China's One Child Policy
There is a new study out that looked at the sex ratio in China and how it has been affected by the one child policy. An accompanying commentary had some interesting information.
Rapid population growth is an unforgiving task master. Even with the one child policy—as a result of the high birth rate a generation before—China still has one million more births than deaths every five weeks. The Chinese State Council launched the policy in 1979, "so the rate of population growth may be brought under control as soon as possible." However, the root cause of the policy lay back in the 1960s with Mao Zedong's belief that "the more people, the stronger we are"—an ideology that prevented China from developing the highly successful voluntary family planning programmes that countries such as South Korea and Taiwan had put in place in the 1960s.
Deng Xiao-ping, the acknowledged architect of China's contemporary economic miracle, was a major sponsor of the 1979 policy. He said that unless the birth rate fell rapidly, "we will not be able to develop our economy, and raise the living standards of our people." Economists and demographers now recognise that a falling birth rate offers a demographic dividend, as the economically productive proportion of the population grows more rapidly than the general population. Without a rapid decline in fertility, China's economy would not have grown by 7-8% a year over the past decade; such growth has lifted an unprecedented 150 million people out of abject poverty....
Undoubtedly, the one child policy caused great individual pain and it has been heavily criticised. For people in the United States especially, the idea that society's long term interests could ever be more important than individual rights was anathema. A veritable media industry has arisen in the US criticising the one child policy, although it chooses to overlook the tens of millions of coercive pregnancies in other countries where family planning and legal abortion are not available. The Bush administration refuses to fund the United Nations Population Fund because it works in China, even though this fund has never supported the one child policy.
The Chinese demographic crisis arose because between 1960 and 1973 the population grew by 2% or more each year. Today, the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, along with Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, have population growth rates of at least 2%. Between now and 2050 the population of Niger, West Africa, is projected to grow fivefold from 14 to 53 million. As the World Bank acknowledges, without a rapid decline in fertility, tens of millions of Nigeriens will be uneducated, unemployed, and desperately poor; they will either starve or be fed by Western humanitarian aid.
The birthrate has fallen in Western countries, something both secular and Church leaders (pdf) have noticed.
I'm inclined to take an Ecclesiastes view: there is a time to multiply like rabbits, and a time to refrain from multiplying--as much.
(There was a discussion of birthrate at the Bloggernacle Times almost a year ago.)


6 comments:
Two additional items of note. First, although I had heard of selective gender abortion in China so that the one child allowed would be male, I did not know that the practice is illegal. Second, I seem to recall a book written in the last year that discusses the potenial problems that come from a lop-sided sex ratio. Sum up: lots of unchanneled testosterone raising cain.
Yes, wasn't it written by a BYU proffesor? She was in the news a while back, no?
Oddly, if I am not mistaken, Mao initially decried family planning as an extravagence of the West. His tune changed fairly quickly.
J. Stapley,
You are correct. Valerie Hudson was featured in BYU Magazine last year. [Link] I knew it seemed familiar.
I'm afraid that I know squat about China and its history.
Jared,
I like your Ecclesiastes-inspired conclusion.
I work with many Chinese and Indian people. (And my housing complex is about 50% Chinese.) I had lunch with a mixed group once and asked about their countries' policies.
Many people do not know that India has a policy very similar to China's. Both countries enforce "one-child" in urban areas only. The way it is enforced varies from region to region; most impose some kind of fine for additional children. The fine can be quite high (one of the Chinese scientists said the fine in her city was US$10,000!). Another said her city simply would not issue the equivalent of a SSN to the second child--meaning all future health care would have to be paid out-of-pocket. Both countries lifted the rules for any birth taking place outside of China/India.
The result is easy to see: wealthy people can have multiple children because they can afford the penalties. Those being educated abroad can also have multiples. Either way, the social elites are favored--but then, they are also the ones least likely to have large families anyway.
I think of practcal reasons that people are having less kids these days like cost, neccesity for every kid to go to college, the fact that you can't stuff five kids in the back of your station wagon (and three in the front), divorce, mom's developing carrer... westerner's are more concerned with quality than quantity...asking how can I provide properly for my one or two kids. as a LDS, i dislike anyone implying how many kids i must have.
On another note, I read the jist of V. Hudson's article on China's messed up ratio. It sounds really scary. They may have limited there population growth, but the ism issue has now created much muchc bigger problems. Here's a summary http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=9963
Post a Comment