India’s informal economy is concentrated in a relatively small group of districts, even as it supports a large share of the country’s non-agricultural workforce. The district-level findings from the National Statistics Office’s 2025 Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises show that 130 of roughly 770 districts account for half of all informal establishments outside agriculture and construction. The concentration is even sharper when measured by economic output: only 95 districts account for half of the sector’s gross value added.
The findings shift attention from the sheer size of India’s informal economy to its geography. The sector comprised 79 million establishments and employed 128 million workers in 2025, equivalent to 36% of all non-agricultural workers. Yet it generated ₹19,92,577 crore, or 8% of India’s total nominal non-agricultural gross value added. The district data adds a critical layer to these national figures by showing where establishments, workers and value are located—and how different those maps are.
That distinction matters for understanding the relationship between cities and informal work. The districts with the largest numbers of establishments are not limited to India’s million-plus urban centres. North 24 Parganas, Delhi, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata and Surat have the highest reported establishment counts, ranging from 851,000 in Surat to 1.66 million in North 24 Parganas. North and South 24 Parganas are neighbouring districts in the Kolkata region, highlighting the importance of metropolitan hinterlands in the organisation of informal economic activity.
The pattern is similar, but not identical, when the measure changes from establishments to workers. Delhi has the highest reported number of informal-sector workers, at 2.2 million, followed by North 24 Parganas with 2.1 million. Surat and Ranga Reddy each account for 1.7 million workers, while Kolkata accounts for 1.4 million. This ranking suggests that the places hosting the greatest number of enterprises are not always the places with the largest workforces, even when the same metropolitan regions recur across the lists.
The output map is more concentrated still and introduces a different group of leading districts. Delhi generates the highest reported gross value added from the sector, followed by Ranga Reddy, Surat, Pune and Mumbai Suburban. Their reported GVA ranges from ₹55,289 crore in Delhi to ₹27,357 crore in Mumbai Suburban. North 24 Parganas, which ranks first by the number of establishments, falls to sixth place by GVA. That gap is one of the clearest signals in the data: the presence of many informal businesses does not necessarily translate into equivalent economic output.
This does not mean that establishment counts are unimportant. A large number of small enterprises can represent extensive livelihood networks, local supply chains and employment opportunities. But the contrast between the number of establishments, workers and GVA indicates that the informal economy is not a uniform category. Districts may specialise in different kinds of activity, operate at different scales, or combine large numbers of very small establishments with a smaller number of more productive enterprises. The supplied data does not establish which of these explanations is dominant, but it makes clear that national averages conceal substantial variation.
The concentration of workers also has direct implications for urban administration. Informal employment is often connected to markets, transport systems, commercial streets, industrial areas, neighbourhood services and metropolitan supply chains. When large numbers of workers and establishments are concentrated in particular districts, local decisions on access, public space, mobility, waste management, utilities and commercial regulation can affect a large share of livelihoods. The data does not measure these urban systems directly, but it identifies where the economic concentration that depends on them is greatest.
The district rankings also complicate the use of city size as a proxy for economic importance. North and South 24 Parganas, Ranga Reddy, Dehradun, Dakshina Kannada, Ajmer and Kannur appear among the districts that rank highly on different indicators, but are not among the million-plus cities for which the NSO had previously published a report. This suggests that important informal economies extend beyond the administrative boundaries and population categories commonly used to describe large urban centres.
Ranga Reddy is a particularly significant example in the data supplied. The district ranks near the top both for workers and GVA, while being identified as a district neighbouring Hyderabad. Its position indicates how metropolitan economic activity can be distributed across the core city and surrounding districts. A city-centred reading of informal employment could therefore miss substantial parts of the labour market and production system located in adjacent administrative areas.
The same issue appears in the Kolkata region. North and South 24 Parganas rank among the leading districts by establishment count, while Kolkata ranks highly for establishments, workers and GVA. Taken together, the figures point to a metropolitan economic geography that is wider than the central city. For urban policy, the practical consequence is that employment, transport, land use and infrastructure decisions may need to be understood across connected districts rather than through a single municipal boundary. The survey itself does not prescribe such a policy model, but its rankings show why administrative fragmentation can make economic concentration harder to read.
The data on emoluments adds another layer of variation. Only around 13% of informal establishments hire workers, according to the report. Among districts that rank highest for annual emoluments per hired worker, Dehradun, Dakshina Kannada, Ajmer, Indore and Kannur occupy the leading positions. Annual emoluments range from ₹4.6 lakh in Dehradun to ₹2.5 lakh in Kannur. These districts are not the same as those leading in total establishments, workers or GVA. The distinction shows that the geography of enterprise density is different from the geography of wages among hired workers.
However, the emolument rankings should be read cautiously. The reported error margin reaches 54% in Dehradun and 30% in Kannur. The district-level estimates also have varying levels of precision for establishments and workers. Estimates for the number of establishments are within a 10% error margin in only 78 districts, while the corresponding figure for workers is 48 districts. At a 20% margin, the figures rise to 495 and 435 districts respectively. These margins do not erase the broad concentration visible in the report, but they limit how confidently individual districts can be ranked against one another.
The survey covers 757 of 770 districts in its sampling frame, with additional Union Territory-level data for Delhi, Chandigarh and Lakshadweep bringing the number used in the reported analysis to 760. This coverage is important because district comparisons can appear more precise than the underlying estimates permit. The strongest conclusion is therefore not that one district definitively outperforms another on every measure. It is that a limited number of districts account for a disproportionately large share of informal establishments, workers and output, while the leading districts change according to the indicator used.
That finding has consequences for how India’s informal economy is represented in public policy. A national estimate of 79 million establishments and 128 million workers conveys scale, but not the institutional or spatial conditions under which those livelihoods operate. A district-level view reveals concentrations that may be relevant to local economic planning, labour-market analysis and infrastructure provision. It also shows why programmes designed around broad urban categories may not capture the full geography of informal work.
At the same time, the figures do not establish the causes of the concentration. The supplied report does not provide a district-by-district explanation of sector composition, enterprise age, access to finance, land costs, infrastructure quality, supply chains or regulatory conditions. Nor does it show how many establishments are home-based, street-based, market-based or located in formal industrial and commercial premises. Those questions would require additional data and cannot be answered from the district rankings alone.
What the ASUSE findings confirm is narrower but significant. India’s informal economy is both large and spatially concentrated. The districts with the most establishments are not necessarily those generating the most value, employing the most people or paying the highest emoluments. Several important concentrations sit outside the million-plus city framework, particularly in districts connected to major metropolitan regions. For urban researchers and administrators, the next step is to read these numbers alongside the boundaries, infrastructure networks and labour markets through which informal economic activity actually operates. The statistical release provides the map; the limits of its precision indicate where closer investigation remains necessary.
