← Back to ResearchGEVI Research Series · G20 Countries · Paper 8

IndiaEconomic Visibility

Shape. The strongest dimension is D5 Statistical and political voice (0.596); the weakest is D4 Institutional visibility (0.331). A Shapley attribution of the 52.5-point gap to full parity assigns the largest share, 14.3 points (27%), to D3 Enterprise and legal rights.

47.5GEVI / 100 · Hidden band

Evidence. Of 13 inputs, 13 are grade A, 0 are grade B and 0 are grade C (imputed), a blind-spot ratio of 0.00. Every input is measured.

AuthorSujoy Maitra
ORCID iD Logo0009-0009-1319-3706
PaperMCWP-2026-60
Publication Date29 Sept 2026
DOI
SCENARIO BRANCHESINDIA
India scenario branchesReported scenario scores: baseline 47.5; S4 labour access 53.6 with gain +6.1; S6 enterprise 55.1 with gain +7.6; S7 combined 65.9 with gain +18.3. These are simulations, not forecasts.INDIAILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIOS · GEVI / 100Baseline47.5S4 Labour access53.6+6.1S6 Enterprise55.1+7.6S7 Combined65.9+18.3
S6 ENTERPRISE SCENARIO +7.6 POINTS
GEVI score47.5
Rank19 / 19
Blind-spot ratio0.00

Reported research measures. Animation reveals the graphic; it does not represent change over time.

01

Abstract

Result. India scores 47.5 out of 100 on the Gender Economic Visibility Index, in the Hidden band. The 90% uncertainty interval from 10,000 joint Monte Carlo draws is 44.7 to 50.2 (median 47.5). Its point rank is 19 of 19, and across the same draws the rank has a median of 19 with a 5th to 95th percentile range of 19 to 19.

Shape. The strongest dimension is D5 Statistical and political voice (0.596); the weakest is D4 Institutional visibility (0.331). A Shapley attribution of the 52.5-point gap to full parity assigns the largest share, 14.3 points (27%), to D3 Enterprise and legal rights.

Evidence. Of 13 inputs, 13 are grade A, 0 are grade B and 0 are grade C (imputed), a blind-spot ratio of 0.00. Every input is measured.

Download full paper PDF
02

Inputs and parity calculations

Inputs and parity scores

ID table
IDIndicatorRawScoreGradeSD
I1Labour force participationwomen 32.4, men 77.6 (2025)0.4175A0.02
I2Youth NEETwomen 39.0, men 10.3 (2024)0.2641A0.02
I3Youth unemploymentwomen 17.5, men 15.5 (2025)0.8857A0.02
I4Non-vulnerable employmentwomen 78.2, men 69.0 (2025)0.7032A0.02
I5Senior and middle management11.9% (2024)0.2380A0.02
I6Wage and salaried employmentwomen 21.2, men 26.7 (2025)0.7940A0.02
I7Firm ownership3.88% (2022)0.0776A0.02
I8WBL legal frameworks57.9 (2025)0.5790A0.02
I9WBL enforcement43 (2026)0.4300A0.02
I10WBL supportive frameworks55 (2026)0.5500A0.02
I11Women ministers5.56% (2024)0.1112A0.02
I12Women MPs13.8% (2026)0.2760A0.02
I13Data availability11 of 12 rows0.9167A0.02

The labour, management, enterprise and legal inputs (I1 to I11) come from the World Bank Gender Data Landscape for this economy (April 2026 edition, including Women, Business and the Law 2026). The parliamentary share (I12) comes from the Inter-Parliamentary Union monthly ranking as of 1 August 2026.

Step 1: Indicator calculations

GEVI has three layers: 13 indicators, 5 dimensions and one composite. Each indicator is converted to a parity score, each dimension is the simple mean of its indicators, and the composite is a weighted geometric mean of the dimensions. Three principles govern the design: parity scores avoid arbitrary goalposts; substitutability is allowed within a dimension but not across dimensions; and every input carries an evidence grade that sets its uncertainty.

ID table
IDCalculationScore
I1min(32.4 / 77.6, 1) = 0.4180.418
I2min(10.3 / 39.0, 1) = 0.2640.264
I3min(15.5 / 17.5, 1) = 0.8860.886
I4min((100 - 78.2) / (100 - 69.0), 1) = min(21.8 / 31.0, 1) = 0.7030.703
I5min(11.9 / 50, 1) = 0.2380.238
I6min(21.2 / 26.7, 1) = 0.7940.794
I7min(3.88 / 50, 1) = 0.0780.078
I857.9 / 100 = 0.5790.579
I943 / 100 = 0.4300.430
I1055 / 100 = 0.5500.550
I11min(5.56 / 50, 1) = 0.1110.111
I12min(13.8 / 50, 1) = 0.2760.276
I1311 / 12 = 0.9170.917

Step 2: Dimension scores

Dim table
DimCalculationScore
D10.418 + 0.264 + 0.886 = 1.567; / 30.5224
D20.703 + 0.238 + 0.794 = 1.735; / 30.5784
D30.078 + 0.579 + 0.430 = 1.087; / 30.3622
D40.550 + 0.111 = 0.661; / 20.3306
D50.276 + 0.917 = 1.193; / 20.5963

The base weights (0.25, 0.20, 0.20, 0.15, 0.20) reflect the emphasis on labour participation and on statistical voice. They are a prior, not an estimate, which is why the paper tests seven weighting schemes, including data-driven entropy and principal-component weights computed from the 15-economy dimension matrix.

03

Aggregation, uncertainty and sensitivity

Step 3: Aggregation trace

Term table
TermCalculationValue
D10.5224 ^ 0.250.85018
D20.5784 ^ 0.200.89629
D30.3622 ^ 0.200.81619
D40.3306 ^ 0.150.84702
D50.5963 ^ 0.200.90177
Product0.8502 x 0.8963 x 0.8162 x 0.8470 x 0.90180.47505
GEVI100 x product47.51

Check in logs: sum of w ln D = -0.74433; exp = 0.47505; times 100 = 47.51.

Step 4: Uncertainty and sensitivity

For each of 10,000 draws the model samples all 13 indicator scores from truncated normal distributions and the five dimension weights from a Dirichlet distribution, then recomputes the index. The same seed (2026) is used for every economy, which means all economies share the same weight draws. That is intentional: weight uncertainty is common to the whole series, so rank comparisons are made under identical weights in each draw.

Each input has a grade with a standard deviation applied to its score: A = 0.02, B = 0.06, C = 0.12. The standard deviations are judgemental settings that express how much a reader should trust a value; they are not estimated from replications. Section 7.5 shows the effect of changing the settings that matter most.

Robustness. Across seven weighting schemes the rank runs from 19 to 19; across ten alternative specifications (benchmark, parity cap and imputation rule) it runs from 19 to 19. The score changes by at most 2.2 points across those specifications.

p1 table
p1p5p10p25p50p75p90p95p99MeanSD
43.5144.7445.3146.3747.5148.6549.6450.2051.3147.501.68

Weight uncertainty explains 70.7% of the output variance; the grade C (imputed) inputs explain 0.0%. Weights and measured inputs, not imputation, drive the spread.

04

Gaps, scenarios and priorities

Step 5: Where the gap is

The gap to full parity is 52.5 points. Because the geometric mean is non-additive, the contribution of one dimension depends on the state of the others. Shapley values average each dimension’s marginal contribution over all 5! orderings of the dimensions, so they sum exactly to the gap. v(S) is the GEVI obtained when the dimensions in S are set to 1.

Dim table
DimShapley pointsShare of gapShortfall of score (x100)
D314.2927.2%63.8
D411.7022.3%66.9
D111.4421.8%47.8
D27.7514.8%42.2
D57.3213.9%40.4

Scenario simulation and pathways

Levers. The largest single-lever scenario among S1 to S6 is "S6 Enterprise: management and firm ownership to 0.75", worth +7.6 points. A greedy pathway of +0.10 steps on measured indicators reaches the next threshold, 50 points, after 3 steps; at an illustrative improvement of 0.02 a year on every measured indicator it takes 2 years.

Scenario table
ScenarioGEVIGainp5Medianp95
S1 Data coverage to 9 of 12 rows47.5+0.044.847.550.1
S2 Institutions: supportive frameworks 50%, ministers 15%49.3+1.847.049.451.6
S3 Legal: legal and enforcement scores +0.1049.1+1.646.649.151.5
S4 Labour access: halve the gap to parity53.6+6.149.553.657.8
S5 Politics: women 15% of parliament47.7+0.244.947.750.4
S6 Enterprise: management and firm ownership to 0.7555.1+7.651.855.158.2
S7 Combined S1 to S665.9+18.362.465.969.1
S8 Series best-in-class on every measured indicator96.0+48.594.195.095.9

The pathway adds 0.10 to one measured indicator at a time, always choosing the step that raises GEVI most, until the composite reaches the next threshold above the current score (50, 65, 80, 90 or 95) or no measured indicator can rise further. It is an ordering of priorities, not a forecast.

Step table
StepIDIndicatorScore changeGEVI after
1I10WBL supportive frameworks0.55 to 0.6548.5
2I10WBL supportive frameworks0.65 to 0.7549.4
3I7Firm ownership0.08 to 0.1850.3

Priorities

I7 Firm ownership. Record owner sex on business registrations and refresh the enterprise survey.

I11 Women ministers. Publish an annual appointments series by sex for ministerial and board posts.

I5 Senior and middle management. Publish women’s share of senior and middle management from payroll or company records with a common definition.

Restore a fiscal indicator. Add a sex field to wage-tax and taxpayer records and publish an annual gender tax profile, so that D4 can include a direct measure of visibility in the tax system.

05

Practical use and data strategy

How to use this data

Data product table
Data productPrimary userDecision it informsCadence
Firm ownership by owner sex from the business registerCompany registry, revenue authority, small-business agencyWhether women-owned firms use incentives at the same rateAnnual
Ministerial and board appointments by sexCabinet office, public service commissionA measured record of decision-making representationAnnual
Management share by sex from employer returnsRevenue authority, company registry, labour ministryWhere women are missing from senior rolesAnnual
Sex-disaggregated taxpayer and wage-tax statisticsRevenue authority, treasuryWho is in the formal tax base and who receives refunds and creditsAnnual

India’s use case is to turn parity gaps into named data products with named owners, so that each year’s re-run of the index shows which product moved which indicator.

Data strategy

Data product table
Data productOwnerIndicatorsEffect
Sex field on wage-tax returns and taxpayer registrationsRevenue authorityAdds a fiscal indicator (I14, proposed)Restores the fiscal indicator the index was designed to have
Keep the core 12-row table current and add a fiscal (taxpayer) rowNational statistics office and revenue authorityI13 and a proposed I14Coverage is already 11 of 12; the gain is a new fiscal indicator, not more rows

Scope and limitations

Weights are a prior. The weights express a view, not an estimate. Chapter 7 shows their effect, but no data can identify the right weights.

Uncertainty settings are judgemental. The standard deviations 0.02, 0.06 and 0.12 are settings, not measurements. If they were larger the intervals would widen.

Source heterogeneity. Inputs come from different years and sources; older values carry a wider standard deviation, but a level shift caused by definitions is not modelled.

No causal claim. The scenarios show what the index would do if an indicator changed. They do not show that a policy would change the indicator.

Fiscal indicator absent. No sex-disaggregated taxpayer statistic was found, so the index does not yet measure visibility in the tax system directly.