China's demographic problems

[~Lc~]

http://www.economist.com/node/18651512

Right since debating here isn't up to par I'll start you off by answering the following questions:

Do you think eliminating the one child policy will solve this problem? (for or against removing it)

What possible other solutions in terms of pension reforms could be a better option?

Right I read a similar article scare about Japan's agining populaiton although they don't have any limits on reproduction. I think because of higher social standards and levels of education, people were not too bothered about popping out 10 kids each like back in the day.

Similar thing was reported on Germany, with a bonus of immigration scare which is apparently decreasing the amount of skilled workers so might be detrimental to the blooming economy in the long run.

These two examples bring about the question whether or not China's culture has turned into all work and no play one, making it no different whether or not the "family planning" law existed. I don't genelize like that, but I suspect that the stats aren't going to shoot up 9 months after the change of policy...

I think a 2 child policy is reasonable, but not human. I wouldn't like to be told how many children I can have, alternatively I would support a policy for tax cuts or benefits for people whoa dopt children after having 1 of their own. Solves a few more dilemma's in the country!

[Proletariat]

The decrease of fertility rates in the advanced, industrialized world can be partly attributed to the factors that you mentioned, like quality of life and education, but they all integrate with the main reason: the rise of women in the workplace.

The role of women in traditional societies was to take care of the home and to raise children, while the man was the sole breadwinner. During the 20th century, women in industrialized nations began to truly enter the workforce, and through the IB History curriculum one can point out various events which catalyzed this process. Now, families are comprised of two working parents, making additional children more costly, and less pragmatic.

China is not an industrialized nation just yet, and is culturally still very much a patriarchal society. I personally theorize that the older a nation is, the stronger traditions are, and there's nothing older than China. The complete amendment of the child policy to a limit of 2 children in the present time would not be advisable.

One should remember that the One Child Policy is very much a urban one. Due to rural populations being less affected by the provisions in the policy, most have disregarded it ever since it was first implemented. The fertility rate of China right now, contrary to what one in the West may expect, is 1.72, which is higher than Canada along with most of Europe.

I do not support the One Child Policy in principle, but I do in practice, which is probably a unique position for me personally. I would, like most people in the West I imagine, like to see it lifted as soon as possible, but I recognize the reasons behind its implementation as a pragmatist. There are other things the Chinese State needs to do to address demographics issue (such as the rural/urban divide through means that aren't just financial redistribution), but the One Child Policy is one important solution out of many. Besides, China has already lifted/adjusted - not quite sure which tbh - the policy in the Chinese provinces with the lowest fertility rates, and with a bureaucracy like theirs, I'm sure they are well, well aware of the math behind this, and is looking to lift the policy whenever and wherever it is possible.

[Manstein]

I wonder who came up with the one-child policy in the first place, though? Who in their right mind would have instituted such a policy in the long-run? Why not a two-child policy? With a two-child policy, you would achieve demographic stabilisation, rather than the eventual dramatic fall that the one-child policy entails. A one-child policy is a serious destabilising factor over the longer-run, due to dependency ratios rising drastically high after the demographic window, the gender-ratio distortions, and so on.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Manstein

[Guest Soiboist]

I wonder who came up with the one-child policy in the first place, though? Who in their right mind would have instituted such a policy in the long-run? Why not a two-child policy? With a two-child policy, you would achieve demographic stabilisation, rather than the eventual dramatic fall that the one-child policy entails. A one-child policy is a serious destabilising factor over the longer-run, due to dependency ratios rising drastically high after the demographic window, the gender-ratio distortions, and so on.

What you say is true, and they are considering to change to a two-child policy, the president recently said that improvements within the family-planning policy are upcoming or similar. But yeah, it would be interesting to know why they chose a one-child policy in the first place. Were they possibly afraid of that the family-planning policies only would be followed partly, and so they wanted a stricter policy to ensure lower fertility rate?

[Proletariat]

I wonder who came up with the one-child policy in the first place, though? Who in their right mind would have instituted such a policy in the long-run? Why not a two-child policy? With a two-child policy, you would achieve demographic stabilisation, rather than the eventual dramatic fall that the one-child policy entails. A one-child policy is a serious destabilising factor over the longer-run, due to dependency ratios rising drastically high after the demographic window, the gender-ratio distortions, and so on.

What you say is true, and they are considering to change to a two-child policy, the president recently said that improvements within the family-planning policy are upcoming or similar. But yeah, it would be interesting to know why they chose a one-child policy in the first place. Were they possibly afraid of that the family-planning policies only would be followed partly, and so they wanted a stricter policy to ensure lower fertility rate?

It was exactly this. As I mentioned above, a one-child policy doesn't actually result in less-than-one birth per woman ratio in reality. I would hope that the Politburo knows more about Chinese demographics than we do. It doesn't matter if it's a one-child, two-child, or a no-child policy; with the provisions that the policy has, rural China is going to ignore it, regardless of the number of children it mandates.

Even if Communist States are more prone to forming long-term policies than democracies, there isn't a single government in the world that makes a social/economic policy meant to last til the end of time. The idea that the one-child policy would be instilled for "the long-run" is preposterous, and I doubt any citizen in China even thinks that. The dependency ratio is not a make-or-break factor due to China's extremely low corporate tax rates; a reallocation of the tax burden from individuals to corporations (the opposite of what has happened in the United States, I may mention) would generally address these concerns. Also important is the revenue streams provided to the State through nationalized corporations. The gender-ratio disproportionality is unfortunate, but is a cultural phenomenon, not a policy one.

[Manstein]

I wonder who came up with the one-child policy in the first place, though? Who in their right mind would have instituted such a policy in the long-run? Why not a two-child policy? With a two-child policy, you would achieve demographic stabilisation, rather than the eventual dramatic fall that the one-child policy entails. A one-child policy is a serious destabilising factor over the longer-run, due to dependency ratios rising drastically high after the demographic window, the gender-ratio distortions, and so on.

What you say is true, and they are considering to change to a two-child policy, the president recently said that improvements within the family-planning policy are upcoming or similar. But yeah, it would be interesting to know why they chose a one-child policy in the first place. Were they possibly afraid of that the family-planning policies only would be followed partly, and so they wanted a stricter policy to ensure lower fertility rate?

It was exactly this. As I mentioned above, a one-child policy doesn't actually result in less-than-one birth per woman ratio in reality. I would hope that the Politburo knows more about Chinese demographics than we do. It doesn't matter if it's a one-child, two-child, or a no-child policy; with the provisions that the policy has, rural China is going to ignore it, regardless of the number of children it mandates.

Even if Communist States are more prone to forming long-term policies than democracies, there isn't a single government in the world that makes a social/economic policy meant to last til the end of time. The idea that the one-child policy would be instilled for "the long-run" is preposterous, and I doubt any citizen in China even thinks that. The dependency ratio is not a make-or-break factor due to China's extremely low corporate tax rates; a reallocation of the tax burden from individuals to corporations (the opposite of what has happened in the United States, I may mention) would generally address these concerns. Also important is the revenue streams provided to the State through nationalized corporations. The gender-ratio disproportionality is unfortunate, but is a cultural phenomenon, not a policy one.

1. Fertility rates in China are estimated as low as around 1.4 now, and shrinking. That's a major issue for the long-run. Just recently the Economist published an article stating that China would be quite unique in that it would grow old before it grew rich, unlike Western European countries, Japan, and so on. You're right that no government plans centuries into the future, but hell the consequences of this policy if maintained for decades is pretty apparent, and pretty damn negative once past the demographic window. It shouldn't take much for policy-thinkers to grasp this whilst planning the policy.

2. The policy has existed for a good 35 years now, and is yet to be abolished. That's approaching the long-term right there.

3. If you look at the projections, the Chinese population is expected to drop from 2025 and onwards, its number of children dropping and number of old people rising fast, as seen in OP's article.

4. To institute the policy in the first place is demographic suicide and general idiocy. They're creating an ideal which is unsustainable and would lead to the decay and decline of the country. If a two-child policy was instituted and promoted 35 years ago instead, China would perhaps not be facing the issues it will certainly be facing within the next couple of decades and onwards.

5. The gender disparity has most certainly been impacted by the one-child policy. Certainly it's a cultural phenomena, as we can see in India as well, but if you're encouraged to have only one child, and boy are considered superior, then obviously this has reduced the occurence of female births. The results are right there, with 6 new-born boys for every 5 new-born girls.

6. The dependency ratios is highly important, corporate-tax rates or not (?). It's a societal problem, not just one of taxation. A society with 2 workers for every dependent (old or young) will be much more able to cope with their economic issues than one with 1 worker for each dependent. That's one of the reasons for the golden post-war decades in Europe, in the USA, in China in recent years. A demographic window with low levels of dependents compared to the number of workers. As society grows older, dependency rises and society, either publicly or privately, has to tend the needs of these aging dependents. That means less goods per person.

[Proletariat]

See, again, I don't understand why people insist policies should be made for the long-run, and then never changed. Outside of the Law and Foreign Affairs, I can't name a single Canadian or American policy that wasn't amended, replaced, or removed at least a decade or two after it's implementation. If a President attempted to enact the equivalent of the New Deal nowadays it would be more or less ineffective, while also being branded Socialist. If the House tried to form the Committee on Un-American Activities now people would be outraged.

Policies change with the times, and the One Child Policy has already proven to be open to amendment. I think the last thing the Chinese and world economy needs right now is for the country to behave radically, which is what the abolition of a policy is. Gradual change almost always works better than Sudden change, as shown throughout history.

I question the source of that 1.4 number, because I think that's an underestimation. I also think that China's socialist system will strain with the issue of this Chinese Baby Boomer phenomenon, just like how Western democracies are straining right now, but that due to the economic reasons I outlined previously China will get through it fine enough. What will be more dangerous is for a radicalization of Chinese politics resulting from either too-much or too-little wealth redistribution that causes a strong surge of democratization and liberalism, which may or may not threaten those welfare programs.

As for "if a two-child policy was instituted and promoted 35 years ago instead, China would perhaps not be facing the issues it will certainly be facing within the next couple of decades and onwards", perhaps you're right. It's speculation of course, and given the affinity between the meritocratic structure of China's current social hierarchy and private wealth, I would argue that the "if" you're talking about there might not be as drastic as you may think. However, they would also undoubtedly encounter other problems associated with a two-child approach, obviously. These problems ranged from economic to social to environmental, and they weren't far into "the next couple of decades and onwards" but in the immediate present, and no matter what style of government a country has, a State almost always addresses immediate problems over long-term ones, and I think the contrary approach to this is unethical and indefensible.

For the record, I think it's important to keep in mind that the large majority of the Chinese population supports this policy (76%). Paired with the fact that they are ranked #1 in the world for satisfaction with the country's direction, and it leads me to my initial thought on this thread: why is it that we think we know China better than the Chinese do?

[Manstein]

See, again, I don't understand why people insist policies should be made for the long-run, and then never changed. Outside of the Law and Foreign Affairs, I can't name a single Canadian or American policy that wasn't amended, replaced, or removed at least a decade or two after it's implementation. If a President attempted to enact the equivalent of the New Deal nowadays it would be more or less ineffective, while also being branded Socialist. If the House tried to form the Committee on Un-American Activities now people would be outraged.

No one's ever said that a policy shouldn't be changed, however the One-Child Policy has been in existence since 1978(?), meaning 33 years. That's a good one and a half generation so far, or rather 'long-term' as you call it. By their very essence, family planning programmes are long-term. This isn't like some tax-cut instituted for a couple of years, or a new piece of legislation on speeding-limits. This has to do with human reproduction, and as such it is long-term.

Policies change with the times, and the One Child Policy has already proven to be open to amendment. I think the last thing the Chinese and world economy needs right now is for the country to behave radically, which is what the abolition of a policy is. Gradual change almost always works better than Sudden change, as shown throughout history.

As seem by projections, moving too gradually would result in a declining Chinese population and a number of headaches in the not-so-distant future, something which I've already outlined. I once fail to see how allowing people to choose how much to reproduce, or even just increasing the number to 2, would be 'radical behaviour'. I also fail to see the correlation of this with the World Economy. I don't think Chinese fertility will cause any number of strains upon it.

I question the source of that 1.4 number, because I think that's an underestimation. I also think that China's socialist system will strain with the issue of this Chinese Baby Boomer phenomenon, just like how Western democracies are straining right now, but that due to the economic reasons I outlined previously China will get through it fine enough. What will be more dangerous is for a radicalization of Chinese politics resulting from either too-much or too-little wealth redistribution that causes a strong surge of democratization and liberalism, which may or may not threaten those welfare programs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2849170/

Secondly, it would certainly be hard for China to cope through this demographic crisis, as it has not yet grown rich before encountering it (indeed, the Chinese GDP per capita at PPP is but 1/6 of the American one). In 15 years the Chinese population will peak and go into decline, with ever increasing numbers of youngsters. This will be very tough to handle indeed.

As for "if a two-child policy was instituted and promoted 35 years ago instead, China would perhaps not be facing the issues it will certainly be facing within the next couple of decades and onwards", perhaps you're right. It's speculation of course, and given the affinity between the meritocratic structure of China's current social hierarchy and private wealth, I would argue that the "if" you're talking about there might not be as drastic as you may think. However, they would also undoubtedly encounter other problems associated with a two-child approach, obviously. These problems ranged from economic to social to environmental, and they weren't far into "the next couple of decades and onwards" but in the immediate present, and no matter what style of government a country has, a State almost always addresses immediate problems over long-term ones, and I think the contrary approach to this is unethical and indefensible.

I would expect fertility at replacement levels to have issues, sure, but most likely fewer ones than fertility rates which would correspond to a radical fall in the population and increasing dependency ratios.

Also, I would very much like my government to consider the long-term consequences and implications of their actions, instead of dogged short-termism that you seem to advocate in your last sentence. If we were to start utilising coal on major scale again, today (that is, more than it already is), then energy prices would surely drop and in the present we'd see an upswing in standards of living. But our children and grandchildren would damn us for it, as we damned them to environmental degradation. Short-termism is a bit like peeing your pants. At first it's warm and cozy, but then it gets all smelly and cold, and you're a hell of a lot worse of than before. In fact, it would be a lot more unethical to only hold the short-term in your perspective. You're easing the present at the cost of the unborn generations to come.

For the record, I think it's important to keep in mind that the large majority of the Chinese population supports this policy (76%). Paired with the fact that they are ranked #1 in the world for satisfaction with the country's direction, and it leads me to my initial thought on this thread: why is it that we think we know China better than the Chinese do?

This is not really surprising considering the government propaganda that has been breast-fed to the Chinese people over the last 30 years, and doesn't really inform us of much. Without free media to challenge the status quo, the status quo will be very appreciated indeed, especially with skilful propaganda to fill the void that is not filled by the free media. Just ask the Germans and Italians in 1936.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Manstein

[Proletariat]

Radicalism, by definition, means sudden, drastic change. You had called for an abolition of the policy, which would very much fit that definition. You conveniently amended your proposal afterwards to increasing the limit to two. That's not radical, and I've pointed out several times now that China has already amended the policy, and has been discussing continuing to amend it in the near future. But gradually, not sudden, drastic, radical change. You're attempting to portray the One Child Policy as some authoritarian behemoth that's a relic of the past, when in reality China has already shown itself to be implementing amendments to the policy, which is exactly what you're asking for. If you think that more needs to be done faster, then that's a fair, albeit more radical, stance to take, but it is inaccurate to assume that the policy either hasn't change nor will ever change.

Your source is using decade-old numbers. Try this: http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators?cid=GPD_WDI

In addition, your stance that the problems solved by the One Child Policy do not outweigh the problems that could potentially be caused in the future is mere conjecture. It is necessary to recognize the weakness in such statements, as one neither knows with certainty the outcomes that would have resulted had X not happened, nor does one know what will happen in the future, by its very definition. It then devolves into part-speculation and part-data extrapolation, and I still maintain that on that front, I would put my money on the Politburo over you.

Your coal analogy (among the others) was amusing, but wasn't it yourself that insisted the One Child Policy wasn't economic, but "human reproduction", and therefore cannot be equated? Besides, even accepting your analogy, it must be recognized that no one, and I doubt even yourself, is calling for the world to suddenly drop coal in a day and quit cold turkey. Coal is being phased out, just like the One Child Policy is. That's where the real comparison is. To abruptly end either would have a great deal of negative repercussions, as radical change always has a tendency to do.

Finally, you seem to want to adopt a rather condescending viewpoint in regards to the Chinese people. I don't doubt the existence of propaganda, but neither do I doubt the intelligence of a Chinese citizen. This isn't a foreign policy issue, on which national opinion can be easily manipulated do to the various levels of information filter that exists. This is a domestic policy, one that the Chinese citizen interacts with on a daily basis. And at the end of the day, it is still their country, and not yours. The West has always had a tendency to forget that.

[Keel]

See, again, I don't understand why people insist policies should be made for the long-run, and then never changed. Outside of the Law and Foreign Affairs, I can't name a single Canadian or American policy that wasn't amended, replaced, or removed at least a decade or two after it's implementation. If a President attempted to enact the equivalent of the New Deal nowadays it would be more or less ineffective, while also being branded Socialist. If the House tried to form the Committee on Un-American Activities now people would be outraged.

No one's ever said that a policy shouldn't be changed, however the One-Child Policy has been in existence since 1978(?), meaning 33 years. That's a good one and a half generation so far, or rather 'long-term' as you call it. By their very essence, family planning programmes are long-term. This isn't like some tax-cut instituted for a couple of years, or a new piece of legislation on speeding-limits. This has to do with human reproduction, and as such it is long-term.

Please see 4th response below.

Policies change with the times, and the One Child Policy has already proven to be open to amendment. I think the last thing the Chinese and world economy needs right now is for the country to behave radically, which is what the abolition of a policy is. Gradual change almost always works better than Sudden change, as shown throughout history.

As seem by projections, moving too gradually would result in a declining Chinese population and a number of headaches in the not-so-distant future, something which I've already outlined. I once fail to see how allowing people to choose how much to reproduce, or even just increasing the number to 2, would be 'radical behaviour'. I also fail to see the correlation of this with the World Economy. I don't think Chinese fertility will cause any number of strains upon it.

The 'one-child policy' has not been open to amendment, the only amendment has been an increase in the degree of enforcement in the form of higher fines for breaching the policy. The exemption for minorities and couples with a disabled first child have always been there. I do however accept Proletariat's point that the are political consequences of liberalisation. Factory workers committing suicide and demanding higher pay and better working conditions is bad enough. There is one road the Chinese Government do not want to go down and that is implementing policies similar to 'glasnost' in the Soviet Union. As China is still overpopulated, there is no need for the government to send out liberal signals.

I question the source of that 1.4 number, because I think that's an underestimation. I also think that China's socialist system will strain with the issue of this Chinese Baby Boomer phenomenon, just like how Western democracies are straining right now, but that due to the economic reasons I outlined previously China will get through it fine enough. What will be more dangerous is for a radicalization of Chinese politics resulting from either too-much or too-little wealth redistribution that causes a strong surge of democratization and liberalism, which may or may not threaten those welfare programs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2849170/

Secondly, it would certainly be hard for China to cope through this demographic crisis, as it has not yet grown rich before encountering it (indeed, the Chinese GDP per capita at PPP is but 1/6 of the American one). In 15 years the Chinese population will peak and go into decline, with ever increasing numbers of youngsters. This will be very tough to handle indeed.

"[China] has not grown rich." Ignoring the normative nature of such as statement, are you implying that China could have 'grown rich' before encountering the crisis? You have to be, not implying such a thing would make your statement meaningless. China had a demographic problem back then, the solution was the 'one-child policy'. One of the aims of the 'one-child policy' was to increase the average welfare of the population by decreasing the number of mouths to feed. Unquestionably, had this policy not been introduced, China would be 'less rich' than now. So inevitably, "this demographic crisis" had to occur now if not in the future, it was the only alternative to a grossly overpopulated country. So to say "it would certainly be hard for China to cope through this demographic crisis" is meaningless because would they have been in an even more difficult position had they not implemented the 'one-child policy'. To talk as if China could have 'prepared' for this is ludicrous. Yes, there is a problem now, but what was the alternative?

Yes, China's population will peak then decline, that's the entire point of the 'one-child policy': to decrease population growth. So whats your point? And no, there will not be an increase in the number of youngsters, there will been an increase in 65+ as you have very visually contradicted yourself with your graph. But then again, what was the alternative? An increase in the dependency ratio or the same dependency ratio with a society which has food shortages, which is unable to afford health care and eduction. Are you arguing the latter is a better scenario? Look at India today.

As for "if a two-child policy was instituted and promoted 35 years ago instead, China would perhaps not be facing the issues it will certainly be facing within the next couple of decades and onwards", perhaps you're right. It's speculation of course, and given the affinity between the meritocratic structure of China's current social hierarchy and private wealth, I would argue that the "if" you're talking about there might not be as drastic as you may think. However, they would also undoubtedly encounter other problems associated with a two-child approach, obviously. These problems ranged from economic to social to environmental, and they weren't far into "the next couple of decades and onwards" but in the immediate present, and no matter what style of government a country has, a State almost always addresses immediate problems over long-term ones, and I think the contrary approach to this is unethical and indefensible.

I would expect fertility at replacement levels to have issues, sure, but most likely fewer ones than fertility rates which would correspond to a radical fall in the population and increasing dependency ratios.

Also, I would very much like my government to consider the long-term consequences and implications of their actions, instead of dogged short-termism that you seem to advocate in your last sentence. If we were to start utilising coal on major scale again, today (that is, more than it already is), then energy prices would surely drop and in the present we'd see an upswing in standards of living. But our children and grandchildren would damn us for it, as we damned them to environmental degradation. Short-termism is a bit like peeing your pants. At first it's warm and cozy, but then it gets all smelly and cold, and you're a hell of a lot worse of than before. In fact, it would be a lot more unethical to only hold the short-term in your perspective. You're easing the present at the cost of the unborn generations to come.

Well I think we have established that the 'one-child policy' is a policy that is long term in nature. It aim is to prevent the emergence of an overpopulated country. Thus I agree with you (and disagree with Proletariat) that the long-term should to some extent be taken more seriously. But the disagreement here seems to be the definition of 'long term' and 'overpopulation'. You seem to think that 33 years of family planning exceeds the requirements of 'long term' and that China's danger of becoming overpopulated has vanished. In my opinion, 33 years is close to 'short term' planning when dealing with an issue such as population growth and the danger of overpopulation is still present. This policy is key to preventing food shortages, controlling inflation and increasing the overall welfare of the nation. At what price? At the price of personal liberty, at the price of 200 million 'would be born' children/adults and at the price of an increase in the dependency of the elderly on the younger generations to support them. Such costs are low compared to the alternative.

For the record, I think it's important to keep in mind that the large majority of the Chinese population supports this policy (76%). Paired with the fact that they are ranked #1 in the world for satisfaction with the country's direction, and it leads me to my initial thought on this thread: why is it that we think we know China better than the Chinese do?

This is not really surprising considering the government propaganda that has been breast-fed to the Chinese people over the last 30 years, and doesn't really inform us of much. Without free media to challenge the status quo, the status quo will be very appreciated indeed, especially with skilful propaganda to fill the void that is not filled by the free media. Just ask the Germans and Italians in 1936.

I don't think it matters 'what the people think', we all hate tax increases, we all hate restricted personal freedom. The question is does it lead to better living standards and welfare for the people?

Edited May 15, 2011 by Keel

[Proletariat]

See, the last question you ask Keel is fascinating. I agree that everyone wants more personal freedoms; I'm sure if China's population was closer to Canada's then almost every single person in this fantasy China would be outraged over the One Child Policy. However, the reason why I posted the stat is because, it seems to me, that the Chinese have done the cost-benefit assessment. They've looked at what they've lost in terms of personal freedoms, and they've looked at what they've gained as a collective, and it appears as if three-quarters have come to an approving conclusion.

Also, you are incorrect to say that the One Child Policy has not experienced gradual liberalization. Recently, it was relaxed in 5 provinces for couples where one parent is a single child, from one child to two. There have also been more signs that the State is willing to amend the rules, such as following the Szechuan Earthquake. I obviously stress the "gradual" part - as well as the uncertainties involved with radical liberalization - but China has just recently completed their census. I suspect this data will expedite the process, and that the West should perhaps wait and see before crying wolf.

[Keel]

See, the last question you ask Keel is fascinating. I agree that everyone wants more personal freedoms; I'm sure if China's population was closer to Canada's then almost every single person in this fantasy China would be outraged over the One Child Policy. However, the reason why I posted the stat is because, it seems to me, that the Chinese have done the cost-benefit assessment. They've looked at what they've lost in terms of personal freedoms, and they've looked at what they've gained as a collective, and it appears as if three-quarters have come to an approving conclusion.

I still take the position that it is irrelevant whether or not the people approve the One Child Policy or not, whether they have done their own cost-benefit analysis themselves, or whether those statistics are true. It is the Central Committee's decision and cost-benefit analysis that counts. It is their final policy that counts. So fine, maybe the Chinese people approve, I certainly know my uncles and aunts do not, but their approval or disapproval counts for nothing.

---

Overall, my position is that the One Child Policy is a good policy. It symbolises the rise of a pragmatic and wealthy China and reflects the nature and aims of the man who put it forward, Deng Xiaoping. The Central Committee determines the policy and their interests lie in the welfare of the people and future generations. They take the long-term into consideration. That was a final response to a post above who questioned the brilliancy of such a scheme and talked of Deng as if he was an idiot. The entire point of the policy is to create sustainability, a sustainable economy and society out of the "destabilisation" described.