Generative AI reaches more privileged graduates in India: SC and ST graduates are 0.24–0.37 SD less likely than upper-caste peers to work in AI-exposed occupations within the same district. With AI exposure associated with wage premiums of up to 20%, the technology risks widening India's caste earnings gap.

Main Finding

Generative-AI occupational exposure in India’s graduate labour market is strongly stratified by caste: graduates from Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) are substantially less exposed than upper-caste graduates. This gap arises from both relegation into low-exposure farm/elementary jobs and within–white-collar sorting away from managerial, software, and finance roles. Because AI-exposed occupations command a sizable wage premium (up to ~20 log points per SD or larger in the middle of the earnings distribution), generative AI is likely to widen—not reduce—caste earnings gaps among graduates.

Key Points

• Sample and coverage

  • PLFS (redesigned) 2025 first-visit person file. Sample: employed persons aged 15–65 with graduate or higher education (N ≈ 82,830 graduates).
  • Occupations coded at NCO-2015 3-digit (130 groups). Survey weights used; standard errors clustered by 3-digit occupation.

• Exposure measures

  • Three occupation-level generative-AI exposure indices linked to NCO-2015:
    • AIOE (Felten et al., 2021) — ability-based (O*NET; US-based).
    • GPT exposure (Eloundou et al., 2024) — share of tasks an LLM halves completion time for.
    • ILO GenAI score (Gmyrek et al., 2025) — ILO task-based GenAI exposure (not US-based).
  • Indices standardized across the 130 occupations. High pairwise rank correlations (Spearman ≈ 0.92 between US-based measures; ≈ 0.81–0.83 with ILO index).

• Magnitude of caste gradient (district-fixed effects, controls: quadratic in age, sex, sector)

  • SC graduates: 0.24–0.27 standard deviations less exposed than upper-caste (“Others”).
  • ST graduates: 0.31–0.37 standard deviations less exposed.
  • OBC gap ≈ 0.14 SDs less exposed.
  • Raw (unconditional) gaps are larger (SC ≈ −0.42 SD, ST ≈ −0.53 SD).

• Mechanisms

  • Occupational relegation: 24.6% of SC and 32.0% of ST graduates work in farm or elementary occupations (NCO divisions 6 or 9) vs 12.1% of Others—these occupations have near-zero AI exposure.
  • Within–white-collar sorting: excluding farm/elementary jobs narrows but does not eliminate the gap (~40% reduction). Upper-caste graduates disproportionately occupy software (5.3%), finance (3.4%), and managerial (9.4%) roles versus SC (software 2.1%, finance 1.9%; few managers).
  • Decomposition: conditioning on 1-digit occupation divisions still leaves substantial gaps (SC ≈ −0.13 SD, ST ≈ −0.16 SD), so much of the gap is within broad occupation groups.

• Wage/earnings evidence

  • Ability-based exposure (AIOE): ≈ +0.20 log points in monthly earnings per 1 SD increase (highly significant).
  • GPT exposure: ≈ +0.184 log points per SD.
  • ILO GenAI score: relationship with earnings is nonlinear (inverted U): positive across much of the distribution but declines at the top where highly automatable clerical jobs sit.
  • Quantile evidence: exposure premium peaks in the middle of the earnings distribution (~+32 log points around the 40th percentile), lower at tails.
  • Interaction suggestive: disadvantaged-group graduates may capture slightly less of the premium (SC interaction ≈ −0.043, p≈0.09; ST ≈ −0.078, p≈0.05), though marginal.

• Heterogeneity

  • Gender: caste gaps persist within both sexes; women overall less exposed than men among graduates (female main effect ≈ −0.21 SD) because women concentrate in low-exposure teaching/health roles.
  • Cohorts: SC gap largest among entrants (age 15–30: ≈ −0.28 SD) and declines modestly with age cohorts; ST gap is persistent across cohorts.
  • Public vs private: gaps compress inside the public sector (SC ≈ −0.14 SD, ST ≈ −0.14 SD) and widen in private sector (SC ≈ −0.27 SD, ST ≈ −0.44 SD), consistent with reservation/occupational parity in government but those jobs being low-exposure.

• Interpretation caveat

  • “Exposure” measures potential interaction between tasks and current AI capabilities (not actual adoption). Results describe where generative AI could augment/displace work if adopted.

Data & Methods

• Data

  • Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) redesigned 2025, first-visit person-level file (monthly rotational panel design; first visit contains each sampled household once).
  • Graduates defined by general education level (graduate or postgraduate and above).
  • Social group (household-level): SC, ST, OBC, Others.

• Exposure crosswalk

  • Mapped three external exposure indices to India’s NCO-2015 3-digit groups via official SOC–ISCO crosswalks and direct ISCO alignment for the ILO index.
  • Standardised exposures across the 130 occupations; merge covers 100% of weighted employment.
  • Code and crosswalk available (author’s GitHub).

• Empirical strategy

  • Main regressions: survey-weighted OLS of standardized exposure on social-group dummies, controlling for district fixed effects and a quadratic in age, sex, and broad sector.
  • SEs clustered by NCO-2015 3-digit occupation (the level where exposure is assigned).
  • Wage regressions: restricted to regular salaried graduates with positive earnings; district FE + controls; also used RIF regressions to examine quantile effects.
  • Decompositions: sequential addition of controls (demographics, district FE, indicator for farm/elementary employment, and 1-digit occupation fixed effects) to allocate gap across margins; author emphasizes this is an accounting decomposition, not causal identification of caste net of occupation.

• Robustness

  • Results consistent across three independent exposure indices (addresses concern that task bundles differ between countries).
  • Sensitivity checks: subgroup splits (gender, age cohort, public/private) and occupation-conditioned specifications.

Implications for AI Economics

• Within-country distributional effects

  • This paper shows that AI exposure is not neutral across social groups within a developing country: it maps onto historical hierarchies (caste) and credential devaluation, so AI is likely to be inequality-amplifying in such contexts.
  • Aggregate exposure statistics (cross-country or by education alone) can mask within-country stratification that determines who benefits.

• Augmentation vs displacement framing

  • For Indian graduates, exposure largely signals augmentability plus higher wages (especially for ability-driven exposures). Framing exposure purely as displacement risk misses the fact that exclusion from exposed roles is a form of prior marginalization: many disadvantaged graduates are insulated from AI because they already lack access to augmentable roles.
  • Policy discussions should differentiate between exposure via high-skill augmentative tasks (which pay) and exposure via routine automatable tasks (which may depress pay).

• Policy and labor-market interventions

  • Public-sector reservation reduces occupational sorting but concentrates disadvantaged graduates in low-exposure (and thus likely low-AI-benefit) jobs — implying a trade-off: parity in low-exposure employment vs access to high-exposure, high-return private roles.
  • To prevent AI from widening caste gaps, policies could include targeted reskilling/upskilling for SC/ST graduates into AI-augmentable skills (software, finance, managerial), affirmative hiring in private high-exposure sectors, and attention to equitable AI adoption (ensuring firms recruit and train broadly).
  • Monitoring AI adoption and its wage/promotion effects by social group is needed to evaluate realized distributional outcomes (this paper measures potential exposure, not adoption).

• Research directions for AI economics

  • Importance of within-country heterogeneity: replicate similar analyses across other dimensions (race, ethnicity, class, region) and other developing-country contexts.
  • Micro-level causal work: identify mechanisms (discrimination, networks, quality of higher education, hiring practices) that drive within–white-collar sorting and test interventions.
  • Dynamics of adoption: link occupational exposure to firm-level adoption, vacancy data, and longitudinal earnings to observe how exposure translates into realized wage gains/losses and mobility.

Overall, the paper documents a robust caste gradient in potential generative-AI exposure among Indian graduates, shows the gradient is economically meaningful because exposure carries a wage premium, and argues that without policy action AI is likely to reinforce existing caste inequalities in earnings and occupational attainment.