China has recently decided to officially relax its “one child per family” policy. Which got me to thinking (always a dangerous thing).
One child per family, by itself, should result in a rapid population collapse. A steady population would require every young man and woman to pair up and have exactly two children and raise them to the age of reproduction. This assumes nobody is ever lost to disease or other calamity, and there is no change in life expectancy over time.
Because there hasn’t been enough time since the rule was imposed for the parents of the one child families to die off. Until that happens, having any children at all increases the population.
Just a wild guess, but doesn’t the one-child policy mean the family only gets state welfare for the one child, but they are free to have as many sprogs as they wish?
The one-child policy does not apply to:
[ul]
[li]Twins,[/li][li]Non-Han ethnic groups,[/li][li]Couples willing to pay a fine.[/li][/ul]
That last option alone is probably responsible for the majority of multiple-child families. There’s a wide income gap in China and what is impossible for a rural farmer to afford can be well within reach for a white-collar city-dweller.
Canadjun has it right. (Malden Capell is flat out wrong.) The policy was only implemented in 1979. There simply hasn’t been enough time for a huge decrease in population, especially since older people are living longer in better conditions. The problem they face is how best to balance needed replacement and an aging population while the demand for services as the population moves to cities and becomes middle-class skyrockets.
Googling life + expectancy + china I get a graph that says life expectancy in China in 1960 was 44.5 years and that it’s now 74. That qualifies as a dramatic increase.
When people in Spain rant about the oppressive one child policy in China I point out to them that China has a higher birth rate than Spain (1.58 to1.36 births per woman in 2011). They find it hard to believe.
As has been mentioned there are many exceptions in the one child policy and it is gradually being relaxed further. I know one way of getting around it in Guangdong is giving birth in Hong Kong.
However, from what I understand, the policy is much less rigorously enforced in the countryside and there’s a lot more loopholes rural dwellers can use to have a second child without paying a fine. FWIW, the wiki page on the policy says that as of 2007 only about 36% of the population is strictly held to one child, with most of the rest allowed to have a two kids if the first one is a girl.
Very interesting.
I’d guess from the pyramid, a very large increase in life expectancy combined with a gradual impact of the One-Child policy.
Keep in mind, the same applies to most western countries, like Spain as sailor points out. Most western countries have had a below-replacement birth rate for over two decades, but populations probably won’t decline for at least two more decades.
Each group has its peculiarities. Canada like the USA has a mess of baby boomers (that’s me!) who are probably going to hang on to their cushy jobs as long as they can, usually due to poor financial planninga nd an appreciation of the finer things in life. Canada can also compensate for shortages of workers with immigration.
China has the more interesting issue to ensure the older generations are provided for, as the parents and grandparents will depend on the government; or else each working couple will have to support 4 parents and 8 grandparents. You see complaints in North America about the “sandwich generation”, the 50-somethings doing double duty looking after aging parents and adult children who can’t find work and still live at home. Imagine the coming Chinese dilemma.
Also, the Chinese, like first worlders, are getting amrried and having their children much later than previously. A longer “generational cycle” slows down the growth rate but means the parents will need assistance earlier in the children’s lifetime.
They are likely going to follow in the footsteps of Japan:
One child does not result in rapid population decline because the lifespans of the children always overlap with their parents. Even at 44 year lifespans, that is still two generations of extra people occupying the land, an when it goes to 70+, that is three generations or more. If China’s profile of deaths-per-age-group is anything like the West, people do not start dying in real numbers until their fifties (compared to the early 20th century, where fully one fifth of humans did not make it past age ten).
Except that in the better-off Arab countries, among other places, fertility is rapidly declining as well. Low fertility is a reality in lots of places now, and that often (but not always) leads to labor shortages. That will put Egypt’s unemployed, underemployed, and the like in high demand. Then they work abroad, send money home, and then bring lots more money home when they return, as some will. Those funds will go farther in Egypt, thus encouraging many of the factors that lower fertility anyway. In the nearer term, a substantial number of Egyptians will emigrate, thus affecting the population more quickly.
That’s the short version. Consider the Mexican experience.
