Table 6.

Impact of Groundwater Extraction on Industry Sector Employment

AllLivestockEducationManufactureServicesForestry
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)
Groundwater-2.9000.133-0.202-0.793-0.550-0.876
(standardized)(3.354)(1.955)(0.420)(1.302)(1.482)(0.593)
Mean21.4255.5772.1093.7558.7200.172
SD18.90310.9632.7106.7439.2642.610
N3,2273,2273,2273,2273,2273,227
AllLivestockEducationManufactureServicesForestry
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)
Groundwater-2.9000.133-0.202-0.793-0.550-0.876
(standardized)(3.354)(1.955)(0.420)(1.302)(1.482)(0.593)
Mean21.4255.5772.1093.7558.7200.172
SD18.90310.9632.7106.7439.2642.610
N3,2273,2273,2273,2273,2273,227

Source: Groundwater extraction was calculated using data from the Fifth Minor Irrigation Census (2013) and the Central Ground Water Board (2010–2013). Data on industry sector employment were obtained from the Sixth Economic Census (2013).

Note: This table presents fuzzy Regression Kink estimates on the effect of groundwater extraction on employment within village industries. Groundwater extraction was measured in L/ha/day and standardized. Column 1 reports the share of the workforce employed on aggregate across all village industries. Columns 2 to 6 refer to the share of the workforce in the following largest employing sectors respectively: livestock, education, manufacturing, services, and forestry. The sample consists of villages with tube-wells in 2013 and groundwater depth within the bandwidth (7 m) of the kink point. Mean and standard deviation are reported for the full sample. The specification includes state dummies and covariates. Standard errors are clustered at the district level and presented in parentheses. * significant at 10 percent, ** significant at 5 percent, *** significant at 1 percent.

Table 6.

Impact of Groundwater Extraction on Industry Sector Employment

AllLivestockEducationManufactureServicesForestry
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)
Groundwater-2.9000.133-0.202-0.793-0.550-0.876
(standardized)(3.354)(1.955)(0.420)(1.302)(1.482)(0.593)
Mean21.4255.5772.1093.7558.7200.172
SD18.90310.9632.7106.7439.2642.610
N3,2273,2273,2273,2273,2273,227
AllLivestockEducationManufactureServicesForestry
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)
Groundwater-2.9000.133-0.202-0.793-0.550-0.876
(standardized)(3.354)(1.955)(0.420)(1.302)(1.482)(0.593)
Mean21.4255.5772.1093.7558.7200.172
SD18.90310.9632.7106.7439.2642.610
N3,2273,2273,2273,2273,2273,227

Source: Groundwater extraction was calculated using data from the Fifth Minor Irrigation Census (2013) and the Central Ground Water Board (2010–2013). Data on industry sector employment were obtained from the Sixth Economic Census (2013).

Note: This table presents fuzzy Regression Kink estimates on the effect of groundwater extraction on employment within village industries. Groundwater extraction was measured in L/ha/day and standardized. Column 1 reports the share of the workforce employed on aggregate across all village industries. Columns 2 to 6 refer to the share of the workforce in the following largest employing sectors respectively: livestock, education, manufacturing, services, and forestry. The sample consists of villages with tube-wells in 2013 and groundwater depth within the bandwidth (7 m) of the kink point. Mean and standard deviation are reported for the full sample. The specification includes state dummies and covariates. Standard errors are clustered at the district level and presented in parentheses. * significant at 10 percent, ** significant at 5 percent, *** significant at 1 percent.

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close