household.<sup>15</sup> There is also evidence of significant changes in the labor market: the share of nonagricultural wage/salaried workers (out of all working adults) increased substantially for both men and women. This occurred with some decline in the share of agricultural wage workers and a much sharper decline in the share of farmers (agricultural self-employed). Similarly, the rising share of nonagricultural wage workers along with declining share for agricultural employment is consistent with the pattern of structural transformation that other studies have found for India.<sup>16</sup> A few differences between rural and urban areas are worth highlighting. Dependency rates are much higher in rural areas, but the share of adults who are working is much higher in rural areas. Unsurprisingly, the share of workers in non-agricultural activities is higher in urban areas in comparison to rural ones. However, rural areas have experienced significant changes in occupational structure that are in the same direction (and larger in magnitude) than what is seen for the country as a whole—in contrast to much smaller changes in urban areas. The transformation that is changing the nature of employment in India away from agriculture thus seems to have occurred much more visibly in rural than in urban areas, which is not surprising given the high dependence of households on agriculture in rural India to start with.

Differences between men and women are worth highlighting as well. While the share of workers among total number of males is much higher than that among women, women are more likely to be working in agriculture than men. The share of non-agricultural wage workers is rising at a lower rate among female workers than male workers, while that of agricultural self-employed is declining at a faster rate among female workers than among male workers.

> 15 Trends in the IHDS panel are similar to the NSS with one prominent exception. In the IHDS panel, female workforce participation rates increase from 66% to 69% between 2005 and 2012.  This is in marked contrast to the NSS which suggests a 12-13 percentage point decline in labor force participation (LFP) rates over the same period. We can only speculate that the difference arises because of the ways in which work, particularly subsidiary/part-time work that is particularly common amongst women is captured in the two surveys. Chatterjee et al. (2015) also note differences between the NSS and the Census which shows no decline in female LFP between 2001 and 2011.

> 16 Interestingly, there is almost no decline in the share of farming and animal care in total workers, for men and women alike, when the definition of workers is unrestricted; i.e., also includes those who worked for less than 240 hours during the past year (not shown, but available upon request to the authors). This suggests that self-employed agricultural activities tend to occupy a large number of workers for short durations, possibly to supplement other incomes or generate self-consumption, rather than be a main source of income. Also, the importance of agriculture as an important source of income has fallen between 2005 and 2012.

12