|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comparative Study Between, States with the Two-Child Norm and Without it | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paper Id :
16795 Submission Date :
2022-12-20 Acceptance Date :
2022-12-23 Publication Date :
2022-12-25
This is an open-access research paper/article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For verification of this paper, please visit on
http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract |
In this paper, the state wise sex ratio of India is examined, and the impact of the two-child norm on it. Here in this paper sex ratio from 1951 to 2011 of the census of India are considered to check the impact of the norm. Indian states and Union Territories are divided into groups as per their status of Two Child Norm. It is seen that the Two Child Norm is negatively impact the Sex Ratio and Child Sex Ratio.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keywords | Census, Sex Ratio (SR), Child Sex Ratio (CSR), Two-Child Norm (TCN). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Introduction |
Here we discussed the two child norm, and the captivity of the norm on Indian Society. Basic major of norm was the population control but it has several other negative impacts on the society. To measure the gravity of negativity in this norm here discussed some basic concept of it. Such as the states are free to adopt the rule or not. In this situation some states adhered it, some not and some abandoned the rule after some year of practicing it. Here it comes in mind that it has some negativity that’s why states are forced to rethink about the norm.
Broadly four category of states are in the picture, such as states which never accepted the norm is defined here by term ‘N-No’, states which accepted once but abandoned later defined by ‘R-Revoked’ and states which accepted once and continuing practice it defined by ‘Y-Yes’. Also one more term there is ‘O-Overall’ is dedicated to the overall or India’s status.
Later on the two categories ‘R-Revoked’ and ‘Y-Yes’ are sub divided in some factors as on census year 2001 and 2011 because the norm firstly introduce in the year 1992, that’s why it doesn’t have impact on the census 1991 data. Here below described the best possible categories of states can be formed on the basis of these two factors i.e norm and census year.
First one is the states where norm was accepted before 2001 census and continuingly practicing till date are termed as ‘Y’ and impact in census year 2001 and 2011. The denotation of these type of states are Y-Y-Y. Secondly consider those states which adopt the rule but after the census year 2001 that’s why the norm’s impact only shown on the census 2011 data, it denoted with ‘Y-N-Y’.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Objective of study | Two-child Norm- The two-child norm is one of India's goal-oriented family size control policies, which encourages parents to limit their families to two children and couples with more than two children cause harm. Disadvantages include disqualification from panchayat council posts; Denial of certain public services and government welfare programs, including maternal and child health programs. The Two-Child Norm makes negative impacts on society and traditional families. The points below will cover how the two-child norm influences the family.
1. Gender - The Imbalanced Sex Ratio,
2. Female Infanticide and Sex
3. Selective Abortions
4. Impact on Fertility Rates |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Review of Literature | Several researchers from many countries are in the process of
gaining some insight into the child restraint policies of governments. However,
they all got the same message that yes, this is a one-time solution to the
population explosion but it also comes with some significant problems, which
the researchers have mentioned. Here are some activities that have been
identified to be useful for this process. Discrimination against girls in
countries like India, China etc. is a matter of one time. Differences in girls
in the prenatal and postnatal periods: Sex-selected female feticide abortion
leads to abnormally high SRB (sex ratio at birth), yet girls are neglected in
EFCM (excess female infant mortality). rate). "Based on Shanxi Province,
Shuzhuo Li and Xi'an Jiaotong (2007) argue that current issues, trends, and
regional differences in SRB and EFCM strongly influence Chinese government
policies on restraint in children. Furthermore, suggest Let's give." that
improving the lives of women and universal education are the bright ways to
stop the population explosion. China currently has the highest skewed national
sex-to-birth ratio (SRB) in the world. Reproductive policy strongly influences
the next reproductive gender (Xiujun Tai, 2013). Fertility intent, independent
of fertility policy, has a significant influence on the sex of the next birth.
The main difficulty in implementing the one-child policy can be traced to this
enduring traditional Confucian preference. Teenage parents cannot accept only
one child if the child is female. The reasons are socio-economic, as they have
historical and cultural roots in the patriarchal family system of the Confucian
tradition. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Main Text |
Here
also some states which abandoned the rule after some years of practising. In
this category, there are two categories which are based on the time of reverting.
First, those states that implied the rule after 2001 and revoked it before 2011, denoted by ‘R-N-S’. Second, those states that implied the rule after 1991 and revoked it after 2001, denoted by ‘R-Y-S’. All
other states which never implied the rule are denoted by ‘N-N-N’ and overall
India’s status is shown by ‘O-N-N’. Here
is the table which shows the various type of states as per their Two Child Norm
status. Table 1: Type of state as per their Two
Child Norm status.
In the category N-N-N 25 states are covered namely Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Delhi, Goa, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Puducherry, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal. Sex Ratio
However, the sex ratio of the state is directly given in the data of the census but when it calculates for the group of states whose populations are not same. Then it is found that the method of direct average isn’t working. For the sex ratio of states use the male and female population of the states and make some of them whole for a group and then calculate the sex ratio.
Where n is total number of states and
union territories.
The above formula is used to calculate the sex ratio of group of states.
Figure 1: Sex ratio of states as per their Two Child Norm status Above
the graph shows the trend of the sex ratio since the 1951 census of India on the
basis of the group of states and their Two Child Norm status wise. It is seen that till 1991 all types of state’s sex ratio decreased but after 1991 it is seen to recover at a different pace in a different groups of states. The states
‘where the norm once accepted and continue practising’ is steeply decreased and
continue to decrease after 1991 also. Only the group of states where the sex ratio
is not recovering even after 1991. There
is least sex ratio in the year 1991 in the group of states where the norm was once
adopted and after its repeals. It is seen that the sex ratio in these states recovered sharply after the year 2001 and now in 2011 these types of state’s sex
ratio improved then the states where the norm continues. The most interesting thing done in the states where the norm was never introduced. In 1951
this group of states have least sex ratio 937 and steady till 1991 which was
927 in 1991. Recovery of the sex ratio is highest after the year 1991 in these
states and the best sex ratio out of all group of states now in 2011. Where
overall sex ratio of India is at 943 in 2011, which was 927 in the year 1991.
Further deep analysis for the subgroups of the states in these broad three categories.
Figure 2: Sex ratio of states as per their Two Child Norm status The graph above shows the pattern of sex ratio of the category of states on the basis of two child norm’s status in the census years 2001 and 2011. The
group N-N-N shows the states that never implied the law and it is seen in
the trend that after 1991 these states have the highest growth in sex ratio and the
highest in the census year of 2011. The
group of states where the norm is implied after the year 2001 and revoked before
the census year 2011 are referred to as R-N-S. There is also seen a growth in the
sex ratio after the year 1991. The
group of states where the norm is implied before the year 2001 and revoked before
the census year 2011 are referred to as R-Y-S. In this category, only one state exists i.e. Haryana which is also at the lowest position in the sex ratio in India.
However, it is seen their improvement in the sex ratio after explicit the two-child norm. The
group Y-Y-Y contains the states which implied the rule before 2001 and
continued till 2011. These states have the lowest rate of growth in the sex ratio.
The group Y-N-Y contains the states which implied the rule after the 2001 census. It is unbelievingly shown in the data that these states have the lowest combined sex ratio after Haryana. Also, these states have negative growth after 1991 wherever all other groups have had positive growth rates since 1991. Child Sex Ratio
Above mentioned all theory shows the trend of the overall sex ratio of states as per their Two Child Norm status. It is also interesting to see the child sex ratio of the population aged between 0 and 6. The child sex ratio of all states since 1991 is considered here.
Figure 3: Child Sex Ratio of states as per their two-child norm status The
above graph shows that the child sex ratio is highest in the group of states
where two child norm is never introduced, lowest in the states where the norm
is exercised and the states where it once introduced and revoked later is in
the middle of them. One more interesting thing is that CSR is continuously decreasing pattern in all three types of states whereas the little bit of improvement
in CSR in 2011 in the states where the norm was revoked.
To making this study deeper also the further bifurcation of three types of states as per did in the analysis of the sex ratio in the previous section.
Figure 4: Child Sex Ratio of states as per their two-child norm status Here is a deep view of the child sex ratio the states which never introduce the
two-child norm are second highest in the year 2011 whereas the highest child sex
ratio is in these states where two child norm was imposed after 2001 and revoked
before 2011. There is also one exception in this type of state where the norm was imposed after 1991 and revoked
after 2001, in this category only one state is covered namely Haryana. The CSR of
Haryana is the lowest since 1991. The
category of states Y-N-Y covered the states where two child norm is imposed
after 2001 and is currently active. In this category the child sex ratio of 1991,
2001 and 2011 are 930, 920 and 913 respectively.
The
category of states Y-Y-Y covered the states where two child norm was introduced
before 2001 and is currently active. In this category the child sex ratio of 1991,
2001 and 2011 are 919, 924 and 906 respectively. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Statistics Used in the Study | Calculation Sex ratio is a simple mathematical technique which gives the number of girls on each thousand boys in a population. Below is the formula to calculate the sex ratio.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Conclusion |
In this study states were divided into 3 broad categories as per their current status of Two Child Norm, namely ‘N’ states which never introduced the norm, ‘Y’ states which once adopted the norm and continuously entertain this and the third category is ‘R’ states which once introduced the norm and revoked it later. It is seen through data of three consecutive census since 1991 is shown the trend of sex ratio and child sex ratio of these type states separately.Best sex ratio contained by the states which never introduced the norm and worst sex ratio is contained by the states which once introduce the norm and implemented continuously. Whereas the sex ratio is improved in the states which revoked the norm. Same pattern is followed by the Child Sex Ratio data also.
These three broad categories further subdivided into 5 subcategories to demonstrate the actual impact of the two child norm on the sex ratio. Namely these 5 subcategories are ‘N-N-N’ states which never introduced the norm. Category ‘R-N-S’ states which introduce the norm after 2001 and revoked it before 2011. Category ‘R-Y-S’ states which introduce the norm before 2001 and revoked before 2011. Category ‘Y-N-Y’ states which introduce the norm after 2001 and currently active. Category ‘Y-Y-Y’ states which introduce the norm before 1991 and currently active. Highest sex ratio of 2011 and high improvement in the sex ratio in the states where the norm is never introduced. Child Sex Ratio is also second highest in this group of states.It is concluded that the sex ratio is negatively impacted as the two child norm adopted by the state. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| References | 1. Bongaarts, John, & Greenhalg, S. (1985). An Alternative to the One-Child Policy in China. Population and Development Review, 11, 585-617.
2. Census Digital Library, Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. (n.d.). Retrieved from censusindia.gov.in.
3. Family planning in India. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_India
4. Trussell, J. and Rodríguez, G. (1990). Heterogeneity in demographic research. In: Adams, J., Lam, D., Hermalin, A., and Smouse, P. (eds.). Convergent Issues in Genetics and Demography. New York: Oxford University Press: 111–132.
5. Two-child policy. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy
6. Winkelmann, R. and Zimmermann, K. (1994). Count data models for demographic data. Mathematical Population Studies 4(3): 205–221. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
