Social Science Journal for Advanced Research

These structural differences suggest that agricultural labour markets within the state are weakly integrated and regionally segmented, rather than forming a single unified market. Consequently, wage dynamics in Uttar Pradesh cannot be adequately understood through state-level averages alone. Regional analyses will give insights into the specificities.

Gender further complicates this picture. A substantial body of literature shows that women agricultural labourers face systematic wage discrimination, occupational segregation, and limited access to higher-paid tasks (Agarwal, 1997; Unni & Rani, 2008). Even during periods of rising wages, gender gaps tend to persist, reflecting entrenched social norms and unequal bargaining power. While MGNREGA has been widely acknowledged for expanding women’s participation in paid work and establishing a statutory wage floor, evidence on its ability to reduce gender wage gaps in agricultural labour markets remains mixed (Drèze & Khera, 2017; Berg et al., 2018, p. 21).

This paper addresses four interrelated questions concerning the dynamics of agricultural wages in Uttar Pradesh in the post-MGNREGA period. First, it examines how agricultural wages in Uttar Pradesh have performed relative to all-India trends since 2004–05, asking whether the state has shared the national trajectory of wage acceleration followed by deceleration, or whether surplus labour conditions and limited non-farm absorption have produced a distinct wage path. Second, the paper analyses regional variation in agricultural wages within Uttar Pradesh, recognising that the state comprises multiple labour markets shaped by differences in agrarian structure, patterns of migration, and proximity to urban centres. This allows an assessment of whether wage growth has generated any tendency towards regional convergence or merely reinforced existing spatial hierarchies. Third, the paper investigates how gender mediates access to regional wage gains by examining male-female wage differentials across regions, and whether higher-wage regions exhibit greater gender equity or reproduce entrenched forms of gendered labour segmentation. Finally, the paper evaluates the role of MGNREGA in shaping agricultural wages across regions and genders, with particular attention to its function as a statutory wage floor and gender neutral reservation wage, and the extent to which its influence varies between labour-surplus and labour-tight regions.

Occupation-wise wage data for major agricultural tasks are drawn from Wage Rates in Rural India (WRRI) published by Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Governemt of India. We have collected data for Uttar Pradesh for years between 1998–99 and 2023–24 to examine persistent task-based wage differentiation.

Nominal wages are deflated using the Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labourers (CPI-AL, 2012=100) to obtain real wages. Data for CPI is collected from Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Governemt of India for various years. The empirical analysis is descriptive and comparative relying on tabulations, growth rates, and figures. Sub-period compound annual growth rates are calculated for 2005–06 to 2010–11 and 2011–12 to 2020–21 to distinguish between early and post-expansion phases of MGNREGA. The objective is to identify structural and distributional patterns in agricultural wage formation across regions in Uttar Pradesh. Data is computed for the regions and analysed with the help of descriptive statistics.

Comparison of Wages in Uttar Pradesh with All India Wages of Agricultural Labour

Male agricultural wages increased steadily in bothUttar Pradesh (UP)andAll-Indiaover the period 2005-06 to 2020-21. However, wages in UP remained consistently below the national average throughout the period, indicating a persistent inter-state wage gap (Table 1, col. 4). In 2005-06, the average daily wage of male agricultural labourers was Rs.79.09 in Uttar Pradesh compared to Rs. 83.60 at the All-India level. By 2020-21, wages had risen to Rs. 283 in UP and Rs. 342 nationally. Thus, while nominal wages more than tripled in both cases, theabsolute gap widened over time. Long-term Growth comparison shows that Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) for Uttar Pradesh was 8.87 per cent, whereas All-India CAGR was 9.85 per cent.

This suggests that wage dynamics in UP have been relatively sluggish compared to the broader national trend. The divergence in growth rates implies that Uttar Pradesh has not converged towards the national wage level, instead, the relative position of UP has weakened over time.

Analysing further, we can divide the whole period of growth into three distinct phases:

During the initial years of MGNREGA from 2005–06 to 2008–09, wage growth in Uttar Pradesh was uneven and slower compared to the national trend. Wages in UP increased from Rs. 79.09 to Rs. 92.74. All-India wages increased from Rs. 83.60 to Rs. 117.15. The national wage increase during this period was sharper, leading to a rapid widening of the wage gap between UP and All-India. This indicates weaker wage momentum in Uttar Pradesh during the mid-2000s.

Between 2009–10 and 2012–13, wage growth accelerated in both UP and All-India, but the acceleration was stronger in Uttar Pradesh. UP wages rose from Rs.103.81 to Rs.179.72. All-India wages rose from Rs.140.87 to Rs. 213.71. Although UP still lagged behind in absolute terms, the rate of increase was higher, resulting in a temporary narrowing of the relative growth gap. This period represents the fastest wage growth phase for Uttar Pradesh in the entire series. This phase also coincides with the operation of MGNREGA in all districts of Uttar Pradesh.

After 2013–14, wage growth moderated in both series, but the slowdown was more pronounced in Uttar Pradesh. Wages in UP increased from Rs. 203 to Rs. 283. All-India wages increased from Rs. 229.12 to Rs. 342. Both series show a deceleration, but the national series maintained a stronger upward momentum. As a result, the wage gap widened again in the later years, reinforcing the pattern of divergence (Figure 1).

Across the entire period, the ratio of UP wages to All-India wages declined modestly, indicating that Uttar Pradesh did not experience wage convergence. Mid-2000s, UP wages were about 94-95% of the national average. By 2020-21, UP wages fell to about83%of the national average. This relative decline reflects structural disadvantages in wage growth rather than short-term fluctuations.

Table 3: Average Daily Wages of Agricultural Labour in UP (Rs)

Source: AWI, DES, Various Years

Figure 2

Source: AWI, DES, Various Years

Table 4: Annual Average Daily Wage Rates for Agricultural Occupations in Rural India by Gender in Uttar Pradesh (Rs.)

Source: WRRI, Labour Bureau, GOI

Figure 3d

Source: Author

4. Regional and Gender Differentials in Agricultural Wages in Uttar Pradesh (2016–2020)

For analytical clarity, districts are interpreted within broadly recognised sub-regions of Uttar Pradesh-Western, Central, Eastern, and Bundelkhand. Most of the area of the state are plains with fertile alluvial soils except the Bundelkhand region which is rocky, hilly and has semi-arid climate with poor quality soil (Gulati, 2022). The eastern region is flood prone whereas central and western regions have good irrigation system (Gulati, 2022). These regions differ sharply in agrarian structure, non-farm employment opportunities and proximity to urban centres. Rather than treating Uttar Pradesh as a single labour market, the analysis explicitly recognises itsinternally segmented nature, as emphasised in the literature on rural labour markets in India (Bardhan, 1984; Harriss-White, 2003). The regional comparison focuses on movement of agricultural wages, their growth and the gap between agricultural wages and the MGNREGA wage floor. Given the objective of identifyingstructural patterns of regional and gender inequality, the relevant data are analysed here at three levels: 1) Across regions, to assess spatial wage hierarchy, 2) Across gender, to identify gendered segmentation within regions and 3) Against MGNREGA wages, to evaluate the role of public employment as a wage floor.

Source: Author

The regional pattern of agricultural wages for males in Uttar Pradesh reveals persistent spatial inequality alongside gradual wage increase across all regions during 2016–2020 (Figure 4a). In Western Uttar Pradesh, men’s wages rose from ₹247.79 to ₹292.19, an increase of about 18%. Eastern Uttar Pradesh recorded a sharper rise, from ₹202.52 to ₹272.18, representing a growth of nearly 34%, suggesting partial regional convergence. Central Uttar Pradesh experienced a wage increase of about 13%, while Bundelkhand saw a relatively modest growth of around 8% over the period. The faster wage growth in Eastern Uttar Pradesh may be attributed to sustained out-migration, tightening rural labour markets, and the role of public employment programmes in strengthening workers’ bargaining power (Himanshu & Kundu, 2016).

Women’s agricultural wages, though substantially lower than men’s wages, exhibited faster growth in most regions (Figure 4b). In Eastern Uttar Pradesh, women’s wages increased from ₹136.26 to ₹197.02, registering a rise of nearly 45%. Central Uttar Pradesh also recorded a sharp increase of about 46%, while Bundelkhand and Western Uttar Pradesh experienced more moderate growth of 17% and 5%, respectively. The relatively rapid increase in women’s wages in poorer regions points towards the influence of MGNREGA in setting effective wage floors and limiting extreme gender-based wage suppression (Ravi & Engler, 2015; Dreze & Khera, 2017).

5. Absence of Regional Wage Convergence

Despite these gains, the gender wage gap remained substantial across all regions. In 2016, women’s wages constituted only about 65% of men’s wages in Western Uttar Pradesh (Table 6 & Figure 5d) and 62% and 67% in Bundelkhand and Eastern Uttar Pradesh respectively (Table 6, Figure 5b & 5c). By 2020, this ratio improved modestly in Eastern and Central Uttar Pradesh, where women’s wages reached approximately 72–75% of men’s wages (Figure 5a). In contrast, Western Uttar Pradesh continued to exhibit a wide gender wage gap, with women earning barely 58% of male wages in 2020.

Figure 5b

Figure 5c

Figure 5d

Source: Author

This rigidity indicates that policy intervention has stabilised women’s wages at the lower end of the distribution without enabling upward mobility within the agricultural labour market.

Intersecting Regional and Gender Inequalities

The combined regional and gender analysis reveals astratified agricultural labour market. Regional labour demand determines wage ceilings, gender norms regulate access to these ceilings, and MGNREGA establishes a binding floor that is particularly relevant for women in labour-surplus regions. Rather than producing convergence, this structure results inpersistent inequality alongside partial wage protection. MGNREGA prevents extreme wage suppression but does not alter the underlying regional and gendered segmentation of agricultural labour markets. This suggests thatnominal wage growth failed to keep pace with inflation, especially post-2018.

6. Real Wages of Agricultural Labourers in Uttar Pradesh

Analysing growth of real wages region and gender-wise shows that for male labour after 2017-18, real wages declined after 2017-18 in all regions except eastern (Table 7, Figure 6a). For females real wages declined in all regions particularly after 2017-18 (Figure 6b). Western UP is especially noticiable in this respect. Inspite of having a consistently higher wages for male as compare to other regions, female wages in western UP sharply decline after 2017, showing the largest gender gap. On the whole, we observe that nominal wages failed to keep pace with the inflation and the effect of inflation is sharper on the females.

Table 7: Average Real Wages of Agricultural Labourers in Uttar Pradesh (2012=100)

Source: Calculated by Author

Second, the paper foregrounds gender as a structuring force in regional wage outcomes. Rather than treating gender wage gaps as a residual outcome, the analysis demonstrates thatregional prosperity does not translate into gender wage convergence. Even in high-wage regions, female wages remain confined to a lower tier of the wage distribution. This finding supports political economy perspectives that emphasise the role of social norms and task segmentation in wage determination (Agarwal, 1997; Harriss-White, 2003).

Third, the paper situates MGNREGA within the regional and gendered wage structure rather than evaluating it in isolation. The findings suggest that MGNREGA functions primarily as abinding wage floor for women, especially in labour-surplus regions, while remaining largely irrelevant for male wages in high-demand regions. This nuanced role aligns with evidence that public employment programmes influence reservation wages without necessarily transforming private labour markets (Dreze & Khera 2017; Imbert & Papp, 2015; Berg et. al., 2018). By embedding MGNREGA within a layered wage hierarchy, where region determines wage ceilings, gender mediates access, and policy stabilises the floor, the paper advances a more integrated understanding of rural wage formation.

The analysis of agricultural wages in Uttar Pradesh during 2016–2020 highlights the durability of regional and gender inequalities. While wages have risen overall, the benefits of wage growth have been unevenly distributed. Regional hierarchies remain intact, and gender wage gaps persist across all regions. Public employment under MGNREGA has played a stabilising role, particularly for women, by setting a credible wage floor. However, without complementary interventions addressing gender norms, skill formation, and access to non-farm employment, agricultural labour markets are likely to remain segmented.

References

1. Agarwal, B. (1997). Bargaining and gender relations: Within and beyond the household.Feminist Economics, 3(1), 1-5.

2. Agarwal, B. (1997b). Gender, environment, and poverty interlinks: Regional variations and temporal shifts in rural India, 1971–1991. World Development, 25(1), 23-52.

15. Jose, A.V. (2022). Wage rates in agriculture. Review of Agrarian Studies, 12(1).

16. Khera, R., & Nayak, N. (2009). Women workers and perceptions of the national rural employment guarantee act. Economic and Political Weekly, 49-57.

17. MGNREGA Reports. (https://nrega.nic.in).

18. Ravi, S., & Engler, M. (2015). Workfare as an effective way to fight poverty: The case of India’s NREGS. World Development, 67, 57-71.

19. Rawal, V. (2006). The labour process in rural Haryana (India): A field‐report from two villages. Journal of Agrarian Change, 6(4), 538-583.

20. Sen, A. (2014). Development as freedom (1999). The globalization and development reader: Perspectives on development and global change, 525.

21. Statistical Abstract, Directorate of Economics & Statistics. Uttar Pradesh. https://updes.up.nic.in

22. Statistical Dairy, Directorate of Economics & Statistics. Uttar Pradesh. https://updes.up.nic.in

23. Unni, J., & Rani, U. (2008).Flexibility of labour in globalizing India: The challenge of skills and technology. New Delhi: Tulika.

24. Wage Rate in Rural India, Labour Bureau, Ministry of labour and Employment, Governement of India. http://labourbureau.gov.in.

25. Periodic Labour Force Survey (2019-20, 2022-23). Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. https://www.data.gov.in

26. Census (2011). Office of the registrar general & census commissioner, Ministry of home affairs, Government of India.