Nov 01, 2024 11:16 AM IST
A hurried strategy of reversing fertility trends sounds rather premature and with a high likelihood of having no meaningful effect
The North-South demographic divide has raised concerns over its implication for political representation given the delimitation exercise that would follow after a Census conducted after 2026. In fact, a similar concern was raised during the last Finance Commission when it considered the 2011 Census instead of the 1971 Census for population weightage of states which, in turn, was the basis of financial devolution. Consulted on this issue, we had proposed the inclusion of demographic performance among the parameters to be considered, beyond mere population size, as a way out. Of the 27.5% weightage, population would have accounted for 15% and demographic performance for 12.5%, reducing the explicit disadvantage of the southern states vis-à-vis the northern states. The continuing concern over better-performing South Indian states getting overlooked is now getting echoed in political representation, with fears of a lowering of significance in political power.
Against this backdrop, the solution offered by two southern chief ministers is pro-natalism and urging a reversal of the falling fertility rates. It is easier said than done as fertility reversal as a strategy in jurisdictions where it was adopted to resolve sustainability concerns regarding national/regional populations didn’t meet the envisaged success. Countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have experimented with this strategy but to no effect. Workaholic cultures, high costs of living, difficulties in accessing child care and gender inequality are all reasons for this. The proposition of a fertility reversal by encouraging couples to have more children in the present instance relates to population imbalance across regions and not sustainability of populations. Hence, there isn’t sufficient ground for such a push, even if this can be factored in, on an equivalence criterion, while allocating political representation to a developed region vis-a-vis regions that lack development. That said, the larger question relates to accounting for demographic realities for the management of the implications for employment, social security, care, and many other needs.
Demographic changes are a continuous process and have been unfolding for quite some time albeit with pace differentials across regions. Recognition of these different paces remains vital for policy as it determines the window of demographic dividend on the one hand and population momentum on the other. A hurried strategy of reversing fertility sounds rather premature and with a high likelihood of having no meaningful effect. It is important to use equivalence of population count along with consideration of capability attributes such as education, levels of dependency, etc. By overlooking demographic changes and their patterns, policy makers not only fail to realise the nature of emerging challenges but also adopt interventions too hastily.
The remedy recently prescribed by the two chief ministers (CMs) to address the population imbalance between their respective states and the other, primarily northern, states — namely, reversing declining fertility and raising its levels to raise population — seems naïve and distant from demographic reality. Population size and its composition are a derivative of the interaction between fertility rates and mortality levels, and these are matters that cannot be changed or reversed overnight by promoting a pro-natalist stand with certain incentives or a slew of disincentives for small families. In fact, the greying population structure of the two states is not merely owing to declining fertility levels but also rising longevity. Taking note of this demographic reality and intervening to rebalance populations requires a scientific temper. While every economic phenomenon gets indexed with varying prices and value transitions for comparison, it is time the states’ population sizes should also be indexed on the basis of compositional features for comparison rather than on the basis of absolute numbers. To illustrate this, if we compare the worker composition of today with yesterday, today’s workforce will be older. However, this is not taken into consideration while deciding on the age at exit from the workforce, which is, very apparently, unjust in the sense that the number of working years will be unequal across generations.
The greying population is perhaps not an immediate cause of concern provided appropriate measures are put in place to reap what has been creatively termed “silver dividend”. This can be done by ensuring longer working years along with guaranteeing additional years of life with good health, free from morbidities and disabilities. The emerging debate on sustaining populations without reversal of fertility may well be premature given the population momentum that will keep the Indian population growing for a few more decades and the fact that the diversity of demographic transitions across regions within the country could help maintain a balance with internal mobility of population from surplus regions to the deficient ones.
The debate surrounding population size and its unevenness across regions may well remain when it comes to sustaining the federal character of our nation. Therefore, there is every reason to consider the demographic composition in the calculus of regional share and representation rather than the raw population count. Recognition of the “population future” should be the basic yardstick of planning rather than per capita that may be simple, but is highly inadequate.
S Irudaya Rajan is chairperson and US Mishra is honorary visiting professor at the International Institute of Migration and Development (IIMAD), Kerala. The views expressed are personal
Get Current Updates on…
See more
Story Saved
// // //
