Income Differentials and Returns to Education in India

Indicus Analytics, An Economics Research Firm http://indicus.net/

Income Differentials and Returns to Education in India

September 2005

Indicus Analytics1, New Delhi

Abstract

This paper studies the determinants of personal income including the returns to education. In the process this paper estimates how incomes are affected by characteristics such as gender, caste, language etc. Using a maximum likelihood probability model, private returns to education are estimated using data from a Ministry of Finance Survey on Incomes and Savings conducted in 2004-05. We find that greater levels of education increase both the likelihood of being employed as well as the income earned from work. However, the returns from elementary (primary and middle) education are quite low. We also find that ceteris paribus women, lower social groups, rural residents, non-English speakers have both significantly lower incomes and significantly lower likelihood of being employed. Our results indicate that education should be geared towards ensuring flexibility in the students’ occupational choices.

1. Introduction

There is a consensus that formal education is an important determinant of individual earnings as well as of economic growth. Though the quantum and levels might differ, the evidence from a host of studies is quite clear – those with greater levels of education, greater skills, and greater experience have greater incomes after correcting for individual, household, and other differences.2

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 [email protected].

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

http://indicus.net/

mailto:[email protected]


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.

Returns to education include two elements. The first is how the likelihood of being employed varies with different levels of education. The second is related to how income varies with varying levels of education. Greater education affects incomes of the employed in different ways. One, it allows greater incomes within a particular occupation, and two – it allows those with greater education to benefit from a greater choice of occupations. In econometric modeling terms, this translates to whether fixed occupation effects (occupation dummies) are considered or not. Most literature does not incorporate fixed occupation effects. This is fine as long as we believe that individuals are free to choose their occupations. However, it may also be argued that for many in India occupations are not freely chosen, they are handed down from one generation to the next. This, again it could be argued, is especially true for those who have low levels of education. We therefore estimate the returns to education both with and without fixed occupation effects and discuss the ramifications of the differences in the results.

(1974); and Mankiw, Romer and Weil (1992) for reviews of international evidence.

Indicus Analytics 2

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

http://indicus.net/


2. Data

The Ministry of Finance, Government of India, sponsored a survey on pensions and savings habits of Indians, overseen by the Invest India Economic Foundation and conducted by AC Nielson in 2004-2005.3

The dataset from this survey called National Data Survey on Savings Patterns of Indians (NDSSPI) has been used for the analysis. The sample size included over 40,000 households from 26 states and UTs. One earning member was randomly chosen from each household as the eligible respondent to collect various information on their income, saving and investment patterns.

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.

Annual Income is therefore self-reported by individuals who are earning members of the family. The reported incomes (used in the analysis) are individual incomes from work (not including rental, interest, etc.) are net of taxes, and net of profession/business related expenditures for the self-employed.

The survey data, related to income and saving patterns, is based on one earning member randomly selected from each sampled household. However, the survey also contained information on all other members of the households including the unemployed ones. The ‘umemployed’ are those who are looking for a job but haven’t yet got one. From the “unemployed not earning” group, we randomly selected one member from each household that had an unemployed person. Thus our base data for analysis includes both “working & earning” and “unemployed & not earning” individuals randomly selected, not more than one per household from both groups.

3 See “http://www.finmin.nic.in/stats_data/pension_data/index.htm” for further details of the survey.

Indicus Analytics 4

http://indicus.net/


3. Method

We estimate the impact on the natural log of incomes of various characteristics such as education levels, gender, type of household, caste, etc.

Ln y = a1 x1 + a2 x2 +…an xn + e

This is standard in the literature and sometimes is also referred to as Mincer’s equation following Mincer (1974).4 Natural log of post tax income (y) is considered to be affected by independent characteristics (xi) and the coefficients (ai) that are to be determined empirically.

The following characteristics have been studied in the model: Gender, Caste – SC/ST or non-SC/ST, Place of residence, Marital status, Relationship to head of household, Ability to read and write English, and Ability to speak in English; these are all dummy variables that take the value 1 when the conditions are met and 0 otherwise. In addition we also include the impact of Work experience in years and Work experience squared, Value of household property in Rs lakh, Household income from other sources in Rs lakh. Education has been captured by dummy variables for completing each level of education: Illiterates, literate but less than primary, Primary, Middle, High school (class 10), Higher secondary, Technical Education/ Diploma, Graduate, Professional Degree, and Post Graduate and above. Since incomes are likely to be affected by location aspects, we also include state fixed affects in the model.

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

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

We conduct the exercise on the following population groups: (i) all respondents, (ii) male respondents, (iii) female respondents. These are all provided in Appendix 1. The discussion here focuses on the first (all respondents) and draws from the other results when required.

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

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.

4.1 Impact of individual, household and other characteristics

Household assets: This is the self reported total accumulated market value of agricultural land, owner occupied house, any other real estates, owned by the household at the time of survey, financial assets of the household are not included. It is likely that individuals living in households with greater assets have greater ability to access better paying jobs. This is for many reasons, but the most important is that household wealth indicates better contacts, and exposure.

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.

Other household income: This includes annual income of the household from sources other than the earnings of members residing in the household, such as rents, interest receipts, remittances, etc. Those with other sources of income may have a lower incentive to put in effort for own-effort based income. Consequently, greater ‘other household income’ is likely to be negatively related to individual members’ income from their professions. Moreover this would also suggest a likely negative relationship between other income and the likelihood of being employed. Imbens et. al. (2001) found that in the case of the USA this effect was fairly significant – of the order of about 11%. In the case of India however the average income levels are so

Indicus Analytics 7

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.

Indicus Analytics 8

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.

Compared to those from ‘Others’ or higher castes category, though the ‘SC/ST’s are more likely to be employed (by about 0.8 percent); their income is likely to be about 10.5 percent lower. This is after correcting for household, individual, educational, and location-al effects. The combination of higher likelihood of being employed but lower earned income suggests that that the lower income is at least in part due to the SC/STs working at lower wages than their non-SC/ST counterparts. In an environment where social biases are strong, many SCs/STs will have little choice but to accept a job that comes their way even if it is at lower incomes than received by a similar but non-SC/ST person.

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.

Gender: Gender is found to play a significant role in both amount of income earned as well as the likelihood of an individual being employed. Women wanting to work (not including home-makers) in India are found to have a 12% lower likelihood of being employed than men. But even among the employed, female annual incomes are likely to be lower by 36% than otherwise similar males.

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

Indicus Analytics 9

http://indicus.net/


hours and months worked is one factor. Being involved only 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.

Various studies such as Duraisamy (2000) for India, and Tsakloglou and Cholezas (2000-2001) for the US, have shown that returns to schooling are higher for females than for males. Kingdon (1998) finds that that is not necessary the case though her sample was limited to a single district in UP. We find that returns to education for females are lower than males up till the primary stage, but are significantly higher at later levels of education. In other words, greater education in the early years yields relatively lower returns for females. It is only when females cross middle school that their returns are higher.

Relationship with the head of the household: The individual’s relationship with the household’s head (HoH) is used to understand how incomes differ between different generations living within a household. The various categories within this are Head: Self/head of household (HoH), Same Generation: HoH spouse, siblings and siblings spouses

(brother, brother in-laws, sister and sister in-laws), Following Generations: HoH direct descendents and their spouses

(son, son in-law, daughter and daughter in-law, own grandchildren, and

Other relatives.

The head of the household tend to have greater responsibilities than others and therefore others are generally expected to have significantly lower incomes. The same argument applies to likelihood of being employed as well. Moreover, we also test for the differences

6 Data on hours/days worked are not there but data on number of months for which the person earned cash income were available. We find that indeed, there is a significant difference in the average months worked between males and females. We also find that females tend to be employed in lower income occupations than males. But even after correcting for occupation effect and taking monthly income as the explanatory variable a thirty percent differential remains between males and females.

Indicus Analytics 10

http://indicus.net/


between various generations within the household and how their 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.

Marital Status: Individuals are categorized as currently married, never married, widow/widower, divorced and separated/deserted. This is used as a set of dummy variables in the model (‘Currently married’ being the reference group). Others have found that even after correcting for age, experience, gender, etc., those who are married tend to have higher incomes than others. Are those who are better at finding a job and earning higher incomes more likely to be married? Or are those who are married more likely to find jobs with higher incomes? Or are those who are married likely to put in more effort at their jobs?

We find that as expected, compared to those who are currently married others are likely to have lower incomes, and are also less likely to be employed. In other words, married persons are more likely to be employed and earn higher incomes. This suggests that greater likelihood of being employed is not so much due to accepting lower paying jobs, but due to higher (uncaptured) effort of those married. Our results are quite strong; a person who is never married has 24% lower likelihood of being employed than one who is currently married. Widows (or widowers) and those who are separated (or


http://indicus.net/


deserted) are also less likely to get some work, but not to the extent of the never married.

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?

Consider a person to have certain characteristics that are important for both the marriage and labour market and (i) that are easily observable and (ii) that are not observable initially. Certain observable negative characteristics make it less likely obtain a job and also less likely to be married – these are the never married who have lower incomes and much less likely to be employed.

Table 4.1a: Impact of ‘Marital Status’ on income and likelihood of earning

Marital Status Reference: ‘Currently Married’

Percentage Difference in

Income from those currently married

Percentage Difference in Likelihood of

employment from those currently

married

Possible Effect

Widows/Widowers

-4.8 -7.5Spouse Effect

Never married -6.5 -24.3Observable

Negative Characteristics

Divorced -13.8 -3.6 Unobserved Negative

characteristics revealed later

Separated/deserted

-18.1 -3.8

But those who have unobservable negative characteristics are likely to be married but eventually get separated/divorced as these negative characteristics get revealed to the spouse. Such persons may have obtained a job initially, but as negative characteristics would have been revealed their incomes would be lower than others and would also have a somewhat lower likelihood to have a job.


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.

Knowledge of English Language: Knowledge of English language is considered in two ways. First, the characteristics of those who can speak write and read English, and second, those who can read and write but not speak English.

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.

As expected, the results reveal that an individual’s knowledge of English language has a strong influence on his income level. A person who can read and write English is expected to earn 18% more income as compared to the one who can’t all other factors remaining the same. But along with reading and writing, if an individual can also speak English, then his income is likely to be higher by 22% than those who cannot read, write or speak English. Data on the knowledge of English of those who are unemployed were not available and therefore it is difficult to test whether they are more likely to be employed. In all likelihood however this would be the case.

Place of residence: The place of residence of an individual is divided into rural and urban areas. This is considered as dummy variables in the model (“Urban Area’ being the reference category). In rural India, most are engaged in agriculture and allied activities. For instance, during 1999-2000 (NSSO 55th round), around 37% of rural population was from households that were self-employed in agriculture and another 30% population were involved as agricultural laborers. On the other hand, most of the high-income occupations have their base in urban areas due to better infrastructure, communication facilities and accessibility to all kinds of information and facilities. The results are expected in these same lines.


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.

Work Experience: This is the experience that a person obtains at this workplace and is same as number of years for which the person is working. Since there was no explicit query on experience it has been estimated as follows:

Work experience (w) = Age – Years of education – 5

Though it is obvious that greater experience should generally lead to greater incomes, it is not very clear whether the returns are constant, increasing or reducing. We therefore include a quadratic term (aw + bw2, where a and b are coefficients to be estimated and w is the work experience) that gives the flexibility to estimate how experience affects incomes.

Duraisamy (2000) found that during late nineties in India, an additional year of work experience increases the wages by 6 and 4 percent, respectively, for men and women. However, he had considered income earned by only the salaried and wage earners.

As expected, the results of the analysis reveal that work experience plays a very significant role in income earned by an individual. The effect of experience is positive and ‘experience square’ is negative exhibiting positive but decreasing returns. Every one-year increase in work experience is associated with a 3.8% rise in income in initial years. However, the impact is lower for higher levels of experience. Incomes levels to reach the maximum level at about 40 years of experience. The figure 2 below draws out how greater levels of experience affect incomes.


http://indicus.net/


4.2 Private Returns to Education

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.

Table 4.2a: Unemployment Rate (Usual Principal Status)7 for the persons of age 15 years & above

Education Completion Levels

Rural Urban

Male Female Male FemaleNot literate 0.4 0.2 1.4 0.6Literate up to Primary 1.1 0.9 3.0 2.5Middle 2.8 4.7 5.6 11.1Secondary 5.2 14.7 5.5 14.4Higher Secondary 7.3 22.7 8.3 18.9Graduate & above 10.6 33.1 6.6 16.3

Source: National Sample Survey Organization, 55th round, 1999-2000.

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.


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 expect an ordering where incomes from greater education are concerned– those with greater levels of education are expected to have higher incomes and those with professional and skill oriented education would have greater incomes than others with similar years of education. Moreover, significant occupation-wise differences also exist. The data provides information on whether the income earner belongs to any of the occupations as shown in Table 4.2b.

Table 4.2b: Various Occupations considered in the Analysis

Subsistence farmerSemi/unskilled wage labourers

Owner: trading/retail business, with fixed premises

Other traditional farmer/cultivator

Salaried employee (pvt sector<10 emp)

Owner: trading/retail business, No fixed premises

Org. farmer practising Mechanised Farming

Salaried employee (Pvt sector: 10to19 emp)

Owner: small-scale Manufacturing unit

Animal husbandry/dairy

Salaried employee (pvt sector>=20emp)

Owner: med & large-scale Manufacturing unit

Agricultural labourersSalaried employee (Central Govt)

Self employed Professionals

Skilled wage labourersSalaried employee (State Govt)

Other self employed workers

Home based workers Not earning unemployed

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.


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.

Greater expected incomes are also a function of the expectation of clearing the exams that lie at the end of middle, secondary and higher secondary levels. Given the relatively high failure rate, the expectation of realizing those incomes at the end of schooling would be low for many. In other words, if early education cannot promise greater incomes, it must promise accessing greater incomes available for those who have completed schooling. But due to poor quality of education even the latter is not feasible for many. The high drop out rate is therefore natural.

Table 4.2c: Percentage Difference in income from those who are illiterates

Education Completion levels

Without Fixed

Occupation Effects

With Fixed Occupation

Effects

Actual percentage difference

in Likelihood

of employment

from


http://indicus.net/


illiteratesReference Group: IlliteratePrimary school 31.0 15.1 1.5Middle school 45.5 21.9 2.5High school 71.1 34.2 3.4Higher Secondary 89.8 42.2 3.3Tech. Educ./ Diploma 137.0 70.1 3.8Graduate 136.3 69.4 4.2Professional Degree 171.8 97.0 5.1Post Graduate and above 190.0 101.8 5.1Source: See Appendix1 Table R1

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.


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.


http://indicus.net/


Conclusion

Using a recently made available data on incomes we analyze how a range of household, individual and educational factors affects incomes. We find that the data for India show similar patterns as found for other countries, however the quantum differs. The key results are as follows:

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%.

In other words, we find that the returns to greater education increase significantly as the level of education increases. This


http://indicus.net/


would be fine if the returns at the lowest level were high. However 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.

For educational policy the message is quite clear: Quality of delivery, and content that enables flexibility in later occupational choice. This will ensure that rational children can expect to gain from the benefits of formal education, and therefore also remain in school longer.

Further research issues include an analysis of state-level differences as well as the interaction of education with other factors. It is clear that quality of education, its appropriateness, the nature of the economy etc. all affect the returns to greater education in a complex manner. With the public availability of this dataset, and combinging state or district level indicators on education quality from sources such as Selected Education Statistics, we believe that such analysis can throw important insights into the design of education policy and the impact of education on better livelihoods for all.


http://indicus.net/


Appendix1: Regression Results

Table R1: Maximum Likelihood Estimates, All India, 2004-2005Co-efficient * 100=Percentage Difference

Explanatory Variables

Without occupation dummies With occupation dummies

All India Males Females All IndiaIncome Likelihoo

d of employm

ent

Income Likelihood of

employment


employment


employment

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)Gender, Reference: Males

Females -0.363 -0.125 -0.348 -0.125(27.143)

***(28.279)*

** (24.870)**

*(28.279)***

Type of place of residence, Reference: Urban

Rural -0.265 0.007 -0.155 0.006 -0.141 0.012 -0.155 0.007

(37.247)***

(2.340)** (18.95)***

(2.58)*** (5.40)***

-0.9 (19.741)***

(2.340)**

Work Experience 0.039 0.028 0.037 0.029 (29.720)

*** (22.78)*

** (9.36)**

* (24.301)**

*

Work Experience Square*10-2

-0.049 -0.04 -0.047 -0.041

(26.454)***

(22.31)***

(8.53)***

(23.371)***

Household asset in Rupees lakh

0.025 -0.001 0.023 0 0.02 -0.011 0.023 -0.001

(33.065)***

(2.313)** (31.22)***

-1.02 (6.67)***

(7.18)*** (31.798)***

(2.313)**

Other Household Income in Rupees lakh

-0.02 0.036 -0.029 0.026 0.03 0.071 -0.021 0.036

(2.515)**

(9.063)***

(3.87)***

(7.21)*** -1.16 (4.08)*** (2.831)*** (9.063)***

Knowledge of English (Read, Write and Speak), Reference: Those who can’t speak, read & write English

Can speak, read & write English

0.229 0.135 0.269 0.157

(14.374)***

(9.23)***

(4.95)***

(10.842)***

Knowledge of English (Read


http://indicus.net/





d of employm

ent


employment


employment


employment

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)and Write), Reference: Those who can’t read & write EnglishCan read & write English

0.183 0.085 0.175 0.09 (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 formal schooling

0.166 -0.012 0.091 -0.003 0.097 0.014 0.103 -0.012

(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 school/Marticulate

0.711 0.034 0.315 0.037 0.362 0.043 0.342 0.034(33.310)

***(7.608)**

*(17.13)*

**(9.64)*** (5.54)**

*(1.86)* (18.966)**

*(7.608)***

Secondary / Intermediate

0.898 0.033 0.384 0.031 0.581 0.102 0.422 0.033(31.857)

***(6.450)**

*(16.43)*

**(7.38)*** (6.44)**

*(3.58)*** (18.217)**

*(6.450)***

Technical Education/ Diploma

1.37 0.038 0.632 0.028 1.382 0.201 0.701 0.038(25.112)

***(3.954)**

*(14.87)*

**(3.66)*** (7.11)**

*(3.34)*** (16.379)**

*(3.954)***

Graduate 1.363 0.042 0.64 0.031 0.996 0.217 0.694 0.042(39.199)

***(8.268)**

*(22.70)*

**(7.27)*** (9.43)**

*(7.99)*** (24.901)**

*(8.268)***

1.718 0.051 0.906 0.031 1.351 0.31 0.97 0.051


http://indicus.net/





d of employm

ent


employment


employment


employment

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)Professional Degree

(27.596)***

(5.438)***

(17.67)***

(3.84)*** (7.63)***

(5.88)*** (19.274)***

(5.438)***

Post Graduate and above

1.901 0.051 0.96 0.031 1.373 0.305 1.018 0.051(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/deserted

-0.181 -0.038 -0.161 -0.068 -0.108 -0.067 -0.144 -0.038

(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 descendents

-0.028 -0.155 -0.033 -0.125 -0.134 -0.37 -0.031 -0.155(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)***

Observations 47574 47574 39710 39710 7864 7864 47574 47574


http://indicus.net/





d of employm

ent


employment


employment


employment

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)No’s denote co-efficients. Absolute value of z statistics in parentheses* Significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%


http://indicus.net/


Appendix 2: Summary Statistics

Variable Observation

Mean Standard Deviatio

n

Minimum

Maximum

Female 47574 0.165 0.371 0 1Rural 47574 0.497 0.500 0 1Work Experience 47574 24.638 14.815 0 94Work Experience Square*10-2 47574 8.265 8.937 0 88.36Household asset in Rupees lakh 47574 2.836 5.353 0 170Other Household Income in Rupees lakh 47574 0.128 0.496 0 70.09Can speak, read & write English 47574 0.195 0.396 0 1Can read & write English 47574 0.389 0.488 0 1SC/ST 47574 0.290 0.454 0 1Literate, without formal schooling 47574 0.029 0.168 0 1Less than primary 47574 0.064 0.244 0 1Primary school 47574 0.120 0.325 0 1Middle school 47574 0.180 0.384 0 1High school/Marticulate 47574 0.188 0.391 0 1Secondary / Intermediate 47574 0.089 0.285 0 1Technical Education/ Diploma 47574 0.017 0.128 0 1Graduate 47574 0.092 0.289 0 1Professional Degree 47574 0.015 0.122 0 1Post Graduate and above 47574 0.020 0.142 0 1Other Education 47574 0.001 0.032 0 1Never married 47574 0.195 0.396 0 1Widow/widower 47574 0.043 0.203 0 1Divorced 47574 0.003 0.055 0 1Separated/deserted 47574 0.005 0.071 0 1Same Generation 47574 0.082 0.274 0 1Direct descendents 47574 0.309 0.462 0 1Other relatives 47574 0.017 0.128 0 1Other traditional farmer/cultivator 47574 0.116 0.321 0 1

Organized farmer practicing mechanized Farming 47574 0.012 0.109 0 1Animal husbandry/dairy 47574 0.011 0.104 0 1Agricultural laborers 47574 0.078 0.267 0 1Skilled wage laborers 47574 0.072 0.258 0 1Semi/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 1Salaried employee (Central Govt.) 47574 0.025 0.158 0 1Salaried employee (State Govt.) 47574 0.100 0.300 0 1


http://indicus.net/


Variable Observation

Mean Standard Deviatio

n

Minimum

Maximum

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 1Owner: Small-scale manufacturing unit 47574 0.003 0.055 0 1

Owner: Medium & large-scale manufacturing unit 47574 0.000 0.011 0 1Self employed Professionals 47574 0.009 0.092 0 1Other self employed workers 47574 0.071 0.257 0 1Home based workers 47574 0.014 0.118 0 1Arunachal Pradesh 47574 0.028 0.165 0 1Assam 47574 0.041 0.199 0 1Bihar 47574 0.044 0.206 0 1Chhattisgarh 47574 0.038 0.191 0 1Delhi 47574 0.018 0.132 0 1Gujarat 47574 0.043 0.203 0 1Haryana 47574 0.040 0.196 0 1Himachal Pradesh 47574 0.029 0.168 0 1Jharkhand 47574 0.037 0.189 0 1Karnataka 47574 0.041 0.198 0 1Kerala 47574 0.062 0.241 0 1Madhya Pradesh 47574 0.048 0.215 0 1Maharashtra+Goa 47574 0.046 0.209 0 1Jammu & Kashmir 47574 0.027 0.162 0 1Other NE states excluding Manipur 47574 0.033 0.178 0 1Orissa 47574 0.042 0.201 0 1Punjab 47574 0.041 0.197 0 1Rajasthan 47574 0.032 0.177 0 1Sikkim 47574 0.045 0.207 0 1Tamil Nadu 47574 0.049 0.216 0 1Tripura 47574 0.035 0.184 0 1Uttar Pradesh 47574 0.047 0.213 0 1Uttaranchal 47574 0.034 0.182 0 1

West Bengal 47574 0.053 0.225 0 1


http://indicus.net/


Appendix 3: References

1. Denison E. F. (1974). Accounting for United States economic growth: 1929-1969. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

2. Deshpande, Ashwini (2001). Caste at Birth? Redifining Disparity in India. Review of Development Economics, Vol. 5 No. 1, February 2001, pp. 130-144.

3. Dougherty, C.R.S and E. Jimenez (1991). The Specification of Earnings Functions: Tests and Implications. Economics Education Review, 10(2), 85-98.

4. Duraisamy, P. (2000). Changes in Returns to Education in India, 1983-94: By Gender, Age-Cohort and Location. Center Discussion Paper No.185, Economic Growth Center, Yale University

5. Duraisamy, P. and Malathy Duraisamy (1995). Returns to Higher Education in India. Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, IX (1), 57-68.

6. Duraisamy, P. and Malathy Duraisamy (1997). Male-Female Earnings Differentials in the Scientific and Technical Labor Market in India. Research in Labor Economics, 16,209-234.

7. Heckman, J.J. and S. Polachek (1974). Empirical Evidence on the Functional Form of the Earnings-Schooling Relationship. Journal of American Statistical Association, 69, 350-354.

8. Heckman, J.J. (1976). A Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimation for such Models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5, 475-92.

9. Hollenbeck, Kevin, and Kimmel, Jean (2001). The Returns to Education and Basic Skills Training for Individuals with Poor Health or Disability. Upjohn Institute Staff Working Paper No. 01-72.


http://indicus.net/


10. Imbens, Guido, Donald Rubin and Bruce Sacerdote (2001). Estimating the Effect of Unearned Income on Labor Supply, Earnings, Savings and Consumption: Evidence from a Survey of Lottery Players. American Economic Review 91 (4): 778-794.

11. Mankiw, N. G., David Romer, and David Weil (1992). A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 107:407-439.

12. Martins, Pedro S. (2004). Firm-Level Social Returns to Education. Queen Mary, University of London.

13. Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, Experience and Earnings. New York, Columbia University Press for NBER.

14. Psacharopoulos, G. (1985). Returns to Education: A Further International Update and Implications. The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 20, No. 4.

15. The World Bank (2004). Snakes and Ladders – Factors Influencing Successful Primary School Completion for Children in Poverty Contexts. South Asia Human Development Sector, Report No. 6, Discussion Paper Series.

16. Saxton, Jim (2000). Investment in Education: Private and Public Returns. Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress.

17. Kennedy, Peter (2003). A Guide To Econometrics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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.

19. Thorat, S.K. (1999) "Caste and Labour Market Discrimination" (With R.S. Deshpande) Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Conference Issue, November

20. Tsakloglou, Panos, and Cholezas, Ioannis (2000-01). Private Returns to Education in Greece. Department of International and European Economic Studies, Athens University of Economics and Business.


http://indicus.net/


21. _________National Sample Survey (NSS) (1999-2000). NSS Report No. 458: Employment and Unemployment Situation in India. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Govt. of India.

22. Kingdon, Geeta Gandhi (1998). Does the Labour Market Explain Lower Female Schooling in India? Journal of Development Studies, 35, No. 1: 39-65.

23. Bajpai, P., L Bhandari and A Sinha (2005). Social and Economic Profile of India. Social Science Press, New Delhi.

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.

25. Card, David (1995). “Earnings, Schooling, and Ability Revisited,” Research in Labor Economics 14 pp. 23-48.


http://indicus.net/