ArticleThe Indian journal of labour economics : the quarterly journal of the Indian Society of Labour Economics2023
Labour Incomes in India: A Comparison of Two National Household Surveys.
Article in The Indian journal of labour economics : the quarterly journal of the Indian Society of Labour Economics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intersectionality of cancer disparities in south Asia.The Lancet. Global health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic created a need for high-frequency employment and income data. Policy-makers and researchers of developing countries typically have not had access to such data. In India, a new private high-frequency panel dataset has recently emerged as the dataset of choice for analysis of the economic impact of COVID-19. This is the Consumer Pyramids Household Survey (CPHS) conducted by the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE). But the CPHS has also been criticised for being inadequately representative nationally by missing poor and vulnerable households in its sample. We examine the comparability of monthly labour income estimates for the pre-pandemic year (2018-19) for CPHS and the official Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS). Across different methods and assumptions, as well as rural/urban locations, CPHS mean monthly labour earnings are anywhere between 5 percent and 50 percent higher than corresponding PLFS estimates. In addition to the sampling concerns raised in the literature, we point to differences in the way employment and income are captured in the two surveys as possible causes of these differences. While CPHS estimates are always higher, it should also be emphasised that the two surveys agree on some stylised facts regarding the Indian workforce. An individual earning ₹50,000 per month lies in the top 5 percent of the income distribution in India as per both surveys. Second, both PLFS and CPHS show that half the Indian workforce earns below the recommended National Minimum Wage. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41027-023-00427-8.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.