SOCIOLOGICAL

RESEARCH
Topic : Job Insecurity among Youth
Subject : Sociology and Social Policy
Submitted to : Prof. Riturraj

Group Members :-
1. Pranjal Rathi (172)
2. Divyanshi Teotia (1181)
3. Sahil Punia (742)
4. Ashmeet Solanki (193)
5. Naman Kuchroo (314)

We, as a group, have conducted a research upon “Increasing Job Insecurity among
Young College students”. In this research paper, we will be sharing the statement
of problem, research objectives, research questions, methodologies, methods &
techniques, the review of existing literature, critical evaluation of policies and also
the data that we have collected and its analysis and all the references.
Statement of Problem
It is an era of changing employment, and among today's young
graduates, job futures are increasingly uncertain. Many students,
regardless of advanced educations and professional qualifications, are
more anxious about finding stable, valuable work after college as final
or graduating classes get closer. In addition to that, the gap between
education preparation and market demand widens because of the scarcity
of opportunities, contractual jobs, and automation, along with gig
working, which further aggravates this feeling of insecurity. The result is
that job insecurity is no longer confined to the already employed but
increasingly a problem for those about to enter the labor market.
This anxiety about job insecurity among graduates often results in stress,
reduced motivation, and a general loss of confidence in planning for the
future. The general fear is that they will either be underemployed, be late
to start their career, or generally feel 'stuck' in precarious, poorly paid
jobs that have no connection to either their qualification or career
aspirations. Such anxieties reflect broader structural issues with youth
unemployment, skill mismatch, and competitiveness regarding modern
economies. For this reason, it is very important to understand the nature
and causes of this employment anxiety when framing effective policies
and support mechanisms at an institutional level. The focus of this
article thus lies in discussing the factors contributing toward job
insecurity among young graduates and its implications for their mental
well-being and career outlook.
Research Objectives
So, in our research we tried to find answers to these questions. These
were our research objectives, essentially:

A. How does job in security vary across different academic domains?

B. Are students from humanities background more likely to face
unemployment?

Research Questions
➢ How confident are you about getting a stable job after completing
your degree?

➢ Do you believe your field of study provides sufficient job

opportunities in the current job market?

➢ How often do you worry about unemployment or unstable career

prospects?

➢ In your opinion, which factor contributes most to job insecurity

among graduates?

➢ Compared to other fields, how do you perceive job security in your

academic stream?
➢ Have you (or people from your stream you know) experienced
unemployment or underemployment after graduation?

➢ What kind of employment are most graduates from your stream

likely to get?

➢ For humanities students: Do you think humanities graduates face

more challenges in finding jobs compared to science or commerce
graduates?

➢ What skills do you think are most lacking among humanities

graduates that affect their employability?

➢ How relevant do you find your academic curriculum to the job

market needs?

➢ What are your plans after completing your degree?

➢ What do you think should be done to reduce job insecurity among

students of your field?

➢ Would you be interested in attending career counselling or skill

development workshops related to your field?
 ➢ Do you think job insecurity is higher in Humanities than in Science
or Commerce? Why?

➢ How can schools and colleges prepare students better for real-
world jobs?

Methodology

This research adopted a mixed-methods approach to study job

insecurity among students across different academic domains. The study
combined both quantitative and qualitative methods to gain a
comprehensive understanding of the issue. A survey questionnaire was
distributed to undergraduate students from diverse streams —
Humanities, Social Sciences, Commerce, and STEM — to gather data
on their perceptions of job security, career expectations, and future
employment concerns. The quantitative data helped identify patterns and
variations in job insecurity across disciplines.
In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a smaller
sample of students to capture deeper insights into their personal
experiences, coping strategies, and views on the education-employment
gap. The collected data was analyzed using basic statistical tools for
quantitative responses and thematic analysis for qualitative responses.
Secondary data from academic studies, policy reports, and labour market
analyses was also reviewed to support and contextualize the findings.
This approach ensured a balanced understanding of both the measurable
trends and the lived experiences of job insecurity among students from
various academic backgrounds.

Data Collection

Data for this study was collected through both primary and secondary
sources. The primary data was obtained using a structured questionnaire
distributed among undergraduate students from different academic
domains, including Humanities, Social Sciences, Commerce, and
STEM. The questionnaire contained both closed-ended and open-ended
questions designed to assess students’ perceptions of job security,
employability, and their level of confidence regarding future
employment. In addition to the survey, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with selected respondents to gain deeper insights into their
personal experiences and coping mechanisms related to job insecurity.

The secondary data was gathered from research papers and policy
documents to provide context and support the primary findings.
Quantitative data collected from the survey was organized and analyzed
using basic statistical tools such as frequency distribution and percentage
analysis. Qualitative responses from interviews were examined through
thematic analysis, identifying recurring ideas and patterns that
highlighted the social and emotional aspects of job insecurity. This
combination of data sources and analytical methods ensured a
comprehensive and balanced understanding of the issue.

Review of Literature

1. Santosh Mehrotra
Focus – India’s employment crisis, jobless growth, youth
unemployment, and temporary or contract jobs
Key Work – India’s Employment Crisis: Rising Education,
Declining Opportunities (ILO and Oxford publications)
2. K. P. Kannan
Focus – Informalisation, dual labour markets, and decent work
issues in India
Key Work – India’s Elusive Quest for Inclusive Development
(2022)
3. Amit Basole (Azim Premji University)
Focus – Employment quality, underemployment, structural
transformation, and the State of Working India reports
Key Work – State of Working India (2018–2023)
4. Jayati Ghosh
Focus – Macroeconomic growth without employment, gendered
dimensions of unemployment, and inequality
Key Work – Articles and policy papers on jobless growth in India
5. Ravi S. Srivastava
Focus – Precarity, internal migration, informal work, and the
effects of labour market reforms
Key Work – Changing Employment Conditions of the Indian
Workforce (Institute for Human Development)
The issue of job insecurity and unemployment among graduates has
become a pressing policy challenge in India, especially in the context of
rising higher education enrolments and declining employment
opportunities. The objective of this research — to examine how job
insecurity varies across academic domains and whether humanities
graduates are more likely to face unemployment or underemployment —
finds resonance in several scholarly works that have analysed India’s
employment structure, educational mismatches, and the transformation
of work. Santosh Mehrotra’s analysis highlights the paradox of an
“education-employment disconnect,” showing how India has witnessed
a steady rise in educated youth unemployment despite expanding
university education. He attributes this to structural shifts — the lack of
labour-intensive manufacturing and the informal nature of new service
sector jobs. His findings show that humanities graduates are particularly
vulnerable, as the economy generates more low-skill jobs while
neglecting the knowledge-based roles they are trained for. This aligns
closely with our first research objective, offering a macro-level rationale
for discipline-wise variation in job insecurity. K. P. Kannan’s conceptual
framework on informalisation and the absence of “decent work” offers
an essential sociological grounding to our research. He examines the
duality of the Indian labour market — formal versus informal — and
argues that a large section of educated youth is being absorbed into
precarious forms of employment. This perspective adds depth to our
study by explaining what job insecurity truly means beyond
unemployment — unstable income, lack of benefits, and no long-term
career growth. In our context, Kannan’s insights help interpret why
humanities graduates, often working in creative or non-corporate fields,
might feel more insecure than science or commerce graduates employed
in more structured sectors. Amit Basole’s empirical contributions
through the State of Working India reports serve as the quantitative
backbone of this topic. His studies highlight that youth unemployment is
significantly higher among graduates, particularly those from non-
technical or general degree programs. Basole bridges the gap between
macro data and micro experiences, offering evidence that despite
educational expansion, employment generation remains structurally
unequal. His analysis of underemployment and job quality strengthens
our research objective by showing how employment insecurity is not
merely about having a job but about the kind of job available to each
academic group. Jayati Ghosh’s extensive writings on jobless growth,
labour precarity, and gendered unemployment provide a broader
economic and social context for our study. Her argument that India’s
economic growth has been “employment-light” is vital in explaining the
root cause of job insecurity across all academic streams. Ghosh also
emphasizes gendered dimensions of unemployment, showing that
women — who constitute a large proportion of humanities students —
face dual disadvantages: limited job creation and social constraints. Her
work thus gives our research a multidimensional framework that
accounts for both economic structure and social identity. Ravi S.
Srivastava’s research on labour precarity and the transformation of
employment conditions in India provides a nuanced understanding of
how insecurity has become systemic. He examines the rise of contract
work, temporary employment, and migration-driven instability. His
work is relevant to our study as it reflects the growing perception among
students that job stability is rare, even among degree holders. For
humanities students, whose career paths often lack formal institutional
support, this structural precariousness translates directly into higher
perceived insecurity. Collectively, these five scholars provide a coherent
framework that aligns closely with our research objectives. Mehrotra
and Basole offer empirical evidence of the education-employment
mismatch, particularly affecting humanities graduates. Kannan and
Srivastava contribute theoretical depth by explaining the systemic nature
of job insecurity within India’s dual labour market, while Ghosh
connects these economic structures to gender and social inequalities,
showing how broader power relations shape employment outcomes. Our
study builds upon these insights by shifting the analytical focus from
national-level data to the lived realities of students across academic
domains. While these scholars analyse job insecurity at the macro and
policy levels, our research complements their frameworks through a
micro-level, comparative approach — examining whether discipline-
specific factors influence perceptions and experiences of insecurity. In
summing up, this adds a new dimension to the literature through relating
educational pathways to subjective employment anxieties. In conclusion,
the reviewed literature shows that India's employment crisis is not only a
quantitative problem of insufficient jobs but also a qualitative issue of
mismatched skills, insecure contracts, and uneven access across
disciplines. The works by Mehrotra, Kannan, Basole, Ghosh, and
Srivastava, put together, help our research identify where and why
insecurity arises — and how it does so differently across the streams of
humanities, science, and commerce. For this reason, their insights form
both the intellectual and empirical foundation of our query into
discipline-specific job insecurity among graduates in India.

Policy Review
The Stand-Up India Scheme, launched in April 2016, aims to promote
entrepreneurship among groups that have been historically
underrepresented in business, such as Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled
Tribes (STs), and women. Implemented by the Ministry of Finance with
SIDBI as the nodal agency, it provides loans ranging from ₹10 lakh to ₹1
crore for first-time entrepreneurs in manufacturing, services, or trading.
Although not specifically for youth, many young entrepreneurs—
especially women and those from SC/ST communities— have benefited
greatly. By March 2023, over 1.8 lakh entrepreneurs had received funding
worth about ₹40,710 crore, with more than 80% being women. The
scheme has encouraged self-employment and reduced job insecurity
among young people through sustainable entrepreneurship opportunities.

The Pradhan Mantri Viksit Bharat Rozgar Yojana (PMVBRY) was

approved in July 2025 and launched in August 2025 to generate 3.5
crore formal sector jobs over two years. Managed by the Ministry of
Labour & Employment through the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation (EPFO), it provides monetary incentives of up to ₹15,000
to both new salaried employees (earning ₹1 lakh or less per month) and
employers, particularly in manufacturing sectors. This initiative supports
young workers entering the formal job market while motivating firms to
expand their workforce. With an allocation of ₹99,446 crore, the scheme
builds on earlier efforts like the Aatmanirbhar Bharat Rozgar Yojana
(ABRY), which created over 60 lakh new EPFO subscribers between
2020 and 2022. The online registration portal for PMVBRY became
active in August 2025, marking a major step toward promoting formal
employment among India’s youth.

At the state level, the Rajasthan Platform-Based Gig Workers Act,

passed in July 2023, represents India’s first attempt to safeguard the
interests of gig and platform-based workers. The Act, implemented by
the Rajasthan Labour & Employment Department, establishes a Gig
Workers Welfare Board and a Social Security and Welfare Fund,
financed by a 1–2% cess on each transaction made through online
platforms. It mandates registration for gig workers such as app-based
drivers, delivery partners, and freelancers, offering them unique Ids and
access to social security benefits like insurance and health coverage.
Although the law does not specifically mention youth, most gig workers
are young individuals dependent on such platforms for their livelihoods
due to limited formal job opportunities. As of late 2025, the rules and
implementation process are still being finalized, but the Act stands as a
landmark step toward improving job and income security for India’s
growing youth workforce.
• These converging government initiatives address the structural roots of
youth job insecurity. Engaging in a more inclusive employment
ecosystem across academic disciplines, they expand other than regular
jobs, self-employment and entrepreneurship opportunities and formal
job creation. Such initiatives are important because insecurity differs
across disciplines—while science and commerce graduates find many
points of entry into the formal sector, poor absorption and contract
employment have been the case for humanities graduates. Through the
provision of financial incentives to formal hiring, support to first-time
entrepreneurs, and protection for gig workers; these initiatives together
decrease dependence on unstable or informal work and widen the range
of secure livelihood options open to young graduates.
These policies bridge the persistent divide between employability and
education. Many underemployment among humanities graduates arises
due to the mismatch between academic training and the market
demands. The new focus on skill development, entrepreneurship, and
inclusive hiring directly responds to this gap, allowing the contribution
of youth from non-technical backgrounds turn their creativity,
communication, and analytical skills into sustainable careers.
At the same time, formalization of entry-level employment and social
security coverage better quality jobs for graduates of all disciplines,
transitioning them from temporary precarious engagements into more
stable economic participation.
In general, these are relevant to the study in the sense that they show
how policy frameworks are evolve to reflect a changing nature of work
and a diversity of academic outcomes. They moving away from the one-
dimensional approach to employment by recognizing different forms.
The freedom of labor—formal, self-employed, and gig-based—and that
each be supported with financial, institutional or social protection
mechanisms. Such a multidimensional response brings forth the state’s
recognition that job insecurity is not confined to one sector or discipline
but is a broader social challenge that requires specific intervention. It is
on such policies that discussion of the targeting by government policy to
alleviate academic-domain disparities in employment security and a
more resilient youth workforce.

Data Analysis
Our research upon “Job Insecurity among Youth” gathered hundred
responses from students in different academic fields — humanities,
science, commerce, and a few professional courses like law, journalism,
and education. It set out to explore a question that worries many young
people today: Does your degree affect how secure you feel about your
future job? And more specifically, are humanities students more likely to
face unemployment or underemployment after graduation?

Confidence about Future Employment

When students were asked how confident they felt about getting a stable
job after their studies, a clear pattern began to appear. Most humanities
students described themselves as “somewhat insecure” or even “very
insecure.” They didn’t sound optimistic about where their degree might
take them. Science and commerce students, on the other hand, tended to
answer “neutral” or “somewhat confident,” suggesting that while they
too had doubts, they weren’t as worried as their peers in the arts.
This difference makes sense when we think about how these fields are
structured. Science and commerce often have more obvious career paths
— labs, corporates, start-ups, finance, and technology. Humanities
students, meanwhile, face a much broader, more uncertain road. Their
skills — critical thinking, writing, cultural understanding — are deeply
valuable, but the jobs that need them aren’t always easy to find. The
result is a kind of quiet anxiety that begins even before graduation.
Perceived Job Opportunities: When students were asked whether their
field provides enough job
opportunities, humanities students mostly answered “disagree” or
“neutral.” They feel the market doesn’t offer much space for them.
Science and commerce students were a bit more hopeful, though many
still leaned towards neutrality, suggesting that insecurity isn’t confined
to just one field, but it hits humanities students harder.
This reflects something broader in the Indian education system: fields
that are closely tied to industry like commerce, business, and
engineering come with a clearer sense of direction. Humanities, in
contrast, often depend on postgraduate specialization, government
exams, or creative industries, which are competitive and uncertain.

Worry and Anxiety about the Future

When asked how often they worry about unemployment or unstable
careers, humanities students frequently chose “often” or “always.”
Science and commerce students mostly said “sometimes.” This shows
that for humanities students, job insecurity isn’t an occasional fear, it’s
something that lingers in the background, shaping how they think about
their future.
This constant worry isn’t just about jobs. It’s also about identity.
Humanities students often pursue their subjects out of genuine curiosity
— literature, history, psychology, philosophy — but when the job
market doesn’t reward those interests, they begin to question the value
of their education itself. Their skills aren’t easily measured in the way
coding or finance can be, and that invisibility makes them feel even
more insecure.
Experience of Unemployment and Underemployment
When students were asked if they or their peers had faced
unemployment or underemployment, humanities students once again
stood out. Many said “Yes, frequently.” Science and commerce students
also reported such experiences, but less often. Law students were among
the few who said “Never,” reflecting the professional nature of their
field.
This paints a picture where humanities students may not only struggle to
find jobs but also end up in roles unrelated to their degree — part-time
teaching, content writing, or temporary positions. These jobs provide
income but not stability, which deepens the sense of insecurity. It’s not
just unemployment, it’s being underemployed or undervalued.

Comparing Job Security Across Fields

When students compared their own field to others, most humanities
students said their field’s job security was “lower.” Science and
commerce students tended to think theirs was “about the same” or
“slightly higher.” Interestingly, students from law and other professional
courses didn’t always feel more secure, but they didn’t see themselves as
struggling as much as humanities graduates either.
This comparison matters because it shows not only how people feel
about their own field but also how they perceive others. The majority of
students — even those outside the humanities — agreed that humanities
graduates face more difficulty finding stable jobs. This shared perception
reinforces the social stigma around humanities degrees and influences
how young people choose their academic paths.
 Relevance of Curriculum
When asked how relevant their academic curriculum is to real job
market needs, most students rated it around 3 out of 5. For humanities
students, it was slightly lower. Their comments often mentioned that the
syllabus feels outdated, theoretical, and disconnected from practical
skills. Several pointed to a lack of “digital” or “industry-specific”
training that could make them more employable.
This complaint isn’t unique to one field, but it hits humanities the
hardest. Subjects that focus on ideas, language, and culture often don’t
get the same emphasis on internships or real-world application. Students
feel that their degrees give them knowledge but not necessarily the tools
to turn that knowledge into a career.

Perception of Humanities Graduates

When asked directly whether humanities graduates face more challenges
finding jobs, the overwhelming answer was “Yes.” Humanities students

themselves strongly agreed, and many students from the other domains
did too.
The reasons given were strikingly consistent: too many graduates in the
same field, too few openings, and an education system that hasn’t kept
up with the job market. Some also mentioned that society undervalues
humanities — not because it’s less important, but because it’s less
connected to money and measurable outcomes.
Overall Understanding
Putting it all together, the survey shows that job insecurity among young
people isn’t the same across fields. Humanities students clearly feel the
most vulnerable — less confident, more anxious, and more likely to see
their peers struggling with unemployment. Science and commerce
students also face uncertainty, but they’re more hopeful and often see
clearer career paths ahead.
At the heart of this issue is the mismatch between what universities
teach and what employers expect. Humanities degrees cultivate critical
thinking, creativity, and empathy — skills the world needs — but the job
market still privileges technical knowledge and specialization. This gap
leaves humanities graduates feeling trapped between passion and
practicality.
Connecting the Findings to Tiffany Manuel’s Work – “How Does
One Live a Good Life?”
The research “Job Insecurity among Youth” tells a story that many
young people can relate to — one of uncertainty, hesitation, and quiet
worry about what comes next. Students from different academic streams
— humanities, science, and commerce — were asked about their
confidence in finding stable work after graduation. While science and
commerce students were cautiously hopeful, humanities students often
described themselves as insecure or anxious about their future.

But this isn’t just about different job markets. When seen through the
ideas of Tiffany Manuel in “How Does One Live a Good Life?”, this
anxiety reflects something much deeper — the way social systems
decide who gets to live securely, who gets left behind, and how we
define what a “good life” even means.

The Good Life and the Weight of Insecurity

Tiffany Manuel reminds us that living a good life isn’t just about having
a job or earning enough money. It’s about having stability, purpose, and
dignity. It’s about being able to imagine a future that feels possible and
worth working toward. But for many students — especially those in the
humanities — that kind of stability feels increasingly out of reach.
Their responses show that they often feel their education isn’t translating
into real opportunities. The worry many of them expressed isn’t only
about unemployment — it’s also about feeling invisible in a world that
rewards certain kinds of knowledge over others. Science and commerce
students can often point to clear career paths, but for humanities
students, the road ahead seems blurred and unpredictable.
This is exactly what Manuel talks about when she says inequality limits
people’s ability to live well. When social structures — like education
systems or job markets — fail to create fair opportunities, insecurity
becomes a constant emotional backdrop. It shapes how young people see
themselves and what kind of lives they believe they deserve.

Intersectionality and Unequal Experience

Manuel uses intersectionality to show that insecurity doesn’t fall evenly
on everyone. It’s shaped by overlapping layers of identity like class,
gender, and background. A woman studying English literature, for
instance, might face not just fewer job options but also social pressure
about what kind of work is “appropriate.” A student from a small town
or a lower-income family might feel even more anxious, because for
them, the stakes of failure are higher.
The survey data hints at these differences too. Humanities students often
come from more varied social backgrounds than their peers in technical
or commerce fields. For them, job insecurity isn’t just about the
economy — it’s about belonging, identity, and visibility.
Intersectionality helps us see that insecurity is never one-dimensional;
it’s an emotional, social, and structural experience all at once.

When Education and Opportunity Don’t Match

Many students said that their education didn’t feel connected to the job
market. Humanities students especially described their courses as too
theoretical, with few real-world applications. This disconnect is crucial.
It shows how universities can sometimes reproduce inequality rather
than reduce it.
Manuel would say that this is where structures, not just individuals,
come into play. The problem isn’t that humanities students lack
ambition; it’s that the system doesn’t give their knowledge the same
space or respect that it gives to more technical skills. When society
values profit and productivity above everything else, fields like
literature, sociology, or history are treated as luxuries, not as the
foundations of an informed and empathetic world.
That’s why the feeling of job insecurity isn’t just economic. It’s
emotional and moral — a sign that something deeper in our public
values is out of balance.

Public Policy and the Possibility of a Fairer Future Tiffany Manuel argues
that if we want people to live good lives, we have
to build structures that make that possible — and this is where public
policy becomes essential. A society that leaves young people anxious
about their futures is one that has failed to translate its values into action.
Public policy has the power to change this narrative. Instead of treating
job insecurity as a personal problem, it can address it as a collective one.
Governments and institutions could:
Create stronger links between universities and industries — not only in
STEM or business, but also in social sciences, arts, and culture.
Invest in creative and cultural sectors that give meaningful employment
to humanities graduates.
Offer fellowships, mentorship programs, and paid internships for
students from underrepresented fields.
Integrate career counselling and skill development into all streams of
education, so students feel supported from the start.
These changes may sound technical, but at their core, they are moral
choices. They communicate what kind of society we want to build —
one that measures success only by profit, or one that values human
potential in all its forms.
Public policy, in this sense, is not just about rules and budgets. It’s about
dignity. It’s about making sure that every young person — whether
studying engineering or philosophy — can look toward the future with a
sense of possibility, not fear.

Making the Good Life Possible

Our research shows that job insecurity among youth is not just a
statistic; it’s a lived experience that affects confidence, hope, and
wellbeing. Humanities students feel it the most, but the roots of that
insecurity go far beyond their individual choices. Tiffany Manuel’s essay
reminds us that these fears are the result of how society is structured —
how education, opportunity, and value are distributed.
If a good life means stability, purpose, and self-respect, then our policies
and institutions must reflect that vision. We need an education system
that values every discipline, a job market that rewards creativity as much
as technical skill, and a public policy that treats security not as a
privilege, but as a right.
Because in the end, living a good life isn’t about who works the hardest
— it’s about whether we’ve built a world that lets everyone dream freely
and live without fear.

Conclusion
This research entitled Job Insecurity among Youth brings to the fore that
the increasing anxiety about employment among the young graduates is
a social and structural phenomenon. Results of this study indicated that
while uncertainty affects students in all academic domains, humanities
graduates are underemployed or receive temporary contracts or jobs
unrelated to their qualifications. This points to a deep-seated mismatch
between educational training and labor market expectations, where
technical and professional degrees are favored instead of creative and
analytical disciplines.

The study also identifies that job insecurity impinges on the economic
prospects, mental well-being, motivations, and identity of youth. Many
students reported that the academic curriculum seems obsolete and
irrelevant to life in the real world, which in turn leads them to be ever
less confident about their future. This also chimes with what Tiffany
Manuel called “the good life,” where insecurity limits one’s ability to
live with stability, dignity, and purpose.

Recent policy interventions such as the Stand-Up India Scheme, PM

Viksit Bharat Rozgar Yojana, and Rajasthan Gig Workers Act have been
instrumental in making the job market more inclusive and secure. This,
however, can be fully achieved when higher education is aligned with
emergent industry requirements, skill-based learning is promoted, and
formal job opportunities are created outside of purely technical fields.

The multidimensional approach consists of reinforcing university-

industry collaboration, stimulating entrepreneurship, investment in
creative sectors, and valuing all disciplines. Because the gap between
education and employment will be reduced, and notions about what it
means to work will be redefined, the society will be able to secure a
future that is stable and fulfilling for all young people, irrespective of
major or field of study.

Bibliography
o Manuel, T. (2016). How Does One Live a Good Life? The
Good Society, 25(1), 1–16.

o Mehrotra, S. (2019). India’s Employment Crisis: Rising

Education, Declining Opportunities. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press and International Labour Organization.

o Kannan, K. P. (2022). India’s Elusive Quest for Inclusive

Development. Cambridge University Press.

o Basole, A. (Ed.). (2018–2023). State of Working India

Reports. Azim Premji University, Centre for Sustainable
Employment.

o Ghosh, J. (2020). Economic Growth and Employment in

India: Jobless Growth Revisited. Development and Change,
51(3), 709–732.
o Srivastava, R. S. (2021). Changing Employment Conditions
of the Indian Workforce. Institute for Human Development.
Government Reports and Policy Documents
o Ministry of Finance, Government of India. (2016). Stand-Up
India Scheme Guidelines. Small Industries Development
Bank of India (SIDBI).
o Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India.
(2025). Pradhan Mantri Viksit Bharat Rozgar Yojana
(PMVBRY) Notification and Guidelines. Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO).

o Government of Rajasthan. (2023). Rajasthan Platform-Based

Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023.
Department of Labour and Employment.

o NITI Aayog. (2020). India’s Booming Gig and Platform

Economy: Perspectives and Recommendations on the Future
of Work. Government of India.

Online and Data Sources

o Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2021). All
India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) Report 2020–21.
o Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). (2023).
Unemployment Data Reports. Retrieved from
[Link]