Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
http://indicus.net/
Income Differentials and Returns to Education
in India
September 2005
Abstract
1. Introduction
1
We would like to thank Peeyush Bajpai and Aali Sinha of Indicus for their help. We
would also like to thanks Bibek Debroy, D.B Gupta and Ashok Desai for their valuable
comments. Girijesh Tiwari of IIEF was extremely helpful in explaining the details of
the NDSSPI survey. Any errors are regretted and comments may be sent to
indic@indicus.net.
2
See Sianesi and Reenen (2000) for a review of the macro-economic literature on
returns to education. Also see for Psacharopoulos (1985); Card (1995); Denison
Indicus Analytics 1
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
There are few studies based on data at the all India level on returns to
education for the post reform period in India. Duraisamy (2000) and
Duraisamy & Duraisamy (1995) are notable exceptions. These used
data from 1993-94 for those receiving wage incomes from the 50th
round of the NSSO employment schedule. However, since the NSSO
does not collect income information for the non-wage earners, about
half of the Indian households were not included in their sample.
Despite this lacuna, the results obtained were generally in line with
those observed internationally though the quantum differs.
It has been argued by many that many of the benefits of education are
enjoyed by society as a whole and not only the individual; these
positive externalities may lead to less than desirable education choices
by private individuals, and therefore public-subsidization of education
is necessary. Subsidization by itself does not fully correct the sub-
optimal demand for education as the cost of education are not purely
in monetary terms but also in terms of (i) opportunity loss of current
income and (ii) the effort costs of learning. This is all well known, as is
also well known that if private returns to education are high enough, it
would be in the interest of the households to ensure that their children
are schooled. However, the expectation of greater incomes is most
likely to be based on the returns to education observed among the
currently working cohort. And that is precisely what we seek to
estimate – the private observed returns to education.
(1974); and Mankiw, Romer and Weil (1992) for reviews of international evidence.
Indicus Analytics 2
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 details the data
used, Section 3 discusses the methods. The results are presented in
Section 4 along with a discussion on some of the data issues. Section
5 concludes.
Indicus Analytics 3
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
2. Data
Unlike many other surveys on savings and expenditures, the data are
available publicly for research purposes. More important, to our
knowledge this is the only survey that has a specific method for
ascertaining the incomes of the respondents. Incomes for wage
earners are easy enough to ascertain; however, for self-employed,
entrepreneurs, farmers, fisherman, etc. simply asking a question on
income can yield poor results as respondents may confuse revenues
with incomes. For non-wage earners of all types, the survey tool
specifically queried respondents on the revenues from their business
and expenditures related to business. The income was then
specifically derived.
3
See “http://www.finmin.nic.in/stats_data/pension_data/index.htm” for further details
of the survey.
Indicus Analytics 4
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
3. Method
Ln y = a1 x1 + a2 x2 +…an xn + e
We take the view that the set of factors that are likely to affect
incomes are similar as those that are likely to affect the earning status.
We use a form of the Heckman 2-step procedure known as Heckman’s
Maximum Likelihood Estimate or MLE (Kennedy 2003). This allows us
to estimate both (i) the likelihood of earning an income and (ii) the
impact on income, as a function of various individual, household and
other characteristics.
The MLE commands in most software yield probit estimates that are
not easy to interpret. We therefore convert the probit estimates such
that the coefficients are nothing but marginal probabilities associated
with the likelihood of earning. That is, each co-efficient in the
‘likelihood of earning’ column of Table R1 in Appendix1, tells us how
4
Some have explicitly tried to test the appropriateness of this form (Heckman and
Plachek, 1974; Dougherty and Jimenez, 1991; Duraisamy and Duraisamy, 1997).
Indicus Analytics 5
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
the likelihood of being employed (earning income) changes with a unit
change in the independent variable.
The model yields coefficients that are difficult to interpret as they are
in the form of logarithmic differences. We therefore convert them to
arithmetic percentages (refer Columns 3,5,7 and 9 in Table R1,
Appendix 1) to facilitate easier discussion.5
5
That is, the estimates obtained from the method is of the form - ln (a/b) but for
exposition it would be better to convert it to the form ((a-b)/b). Say ln (a/b) = x,
therefore a/b = exp (x), which in turn implies that ((a-b)/b) = exp(x)-1. Multiplying
with 100 gives the percentage difference. Therefore, the coefficients for the
explanatory variables that are discussed in the text as well as figures in this paper
have been converted to reflect percentage difference and not logarithmic changes.
Indicus Analytics 6
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
4. Results
We consider a wide range of factors that are likely to affect (i) the
likelihood of earning income and (ii) amount of income earned by a
person. These characteristics can broadly be characterized as those of
the (a) Household, (b) Individual and (c) Others. The exercise has been
done both without and with fixed occupation effects the results in
section 4.1 follow the convention and do not include the impact of
fixed occupation. Section 4.2 discusses impact of education wihtout
and with fixed occupation effects. Appendix 1 provides the detailed
results.
As expected, the results show that after correcting for all factors, a
positive relationship between income and household assets. For every
lakh rupees increase in household assets, an individual’s income is
higher by about 2%. Moreover there is a negative relationship
between likelihood of being employed and household assets, though
not very significant. For every Rs. 1 lakh increase in household assets
the likelihood of being employed is lower by 0.1%.
It should however be noted that greater assets may also translate into
greater incomes from other (non-work related) sources for the
household. This is discussed next.
Indicus Analytics 7
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
low that it is likely that even with some income transfers the inclination
to work will not be as adversely affected.
The results show that that ‘other incomes’ do have some explanatory
power - for every Rs one lakh increase in income of a household from
other sources, income of any household member from own effort
based income is likely to be lower by about 2%. However, contrary to
expectations, the probability of being employed is found to be
positively associated with family income from other sources. The
results therefore suggest only a marginal albeit negative impact of
social security programs on the incentive to put in effort for other
income earning activities.
80 76.2
72
64
56
48
40
32
24 18.7
16
8 3.8 1.2 0.1
0
<10 10 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 500 >500
Indicus Analytics 8
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Caste: The survey data categorized the individuals into ‘SC/ST’s and
‘Others’ (implying higher castes). Compared to Others, SC’s and
ST’s tend to have lower education and are more likely to be in non-
skilled jobs. Many studies have shown the poor condition of
SC/ST’s as far as educational achievement is concerned (see Bajpai
et. al. (2005) for instance). It is well known that discrimination on
the basis of caste, race and ethnicity in accessing employment and
education is prevalent across the globe (See Thorat (1999) for
instance). In order to correct these imbalances many countries
have turned to practices of affirmative action, preferential
treatment or equal opportunity policies. In India such preferences
are limited to the public sector. Even after correcting for factors
such as education one may expect their incomes to be lower
because of the social biases at the workplace.
In other words not only are SC/ST less prepared for the labour market
in terms of poor education, health, and other characteristics, they
are also likley to earn significantly less for the same level of
education. As in the case of Deshpande (2001) we recognize that
SC or ST is a highly simplistic way of capturing class ineqyuality in
India, religion, sub-castes, lingual groups, etc all are required to
better capture the social biases that exist. However lack of such
information prevents any further analysis in this direction.
Why do females earn so much less? Gender bias comes to mind first,
but other factors may be as if not more important. Lower number of
hours and months worked is one factor. Being involved only
Indicus Analytics 9
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
sporadically (for instance during harvesting seasons) is another. Being
involved in occupations that generally have low incomes (such as
harvesting, or home based subcontracting) is a third. This calls for a
more focused study that we hope to conduct as a follow up to this
exercise. Here we corrected for the occupation effect, we looked at
monthly incomes, and we conducted this exercise for different
subgroups (not reported).6 It would be unlikely for any study to reject
gender bias in the labour market. Moreover, given such a strong
impact on incomes it is also not surprising that females are less likely
to be interested in working for incomes.
Indicus Analytics 10
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
incomes might differ from the HoH and each other. The expectation
being that the head of the household has the greatest responsibilities,
followed by others within the same generation and the following
generations should have the least responsibilities. As in the case of
the married (discussed later), those with greater responsibilities are
expected to put in higher effort and therefore have higher incomes.
The results reveal that the relationship that a person shares with the
household head has a significant impact on their income and
employment status. As expected, the HoH is the top income earner.
But more interestingly as the generational distance from the household
head increases, the income levels fall even after correcting for
experience. Even more interesting is the result that the likelihood of
being employed in an income earning activity falls even more
dramatically. Family members from same generation as the HoH such
as spouse, siblings and sibling’s spouses, are likely to have 15% lower
income than the HoH. Their likelihood of being employed is also 7%
lower than the HoH. On the other hand, income of direct descendents
is likely to be 3% lower than the HoH. But they are 15% less likely to
be employed. Other relationships are not found to have a significant
impact on income earned.
Indicus Analytics 11
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Antonovics and Town (2004) studied the question behind this oft-found
difference between the married and others. Their result – that
marriage enables higher incomes, not that higher income earning
potential enables marriage. Our results suggest a more complex
relationship.
We find that the currently married have the highest incomes and
greastest likelihood of being employed. We also find that those who
are widows/widowers have a lower likelihood of being employed as well
as lower incomes. This difference between the married and the
widowed could be considered to be the ‘spouse effect’. But what does
the differences with divorced/separated and never married reveal?
Indicus Analytics 12
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
In other words, the marriage market and the labour market are not
entirely disjoint. Being married does appear to lead to a positive
employment and income effect. But poor performance in the labour
market is also associated with the stability of marriages. Note
however that we are not making any claims on whether poor incomes
cause marriages to break-up; that we leave for others to test.
Given that a large part of the Indian economy functions in English, one
would expect that those with a sound understanding and knowledge of
the language would have both a greater likelihood of being employed
as well as higher incomes. The only question is how important is this
effect. Therefore those who can read and write in English would be
expected to have a higher likelihood of being earning, and earn more.
Along with the ability to read and write, those who can also speak
English are expected to have an even higher probability of being
employed and earning more.
Indicus Analytics 13
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
After correcting for all other factors, income earned by those who
reside in rural areas, is likely to be 26% lower as compared to those in
urban areas. These results are not highly different than those obtained
by Duraisamy (2000). On the other hand, the likelihood of being
employed for rural labor force is marginally higher (0.7%) than their
urban counterparts.
Indicus Analytics 14
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
1
0.9
Change in income 0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49
It is well known that those having higher education levels tend to show
greater unemployment rates. There could be many reasons for this,
the lack of availability of jobs commensurate with the qualifications,
higher reservation incomes of those better educated. However, this
goes contrary to what one might expect that greater levels of
education and skills should lead to lower likelihood of being
unemployed. Indeed we provide enough evidence that the latter is
true.
7
Unemployment Rate is defined as the number of persons unemployed per thousand
people in the labour force. (NSSO, Employment and Unemployment Situation in
India, 1999-2000.
Indicus Analytics 15
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Then why are unemployment rates higher for those who are better
educated when the better educated (all things remaining equal) have
greater likelihood of being employed? The answer of course lies in the
term ‘all remaining equal’. After correcting for factors such as
age/experience we find that the greater likelihood of being employed
for greater levels of education is true but only after having corrected
for experience levels. Of course we also find that those with greater
levels of education also have greater incomes (discussed below).
We report the results of both the exercises – with and without fixed
occupation effects. First consider the estimations without fixed
occupation effects as shown in columns 2 and 3 of Table 4.2c.
Between those who are illiterate and those who have completed
primary education there is a 30-percentage point difference in the
incomes. Since primary schooling is for 4 to 5 years depending upon
the state, this translates into about 6 percent increase in income for
every extra year of primary schooling. Middle school is for another
three years and here the returns to an extra year of schooling are
somewhat lower – about 4 percent for every extra year of schooling.
Overall for the eight years of schooling in elementary school every
extra year of schooling yields an additional 5 percent in incomes.
Indicus Analytics 16
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
The most significant jump in income levels can be seen between those
completing higher secondary and graduates/diploma holders in
technical education. Graduate and diploma holders are likely to earn
almost 47% more than those who have studied till higher secondary
level. Income earned by professional degree holders is found to be
around 35% more than that earned by the graduates. The highest
income earners are found to be those who have a post-graduate and
above higher degree. They earn 19% more than the professional
degree-holders. However, likelihood of being employed for
‘professional degree-holders’ and ‘post-graduate & higher degree-
holders’ is just 5% higher than that for illiterates. The same is also
reflected in Figure 2.
For high enough time discount factors therefore it would make sense
for rational decision makers to drop out of school. Every extra year of
schooling has certain benefits and costs. The costs we have listed are
the explicit cost of education, the opportunity cost, and the cost of
effort. The benefits include greater incomes due to an additional year
of schooling, and the greater potential income if even more schooling
is achieved. Of these the former is quite low as for elementary
schooling time discounted returns may well be even in the negative.
Indicus Analytics 17
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Reference Group:
Illiterate
Primary school 31.0 15.1 1.5
Middle school 45.5 21.9 2.5
High school 71.1 34.2 3.4
Higher Secondary 89.8 42.2 3.3
Tech. Educ./ Diploma 137.0 70.1 3.8
Graduate 136.3 69.4 4.2
Professional Degree 171.8 97.0 5.1
Post Graduate and
above 190.0 101.8 5.1
Source: See Appendix1 Table R1
Technical
Illiterate
Secondary
Graduate
Graduate
0 0 0
Primary
Diploma
Middle
Higher
Post
Next consider the results with fixed Occupation effects as shown in the
columns 3 and 4 in Table 4.2c. The returns to greater education are
significantly lower with fixed occupation effects than without. This
indicates that greater education will yield much greater returns if it
enables the movement across occupations. However, a check of the
household profiles reveals that those with lower levels of education
tend to be in occupations that are similar to occupations of the other
members in their households. Thus not only is quality education
important from the perspective of beneficiaries, but it must also
facilitate greater flexibility in occupation choices.
Indicus Analytics 18
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
An important aspect of low returns to an extra year of primary
education has to do with the quality and appropriateness of the
education that is provided. The low returns in elementary education
also reflect the poor conditions of teaching. Studies have repeatedly
found that primary school completed students are not even able to
read and understand one paragraph leave alone write it (The World
Bank, 2004, is one recent study). In such circumstances, low returns
are not surprising. Next consider appropriateness. Our results indicate
that education needs to be such that students are not geared towards
one type of a profession. This flexibility requires the content to be not
merely teaching a certain set of subjects of crafts but a general
undertsnading of the way the world functions and a general get of
skills.
Indicus Analytics 19
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Conclusion
Non-education characteristics
Individuals from SC and ST households are likely to have
about 10 percent lower incomes than those from non-SC/ST
households everything else remaining the same.
Women’s incomes are likely to be about a third lower than
males having the same household and educational characteristics.
They are also much more likely to be unemployed than males.
Those who are currently married are likely to have higher
incomes and higher likelihood of being employed. Other results
also indicate an interesting association between the marriage and
labour markets.
Knowledge of the English language has a significant impact on
incomes. Incomes of those who have knowledge of the language
are between 18 to 22 percent higher depending upon whether they
can merely understand or converse in it.
We also find that occupation effects are highly significant and
explain a significant part of the income variations.
Education characteristics
Compared to illiterates those who have completed primary
have 50% greater incomes, those who have completed middle
school have incomes greater by 75%, those who have completed
schooling have incomes greater by 172%, graduates by 278% and
professional courses by 356%
After correcting for household and individual characteristics
and state effects, compared to illiterates those who have completed
primary have 31% greater incomes, those who have completed
middle school by 45%, those who have completed schooling by
89%, graduates by 136% and professionals by 171%
After also including fixed occupation effects, compared to
illiterates those who have completed primary have incomes greater
by 15%, those who have completed middle school by 21%, those
who have completed schooling by 42%, graduates by 69% and
professional courses by 97%.
Indicus Analytics 20
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
that is not the case and may be an important reason behind the
high drop out rate. We also find evidence that there are significant
rigidities in the labour market in the sense that household and
occupational factors explain much of the variance in incomes. With
greater education one may be able to break these rigidities,
however, that requires children to remain in school.
Indicus Analytics 21
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Appendix1: Regression Results
Indicus Analytics 22
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Explanatory Without occupation dummies With occupation
Variables dummies
All India Males Females All India
Income Likelihoo Income Likelihoo Income Likelihoo Income Likelihood
d of d of d of of
employm employm employm employmen
ent ent ent t
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Knowledge of
English (Read
and Write),
Reference: Those
who can’t read &
write English
Can read & write 0.183 0.085 0.175 0.09
English (13.687) (7.08)** (3.40)** (7.439)***
*** * *
Caste,
Reference:
‘Others’
SC/ST -0.105 0.008 -0.081 0 -0.034 0.067 -0.073 0.008
(12.011) (2.676)** (9.44)** -0.17 -1.26 (4.32)*** (8.694)*** (2.676)***
*** * *
Education
Level,
Reference:
Illiterates
Literate, without 0.166 -0.012 0.091 -0.003 0.097 0.014 0.103 -0.012
formal schooling (6.240)* -1.291 (3.62)** -0.33 -1.34 -0.35 (4.286)*** -1.291
** *
Less than primary 0.188 -0.012 0.08 0.005 0.046 -0.055 0.092 -0.012
(9.399)* (1.893)* (4.32)** -0.9 -0.8 (1.88)* (5.155)*** (1.893)*
** *
Primary school 0.31 0.015 0.137 0.024 0.12 -0.015 0.151 0.015
(17.707) (3.139)** (8.50)** (5.85)*** (2.47)** -0.62 (9.832)*** (3.139)***
*** * *
Middle school 0.455 0.025 0.198 0.03 0.235 0.018 0.219 0.025
(25.611) (5.722)** (12.50)* (8.12)*** (4.44)** -0.81 (14.241)** (5.722)***
*** * ** * *
High 0.711 0.034 0.315 0.037 0.362 0.043 0.342 0.034
school/Marticulat (33.310) (7.608)** (17.13)* (9.64)*** (5.54)** (1.86)* (18.966)** (7.608)***
e *** * ** * *
Secondary / 0.898 0.033 0.384 0.031 0.581 0.102 0.422 0.033
Intermediate (31.857) (6.450)** (16.43)* (7.38)*** (6.44)** (3.58)*** (18.217)** (6.450)***
*** * ** * *
Technical 1.37 0.038 0.632 0.028 1.382 0.201 0.701 0.038
Education/ (25.112) (3.954)** (14.87)* (3.66)*** (7.11)** (3.34)*** (16.379)** (3.954)***
Diploma *** * ** * *
Graduate 1.363 0.042 0.64 0.031 0.996 0.217 0.694 0.042
Indicus Analytics 23
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Explanatory Without occupation dummies With occupation
Variables dummies
All India Males Females All India
Income Likelihoo Income Likelihoo Income Likelihoo Income Likelihood
d of d of d of of
employm employm employm employmen
ent ent ent t
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(39.199) (8.268)** (22.70)* (7.27)*** (9.43)** (7.99)*** (24.901)** (8.268)***
*** * ** * *
Professional 1.718 0.051 0.906 0.031 1.351 0.31 0.97 0.051
Degree (27.596) (5.438)** (17.67)* (3.84)*** (7.63)** (5.88)*** (19.274)** (5.438)***
*** * ** * *
Post Graduate 1.901 0.051 0.96 0.031 1.373 0.305 1.018 0.051
and above (32.450) (6.128)** (20.57)* (4.11)*** (8.90)** (7.34)*** (22.432)** (6.128)***
*** * ** * *
Other Education 0.692 -0.034 0.808 0.001 -0.774 -0.249 0.23 -0.034
(3.713)* -0.865 (4.25)** -0.03 (3.99)** -1.54 -1.572 -0.865
** * *
Marital Status,
Reference:
‘Currently
Married’
Never married -0.065 -0.243 -0.102 -0.189 -0.009 -0.39 -0.07 -0.243
(4.392)* (55.284)* (6.07)** (43.09)** -0.15 (27.27)** (3.423)*** (55.284)***
** ** * * *
Widow/widower -0.048 -0.075 -0.133 -0.113 0.03 -0.171 -0.052 -0.075
(2.217)* (9.746)** (5.10)** (10.67)** -0.62 (6.60)*** (2.563)** (9.746)***
* * * *
Divorced -0.138 -0.036 -0.242 -0.025 -0.042 -0.108 -0.132 -0.036
(2.113)* -1.441 (3.35)** -0.83 -0.36 -1.51 (2.169)** -1.441
* *
Separated/desert -0.181 -0.038 -0.161 -0.068 -0.108 -0.067 -0.144 -0.038
ed (3.607)* (2.106)** (2.29)** (2.59)*** -1.4 -1.34 (3.030)*** (2.106)**
**
Relationship
with Head of
the Household,
Reference: ‘Head
of Household/Self’
Same Generation -0.153 -0.067 -0.116 -0.18 -0.134 -0.147 -0.133 -0.067
(8.662)* (10.840)* (4.55)** (18.87)** (3.21)** (5.64)*** (8.045)*** (10.840)***
** ** * * *
Direct -0.028 -0.155 -0.033 -0.125 -0.134 -0.37 -0.031 -0.155
descendents (2.430)* (36.559)* (2.90)** (32.65)** (2.66)** (17.65)** (2.530)** (36.559)***
* ** * * * *
Other relatives 0.012 -0.453 -0.073 -0.446 0.034 -0.453 0.007 -0.453
-0.237 (35.825)* -1.31 (29.49)** -0.3 (18.93)** -0.131 (35.825)***
** * *
Indicus Analytics 24
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Explanatory Without occupation dummies With occupation
Variables dummies
All India Males Females All India
Income Likelihoo Income Likelihoo Income Likelihoo Income Likelihood
d of d of d of of
employm employm employm employmen
ent ent ent t
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Observations 47574 47574 39710 39710 7864 7864 47574 47574
No’s denote co-efficients. Absolute value of z statistics in parentheses
* Significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%
Indicus Analytics 25
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Appendix 2: Summary Statistics
Variable Observati Mean Standard Minimum Maximu
on Deviatio m
n
Female 47574 0.165 0.371 0 1
Rural 47574 0.497 0.500 0 1
Work Experience 47574 24.638 14.815 0 94
Work Experience Square*10-2 47574 8.265 8.937 0 88.36
Household asset in Rupees lakh 47574 2.836 5.353 0 170
Other Household Income in
Rupees lakh 47574 0.128 0.496 0 70.09
Can speak, read & write English 47574 0.195 0.396 0 1
Can read & write English 47574 0.389 0.488 0 1
SC/ST 47574 0.290 0.454 0 1
Literate, without formal
schooling 47574 0.029 0.168 0 1
Less than primary 47574 0.064 0.244 0 1
Primary school 47574 0.120 0.325 0 1
Middle school 47574 0.180 0.384 0 1
High school/Marticulate 47574 0.188 0.391 0 1
Secondary / Intermediate 47574 0.089 0.285 0 1
Technical Education/ Diploma 47574 0.017 0.128 0 1
Graduate 47574 0.092 0.289 0 1
Professional Degree 47574 0.015 0.122 0 1
Post Graduate and above 47574 0.020 0.142 0 1
Other Education 47574 0.001 0.032 0 1
Never married 47574 0.195 0.396 0 1
Widow/widower 47574 0.043 0.203 0 1
Divorced 47574 0.003 0.055 0 1
Separated/deserted 47574 0.005 0.071 0 1
Same Generation 47574 0.082 0.274 0 1
Direct descendents 47574 0.309 0.462 0 1
Other relatives 47574 0.017 0.128 0 1
Other traditional
farmer/cultivator 47574 0.116 0.321 0 1
Organized farmer practicing
mechanized Farming 47574 0.012 0.109 0 1
Animal husbandry/dairy 47574 0.011 0.104 0 1
Agricultural laborers 47574 0.078 0.267 0 1
Skilled wage laborers 47574 0.072 0.258 0 1
Semi/unskilled wage laborers 47574 0.099 0.299 0 1
Salaried employee (Pvt. Sector
with less than 10 employees) 47574 0.047 0.211 0 1
Salaried employee (Pvt. Sector
with 10 to 19 employees) 47574 0.011 0.105 0 1
Salaried employee (Pvt. Sector
with more than 20 employees) 47574 0.032 0.177 0 1
Salaried employee (Central
Govt.) 47574 0.025 0.158 0 1
Salaried employee (State Govt.) 47574 0.100 0.300 0 1
Indicus Analytics 26
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Variable Observati Mean Standard Minimum Maximu
on Deviatio m
n
Owner: Trading/retail business,
with fixed premises 47574 0.120 0.325 0 1
Owner: Trading/retail business,
with no fixed premises 47574 0.032 0.175 0 1
Owner: Small-scale
manufacturing unit 47574 0.003 0.055 0 1
Owner: Medium & large-scale
manufacturing unit 47574 0.000 0.011 0 1
Self employed Professionals 47574 0.009 0.092 0 1
Other self employed workers 47574 0.071 0.257 0 1
Home based workers 47574 0.014 0.118 0 1
Arunachal Pradesh 47574 0.028 0.165 0 1
Assam 47574 0.041 0.199 0 1
Bihar 47574 0.044 0.206 0 1
Chhattisgarh 47574 0.038 0.191 0 1
Delhi 47574 0.018 0.132 0 1
Gujarat 47574 0.043 0.203 0 1
Haryana 47574 0.040 0.196 0 1
Himachal Pradesh 47574 0.029 0.168 0 1
Jharkhand 47574 0.037 0.189 0 1
Karnataka 47574 0.041 0.198 0 1
Kerala 47574 0.062 0.241 0 1
Madhya Pradesh 47574 0.048 0.215 0 1
Maharashtra+Goa 47574 0.046 0.209 0 1
Jammu & Kashmir 47574 0.027 0.162 0 1
Other NE states excluding
Manipur 47574 0.033 0.178 0 1
Orissa 47574 0.042 0.201 0 1
Punjab 47574 0.041 0.197 0 1
Rajasthan 47574 0.032 0.177 0 1
Sikkim 47574 0.045 0.207 0 1
Tamil Nadu 47574 0.049 0.216 0 1
Tripura 47574 0.035 0.184 0 1
Uttar Pradesh 47574 0.047 0.213 0 1
Uttaranchal 47574 0.034 0.182 0 1
West Bengal 47574 0.053 0.225 0 1
Indicus Analytics 27
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Appendix 3: References
Indicus Analytics 28
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
Supply, Earnings, Savings and Consumption: Evidence
from a Survey of Lottery Players. American Economic
Review 91 (4): 778-794.
18. Sianesi, Barbara, and Reenen, John Van (2000). The Returns to
Education: A Review of the Macro-Economic Literature.
Centre for the Economics of Education, London School of
Economic and Political Science.
Indicus Analytics 29
Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm
http://indicus.net/
India. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation,
Govt. of India.
24. Antonovics, Kate. and & Robert Town (2004). Are All the Good
Men Married? Uncovering the Sources of the Marital
Wage Premium. American Economic Review, American
Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 317-321.
Indicus Analytics 30