India is being projected internationally as a country of good growth and good governance, which in turn, it is asserted, should lead to prosperity for its people, especially in terms of proper employment, income, and overall standard of living. Drawing on certain dimensions of decent work proposed by International Labour Organization to measure the quality of employment in India, this article explores how far the notions of good/high growth and good governance discourse are corroborated by the evidence of good quality employment in India. The study is based on the nationally representative unit/individual-level data published by the Government of India during the three periods 2009–10, 2018–19, and 2022–23. The main findings of analysis are: (a) the overall quality of employment in India is poor and stagnant or deteriorating, and (b) the macro-level (sub-national state-level) aspects, such as the overall volume of economic activities, the extent of quality governance, the flexibility of business regulatory environment and better labour law-related compliance, have had a significant negative influence on the quality of employment. Thus, this paper suggests that the very policy environment and the pattern of economic growth have put a drag on the quality of employment in India. Given this, we suggest a variety of countervailing policy options and emphasise the role of civil society and politics.

One of the biggest challenges faced by India today is to generate quality employment. Even in areas of rapid per capita income growth, typified by the Gujarat model of neoliberal state-sponsored technological development, there is a substantial and increasing decent work deficit. Across India more generally, the decent work deficit is, in fact, growing along several dimensions, leading to ‘growth without development’ or ‘non-inclusive growth’. This article analyses quality of employment in India across subnational spaces – among states and between rural and urban locations – using three International Labour Organisation decent work dimensions: ‘employment opportunity’, ‘social security benefits’ and ‘social dialogue’. The analysis is based on published government data, for the period 1993–1994 to 2011–2012 – the period covered by the liberalisation experiment. The conclusion is that economic growth has not contributed significantly to employment quality. Although employment opportunity is significantly higher in the developed states, coverage of social security benefits and scope for social dialogue among regular salaried/wage workers are significantly less in these areas than in underdeveloped regions. Indeed, employment opportunity is significantly higher in rural areas, and the condition of workers in urban areas is not significantly better than in rural locations. Furthermore, over time, the difference in quality of employment across subnational spaces has either increased or remained stagnant.