China’s “only child” policy, which was designed to reduce overall population growth in the nation, was enacted in 1979. It was the hope of the Chinese government that, by limiting families to just one child, they could slow population growth, if not stop it completely. In fact, the policy has had the effect of reducing the population in China, and the world, by some 250 million since its inception (Choi and Kane). That prize, however, has not come without a cost.
Though most do not realize it, the “only child” policy was not the initial step in China’s attempt to control their population growth. After the ‘baby boom’ that China experienced between 1953 and 1970, the country began to feel the strain of trying to meet the needs of overpopulation. China quickly began implementing plans to curtail population growth. At first the vehicles for change were related to resources and changes in social conventions. Birth control and abortion services were expanded and made more readily available to even rural areas. At the same time, “there was extensive promotion of later marriage, longer intervals between births, and smaller families.” (Choi and Kane) These efforts did have a surprising effect on the size of the Chinese population, reducing China’s population growth from around 2.8% to around 1.8% in just five years (Choi and Kane). China set its next goal at 1% population growth and enacted the “only child” policy.
Under the “only child” policy, the Chinese government urged families to limit themselves to just one child and offered families incentives for following through with the restriction. Families having only one child were offered “a package of financial and other incentives, such as preferential access to housing, schools, and health services.” (Choi and Kane) Families having more than one child were, in effect, punished through the imposition of financial levies on additional children as well as through peer pressure and the possibility of limitations on career prospects for those employed by the government. In urban areas, adaptation to the “only child” policy came quickly and easily because having only one child was better suited to the lifestyle of China’s city dwellers. In the rural population, however, change continues to be slow.
Today, nearly 30 years after the implementation of the policy, the policy’s success is undeniable. There have, however, been quite a few unforeseen consequences. The most profound, and perhaps most disturbing, of these consequences has been the rise of sex discrimination left in the policy’s wake.
In China, giving birth to a boy is called a Great Happiness or a Big Happiness. Giving birth to a girl is called a Small Happiness. This idea – of boys being a ‘Big Happiness’ and girls being a ‘Small Happiness’ – is at the heart of the Chinese way of life because, in China, when a daughter gets married, she goes to live with her husband’s family, but when a son gets married, his wife comes to live with his family. In this way, the Chinese have set up a sort of social security system for themselves, but having a son is a crucial part of making the plan work. Prior to the “only child” policy, if a couple’s first child was not a son they could continue trying until they did have a son. After the policy, however, many families were left with a difficult choice. If their child was a girl and they could have no more children, what were they to do in their old age? Their daughter would eventually marry and go to live with her husband’s family, leaving her own parents with no means of support once they were too old to support themselves. This problem has had devastating results in China. Families, refusing to be denied security in their later years, began aborting female fetuses, killing or abandoning female babies, and putting their baby girls up for adoption. The trend led to a difference in sex ratios of 114 boys to every 100 girls by the early 1990’s (Choi and Kane) and has been the direct cause of the devaluation of women in China. In Chinese culture, under the “only child” policy, girls just aren’t worth as much as boys.
In the end, it’s difficult to say whether China was right in limiting families to just one child. On the economic level, the choice made sense. With a population growth of very nearly 3%, there was no way that the country could sustain its overwhelming expansion. In that regard, the “only child” policy has been a miracle to the people of China. But has the cost of protecting the many come at too high a price for the individual? In most regards, I would have to say yes. China’s underlying social construct of the male child caring for the parents in their old age does not lend itself well to the change brought on by the “only child” policy. It has lent its own set of complications to an already delicate situation.
I do think that limitation on population growth is a necessary evil in today’s world. And I do think China was right to begin the progressive process of correcting their immense overpopulation. However, I don’t believe they took stock of their own traditions and social constructions before they implemented their plan. In America, for instance, an only child policy might not result in such discrimination against girls. It would certainly have its other problems, but since we do not, as a society, rely on our sons to support us as we grow older, there would not be such a drive to throw out girls in favor of trying to have a boy. The “only child” policy is a good and effective one but it is not the right policy for the social conditions in China.
Reference:
Ching Y Choi, and Penny Kane. “China’s one child family policy.(Statistical Data Included).” British Medical Journal 319.7215 (Oct 9, 1999): 992. InfoTrac OneFile. Thomson Gale. Virginia Commonwealth University. 25 Sep. 2006
