged in low-productive jobs in the informal sectors with low wages and earnings. Though, their presence in high-productive and modern-sector jobs has improved yet they form a minuscule proportion. This has widened income inequality in labour market with divergence in educational level, status of work (regular or casual) and work experience. This has been clearly noted even after positive policy initiatives and their improved participation in higher professional education and skill training. From the policy perspective, it is necessary to make secondary education universal and free so that they can move into a higher ladder in education pyramid. Investment in education and appropriate training is indispensable in order to widen their human capital and endowment base.
Earlier version of the paper was published in Economic and Political Weekly 52(8), February 2017 (Balwant Singh Mehta as principal author).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The government launched it in 2015 initiated aim at equal opportunities and girl education (ORGI).
- 2.
The ratio of girl to boy children enrolled in the level of school. The index reflects the magnitude of the gender gap (MHRD).
- 3.
In the recent concluded parliamentary election in 2019, women representation has gone up marginally to 14.6% in the Loksabha up from 12.1% in 2014.
- 4.
As for casual workers, the wages are generally low and occupational differences in wages are not much visible. Therefore, only regular workers are analysed in detail that usually provide relatively better-quality jobs with higher payment.
- 5.
Here weekly earnings of the regular workers have been taken as a proxy of income.
- 6.
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 resolve minor irregularity in the observed data (Deaton 1997) and it draws the eye to the essential features of the distribution.
- 7.
Field (2003) developed a new method that considers concomitantly the impact of several characteristics of earnings and allows the unique 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 (Rani 2008).
References
Agarwal B (2016) The challenge of gender inequality. Econ Polit 35(1): 3–12
Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR), New Delhi India (2016) The State of the PC & PNDT Act: India’s losing battle against female foeticide. http://www.stopfemaleinfanticide.org/files/TheStateofthePCPNDTAct2016.pdf. Accessed on 15 March, 2018
Atkinson AB (1998) Social exclusion, poverty and unemployment. In: Atkinson AB, Hills J (eds) Exclusion, employment and opportunity (CASE Paper 4). Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, School of Economics, London, pp 1–20
Borooah VK, Dubey A, Iyer S (2005) Has job reservation been effective? Caste, religion, and economic status in India. Unpublished manuscript, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland (cited from Takahiro, 2007)
CBGA (2014) Major dimensions of inequality in india: gender. http://www.cbgaindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Gender-Inequality.pdf. Accessed on November 28, 2018
Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) (2017) Women and Men in India, 2017. http://www.mospi.gov.in/publication/women-and-men-india-2017. Accessed on February 27, 2018
Das MB, Dutta P (2008) Does caste matters for wages in the Indian labour market? caste pay gaps in India, Paper presented at Third Institute for the Study of Labour—World Bank Conference on Employment a Development, Rabat, Morocco, May 5–6
Deaton A (1997) The analysis of household surveys: a microeconometric approach to development policy. Johns Hopkins Press, World Bank, Washington
Desai S, Dubey A (2012) Caste in 21st century India: competing narratives, Economic & Political Weekly 46(11): 40–49
Deshpande A, Newman K (2007) Where the Path leads: the role of caste in post-university employment expectations, Econ Polit Wkly 42(41): 4133–4140
Deshande A, Deepti G, Shantanu K (2018) Bad karma or discrimination? male-female wage gaps among salaried workers in India, World Development, 102(C): 331–344
Fields GS (2003) Accounting for income inequality and its changes: a new method with application to the distribution of earnings in the United States. Res Labor Econ 22(1): 1–38
Gottschalk P, Joyce M (1995) Is earnings inequality also rising in other industrialized countries? The role of institutional constraints, Boston college working papers in economics 306, Boston College Department of Economics
Jodhka SS, Newman K (2007) In the name of globalization, meritocracy, productivity and the hidden language of caste, Econ Polit Wkly 42(41): 4125–4132
Kabeer N (2000) The power to choose: Bangladeshi women and labour market decisions in London and Dhaka. Verso, London
Katz LF, Murphy KM (1992) Changes in relative wages, 1963–1987: supply and demand factors. Q J Econ 101(1): 35–78
Kelkar G (2014) The fog of entitlement: women’s inheritance and land rights. Econ Polit Wkly 49(33): 51–58
Krishnaji N, James KS (2002) Gender differentials in adult mortality with notes and rural-Urban contrasts. Econ Polit Wkly 37(46): 4633–4637
Kulkarni S, Hatekar N (2013) Sterotypical occupational segregation and gender ineqaulity: an exprimental study. Econ Polit Wkly 48(32): 112–120
Majumdar R (2007) Earning differentials across social groups: evidences from India, MPRA paper 12811. University Library of Munich, Germany
Mazumdar D, Sarkar S (2008) Globalisation, labour markets and inequality in India. Routledge, London
Mehta BS (2017) Inequality, gender and socio-religious groups, Econ Polit Wkly 52(8): 56–60
Ministry of Finance India (MoFI) (2018) Economic Survey 2017–18. http://mofapp.nic.in:8080/. Accessed on February 27, 2018
National Classification of Occupations (2004) Ministry of Labour, Government of India. https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/Preface.pdf. Accessed on December 10, 2018
Papola TS (2012) Social exclusion and discrimination in the labour market, working paper no. 2012/04. Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, New Delhi
Papola TS, Kannan KP (2017) Towards an India wage report. New Delhi: ILO
Rani U (2008) Impact of changing work pattern on income inequality, discussion paper no. 193/2008. International Institute of Labour Studies, Geneva
India Employment Report (IER, 2014) Workers in the Era of globalisation. Institute for Human Development and Academic Foundation, New Delhi
Rodgers G, Soundararajan V (2016) Patterns of inequality in the Indian labour market. Institute for Human Development and Academic Foundation, New Delhi
Rustagi P (2005) Understanding gender inequalities in wages and incomes in India, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics 48(2): 319–334
Rustagi P, Mehta BS (2013) Pattern and structure of women’s work participation in India: changes over time with globalisation, unpublished paper prepared for ICSSR research programme on globalisation and labour. Institute for Human Development, New Delhi
Rutagi P (2005) Understanding gender inequality in wages and income in India. Indian J Labour Econ 48(2): 319–334
Swaminathan P (2012) Women and work, essays from economic and political weekly. Orient Blakswan, India
Thorat S (2008) Labour market discrimination: concept, forms and remedies in indian situation. Indian J Labour Econ 51(1): 31–52
Thorat S, Dubey A (2012) Has growth been socially inclusive during 1993–94 and 2009–10. Econ Polit Wkly 47(10): 43–54
Thorat S, Newman KS (2007) Caste and economic discrimination: cause, consequences and remedies, Econ Polit Wkly 42(41): 4133–4140
World Economic Forum (2018) The global gender gap report CH-1223 Cologny/Geneva Switzerland. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf. Accessed on 18 January, 2019
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Annexure 3.1: Technical Notes
Income Inequality Measures: The trends in inequality are examined using the Gini coefficient and three Generalised 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 Generalised 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 alpha (α) 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 constant responsiveness across all ranges of income.
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.
As some of the differences in income 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 = [αt β1t β2t … βJt 1] and
Zit= [1 xi1t xi2t … xiJt εit] are vectors of coefficients and explanatory variables, respectively.
A general approach to analyse household earning inequality would be to regress the log income on the characteristics of the household head such as gender, age, socio-religious category, education, industry. (Katz and Murphy 1992; Gottschalk and Joyce 1995; 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 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,
\( S_{j} \left( {\ln Y} \right) = {\text{GE}}\left( \alpha \right) = \frac{{\text{cov} \left[ {ajZj,\ln Y} \right]}}{{\sigma^{2} \left( {\ln Y} \right)}} = \frac{{a_{j} *\sigma \left( {z_{j} } \right)*{\text{cor}}[z_{j} Ln,Y]}}{{\sigma^{2} \left( {\ln Y} \right)}} , \)
where Sj (ln Y) denotes the share of the log-variance of income that is attributable to the j’th explanatory factor; cov [.] denotes the covariance, cor (.) the correlation coefficient and σ(.) 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 subcategories of explanatory variables 100 and then calculate the contribution of each factors and later combined each attribute and plot graph to show the difference over the period.
Annexure Table 3.2
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mehta, B.S., Awasthi, I.C. (2019). Gender Inequality and Labour Market. In: Women and Labour Market Dynamics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9057-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9057-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-9056-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-9057-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)