Union Budget’s Role in the Structural Transformation of  India’s MSMEs and Startup Labour Markets

Authors

  • P Hameem Khan Assistant Professor, School of Management Studies, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, India Author
  • P. Shiva Sai Nath Research fellow, School of Management Studies, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, India Author
  • Sri Varshini B Research fellow, School of Management Studies, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, India Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.69980/8h3dv348

Keywords:

Union Budget, Entrepreneurship  MSMEs, Startups, Structural Transformation, Innovation, Labour Market, Inclusive Growth, Sustainable Development

Abstract

The Union Budget Plays a critical role in shaping India’s economic transformation, MSME growth, and the startup ecosystem. This study examines how recent Union Budget contribute structural transformation through fiscal priorities such as public capital expenditure, Production-Linked incentive (PLI) schemes, MSME support, startup promotion, and digital infrastructure development. The paper highlights the role of fiscal policy in fostering entrepreneurial activity, innovation, and employment generation across sectors. It further evaluates the impact on formalization, Particularly among women.

Using primary data and statistical analysis, the study finds that fiscal interventions significantly influence enterprise creation, self-employment, and innovation-driven job opportunities. While capital-intensive growth strategies contribute to sectoral shifts, sustainable transformation requires stronger support for MSMEs, startups, and human capital development. The study concludes that the Union Budget is not only a fiscal  instrument but also a strategic tool for promoting entrepreneurship-led, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth.

References

1. Lewis, W. A. (1954). Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. The Manchester School, 22(2), 139–191.

2. Kuznets, S. (1971). Economic Growth of Nations: Total Output and Production Structure. Harvard University Press.

3. Chenery, H. B., & Syrquin, M. (1975). Patterns of Development, 1950–1970. Oxford University Press.

4. Timmer, M. P., de Vries, G. J., & de Vries, K. (2015). Patterns of structural change in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 115, 1–17.

5. McMillan, M., Rodrik, D., & Sepúlveda, C. (2017). Structural change, fundamentals, and growth: A framework and case studies. American Economic Review, 107(5), 319–323.

6. Rodrik, D. (2016). Premature deindustrialization. Journal of Economic Growth, 21(1), 1–33.

7. Ghani, E., Kerr, W. R., & O’Connell, S. D. (2013). Service with a smile: Informal firms and the Indian economy. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper.

8. Basole, A., & Basu, D. (2011). Relations of production and modes of surplus extraction in India: Part I—Agriculture. Economic & Political Weekly, 46(14), 41–58.

9. Kannan, K. P., & Raveendran, G. (2019). From jobless to job-loss growth: Gainers and losers during 2012–18. Economic & Political Weekly, 54(44), 38–44.

10. Government of India. (Various Years). Union Budget Documents. Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

11. International Labour Organization (ILO). (2018). India Wage Report: Wage Policies for Decent Work and Inclusive Growth. ILO.

12. World Bank. (2020). World Development Report 2020: Trading for Development in the Age of Global Value Chains. World Bank Publications.

13. Mehrotra, S., & Parida, J. K. (2019). Why is the labour force participation of women declining in India? World Development, 98, 360–380.

14. NITI Aayog. (2018). Strategy for New India @75. Government of India.

15. Annual Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS). (Latest Edition). Annual Report. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI), Government of India.

Downloads

Published

2026-03-31

How to Cite

Union Budget’s Role in the Structural Transformation of  India’s MSMEs and Startup Labour Markets. (2026). Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 22(3), 59-67. https://doi.org/10.69980/8h3dv348