Should China End Its One-Child Policy?

[Puppycow]

I wonder if it hasn't outlived its usefulness?

Is there any sign that they might move to a two-child policy for example?

 

[tyr_13]

I'm sure Wolfman will be along to correct me, but weren't many of the restrictions relaxed already? Weren't families who only had a daughter allowed a second try?

 

[angrysoba]

I wonder if it hasn't outlived its usefulness?

Is there any sign that they might move to a two-child policy for example?

From what I have read, some provinces allowed two or three child families but the thing that turned out to be the most disconcerting fact was that gender disparity between males and females was far greater in provinces where families could have more than one child.

Also, one-child policies (and many other cockamamie plans to reduce birth numbers by force) don't tend to work as well as simply raising the standard of living.

 

[crimresearch]

Already happened.

Two children were allowed as an exception in the 80s, but now in the cities, it is not unusual. Basically it is a matter of giving the government money in one form or another, according to my students from China... many of whom have brothers and sisters, (as well as family who can afford to send them to the US for college).

 

[Mark6]

Giving money to "the government", or to "government official who will henceforth pretend you only have one child"?

 

[crimresearch]

Giving money to "the government", or to "government official who will henceforth pretend you only have one child"?

Depends on the location, IIRC.

 

[RhodyDave]

I think China was ahead of the curve on the 1 child idea. We need to do this in many countries, as population growth is a bigger threat to humans than any other issue. We're going to outpace our ability to feed ourselves and provide clean water in a very few years.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think China was ahead of the curve on the 1 child idea. We need to do this in many countries, as population growth is a bigger threat to humans than any other issue. We're going to outpace our ability to feed ourselves and provide clean water in a very few years.

Most projections say otherwise. Our population will level off around 9-10 billion at mid century. Food is a distribution problem. But water is a use problem that we are already overstretched on, though in some locales it is an acute population problem.

 

[GlennB]

I think China was ahead of the curve on the 1 child idea. We need to do this in many countries, as population growth is a bigger threat to humans than any other issue. We're going to outpace our ability to feed ourselves and provide clean water in a very few years.

Well, parts of Europe (for example) that have had years of a sub-replacement level of childbirth are already counting the future cost of declining population levels. An effective "one child" policy would create a demographic time-bomb a few generations down the line that would be mind-boggling in its arithmetical inevitability.

I hear what you say about world population and agree in principle, but attacking that problem with policies like China's is not the solution. It will take many generations of gradual population decline to get the job done, and even then it will hurt somewhat along the way.

 

[Puppycow]

Japan also has a sub-replacement level birth rate of around 1.25, so no one-child policy is needed here.

Even if the current policy in China allows more than one child, it still discourages more than one if you have to pay the government for the privilege of having a second child.

 

[crimresearch]

Japan also has a sub-replacement level birth rate of around 1.25, so no one-child policy is needed here.

Even if the current policy in China allows more than one child, it still discourages more than one if you have to pay the government for the privilege of having a second child.

It discourages those who can't afford it from having more than one.

Which evil do you prefer, discarding unwanted babies, or overpopulation?

 

[Wolfman]

First, some clarification on the one-child policy:

* members of ethnic minorities are allowed two children
* if a husband and wife are both only children, they are allowed two children
* even if not 'allowed' more than one child, in most instances that means simply that you pay extra money for subsequent children (something that many affluent families are happy to do, although can be a significant burden for poor families)

In addition, the Chinese gov't has been slowly loosening restrictions around the one-child policy, and has plans to continue to do so.

However...they still plan to keep a tight control on population growth. They may relax restrictions to allow two kids, but are gonna' keep a tight cap on anything more than that.

And as much as I dislike it, I agree with it. There was discussion above about how many developed countries are experiencing significant decline in population growth, without the need for such policies. In general, greater affluence tends to lead to lower birth rates. And this is happening in China, too...wealthy urban families are tending to feel far less pressure to have kids, and have a preference for only one or two (or in some cases, choose to have no kids at all).

But in poor, rural populations -- which still make up the majority of the Chinese population -- the desire for large families is still very strong, and despite gov't efforts to control the number of kids, many rural families will still have as many kids as they can.

The problem with this is that it essentially perpetuates an endless cycle of poverty. Because they have many kids, they don't have enough money to provide adequate education. The kids grow up to be pretty much exactly like their parents (and numerous studies in China have shown that poor families who have fewer kids rise out of poverty faster than poor families who have many kids), stuck in poverty and having lots of kids in turn.

Urban families have a lot of money, which is spent on only one or two kids, providing significant resources; rural families have little money, which may be split between three, four, five, or even more kids.

Education is a huge factor (in particular, making rural families understand that smaller family size does lead to greater opportunities to escape poverty); but it is very slow, and fighting thousands of years of tradition that "large families equal stability and security".

My position is that laws to limit the number of children are still essential; but the question of how many children should be allowed, or of how to enforce such laws, is a much trickier one, and I don't have any easy answers.

 

[Puppycow]

But in poor, rural populations -- which still make up the majority of the Chinese population -- the desire for large families is still very strong, and despite gov't efforts to control the number of kids, many rural families will still have as many kids as they can.

Yeah, I've never been able to understand this dynamic, which seems to be true all over the world. The poorest people in the world tend to have the most children but they can least afford to have so many children.

I never considered having children until I was settled into a career and had some savings and a decent place to live. A child is an extra expense, an extra mouth to feed and big liability to the family budget. In the US it costs $235,000 to raise a child, not including the cost of college. I realize that it must cost less in poor countries, but it's still a net liability. Unless of course you exploit your children and sell them to traffickers or have them work in a sweatshop for a living, but that's too horrible for me to imagine how a parent could do that. What parent doesn't want their child to have a better life than they had, or at least not worse?

 

[Puppycow]

It discourages those who can't afford it from having more than one.

Which evil do you prefer, discarding unwanted babies, or overpopulation?

I'm definitely against overpopulation. I'd like to see more done to bring birth control to the poorest people in the world, and encourage them to use it. I would even be for something like the one-child policy in poor countries other than China. I'm just wondering if it's no longer needed in China itself.

 

[crimresearch]

Yeah, I've never been able to understand this dynamic, which seems to be true all over the world. The poorest people in the world tend to have the most children but they can least afford to have so many children.

I never considered having children until I was settled into a career and had some savings and a decent place to live. A child is an extra expense, an extra mouth to feed and big liability to the family budget. In the US it costs $235,000 to raise a child, not including the cost of college. I realize that it must cost less in poor countries, but it's still a net liability. Unless of course you exploit your children and sell them to traffickers or have them work in a sweatshop for a living, but that's too horrible for me to imagine how a parent could do that. What parent doesn't want their child to have a better life than they had, or at least not worse?

The poorest people in the world can also least afford a nice retirement home.

Large families were for survival for a great portion of this planet's history.
Have 12 children, maybe 8 of them live, and when you get too old to take care of yourself, maybe 4 or 5 of the 8 will be successful enough to repay you for raising them by keeping you fed and sheltered.

That concept of family still a powerful dynamic in many parts of the world today.

And stopping overpopulation from doing even greater damage is a hard sell.

 

[angrysoba]

I think China was ahead of the curve on the 1 child idea. We need to do this in many countries, as population growth is a bigger threat to humans than any other issue. We're going to outpace our ability to feed ourselves and provide clean water in a very few years.

[citation needed]

Yeah, I've never been able to understand this dynamic, which seems to be true all over the world. The poorest people in the world tend to have the most children but they can least afford to have so many children.

I never considered having children until I was settled into a career and had some savings and a decent place to live. A child is an extra expense, an extra mouth to feed and big liability to the family budget. In the US it costs $235,000 to raise a child, not including the cost of college. I realize that it must cost less in poor countries, but it's still a net liability. Unless of course you exploit your children and sell them to traffickers or have them work in a sweatshop for a living, but that's too horrible for me to imagine how a parent could do that. What parent doesn't want their child to have a better life than they had, or at least not worse?

Poor families need more members to provide income for the families and poor families are more likely to have higher infant mortality rates. College is probably not even an option.

 

[Wolfman]

Yeah, I've never been able to understand this dynamic, which seems to be true all over the world.

Well, I can't speak for the whole world, but I can explain the Chinese situation better. Keep in mind, for most of China's history, China operated on a feudal system, where the peasant class (who represented the vast majority of the nation's population) received little or no actual money for their work. Instead, their 'lord' would provide them with housing, food, etc., in return for their work. In this system, "wealth" manifested itself in the size of one's family -- the more people you had, the more work the family could do, and (usually) the more your lord rewarded you.

In addition, there were pretty much no options for health care, retirement, etc. The Chinese feudal system's version of an RRSP was "have as many kids as you can"...cuz they're the ones who are going to take care of you and provide for you when you get older. Again, the more kids you have, the more resources there are for them to take care of you when you're old.

Even in terms of education...feudal China did have a system of state exams where someone from a peasant background could gain higher positions within the government, and thereby enrich their family. But again, the cost of educating a child to prepare for those exams was rarely taken on by the peasant family...it was taken on by their lord, who would sponsor the child's education and training in return for an expectation of being favored if the child reached higher positions later in life. But this was possible only if the family already had lots of children, so that sponsoring one of the kids wouldn't have an adverse affect on the family's overall productivity.

Thus, Chinese cultural values surrounding families are mired in thousands of years of history, based on a feudal system where children were literally the main form of "wealth" available to the majority of the population.

China's change to a market-style economy turned all of that on its head. Now, more children means less wealth. But among a great deal of the peasant population in China, they don't understand that. They are still bound by values handed down by their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc....values that teach that "more children" is equal to "more wealth" and "more opportunity".

The problem with the debate about the one-child policy is that it is inevitably framed in terms of human rights -- but the "human rights" we are talking about are actually in direct opposition to each other.

On the one hand, we have the "rights" of parents to be able to choose for themselves how many children they want to have. On the other hand, we have the "rights" of children to be given the best opportunities. Removing the one-child policy focuses on the former rights; enforcing restrictions on how many children families (or more specifically, peasant families) can have focuses on the latter.

I will admit to personally leaning towards the latter option. Because "violating" a person's right to have as many children as they want will, hopefully, lead to a situation where subsequent generations will have more money and opportunity, and therefore bring an end to the cycle of poverty; whereas letting them have as many kids as they want means that the cycle remains in place, and subsequent generations of children will face exactly the same problems.

Like many situations in China, this isn't one where there's a "good choice" and a "bad choice". There are only several "bad choices", and you have to choose which one is least bad. In this case, I'd advocate that the main factor in determining what policy to follow isn't how it affects this generation...but what impact it will have on subsequent generations. The policy that will most greatly improve the situation of later generations is the best one; the policy that is most likely to leave later generations in the same or worse situation is the worst.

 

[Puppycow]

[citation needed]

The Population Bomb by Paul Ehlich. (just kidding!!)

According to current projections we do seem to be converging on replacement level:

1960–1965 |4.91
1965–1970 | 4.85
1970–1975 | 4.45
1975–1980 |3.84
1980–1985 |3.59
1985–1990 |3.39
1990–1995 |3.04
1995–2000 | 2.79
2000–2005 |2.62
2005–2010 |2.52
2010–2015 |2.36

Seems if those trends continue that we could reach replacement rate (2.1) within a decade or two. And it may keep falling after that (and probably will judging by rates in more developed countries).

There is a question of how long current levels of food production can be sustained, given that we depend on fossil fuels to grow food. Actually, even with the falling fertility rates, the world population is projected to increase to over 9 billion by 2050, so food production much be increased to match.

I'm not making any predictions, but it seems prudent to err on the side of controlling the population.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Wolfman, just one nitpick. The urban population has exceeded the rural population since last year (estimated). Even the '10 census had the figure virtually neck-and-neck at 50.4% rural and 49.6% urban - but that census excluded Hong Kong and Macau, with 8 million people, which would've made it 50/50.

Mind, that's still a huge rural population, so like I said, just a nitpick. The more interesting factor in that demographic, though, is that this represents a shift of 15%, or roughly 125,000,000 people, in the last twenty-five years.

I think the real problem facing China in terms of population is one that's well known in Japan and in some countries in Europe. The aging workforce. I cannot claim that this idea is original but equally cannot locate the article/study I read on the topic a few months ago.

China's greatest natural resource is its labor force and has been for the past two decades. As more and more people migrate to the cities and raise their standards of living, there are going to be more and more kids going through university and looking for white collar or professional employment. Where are they going to get the tens of millions of factory workers in coming generations.

Mind, I agree with you on the fact that it's the correct policy, and if China keeps surging towards "middle class" status, it's going to have large numbers of clerical, professional and service industry jobs, anyway. BUT, they still need that huge manufacturing base and they are a decade (or two) away from labor prices so high that they make automation cost prohibitive. (e.g. it's still going to be cheaper to do it by hand)

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not making any predictions, but it seems prudent to err on the side of controlling the population.

Well, saying "it seems prudent to err on the side of controlling the population" is different to Rhoddy Dave's claim is "We need to do this in many countries, as population growth is a bigger threat to humans than any other issue. We're going to outpace our ability to feed ourselves and provide clean water in a very few years" and that seems to have been the claim that's been made since at least as long back as when I was at school. But your graph clearly shows a different trend when it comes to birth rates.

There are some countries which are going through population explosions, such as Nigeria and Pakistan in particular, that need to figure out ways of slowing down their birth rates. Birth control would probably help. Ironically, Iran is a country that they could look to as one that managed to get over religious objections to birth control.