PDA

View Full Version : A two-child policy experiment secretly implemented by China succeeds


Petr
03-21-2010, 06:55 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7067834.ece


From The Times

March 19, 2010

Success of secret two-child policy could force Chinese rethink on family planning

Jane Macartney

A secret experiment allowing families in a rural Chinese county to have two children could herald the beginning of a social revolution after years of the notorious one-child-only rule.

It has emerged that, 25 years ago, Beijing secretly authorised a pilot project in Yicheng county, 560 miles (900km) southwest of the capital, in which families would be allowed to have a maximum of two children if they adhered to certain conditions.

Details of the experiment were reported for the first time in the Southern Weekend newspaper in Guangzhou — and the results are sure to call into question the viability of the official family planning policy.

According to the paper, the population of the county has grown over the 25-year period of the scheme by 20.7 per cent, which is nearly five percentage points lower than the national average, despite families being allowed two children. The experiment also appears to have redressed the imbalance between male and female births in China: the national average is 118 males to every 100 females, but in Yicheng the ratio was in line with the natural norm at 106 to 100.

Given China’s growing population imbalance as a result of its low fertility rate — which is expected to cause the working age population to peak in 2015 and plunge by 2050 — and the unexpected results of the experiment, it is no surprise that influential voices have welcomed the findings.

Liang Zhongtang, who designed the programme, believes that the draconian one-child policy has served its purpose. “Under natural conditions, with no family planning policy, the birthrate would drop faster than with strict restrictions,” he said. Zou Xuejin, of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, has also called for a relaxation of the official family planning policy.

One official who was involved with the project in Yicheng spoke of his nervousness at the start of the programme in 1985. “We were anxious that, because the one-child policy had already been in place for five years, the experiment would run out of control,” he said. “We went from house to house to explain the policy and, in fact, it went quite smoothly.”

The Yicheng experiment has its origins in the late 1970s, when Deng Xiaoping instituted the one-child policy, at a time when some academics in China wanted to set up test areas. Since then, the authorities have exempted millions of families from the one-child rule, notably farmers in rural areas where the first child was a girl.

Yicheng was chosen because it is a typical farming county. Two other areas were ruled out because they were home to large populations of ethnic minorities, among them groups who were exempt, anyway, from the one-child policy.

The plan initially met with opposition in Beijing until officials in the northern Shanxi province wrote to the party chief, Hu Yaobang, in 1984 with their unusual suggestion. The response from the relatively liberal leader was reported to be swift: “Go ahead.” The main stipulation was that the experiment should be carried out without publicity — effectively in secret.

The Yicheng test has been run by strict rules. Men in the county are not allowed to marry until they are 25, women before they reach 23 — three years later than the national policy. Couples taking part in the experiment must leave a six-year gap between their first and second child or face a fine of 1,200 yuan (£120). They are encouraged to undergo sterilisation after the second child to ensure that they do not have a third.

It appears, however, that some couples in the county wanted just one child anyway. One hospital doctor told The Times yesterday: “More and more people only want to have one child. It’s expensive to raise a second, especially in the town. The farmers still like to have two children.”

Many, of course, did take the chance to double the number of their offspring, in a country with a population of 1.3 billion. A 20-year-old waitress working at a Yicheng restaurant told The Times that she was an only child, but her case was unusual and most of her friends had a brother or a sister. “Among my relatives, some have one child and some have two — but no one has three,” she said.

At the start of the experiment the population of Yicheng was 278,000 and the aim was that it should not exceed 300,000 by 2000. Now the county has a population of 310,000. As one official told the Southern Weekend: “The experiment is quite satisfying. It shows that, even if people are allowed to have a second child, there will not be a population explosion.”

News of the Yicheng project comes at a time when many are questioning how long the population control policy should be held in place, especially as the workforce shoulders the growing burden of trying to support an ageing society.

The authortities, anxious about the reluctance of young urban couples to have even one child, have allowed couples who are both sole children to have two babies. In Shanghai this has been actively encouraged — but to scant effect.

China’s newly rich are eager to enjoy their financial independence. They are already burdened by the soaring costs of buying their own home and a passion for bars, restaurants, expensive lapdogs and hanging out at Starbucks. Many feel a baby would cramp their style and cripple their disposable income.

Urban yuppies wanting a career are generally content with the one-child rule; farmers who want more sons to till the land simply ignore the limits.

China’s policymakers may find they have already fallen behind the times.

KerguelenExileDissident
03-21-2010, 07:30 AM
What we as humans need to learn from our past is that the fragile line between keeping everyone fed and massive famine and death is always present.

In the past as well as today people produce children without regard to resources which works until the situation hits a threshold and large portions of given populations die off in famines.

Nature simply corrects the numbers sooner or later. If you are barely feeding your population and half of your farmland is barely able to produce food if their is a massive drought in these unstable areas large portions of the population will good hungry.

Because humans are humans and by nature fallible, people cannot be relied upon to take the right path, left to their own devices given populations corrupt themselves easily.

This has fundamentally been the problem with Democracy and Capitalism, both believe that human nature is basically good and therefore people will "make the right decisions."

Anarch
03-24-2010, 09:40 AM
What we as humans need to learn from our past is that the fragile line between keeping everyone fed and massive famine and death is always present.

In the past as well as today people produce children without regard to resources which works until the situation hits a threshold and large portions of given populations die off in famines.

Nature simply corrects the numbers sooner or later. If you are barely feeding your population and half of your farmland is barely able to produce food if their is a massive drought in these unstable areas large portions of the population will good hungry.

'If you are not feeding your population'... This is not Age of Empires. No individual owns a population.

Because humans are humans and by nature fallible, people cannot be relied upon to take the right path, left to their own devices given populations corrupt themselves easily.

So we'll put equally corruptible people in charge of them! That's got a great track record, LOL.

This has fundamentally been the problem with Democracy and Capitalism, both believe that human nature is basically good and therefore people will "make the right decisions."

Without interference, they generally do. Btw, for someone with such a cynical perspective, I'm wondering why you have a moral objection to Malthusian, nature-driven population purges. You obviously believe they should be avoided, anyway.

KerguelenExileDissident
03-24-2010, 10:17 AM
'If you are not feeding your population'... This is not Age of Empires. No individual owns a population.



So we'll put equally corruptible people in charge of them! That's got a great track record, LOL.

Your assertion would be correct except that your egalitarian "everyone is "equally" corruptible" part is false because equality does not exist. Not one single creature in nature is exactly alike on a small molecule level. In complex organisms such as humans, division of labor specific tasks has created a variety of genetic predispositions for certain tasks. Corruptible or not some people are born natural leaders and a community needs a leader because others are not designed to lead themselves. Pay attention to ape society, this isn't a "cultural thing."

Also, speaking of track record, monarchies lasted for thousands of years evolving out of the natural order of things. It hasn't even been more than 230 some years and "world democracy" has left societies weak and empty and are now the verge of being conquered by Islam, gangs, and other bandits.


This is because their natural leaders no longer have power which they need to survive all in the name of some big egalitarian dream only exists and only ever existed in the minds of delusional out of touch reality northern Europeans.


Without interference, they generally do. Btw, for someone with such a cynical perspective, I'm wondering why you have a moral objection to Malthusian, nature-driven population purges. You obviously believe they should be avoided, anyway.

"They generally do," Once again see above, with native culture dead, and native genetics dying out I hardly see this a example.

I am not a nihilist and while I recognize how the natural world works I seek find the best way that benefits humanity. Instead of relying on the cruel reality of nature, steps can be taken to ensure the development of civilization without going through all the nightmares and destruction that nature would normally do on its own.

Why should we just wait for degenerative populations to destroy themselves and civilization to collapse and a new dark age just to let the genetic and cultural factors "even out," when we can tackle the problem at its source and avoid calamities?

Ahknaton
03-25-2010, 01:44 AM
One thing they keep failing to mention is that parents are allowed to have as many children as they like as long as they're female. Once you have a male child it's all over. In 25 years time they will see another gender imbalance with too many women and a population growth they cannot sustain without conquering their neighbours.
If you do the math, allowing people to have as many female children as they want but forcing them to stop after the first male child doesn't favour females over males:

1/2 of couples have 1 male
1/4 of couples have 1 male, 1 female
1/8 of couples have 1 male, 2 female
1/16 of couples have 1 male, 3 female etc

males: (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) = 1 x the number of couples (at the limit)
females: (1/4 + 2/8 + 3/16 + 4/32...) = 1 x the number of couples (at the limit)

Hard to say which gender it biases towards in practice, since couples won't simply keep having babies like robots until they have a male child in order to produce the mathematically pristine result. The male series approachs the limit more steeply, but on the other hand some couples will have 3 or 4 girls and then give up, biasing toward the number of females.

Arcturus
03-25-2010, 02:58 AM
If you do the math, allowing people to have as many female children as they want but forcing them to stop after the first male child doesn't favour females over males:

1/2 of couples have 1 male
1/4 of couples have 1 male, 1 female
1/8 of couples have 1 male, 2 female
1/16 of couples have 1 male, 3 female etc

males: (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) = 1 x the number of couples (at the limit)
females: (1/4 + 2/8 + 3/16 + 4/32...) = 1 x the number of couples (at the limit)

Hard to say which gender it biases towards in practice, since couples won't simply keep having babies like robots until they have a male child in order to produce the mathematically pristine result. The male series approachs the limit more steeply, but on the other hand some couples will have 3 or 4 girls and then give up, biasing toward the number of females.

It wouldn't favor either sex no matter how many iterations are performed, since males will constitute (ideally) 1/2 of the children born with each iteration.