Case Study

Population, Poverty, and Development: China and India

China and India are said to have the world's fastest growing economies and to be the world's
most populous countries. Chinese policymakers led by Mao Zedong imprisoned population control
activists in 1949, believing that a greater population would result in a more powerful country.
However, in 1980, they launched a fresh campaign to discourage births, and in 1982-1983, a one-
child-per-family policy was established, requiring women to petition to the neighborhood
committee or council for their official approval to conceive a child. Second births were usually
only authorized if the first offspring had a major birth defect or if the mother had remarried. One-
child families were given precedence in housing, medical services, and schooling, whereas women
with two or more children were frequently denied promotions and faced heavy fines. In recent
years, a growing number of exceptions have been implemented, including the ability to have a
second child if the first child is a daughter or if both parents are only children, themselves. The
restriction was further relaxed at the Third Plenum in 2013, with a second child allowed if either
parent is an only child. India, on the other hand, became the first country in the world to develop
a nationwide family planning program. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi tried to impose severe
population control in 1975-1977 with reports of forced sterilization and other coercive techniques,
and in Madhya Pradesh, those who had their third or subsequent child after January 2001 were
barred from running for village council positions. But Kerala, a state on India’s southwest coast,
takes a different strategy, focusing on women's empowerment and education rather than coercion.
There has been family planning advertising on television, billboards, and other media in this area.

In China, successful population control comes with its own set of hazards and unanticipated
effects, as well as significant benefits. According to economists Shang-Jin Wei and Xiaobo
Zhang's 2009 study, China's recent new rise in savings is fueled in part by competitive investments
in housing and other riches earned by families seeking brides for their sons. Despite the changes
that have occurred over the years, China’s one-child-per-family policy remains one of the most
restrictive in the world. As a result, there is a strong societal preference for boys, and there have
been several accounts of girls receiving inferior medical care, as well as selective abortion of
female babies and even genital mutilation. Furthermore, Amartya Sen's groundbreaking 1992
study projected that 44 to 50 million women were already "missing," and recent statistics
confirmed that these trends have continued, with Stephan Klasen and Claudia Wink estimating
that far over 6% of women are "missing." As a result, China's male-to-female ratio is higher than
the usual in many Asian countries. In the mid-1990s, its fertility rate went below equilibrium,
indicating a long-term reduction of population growth, and its population growth rate has slowed
significantly. As a result, there are currently fears that China may need to rethink its policies in
order to avoid an excessive dependency ratio of retired to working persons, hence the phrase
"China must get rich before it gets old." According to a research released in 2007, China's State
Population and Family Planning Commission estimates that by 2020, the country will have nearly
30 million more men than women of marriageable age, posing a risk of social instability. While in
India, stories of forced sterilization and other coercive tactics during Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi's attempt to impose harsh population control in 1975-1977 gave family planning a negative
reputation in many sections of the country. Fertility has decreased, but a preference for boys over
girls has evolved, resulting in a "missing women" problem similar to China's. It resulted in a major
sex ratio discrepancy at birth, which is expected to cause future social stress. However, in Kerala,
they have accomplished huge reductions in fertility without resorting to force, and females
here outnumbered males. Greater than 85% of their women are literate, which means they have
more influence in the family, more job options, and the ability to read print literature about fertility
and family planning.

Population policy might have played an important role in laying the stage for growth but as
results reflected from Kerala, fertility reduction does not need the presence or absence of rapid
economic growth or even severe government measures; rather, it can be done through fundamental
human development that prioritizes women's empowerment, with civil society playing a key role.
For me, there is no need for these kinds of policy like China’s because they are such a striking
shift from the traditional family values and beliefs of the worth of children. Apart from the sex
selective abortions, it has also resulted in forced abortions of "illegal children," or children of
couples who already have a child, forced sterilization by family planning officials, which is a
global issue of human rights breaches. I think, what we need is for women to be literate, as they
were in Kerala, so that they can be aware of the repercussions of not having an effective family
planning, as well as the benefits of having a good one. There is no reason why Kerala's success
cannot be replicated elsewhere in India if the political and social will exist, as stated in the case
study. Not just in India, but around the world, I believe.