What the Age–Sex Tables of a Balangir Block Actually Show
A student tabulated the 2001 and 2011 census figures for one block in Balangir district. 2001: population 1,42,000; sex ratio 987; age 0–14 = 38% of population; 0–6 sex ratio 941; age 60+ = 6.1%; main workers 31.4%, marginal workers 8.2%. 2011: population 1,58,000; sex ratio 1,013; age 0–14 = 29%; 0–6 sex ratio 918; age 60+ = 9.4%; main workers 26.8%, marginal workers 27.5%. The 2011 age group 20–34 contains 21,300 males and 17,600 females; in 2001 the same cohort had a sex ratio of 962. Between the two censuses, 14 brick kilns and 3 stone quarries opened in the block, and a bus service to Rourkela began in 2006. The student writes: 'The rising sex ratio proves that women's status has improved, and the fall in the child sex ratio is just a statistical blip.' The teacher asks you to grade that conclusion.
1. Compute the dependency ratio for both censuses and state precisely what the change does and does not prove.
Read the worked answer
Working
Dependency ratio = (population under 15 + population 60 and over) ÷ (population 15–59) × 100.
2001: non-working-age = 38 + 6.1 = 44.1%; working age = 55.9%; ratio = 44.1 ÷ 55.9 × 100 = 78.9.
2011: non-working-age = 29 + 9.4 = 38.4%; working age = 61.6%; ratio = 38.4 ÷ 61.6 × 100 = 62.3.
What it proves. The block has passed through the first stage of the demographic transition: births have fallen, the child share has dropped nine points, and each worker now carries about 0.62 dependants instead of 0.79. That is a genuine demographic dividend and it is the window in which savings and schooling investment are cheapest.
What it does not prove. The ratio hides a change in composition. Child dependency fell from 38 to 29 points of population, but old-age dependency nearly doubled as a share of the working-age base, from 6.1 ÷ 55.9 = 10.9% to 9.4 ÷ 61.6 = 15.3%. The block is already ageing while it is still poor, and the 60+ group will keep growing as out-migration removes the young.
Two cautions. First, the denominator is inflated as a 'working' population: only 26.8% are main workers, and women's work in the household is undercounted. Second, a falling ratio is not automatically a dividend - it is only a dividend if those 61.6% actually find work locally, which the kiln and quarry data suggest they are not doing at main-worker level.
2. Assess the student's two claims using the cohort figures.
Read the worked answer
Claim 1: 'the rising sex ratio proves women's status has improved.' The overall ratio did rise, 987 → 1,013, but an overall ratio is an aggregate of every age, and it can rise for reasons unconnected with girls' welfare.
- The 20–34 cohort ratio in 2011 is 17,600 ÷ 21,300 × 1,000 = 826, down from 962 in 2001. A deficit of roughly 3,700 women in that one age band must be explained.
- The likely mechanisms are, in order of weight: in-migration of young male casual labour for the 14 kilns and 3 stone quarries (marginal workers jumped from 8.2% to 27.5%, exactly the signature of short-term male contract labour); out-migration of young women after marriage to other blocks; and possibly some under-enumeration of young women.
- Meanwhile the overall ratio is pulled up by the elderly - the 60+ share rose from 6.1% to 9.4%, and widowhood produces a strong female surplus at those ages.
So the aggregate rise is consistent with a worsening position for young women. The claim is unsupported.
Claim 2: 'the child sex ratio is a blip.' 941 → 918 is a fall of 23 points in one decade. A blip is a single-year wobble; this is a decadal trend measured on millions of births, and it points the same way as the state and national record. It requires a real explanation: sex-selective behaviour after the first child, under-registration of girl children, or migration of whole young families. Calling it a blip is a way of not explaining it.
Verdict. One claim is unsupported and the other is evasive. Both fail because the student compared aggregates instead of age-specific rates.
3. Name the two additional data sets you would use to settle whether male in-migration causes the 20–34 deficit, and say what result would confirm it.
Read the worked answer
Data set 1 - the census migration tables (D-series) by place of last residence, reason for migration and duration since migration. If the block shows a large inflow of males aged 15–34 whose reason is 'work/employment' and whose duration is under 5 years, male in-migration is confirmed.
Data set 2 - workers classified by industry, plus establishment counts. Kiln and quarry employment should appear under manufacturing/other services for males, with a strong marginal-worker signature. Cross-check against the number of kiln licences, provident-fund or labour-registration rolls, and the block's own trade licences.
Confirming result. Male in-migration is confirmed if the migration table shows net male inflow in 15–34 that is at least of the order of the 3,700-person deficit, and the industry table shows those men absorbed in brick, stone and construction. If, instead, the inflow is small and the female deficit persists in the never-married category, the explanation shifts to marriage out-migration or enumeration bias, and the conclusion about women's status changes again.
Supporting checks if data are thin. School enrolment by sex in Classes VI–XII, birth records by sex from the block health office, and the electoral roll for the 20–34 band.