The Emptied Block: Reading a Migration Stream
Between the 2011 and 2021 censuses, Bhainsa block (population 1.84 lakh, 96 villages) grew by only 4.1%, while its 0–6 cohort shrank 9%. The 18–35 male group fell 11%; the same female group rose 3%. A household survey found that 62% of families have at least one male working outside the block, mostly in Gurugram and Delhi, sending home a median ₹9,000 a month. Farm wages rose 38% in five years, although net sown area stayed flat at 41,000 hectares and tube-wells rose from 3,100 to 4,400. Upper-primary enrolment in government schools dropped 14%. Panchayat records show more women-headed households, and officials report 'empty chairs at meetings'. The dependency ratio moved from 0.61 to 0.72. Local leaders claim the block is 'being emptied', yet bank deposits in the block's branches rose 27% over the decade.
1. Does the evidence point to a push-dominated or a pull-dominated migration stream? Take a position and defend it with three specific figures, noting one figure that could be read either way.
Read the worked answer
Position: pull-dominated, with genuine push elements underneath.
Three supports:
- 62% of households with a migrant, concentrated in two metros. A stream that large and that destination-specific follows job availability rather than general distress; distress migration is usually shorter-distance and spreads across many destinations.
- Median remittance of ₹9,000 a month. This is a substantial, regular flow, not a survival trickle, so the move is income-improving and self-reinforcing - the classic pull signature.
- Selectivity by age and sex - 18–35 males down 11% while the same female cohort rose 3%. Selective removal of one age–sex group is the fingerprint of demand for young male labour at the destination.
The ambiguous figure: the 38% rise in farm wages. It is often quoted as proof of rural distress, but with net sown area flat at 41,000 ha, the better explanation is labour scarcity created by out-migration. It is a consequence, not a cause. Rising bank deposits (27%) likewise undercut a pure distress story.
Counter-indicator to look for: under push dominance, whole households would move and remittances would be small and irregular. Here households are splitting and leaving dependants behind - a household strategy, not flight.
2. Predict the shape of the block's 2021 age–sex pyramid relative to 2011, and explain what happens to the *composition* of the dependency ratio, not merely its level.
Read the worked answer
Shape changes, 2011 → 2021:
- Base narrows. The 0–6 cohort fell 9%, so the bottom bar is shorter - partly fewer births, partly the departure of the child-bearing cohort itself.
- A notch appears on the male side at 18–35. This is the migration signature; the female side at the same ages remains comparatively intact, so the sex ratio within that cohort rises even if the overall ratio is unchanged.
- A bulge builds in the 50–70 male and female bars, as parents of migrants stay behind.
Dependency ratio composition. The level rose 0.61 → 0.72, but the composition is the real story:
- Child dependency probably fell - fewer births, fewer children in the denominator.
- Old-age dependency rose - elderly parents remain while their earning children leave.
So the block can show a seemingly healthy working-age share while the actual earners per household live elsewhere. This is better called remittance-supported dependency: it is cash-rich but care-poor, and it behaves quite differently from a young dependent population. Policy keyed only to the headline ratio will misread the situation.
3. The block chairman proposes a 200-bed hospital as the main policy response. Evaluate that proposal against the evidence and suggest one better-targeted intervention, with an indicator to monitor it.
Read the worked answer
Assessment of the hospital. It addresses a real need - the left-behind population is disproportionately elderly, and the 0.61 → 0.72 dependency shift is driven by old-age dependency. So it is not irrelevant. But it does not touch the mechanism emptying the 18–35 cohort, which is the absence of local non-farm work. There is also a utilisation risk: the cohort most able to pay is absent, so a 200-bed general hospital could end up half-empty while the block's productive base keeps shrinking.
Verdict: support it only if re-scoped - geriatric and maternal care, staffed and referral-linked - not as a prestige general hospital.
Better-targeted primary intervention: a rural non-farm employment package built on the block's existing agricultural surplus (41,000 ha of net sown area, 4,400 tube-wells) - a cold chain plus a small processing unit - because it creates work for exactly the cohort that is leaving and raises the value retained locally.
Indicator to monitor: the share of 18–35 males usually resident in the block at the next survey (baseline = 2011 level), together with the number of new non-farm jobs held by block residents. Do not use total population growth as the indicator; it lags by a decade and is confounded by natural increase.