# Exploring work and life satisfaction among older adults
in India: Evidence from LASI

Priya Maurya, Aparajita Chattopadhyay, Aditi B. Prasad

► To cite this version:

Priya Maurya, Aparajita Chattopadhyay, Aditi B. Prasad. Exploring work and life satisfaction among older adults in India: Evidence from LASI. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics Plus, 2025, 2 (2), pp.100151. 10.1016/j.aggp.2025.100151. hal-05448333

HAL Id: hal-05448333

https://hal.science/hal-05448333v1

Submitted on 8 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Exploring work and life satisfaction among older adults in India: Evidence from LASI

Priya Maurya<sup>a, *, b</sup>, Aparajita Chattopadhyay<sup>b, *</sup>, Aditi B. Prasad<sup>b</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

India

LASI

Life satisfaction

Occupation

Older adults

Work

## ABSTRACT

**Background:** Whether working in old age has a positive impact on overall life satisfaction of older people is a pertinent research question. This paper examined the role of work and occupational characteristics on life satisfaction among older adults in India.

**Data and methods:** This study utilised data from the first wave of the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (2017–2018). It analysed 30771 older adults aged 60 and above. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis and linear regression analysis were applied.

**Results:** The mean score for life satisfaction was 23.74; slightly higher among men (24.09) than women (23.43). However, the findings from multivariable analysis shows that overall, women were more likely to have better life satisfaction than men after controlling for other characteristics. Never worked (aCoef=-0.55, SE=0.26, *p* < 0.05; beta=-0.012) and currently working (aCoef=-0.43, SE=0.12, *p* < 0.001; beta=-0.025) men were less likely to have better life satisfaction than men who are currently not working. Women who worked earlier and currently not engaged in work had better life satisfaction than men of the same class. Compared to men who were working on their farms, male agricultural labourers were less likely, and women engaged in their own or family farm were more likely to report higher life satisfaction. The study findings demonstrate that financially resourceful and working pensioners were capable of enjoying themselves in later life. Although gender differences exist in life satisfaction in the context of work, the effect sizes were small.

**Conclusion:** Women, better educated and wealthy, married, and healthy older adults are more likely to be satisfied in life. Encouraging saving practices among people, strengthening the land ownership rights and improving health and financial security among older adults through a life-course approach will contribute to a better quality of life in old age. The research underscores the importance of considering mediating mechanism of other factors while exploring the relationship between work, occupation and life satisfaction.

## Introduction

Population ageing is proceeding inexorably in India, with rising concerns about the health and healthcare needs of an ageing population in the near future. Therefore, India should prepare for new challenges to improve well-being and care for its greying population (Mane, 2016). One prospective public intervention is to promote active and healthy ageing through engagement in productive work, social activities, and volunteering work in later life. It helps reduce the pressure on the healthcare system and social services (Agarwal et al., 2016; Mane, 2016; Tang et al., 2018). Older people also significantly contribute to their families, communities, economy, and nation. Particularly, an

individual's occupational status strongly influences opportunities that enable people to be and do what they value throughout their lives, provide financial security, and maintain health and well-being (Adhikari et al., 2011; Tang et al., 2018; Walker, 2006).

Productive ageing is an approach that spotlights the optimistic view of ageing and emphasises older people as assets and integral part of society (Morrow-Howell & Greenfield, 2010; Visaria & Dommaraju, 2018). The wide-ranging forms of productive activities, which include economic activity, caregiving, and volunteering, are positively related to higher life satisfaction (Baker et al., 2005). Older people are assumed to withdraw from productive work (Smith, 2012) because, with age, people give up working when their health does not permit them to do so

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Economic Demography, Institut national d'études démographiques, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Department of Population & Development, International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, 400088</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author at: Institut national d'études démographiques, Campus Condorcet - 9 cours des Humanités, CS 50004, 93322 Aubervilliers Cedex, France. E-mail addresses: priyamaurya1326@gmail.com (P. Maurya), aparajita@iipsindia.ac.in (A. Chattopadhyay), aditibhagwatprasad@gmail.com (A.B. Prasad).</footnote>
(Adhikari et al., 2011; Ladusingh & Thangjam, 2018; Schofield et al., 2017; Smith, 2012; Tang et al., 2018). From a socioeconomic perspective, productive ageing through work participation can empower older people to control their own lives and maintain health, solve their problems caused by an ageing society, and gain greater well-being for themselves and their families (Kim, 2013; Mishra, 1992; Tang et al., 2018; Walker, 2006).

Life satisfaction is defined as perceptions of outcomes of significant parts of life, such as social integration and relationships, self-esteem, social conditions, and finances across multiple and broad domains in the long term (Kane & Kane, 2004). Existing studies on life satisfaction in old age primarily focus on its determinants (Bowling et al., 2003; Michalos et al., 2007) and suggest that individual characteristics such as age, sex, socioeconomic factors, health and human relationship characteristics are important determinants of life satisfaction (Bowling et al., 2003; Kim, 2013; Krueger et al., 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Better cognitive health, self-assessed health and regular physical examination are also significant predictors for promoting better life satisfaction among older adults (Jain et al., 2017; Ng et al., 2017).

The subjective economic situation is highly relevant for happiness, improved quality of life and overall well-being among older adults (Aquino et al., 1996; Haller & Hadler, 2006; Hu & Das, 2018; Veenhoven, 2015). Maintaining high activity levels in old age positively impacts life satisfaction, while low levels are detrimental, resulting in lower life satisfaction (Haller & Hadler, 2006; Hu & Das, 2018; Tang et al., 2018). Aligning with the same arguments, evidence also indicates that older people who engage in productive or volunteer work can control their environment and promote better life satisfaction and health (Kim, 2013; Mishra, 1992; Singh & Singh, 2020). Self-employed workers reported higher life satisfaction than wage-employed or inactive older people (Hammarstedt & Aldén, 2018). Job characteristics such as wage, working hours and type of occupation also play an important role in life satisfaction (Staudinger et al., 2016). A meta-analysis showed that the association between income and life satisfaction is relatively small, as the quality of life in older adults is not reduced by reduced income (Pinquart & Sorensen, 2001). Meanwhile, the interaction between productive work and life satisfaction changes depending on cultural characteristics, gender and socioeconomic status (Kim, 2013).

The gender differences in the relationship between work characteristics and life satisfaction have been discussed from a life cycle perspective and socialisation process (Atchley & Barusch, 2004). During the life cycle, women are in disadvantageous positions as their participation is higher in domestic duties, which is not documented by official statistics of the labour force, and they have less opportunity to work than men, which eventually affects their life satisfaction in old age (Ferrant et al., 2014; Srivastava, 2017). A shred of literature has also identified that well-being models do not have to do in the same way among older men and women and have emphasised the importance of separate analysis by gender (Gaymu & Springer, 2010; Pinquart & Sorensen, 2001). Differences in the socialisation process may lead to gender differences in goals and values of life, as well as sources of life satisfaction (Meggiolaro & Ongaro, 2015). More specifically, in the Indian context, gender role socialisation portrays women in such a way that they are more into family relations and responsibilities, more attached to their children and spend most of their lives for the welfare of children. This way, they portray their source of satisfaction towards attending to these responsibilities (Priyanka & Mishra, 2010). Therefore, the familial environment is more important for women's life satisfaction than men's.

Few studies exist in India on the life satisfaction of older people in general; however, the impact of work and occupational characteristics on life satisfaction at the national level is not explored. Most of the research is conducted in developed countries on employment status and life satisfaction (Dingemans & Henkens, 2019; Hammarstedt & Aldén, 2018; Kim, 2013; Noguchi et al., 2022). However, economic engagement in India differs from that in developed countries, where employment is more organised and has many social security features. The

labour market faces significant challenges in India, such as higher unemployment rate, lower work participation of women, and themajority of population engaged in informal sectors (Staudinger et al., 2016). Therefore, the findings of previous literature from high-income countries may not be generalised in the Indian context.

Based on the above discussion, this study strived to estimate the role of work and occupational characteristics on life satisfaction among older adults. We hypothesised that working in old age is a strong positive predictor of life satisfaction among older adults, and the relationship between life satisfaction and work is stronger for older men than older women. This study's results could help policy and program formulation for the growing number of older adults in India.

## Data and methods

Data for the present study was utilised from the first wave of the Longitudinal Study of Ageing in India (LASI Wave-1), conducted in 2017–2018. The survey was conducted by the International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Mumbai, in collaboration with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health (HSPH) and the University of Southern California (USC) under the stewardship of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India. LASI is a national and state-representative longitudinal study of ageing and health. It also covers the economic and social aspects of the 45+ population in India. The multistage stratified area probability cluster sampling method was used to select the sample. Within each state, a three-stage sampling design in rural areas and a four-stage sampling design in urban areas were adopted in the LASI wave-1. The details of sampling are provided in the LASI wave-1 report (International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), NPHCE, MoHFW, 2020). The study covered 73,396 individuals aged 45 years and above and their spouses, of which around 31,902 are older adults aged 60 years and above (International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), NPHCE, MoHFW, 2020). The data was collected from 36 states and union territories of India. After dropping the missing sample in the outcome variable, 30,771 samples of 60 years and above were included for initial analysis, and 10,548 samples (working older adults) were considered for further analysis. The flow chart of the study sample is presented in Fig. 1.

### Outcome variable

The outcome variable of the study was life satisfaction, which includes the following questions: (a) In most ways, my life is close to ideal; (b) the conditions of my life are excellent; (c) I am satisfied with my life; (d) so far, I have got the important things I want in life; and (e) if I could live my life again, I would change almost nothing. The response was recorded on a seven-point scale- strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). A composite index was constructed from the above questions, ranging from 5 to 35. Higher scores indicate a higher level of life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985; International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), NPHCE, MoHFW, 2020). The life satisfaction scale was reliable as Cronbach's alpha for the present sample is 0.899.

### Key explanatory variables

The key explanatory variable of the study was the working status and occupational characteristics of the older adults. Working status was categorised into ‘never worked’, ‘earlier worked but currently not working’ and ‘currently working’. Main occupation was categorised into five broad categories based on the respondent’s main occupation: ‘farm/ fishery/forestry work’, ‘agricultural labour work’, ‘non-agricultural business owner work’, ‘own account work’, and ‘wage-salaried work’. Having a side job was coded as ‘no’ and ‘yes’. Variation of work hours was coded as ‘same each week’ and ‘varies according to season’. Working months in a year was categorised as ‘for 6 months’ and ‘more than 6 months’. Receiving pension was recorded as ‘no’ and ‘yes’.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Flow chart of study sample selection, 2017–2018.</figcaption></figure>

Details of the variable description are presented in supplementary Table 1.

## Other control variables

Control variables included individual and household-level characteristics of the study population, which were associated with life satisfaction and occupational characteristics based on previous studies. The variables were also categorised based on existing literature (Banjare et al., 2015; Jain et al., 2017; Ladusingh & Thangjam, 2018; Mishra, 1992; Muhammad & Maurya, 2021; Singh & Singh, 2020; Tang et al., 2018) Gender was divided into men and women. Age was divided into three categories as ‘60–69 years’, ‘70–79 years’, and ‘80 years and above’. Years of schooling was categorised as ‘no education’, ‘1–5 years’, ‘6 to 10 years’, and ‘more than 10 years’. Marital status was coded as ‘currently married’, ‘widowed’ and ‘other’ (which includes never married, divorced, separated, deserted and live-in-relationships). Living arrangements were recoded as ‘living with spouse and child’, ‘living with spouse’, ‘living with children and/or others’, and ‘living alone’. Social participation was assessed through the question, “Are you a member of any social organisations, religious groups, clubs or societies?” and the response was coded as ‘no’ and ‘yes’. Respondents were asked about reasons why they experienced discrimination in their day-to-day life. For the response variable financial discrimination, individuals who indicated financial status was the cause of discrimination were coded as ‘yes’ otherwise ‘no’. Self-rated health (SRH) was recoded into three categories, namely, ‘poor’ (very poor and poor) ‘fair’ and ‘good’ (good and very good). Land was assessed by asking, “Do you or your household member(s) own any land, including both cultivated and non-cultivated land?” The response was recoded as ‘no’ and ‘yes’. Caste was categorised as ‘Other Backward Class (OBC)’, ‘Scheduled Caste (SC)’, ‘Scheduled Tribe (ST)’, and ‘others’ (included other than OBC/SC/ST). Religion was coded as ‘Hindu’, ‘Muslim’ and ‘others’ (including Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism and others). The monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) was measured using household consumption data and divided into five quantiles - poorest, poorer, middle, richer and richest. Place of residence was coded as ‘urban’ and ‘rural’.

## Statistical analysis

Initially, descriptive statistics were conducted to understand the national-level picture of the study population. Then, bivariate analyses

using repeated t-tests were performed to understand the variation in population subgroups (Field, 2024). Since our outcome variable, ‘life satisfaction’, was continuous, the appropriate technique for the analysis is the linear regression model (Montgomery et al., 2021). The linear regression model was employed to estimate the impact of selected variables on life satisfaction. For each predictor, both unstandardized coefficients (aCoef) and standardized coefficients (beta) with a 95 % CI were reported. The interaction with gender, working status, and main occupation type was conducted to understand the interplay between gender, work, occupation type, and life satisfaction. Individual weights were used to make the estimates nationally representative. Overall, the proportion of missing cases was very low; if missing cases occurred for categorical variables, separate categories were created for missing values to include all observations in the analysis. Coefficient estimates for missing cases were not shown in the final results. All the statistical analysis was done using STATA-14 software.

## Results

The descriptive statistics of variables considered in the study are presented in Table 1. The mean score for life satisfaction was 23.74, which was higher among men (24.09) than women (23.43), and this difference was statistically significant. More than half of the samples (52.8 %) were women. Around 51 % of men and 22 % of women were currently working, while 46.8 % of women had never worked, and the same prevalence for men was 3.8 %. Third-fifths of the study population belonged to the 60–69-year age group. The majority of the women respondents had no formal schooling. Only 3 % of women had more than 10 years of schooling compared to 13 % of men. A higher proportion of women were widowed than men, who were more likely to be currently married. A higher proportion of men resided with spouses and children (55.7 %), while about 8.6 % of women lived alone. Men were more socially active than women. Around 6 % of the respondents reported facing financial discrimination in their daily lives, and there was no statistically significant difference. More men (53.8 %) owned land than their women counterparts (47.3 %). About one-fourth of respondents rated their health as poor. The majority of the respondents were from the OBC caste and Hindu religion. More than three-quarters of the respondents were rural residents.

More than two-fifths of older people were engaged in farm/fishery/ forestry. However, a higher percentage of women were involved in agricultural labour work and wage-salaried work compared to men.
<table><caption>**Table 1**
Summary statistics of the study population, 2017–2018 (N = 30,771).</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Mean/Proportion</th><th>Men Mean/Proportion</th><th>Women Mean/Proportion</th><th>Gender difference (p-value)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Dependent variable</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Life satisfaction</td><td>23.74</td><td>24.09</td><td>23.43</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Independent variable</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>0.47</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>0.53</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Working status</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Never worked</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.47</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Earlier worked but currently not working</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.31</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Currently working</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.22</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Age (in years)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>60-69</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.60</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>70-79</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.29</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>80+</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.11</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Year of schooling</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>No education</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.73</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1 to 5 years</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.13</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6 to 10 years</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.11</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>More than 10 years</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.03</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Marital status</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Currently married</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.45</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Widowed</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.54</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.02</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Living arrangement</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>With spouse and child</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.29</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>With spouse</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.15</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>With children/ others</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.47</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Living alone</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.09</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Social Participation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.96</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.04</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Financial Discrimination</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.237</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.94</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.06</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Self-rated health</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Poor</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.26</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fair</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.46</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.28</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Own Land</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.49</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.47</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MPCE quintiles</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Poorest</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.23</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poorer</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.22</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.20</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Richer</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.19</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Richest</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.16</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Caste</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.373</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.28</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OBC</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.45</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SC</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.19</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ST</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.08</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Religion</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.706</td></tr><tr><td>Hindu</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.83</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Muslim</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.11</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.07</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Residence</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.31</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.69</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: MPCE: Monthly Per Capita Income; OBC: Other Backward Class; SC/ST: Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.

Older men were more engaged in farm/fishery/forestry, non-agricultural business, and own account work. About 10.7 % of men engaged in a side job along with the main occupation, compared to 8 % of women. More than two-thirds of the respondents reported seasonal variation in working hours. About 6.6 % of men received a pension from their previous occupation, while only 3.3 % of women were in the same category (Table 2).

The mean score of life satisfaction by individual and household characteristics is presented in Table 3. Men who earlier worked but are currently not working (24.61) had significantly higher life satisfaction than women (23.55) in the same group, while women who never worked (24.03) reported higher life satisfaction than men (23.89). Across all age groups, men reported significantly higher life satisfaction than women. Older adults having more than 10 years of schooling reported higher life satisfaction than any other category. However, no significant gender difference was observed among older adults without formal schooling and higher education. Men living with children, participating in social activities, not facing financial discrimination, belonging to the richest wealth strata and residing in urban areas had significantly higher life satisfaction than their women counterparts.

Older adults working as agricultural labourers had the lowest mean of life satisfaction than other occupational categories. Farm/fishery/ forestry work had no significant gender differences, indicating that men and women in this occupational category experienced the same level of life satisfaction. Non-agricultural business owners, own account workers and wage-salaried workers had a significant gender difference, with men reporting higher life satisfaction than women (Table 4).

Overall, women were more likely (aCoef=0.41, SE=0.1, p < 0.05) to have better life satisfaction than men after controlling for other background characteristics. Currently working older adults (aCoef=-0.39, SE=0.01, p < 0.05) were less likely to have higher life satisfaction than those who earlier worked but are currently not working (Table 5). Further compared to men who earlier worked but currently not working, never worked men (aCoef=-0.55, SE=0.26, p < 0.05) and currently

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Summary statistics of the working older adults, 2017–2018 (N = 10,548).</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Mean/Proportion</th><th>Men Mean/Proportion</th><th>Women Mean/Proportion</th><th>Gender difference (p-value)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Main occupation</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Farm/fishery/forestry work</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.37</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Agricultural labour work</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.33</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-agricultural business owner work</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.02</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Own account work</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.08</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Wage-salaried work</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.19</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Having side job</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.92</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.08</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Variation of work hours</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Varies according to season</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.73</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Same each week</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.27</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Working months in a year for main job</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>For 6 months</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.42</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>For more than 6 months</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.58</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Receiving pension</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.67</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.03</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<caption>**Table 3**</caption>

Mean score of life satisfaction by individual and household characteristics among older adults in India, 2017–2018.

<table><thead><tr><th>Covariates</th><th>Men</th><th>Women</th><th>Gender difference (p-value)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Working status</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Never worked</td><td>23.89</td><td>24.03</td><td>0.589</td></tr><tr><td>Earlier worked but currently not working</td><td>24.61</td><td>23.55</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Currently working</td><td>23.92</td><td>23.09</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Age (in years)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>60-69</td><td>24.18</td><td>23.84</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>70-79</td><td>24.37</td><td>23.39</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>80+</td><td>24.20</td><td>23.57</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Year of schooling</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No education</td><td>22.86</td><td>23.02</td><td>0.170</td></tr><tr><td>1 to 5 years</td><td>23.88</td><td>24.49</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>6 to 10 years</td><td>25.06</td><td>25.59</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>More than 10 years</td><td>26.85</td><td>26.95</td><td>0.752</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Marital status</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Currently married</td><td>24.37</td><td>24.31</td><td>0.552</td></tr><tr><td>Widowed</td><td>23.82</td><td>23.17</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>22.40</td><td>22.56</td><td>0.780</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Living arrangement</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>With spouse and child</td><td>24.51</td><td>24.51</td><td>0.970</td></tr><tr><td>With spouse</td><td>24.06</td><td>23.87</td><td>0.324</td></tr><tr><td>With children/others</td><td>23.88</td><td>23.47</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Living alone</td><td>21.67</td><td>21.33</td><td>0.487</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Social Participation</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>24.14</td><td>23.70</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>25.21</td><td>23.53</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Financial Discrimination</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>24.47</td><td>23.94</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>19.99</td><td>19.02</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Self-rated health</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poor</td><td>22.04</td><td>21.84</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Fair</td><td>24.20</td><td>23.94</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td>25.48</td><td>25.17</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Own Land</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>24.27</td><td>23.81</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>25.04</td><td>24.22</td><td>0.139</td></tr><tr><td><strong>MPCE quintiles</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poorest</td><td>23.30</td><td>22.52</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Poorer</td><td>23.96</td><td>23.57</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>24.38</td><td>23.89</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Richer</td><td>24.58</td><td>23.98</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Richest</td><td>24.99</td><td>24.64</td><td>0.066</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Caste</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>25.25</td><td>24.60</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>OBC</td><td>24.07</td><td>23.44</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>SC</td><td>23.06</td><td>22.49</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>ST</td><td>23.97</td><td>23.82</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Religion</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hindu</td><td>24.22</td><td>23.59</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Muslim</td><td>23.79</td><td>23.23</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>24.64</td><td>24.52</td><td>0.539</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Residence</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>25.28</td><td>24.67</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>23.72</td><td>23.17</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: MPCE: Monthly Per Capita Income; OBC: Other Backward Class; SC/ST: Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.

working men (aCoef=-0.43, SE=0.12, *p* < 0.001) were less likely to have higher life satisfaction whereas earlier worked but currently not working (aCoef=0.31, SE=0.14, *p* < 0.05) were more likely to have better life satisfaction. Standardized coefficients for currently working men (beta=-0.025) indicated a negative but strong effect on life satisfaction (Table 7). Increasing age, higher educational attainment, and wealth strata had a significant positive association with higher life satisfaction. Older adults residing spouse only (aCoef=-0.5, SE=0.11, *p* < 0.001) and living alone (aCoef=-1.92, SE=0.48, *p* < 0.001) were negatively associated with having better life satisfaction than those living with spouse and children together. Facing financial discrimination, those belonging to OBC, SC and ST castes, Muslim religion and rural areas were significantly negatively associated with higher life

<caption>**Table 4**</caption>

Mean score of life satisfaction by occupational characteristics among working older adults in India, 2017–2018.

<table><thead><tr><th>Covariates</th><th>Men</th><th>Women</th><th>Gender difference (p-value)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Main occupation</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Farm/fishery/forestry work</td><td>24.06</td><td>24.03</td><td>0.88</td></tr><tr><td>Agricultural labour work</td><td>22.53</td><td>22.13</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td>Non-agricultural business owner work</td><td>24.26</td><td>22.66</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Own account work</td><td>24.56</td><td>23.59</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Wage-salaried work</td><td>24.05</td><td>22.18</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Having side job</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>23.91</td><td>23.18</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>23.98</td><td>21.83</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Variation of work hours</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Varies according to season</td><td>23.66</td><td>23.23</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Same each week</td><td>24.45</td><td>22.72</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Working months in a year for main job</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>For 6 months</td><td>23.32</td><td>22.84</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td>For more than 6 months</td><td>24.16</td><td>23.25</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Receiving pension</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>23.88</td><td>23.27</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>25.89</td><td>24.57</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr></tbody></table>

satisfaction than their counterparts (Table 5).

To further understand how work characteristics were associated with life satisfaction, linear regression was employed for the currently working older adult. Older adults who engaged in agricultural labour (aCoef=-0.78, SE= 0.21, *p* < 0.001), non-agricultural business owner work (aCoef=-0.74, SE= 0.37, *p* < 0.05), and wage-salaried work (aCoef=-0.77, SE= 0.23, *p* < 0.01), were less likely to report higher life satisfaction than those work in their own or family farm/fishery/forestry work (Table 6). Further, compared to men engaged in their own or family farm/fishery/forestry work, men involved in agricultural labour (aCoef=-0.65, SE= 0.26, *p* < 0.05) were less likely to have better life satisfaction. In contrast, women engaged in their own or family farm/ fishery/forestry work (aCoef= 0.84, SE= 0.24, *p* < 0.01) were more likely to report higher life satisfaction. Standardized coefficients for women working in their own form (beta=-0.040) indicated a positive and strong effect on life satisfaction (Table 7). Working older who received a pension from their previous job (aCoef= 1.11 SE= 0.29, *p* < 0.001) were positively associated with higher life satisfaction than the reference category. Other occupational characteristics such as having a side job, variation in work hours and working months in a year for the main job did not emerge as significant predictors of life satisfaction for working older adults (Table 6).

Discussion

The present study attempts to provide evidence and policy inputs for promoting overall well-being in old age through the economic activities of older adults in India. In the Indian context, the economy is predominantly based on agrarian and farm work, and there is no social and financial security for later life. Consequently, a considerable number of older adults are engaged in paid work until physically feasible. In recent times, the gendered nature of ageing is such that women tend to live longer than men with fewer economic resources because of lifetime disadvantages in educational attainment, employment opportunities and inheritance rights (Bloom et al., 2010; Hu & Das, 2018; Selvaraj et al., 2014). Productive engagement, which includes economic activities, volunteering work and care-providing activities, leads to a better quality of life through social integration that enhances one's self-esteem and self-efficacy (Banjare et al., 2015; Morrow-Howell & Greenfield, 2010). Using the nationally representative sample from LASI, this study examined the relationships between work, occupational characteristics and life satisfaction. The study's findings did not support the hypothesis
<caption>**Table 5**</caption>

Multivariable association of life satisfaction with individual and household characteristics among older adults in India 2017–18 from linear regression models.

<table><thead><tr><th>Covariates</th><th>aCoef (SE)</th><th>95 % CI</th><th>Beta</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Gender</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Men®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>0.41<sup>***</sup>(0.1)</td><td>(0.2, 0.61)</td><td>0.028</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Working status</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Earlier worked but currently not working®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Never worked</td><td>-0.19 (0.11)</td><td>(-0.4, 0.03)</td><td>-0.012</td></tr><tr><td>Currently working</td><td>-0.39<sup>***</sup>(0.1)</td><td>(-0.59, -0.2)</td><td>-0.026</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Age</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>60-69®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>70-79</td><td>0.24<sup>*</sup>(0.09)</td><td>(0.06, 0.42)</td><td>0.015</td></tr><tr><td>80+</td><td>0.65<sup>***</sup>(0.14)</td><td>(0.37, 0.93)</td><td>0.027</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Year of schooling</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No education®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1 to 5 years</td><td>0.85<sup>***</sup>(0.11)</td><td>(0.63, 1.07)</td><td>0.046</td></tr><tr><td>6 to 10 years</td><td>1.56<sup>***</sup>(0.12)</td><td>(1.33, 1.79)</td><td>0.085</td></tr><tr><td>More than 10 years</td><td>2.54<sup>***</sup>(0.17)</td><td>(2.21, 2.87)</td><td>0.097</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Marital status</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Currently married®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Widowed</td><td>-0.48 (0.46)</td><td>(-1.39, 0.42)</td><td>-0.032</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>-1.51<sup>**</sup>(0.52)</td><td>(-2.53, -0.5)</td><td>-0.033</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Living arrangement</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>With spouse and child®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>With spouse</td><td>-0.5<sup>***</sup>(0.11)</td><td>(-0.72, -0.29)</td><td>-0.027</td></tr><tr><td>With children/others</td><td>-0.09 (0.46)</td><td>(-0.99, 0.81)</td><td>-0.006</td></tr><tr><td>Living alone</td><td>-1.92<sup>***</sup>(0.48)</td><td>(-2.86, -0.97)</td><td>-0.058</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Social Participation</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>-0.22 (0.16)</td><td>(-0.53, 0.1)</td><td>-0.008</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Financial Discrimination</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>-3.87<sup>***</sup>(0.18)</td><td>(-4.22, -3.52)</td><td>-0.119</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Self-rated health</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poor®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fair</td><td>1.87<sup>***</sup>(0.1)</td><td>(1.67, 2.07)</td><td>0.128</td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td>3.05<sup>***</sup>(0.11)</td><td>(2.84, 3.27)</td><td>0.200</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Own Land</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>0.47<sup>***</sup>(0.09)</td><td>(0.29, 0.65)</td><td>0.032</td></tr><tr><td><strong>MPCE quintiles</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poorest®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poorer</td><td>0.56<sup>***</sup>(0.12)</td><td>(0.32, 0.81)</td><td>0.032</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>0.77<sup>***</sup>(0.12)</td><td>(0.53, 1.02)</td><td>0.043</td></tr><tr><td>Richer</td><td>0.89<sup>***</sup>(0.13)</td><td>(0.64, 1.14)</td><td>0.049</td></tr><tr><td>Richest</td><td>1.15<sup>***</sup>(0.13)</td><td>(0.89, 1.41)</td><td>0.062</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Caste</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Others®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OBC</td><td>-0.29<sup>**</sup>(0.1)</td><td>(-0.49, -0.09)</td><td>-0.019</td></tr><tr><td>SC</td><td>-0.88<sup>***</sup>(0.13)</td><td>(-1.14, -0.62)</td><td>-0.045</td></tr><tr><td>ST</td><td>-0.49<sup>***</sup>(0.14)</td><td>(-0.75, -0.22)</td><td>-0.025</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Religion</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hindu®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Muslim</td><td>-0.36<sup>**</sup>(0.13)</td><td>(-0.61, -0.1)</td><td>-0.016</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Residence</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Urban®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>-0.94<sup>***</sup>(0.1)</td><td>(-1.13, -0.74)</td><td>-0.061</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Adjusted R-squared</strong></td><td>0.087</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Analytical sample size</strong></td><td>30,771</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note-®: Reference category; aCoef: Unstandardized coefficient; SE: Standard error; CI: Confidence interval; MPCE: Monthly Per Capita Income; OBC: Other Backward Class; SC/ST: Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe; Significance level:.

* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001.

<caption>**Table 6**</caption>

Multivariable association of life satisfaction with occupational characteristics among working older adults in India 2017–18 from linear regression models.

<table><thead><tr><th>Covariates</th><th>aCoef (SE)</th><th>95 % CI</th><th>Beta</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Gender</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Men®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>0.43<sup>*</sup>(0.17)</td><td>(0.08, 0.77)</td><td>0.027</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Main occupation</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Farm/fishery/forestry work®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Agricultural labourer work</td><td>-0.78<sup>***</sup>(0.21)</td><td>(-1.19, -0.36)</td><td>-0.041</td></tr><tr><td>Non-agricultural business owner work</td><td>-0.74<sup>*</sup>(0.37)</td><td>(-1.47, -0.02)</td><td>-0.021</td></tr><tr><td>Own account work</td><td>-0.19 (0.25)</td><td>(-0.67, 0.3)</td><td>-0.009</td></tr><tr><td>Wage-salaried work</td><td>-0.77<sup>**</sup>(0.23)</td><td>(-1.22, -0.32)</td><td>-0.042</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Having side job</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>-0.08 (0.24)</td><td>(-0.55, 0.38)</td><td>-0.003</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Variation of hours in work</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Varies according to season®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Same each week</td><td>0.12 (0.17)</td><td>(-0.21, 0.45)</td><td>0.008</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Working months in a year for main job</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>For 6 months®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>For more than 6 months</td><td>0.11 (0.16)</td><td>(-0.19, 0.42)</td><td>0.007</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Receiving pension</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>1.11<sup>***</sup>(0.29)</td><td>(0.54, 1.68)</td><td>0.037</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Adjusted R-squared</strong></td><td>0.075</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Analytical sample size</strong></td><td>10,548</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note-®: Reference category; aCoef: Unstandardized coefficient; SE: Standard error; CI: Confidence interval;.

* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001. The model was adjusted for all covariates included in the study.

that working in old age positively affects life satisfaction among older adults. However, we found partial support for the hypothesis that this relationship is stronger among men than women as the relationship differs by gender but not necessarily in favour of men benefiting more from work.

The empirical evidence from the present analysis shows that the mean value of life satisfaction was lower among women than men. It is indicative that women are still in the disadvantaged group in terms of education and discrimination in the labour market for employment compared to men (Agarwal et al., 2016; Chaudhary & Verick, 2014; Selvaraj et al., 2014). As a result, women are not able to relish the intrinsic aspects of working and have lower life satisfaction than men. Further, the mean value for life satisfaction was higher among women who had never worked compared to women who had worked earlier and are currently working. These findings shed light on the fact that although women's socio-economic status has improved in recent years, they are mainly responsible for household chores and family caregiving. They portray their life satisfaction within their family, which more than compensates for gainful work outside the house (Chaudhary & Verick, 2014; Haller & Hadler, 2006). Also, women who have never worked might have a strong educational and financial background (Chaudhary & Verick, 2014). This makes the group of never-working women more satisfied in their lives. However, the finding from linear regression shows that overall, women were more likely to have better life satisfaction than men after controlling for other background characteristics. This may suggest the importance of socio-demographic characteristics while discussing the observed gender gap in life satisfaction. There could be chances that women report higher life satisfaction despite economic
<caption>**Table 7**</caption>

Multivariable association of life satisfaction with working status, main occupation and gender among older adults in India, 2017–2018 from linear regression models.

<table><thead><tr><th>Covariates</th><th>aCoef (SE)</th><th>95 % CI</th><th>Beta</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Working status and gender</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Earlier worked but currently not working-Men®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Never worked-Men</td><td>-0.55<sup>*</sup> (0.26)</td><td>(-1.06, -0.04)</td><td>-0.012</td></tr><tr><td>Currently working-Men</td><td>-0.43<sup>**</sup> (0.12)</td><td>(-0.67, -0.2)</td><td>-0.025</td></tr><tr><td>Never worked-Women</td><td>0.21 (0.12)</td><td>(-0.03, 0.45)</td><td>0.013</td></tr><tr><td>Earlier worked but currently no working-Women</td><td>0.31<sup>*</sup> (0.14)</td><td>(0.03, 0.58)</td><td>0.015</td></tr><tr><td>Currently working-Women</td><td>-0.04 (0.16)</td><td>(-0.35, 0.28)</td><td>-0.002</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Main occupation and gender</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Farm/fishery/forestry work-Men®</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Agricultural labourer work-Men</td><td>-0.65<sup>*</sup> (0.26)</td><td>(-1.17, -0.13)</td><td>-0.027</td></tr><tr><td>Non-agricultural business owner work-Men</td><td>-0.45 (0.41)</td><td>(-1.25, 0.34)</td><td>-0.012</td></tr><tr><td>Own account work-Men</td><td>0.03 (0.28)</td><td>(-0.52, 0.58)</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Wage-salaried work-Men</td><td>-0.39 (0.26)</td><td>(-0.91, 0.13)</td><td>-0.019</td></tr><tr><td>Farm/fishery/forestry work-Women</td><td>0.84<sup>**</sup> (0.24)</td><td>(0.36, 1.31)</td><td>0.040</td></tr><tr><td>Agricultural labourer work-Women</td><td>-0.18 (0.31)</td><td>(-0.78, 0.43)</td><td>-0.007</td></tr><tr><td>Non-agricultural business owner work-Women</td><td>-0.7 (0.8)</td><td>(-2.27, 0.86)</td><td>-0.009</td></tr><tr><td>Own account work-Women</td><td>0.2 (0.43)</td><td>(-0.64, 1.05)</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>Wage-salaried work-Women</td><td>-0.69 (0.35)</td><td>(-1.38, 0)</td><td>-0.023</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note-®: Reference category; aCoef: Unstandardized coefficient; SE: Standard error; CI: Confidence interval;

* p < 0.05,

** p < 0.01,

*** p < 0.001. The model was adjusted for all covariates included in the study.

or structural inequalities, possibly due to their adoptive coping strategies and resilience compared to men.

The study findings indicate that life satisfaction significantly varied by working status from a gendered perspective for some work categories, but the effect size was relatively small, as indicated by standardized coefficient. This suggests the existence of gender differences in life satisfaction, but their practical implication at an individual level might be limited, even though they are significant at the population level (Funder & Ozer, 2019; Sullivan & Feinn, 2012). Older men who never worked or are currently working had lower life satisfaction compared to those who worked earlier but are currently not working. Among women, the relationship between work and life satisfaction is less pronounced with only those who had worked in their life but not working in old age having marginally better life satisfaction than men in the same group. Although these findings indicate potential gendered experiences of work and continuing or stopping work, the small effect size highlights the need for caution interpretation (Gignac et al., 2012). Overall, comparing all groups of men and women, the strongest negative impact on life satisfaction can be observed among currently working men, suggesting that late-life work participation might be less fulfilling for them. This finding does not comply with our hypothesis that work in old age positively affects life satisfaction. A possible explanation for this anomaly is that older adults might work in old age due to compulsion and not by their choice and have lower life satisfaction. Findings from the BKPAI survey also reported that a majority of the older adult population participated in the labour market due to economic necessities or other compulsions, and this is particularly true for older women (UNFPA, 2012). Previous evidence highlights that productive activities of ageing, which are not considered by labour statistics, contribute to society and are important for later life, especially for women (Baker et al., 2005). However, only paid work was considered in this study, and

household chores and volunteer work were excluded. As noted in previous studies from India, most women and even men participate in some household chores in old age (UNFPA, 2012; Visaria & Dommaraju, 2018).

Further, the results indicate that farming activities were more beneficial for older women compared to men who worked on their farms, whereas involvement in agricultural labourer activities significantly reduced life satisfaction for men but did not have a significant effect on women. We interpret this finding is in terms of financial satisfaction and social support. Older people working in their field have an asset in the form of land and have a stronger impact on life satisfaction (Haller & Hadler, 2006). In rural Indian settings, most women are involved in family-owned farm activities, which provide them with greater social cohesion and support (Doss, 2018; Subramanian, 2018), while men in agricultural labour work have low-paying and physically exhausting work, increasing the possibility of financial and job instability. In general terms, this finding probably captures the fact that financial stability and income from the pension are strongly related to overall well-being and life satisfaction as they have greater access to services and resources and better adjustment processes in old age (Aquino et al., 1996). Loewe et al. (2014) also mentioned in their study that satisfaction with income and better financial situation was a dominant factor for life satisfaction in emerging economies. This phenomenon of growing economies is different from the Western world. Saris (2002) also stated that financial satisfaction is still a dominating factor for life satisfaction in emerging economies, while social contacts and marriage were dominating predictors for life satisfaction in advanced economies. Also, the standardized coefficient again highlighted a small effect size for gender differences, indicating the mediating mechanism of other factors such as social networks, family support and health while discussing the relationship between occupation and well-being.

In addition, characteristics of the study sample, such as having higher education, living with a spouse and children belonging to a higher wealth quantile, lead to greater life satisfaction and well-being. Findings are consistent with previous studies (Banjare et al., 2015; Meggiolaro & Ongaro, 2015; Oshio, 2012; Singh & Singh, 2020). In coordination with previous findings (Ng et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2018), the present study found that more educated older adults were much more likely to have better life satisfaction than their counterparts, although a study from India found the reverse relationship (Banjare et al., 2015). Older adults living alone or with spouse only had an inverse relationship with life satisfaction than those living with a spouse and children. The traditional way of living in India ensures better access to resources and financial support for older adults. Older adults living with spouses and children have a better sense of belonging and social support to manage their day-to-day life, resulting in better cognitive health and well-being (Banjare et al., 2015). Our findings also support previous research confirming that health plays an important role in the perception of satisfaction for older adults (Banjare et al., 2015; Ng et al., 2017; Oshio, 2012). Indeed, good self-rated health is a significant protective factor for better life satisfaction as it improves one's ability to pursue valued goals and engage in satisfying activities. Fewer urban older people are involved in paid work due to broader coverage of pension and financial security, modern facilities and good infrastructure related to healthcare, resulting in better life satisfaction (Hu & Das, 2018; Ng et al., 2017).

This study has several limitations. First, it is difficult to establish a strong claim about causality between employment status and life satisfaction from the cross-sectional nature of the data. Second, the analysis could not include other important factors such as social security program, work history, and payment types. Also, samples for occupational characteristics were missing. Hence, we cannot thoroughly examine the gender differences in work, occupational characteristics and life satisfaction. Third, the data on life satisfaction was self-evaluated, which may not be accurate and could have possible biases in self-evaluation.
## Conclusion

The study findings demonstrate that the mean score of life satisfaction is lower among women, older people from lower socio-economic strata and working older adults. Although when other factors are taken into account, men are less likely to be satisfied. Better educated, married, healthy, financially resourceful older adults and working pensioners are capable of enjoying themselves in later life. Although gender differences exist while discussing life satisfaction and work but the effect sizes were small. This finding underscores the importance of considering mediating mechanism of other factors while exploring the relationship between occupation and wellbeing. It is essential to focus on social policies to improve the financial security and empowerment of older adults across the life course, which will affect the country's socio-economic development in the coming years. Encouraging saving practices among people, especially women and rural residents, strengthening the land ownership rights for women and improving public support for adults and financial security among older adults through a life-course approach will contribute to a better quality of life in old age. Job opportunities requiring less hard work with fewer terms and conditions can be generated and provided to older adults. In this line, the Senior Able Citizen for Re-Employment in Dignity (SACRED) platform, launched in 2021 by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJ&E), Government of India, is a good initiative. The SACRED portal can help older people search for different job opportunities (including full-time, part-time, and freelancing opportunities) through the virtual platform. Somehow, this facility is beneficial for a particular segment of the population who already have financial security for old age. However, a majority of the Indian population is engaged in the informal sector without any financial security for old age. Therefore, the government should develop a second career option to provide job opportunities for older people who don't have financial security. Reskilling and upskilling older adults to meet untrapped social needs will help them lead happy lives. Digital literacy can be encouraged among older adults. At the same time, it is also important to establish awareness programmes to spread information about available policies and laws. Additionally, policy intervention should be aimed at promoting healthy ageing through productive and meaningful engagement in activities of their choice in old age.

## Funding

No funding was received for the study.

## Ethics approval

The Central Ethics Committee on Human Research (CECHR) under the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) extended the necessary guidance, guidelines and ethics approval for conducting the LASI survey. And all methods were carried out in accordance with those relevant guidelines and regulations.

## Consent to participate

The survey agencies that conducted the field survey for the data collection have collected prior informed consent (signed and oral) for both the interviews and biomarker tests from the eligible respondents in accordance with Human Subjects Protection.

## Consent for publication

Not applicable.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

Priya Maurya: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,

Validation, Software, Methodology, Data curation, Conceptualization. Aparajita Chattopadhyay: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization. Aditi B. Prasad: Writing – review & editing.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that there is no competing interest.

## Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

## Supplementary materials

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.aggp.2025.100151.

## Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

## References

Adhikari, R., Soonthorndhada, K., & Haseen, F. (2011). Labor force participation in later life: Evidence from a cross-sectional study in Thailand. BMC Geriatrics, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-11-15

Agarwal, A., Lubet, A., Mitgang, E., Mohanty, S., & Bloom, D. E. (2016). *Population aging in India: Facts, issues, and options*. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0230-4_13. Discussion Paper No. 10162.

Aquino, J. A., Russell, D. W., Cutrona, C. E., & Altmaier, E. M. (1996). Employment status, social support, and life satisfaction among the elderly. *Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43*(4), 480–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.43.4.480

Atchley, R. C., & Barusch, A. S. (2004). *Social forces and aging: An introduction to social gerontology*. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Baker, L. A., Cahalin, L. P., Gerst, K., Burr, J. A., Baker, L. A., Cahalin, L. P., Gerst, K., & Burr, J. A. (2005). Productive activities and subjective well-being among older adults: The influence of number of activities and time commitment. *Social Indicators Research, 73*(3), 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1

Banjare, P., Dwivedi, R., & Pradhan, J. (2015). Factors associated with the life satisfaction amongst the rural elderly in Odisha, India. *Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13*(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0398-y

Bloom, D. E., Mahal, A., & Rosenberg, L. (2010). Economic security arrangements in the context of population ageing in India. *International Social Security Review, 63*(3–4), 59–89.

Bowling, A., Gabriel, Z., Dykes, J., Dowding, L. M., Evans, O., Fleissig, A., Banister, D., & Sutton, S. (2003). Let's ask them: A national survey of definitions of quality of life and its enhancement among people aged 65 and over. *International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 56*(4), 269–306. https://doi.org/10.2190/BF8G-5J8L-YTRF-6404

Chaudhary, R., & Verick, S. (2014). *Female labour force participation in India and beyond*. October 2014 https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@asia/@ro-bangkok/@sro-new-delhi/documents/publication/wcms_324621.pdf.

Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. *Journal of Personality Assessment, 49*(1), 71–75.

Dingemans, E., & Henkens, K. (2019). Working after retirement and life satisfaction: Cross-national comparative research in Europe. *Research on Aging, 41*(7), 648–669.

Doss, C. R. (2018). Women and agricultural productivity: Reframing the Issues. *Development Policy Review, 36*(1), 35–50.

Ferrant, G., Pesando, L. M., & Nowacka, K. (2014). *Unpaid care work: The missing link in analysing gender gaps in labour outcomes* (p. 12). OECD Development Centre.

Field, A. (2024). *Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics*. Sage publications limited.

Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2*(2), 156–168.

Gaymu, J., & Springer, S. (2010). Living conditions and life satisfaction of older Europeans living alone: A gender and cross-country analysis. *Ageing and Society, 30* (7), 1153–1175. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X10000231

Gignac, M. A., Backman, C. L., Kaptein, S., Lacaille, D., Beaton, D. E., Hofstetter, C., & Badley, E. M. (2012). Tension at the borders: Perceptions of role overload, conflict, strain and facilitation in work, family and health roles among employed individuals with arthritis. *Rheumatology, 51*(2), 324–332.

Haller, M., & Hadler, M. (2006). How social relations and structures can produce happiness and unhappiness: An international comparative analysis. *Social Indicators Research, 75*(2), 169–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-6297-y

Hammarstedt, M., & Aldén, L. (2018). Self-employment and life satisfaction among the elderly: Survey based evidence from Sweden. In *58th ERSA Congress “Places for People: Innovative, Inclusive and liveable Regions”, Cork, Ireland, August, 28-31, 2018. The European Regional Science Association (ERSA).*
Hu, S., & Das, D. (2018). Work in old age and quality of life: Gender divide in China and India. *Asia Research Institute Working Paper Series, 267*. www.nus.ari.edu.sg/pub/wps.htm.

International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), NPHCE, MoHFW, H. T. C. S. of P. H. (HSPH) and the U. of S. C. (USC). (2020). *Longitudinal ageing study in India (LASI wave 1, 2017–18, India report)*. Mumbai: International Institute for Population Sciences. https://www.iipsindia.ac.in/sites/default/files/LASI_India_Report_2020_compressed.pdf.

Jain, S., Kumar, S., & Jain, S. (2017). Late-life engagement after retirement: Implications for psychological well-being and distress in elderly. *Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 8*(6), 525–529. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321251820.

Kane, R. L., & Kane, R. A. (2004). *Assessing older persons measures, meaning, and practical applications*. Oxford University Press.

Kim, J. (2013). Productive Activity and Life Satisfaction in Korean Elderly Women. *Journal of Women and Aging, 25*(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2012.717850

Krueger, A., Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2009). National time accounting: The currency of life. *National Bureau of Economic Research, I*(October).

Ladusingh, L., & Thangjam, M. (2018). Gender Differential in Occupation and Income among the Elderly in India. *Ageing International, 43*(2), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-017-9307-5

Loewe, N., Bagherzadeh, M., Araya-Castillo, L., Thieme, C., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2014). Life domain satisfactions as predictors of overall life satisfaction among workers: Evidence from Chile. *Social Indicators Research, 118*(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0408-6

Mane, A. B. (2016). Elderly care in India: Way forward. *Journal of Gerontology & Geriatric Research, 5*(5), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-7182.1000339

Meggiolaro, S., & Ongaro, F. (2015). Life satisfaction among older people in Italy in a gender approach. *Ageing and Society, 35*(7), 1481–1504. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X14000646

Michalos, A. C., Hatch, P. M., Hemingway, D., Lavallee, L., Hogan, A., & Christensen, B. (2007). Health and quality of life of older people, a replication after six years. *Social Indicators Research, 84*(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9080-4

Mishra, S. (1992). Leisure activities and life satisfaction in old age: A case study of retired government employees living in urban areas. *Activities, Adaptation and Aging, 16*(4), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1300/J016v16n04_02

Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A., & Vining, G. G. (2021). *Introduction to linear regression analysis (Sixth)*. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Morrow-Howell, N., & Greenfield, J. C. (2010). Productive engagement of older Americans. *China Journal of Social Work, 2*(2–3), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/17525098.2010.492637

Muhammad, T., & Maurya, P. (2021). Gender differences in the association between perceived income sufficiency and self-rated health among older adults: A population-based study in India based study in India. *Journal of Women & Aging, (Nov)*, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2021.2002663

Ng, S. T., Tey, N. P., & Asadullah, M. N. (2017). What matters for life satisfaction among the oldest-old? Evidence from China. *PLOS ONE, 12*(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171799

Noguchi, T., Suzuki, S., Nishiyama, T., Otani, T., Nakagawa-Senda, H., Watanabe, M., ... Yamada, T. (2022). Associations between work-related factors and happiness among working older adults: A cross-sectional study. *Annals of geriatric medicine and research, 26*(3), 256.

Oshio, T. (2012). Gender differences in the associations of life satisfaction with family and social relations among the Japanese elderly. *Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 27*(3), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10823-012-9169-y

Pinquart, M., & Sorensen, S. (2001). Basic and applied social psychology influences on loneliness in older adults: A meta-analysis. *Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23*(4), 245–266.

Priyanka, & Mishra, S. (2010). Gender differences in the life satisfaction of elderly. *Advance Research Journal of Social Science, 1*(2), 176–179.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. *Annual Review of Psychology, 52*, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

Saris, W. E. (2002). What Influences Subjective Well-Being in Russia? *Journal of Happiness Studies, 2*(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011556429502

Schofield, D. J., Callander, E. J., Kelly, S. J., & Shrestha, R. N. (2017). Working beyond the traditional retirement age: The influence of health on Australia’s older workers. *Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 29*(3), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2016.1246319

Selvaraj, S., Karan, A., & Madheswaran, S. (2014). Elderly workforce participation, wage differentials and contribution to household income. *Population Ageing in India*.

Singh, L., & Singh, P. K. (2020). Social network and life satisfaction among older adults in rural Uttar Pradesh, India: An application of structural equation modelling. *Journal of Public Health (Germany), 28*(5), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-019-01074-4

Preparing for Population Aging in Asia: Strengthening the Infrastructure for Science and Policy. In Smith, J. P., Smith, J. P., & Majmundar, M. (Eds.), *Aging in Asia: Findings from new and emerging data initiatives*, (pp. 17–25). (2012) (pp. 17–25). Washington, D.C.: THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4050-1_14

Srivastava, N. (2017). Prepared for the Project Dynamics of Gender Inequality in the Middle East. *North Africa and South Asia, 10*.

Staudinger, U. M., Finkelstein, R., Calvo, E., & Sivaramakrishnan, K. (2016). A global view on the effects of work on health in later life. *The Gerontologist, 56*, S281–S292. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw032

Subramanian, S. (2018). Participation of rural households in farm, non-farm and pluri-activity: Evidences from India. *Working paper no. 412*. Institute for Social and Economic Change.

Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—Or why the P value is not enough. *Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4*(3), 279–282.

Tang, F., Chen, H., Zhang, Y., & Mui, A. C. (2018). Employment and life satisfaction among middle- and old-aged adults in China. *Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 4*, Article 233372141877820. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333721418778202

UNFPA. (2012). *Report on the status of elderly in select states of India, 2011*. https://india.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/AgeingReport_2012_F.pdf.

Veenhoven, R. (2015). The overall satisfaction with life: Subjective approaches (1). *In global handbook of quality of life* (pp. 207–238)., Dordrecht: Springe. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9178-6

Visaria, A., & Dommaraju, P. (2018). Productive aging in India. *Social Science & Medicine, (July)* https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.029

Walker, A. (2006). Active ageing in employment: Its meaning and potential. *Asia-Pacific Review, 13*(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13439000600697621