China - One Child Policy
China may scrap one-child policy, official says
Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:57pm IST
BEIJING (Reuters) - China, worried about an ageing population, is studying scrapping its controversial one-child policy but will not do away with family-planning policies altogether, a senior official said on Thursday.
With the world's biggest population straining scarce land, water and energy resources, China has enforced rules to restrict family size since the 1970s. Rules vary but usually limit families to one child, or two in the countryside.
"We want incrementally to have this change," Vice Minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission Zhao Baige told reporters in Beijing.
"I cannot answer at what time or how, but this has become a big issue among decision makers," Zhao added. "The attitude is to do the studies, to consider it responsibly and to set it up systematically."
The average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime has decreased to 1.8 in China today, from 5.8 in the 1970s, and below the replacement rate of 2.1.
China says its policies have prevented several hundred million births and boosted prosperity, but experts have warned of a looming social time-bomb from an ageing population and widening gender disparity stemming from a traditional preference for boys.
Still, the government has previously expressed concern that too many people are flouting the rules.
State media said in December that China's population would grow to 1.5 billion people by 2033, with birth rates set to soar over the next five years.
Officials have also cautioned that population controls are being unravelled by the increased mobility of China's 150 million-odd migrant workers, who travel from poor rural areas to work in more affluent eastern cities.
China has vowed to slap heavier fines on wealthy citizens who flout family planning laws in response to the emergence of an upper class willing to pay standard fines to have more children.
Population control is not inherently genocidal, I believe. And, as such, it may be off-topic for this journal. But, in the light, especially, of current events, it is important to discuss it as a social ill. In the fall of 2006, I wrote a paper "Seeking Zero Growth: Population Policy in India and China" (Wells unpublished). The literature and my qualitative findings clearly demonstrated that it is not forced birth limits which will successfully reduce population growth and encourage economic success. Rather, it is investment in education, social and economic empowerment, and gender equity which will accomplish these goals. This is not feminist theory. This is clear fact. The problem is that while common population control philosophy takes into account the increased consumers of an increased population, it does not take into account the increased producers of the same. Increased population cannot logically be the great drain it is supposed to be. There must be some other cause. Part of the cause in India has to be the caste system which markedly restricts social mobility, economic behavior, and even education. The literature cited in my paper demonstrates that when equity has been pursued, even in India, the population growth slows, and the economic status improves. In fact, it has been clearly demonstrated, that in traditional, agricultural, and even early industrial societies, poverty builds desire for more children, as these are the tools of security, particularly in old age (if one should be so fortunate as to reach it). In the modern West, children are a luxury and a burden. They require education and clothing and food and, in most circumstances, are politically and economically unproductive until around 14 years of age. So, the first 14 years, they are social parasites. In traditional, agricultural, and early industrial communities, children work either within or outside of the home and contribute to the family income. In fact, as they eat less, require less fabric, and require less living space, they are often a positive economic investment bringing greater profit in than their adult family members, depending on the work available. They are not, assuredly, as skilled as workers as their parents, but they may be able to complete tasks their parents are able to complete.
As it is, in the United States, there is common outcry against child labor. It was one of the first post-industrial movements which led to increased regulation of businesses. Yet, our constant demand for higher profits, higher wages, and lower costs demands a solution. Ours has been to "outsource" our more menial jobs. But, the communities we send our factories to cannot benefit from them because their products are not available for local purchase. Yet, they bring jobs to areas where they are often scarce. Jobs are good. $1 an hour is better than $0 an hour. (I do not subscribe to all-or-nothing social improvement philosophies.) Poverty is broken slowly through personal responsibility and empowerment. But, that empowerment is vital. It comes from outside; it comes from a government making economic activity accessible and assisting in developing the capital to begin production or service. If only men of only a certain class are able to participate in the economy, the rest of the community is shut out of contributing to economic growth and wellbeing. They, in turn, resort to traditional methods of encouraging security, having more children who can farm or make shoes or sell matches. Then, instead of demanding social and economic (note the difference between economic and financial) equity in these nations, Americans and other well-intentioned individuals demand that children be "protected" from labor. It is, in fact, through misguided, misdirected, and frankly uneducated, morally empowered rights movements from the West that these economic problems are worsened. It is not the child labor protester in Any Town, USA's fault that the children of the third world are starving. But, it is his responsibility to be truly aware of the impact of both child labor and his own social movement on a given community.
It seems that child labor is inherently connected to the problem of population growth. But to protect the "interests" of the child, one must think about more than whether a given child has enough time to "play." (I'll leave aside discussion of the historical presence or absence of leisure time in the lives of common citizens, but do consider this point.) Sometimes, an occupation is heinously dangerous and should be reserved for adults capable of making the educated choice to take that risk. Sometimes, an occupation is tedious but safe and absolutely vital to the child's well-being and he should be permitted to hold such occupation until such time as children in that economic system are no longer required to work to support their families. This is a difficult judgement call to make, but, I think it is one that can be supported by careful deliberation.
But, allowing children to work is not in any way an economic panacea, but a necessary allowance (I hate to say evil and distance myself from these communities even further). There is, in fact a solution which has above been mentioned and is clearly developed in the literature. That is, the equitable social and economic empowerment by local, national, and international bodies of all members of society regardless of class, creed, race, age, or gender. The literature cited in my paper demonstrates this through the example of Kamala, India. In this community, the government took steps to improve women's access to economic tools, education, and personal freedoms to the great benefit of both economic well-being for the whole community and of the population growth goals of that community. Educated, empowered women who are capable of providing for themselves and their families do not depend on producing children to do it for them. Further, educated, empowered women who are capable of providing for themselves and their families are increasingly less disadvantaged socially by traditional pressures which declare men as valuable and women as burdens. These women are free to contribute to their communities and become, in such case, free to determine the fruit of their wombs. It is traditional pressure and social inequality, which can be changed, which can be amended, that makes it a rational choice women make to bear more children, and not an accident of uncivilized sexual desire. And yet, the idea that the "underpriviledged," and, necessarily, poor women are at fault for unbridled sexual behavior leading to those ever-cited teeming masses.
It is, unfortunately, a blanketing intellectual pestilence which has come upon modern political, economic, and social thought, that the teeming masses, unable to control their sexuality, are single-handedly bringing financial ruin down upon their nations. Clearly, this same ideology is poisoning our international AIDS policy. The solution is not safe, medically truthful education paired with making treatment available and affordable, but the ever-present cry for abstinence. It is clearly not a disease that is transmitted through fluid contact of almost any kind, but the uncontrolled sexuality of these immoral savages that is killing them.
It is, in my opinion, the national and international policies regarding these 'teeming masses,' and not their own behavior, sexual or otherwise, which is perpetuating the economic and health problems of the second and third world.
--Note: many ideas described herein are inspired, in part, by Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: the Global Politics of Population Control by Betsy Hartmann, along with the long list of sources for my paper here cited.
Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:57pm IST
BEIJING (Reuters) - China, worried about an ageing population, is studying scrapping its controversial one-child policy but will not do away with family-planning policies altogether, a senior official said on Thursday.
With the world's biggest population straining scarce land, water and energy resources, China has enforced rules to restrict family size since the 1970s. Rules vary but usually limit families to one child, or two in the countryside.
"We want incrementally to have this change," Vice Minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission Zhao Baige told reporters in Beijing.
"I cannot answer at what time or how, but this has become a big issue among decision makers," Zhao added. "The attitude is to do the studies, to consider it responsibly and to set it up systematically."
The average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime has decreased to 1.8 in China today, from 5.8 in the 1970s, and below the replacement rate of 2.1.
China says its policies have prevented several hundred million births and boosted prosperity, but experts have warned of a looming social time-bomb from an ageing population and widening gender disparity stemming from a traditional preference for boys.
Still, the government has previously expressed concern that too many people are flouting the rules.
State media said in December that China's population would grow to 1.5 billion people by 2033, with birth rates set to soar over the next five years.
Officials have also cautioned that population controls are being unravelled by the increased mobility of China's 150 million-odd migrant workers, who travel from poor rural areas to work in more affluent eastern cities.
China has vowed to slap heavier fines on wealthy citizens who flout family planning laws in response to the emergence of an upper class willing to pay standard fines to have more children.
Population control is not inherently genocidal, I believe. And, as such, it may be off-topic for this journal. But, in the light, especially, of current events, it is important to discuss it as a social ill. In the fall of 2006, I wrote a paper "Seeking Zero Growth: Population Policy in India and China" (Wells unpublished). The literature and my qualitative findings clearly demonstrated that it is not forced birth limits which will successfully reduce population growth and encourage economic success. Rather, it is investment in education, social and economic empowerment, and gender equity which will accomplish these goals. This is not feminist theory. This is clear fact. The problem is that while common population control philosophy takes into account the increased consumers of an increased population, it does not take into account the increased producers of the same. Increased population cannot logically be the great drain it is supposed to be. There must be some other cause. Part of the cause in India has to be the caste system which markedly restricts social mobility, economic behavior, and even education. The literature cited in my paper demonstrates that when equity has been pursued, even in India, the population growth slows, and the economic status improves. In fact, it has been clearly demonstrated, that in traditional, agricultural, and even early industrial societies, poverty builds desire for more children, as these are the tools of security, particularly in old age (if one should be so fortunate as to reach it). In the modern West, children are a luxury and a burden. They require education and clothing and food and, in most circumstances, are politically and economically unproductive until around 14 years of age. So, the first 14 years, they are social parasites. In traditional, agricultural, and early industrial communities, children work either within or outside of the home and contribute to the family income. In fact, as they eat less, require less fabric, and require less living space, they are often a positive economic investment bringing greater profit in than their adult family members, depending on the work available. They are not, assuredly, as skilled as workers as their parents, but they may be able to complete tasks their parents are able to complete.
As it is, in the United States, there is common outcry against child labor. It was one of the first post-industrial movements which led to increased regulation of businesses. Yet, our constant demand for higher profits, higher wages, and lower costs demands a solution. Ours has been to "outsource" our more menial jobs. But, the communities we send our factories to cannot benefit from them because their products are not available for local purchase. Yet, they bring jobs to areas where they are often scarce. Jobs are good. $1 an hour is better than $0 an hour. (I do not subscribe to all-or-nothing social improvement philosophies.) Poverty is broken slowly through personal responsibility and empowerment. But, that empowerment is vital. It comes from outside; it comes from a government making economic activity accessible and assisting in developing the capital to begin production or service. If only men of only a certain class are able to participate in the economy, the rest of the community is shut out of contributing to economic growth and wellbeing. They, in turn, resort to traditional methods of encouraging security, having more children who can farm or make shoes or sell matches. Then, instead of demanding social and economic (note the difference between economic and financial) equity in these nations, Americans and other well-intentioned individuals demand that children be "protected" from labor. It is, in fact, through misguided, misdirected, and frankly uneducated, morally empowered rights movements from the West that these economic problems are worsened. It is not the child labor protester in Any Town, USA's fault that the children of the third world are starving. But, it is his responsibility to be truly aware of the impact of both child labor and his own social movement on a given community.
It seems that child labor is inherently connected to the problem of population growth. But to protect the "interests" of the child, one must think about more than whether a given child has enough time to "play." (I'll leave aside discussion of the historical presence or absence of leisure time in the lives of common citizens, but do consider this point.) Sometimes, an occupation is heinously dangerous and should be reserved for adults capable of making the educated choice to take that risk. Sometimes, an occupation is tedious but safe and absolutely vital to the child's well-being and he should be permitted to hold such occupation until such time as children in that economic system are no longer required to work to support their families. This is a difficult judgement call to make, but, I think it is one that can be supported by careful deliberation.
But, allowing children to work is not in any way an economic panacea, but a necessary allowance (I hate to say evil and distance myself from these communities even further). There is, in fact a solution which has above been mentioned and is clearly developed in the literature. That is, the equitable social and economic empowerment by local, national, and international bodies of all members of society regardless of class, creed, race, age, or gender. The literature cited in my paper demonstrates this through the example of Kamala, India. In this community, the government took steps to improve women's access to economic tools, education, and personal freedoms to the great benefit of both economic well-being for the whole community and of the population growth goals of that community. Educated, empowered women who are capable of providing for themselves and their families do not depend on producing children to do it for them. Further, educated, empowered women who are capable of providing for themselves and their families are increasingly less disadvantaged socially by traditional pressures which declare men as valuable and women as burdens. These women are free to contribute to their communities and become, in such case, free to determine the fruit of their wombs. It is traditional pressure and social inequality, which can be changed, which can be amended, that makes it a rational choice women make to bear more children, and not an accident of uncivilized sexual desire. And yet, the idea that the "underpriviledged," and, necessarily, poor women are at fault for unbridled sexual behavior leading to those ever-cited teeming masses.
It is, unfortunately, a blanketing intellectual pestilence which has come upon modern political, economic, and social thought, that the teeming masses, unable to control their sexuality, are single-handedly bringing financial ruin down upon their nations. Clearly, this same ideology is poisoning our international AIDS policy. The solution is not safe, medically truthful education paired with making treatment available and affordable, but the ever-present cry for abstinence. It is clearly not a disease that is transmitted through fluid contact of almost any kind, but the uncontrolled sexuality of these immoral savages that is killing them.
It is, in my opinion, the national and international policies regarding these 'teeming masses,' and not their own behavior, sexual or otherwise, which is perpetuating the economic and health problems of the second and third world.
--Note: many ideas described herein are inspired, in part, by Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: the Global Politics of Population Control by Betsy Hartmann, along with the long list of sources for my paper here cited.