Fallout from the 'one-child policy'

A U.S. scholar has produced an interesting paper on the long-term consequences of China’s one-child policy, which has averted more than 300 million births, that is to say a mass of people equivalent to the entire U.S. population.

That might be a good thing. China is already bulging with 1.3 billion people, a fifth of humanity.

But Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, argues provocatively that China should abandon the one-child policy. Click here for excerpts of a speech he gave at the Davos Forum in Dalian, China, earlier this month, and here for the full paper.

He says the policy has brought about “immense inadvertent costs and unintended consequences,” such as a pending dramatic slump in the 15-to-24 age group between 2005 and 2030, and a sharp increase in the ranks of those over age 50.

“On current trajectories, China's total population is set to commence a prolonged decline around 2030. Between now and 2030, however, China will undergo a population explosion of sorts: a huge increase in its number of senior citizens. Between 2005 and 2030, China's sixty-five-plus age cohort will likely more than double in size, from about 100 million to 235 million or more. Because of the falloff in young people, China's age profile will be ‘graying’ in the decades ahead at a pace almost never before witnessed in human history. China is still a fairly youthful society today--but by 2030, by such metrics as median population age, the country will be ‘grayer’ than the United States in 2030.”

Eberstadt argues that it’s not just the graying of the population but the composition that is of concern. 

“We will see the emergence of a new norm: a ‘4-2-1 family’ composed of four grandparents, only two children, and just one grandchild. The children in these brave new families will have no brothers or sisters, no uncles or aunts, and no cousins. Their only blood relatives will be their ancestors.”

China is affected by skewed birth ratios, partly due to a cultural and economic preference for boys. Having a daughter, the old Chinese saying goes, is like watering a neighbor’s field. The daughter will marry out of the family. Since China has little in terms of effective pension schemes, this can bring disaster on aged parents.

It’s a complicated subject, worth exploring further.

Comments

[A B]

Declining population for China may not be a bad thing --- providing that the lesser population do not face external challenges (ie invasion, war, etc.).

If the population of China stabilized in early 2100s at 700 million with a 'normal' demographic profile (not too young, too old), that may be a population that can sustain a good living given available resources.

If any of the more pessimistic projections of climate change actually happen, a population of 700m may be comfortably supported, but not 1.5 billion.

[Li Junhui]

We can all agree that China's population is a immense danger to itself and to the rest of the world. Not in terms of military potential but in terms of resources. As China continues to grow, resources continue to decline.

If, by some random act from above, China becomes a democracy, the consumer spending power will increase HEAVILY. If population growth is not curtailed, China will become a huge resource vacuum on the rest of the world. Look at how much the U.S. consumes with it's significantly smaller population.

There could be other alternatives to slow population growth rather than the "one-child" policy; like increasing taxes per head etc...

The "one-child" policy is a huge danger to the growing Chinese elderly population. Traditionally, Chinese elders turn to their children and children's children for support as they grow older. However, as family sizes shrink, the number of people the elderly can turn to for support are quickly disappearing. All the responsibilities fall on the only child, which at times are unable to support themselves. In a land without social security (not that it REALLY helps our elderly here in the States) the elderly have no where to turn. In the end, the elderly are the true victims of the "one-child" policy.

[A B]

The good news is a large elderly population tend to be a stabilizing factor in society --- rather than a disruptive one.

It may be the best thing to have happened to China as it undergoes profound change into a modern, industrialized society.

There is an issue of social obligations toward the elderly, many of whom may have not just 1, but no surviving children to support them.

This suggest that China will need to implement some sort of a national social safety net --- state run elderly care facilities, etc.

To do so is consistent with Chinese tradition and shows respect for the elderly.

I would hope that Chinese, and their government, pride themselves on how well they can take care of their elderly rather than to see it as a burden.

[Li Junhui]

A B I agree with you. Some type of social safety net is indeed needed.

But the Chinese Government is too busy "helping" other countries rather than itself.

Who knows...one day.

[A B]

Why don't China set up a kinder, gentler form of the 1 child policy?

In line with the market reforms, why do China not establish a tradeable rights system?

For example, every person will start off with 'one child' rights, which can be 'sold' in exchange for a pension later in life, and also for some cash.

If a person change their minds later, they can buy the rights back again but give up the benefits they will receive.

With this kind of a system, people who want many kids can have them if they can afford it, and those who have no kids can be taken care of as well.

[A B]

The amount of money the Chinese Government spends helping foreign countries is a tiny fraction of the money needed to pay for a social welfare system.

There is enough money for both.

The foreign aid programs are a vital part of China's international obligations.

They bring China back to its legitimate, historical role of being a great power and is essential as an element of Chinese foreign policy.

Moreover, the foreign aid also helps forward Chinese interests, from gaining and retaining access to raw materials, technology, etc. to improving relations between China and the rest of the world.

If the foreign assistance programs help avoid one war, (because China is influential, respected, and hence, can achieve their aims peacefully), it would have paid for itself many, many times.

[Li Junhui]

Thats true, again I agree with you.

With the foreign policy and the friendlier "one-child" policy. I think people who can afford to have more children should be able to.

It's not discriminatory against rich or poor but should be a way to keep society in check. It might even help the Chinese treasury if additional Children present a taxable burden on more well off families while the first child remains tax exempt.

This will give Chinese citizens the FREEDOM to choose to have more than one child, but at the same time it will also create a deterrent for people.

In the United States, people are given tax breaks for additional children. In China , they should be taxed. Then the extra money can go to social reforms! Everyone wins.

[A B]

Dear Mr Johnson:

Isn't it interesting that this issue drew a total of 7 comments (not counting this one)?

It is immensely more important and interesting than the post you did about Taiwan, (unless the parties involved are thinking in terms of what great things a war would do for reducing the population of Taiwan and China!), and yet, it drew ho hums from all the interested parties who plastered your blog with comments and no doubt filled your email box.

The sad part is if I were a Taiwan resident, I would be deeply concerned about how the population policies of my immediate neighbor (countrymen or otherwise) and its ramifications on me.

Their lack of reaction to this issue says volumes about what they really care about.

[nanheyangrouchuan]

"The foreign aid programs are a vital part of China's international obligations.
They bring China back to its legitimate, historical role of being a great power and is essential as an element of Chinese foreign policy."

China's foreign aid is actually a barter system where China sells weapons, technology and consumer items and then forgives the debt in return for sucking a nations resources dry. The Soviet Union did this to a lesser extent with its satellites and Cuba.
As for the one child policy, the real danger is not the young-old ratio but the man-woman ratio. Tens to hundreds of millions of China's lowest earners and least socially mobile will have little if any chance of establishing long term relationships with women simply because there aren't enough. And there are already diplomatic problems between SE Asian countries and China regarding the disappearances of female guest workers from these countries.

[Pffefer]

"China's foreign aid is actually a barter system where China sells weapons, technology and consumer items and then forgives the debt in return for sucking a nations resources dry."

Sucking a nation's resources dry? You mean by PAYING for them?? Anyway, how is it different from western countries' foreign aid program, you know the ones with strings attached (please, not just "you must democratize" but also "you must buy from us")?

However, I do agree that gender imbalance in the PRC is a disaster waiting to happen. More rampant prostitution. Surge of crimes. Instability. Anything but "harmonious". Scrapping one-child policy on a national level altogether is not feasible; gradually relaxing it is the way. Truly enforce the ban of ultrasound. And the government should encourage people to have girls. Here is the new slogan: "Be patriotic, have girls!"

[Tim]

Some interesting suggestions here to put a value to child-bearing. Why does the Chinese government just impose a onetime fee on parents who have a second child? Since the second child potentially would be a future "pension system" for the parent -- providing monthly contributions -- shouldn't a tax on a second child be imposed monthly for the working life of the child? I also find AB's suggestion that citizens be given "one child" rights whether they choose to have children or not quite intriguing. The rights would have monetary value for those who choose not to have children. By its nature, I think it would also help address the gender imbalance. If an equal value is put on girls as boys in a pension system that was linked to the population policy, it could cut into gender-selected abortions.

[A B]

The Chinese / Korean / Japanese preference for boys vs. girls is manageable because it is paired with a marriage custom where the man has to pay a bride price.

On the other hand, societies like India where the converse is true - where the bride's family have to pay to have a girl married and taken off their hands in parallel with a preference for boys, are in deep trouble.

Market forces are perhaps the best way to tackle the issues. If girls are scarce and the price goes up to the stratosphere (especially girls willing and able to bear children), then it ultimately 'corrects' for the preference.

IMHO, what also has to change is the Chinese custom that the family line is only recognized via the male line. A bit of leadership from Beijing to establish that the name from the female line is officially 'carried forward' a couple of generations, and furthermore, the person with both surnames can elect to use either one during their lifetime, is something easy to do, but hugely important to change the culture.

700 million Chinese circa 2200 is not a bad number to live with, is it? Imagine a Chinese government that no longer brags about their 1 billion + population, but brags about how well their 700 million lives?