Beyond Ancestral Occupations: Is India Advancing in Occupational Mobility?

Beyond Ancestral Occupations: Is India Advancing in Occupational Mobility?

For a diverse state like India, occupation has been closely tied to birth, caste, and geography. For generations, citizens have found career trajectories shaped less by freedom of choice and more by inherited societal structures. Today however, as India modernizes and aspires to greater equity, a critical question arises: Are people truly moving beyond their ancestral occupation, or does occupational mobility remain an elusive dream for many?

Occupational mobility is a key indicator of a state's inclusiveness and opportunity structure. It reflects the extent to which individuals can improve their economic and social capabilities regardless of status or background. Within India, caste-based inequalities continue to present significant barriers to occupational mobility, despite decades of socio-economic and policy interventions. 

Numerous Indian efforts aimed at reducing historical disadvantages including the abolition of the Zamindari system, implementation of reservation quotas, the initiation of the Green Revolution, and the 1991 neoliberal reforms have yielded mixed results. These state initiatives have driven structural transformations; however, the very impact these initiatives have had on reducing occupational immobility has been uneven.

Improving occupational and social mobility should not only be a moral imperative as it yields tangible economic benefits. The Global Social Mobility Report 2020 from the World Economic Forum observes a 10-point increase in a country’s social mobility index score could potentially result in an additional 4.41% GDP growth alongside enhanced social cohesion. This clearly shows that promoting mobility contributes not only to justice and fairness but also to sustainable economic growth.

Contrasting Paradigms: Neoclassical vs Stratification Economics

India's economic performance over the past three decades has been impressive. However, economic growth has not translated into equitable opportunity. Comprehensive analysis by Chancel & Piketty  and Kapoor & Duggal  have shown a sharp rise in income inequality from the 1990s. We can effectively address barriers to occupational mobility and thereby reduce income inequality only if the market operates without discrimination, relying on a self-adjusting mechanism. This long-held view, particularly advocated by neoclassical economists like Gary Becker, assumes that a free and competitive market would naturally eliminate inequality over time. However, this perspective has been increasingly challenged and to a large extent, invalidated. It fails to account for the persistence of inequality even in seemingly discrimination-free markets. 

In response, the field of stratification economics emerged. Unlike neoclassical economics, stratification economics emphasizes the role of structural and institutional factors such as historical disadvantages, social hierarchies, and intergenerational wealth disparities in perpetuating inequality. This approach argues that inequality is not merely the result of individual choices or market imperfections, but rather the outcome of deeply embedded social and economic structures that continue to limit occupational mobility, regardless of market fairness. Therefore, any factor that limits access to equal opportunity hinders occupational mobility and, in turn, perpetuates inequality.

India and China: Different Economies, Same Mobility Struggles

Social mobility should not merely be about short-term gains or opportunities but also long term goals for families to escape poverty. The World Economic Forum (WEF) report also highlights a striking pattern, i.e.,  in developing states like India, individuals born into low-income households may take up to seven generations to reach the average income level of their society. Additionally, in some states, families experience downward mobility over generations, slipping further below the national average despite economic growth.

India is not alone in this generational struggle. China, despite being the second largest economy and being classified as an upper-middle-income country exhibits similar intergenerational mobility patterns. Like India, it takes a poor family in China seven generations to reach median income levels. This shows that economic classification alone doesn’t guarantee mobility. Other factors like geographic inequality, social stratification, and unequal access to quality education and healthcare play equally significant roles in an individual's mobility.

Despite their rapid economic growth, both India and China struggle with social mobility because deep-rooted inequalities continue to persist. In both countries, where an individual is born in rural or urban areas greatly affects their access to quality education, healthcare, and jobs. 

In India, caste and class play a big role, while in China, systems like the hukou restrict rural migrants from accessing city services. Poor families often cannot afford quality schooling or healthcare, which limits their children’s chances of upward mobility. Many people also work  informal sector jobs without security or benefits, making it hard to build a stable future. These challenges mean that economic growth has coincided with growing economic class divide within the society. 

Way Forward

While India has made considerable economic progress, true occupational mobility remains out of reach for most citizens, especially marginalized and backward communities. Caste and class-based inequalities persist, which limits access to education, formal employment, and professional networks, all of which are key pathways to mobility.

The challenge is no longer about sustaining economic growth but ensuring equitable access to the ladders of mobility. Strengthening public education, expanding skill development programs, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, and creating inclusive employment opportunities are vital steps forward. There should be diversification in the hiring process and entrepreneurial opportunities. The central or state legislature laws should  reduce regional disparities and  be fair in making intergenerational asset transfers including access to social capital, land, credit etc.

Key issues associated with occupational mobility in India are due to structural factors linked to caste, geography, social capital and wealth inheritance. To address these, incorporating a stratification economics framework into central and state level policymaking is essential.

Giving more importance to state-specific policies is more effective than central intervention. In this context, the Kerala model of development is significant, along with some other well-performing states such as Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, and Mizoram. These states have excelled in literacy, human development index, political representation, female empowerment, and other social indicators.

However, despite Kerala being at the top in many areas, it still faces challenges in critical areas such as industrial jobs. Similarly, Tamil Nadu continues to experience caste-based atrocities in rural regions. This highlights that issues vary across states, and while the state governments should lead the response, support and coordination from the central government remain important.

To unlock India’s full potential, it is essential to build society structures where an individual’s origin does not determine their occupational mobility. A shift toward inclusive and intergenerational equity is not only a moral imperative but also an economic necessity, one that promises a more just, cohesive, and prosperous future for all.