Archives: Publication

With the rapid rise in internet use in India, the incidents of online frauds/ scams/ cheating has also seen a spurt. Identity theft, social engineering, phishing, skimming, QR code fraud, OTP fraud, frauds using NFC technology, fake cashback links, UPI fraud, etc have now become the buzz words. Fraudsters and scammers are now using advanced and unique techniques to scam and commit fraud, thereby hurting people financially and erode trust. Fraudsters’ agility makes it challenging for authorities to keep up, with even the Prime Minister warning against scams like “digital arrest” fraud. Media reports suggest that online fraud is now a significant concern, leaving people vulnerable to scams at any time.

The Government has taken several steps to generate awareness/ alerts/ advisories through print, audio and visual medium and put in place various mechanisms to deal with  cyber crimes in  a comprehensive  and  coordinated  manner. It culminated with the setting up of the ‘Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre’ (I4C).

The initiatives of the Government is only a half-job done, it has to be supplemented by the efforts of the general citizens. Sifting through the Comprehensive Annual Modular Survey (CAMS) from the NSS 79th round (2022-23) reveals intriguing results.

Rural–urban dichotomy, age-divide persist

Analysing the unit level data reveals that there has been a huge upsurge in the number of persons who are able to use smart phones, desktops, laptops, tablets. Such persons (aged 15 years and above) accounted for about 58.9 percent, with 73.2 percent of them residing in urban areas and 52.6 percent in the rural areas. It is obvious that the younger persons form the largest groups of such individuals, both in the rural and urban areas.

But an altogether different picture is seen when it comes to taking precautionary steps to keep themselves safe online. Data shows that only 21.7 percent of persons aged 15 years and above took steps like “setting up effective security measures to protect devices and online accounts (like strong passwords, log-in attempt notification etc)” – it is 29.8 percent in urban areas and only 16.7 percent in rural areas.

When it comes to “changing privacy settings on device, account or app to limit the sharing of personal data and information”, on average only about 21.3 percent of persons have done so – it is 29.5 percent in urban areas and only 16.2 percent in rural areas.

On average, only about 19.6 percent carry out some sort of “verification about the reliability of online information” – it is 27.8 percent in urban areas and only 14.6 percent in rural areas.

Across the board, it is seen that the younger individuals are far more aware and took some precautionary steps as compared to the older persons.

The situation is even more concerning among those aged 60 and above, with only 0.3 percent of the rural population and 3.5 percent in urban areas adopting all three protection measures. In the youngest age group, 14.2 percent of people in rural areas and 30.3 percent in urban areas used all three online protection steps.

Overall, the age-divide is all too obvious, but it is without solace when even amongst the younger lot more than 80 percent of them did not prefer to take any steps to guard and protect themselves. The notion that only elder persons are susceptible to frauds and scams is only a figment of imagination when devices in the hands of the younger population are equally vulnerable.

Male – female gap abounds

Data shows that about 66.3 percent of males and 51.3 percent of females (aged 15 years and above) are able to use smart phones, desktops, laptops, tablets. It is the younger population (both amongst males and females) who form the largest groups of such individuals.

Data further shows that 25.4 percent of males aged 15 years and above took steps like “setting up effective security measures to protect devices and online accounts” – it is far less at 16.8 percent amongst females.

On average, about 24.8 percent of males have taken steps by “changing privacy settings on device, account or app to limit the sharing of personal data and information” – it is only 16.6 percent amongst females.

Further, on average, about 22.9 percent of the males carry out some sort of “verification about the reliability of online information” – it is only 15.2 percent amongst females.

Gender-wise, it is seen that males are more proactive in taking several steps to protect themselves online. At the other end are the older females who are prone to leave their devices vulnerable. Data reveals that a mere 0.5 percent of females aged 60 and above have taken all three online protection steps, while this figure is 2 percent for males in the same age bracket. Among the younger age group of 15-25 years, 22.4 percent of males use all three protective measures, outnumbering their female counterparts (14.7 percent).

Greater awareness and wider adoption of precautionary steps

Fraudsters and scammers are deploying sophisticated technologies along with techniques to exploit the psyche of the targeted individuals. While Government should strengthen the detection, investigation and prosecution of cyber and online frauds, there is also a need for spreading awareness among the general public. Not only that individuals have to take steps to guard themselves, more reporting of frauds and scams should also be encouraged.

Dr. Palash Baruah is Fellow at National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), New Delhi and Mr. D. L. Wankhar is a retired officer of the Government of India. Views and opinions expressed in this article are personal

If south India wants a larger population, it needs to focus on family-friendly policies or encourage migration from more populous states.

In 1944, Stalin (Joseph not MK) established the Mother Heroine award for women who had given birth to 10 or more children. In the wake of population decimation during World War II, motherhood was glorified as a service to Russia with honour, stipends, and a promise of early retirement. Nonetheless, Russian fertility followed the rest of Europe, reaching a low Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 1.16 in 1999. The original awards were abolished in 1995, but new rewards for motherhood were established in 2008. Nevertheless, after a temporary rebound, Russian fertility fell to TFR of 1.4.

This story has a lesson for modern-day South Indian leaders, MK Stalin and Chandrababu Naidu. It suggests that appeals to national interests or financial rewards do little to convince families to have more children if they do not see this in their interest.

What does the global fertility transition tell us about very low fertility? Three aspects of the European and East Asian experiences deserve attention. First, European fertility has shown interesting gyrations over the past three decades, dropping to “lowest-low fertility” of 1.3 or lower around 2000 and then rebounding to 1.8 or 1.9 by 2010, before falling again to 1.4-1.6 in 2023. It would be tempting to take a snapshot at any given time and argue that falling fertility is due to declining value of family and increasing fertility is due to the importance of government incentives for more children.

However, demographers like John Bongaarts, Griffith Feeney, and Tomas Sobotka caution us against generalising from TFR. The TFR is a mathematical construct summarising the fertility rates of different generations. When the age at marriage rises, it may lead to an artificial slump in fertility, reducing fertility for women in their 20s but increasing when they marry and have children later, affecting the tempo of fertility, not overall fertility. Europe’s very low fertility circa 2000 experienced a rebound between 2005 and 2015 due to this tempo effect; for example, Russian fertility rose from 1.16 in 1999 to 1.51 in 2008. As education increases and marriage age rises in India, we may also see a temporary decline to very low fertility levels.

The second lesson for us comes from East Asia. Korea, Singapore and even China are experiencing extremely low fertility rates, with Korea having the lowest TFR in the world, 0.8. Here, low fertility is not a function of the lack of importance of children but rather of too much importance given to parenting and the responsibilities of mothers. It leads to immense investments in a single precious child. Research by Alaka Basu and Sonalde Desai has documented that even in India, parents often limit themselves to one child to invest in his or her education. Improving the quality of public education and reducing the time burden on parents to supervise children’s education may reduce pressure on parents to engage in a trade-off between having more children and improving the future opportunities for their children.

In China, the government relaxed the one-child norm, allowing women to have up to three children with little effect on Chinese fertility. Reduction in childcare support by the state during economic liberalisation led to a decline in women’s labour force participation from over 90 per cent to 61 per cent and simultaneously reduced fertility. In contrast, Sweden has been a family-friendly country, and from 2015 to 2020, its fertility rate was 1.9 with some annual fluctuations. Generous maternity and paternity leave, excellent childcare, and social norms encouraging couples to share work and parenting responsibilities have helped make having children more accessible.

Apart from global lessons, we must not forget our own experiences. Naidu has proposed allowing only people with two or more children to contest elections. However, manipulating fertility via election eligibility has been ineffective in the past. In 2001, five states, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Odisha, banned the election of people with large families. IAS Officer Nirmala Buch studied these states and found these restrictions were simply ignored. Why do we think the opposite restriction will have any effect?

Most importantly, in a democratic society, whether to have a child or not to have a child is a fundamental human right. As sociologist Judith Blake famously noted, People do not have birth rates; they have children. If Andhra and Tamil Nadu want larger populations, they have two options. Either emulate Sweden and put family-friendly policies in effect that support families or encourage migration from more populous states of north India to combat population ageing and reduce the impact of potential delimitation.

Desai is professor and centre director, NCAER National Data Innovation Centre and Barik is senior fellow, NCAER. Views are personal.