As the most populous country in the World, China's population control policies have often been the subject of debate and scrutiny, both within and outside of China. China's population did not always grow at a quick pace and, until the recent past, actually experienced declines during certain periods. China's population grew the most during the late 1960s through the early 1980s. However, in the past quarter-century, a combination of the population-control efforts of the Chinese government and changing attitudes among the Chinese have successfully reduced the rate of population growth in China. But does low population growth place its own burdens on society?

China's Population Growth Unstable in Early Periods

Through much of history until the mid 18th century, China's population fluctuated between 10 and 60 million (http://agri-history.ihns.ac.cn/history/renkoubiao.htm). For example, China had 20 million people during the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 BC). But by 1714, its population was only 24 million. The reason for such an apparently low population growth rate is that when the population reached a certain level, it seems that the level of agricultural productivity could not support that many people. Then people became malnourished. Consequently, contagious diseases such as plagues, famines and wars fighting for limited available resources would reduce the population significantly. For example, in 157 AD during the Eastern Han Dynasty (25-220 AD), China's population reached 57 million. But by the end of chaotic years in the Three Kingdoms Period (220-280 AD), the number had been reduced to 16 million.

But all that changed in the 18th century. Under the Emperor Qian Long's reign (1736-1795), China experienced unprecedented population growth. By the middle of the 18th century, the population reached 100 million. When the Emperor passed away in 1795, China registered 400 million people. The 150 years of peace and stability since the creation of the Dynasty was a major factor for the growth, but the most important reason was that by this time, the high yield crops introduced during the late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 AD) had become popular and spread to the whole country. Traditionally, the main crops in China had been low yield sorghum, winter wheat, and millet. But now, the high-yield crops such as corn, potatoes and sweet potatoes were grown in large areas. In addition, people in the north now could grow two crops a year with traditional winter wheat and the newly introduced corn. The great agricultural achievement of the American Indians made the rapid population growth half a world away possible.

But the growth became stagnant again during the mid 19th century. Peasant rebellions, foreign invasions, and civil wars all contributed to it. By the time the communists took power in 1949, the population was about 541 million, only a 35% increase in more than one and half centuries.

Rapid Population Growth Forces Evaluation of Population-Control Measures

Under Mao, the population started another round of rapid increase. Except for a short period in late 1950s and early 1960s, the population grew at a very fast pace. By 1981, the population in China broke the one billion mark (http://www.cpirc.org.cn/en/totpope.htm ). If size really matters, then Emperor Qian Long and Mao should be heroes. (There was a short period of decrease. In 1959, the population was 672 million and in 1961, 659 million. Considering there was a 15 million annual growth in population prior to that period, it seemed no exaggeration to say 20 to 30 million people perished due to starvation even though one can argue that there would not have been a normal birth rate during that period).

By now, the Chinese government realized they already had too many people for them to feed. Any economic growth was offset by the rapid growth of the population. The unemployment pressure, the demand for improved living standard and many other factors forced the government to adopt the stringent one-child policy starting in 1979. It's not the best policy, and we will see it that it brought a lot of problems in the years to come. However, the government didn't appear to have much choice. In the 1950s, the president of Beijing University, Dr. Ma Yinchu (Master of Economics from Yale and Ph.D from Columbia) saw the necessity of family planning. But his suggestions on the subject were not taken seriously. As a matter of a fact, he was criticized for his insightful vision. Some of Mao's senior advisors, Kang Sheng and Chen Boda actually attacked Dr. Ma for his insistence on the family planning suggestion. Since Both Karl Marx (Ma Kesi) and the political economist Thoms Malthus's (Ma Er Sa si) translated Chinese names are surnamed Ma, just as with Dr. Ma Yinchu, some people questioned Dr. Ma Yinchu as to which "Ma" camp he belonged to. His advice was not taken and China lost its opportunity to have a more reasonable population growth. In fact, Ma was forced to quit his position at the University. There is a saying in China, "We lost one Ma Yinchu but we gained an extra 300 million people."

Thanks to the one-child policy, the population growth in China was brought under control. By the end of 2003, China's population stood at 1.292 billion with the birthrate of 12.41/1000 and a natural growth rate at 6.01/1000 (http://www.cpirc.org.cn/tjsj/tjsj_cy_detail.asp?id=1591). The net population increase last year was 7.7 million compared with 23 million per year at the end of 1960s and early 1970s. When the government started the family planning policy three decades ago, its goals were, by 2005, to achieve a natural growth rate of less than 9 and have a total population of 1.33 billion. It predicted the population would peak at 1.6 billion around 2050, followed by net negative growth. Now it seems the government reached its goals ahead of time. The natural growth rate in 2003 was 6.01, well below the targeted 9, and the population won't reach 1.33 billion until the beginning of 2009. In fact, at this rate, China will never reach 1.6 billion. Experts now estimate that the population will never exceed 1.48 billion and a negative growth rate will be achieved before 2050. China is already at the top of the S-curve that means that the decrease of the population will soon materialize.

Low Population Growth Also has a Price

Is this population trend good or bad? Well, it's good in that it reduces the unemployment pressure that is and will continue to be a problem for the next two decades or so. But beyond that time, we will see an aging society we haven't seen anywhere else in the world in term of its scale and extensiveness.

An aging society isn't something unique in China. It's going to be a problem in many Western countries too. For example, the baby boomer generation is about to retire in the United States and it's predicted social security will go bankrupt if no action taken soon. Younger working-age people who are paying social security taxes now to support current benefit payments may not receive any benefits by the time they retire. The record deficit by the current administration isn't helping the situation at all. In Japan, many young people refuse to pay the social security tax since they believe that it is money they'll pay and never see returned. In France, the qualifying age for retirement benefits has been delayed to 70 years old, while the average life expectancy is 75 years old for French men. That means, many people will not be able to receive any of the retirement money they put in.

But none of these problems would compare with what China has to face. Right now, we have 140 million people over 60 years old in China. By 2020, the number will be 240 million and by 2050, 440 million. The total population will be less than 1.5 billion. While the senior citizens increase by three folds, those who are able to work will be much less than now. In other words, each working adult, will have to support 5 or 6 times more people than what workers' payments are supporting now. Currently, there are only between 30 and 40 million retirees being supported by a huge working force and we are not paying a penny to our senior citizens in the countryside. Rather, they have been paying for the urban people's retirement in some intangible ways such as the unfair price system for agricultural products. Many elderly people, even in their 80s, in rural areas have to do whatever they can to help support their families. But if we want to build a truly fair society, that has to change. In addition, rapid urbanization will transform those people in the countryside to urban residents. But does China have enough people paying income tax by then to support the huge elderly population? If the tax base is insufficient, will China have to impose an 80% or 90% income tax on its younger generation and unfairly burden them for a failure in population planning? Or will China be forced to make people attain the age of 80 years old to collect any retirement benefits? Like the French situation, allowing retirees to collect benefits only late in life seems unfair as many of those people would then not live to collect any or all of their benefits.

It is clear then that China will need a sufficiently large, young workforce to pay for social benefits to retirees and that means allowing the population to grow at a faster rate than is currently allowed. However, there is no sign that the one-child policy will be abolished any time soon by this usually unresponsive government. Probably, just as the government was slow in adopting some family planning measures in the 1950s and 1960s, it will be too late for it to take action to this reversed problem. In fact, it might already be too late to abandon the policy.

For the population to sustain its current level, it needs a birth rate of 21. The official number is 12.41 in 2003 that puts China at the 182nd position among the 225 countries listed (http://www.photius.com/rankings/birth_rate_0.html. The chart here ranked China at 168th with the birth rate at 12.9, that's higher than the official number given by the government. I think they used the 2002 statistic since the birth rate for 2002 was 12.86), behind Australia, France and some other industrialized countries. At this growth rate, in another century, China's population will be less than 400 million. It's possible that a combined low birth rate among ethnic Chinese and increased immigration to China could result in more people of non-Chinese descent than the "aboriginal" Chinese in China, just as American Indians became the minority people in their own land.

In fact, if the government discontinues the one-child policy today, it's still doubtful the birthrate can get to 21. Since China has the biggest population in the world, people have the impression that Chinese women reproduce a lot. In fact, it's not true. In 18th century, women in China gave birth to 6 children on average compared with more than eight in Europe. In Malaysia, when it became independent in 1957, the ethnic Chinese population was about 40% of the total. In 2001, its percentage was 25.7%. It's predicted that, 50 years from now, the proportion of ethnic Chinese there will be about 7% and they will have become a politically insignificant group by that time. In Singapore, the birthrate for ethnic Chinese is 13 while that for Malays it is 24. Though the ethnic Chinese constitute 70% of the population now, it's only a matter of a time before they will become a minority. In the United States and Canada, the birthrate for ethnic Chinese is the lowest among all other ethnic groups (http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/asians/asians.html).

The Chinese now tend to pay much more attention to quality of life issues. They want their children to excel but they don't always have the resources to achieve that goal. Having more than one child would make it even harder. Many young people in cities prefer to live as singles and many married couples want to live in what is known as a DINK(double income no kid) family. Workers in the huge migrant workforce in China usually have very poor working conditions. Many of them have to cram into shared small rooms to save money. The migrating women workers usually don't enjoy any maternity leave and if they have kids, childcare and the schooling will be a huge problem. Therefore they don't have much desire to have kids. In addition, it is known that the modern lifestyle has reduced the fertility rate for women, and men's sterility rate increased from 4% twenty years ago to more than 15% today. For those who are capable of giving birth, if they have two kids rather than one on average, the natural birthrate will still be short of 21 and the population will still decrease.

Years ago, when the government tried to persuade poor peasants to use birth control, the government told peasants that they were poor because they had too many kids. The peasants contended that they had and needed more kids [to work and support the family] because they were poor. Now, it seems those peasants may finally be correct: Did any of them realize then that having more kids could make them wealthy, since human resources probably will be again a great asset a few decades from now, where the developed world might fight for young immigrant workers just as they fight for oil today?