Sex ratio vs. Economic growth
I would've never imagined that there was a correlation. It could just be a coincidence but turns out that the areas with the worst sex ratio in the country also have the slowest economic growth. Any reason why?
We've talked about the state of Punjab on this blog repeatedly for having the worst sex ratio in the country. The sex ratio for the age group of 0-6 in Punjab as per the 2001 census and a UNPF Survey was 798 in 2001 and the lowest in the country. In addition to that, according to a survey conducted by ActionAid, a UK based non-profit organization, this sex ratio has worsened since 2001. Latest figures from one site in the Punjab, India’s richest state, show the number of girls has plummeted to just 300 compared to 1000 boys amongst higher cast families.
Now, another survey done by The Associations of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Delhi (AOGD) shows that it is a Union Territory that takes the lead away from Punjab. The Union Territory Daman and Diu, as per the reports, has only 591 women for 1000 men. So, the summary up until now is that the top two areas in India with the LOWEST sex ratio are:
1. Daman and Diu (Union Territory): Worst sex ratio in the country
2. Punjab (State): Second worst sex ratio in the country
Further, economic reports show that Punjab, despite being the most prosperous state of India in the past, is now gradually staggering behind rest of the states in the country. If newspapers are to be believed, one of them reports:
1. Daman and Diu (Union Territory): Lowest economic growth in the country
2. Punjab (State): Second lowest economic growth in the country
Do you note any connection between LOWEST sex ratio and LOWEST economic growth? There could be a logical explanation behind it or it just could be a sheer coincidence albeit a very interesting one. What do you say?
We've talked about the state of Punjab on this blog repeatedly for having the worst sex ratio in the country. The sex ratio for the age group of 0-6 in Punjab as per the 2001 census and a UNPF Survey was 798 in 2001 and the lowest in the country. In addition to that, according to a survey conducted by ActionAid, a UK based non-profit organization, this sex ratio has worsened since 2001. Latest figures from one site in the Punjab, India’s richest state, show the number of girls has plummeted to just 300 compared to 1000 boys amongst higher cast families.
Now, another survey done by The Associations of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Delhi (AOGD) shows that it is a Union Territory that takes the lead away from Punjab. The Union Territory Daman and Diu, as per the reports, has only 591 women for 1000 men. So, the summary up until now is that the top two areas in India with the LOWEST sex ratio are:
1. Daman and Diu (Union Territory): Worst sex ratio in the country
2. Punjab (State): Second worst sex ratio in the country
Further, economic reports show that Punjab, despite being the most prosperous state of India in the past, is now gradually staggering behind rest of the states in the country. If newspapers are to be believed, one of them reports:
Punjab, which long prided itself for its highest per capita income, has slipped to the eighth rung since 2001, even behind its one-time backwater sibling Haryana. Worse, it is now saddled with the dubious distinction of being the slowest growing state, only a shade better than Daman and Diu.Ah! So, Punjab still comes out better than Daman and Diu eh. Let's get this straight as well. The two areas in India with the LOWEST economic growth:
1. Daman and Diu (Union Territory): Lowest economic growth in the country
2. Punjab (State): Second lowest economic growth in the country
Do you note any connection between LOWEST sex ratio and LOWEST economic growth? There could be a logical explanation behind it or it just could be a sheer coincidence albeit a very interesting one. What do you say?
Labels: Effects on Economy, Open discussions, Statistics of sex ratio
posted by Roop Rai at
11:57 AM
6 Comments:
Correlation doe snot imply causation. However there could be other variables at play as well.
By
@lankr1ta, At
July 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM
I dont find any corelation between the two factors. Or am I missing the point?
By
Shirazi, At
August 2, 2008 at 3:45 AM
Maybe economic growth may have slowed. But the per capita income in Punjab I think is still one of the highest in India??
But it is true -- that poverty is not necessarily a causation. Some of the highest rates of female feticide are in the wealthiest districts of delhi.
By
Rita B, At
August 5, 2008 at 2:27 AM
ooh so sorry for not replying in such a long time.
No, I don't think I was implying either causation or correlation. I was merely expressing a strange coincidence that I observed without drawing any conclusions. However, I can see your point too. But nah, I wasn't intending to do any of that. Apologies for a really confused post. :)
rita: it is one of the highest but it is no longer the highest as it was. it is gradually slipping down the rung too ... in a few years, it'll be well below others if the downward spiral continues. :)
By
Roop Rai, At
August 6, 2008 at 1:55 PM
I dont think it is strange at all. Female foeticide is the result of extremely irrational ideas. I would expect a society where irrationality is so widespread to be backward in any proper indicator of progress.
By
fortruth, At
August 9, 2008 at 9:01 AM
On the other hand, female foeticide is noticed more in places with strong economic growth. In the richest parts of Delhi, for instance, female foeticide is more rampant.
Check this article - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2155484.ece?pgnum=1
By
Anu, At
December 19, 2008 at 6:16 AM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home