Data also shows divergent demand patterns with implications for two-wheeler versus passenger vehicle sales.
29 Jan 2026 | 355 Views | By Shruti Shiraguppi
The Economic Survey 2025-26 has noted contrasting patterns in rural and urban consumption, with rural demand described as "steady" and "bolstered by strong agricultural performance," while urban consumption shows "gradual improvement" rather than strong recovery.
The Survey, released on January 28, discusses these consumption trends as part of its ...
This is an Autocar Pro Plus article. Subscribe to continue reading.
The Economic Survey 2025-26 has noted contrasting patterns in rural and urban consumption, with rural demand described as "steady" and "bolstered by strong agricultural performance," while urban consumption shows "gradual improvement" rather than strong recovery.
The Survey, released on January 28, discusses these consumption trends as part of its analysis of demand-side drivers of economic growth, with direct implications for automotive sales across different vehicle segments.
The Survey states that "steady rural consumption, bolstered by strong agricultural performance" is contributing to broad-based consumption demand. It notes that agricultural performance has been strong and that this supports farm incomes, which in turn sustains rural purchasing power.
In contrast to rural demand, the Survey describes urban consumption as showing "gradual improvement." It further states that this improvement is aided by improvements in real purchasing power, supporting overall consumption demand.
It further notes that consumption demand "is broad-based," incorporating both rural and urban components, but the differential phrasing "steady" for rural, "gradual improvement" for urban—indicates different growth trajectories.
Both rural and urban consumption have benefited from what the Survey calls improved "real purchasing power" due to easing inflation. The Survey notes that "demand-led growth in the economy has unfolded alongside a marked easing of inflation, which has improved real purchasing power and supported consumption."
The Survey cites data showing household consumption spending rising to about 67 per cent of monthly income, "the highest since the survey's inception."
While this aggregate figure is presented as positive, it doesn't clarify whether this represents increased confidence or reduced savings due to economic pressure. It also notes the "purchasing power of rural non-farm income" as a factor supporting consumption.
The Survey tracks various consumption indicators. It lists "Passenger Vehicle Sales" under "Urban Demand" indicators and "Two-wheeler Vehicle Sales" along with "Tractor Sales" under "Rural Demand" indicators. This categorization confirms that policymakers view different vehicle segments as proxies for rural versus urban economic activity.
The Survey discusses various agricultural income support measures, though it also raises concerns about some approaches. It notes government support for agriculture through minimum support prices, fertilizer subsidies, and other programs.
However, it also cautions about the "concentration and durability of incentives" in some programs like ethanol blending, suggesting not all agricultural income support is equally sustainable.
The Survey does not provide detailed analysis of urban income trends, but the "gradual" nature of urban consumption improvement suggests urban household incomes may be growing more slowly than rural incomes currently.
The Survey notes what it calls a "services employment-output paradox" i.e. rapid growth in services sector output has "not translated proportionately into job creation, due to their high skill intensity and automation." Services sector growth is not creating as many jobs as might be expected.
The Survey discusses state-level economic dynamics without providing detailed urban-rural breakdowns by state. However, it notes significant variation in performance across states.
For automotive companies, this suggests demand patterns may vary substantially by state depending on rural-urban composition and agricultural versus services-based economies.
The Survey notes agricultural performance is supporting rural incomes, with "normal monsoon" and "record kharif production" mentioned. Good weather conditions have helped maintain rural purchasing power.
Urban consumption is less dependent on agricultural cycles and more on steady employment and wage growth, which may explain why its recovery is described as gradual.
While easing inflation benefits both rural and urban consumers, the Survey's discussion suggests rural consumers may have seen more benefit through both lower prices and higher incomes (from agricultural performance).
Urban consumers benefit from lower inflation but may not have seen comparable income gains if services sector job creation is limited.
The Survey does not break down consumption by durables versus non-durables, but vehicle purchases represent major durable goods investments.
Steady rural demand suggests rural consumers have confidence to make such investments, while gradual urban improvement may reflect more cautious spending on durables by urban households.
It discusses credit growth without specifically linking it to consumption. However, vehicle purchases often depend on financing availability. Any differential in credit access or terms between rural and urban borrowers could amplify the consumption pattern differences.
The Survey discusses various government transfer programs and subsidies that disproportionately benefit rural areas, including agricultural subsidies, rural employment schemes, and income support. While the Survey raises concerns about fiscal sustainability of some transfer programs, they currently support rural consumption capacity.
It also mentions real estate and infrastructure development without linking it to consumption patterns. However, urban consumption can be affected by real estate price movements and associated wealth effects, which vary by city.
The divergent consumption patterns have direct relevance for different automotive segments:
Two-wheelers and three-wheelers: These categories, which the Survey notes India is the world's largest market for, depend heavily on rural and semi-urban demand. Steady rural consumption should support continued demand in these segments.
Passenger vehicles: With stronger exposure to urban markets, the "gradual" urban recovery may explain why passenger vehicle growth has been more moderate. India is noted as the third-largest market globally for passenger vehicles.
Commercial vehicles: The Survey positions India as third-largest for commercial vehicles globally. Demand for CVs depends on both rural (agricultural transport) and urban (logistics, construction) economic activity.
Based on the Survey's consumption analysis, the outlook for different vehicle segments would be:
Two-wheelers: Supported by steady rural demand and improving rural purchasing power. The Survey's positive agricultural outlook suggests this should continue.
Passenger vehicles: Dependent on urban consumption recovery strengthening from "gradual" to more robust growth. This may require stronger urban employment and income growth.
Entry-level segments: Should benefit from both rural and urban demand, potentially showing steadier performance than premium segments more dependent on urban affluent consumers.
The Economic Survey's characterization of rural consumption as "steady" while urban consumption shows "gradual improvement" suggests different demand dynamics across India's economy.
For the automotive sector, this translates to potentially steadier performance in rural-oriented segments (two-wheelers, three-wheelers, entry-level passenger vehicles) compared to urban-focused segments.