Reading a District Census: Dependency, Out-Migration and One Budget
Mmaletswai District has a population of 128,000. The latest census shows 44% aged 0–14, 50% aged 15–64 and 6% aged 65 and over. In the five years between censuses the district recorded net out-migration of 3,200 people, mostly males aged 20–34 leaving for mining towns. In rural wards, 62% of households are headed by women. The school-age population is growing by about 2.1% a year, and 12 primary schools feed a single secondary school that already runs two shifts. The clinic's maternity ward is described as overcrowded, and unemployment among 15–24 year olds is 28%. Most workers are in cattle keeping and informal trade, and remittances are a significant source of household income. The council can fund either one new primary school or one vocational skills-training centre this cycle.
1. Calculate the dependency ratio and the youth and old-age dependency ratios. Explain what the figures show about the district.
Read the worked answer
Working
- Working-age population: 50% of 128,000 = 64,000
- Children 0–14: 44% of 128,000 = 56,320
- People 65+: 6% of 128,000 = 7,680
Ratios
- Total dependency ratio = (56,320 + 7,680) ÷ 64,000 × 100 = 100 dependents per 100 working-age people
- Youth dependency ratio = 56,320 ÷ 64,000 × 100 = 88 per 100
- Old-age dependency ratio = 7,680 ÷ 64,000 × 100 = 12 per 100
Interpretation
- The burden is overwhelmingly youth dependency, not ageing. For every old person there are more than seven children. This is a young, high-fertility population, not an ageing one.
- A ratio of 100 means each person of working age supports, on average, one dependent. That is high, and it is made harder because out-migration removes 3,200 people from the most productive age group - the ratio among those who actually stay is worse than the headline figure.
- The pressure points follow directly: many children means demand for primary school places, maternal care and child health services; few elderly means low demand for pension and geriatric care.
- The female-headed households (62%) show that the migration is selective - it takes men - so labour for cattle and informal trade falls on women, while remittances partly offset the lost income.
Caution to state: the ratio is a crude measure. It assumes everyone aged 15–64 is employed, yet youth unemployment is 28% and much work is informal, so the real economic burden is heavier than 100 suggests.
2. Explain two consequences of the out-migration for the district's economy and two for its services.
Read the worked answer
Economic consequences
- Loss of the most productive workers. The migrants are aged 20–34 - the group that would be farming, starting businesses and paying local taxes. Their departure reduces local demand in shops and leaves cattle posts short of labour, which falls on women who are already heading 62% of rural households.
- A remittance-dependent economy. Remittances are a real benefit and may exceed what the migrants could have earned locally, but they are insecure: a mine closure or retrenchment sends workers home and cuts income at the same time as it raises local demand for jobs. The district's economy becomes sensitive to decisions made far away.
Service consequences
- Schools stay under pressure despite migration. Migration removes young adults, not children, and the school-age population still grows 2.1% a year. Twelve primaries feed one secondary school already on double shifts, so the bottleneck is at secondary level even while the budget debate is about primary provision.
- Health and social services are stretched and skewed. An overcrowded maternity ward reflects the large 0–14 cohort, and high youth unemployment signals demand for post-school training, not more classrooms. Meanwhile clinics lose working-age men who might have used them, so the service mix is unbalanced.
Reasoning to state: migration does not simply 'reduce numbers'. It changes the composition of the population, which is why a district can lose people and still face rising demand for schools and clinics.
3. The council can fund one new primary school or one skills-training centre. Recommend one, and justify your choice against the arguments for the other.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: the vocational skills-training centre.
Why
- The primary bottleneck is at secondary level: 12 primaries already feed a single secondary school running two shifts. Building a thirteenth primary adds pupils to a queue that is already the constraint, and the benefit takes about seven years to appear as those children reach secondary age.
- Youth unemployment of 28% is a present problem affecting people who are already out of school. A training centre addresses it now, in trades that suit the local economy - welding, building, agri-processing, small-business management, motor mechanics.
- Training can retain or attract people aged 15–24, slowing out-migration and protecting the district's working-age base. It also supports the informal traders and cattle-based economy with practical skills.
- The cost per beneficiary is often lower than a new school, and the centre can run evening and short courses.
The case for the primary school, and why it loses
Enrolment pressure is real and growing at 2.1% a year; overcrowded primary classes harm literacy and are popular with parents. A new school would also create local construction jobs and be politically attractive.
But the strongest counter-argument is sequencing: the district's own data show the secondary school and post-school training are the pinch points. A primary school relieves a pressure that is less acute and, crucially, cannot fix the secondary bottleneck it feeds into.
Condition to attach: the recommendation depends on the centre being designed with employers and the mining towns, so trainees are not simply trained for jobs that do not exist. If tracer data show otherwise, the decision should be reversed.