Advertisement

Labour Market Inequality

  • Vani Kant BorooahEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, Borooah discusses labour market risk. Every time a job-seeker applies for a job he/she runs the risk of not getting it. However, these risks may not be uniformly distributed across job-seekers: some have a better chance of negotiating obstacles to employment; others have a higher chance of stumbling. The important question relates to the determinants of such risk. In particular, does this risk differ significantly between job-seekers from different groups: gender, religion, or caste? The chapter uses a famous result in statistics, Bayes’ theorem, to make explicit the concept of risk and to explain why, under this theorem, different groups might have different rates of success of securing employment. The theoretical results are buttressed by data from two rounds of the NSS of Employment: the 68th round (July 2011–June 2012) and the 55th round (July 1999–June 2000). These data are used, in subsequent sections, to quantify the concept of risk set out in the earlier part of the chapter.

References

  1. Aitken, C. (1996). Lies, Damned Lies, and Expert Witnesses. Mathematics Today, 32, 76–80.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1972a). Models of Job Discrimination. In A. H. Pascal (Ed.), Racial Discrimination in Economic Life (pp. 83–102). Lexington: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J. (1972b). Some Mathematical Models of Race Discrimination in the Labor Market. In A. H. Pascal (Ed.), Racial Discrimination in Economic Life (pp. 187–204). Lexington: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
  4. Arrow, K. J. (1973). The Theory of Discrimination. In O. Ashenfelter & A. Rees (Eds.), Discrimination in Labor Markets (pp. 3–33). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, G. (1993). The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Borooah, V. K. (2001). The Measurement of Employment Inequality Between Population Subgroups. Labour, 15, 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourguignon, F. (1979). Decomposable Income Inequality Measures. Econometrica, 47, 901–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Matthews, R. J. (2000). Facts Versus Factions: The Use and Abuse of Subjectivity in Scientific Research. In J. Morris (Ed.), Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle (pp. 247–282). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.Google Scholar
  9. Sachar Committee Report. (2006). The Social and Economic Status of the Muslim Community in India. New Delhi: Government of India (Cabinet Secretariat).Google Scholar
  10. Tendulkar, S. (2007). National Sample Surveys. In K. Basu (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Economics in India (pp. 367–370). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Theil, H. (1967). Economics and Information Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  12. Thompson, W. C., & Schumann, E. L. (1987). Interpretation of Statistical Evidence in Criminal Trials: The Prosector’s Fallacy and the Defense Attorney’s Fallacy. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Trivedi, P. K., Srinivas, G., Fahimuddin, & Kumar, S. (2016). Does Untouchability Exist Among Muslims: Evidence from Uttar Pradesh. Economic and Political Weekly, 51(15), 32–36.Google Scholar
  14. Zackrisson, S., Andersson, I., Janzon, L., Manjer, J., & Garne, J. P. (2006). Rate of Over-Diagnosis of Breast Cancer 15 Years After End of Malmo Mamographic Screening. British Medical Journal, 33, 689–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics & PoliticsUniversity of UlsterBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations