This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
China Abandons 37-Year-Old "One-Child Policy" - Here Are The Implications
Back in 1978, the Chinese politburo enacted the "one-child policy", whose main purpose was to "alleviate social, economic, and environmental problems" in China as a result of the soaring population. According to estimates, the policy prevented more than 250 million births between 1980 and 2000, and 400 million births from about 1979 to 2011. And while not applicable to everyone, in 2007 approximately 35.9% of China's population was subject to a one-child restriction.
And while China had previously hinted that it's one-child policy is being phased out, most notably in 2013 when sources close to the National Population and Family Planning Commission said China may relax its one-child policy at end-2013 or early-2014 (read end) by allowing families to have two children, moments ago, during the Fifth Chinese Plenum, this 37 year old policy was formally scrapped and China will henceforth allow two kids for all couples in what is a clear bid to boost growth.
#BREAKING: China abandons one-child policy, allows two kids for all couples pic.twitter.com/FP8m7gsQgm
— China Xinhua News (@XHNews) October 29, 2015
To be sure demographic pressures, especially on deflation, have recently emerged as a frontline concern for such aging countries as Japan: recall "Japan's PM Demands "Bold Proposals" For Raising The Country's Birth-Rate" in which we noted that Shinzo Abe has ordered his new minister for demographic issues to come up with “bold proposals” for raising Japan’s birthrate. His aim: stem a slide in the labor force to drive production and fund the retirement of the country’s elderly.
So now that China's economy is dramatically slowing down and deflation is a pervasive concern, it only makes sense for China to follow suit.
What does this mean for the economy? As we reported two years ago when we first previewed this inevitable outcome, according to Bank of America's Ting Lu, this reform will likely lead to around 9.5 million incremental babies being born.
Here is what today's announcement really means from a socio-economic and demographic perspective, as we first laid out two years ago.
The current status of China’s one-child policy
“In 30 years, the currently pressing issue of population growth may have been eased, and a different population policy can be adopted.” – About Controlling China’s Population Growth, An open letter to Party and Youth League members from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 25 September 1980. That letter marked the official start of China’s one-child policy. More than 30 years have passed and in our view the one-child policy has been much more successful in slowing China’s population growth than most officials at the time had expected. The National Population and Family Planning Commission (henceforth NPFPC) was in charge of the enforcement of the one-child policy in the central government, while at local levels usually deputy governors take responsibility for enforcing it.
The NPFPC has gradually loosened up the one-child policy, especially in rural areas. Currently, a second child is permitted if both parents are singletons. The rule is looser for rural families, which (with some exceptions) can have a second child if the first-born is a girl. Some provinces have even looser policies for rural families. For instance, in Anhui province, a rural family can have two children if one parent is singleton. There are also other exceptions for a second child, and minority ethnic groups are allowed to have two or even more children. Families which have more children than the policy allows are subject to fines under the name of social maintenance fees. The fee amount varies across the nation, but usually is at least 2-6 times of the higher of annual family income and average local household disposable income.
Worsening demographics
China’s population growth is rapidly decelerating. It rose by 0.48% to 1,347.4mn in 2011, significantly slower than the pace of 0.76% in 2000 and 1.45% in 1990. The falling population growth is a result of both a fast decline in birth rate, which in turn is due to the one-child policy and rising income per capita, and a slowly climbing death rate on an aging population. The birth rate dropped to 1.19% in 2011 from 2.11% in 1990 and 1.40% in 2000, while the death rate rose to 0.71% in 2011 after bottoming out at 0.64% in 2003. China’s current birth rate is similar to those of developed countries (1.1% in 2005-2010) but much lower compared to other less developed countries (2.5%).
Based on the trend, we think China’s population will likely peak by 2020 at below 1.4bn (far lower than NPFPC’s projection of 1.5bn in 2033) and will likely decline sharply afterwards. The United Nation estimates that the Chinese population will likely peak at 1,358mn in 2017, and decline to 1,319mn in 2030 and 1,130mn in 2050, which are 2% and 16% contractions respectively from now, in its low variant case.
Why the NPFPC has a different estimate?
China’s existing population policy is based on the NPFPC’s projection of population growth, which estimates that China’s population will peak at 1.5bn in around 2033. The key assumption of the NPFPC is that China’s total fertility rate (TFR) has stayed at 1.8 over the past decades and will stay at that level for years ahead, though all evidence seems to suggest that China’s TFR has been much lower than 1.8 since the mid-1990s. In hindsight, NPFPC’s forecasts of population growth have been systematically overshooting the actual numbers by a significant margin. In 2001-05, the Chinese population increased by only 40.1mn, far below the NPFPC’s forecast of a 62.6mn increase. In 2006-10, the Chinese population added 33.8mn, again much lower than the NPFPC’s projection of 52.4mn. In our view, the NPFPC’s forecasts have a poor track record.
What is China’s true TFR?
TFR is perhaps the most controversial demographic indicator in China. It is the average number of children born to each woman over the course of her life. By international standard, a TFR of 2.1 is required to keep a stable population. In 2005-2010, TFR was 2.52 globally, 1.66 for developed countries and 3.03 for less developing countries excluding China, according to the UN.
What is TFR in China? The NPFPC claims that China’s TFR has been quite stable at around 1.8 over the past 20 years. It believes such a TFR is suitable for China and that China should stick to its existing population policy to control population growth. The 2010 census suggests that China’s TFR has dropped to a suprisingly low 1.18 in 2010, down further from 1.33 in 2005 and 1.22 in 2000. In the past the NPFPC has often claimed that census data significantly underestimates the true TFR as a lot of families with more than one child choose to under-report their actual number of children and the NPFPC has revised up its TFR estimate to 1.8 regardless of the census data.
However, a consensus has been reached that China’s TFR is likely to have been 1.4 to 1.5 over the past decade, falling from 2.3 in 1980 and 5.8 in 1950. This is much lower than many developed countries, such as the US (2.07), the UK (1.83) and France (1.97), but similar to some other countries struggling to deal with a low fertility rate, such as Japan (1.31), Korea (1.29) and Germany (1.36). In sum, China’s TFR has stayed significantly lower than the replacement level of 2.1 for more than two decades, and we believe it is likely to drop further as GDP per capita grows.
The aging population and worsening age structure
The Chinese population has been aging fast. Three decades ago, the Chinese population was young with a median age of 22.4. The median age in China is now 34.5, still less than Korea’s 37.9, Japan’s 44.7, the US’ 36.9, France’s 39.9 and the UK’s 39.8, but much higher than other less developed countries at 24.5. The trend of aging is set to continue. The UN suggests China’s median age will rise to 53.4 in 2050, similar to estimates for Japan at 52.3 and Korea at 51.8 and significantly above estimates for the US at 40.0, France at 42.7 and the UK at 42.9 and other less developed countries at 34.4. We note that China is still a developing country. Its GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity was US$7,553 in 2010, only 16-25% of that pf the developed countries mentioned above.
At the same time, China’s age structure is deteriorating. In 2011, 9.1% of Chinese were aged 65 or over, up from 7.0% in 2000 and 5.2% in 1980, while the percentage of young age (0 to 14) declined to 16.5% in 2011 from 22.9% in 2000 and 35.5% in 1980. The share of elderly could further rise to 17.4% in 2030 and 29.3% in 2050, while the share of young may decline to 10.8% in 2030 and 9.1% in 2050, the UN suggests.
The baby boom in early 1960s and the one-child policy from mid-1970s have significantly lowered the dependency ratio (those not of working age to those of the working age of 15-64) in the past three decades – from 62.6% in 1982 to 34.4% in 2011. For comparison, it is quite similar to Korea’s 36.8% but much lower than Japan’s 56.2%. A low dependency ratio has allowed China to save more and grow its capital base in the past. However, this ratio has likely already bottomed out and could start rising on aging population. It could rise to 39.2% in 2030 and 62.3% in 2050, according to the UN. The old-age dependency ratio (age 65+/age 15-64) could rise to 24.2% in 2030 and 47.6% in 2050 from 11.3% in 2010 and 8.7% in 1980. This means that in 40 years time only two workers will support one retiree, vs nine workers supporting one now.
Such an unprecedented pace of aging poses big challenges to China’s pension system. Traditionally, Chinese families have largely relied on their children after their retirement. However, after a 30-year enforcement of the one-child policy, every only-child will need to support two parents and four grandparents, which is likely to be too much of a burden. The retirees will have to depend on the national pension system. China needs to quickly catch up its pension system coverage to ensure social security, as currently only about a third of the population is covered. Furthermore, how to finance the pension system remains a big question as China’s labor force shrinks.
»
- 24246 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Shortage of women is the real problem.
Short women are the problem. Fixed it for ya.
In other news Saudi Arabia authorizes 38 children policy. Up 1, from 37 a year ago.
Doesn't two singletons make a pair? Can someone explain that please?
Singletons = only children.
Ahh ok. Had to read it again. The parents themselves are singletons and thus can have two children. Thanks.
Will be interesting to see if this actually turns the birth rate around in China or if deflation and the reality of paying for the kiddos sets in like Japan and rates continue to plummet.
Who set up this government to lord over the serfs ability to even procreate? Anyone else think about this deep enough to realize how insane this is?
On the bright side, at least in China there is no overcrowding, and them being the environmental stewards that they are this should go over well.
pods
None of this matters. The meat load on the planet is way too high and TPTB know this full well. They have to get the world population below 5 billion post haste. Expect appropriate actions from governments around the world.
;-D
Considering the amount of food we throw away, I think the bigger problem is the Oligarch to actual human being ratio on this planet. Remove 1 Oligarch and you can support 100k actual people :-)
I think the georgia guildstones folks got it right. 500 million world population is sustainable. I did my part -- no kids.
Niggers, spics and poor asians breed like roaches and are about as useful to civil societies. Give them free neutering, like you do when you get a kitten. Problem solved in one generation.
Agree the govt should stay out of families. But once you think about it the US is just as bad in doing this. Tax credits for having children. Increased govt support and direct payments for having more children and not being to support them yourself.
China has many environmental problems. When the US was in a simular phase of development the same problems were here. Too bad China did not learn from our mistakes and use the knowledge and the new science on how to avoid much of what has and is occuring in regards to enviromental damage.
The US was never ever in a 'simular phase of development'. That doesnt make sense from a historical, economic, social or cultural sense.
In fact, many usually break up even literature into a Western and Eastern canon. This is because the cultures are very different. China is a relatively small country in size, with a huge population. America has never had a population problem. Ever.
The chinese understand what overpopulation means. You clearly dont. So anything you say about how governments shouldnt control population is ludicrous.
Governments will increasingly try to control population and for good reason: The fucking planet can't take many more dumb, egotistical, omnivorous apes!
Who set up this government to lord over the serfs ability to even procreate? Anyone else think about this deep enough to realize how insane this is?
Not from the gubmint's standpoint. Strong families mean less dependence on the state. Less dependency means less control.
Strong families are anathema to the State.
They can authorize all they want but they are just above replacement rate at 2.7 so it ain't working.
That's the best reason to have kids, I mean who's going to take care of the elders?
Krugman.
let me guess: he puts them in a glass pane factory and then blows up the factory? problem solved and instant growth?
Ruh roh, someone is running out of fresh debt slaves!
Is it to early to short.............Socks, Durex and the rhythm method in China
Or should I wait 16-18 years (prob be dead by then)
I quite like short women.
Quite agree. 30 million young men with no hope of finding a woman. Of course you are going to see growth in homo culture, which will take some of the aggression out, but you're still going to be left with some 20 million angry young men, spoiling for a fight. Wouldn't want to be Taiwanese at this point.
Hot war in Taiwan seems unlikely with the USA bound by treaty to defend them. I wonder if China completely mirrors Japan and endures a deflationary spiral all while saving face by basically saying "We got this" publicly. The only other option is war and that really is a no win scenario economically. We might be heading into a world full of Saber rattling with no one willing to pull the trigger on direct conflict between first world nations.
but but but...hot war will boost the economy....
and what's the problem with that? they won't be divorced and taken to the cleaners and we already have too many people on the planet anyway
Other than Russia and Denmark is anyone in the West listening? Native populations are circling the drain while fertile Western women fuss with the latest PowerPoint and HR policy vs making babies.
Save Western civilization and get to procreating.
Don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em. Unless you're an illegal immigrant. Then you can have as many as you want.
Why Denmark?
I am SO glad you asked as it gives me a reason to pop the link in. The "do it for Denmark" ads are the reason. Feel free to watch again and again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrO3TfJc9Qw
Too funny........socialist system is collapsing so get out there and start propping. (love the commercials though!)
Here's another one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B00grl3K01g
What socialist system? Denmark? You must be kidding!?
Funny – I’m from Denmark, and it’s the first time I’ve seen this commercial. It is, however, not a specific Danish problem with an aging population – it’s a problem for the West as a whole. In the end (ironically for all the nationalists and xenophobes) the countries that welcomes most immigrants/refugees will have an advantage.
What exact advantage is that? If the option is destroying the cultural fabric of the nation versus some well needed deflation, I'll take the deflation. It isn't about propping up social services, it's about keeping asset backed debt at obscene levels so the renter class can continue to rob the rest of the populace.
I'd much rather pay half price for Real Estate and take care of my relatives myself than fund the welfare state through inflation of everything. The first benefits me and my famiky, the second benefits the state and its sycophants over all.
Yes. Now they change the decree.
Not a single, "So sorry" for all those jailed and all the forced abortions, ripping babies from the wombs of their mothers who dared to want to have two.
This the sort of centrally managed whipsaw by fiat that tear countries apart and kill the spirit.
This should be on the Top 10 list of why the totalitarian state that jackasses like Bill "Weasle Face" Maher advocate for.
They don't think an open-borders policy is a better idea and more "fair" to the rest of the world? Savages.
I too have 46% more sex when on vacations, and 64% more when dating a Danish girl. Savage Danes, indeed. Their way or the highway
Makes sense. Linked by land.
" tear down that wall"
Open invitation to the Muzzie hordes. They even have the housing, ready to go! It's like it's planned.
Add a few Mosques, fill up those ghost cities.
Solves many problems at once.
I'm not sure if this is sarc.
"The Plebes may now breed."
All governments are fucking evil.
and yet their ways differ, in many things, which gives you many shades of gray
Why dont they just accept 1Million "Refugees" like Germany is doing? Dont they want to help in a humanitarian crisis.. /sarc
Yeah, those selfish bastards.
(Don't use /sarc tags. Just say it. People either get it or they don't. It's not your problem after that.)
Did you fuckee suckee today??
Things don't come easy for me anymore.
There's a pill for that.
Actually... there's several different kind of pills for that :)
Not to increase the population. You'd want to reverse that sequence of events.
Go long counterfeit diaper manufactures.
Those new Chinese citizens can help repopulate North America after..... Oooops. I've said too much.
So the problem of a growing population is solved by increasing the birth rate?
Actually, in a world of Krugman's this makes perfect sense since we all know that too much debt is best solved by increasing debt, so why not apply the same tried-and-tested solutions to everything else in life?
Is the Sphinx in control of world finance and governments? Because it all sounds terribly mysterious to me.
All they need to do now is keep the melanin out of the baby formula and it's all good.
melamine = type of plastic
Melanin is responsible for determining skin and hair colour.
Going to fill up all those empty cities, central planning, ain't it great.
But what will they do with all of the 18-25 year old men who have no hopes of ever having a family? Unlike the US, they cherish family.
Having pissed off 18-25 men roaming around without hope (even the PLA is cutting jobs) is never a good thing.
We can hope they march through Alaska and do war crime to the Palins.
And then on to you and your family. Jackass.
I volunteer as tribute!
everything about anything is based on Exponential growth.
Article I of the Constitution of the United States, (1790) describes the House of Representatives, and says that “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand...” In the year 2000 there are over 600,000 persons per member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Thus in 210 years we have seen democracy at the national level being diluted by a factor of approximately 600,000 / 30,000 = 20. From these figures one can estimate (Bartlett 1993) that since the founding of the United States, the average rate of loss of democracy at the national level has been about 1.4 % per year.
Indeed, in the year 2000, the population of the United States is growing at a rate of about 1 % per year, but the number of members of the U.S. House of Representatives remains constant at 435. Thus one can say that, as we start the 21st Century, the rate of loss of democracy at the national level in the United States is about 1 % per year.
CONCLUSION
It is a shame that those who are most vocal about their loss of freedom almost invariably blame the loss on alleged conspiracies of persons in government. Our loss of freedoms are probably not the result of actions of evil people who are plotting the demise of democracy, but rather are due to negligent people in government (and it’s nearly all of them) who willfully ignore the problem of overpopulation and the destructive consequences of this negligence. When people are denied their rights to participate in the decisions that affect their lives, they are predictably unpredictable, and history is full of examples of violence that has been precipitated by those who feel they have been disenfranchised. Such are some of the costs of overpopulation.
Thus, several lines of evidence point to population growth as being a major causal factor in the decline of democracy in the United States, yet, as Garrett Hardin observes: (Hardin 1993)
“No one ever blames it on overpopulation.”
Albert A. Bartlett
Professor Emeritus
Department of Physics
University of Colorado at Boulder,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjABahUKEwj2wenYzefIAhWI2SYKHXHDBSE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.albartlett.org%2Farticles%2Fee_democracy_survive_overpopulation.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEUD2piif2lHRk4z8-R2W8sXjGRVg
There was a feminist author in the 70s (some name like Sheer Hite?) who posited that the way to cure India's population growth would be to have women eat their husband's semen. Great protein and no kids. The men probably wouldn't complain too much either.
If only India, Pakistan, the US and just about every other country had adopted the same policy as China in 78, or preferably earlier then we wouldn't be so much in the shit now. I'm half guessing that the reason they're relaxing now is to encourage women to stay home so that there are more jobs for men. The argument about needing more kids to support the parents and grandparents is foolish when jobs are disappearing.
Another big plus? When WW-3 breaks out countries will want to have a fresh supply of soldiers to do all the dirty work.
Three boys for every girl,
Surf City here we come!
So I guess there will no longer be abortions of femaie fetuses and less girl babies up for adoption?
Well, there are a lot of changes in China. As time goes on, traditional views of family change. It's a lot different now in the US, as the traditional nuclear family is only about half of what it was. The other half, single parents: "government families". For some reason, the US leaders like it that way, as it fosters dependence on the government and increases their power. The Chinese may be opting for something more like where the US came from in history, since it worked at one time as industry developed. The magic number for any country to sustain their population is 2.1 births (average) per family. Lower than that, and the country is eventually doomed (think Japan). Interestingly, the US population is now sitting right on that number, with most births coming from immigrants, mainly the Latino population and blacks. Problem is, the government in the US is subsidizing births from the mostly undereducated, lower skilled, or non-productive part of society. They have a "lid" on their life, and the victims mostly have no ambition to climb out of the hole the govenment has gotten them used to. Not really their fault. They'd rather take a free check than work. That's how they vote. Whites are having fewer children and education costs have skyrocketed. So where's US productivity in the future coming from? How will the work ethic be formed? If the Chinese let families grow and keep a lot of what they produce, they could have a boom similar to that of the US in the fifties. High productivity would likely follow. We'll see.
The Steve Miller Band / Book Of Dreams / Sacrifice - 1977
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4JZli05F08
This is being spun by the MSM that China is no longer controlling their birth rate. They say China is ending their 1 child per couple rule which is true but they aren't removing the control.
The baby boom will be good for America's food exports
Instead of all those senseless statistics I expected a discussion about food and fresh water availability, worldwide.
Well then, enjoy your "healthy" environment ;).
How does having more kids create more jobs or income? Just creates more demand...eventually. But if the other factors remainthe same, you're in for a big shit show
Keynesian economics man, create demand, offer will appear from everywhere
China's "One Child Policy" happened around the same time American politicians sent American jobs to China. Now China has the jobs and doesn't like America's policies so the One Child Policy dictated by the depopulation faction is out.
"oh pretty girlfriend!"
"Do your duty to the Party!"
Paul Eberhart hopes somebody will step up to the plate to help feed and cloth the 37 year old. pauleberhart.com
Better DEAD than centrally-planned RED.
There's gonna be a lot of wang chung tonight.
So over a billion fucking people is not enough? The unrelenting attention to "growth" is killing the planet's ecosystem fast. All around the world. We chew it up and ask for moar moar MOAR!
What I find fascinating is the timing of this announcment. Far less was "known" about the planet's ecosystem 35-40 years ago but it was sufficiently concerning that when China examined its own situation it decided to act, howls of rightous indignation from 'the west' be damned. As I said this morning, it was a huge sacrifice. Today the reward for the sacrifice is delivered and there is a message for the RoW: no pain no gain. If the RoW doesn't act aggressively to, at a minimum, meet China on the Two-Child Policy then don't come knocking on China's door looking for further sacrifice to assist solving the problems the other ~6 billion people willfully ignored for decades.
Moral highground.
Suddenly population control is back on the agenda in Paris.
More men than women there, nothing like sexually frustrated men for your "200 million man" army from the East.
India should take a hint and enact a 0 child policy for 30 years.
Indians are fucking like rabbits. Soon enough they'll be 2 billion
This is not going to do much. Apparently the OCP has resulted in a competition among urban parents to see who can "spoil" their kids the most, and doubling the baby count halves the amount of attention you can focus on #1 kid.
The only way this would really matter is if China somehow adopts a "Great Suburbanization" strategy, that results in 50 or 60% of thier population living in single-family homes in the 'burbs, with minivans and soccer teams.
But China is never going to suburbanize - they are going straight to "megacities". The US is slowly following too in a sense.
I've always thought China is ultimately aiming for a population of 600 to 700 million, 90% urban, 99% literate. There are entire regions in China full of "traditional farm people" who the PTB probably see no value in, no need to replace. As thier kids leave for the cities, the gov't will send a rice truck and medical team out once in a while, but ultimately the plan is for these people to go back into the dirt from whence they came.
A China of 600 million might be a productive, stable society. They do need to get the birth rate to 1:1 sex ratio, or even more girls than boys for a while. All the 10-30 year old surplus males would probably be glad to have a younger wife come along in 18 to 20 years, if she is born in 2016. That would actually be a good policy - unlimited girl births until you "get your boy". Chinese females might actually be in high demand for marriage in other parts of the world too.
So long as they look like this, no problemo!
At least 5 years too late.
Need 100,000,000 more people to populate the Spratley Islands.
Maintain the 1 child policy and get rid of the old people would be a better way forward.
2 children can't help Chinese population grow. It will help replace those they are about to lose to war. Besides, they're already way too short on girls/women.
wise man say MOAR FUK
Its been estimated for every 100 girls born in China, there are 118 boys born. Of course, the total is being manipulated due to a combination of China's one-child policy and a common desire for more boys than girls in less developed nations where boys are more often the breadwinners for the family. But that leaves too few females to mate for 18% of the young male population. This being the case, I'd welcome young single Chinese women to emigrate to the United States so long as they leave their families back in China.
Or mabbe all the insects (cockroaches, spiders, scorpions) eaten by them want to come back as human from the testes
Or we could nuke em from orbit