Who Gets Counted in the Digital State? A Sociological Review of Digital Inclusion in Census Systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66132/mr2105Keywords:
Census Systems, Digital Inclusion, Digital Inequality, Digital State, State LegibilityAbstract
Rapid digitisation is transforming census operations, enhancing speed and efficiency through digital self-enumeration, app-based field collection, administrative records, and linked databases. However, this shift also redistributes participation burdens and risks. This review uses a sociological lens to examine digital inclusion in census systems, identifying who is most likely to be counted, miscounted, or made administratively invisible as these infrastructures become increasingly digital. Drawing on various academic fields, the review argues that census inclusion relies not only on connectivity but also on digital capability, trust, language, gender, social position, disability, migration status, mediation, and bureaucratic recognition. While hybrid census systems can reduce nonresponse, they also raise concerns about representational accuracy, privacy, and unequal administrative traceability. These issues are particularly relevant for India's Census 2027, which combines nationwide digital operations and self-enumeration with significant regional and social inequalities in digital access and use. The article proposes a five-dimensional sociological framework that connects material access, functional capability, institutional trust, mediating support, and bureaucratic recognition to outcomes ranging from equitable inclusion to omission. It concludes that digital census modernisation improves population statistics most effectively when digital tools are integrated with robust field enumeration, accessible multilingual design, credible privacy safeguards, and targeted strategies for at-risk populations.
References
Abbott, O., Tinsley, B., Milner, S., Taylor, A. C., & Archer, R. (2020). Population statistics without a census or register. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 36(1), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-190593
Arora, R., & Sapre, N. (2026). Rural–urban digital divide: Evidence from Indian states. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 31(2), 2912–2932. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.70045
Asrani, C. (2020). Bridging the digital divide in India: Barriers to adoption and usage. Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations.
Asrani, C. (2022). Spanning the digital divide in India: Barriers to ICT adoption and usage. Public Administration and Development, 42(2), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2598
Banerjee, R., Trappel, J., & Van Audenhove, L. (2024). Evaluating ‘meaningful connectivity’: Digital literacy and women in West Bengal, India. In S. Yates & E. Carmi (Eds.), Digital inclusion: International policy and research (pp. 225–248). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28930-9_11
Bernardini, A., Brown, J. J., Chipperfield, J., Bycroft, C., Chieppa, A., Cibella, N., Dunnet, G., Hawkes, M. F., Hleihel, A., Law, E. C., Ward, D., & Zhang, L.-C. (2022). Evolution of the person census and the estimation of population counts in New Zealand, United Kingdom, Italy and Israel. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 38(4), 1221–1237. https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-220018
Brown, J. J., & Chipperfield, J. (2025). Census transformation and the future of population statistics. Journal of Official Statistics, 41(3), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1177/0282423X251345608
Bycroft, C., & Matheson-Dunning, N. (2020). Use of administrative records for non-response in the New Zealand 2018 Census. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 36(1), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-190591
Cheong, A. R. (2023). Theorizing omission: State strategies for withholding official recognition of personhood. Sociological Theory, 41(4), 377–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/07352751231206838
Cheong, A. R. (2025). Racial exclusion by bureaucratic omission: Non-enumeration and the state. Social Problems, 72(2), 341–359.
De Marco, A. (2021). E-government and digital inequality: The Spanish case study. Technology in Society, 64, 101531.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In K. M. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). Russell Sage Foundation.
Graves, J. M., Abshire, D. A., Amiri, S., & Mackelprang, J. L. (2021). Disparities in technology and broadband internet access across rurality: Implications for health and education. Family & Community Health, 44(4), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0000000000000306
Heeks, R. (2022). Digital inequality beyond the digital divide: Conceptualizing adverse digital incorporation in the Global South. Information Technology for Development, 28(4), 688–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2022.2068492
Helsper, E. J. (2012). A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication Theory, 22(4), 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01416.x
Jain, A., & Kaur, V. (2023). Digital census and application of advanced technologies in census: Perspectives from the forthcoming census of India. In A. Prakash, A. Jain, P. Singh, & A. Sarkar (Eds.), Technology, policy, and inclusion: An intersection of ideas for public policy (pp. 43–74). Routledge India. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003433194-3
Johnson, K. M. (2021). Does the census miss the native-born children of immigrant families? Demographic Research, 44, 1127–1146.
Kuhn, C., Khoo, S.-M., Czerniewicz, L., Lilley, W., Bute, S., Crean, A., Abegglen, S., Burns, T., Sinfield, S., Jandrić, P., Knox, J., & MacKenzie, A. (2023). Understanding digital inequality: A theoretical kaleidoscope. Postdigital Science and Education, 5(3), 894–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00395-8
Laskar, M. H. M. H. (2023). Examining the emergence of digital society and the digital divide in India: A comparative evaluation between urban and rural areas. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1145221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1145221
MacDonald, H. (2020). Of science and statistics: The scientific basis of the census. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 36(1), 1–9.
Mrkić, S. (2020). The 2020 round of population and housing censuses: An overview. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 36(1), 9–18.
Mrkić, S. (2021). Conducting population and housing censuses during the pandemic: An overview. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 37(4), 1085–1095.
Mulry, M. H. (2021). Viewing participation in censuses and surveys through the lens of lifestyle segments. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 9(4), 764–793.
Muralidhar, K., Domingo-Ferrer, J., Sánchez, D., & Ruggles, S. (2025). Protecting vulnerable respondents: A critical analysis of the privacy-preserving methods of the 2010 and 2020 decennial census. Population Research and Policy Review, 44, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-024-09931-1
Nayak, K. V., & Alam, S. (2022). The digital divide, gender and education: Challenges for tribal youth in rural Jharkhand during COVID-19. Decision, 49(2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-022-00315-y
Population Foundation of India. (2026). Population Foundation of India calls for inclusive and secure approach to India’s first digital census.
Press Information Bureau. (2026a). Census 2027: Self-enumeration from 1st to 15th April and House Listing and Housing Census from 16th April to 15th May 2026 to be conducted in selected states and union territories. Government of India. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2246847&lang=1®=3
Press Information Bureau. (2026b). Census 2027: World’s largest census exercise begins with Houselisting and Housing Census (HLO). Government of India. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2248021
Ruggles, S. (2024). When privacy protection goes wrong: How and why the 2020 Census data are more problematic than we were led to believe. Population Research and Policy Review, 43, Article 62.
Sindakis, S., Aggarwal, S., & Sharma, A. (2024). The digital revolution in India: Bridging the gap in rural technology adoption. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13, Article 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00380-w
Singer, E., Van Hoewyk, J., & Neugebauer, R. J. (2003). Attitudes and behavior: The impact of privacy and confidentiality concerns on participation in the 2000 Census. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(3), 368–384.
Soifer, H. D. (2017). State building in Latin America? Legibility and the informational foundations of state capacity. Comparative Politics, 49(2), 171–190.
van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). A nuanced understanding of Internet use and non-use among the elderly. European Journal of Communication, 30(2), 171–187.
van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Helsper, E. J., Eynon, R., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017). The compoundness and sequentiality of digital inequality. International Journal of Communication, 11, 452–473.
van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13(6), 893–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774
van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society, 21(2), 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Baishakhi Nayak
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
