Indian population study based on fertility rates

Ref.:  "Indian population is growing much faster in the north – and the south is paying the price" ---    https://scroll.in/article/865569/indian-population-is-growing-much-faster-in-the-north-and-the-south-is-paying-the-price  
 
My comment (by Subhash C. Sharma):

It seems to be not a reliable information on population distribution in different states in India. It is based on the highly questionable fertility rates in different places (states) which during data collection could be easily, even deliberately, manipulated / skewed through different and improper population samples (including types and sizes etc., as explained in APPENDIX below) to get the “desired” results. 

The results and inferences on population growth using fertility rates are like the results from marketing surveys which claim things like 9 out of 10 people preferring one brand of tooth paste over another or 15 out of 20 people preferring colored socks over white socks. 

It would be better instead to look at and gather data for each state's entire population together on yearly (or 5-yearly or decade) basis and then use that information to determine the percentage growth in population for each state. Those numbers (states-wise percentage increases in populations over some period) can then be compared against one another to draw meaningful conclusions about rise in population in different states.



Using fertility rates in the study of populations can certainly lead to wrong / meaningless results and conclusions. For example, someone in his study on Indian populations selects a group of 5 Muslim women having had (given birth to) 8 children in total, another group of 10 Hindu women having 25 children in total and yet another group of 3 Christian women having 10 children in total. He then calculates the fertility rates as 8/5 (or 1.6) for Muslim women, 25/10 (or 2.5) for Hindu women and 10/3 (or 3.3) for Christian women. Based on these data, he will be declaring that Muslim fertility rates are the lowest in India, whereas Hindu fertility rates are higher than Muslims' and the Christian fertility rates highest, thus implying even that Muslim population is growing at the slowest pace in India, the Hindu population is growing faster than Muslims and the Christian population growing faster than both Muslims and Hindus.

Next, in another population study he might select three groups of 50 women each from the states West Bengal, Tamilnadu and Bihar. His sample group of 50 Bengali women could include professional and highly educated women and they are generally in forties age range. The sample group of 50 Tamil women could include mostly the school teachers and office workers and be in the thirties age range. The sample group having 50 Bihari women could be the housewives etc. and in the twenties age range. As can be expected, the Bengali group of 50 women (mostly in the forties age range and working as professionals etc.) are likely to give birth to least number of children (let's say 10 children born to them in total during 2 years period). On the other hand, the Tamil group of 50 women (mostly in their thirties and working as school teachers etc.) are likely to bear more children than their Bengali counterparts in the same period (let's say 20 kids in total born to Tamil women during two year period). As expected also, the Bihari group of 50 women (selected from the housewives etc. and in the twenties age range mostly) will have more kids in the same two years than their counterparts from W. Bengal and Tamilnadu (for example, 50 women in the Bihari sample could give birth to 40 children in the same two years when 50 women in the Tamilnadu sample had 20 kids and 50 women in the Bengali sample had 10 kids). This will result in the fertility rate of 40/50 (or 0. for Bihari women, 20/50 (or 0.4) for Tamil women and 10/50 (or 0.2) for Bengali women, implying based on this survey / study that the population growth according to these fertility rates is fastest in Bihar, Tamilnadu coming next and W. Bengal is in the last place in terms of population increase.


And, perhaps, he might again repeat after five years in future the same study (about the numbers of children born in two years period) using these samples of same women (50 each involved in the current study from W. Bengal, Tamilnadu and Bihar). As he finds out that less number of children are born to them then (five years later) than currently, implying thus a reduction in the fertility rates (due basically to the aging of women in the current samples by five years), he might conclude arbitrarily / misleadingly that population growth in these states, the entire nation probably, has slowed down.

For fertility statistics, Ireland is a good example. When the Irish were poor and the English treated them like dogs, their fertility rates were high. Common man in UK thought that Catholics were outbreeding Protestants. Once Ireland became prosperous, fertility rates fell in Ireland (as well as in its community that moved to New England - Boston area). 

So, in India, if they do a similar study, they will find that fertility rates are higher among the economically backward. The best remedy for this is to make education free for girls until college and help them with employment.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:For fertility statistics, Ireland is a good example. When the Irish were poor and the English treated them like dogs, their fertility rates were high. Common man in UK thought that Catholics were outbreeding Protestants. Once Ireland became prosperous, fertility rates fell in Ireland (as well as in its community that moved to New England - Boston area). 

So, in India, if they do a similar study, they will find that fertility rates are higher among the economically backward. The best remedy for this is to make education free for girls until college and help them with employment.

The important thing here is that the "fertility rates" as a tool to determine population trends is highly flawed since it can be easily manipulated to arrive at any results and prove any point, as I indicated in APPENDIX above. Thus it is difficult to take the results and findings seriously when they are based on fertility rates.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:For fertility statistics, Ireland is a good example. When the Irish were poor and the English treated them like dogs, their fertility rates were high. Common man in UK thought that Catholics were outbreeding Protestants. Once Ireland became prosperous, fertility rates fell in Ireland (as well as in its community that moved to New England - Boston area). 

So, in India, if they do a similar study, they will find that fertility rates are higher among the economically backward. The best remedy for this is to make education free for girls until college and help them with employment.

The important thing here is that the "fertility rates" as a tool to determine population trends is highly flawed since it can be easily manipulated to arrive at any results and prove any point, as I indicated in APPENDIX above. Thus it is difficult to take the results and findings seriously when they are based on fertility rates.

http://creative.sulekha.com/indian-population-study-based-on-fertility-rates_634011_blog