/

Ending China’s one-child policy: too little, too late?

by Gwynne Dyer

The big news of the week is that China’s one-child policy is being relaxed. After 34 years when most Chinese families were officially limited to only one child, most couples will now be allowed to have two children. The reality, however, is that it will make very little difference.

It will make little difference because only about one-third of Chinese couples were still living under those restrictions anyway. The one-child limit never applied to ethnic minorities, and in the past 15 years it has rarely applied to people living in rural areas either: Couples whose first child was a girl are almost always allowed to have a second child (in the hope that it will be a boy).

Controls were stricter in the cities, but if both prospective parents were only children themselves they were exempt from the limit. And people with enough money can just ignore the rules: the penalty for having a second child is just a stiff fine up front and the extra cost of raising a child who is not entitled to free education. (The fines are reported to have raised $2.12 billion for the state coffers last year alone.)

The net result of all this is that the China’s current fertility rate (the average number of children a woman will bear in a lifetime) is not 1.0, as it would be if there were a really strict one-child policy. According to United Nations statistics, it is 1.55, about the same as Canada. Which suggests that most Chinese who really wanted a second child got one.

The new rules that have just been announced by the Third Plenum of the Communist Party say that urban people can now have a legal second child if just one of the would-be parents was an only child. This is not going to unleash a wave of extra babies; it will raise the fertility rate, at most, to 1.6 (replacement level is 2.1). Indeed, it’s questionable whether the one-child policy really held down China’s birth rate at all.

There are demographers who argue that the one-child policy hasn’t really made much difference. China was already urbanizing fast when the policy was imposed in 1979, and the more urban a country is, the lower the birth rate. From about 1970 there was also a very aggressive birth control policy.

The fertility rate in China had already dropped from 5.8 children per woman in 1970 to only 2.7 in 1978, the year before the one-child rule was introduced. It has since fallen to 1.55, but that might well have happened anyway. For comparison, Brazil’s fertility rate has dropped from 6.0 50 years ago to 1.7 now without a one-child policy.

China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission claims that the one-child policy has spared the country an extra 400 million mouths to feed, but it would say that, wouldn’t it? The real number of births avoided by that policy is probably no more than 100 million in three decades. And if we accept these numbers, then three major conclusions follow.

The first is that the one-child policy is not the major culprit in China’s disastrous gender imbalance, with at least 120 boys born for every 100 girls. The social effects of this are very dangerous: by the end of this decade there will be 24 million “leftover” men who will never find a wife.

Any sane government would be terrified by the prospect of a huge army of unattached and dissatisfied young men hanging around the streets after work with nothing much to do. A regime with as little legitimacy as the Communists will be even more frightened by it. Unfortunately for them, ending the one-child policy will have little effect on this pattern.

Only state intervention as arbitrary and intrusive as the one-child policy could reverse the gender imbalance, and it is doubtful that the Chinese Communist Party regime is still confident enough to risk that degree of unpopularity.

The second conclusion we can draw from these statistics is that China’s population is going to drop whether the regime wants it or not. It will peak at or below 1.4 billion, possibly as soon as 2017, and then begin a long decline that will see it fall to 1.2 billion by 2050.

There’s nothing wrong with that in principle, but it exacerbates what is already the greatest threat to economic growth in China: the population’s rapidly rising average age. The big, old generations will be around for a long time, but the younger generations are getting smaller very fast. Indeed, the number of people in the 20-24 age group in China will halve in the next 10 years.

This means the dependency rate is going to skyrocket. In 1975, there were 7.7 people in the workforce for every person over sixty: by 2050, the ratio will be only 1.6 employed persons for every retiree.

No country has ever had to bear such a burden before, but ending the one-child policy won’t get the birth rate back up. The only way China could increase its workforce to lessen the burden is to open up the country to mass immigration. And what are the odds on that?

Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

  • http://www.theclassicalliberal.com The Classical Liberal

    We do see. But haven’t you been reading? Birth rates are plummeting. So what is the solution? Increase the death rate?

    • Franz Pichler

      Birth rates are not plummeting, well at least not the way I would interpret the word “plummeting” – I might not have been very specific, but you’ve to see overpopulation also in terms of overconsumption. So it’s not only the number of humans on the planet, but it is how much energy and resources those humans are consuming. BY that definition the world is in the eyes of most respectable scientist (who I guess know their job) hopelessly overpopulated. All the technological innovations that made as safe lots of energy are useless when fighting overpopulation/overconsumption problems because although we are reducing energy consumption per unit we’re using more and more items that are consuming energy. It is easy maths but very depressing. The only way out of it would be a strictly enforced one child policy and a very deep change in the pattern of consumption. By reducing our footprint we could probably escape terrible problems. So even if birthrates would be plummeting, we would still not be out of the dolldrums if one person continues to consumes the amount of energy of 20 or 30 “old paople”….

      • http://www.theclassicalliberal.com The Classical Liberal

        I very sympathetic to your argument. Overpopulation/overconsumption of resources is a critical problem that we will face over the next few generations. However the problem is getting better at least as far as the number of humans on the planet. (Overconsumption is another issue that may, or may not be solved by technology.)

        Going back to population growth we have two main option in other to bring down the population

        1. bring down the birth rate to under 2.1 children / woman (and keep it that way).
        2 increase the death rate. (war, disease, famine, euthanasia).

        I think we agree that the first option is superior. Yes there will be a lag between the time birth rates start dropping and actual numbers stabilize. We have seen a phenomenal drop in birth rates all over the world over the last 30 years. Europe, N America and Japan are already below the 2.1 replacement rate. Other areas South Asia, Latin America, Africa, and Muslim areas are following suit.

        So now it’s a race between lowering birth rates and technology on one side and overconsumption and environmental degradation on the other.

        I understand your concern and share much of them – but the rising population factor seems to have been taken care of. (Yes absolute numbers will continue to rise). Now the issue is how to provide goods and services to these billions of people and minimize environmental degradation.

  • mf

    when the mortality of the young declines, as it has, the age structure of the society changes. The only way to stop it from changing is to continue to double the population with every generation. What needs to change is the definition of economic growth. Growth does not need to come only from selling more stuff, it will have to come from growth of services. The real question is how to reorganize the origin of money to prevent phony bankruptcy which arises solely because we no longer consume as much stuff as we used to. If capitalism can’t figure out the way out, it will go by the way of a dustbin of history.