In 1979, the Chinese government adopted a one-child family planning policy in hopes of limiting population growth and keeping the Chinese population in check. For the most part, the policy was successful, preventing around 400 million births that would undoubtedly have drained China’s resources and living space as well as harmed the environment.
Because of these and other factors, I think the benefits of the one-child policy ultimately outweigh its social costs, such as forced abortions, $3,000 to $5,000 fines for breaking the law and child abductions if the fines aren’t paid.
Yet this past week Chinese leaders announced that the longstanding one-child policy will be loosened and eventually scrapped because critics think it is harming the Chinese economy.
Although there is no time frame for when and how the policy will be changed, it is imperative that China should maintain the one-child policy for the near future.
Scrapping the policy would cause a resurgence in population growth in urban areas, increasing the difficulty involved in solving problems such as famine and pollution. Part of China’s original reasoning for the policy was that uncontrolled population growth was leading to the depletion of natural resources, including land fertility for crops.
But the fears of overpopulation go beyond hunger and poverty.
Overpopulation is linked to decreased global species biodiversity as well as increased pollution. China is currently home to 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities. Urban residents often wear masks, and smog covers most of the country’s major cities. Although the lack of strong air pollution laws factor into these environmental issues, overpopulation is the ultimate cause of the drastic increases in both urban factories and car ownership — top contributors to air pollution.
The current policy itself is a bit deceiving, as it does not actually apply to the majority of the Chinese population but rather the urban population. This is reasonable, as China possesses the world’s largest population — nearly 1.4 billion — as well as some of the largest populated cities in the world, such as Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou and Shenzhen.
There are currently several exceptions to the one-child policy. For instance, two parents who were both only children can have a second child. Rural parents can generally have a second child as well, either after five years or if their first child is a girl or is disabled. The right to have a third child is sometimes extended to ethnic minorities or couples in under-populated areas. There are also other possibilities such as paying fines that can provide for another child. The World Factbook reveals that there is an average of 1.55 children for every woman in China. This figure suggests the family-planning laws are enforced somewhat loosely.
The reform to the one-child policy, announced last Friday, will extend exceptions to urban families if one of the parents is an only child. This change, however, will only affect 15 to 30 million people. If China makes the larger leap to scrapping the one-child policy altogether or allowing all urban families to have two children, it risks intensifying the overpopulation issues that it already faces.
I acknowledge that the one-child policy has sometimes brought out the worst in China. A strong cultural preference for boys has caused a gender imbalance. It has also often been the source of disturbing forced abortion and sterilization stories. Yet, while the policy has been in place, the ratio of male and female students in college has become more balanced than China has ever seen. And the social costs are the unfortunate price to pay to avoid overpopulating cities.
Another argument against the one-child policy is that China needs a new generation of laborers. Given the tripling of college enrollment in China in the last 10 years as well as the decrease in 18-year olds entering the workforce, ridding China of the one-child policy may not be the answer. This increase from 2.2 million Chinese people enrolling in college in 2000 to 6.6 million in 2010 potentially means that the next Chinese generation is less focused on working in factories for cheap labor and more on receiving an education.
Ultimately, allowing families that have one parent who is an only child to have two children will not greatly impact the Chinese population. On the other hand, if China transitions to a more open policy either by allowing all families two children or eliminating the policy altogether, there will be significant ramifications. With the largest population in the world, China’s cities cannot afford a potential baby boom. For now, China needs to recognize the need to stick with the one-child policy and avoid a “two or more” outlook.
Jared Fogel is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. His columns run Fridays.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 hours agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
