Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on August 13, 2013
Relaxation of One-Child Policy Seen in China as Necessary, Inevitable
The official Chinese news agency Xinhua reported earlier this month that China was considering relaxing its one-child policy for some families. In an email interview, Therese Hesketh, a professor at the Center for International Health and Development at University College London, explained the one-child policy’s impact and alternative policy options.
WPR: What prompted the latest move to consider relaxing the one-child policy?
Therese Hesketh: When the one-child policy was introduced in 1979, the government claimed it would last for one generation only. It is important to note that the one-child rule applies to less than half the population: Only urban residents and government workers in rural areas are covered. Most of the rural population is allowed a second child, five years after the first, though in some places only if the first is a girl. Third children are allowed in underpopulated areas and for some ethnic minority groups.
The latest moves to relax the policy represent a continuation of a process that has been under discussion for more than 10 years. For example, in urban areas now, married couples in which both spouses are only children may have two children. Further relaxation is now seen as a necessity and inevitable by most in government. The policy has achieved its original goal of reducing population growth and lifting many out of poverty. It has also become an anachronism as freedoms have increased in many areas of life; as growing wealth means many can afford the fines; and as China becomes a key player in the global community and can no longer operate a coercive policy that is seen by many as a violation of human rights. At a practical level, a rapidly aging population has led to large numbers of elderly depending on fewer wage-earners, and China now faces a reduction in the working population, which many experts believe will jeopardize economic growth. In addition, the policy contributes to the highest sex ratio in the world, that is, around 118 male births for every 100 female. This is causing serious problems in parts of the country where the sex ratio is well above this average.
WPR: What incentives do China’s leaders have to keep it in place?
Hesketh: There remain fears that relaxation will lead to large population increases, especially in China’s already overcrowded cities, putting pressure on stretched services. The evidence for a rebound increase, though, is unclear. Many couples already entitled to two children are opting for just one, and many experts believe that a change in the policy will have a small impact on the birth rate.
WPR: What are the policy options should China choose to relax or end the policy?
Hesketh: There is no doubt that the government is in the process of gradually relaxing the policy. An announcement allowing any only-child urban inhabitant to have two children is expected soon. Since most urban couples were born after the policy was instituted, this change would affect very large numbers of urbanites. In addition, the variant of the policy that allows a second child only after the birth of a girl will be removed, allowing a second irrespective of the sex of the first child. Most commentators believe that in the foreseeable future China will adopt a universal two-child policy, but that the government will shy away from lifting controls altogether.
7 Comments on "Relaxation of One-Child Policy Seen in China as Necessary, Inevitable"
DC on Tue, 13th Aug 2013 7:18 pm
Why wouldn’t this articles writer actually contact someone from , Oh, I dont know, say someone from CHINA!, to talk about this issue? Why some white woman sitting in overcrowded, overpopulated Britain, a woman that likely personally disapproves of official population control measures from her tone and casual dismissal of China’s policies in this area.
There is constant bleating, oddly enough, from us westerners mostly, about how China needs to ‘relax’ its one-child policy. Seldom mentioned however, is the fact that China has more surplus workers *now* than we in say, N.A. or the EU, have actual workers *total*. China is just going to have to deal with the so-called ‘problem’ of an aging population just like the rest of us. Simply cranking out more brats justs contributes to the very real problem of the total net growth in populations. Its a problem you can never, ever ‘solve’ with more births. Do they not teach math anymore, anywhere?
Under our current ‘logic’ on this issue,at some point, we would be forced to import surplus workers from other planets in order to support our infinite growth economy. Good luck with that one..
actioncjackson on Wed, 14th Aug 2013 12:40 am
Math is what China says it is.
BillT on Wed, 14th Aug 2013 12:48 am
DC, my first thought also. Talking heads are a dime a dozen and usually know very little but are full of preconceived ideas. However, this one DOES: either live in China, or has spent a lot of time there and has worked with the topic professionally, in China,for over 20 years.
Most any woman with typical hormones is going to resent birth controls. That Ms. Hesketh does or does not is not indicated. From all info I could find, I doubt she is married or has any kids of her own. Her professional life would take all of her time. So, it is likely that her determinations are mental vs maternal.
And most of us will not live to see the results of their change of plans anyway as it will take a generation or more.
dashster on Wed, 14th Aug 2013 3:15 am
That’s a good thing for Americans to learn. 1.2 billion people is an acceptable number of people in a country. So America has at least a few centuries before it has to stop immigration.
SilentRunning on Wed, 14th Aug 2013 3:33 am
What’s “inevitable” is humans living within the means of the planet to provide sustenance. Over the long rung, nature’s population control mechanisms trumps any and all human made rules and regulations.
We need to face up to the truth that China had the right idea in limiting and stopping population growth. Perhaps the wrong means were used, but the idea is mathematically sound.
Even at only a 1% growth rate, the human population in 10,000 years would be so stupendous THAT EVERY ATOM IN THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE WOULD HAVE TO BE PART OF A HUMAN BODY. Aint no way that that can ever, ever happen.
China’s population control program may seem brutal to some, but it is vastly superior to the inevitable alternative: mass starvation and cannibalism. (See: Easter Island for an historical example).
BillT on Wed, 14th Aug 2013 12:28 pm
Silent, if the West ate Eastern diets, there would be plenty of food for 7+ billion people. A pound of beef uses the grain that would feed 20 people. There would also be no obesity. But then, you want to keep your wasteful lifestyle for a while longer at the expense of others less fortunate, I guess.
SilentRunning on Thu, 15th Aug 2013 2:43 am
BillT: Ironically, I had stir-fried tofu with vegetables for dinner tonight.
Here’s a little math experiment for you to try: Take 7 billion (7,000,000,000) then multiply it by 1.01 raised to the 10,000 th power. You’ll discover that the earth’s population would become 1 followed by 54 zeros: Even if all those people ate only 1 grain of rice PER YEAR, there’s no way the earth could support that number of people. Indeed, even if the entire earth was magically converted into nothing BUT people, there wouldn’t be enough mass to go around.
Moral of the mathematical story: Sometime in less than 10,000 years- the human population growth WILL END. It’s only a question of whether it is done humanely – or brutally.