Remittances, Dependency and a Migration-Sensitive Development Plan
A panchayat samiti in western Rajasthan reviews its human-development plan. The block has 2.4 lakh people. The 0–14 age group is 34%, the 60+ group 9%, and the sex ratio is 892 females per 1,000 males. About 6,200 men aged 18–35 migrate to Gujarat for eight months each year to work in salt pans and construction; remittances equal 19% of household income in migrant households. In the same villages, only 46% of girls complete class 10, and antenatal check-ups fell from 71% to 58% in three years. The local PHC has one doctor for 38,000 people. Some officials argue that remittances are raising living standards and that no special plan is needed; others want a migration-sensitive development plan. The samiti must decide how to use a limited grant: cash transfers for elderly left behind, girls' hostel transport, or a health camp linked to migrant return seasons.
1. Calculate the broad age dependency ratio implied by the age shares, and explain one reason it may mislead in this block.
Read the worked answer
Using the shares, children 0–14 are 34% and older persons 60+ are 9%, so the dependent share is 43%. The working-age share is 57%. The broad dependency ratio is (43/57)×100, about 75 dependents per 100 working-age persons. It may mislead because the working-age category is not equivalent to available workers. About 6,200 men aged 18–35 migrate for eight months, so many counted as working-age are absent from the block. At the same time, women's unpaid work and the elderly's care work are not counted. The ratio also says nothing about remittances or health. A high ratio could coexist with remittance income, while a moderate ratio could hide a shortage of local carers. Therefore the samiti should use migration-adjusted and care-adjusted indicators, not the age ratio alone.
2. Assess the claim that remittances are raising living standards and therefore no special plan is needed. Use at least three indicators from the setup.
Read the worked answer
Remittances are real: they equal 19% of household income in migrant households, so consumption and housing may improve. But the claim that no special plan is needed does not follow. First, remittances reach migrant households, not all households; elderly left behind and female-headed households may receive little. Second, girls' completion of class 10 is only 46%, which suggests that migration income is not automatically converted into girls' education. Third, antenatal check-ups fell from 71% to 58%, showing a health-service failure that cash cannot fix. Fourth, one doctor for 38,000 people limits access. The sex ratio of 892 also indicates underlying gender disadvantage. Remittances can finance private consumption but do not automatically supply public health, girls' transport or care for the elderly. A migration-sensitive plan should complement remittances, not replace them.
3. Choose one use of the limited grant and justify it with a likely pathway and one trade-off.
Read the worked answer
Priority: a health camp timed to migrant return seasons, combined with antenatal outreach. Pathway: when men return, they can accompany pregnant women and children, and the camp can use the period when demand and household decision-making align. The camp should be held in the same weeks as the return, with female staff and advance notice through SHGs. This directly targets the fall in antenatal check-ups from 71% to 58% and the fear barrier. Trade-off: it does little for girls' class 10 completion or for elderly left behind during the eight months when men are away. A girls' hostel transport grant would address a structural indicator but would not fix the acute health drop. If the grant is small, the health camp is the faster visible gain; if it is recurrent, the girls' transport is more sustainable. The samiti must state which outcome it is buying.