Report on two-child policy submitted to decision-makers

[EAsian]

So you do finally realized using a country with different demographic and economic condition from China is BS?

No，What you have said is BS.It's you said that if china has less people，housing price will come down.I just make some examples with common sense to deny it.

 

[tranquilium]

No，What you have said is BS.It's you said that if china has less people，housing price will come down.I just make some examples with common sense to deny it.

No, I said and I quote "Chinese housing price, when comparing to itself, was pushed up due to large amount of population migrating to certain regions for job opportunities, which is population related."

Let's affirm it again, you are arguing that China in 1970s does not a limited resources and infrastructure to accommodate the population right? From your quote "the number of teachers have never been a major problem"

 

[EAsian]

No, I said and I quote "Chinese housing price, when comparing to itself, was pushed up due to large amount of population migrating to certain regions for job opportunities, which is population related."

Let's affirm it again, you are arguing that China in 1970s does not a limited resources and infrastructure to accommodate the population right? From your quote "the number of teachers have never been a major problem"

You said "Oh, btw, just for fun, if you take the stance that one child policy is wrong, then you automatically forfeit the right to complain about housing price, employment opportunities or competition to get into good universities. Because all these comes with a high population not low."You tell me have I misread what you have said?Teacher is resource,and children is too.More children means more future teachers and engeers.Even the numbers of teachers were limited(which is clearly not),they always can educate some more children,And each one more educated children will make the country more wealthy.

 

[TaiShang]

You said "Oh, btw, just for fun, if you take the stance that one child policy is wrong, then you automatically forfeit the right to complain about housing price, employment opportunities or competition to get into good universities. Because all these comes with a high population not low."You tell me have I misread what you have said?

Your logic resembles to an Indian.

You do realize that the policy you are criticizing is being revised, which is the entire argument of the OP? Why are you going in circles and making this an historical debate of the pros and cons of a now already revised policy?

I guess , at this point, it is much constructive to debate what needs to be done further. On this, you may argue a total abolishment of population management/control, something that almost every country in the world runs one version or another.

For one, I am for demographic education and I agree with you that, at this point in history, population is power for China, which was not the case when policy makers 4 decades prior looked at the situation and made decision. Hence, the entire discouragement scheme must be done away with.

What is potentially dangerous is policy rigidity not the One Child Policy itself. And, on the issue of reformation and progressive thinking, no other government is as scientific and empirical as the government of China. So, have faith, please.

 

[EAsian]

Your logic resembles to an Indian.

You do realize that the policy you are criticizing is being revised, which is the entire argument of the OP? Why are you going in circles and making this an historical debate of the pros and cons of a now already revised policy?

I guess , at this point, it is much constructive to debate what needs to be done further. On this, you may argue a total abolishment of population management/control, something that almost every country in the world runs one version or another.

For one, I am for demographic education and I agree with you that, at this point in history, population is power for China, which was not the case when policy makers 4 decades prior looked at the situation and made decision. Hence, the entire discouragement scheme must be done away with.

What is potentially dangerous is policy rigidity not the One Child Policy itself. And, on the issue of reformation and progressive thinking, no other government is as scientific and empirical as the government of China. So, have faith, please.

Well,I just think this policy was wrong and it haven't made people more wealthy and it haven't reduce the housing price and other ridiculous things.If someone stop the endless discuss with me,I will stop too.Like you said the present and future is what matters.

 

[DaiViet]

Erm, no, people actually setting the policy has never ever treated child as burden or pest. Or you know, talking about reducing China's population to nothing or continuing the policy forever. I am, however, hearing one extremist scenario after another from you and the funny thing is that you are also the one coming up with things like child as burden or pest. I will have to wonder what is actually going on in your mind to come up with stuff like this.

And after the insistence of "China has no resource problems", your statement of lacking common sense took the word right out of my mouth.



BBC News | ASIA-PACIFIC | Vietnam's two-child policy

You do realize that Vietnam runs population control/planning policy as well right? Oh, btw, India also have population control policy.

Nope I never realized that. My aunt who has 6 kids, never heard that enforced into the law. Vietnam did have propaganda campaign by telling couples should not have more than 2 kids, other than that no law enforced. No single incident where mother forced kill her 3rd child. In China there are cases mother dump her child in favor for a son. Not to memtion now govt encourage more children as they see Vietnamese fast decline fertile rate.

Not sure why westerners tend to look at Vietnam as mini China about everything. In facts, there are so many different. Ex. economic, Vietnam reform is not follow China foot step rather than counter China rise, another reason for e reform is the Southern leader win power in VCP govt, and Southern Vietnam has long been capitalsm only short period communism after the north took over.

 

[JSCh]

Don’t blame China’s skewed sex ratio on the one-child policy | East Asia Forum
25 August 2015
Authors: Elizabeth J. Remick, Tufts University, and Charis Loh

In the last decade, China’s serious gender imbalance has made headlines: millions of Chinese men are doomed to bachelorhood due to a shortage of women, with awful social consequences. The conventional wisdom is that this skewing — a sex ratio at birth far higher than the natural ratio of 105 males to 100 females — is caused simply and solely by China’s one-child policy. Given Chinese parents’ supposedly ancient cultural preference for sons, the argument goes, if they can only have one child, it had better be a boy. That the sex ratio started skewing around 1985, about five years into the new birth planning policy, seems proof enough. The claim’s logical conclusion is that abolishing the policy will eliminate China’s sex ratio imbalance.

But some basic comparisons show us how the conventional wisdom is faulty. The claim that the skewed sex ratio has occurred due to the birth planning policy usually rests on two premises: that it alone caused fertility decline and that this fertility decline led to a skewed sex ratio at birth. But, in fact, China’s fertility decline began in the early 1970s, years before the one-child policy. And, China’s neighbours had similar fertility declines in the 1970, even without such draconian policies.

Fertility declines also do not inevitably lead to a skewed sex ratio. Japan’s fertility rate has been among the world’s lowest for nearly two decades, but its sex ratio at birth has remained in the natural range. While China’s skewed sex ratio of the past three decades does coincide with the start of the birth planning policy, this coincidence is somewhat misleading. A longer historical view reveals that China’s sex ratio was terribly skewed over much of the last two centuries.

The one-child policy itself is a bit of a misnomer: three distinct policy variations are in place across China. Rural, majority-Han areas practice a ‘1.5-child’ policy, in which families whose first child is a girl are allowed a second in hopes of having a boy. Urban areas have a strict one-child limit, while poor ethnic-minority areas have a two-child limit.

Sex ratio skewing is higher in rural 1.5-child policy areas (about 119:100 at birth) than in urban one-child areas (about 115:100), and is lowest in two-child policy areas (about 112:100). These numbers indicate that switching to a universal two-child policy would reduce but not eliminate the problem: China’s sex ratio at birth would still be higher than almost anywhere else in the world. So there is some truth to the conventional wisdom, but the birth planning policy is not the only important driver of sex ratio skewing.

The problem with the conventional wisdom is that it treats son preference as a cultural given: it says Chinese people just prefer sons. But son preference is not a constant. Incentives for Chinese families to have sons have changed considerably over time, rising and falling in tandem with a skewed sex ratio at birth. So efforts to normalise China’s sex ratio at birth ought to attack existing incentives for families to have sons.

Son preference incentives appear in four realms: labour, property ownership and inheritance, ritual life, and old-age security. Societies with strong incentives in these areas tend to have a skewed sex ratio. Indeed, differences in the sex ratio at birth parallel differences in levels of son preference incentives through time, across regions of China and across countries. Old-age security seems to be the most important driver of son preference, while ritual-related incentives matter less.

China’s sex ratio at birth was skewed before 1960, normal during 1960–85 and skewed again after 1985. In both periods of high skewing, sons were highly necessary on all four measures: for farm labour, property inheritance, ancestor worship and old-age care. In contrast, during the commune era (approximately 1958–83), production was socialised, property was collectivised, ancestor worship was suppressed and pensions for the elderly were provided by the commune. Families didn’t require sons, and so they had little incentive to practice female infanticide or abandonment.

Since the mid-1980s, son preference incentives have differed starkly between urban and rural areas of China. In urban areas, educated women make important economic contributions to their birth families and are thus able to provide old-age care for their parents. Ancestor worship is also less relevant to urban life compared to rural areas, while urban women also share equally in property and inheritance. Altogether, these factors mean that urban families have less incentive than rural ones to prefer sons.

The sex ratio at birth has also changed along with son preference incentives in Japan and South Korea. Japan scores low on our measures of son preference throughout the 20th century. Women contribute meaningfully to family income and inherit property equally, and Japan has excellent old-age pensions. While sons are strongly preferred for family rituals, Japan’s sex ratio at birth is not skewed. As a second example, South Korea saw a sharp increase in sex ratio skewing in the mid-1980s, followed by a decrease after 1995. This normalisation coincided with changes in South Korean family law specifying that women did not have to marry into their husbands’ families, had equal rights and responsibilities in ancestor worship and equal inheritance rights.

Normalising China’s skewed sex ratio will require a concerted effort to reduce son preference, targeting policies and institutions that create these incentives. Simply haranguing Chinese citizens to change their ‘backward’ ways of thinking and culture will not suffice.

Elizabeth Remick is an associate professor of political science at Tufts University. Charis Loh is an independent scholar.

This article is based on a paper by the authors published here in the China Quarterly.

​

 

[JSCh]

The China Quarterly - China's Skewed Sex Ratio and the One-Child Policy - Cambridge Journals Online
Charis Loh and Elizabeth J. Remick

Abstract

The media and generalist scholarly work have created a conventional wisdom that China's one-child policy is the driver of the country's skewed sex ratio and so should be relaxed in order to ameliorate the imbalance. However, we show through historical, domestic and international comparisons that son preference, which we treat as an observable and measurable variable made up of labour, ritual, inheritance and old-age security practices and policies, is crucial to explaining the imbalanced sex ratio at birth. China's sex ratio cannot fully normalize without addressing son preference.

摘要

长 期以来, 欧美媒体和写作普及型读物的政治学家们造就了一种共识 — 中国的计划生育政策是导致出生性别比严重失衡的主要原因, 而只有放宽这一政策才能改善现状。然而本文作者通过对历史的研究以及对国内和国际状况的比较考察发现男孩偏好更能解释目前中国出生人口性别比失衡的问题。 男孩偏好并不仅只是一种观念, 作者将其理解为一种可观察到并可衡量的社会学变量。这其中包含了与劳动能力, 礼仪规范, 财产继承, 以及养老保障相关的多种政策和实践。中国只有解决了男孩偏好的问题才能实现出生性别比的完全正常化。

(Online publication March 31 2015)

 

[JaiMin]

Less people does not make a country wealthier. The one child policy is also never intended to make China has less people. I replied yesterday that the one child policy's goal is for China to reach a population equilibrium.

Population control policy in general is made so that the infrastructure can keep up with the population growth. In ancient times, it is typically correspond to food supply. However, in modern society, infrastructure as education, medical care and job opportunity are all important factors. If the population growth exceed the growth of these appropriate infrastructure, then the society does not benefit from the extra population.

Basically, less people doesn't make a country wealth and more people doesn't either. There is a optimal midway point and population control policies (which, btw, can also include policy promoting population growth as observed in USSR) is aimed at reaching that point.

U can summarize in basic economic, if population or inflation exceed economic growth, u basically have no growth or improvement at all, i meant the real growth

Good reference: Population Growth and Economic Development

Erm, no, people actually setting the policy has never ever treated child as burden or pest. Or you know, talking about reducing China's population to nothing or continuing the policy forever. I am, however, hearing one extremist scenario after another from you and the funny thing is that you are also the one coming up with things like child as burden or pest. I will have to wonder what is actually going on in your mind to come up with stuff like this.

And after the insistence of "China has no resource problems", your statement of lacking common sense took the word right out of my mouth.



BBC News | ASIA-PACIFIC | Vietnam's two-child policy

You do realize that Vietnam runs population control/planning policy as well right? Oh, btw, India also have population control policy.

It mostly run in the rural areas or province, and it is most strict among the subsistence farmers who make up the poorer echelons of society. Families who violate the policy are denied land to grow rice—and thus effectively starved—until they fall back into line. The punishments are much more severe in rural. In urban areas or big cities. Families that have more than the stipulated number of children must contribute "social support funds," or face punishments stipulated by law by management agencies- usually lost monthly bonus and had salary capped for two years.

But last year govt poised to end two child policy i think as birth rate per woman fall to 1.94

 

[tranquilium]

U can summarize in basic economic, if population or inflation exceed economic growth, u basically have no growth or improvement at all, i meant the real growth

Good reference: Population Growth and Economic Development

It mostly run in the rural areas or province, and it is most strict among the subsistence farmers who make up the poorer echelons of society. Families who violate the policy are denied land to grow rice—and thus effectively starved—until they fall back into line. The punishments are much more severe in rural. In urban areas or big cities. Families that have more than the stipulated number of children must contribute "social support funds," or face punishments stipulated by law by management agencies- usually lost monthly bonus and had salary capped for two years.

But last year govt poised to end two child policy i think as birth rate per woman fall to 1.94

Erm, where did you get the impression that rural area is more strict? That statement is quite far from the reality and in fact, It is the exact opposite. The rule is enforced much more strictly in cities where there regulations are better established. It is actually precisely because they can't exactly deny the farmer the ability to grow food----that would lead to starvation and there is no way that will fly. (Of topic, in fact, throughout the history, rules and regulation are pretty much always more strict in cities. This is because nation/ruler/entity's ability to reinforce rule is almost always better in cities than the countryside.)

Now in cities, that's another story. In Chinese society, your files and past records are kept much more strictly than western counterparts. Sure, you are required to submit a resume for any job interview and in certain circles, your previous reputation can be traced if the employer deemed necessary. For example, in academic circle, your past publications are checked and sometimes the university may ask your previous employer your performance. However, a lot of what you do is still private and you can kept them unknown to your new employer if you make the effort. In China, during the 70s and 80s, however, your entire file, I mean your past record down to the last detail is required to be transferred any new job posting you apply to. This means a black mark from violating the family planning policy can carry a great deal of weight in cities where the files are meticulously kept and required for any sort of job application. It is pretty common for violators to be denied promotion and bonuses.

In fact, one of the complains we often hear is that well educated cities dwellers must tread careful and not violate the rule because their career can end with a black mark against them, but the relatively uneducated farmers can violate it much more casually because even though they have to pay a fine, their chosen occupation doesn't really get affected by it. The end result is that many of these children are often from families less suitable to provide for them.

 

[JaiMin]

Erm, where did you get the impression that rural area is more strict? That statement is quite far from the reality and in fact, It is the exact opposite. The rule is enforced much more strictly in cities where there regulations are better established. It is actually precisely because they can't exactly deny the farmer the ability to grow food----that would lead to starvation and there is no way that will fly. (Of topic, in fact, throughout the history, rules and regulation are pretty much always more strict in cities. This is because nation/ruler/entity's ability to reinforce rule is almost always better in cities than the countryside.)

Now in cities, that's another story. In Chinese society, your files and past records are kept much more strictly than western counterparts. Sure, you are required to submit a resume for any job interview and in certain circles, your previous reputation can be traced if the employer deemed necessary. For example, in academic circle, your past publications are checked and sometimes the university may ask your previous employer your performance. However, a lot of what you do is still private and you can kept them unknown to your new employer if you make the effort. In China, during the 70s and 80s, however, your entire file, I mean your past record down to the last detail is required to be transferred any new job posting you apply to. This means a black mark from violating the family planning policy can carry a great deal of weight in cities where the files are meticulously kept and required for any sort of job application. It is pretty common for violators to be denied promotion and bonuses.

In fact, one of the complains we often hear is that well educated cities dwellers must tread careful and not violate the rule because their career can end with a black mark against them, but the relatively uneducated farmers can violate it much more casually because even though they have to pay a fine, their chosen occupation doesn't really get affected by it. The end result is that many of these children are often from families less suitable to provide for them.

Uhm, The rate of well-educated women giving birth to a third child was low because they were aware that if children were to receive the best care and education and families were to enjoy a reasonable standard of living they would not considered to having more than 2 children (at current level of development in Vietnam of course). Also, well-informed women also knew more about the importance of contraception compared to their less-educated counterparts who knew little or nothing. So that i meant less strict rule in urban compare to rural areas

Also in Vietnam, parents often have the attitude and thinking of (có nếp có tẻ), this attitude quite prevalence in Northern area of Vietnam- @Yorozuya . Many couples with two daughters wanted to have a third child in the hope that it was a boy, but it also worked in reserve: many couples who had two sons wanted to have a daughter, it is quite popular among public employees.as research by govt newspaper: Thanhniennews

About it more severe in rural compare to urban, i takes the impression here
Vietnam Poised to End Two-Child Policy | Population Research Institute

 

[JSCh]

Is China's fourth baby boom coming?
CRI, October 15, 2015

In late 2013, China issued a "two-child policy", allowing couples to have two children if one of them is an only child. The new policy updated the country's decades-long one-child population policy. Many people believe the new policy will bring about a new round of baby boom and consider it as a business opportunity.

It is generally thought that China has experienced three baby booms since 1945.

File photo of a nurse caring newborns in a hospital in Lanzhou, northwest China's Gansu Province. [Photo: Xinhua]​

The first population boom came in the 1950s, with the number of annual births exceeding 10 million for the first time since 1945. In 1957, the number of births reached a high of 21 million.

The second baby boom occurred from 1962 to 1976, with the number of births per year drifting around 20 million.

The third one was from 1986 to 1990, peaking in 1990 with 26 million births.

Some are wondering if China's fourth baby boom is really approaching.

"In accordance with the law of population changes, a little peak in birth population should have come, but based on the data of the last decades, there is no obvious baby boom to come, " said Wang Guangzhou with the Population and Labor Economics Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

According to statistics, China's annual births have not exceeded 18 million since 1992. In the last decade, figures have lingered around 15.5 million.

China began to implement the "two-child policy" in 2014. Some people feared a surge of new births; however, the increase in number of births in 2014 surpassed 2013's figure only by 470,000. According to statistics from the National Health and Family Planning Commission. By the end of May, only 1.45 million out of the 11 million couples in China who are eligible for a second child have applied to do so.

Li Jianxin with Sociology Institute of Peking University believes that a baby boom will not occur.

"Currently the main force for procreation is people who were born in the 1980s and 1990s. Those people have just entered society and cannot afford the high costs associated with raising another baby," said Li.

After the "two-child policy" met with a cool response, some are calling for even more relaxed birth policies in China. They think that babies are not only consumers for milk and toys but will also contribute to the workforce in the future. From this perspective, China's fourth baby boom is a matter concerning national prosperity and sustainable development.

Is China's fourth baby boom coming?- China.org.cn

 

[DoubanJam.Yee]

Don't be absurd, the 'CCP' and the 'country' are one. If there is no country (China) there will be no CCP (government). When the CCP is in control and strong so too is the country. The first priority of the CCP is the development and transformation of China from a rural developing country to a full fledge industrialized developed nation.

if No CCP, China was/is/will be still China. we all know it right?

 

[Jlaw]

It won't make big difference like I
have said.even today there are still half teachers teach more than 50 students while the percentage of children is much less.Not a problem of resources.

In Canada with a population of 33 million people, the average elementary school class size is around 30 students.

 

[EAsian]

In Canada with a population of 33 million people, the average elementary school class size is around 30 students.

It has nothing to do with population.the school size in japan is 28,USA is 20.