It IS only a wild hunch, but this looks exactly like that sort of spell-checker typo you get sometimes!

I could imagine it was 'indice de pauvrété', and either through poor OCR decoding, illegible handwriting, or an original typo that the spell-checker corrected wrongly, it got turned into 'pari été' — only 2 letters different!


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 47 mins (2006-08-09 15:27:45 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

What I can't get out of my head is the fact that if they are quoting the two separate figures for boys and girls, WHY do they then need to quote a 'parity ratio'? Also, do your two figures X and X actually work out to a ratio of 0.7%? And is it even in fact correct to talk about a parity index of 0.7%? I don't pretend to know anything about demographic statistical methods, but I can't for the life of me see how you would interpret such a tiny percentage as being any sort of 'parity'? Unless in fact it is simply 0.7 as a ratio — a 70:30 boy:girl split would at least make some sense in that case (even though sadly to be deplored!)

Equally, of course, I don't see much sense in 0.7% as a 'poverty index' either! Unless it was the poorest 0.7% of the population, or people whose income was only 0.7% of the national average wage (I do hope not!)