We need to reduce, not increase, population

At the 2002 national population science seminar, I proposed two long-term objective plans: bringing down the population to between 800 million and 1 billion by 2100, and 300 million and 500 million by 2200. This would require people to keep the birthrate around 1.5 per couple for a considerable period.

The proposals sparked a heated debate. Though many people said the one-child policy should be loosened, none of them furnished enough data to support their argument.

Let's see what are the benefits of the two objectives. First, a decreased population would ensure higher average personal income. Second, it would help improve the environment, guaranteeing people a better quality of life. Third, it would offer better scope for education, especially higher studies and thus strengthen the country's knowledge bank. Fourth, despite being fewer in number, Chinese would make a greater contribution to world development.

People who oppose the family planning policy should consider some pressing problems we are already facing: depleting water sources, receding underground water tables, pollution of rivers and lakes, desertification, accelerating extinction of species, rising emission of greenhouse gases and fast disappearing natural resources. All these are obstacles to economic development and environmental protection.

The government is already finding it difficult to control the birthrate because of the huge population. Even if we follow the existing family planning policy, the population will grow by more than 10 million a year.

Skeptics may say China is a country with a vast land area that has room for more people. But compared with the US, Australia and India it has a lower proportion of arable land. With less per capita arable land and a lower multiple crop index, it faces a higher risk of food shortage than India.

In deep contrast to the swiftly rising population is the rapidly declining arable land in China. From 1996 to 2002, the country's population grew by 60 million. But the arable land decreased by 61.64 million mu, and this trend is likely to continue for many years. There is no doubt that food supply will become a serious problem if the population growth is not controlled. Besides, those who want a two-child policy should also know that China is one of the 13 countries suffering from extreme lack of water sources - its water reserve is only one-fourth of the world's average.

The people who oppose the family planning policy generally present three arguments in their support.

First, they say Chinese society is facing an aging population crisis. This arouses confusion and obscurity. Aging of a population is a statistical concept. An aging crisis is an economic concept. As long as a country has enough workforce the result of an aging population can only be the reduction in the size of its surplus labor force, not a crisis. Some experts only see the decreasing workforce and fear that would increase the burden on young people who have to work to pay for the pension for the superannuated. But they ignore rising labor productivity, which ultimately supports a society to produce for all. Given the present standards of our agricultural technology, even if China's population is reduced to 300 million to 500 million, it will not face a shortage of laborers. Therefore, the aging process may be a fact, but not an aging crisis.

Second, they insist that loosening the family planning policy would correct the present gender imbalance. According to our (Institute of Population and Labor Economy of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) survey, people in many parts of China still consider a son essential to carry on the family name. So a couple who already has a girl will go for a boy, not another girl. That would mean more boys, further worsening the gender imbalance.

Third, they say one-child families face risks such as child mortality and unusual psychological developments among children. But risk is an integral part of life and society. Even parents face the risk of mortality. Going by their logic, the bigger a family, the greater the risk. The fact is a society in most urgent need of resources faces the highest risk.

Negative growth of the population is crucial, because a smaller population and better economic condition can ensure foolproof social security. It is increasing personal income, not an overblown population, which can truly reduce risks.

The last reason they cite to oppose the family planning policy is: If China has a smaller population it would lose its advantage in cheap labor. An economy can be modernized through mechanization and higher efficiency, and by replacing its labor-intensive industries with skill-intensive ones. In this age of globalization, dominated by hi-tech and accumulated capital, cheap labor does not enjoy any advantage. China has enjoyed this advantage because of the sacrifice of its laborers. China and India have undoubtedly benefited from such an advantage, but only because their workers have paid for that with hard labor and suffering. Will any of those advocating this advantage be willing to work as a low-cost laborer?

China's population has already exceeded the ecological limit after which a suitable environment and ample supply cannot be ensured. Family planning is one of the most essential public policies of the country and it has benefited (and will benefit) generations. There can be no debate on that. Our only aim should be to raise the income of only-child families in rural areas and encourage more families to have only one child by providing better social security to ensure that our population stops growing sooner than later.

The author is a researcher with the Institute of Population and Labor Economy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

(China Daily 02/01/2010 page9)