Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:05, 26 January 2011

The one-child policy (simplified Chinese: 计划生育政策; traditional Chinese: 計劃生育政策; pinyin: jìhuà shēngyù zhèngcèl=policy of birth planning) refers to the one-child limitation on most families in the population control policy of the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Chinese government refers to it under the official translation of family planning policy. It officially restricts the number of children married urban couples can have to one, although it allows exemptions for several cases, including rural couples, ethnic minorities, and parents without any siblings themselves. A spokesperson of the Committee on the One-Child Policy has said that approximately 35.9% of China's population is currently subject to the one-child restriction. The Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau are completely exempted from the policy.

The policy was introduced in 1978 and initially applied to first-born children in 1979. It was created by the Chinese government to alleviate social, economic, and environmental problems in China, and authorities claim that the policy has prevented between 250 and 300 million births from its implementation to 2000 and 400 million births from 1979 to 2010. The policy is controversial both within and outside China because of the manner in which the policy has been implemented, and because of concerns about negative social consequences. The policy has been implicated in an increase in forced abortions, female infanticide, and underreporting of female births, and has been suggested as a possible cause behind China's gender imbalance. Nonetheless, a 2008 survey undertaken by the Pew Research Center reported that 76% of the Chinese population supports the policy.

The policy is enforced at the provincial level through fines that are imposed based on the income of the family and other factors. Population and Family Planning Commissions (Chinese: 计划生育委员会) exist at every level of government to raise awareness about the issue and carry out registration and inspection work. Despite this policy, there are still many citizens that continue to have more than one child.

In 2008, China's National Population and Family Planning Commission said that the policy will remain in place for at least another decade. In 2010 it was announced that the majority of the citizens first subject to the policy are no longer of reproductive age and it has been speculated that many citizens simply disregard or violate the policy in more recent years. In response, the deputy director of the Commission stated that the policy would remain unaltered until at least 2015.

Overview

The one-child policy promotes one-child families and forbids couples from having more than one child in urban areas. Parents with multiple children aren't given the same benefits as parents of one child. In most cases, wealthy families pay a fee to the government in order to have a second child or more.

Current status

The limit has been strongly enforced in urban areas, but the actual implementation varies from location to location. In most rural areas, families are allowed to apply to have a second child if the first is a girl, or has a physical disability, mental illness or mental retardation. Second children are subject to birth spacing (usually 3 or 4 years). Additional children will result in large fines: families violating the policy are required to pay monetary penalties and might be denied bonuses at their workplace. Children born in overseas countries are not counted under the policy if they do not obtain Chinese citizenship. Chinese citizens returning from abroad can have a second child.

The social fostering or maintenance fee (simplified Chinese: 社会抚养费; traditional Chinese: 社會撫養費; pinyin: shèhuì fúyǎng fèi) sometimes called in the West a family planning fine, is collected as a multiple of either the annual disposable income of city dwellers or the annual cash income of peasants as determined each year by the local statistics office. The fine for a child born above the birth quota that year is thus a multiple of, depending upon the locality, either urban resident disposable income or peasant cash income estimated that year by the local statistics. So a fine for a child born ten years ago is based on the income estimate for the year of the child's birth and not of the current year. They also have to pay for both the children to go to school and all the family's health care. Some children who are in one-child families pay less than the children in other families. The one child policy was designed from the outset to be a one generation policy.

The one-child policy is now enforced at the provincial level, and enforcement varies; some provinces have relaxed the restrictions. Many provinces and cities, such as Henan and Beijing, permit two "only child" parents to have two children. As early as 1987, official policy granted local officials the flexibility to make exceptions and allow second children in the case of "practical difficulties" (such as cases in which the father is a disabled serviceman) or when both parents are single children, and some provinces had other exemptions worked into their policies as well. Following the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, a new exception to the regulations was announced in Sichuan province for parents who had lost children in the earthquake. Similar exceptions have previously been made for parents of severely disabled or deceased children.

Moreover, in accordance with PRC's affirmative action policies towards ethnic minorities, all non-Han ethnic groups are subjected to different rules and are usually allowed to have two children in urban areas, and three or four in rural areas. Han Chinese living in rural areas, also, are often permitted to have two children. Because of couples such as these, as well as urban couples who simply pay a fine (or "social maintenance fee") to have more children, the overall fertility rate of mainland China is closer to two children per family than to one child per family (1.8). The steepest drop in fertility occurred in the 1970s before one child per family was implemented in 1979. Population policies and campaigns have been ongoing in China since the 1950s. During the 1970s, a campaign of 'One is good, two is okay, and three is too many' was heavily promoted.

In April 2007 a study by the University of California, Irvine, which claimed to be the first systematic study of the policy, found that it had proved "remarkably effective". Other reports have shown population aging and negative population growth in some areas.

An advocacy group, composed of academics inside and outside China, has studied the policy since 2001. That group distributed a report in 2004, documenting the policy's effects on age and gender distribution. But government response was not favorable. The group distributed another report in 2009, but the government has stated that the policy will not change until 2015 at the earliest.

Effects on population growth and fertility rate

After the introduction of the one-child policy, the fertility rate in China fell from over three births per woman in 1980 (already a sharp reduction from more than five births per woman in the early 1970s) to approximately 1.8 births in 2008. (The colloquial term "births per woman" is usually formalized as the Total Fertility Rate (TFR), a technical term in demographic analysis meaning the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates through her lifetime.)

The Chinese government estimates that it had three to four hundred million fewer people in 2008 with the one-child policy, than it would have had otherwise. Chinese authorities thus consider the policy as a great success in helping to implement China's current economic growth. The reduction in the fertility rate and thus population growth has reduced the severity of problems that come with overpopulation, like epidemics, slums, overwhelmed social services (such as health, education, law enforcement), and strain on the ecosystem from abuse of fertile land and production of high volumes of waste. Even with the one-child policy in place, "China still has one million more births than deaths every five weeks."

Non-population-related benefits

Impact on health care

It is reported that the focus of China on population control helps provide a better health service for women and a reduction in the risks of death and injury associated with pregnancy. At family planning offices, women receive free contraception and pre-natal classes. Help is provided for pregnant women to closely monitor their health. In various places in China, the government rolled out a ‘Care for Girls’ program, which aims at eliminating cultural discrimination against girls in rural and underdeveloped areas through subsidies and education.

Increased savings rate

The individual savings rate has increased since the one-child policy was introduced. This has been partially attributed to the policy in two respects. First, the average Chinese household expends fewer resources, both in terms of time and money, on children, which gives many Chinese more money with which to invest. Second, since young Chinese can no longer rely on children to care for them in their old age, there is an impetus to save money for the future.

Economic growth

The original intent of the one-child policy was economic, to reduce the demand of natural resources, maintaining a steady labor rate, reducing unemployment caused from surplus labor, and reducing the rate of exploitation. The CPC's justification for this policy was based on their support of Mao Zedong's supposedly Marxist theory of population growth, though Marx was actually witheringly critical of Malthusianism.

Criticisms

Other available policy alternatives

One type of criticism has come from those who acknowledge the challenges stemming from China's high population growth but believe that less intrusive options, including those that emphasized delay and spacing of births, could have achieved the same results over an extended period of time. Susan Greenhalgh's (2003) review of the policy-making process behind the adoption of the OCPF shows that some of these alternatives were known but not fully considered by China's political leaders.

Policy benefits exaggerated

Another criticism is directed at the exaggerated claimed effects of the policy on the reduction in the total fertility rate. Studies by Chinese demographers, funded in part by the UN Fund for Population Activities, showed that combining poverty alleviation and health care with relaxed targets for family planning was more effective at reducing fertility than vigorous enforcement of very ambitious fertility reduction targets. In 1988, Zeng Yi and professor T. Paul Schultz of Yale University discussed the effect of the transformation to the market on Chinese fertility, arguing that the introduction of the contract responsibility system in agriculture during the early 1980s weakened family planning controls during that period. Zeng contended that the "big cooking pot" system of the People's Communes had insulated people from the costs of having many children. By the late 1980s, economic costs and incentives created by the contract system were already reducing the number of children farmers wanted.

As Hasketh, Lu, and Xing observe: "he policy itself is probably only partially responsible for the reduction in the total fertility rate. The most dramatic decrease in the rate actually occurred before the policy was imposed. Between 1970 and 1979, the largely voluntary "late, long, few" policy, which called for later childbearing, greater spacing between children, and fewer children, had already resulted in a halving of the total fertility rate, from 5.9 to 2.9. After the one-child policy was introduced, there was a more gradual fall in the rate until 1995, and it has more or less stabilized at approximately 1.7 since then." These researchers note further that China could have expected a continued reduction in its fertility rate just from continued economic development, had it kept to the previous policy.

Human rights

The one-child policy is challenged in principle and in practice for violating a human right to determine the size of one's own family. A 2001 report exposed that a quota of 20,000 abortions and sterilizations was set for Huaiji County in Guangdong Province in one year due to reported disregard of the one-child policy. The effort included using portable ultrasound devices to identify abortion candidates in remote villages. Earlier reports also show that women as far along as 8.5 months pregnant were forced to abort by injection of saline solution. There have also been reports of women, in their 9th month of pregnancy or already in labour, having their children killed whilst in the birth canal or immediately after birth. Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute announced that the One child policy is "an ongoing genocide." He argued that free market capitalism will solve the overpopulation and overconsumption problems of developing nations.

In 2002, China outlawed the use of physical force to make a woman submit to an abortion or sterilization, but it is not entirely enforced. In the execution of the policy, many local governments still demand abortions if the pregnancy violates local regulations.

Although China has had a reputation for heavy handed eugenics policies as part of its population planning policies, the government has backed away from such policies recently, as evidenced by China's ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which compels the nation to significantly reform its genetic testing laws. Recent scholarship has also emphasized the necessity of understanding a myriad of complex social relations that affect the meaning of informed consent in China. Furthermore, in 2003, China revised its marriage registration regulations and couples no longer have to submit to a pre-marital physical or genetic examination before being granted a marriage license.

The United Nations Population Fund's (UNFPA) funding for this policy is heavily criticized in the United States. The United States Congress pulled out of the UNFPA during the Reagan years, and U.S. President George W. Bush referred to human rights abuses as his reason for stopping the US$40 million payment to the UNFPA in early 2002. In early 2003 the U.S. State Department issued a press release stating that they would not continue to support the UNFPA in its present form because they believed that, at the very least, coercive birth limitation practices were not being properly addressed. The U.S. government has stated that the right to "found a family" is protected under the Preamble in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This, coupled with the International Conference on Population and Development's view that it is the right of the individual, not the state, to determine the number of children, represents a clear conflict between China's policy and U.S. accepted and adopted human rights conventions.

President Obama resumed U.S. government financial support for the UNFPA shortly after taking office in 2009. Obama said, "I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries."

The "four-two-one" problem

As the first generation of law-enforced only children came of age for becoming parents themselves, one adult child was left with having to provide support for his or her two parents and four grandparents. Called the "4-2-1 Problem", this leaves the older generations with increased chances of dependency on retirement funds or charity in order to receive support. If personal savings, pensions, or state welfare fail, most senior citizens would be left entirely dependent upon their very small family or neighbors for assistance. If, for any reason, the single child is unable to care for their older adult relatives, the oldest generations would face a lack of resources and necessities. In response to such an issue, certain provinces maintained that couples were allowed to have two children if both parents were only children themselves. As of 2009, all provinces in the nation adopted this new adaptation.

Possible social problems for a generation of only children

Some parents may over-indulge their only child. The media referred to the indulged children in one-child families as "little emperors". Since the 1990s, some people have worried that this will result in a higher tendency toward poor social communication and cooperation skills among the new generation, as they have no siblings at home. No social studies have investigated the ratio of these over-indulged children and to what extent they are indulged. With the first generation of children born under the policy (which initially became a requirement for most couples with first children born starting in 1979 and extending into 1980s) reaching adulthood, such worries are reduced.

Some 30 delegates called on the government in the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in March 2007 to abolish the one-child rule, attributing their beliefs to "social problems and personality disorders in young people". One statement read, "It is not healthy for children to play only with their parents and be spoiled by them: it is not right to limit the number to two children per family, either." The proposal was prepared by Ye Tingfang, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who suggested that the government at least restore the previous rule that allowed couples to have up to two children. According to a scholar, "The one-child limit is too extreme. It violates nature’s law. And in the long run, this will lead to mother nature’s revenge."

Besides siblings, a well enforced one child policy would result in a generation of Chinese who likewise do not have cousins, aunts, or uncles. Many social theorists and psychiatrists feel the implications of such a circumstance are grave because it might promote a level of self-centeredness never before seen in history.

Unequal enforcement

Government officials and especially wealthy individuals have often been able to violate the policy in spite of fines. For example, between 2000 and 2005, as many as 1,968 officials in central China's Hunan province were found to be violating the policy, according to the provincial family planning commission; also exposed by the commission were 21 national and local lawmakers, 24 political advisors, 112 entrepreneurs and 6 senior intellectuals. Some of the offending officials did not face penalties, although the government did respond by raising fines and calling on local officials to "expose the celebrities and high-income people who violate the family planning policy and have more than one child."

Side effects on female population

China, like many other Asian countries, has a long tradition of son preference. The commonly accepted explanation for son preference is that sons in rural families may be thought to be more helpful in farm work. Both rural and urban populations have economic and traditional incentives, including widespread remnants of Confucianism, to prefer sons over daughters. Sons are preferred as they provide the primary financial support for the parents in their retirement, and a son's parents typically are better cared for than his wife's. In addition, Chinese traditionally hold that daughters, on their marriage, become primarily part of the groom's family. Male-to-female sex ratios in the current Chinese population are high in both rural and urban areas.

Gender-based birth rate disparity

The sex ratio at birth (between male and female births) in mainland China reached 117:100 in the year 2000, substantially higher than the natural baseline, which ranges between 103:100 and 107:100. It had risen from 108:100 in 1981—at the boundary of the natural baseline—to 111:100 in 1990. According to a report by the State Population and Family Planning Commission, there will be 30 million more men than women in 2020, potentially leading to social instability, and courtship-motivated emigration. The correlation between the increase of sex ratio disparity on birth and the deployment of one child policy would appear to have been caused by the one-child policy.

Other Asian regions also have higher than average ratios, including Taiwan (110:100) and South Korea (108:100), which do not have a family planning policy and the ratio in South Korea was as high as 116:100 in the early 1990s but since then has moved substantially back toward a normal range, with a ratio of 107:100 in 2005. Many studies have explored the reason for the gender-based birth rate disparity in China as well as other countries. A study in 1990 attributed the high preponderance of reported male births in mainland China to four main causes: diseases which affect females more severely than males; the result of widespread underreporting of female births; the illegal practice of sex-selective abortion made possible by the widespread availability of ultrasound; and finally, acts of child abandonment and infanticide. The number of bachelors in China had already increased between 1990 and 2005, implying that China's lack of brides is not solely linked to the one-child policy, as single-child families were only enforced from 1979.

In a recent paper, Emily Oster (2005) proposed a biological explanation for the gender imbalance in Asian countries, including China. Using data on viral prevalence by country as well as estimates of the effect of hepatitis on sex ratio, Oster claimed that Hepatitis B could account for up to 75% of the gender disparity in China.

Monica Das Gupta (2005) has shown that "whether or not females 'go missing' is determined by the existing sex composition of the family into which they are conceived. Girls with no older sisters have similar chances of survival as boys. Girls conceived in families that already have a daughter, experience steeply higher probabilities of being aborted or of dying in early childhood. Gupta claims that cultural factors provide the overwhelming explanation for the "missing" females."

The disparity in the sex ratio at birth increases dramatically after the first birth, for which the ratios remained steadily within the natural baseline over the 20 year interval between 1980 and 1999. Thus, a large majority of couples appear to accept the outcome of the first pregnancy, whether it is a boy or a girl. If the first child is a girl, and they are able to have a second child, then a couple may take extraordinary steps to assure that the second child is a boy. If a couple already has two or more boys, the sex ratio of higher parity births swings decidedly in a feminine direction.

This demographic evidence indicates that while families highly value having male offspring, a secondary norm of having a girl or having some balance in the sexes of children often comes into play. For example, Zeng et al. (1993) reported a study based on the 1990 census in which they found sex ratios of just 65 or 70 boys per 100 girls for births in families that already had two or more boys. A study by Anderson and Silver (1995) found a similar pattern among both Han and non-Han nationalities in Xinjiang Province: a strong preference for girls in high parity births in families that had already borne two or more boys. This evidence is consistent with the observation by another researcher that for a majority of rural families "their ideal family size is one boy and one girl, at most two boys and one girl".

A 2006 review article by the Editorial Board of Population Research (Chinese: 人口研究; pinyin: Rénkǒu Yánjiū), one of China's leading demography journals, argued that only an approach that makes the rights of women central can succeed in bringing down China's high gender ratio at birth and improve the survival rate of female infants and girls. A section written by East China Normal University demography professor Ci Qinying, "Research on the Sex Ratio at Birth Should Take a Gender Discrimination Approach," argued that researchers must pay closer attention to gender issues in demography, and a human rights perspective in demographic research is crucial.

The authors of another review article, "Girl Survival in China: History, Present Situation and Prospects," which was presented at a 2005 conference supported by the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), concluded that "The Chinese government has already set the goal of achieving a normal gender ratio at birth by 2010, and to achieve preliminary results in establishing a new cultural outlook on marriage and having children. The government is working to change the system, way of thinking and other obstacles to attacking the root of the problem. Only if equality of males and females is strongly promoted ... will the harmonious and sustainable development of society be possible."

Abandoned or orphaned children and adoption

The social pressure exerted by the one-child policy has affected the rate at which parents abandon undesirable children, and many live in state-sponsored orphanages, from which thousands are adopted internationally and by Chinese parents each year. In the 1980s and early 1990s, poor care and high mortality rates in some state institutions generated intense international pressure for reform.

According to Sten Johansson and Ola Nygren (1991) adoptions accounted for half of the so-called "missing girls" in the 1980s in the PRC. Through the 1980s, as the one-child policy came into force, parents who desired a son but bore a daughter in some cases failed to report or delayed the reporting of the birth of the girl to the authorities. But rather than neglecting or abandoning unwanted girls, the parents may have offered them up for formal or informal adoption. A majority of children who went through formal adoption in China in the later 1980s were girls, and the proportion who were girls increased over time (Johansson and Nygren 1991).

The practice of adopting out unwanted girls is consistent with both the son preference of many Chinese couples and the findings of Zeng et al. (1993) and Anderson and Silver (1995) that under some circumstances families have a preference for girls, in particular when they have already satisfied their goals for sons. Research by Weiguo Zhang (2006) on child adoption in rural China reveals increasing receptivity to adopting girls, including by infertile and childless couples.

In 1992, China instituted its first Adoption Law. Officially registered adoptions increased from about 2,000 in 1992 to 55,000 in 2001. According to one scholar, these figures "represent a small proportion of adoptions in China because many adopted children were adopted informally without official registrations. . . ."

International adoption rates climbed dramatically after the early 1990s, increasing to the U.S. alone from about 200 in 1992 to more than 7,900 in 2005.

According to the Los Angeles Times, many babies put up for adoption had not been abandoned by their parents, but confiscated by family planning officials.

Infanticide

Gender-selected abortion, abandonment, and infanticide are illegal in China. Nevertheless, the US State Department, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the human rights organization Amnesty International have all declared that China's family planning programs contribute to infanticide.

Anthropologist G. William Skinner at the University of California-Davis and Chinese researcher Yuan Jianhua have claimed that infanticide was fairly common in China before the 1990s.

Fertility medicines

A 2006 China Daily report stated that wealthy couples are increasingly turning to fertility medicines to have multiple births, because of the lack of penalties against couples who have more than one child in their first birth; according to the report, the number of multiple births per year in China had doubled by 2006.

See also

• Demographics of the People's Republic of China
• Demographic momentum
• Family planning
• Human rights in the People's Republic of China
• Only child
• Reproductive health
• Two-child policy
• Urbanization in China
• Heihaizi
• Iron Fist Campaign

References

1. Information Office of the State Council Of the People's Republic of China (August 1995). "Family Planning in China". Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Lithuania. Retrieved 27 October 2008. Section III paragraph 2.
2. ^ BBC: China steps up "one-child policy".
3. "Most people free to have more child". 7/11/2007. Retrieved 2009-07-31. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Rocha da Silva, Pascal (2006). "La politique de l'enfant unique en République populaire de Chine" ("The politics of one child in the People's Republic of China"). Université de Genève (University of Geneva). p. 22-8. Template:Fr icon
5. ^ Mara Hvistendahl (17 September 2010). "Has China Outgrown The One-Child Policy?". Science. 329: 1458–1461.
6. ^ Damien Mcelroy (2001-04-08). "Chinese region 'must conduct 20,000 abortions'". London: Telegraph.
7. ^ For studies that reported underreporting or delayed reporting of female births, see the following:
   • M. G. Merli and A. E. Raftery. 1990. "Are births under-reported in rural China? Manipulation of statistical records in response to China's population policies", Demography 37 (February): 109-126
   • Johansson, Sten; Nygren, Olga (1991). "The missing girls of China: a new demographic account". Population and Development Review. 17 (1). Population Council: 35–51. doi:10.2307/1972351.
   • Merli, M. Giovanna; Raftery, Adrian E. (2000). "Are births underreported in rural China?". Demography. 37 (1): 109 126.
8. "The Chinese Celebrate Their Roaring Economy, As They Struggle With Its Costs". 2008-07-22. Retrieved 2009-07-31.
9. Arthur E. Dewey, Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration Testimony before the House International Relations Committee Washington, DC December 14, 2004 http://statelists.state.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0412c&L=dossdo&P=401
10. "China Sticking With One-Child Policy." The New York Times, March 11, 2008. Retrieved on 7 November 2008.
11. "China's one-child policy little enforced -- and set to end". MarketWatch. March 29, 2010. Retrieved March 29, 2010.
12. See Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific report "Status of Population and Family Planning Programme in China by Province".
13. Hu Huiting (18 October 2002). "Family Planning Law and China's Birth Control Situation". China Daily. Retrieved 2 March 2009.
14. PBS (14 February 1984). "Family Planning Law and China's Birth Control Situation". NOVA. Retrieved 13 October 2009.
15. Are the rich challenging family planning policy?
16. Summary of Family Planning notice on how FP fines are collected
17. Chen Youhua, 6/1999 issue of Population Research [Renkou Yanjiu] "Research on Adjustment of Family Planning Policy"
18. "Regulations on Family Planning of Henan Province". Henan Daily. 5 April 2000. Retrieved 29 October 2008. Article 13.
19. Scheuer, James (4 January 1987). "America, the U.N. and China's Family Planning (Opinion)". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 October 2008.
20. Sichuan, for example, has allowed exemptions for couples of certain backgrounds; see Articles 11-13, "Revised at the 29th session of the standing committee of the 8th People's Congress of Sichuan Province". United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. 17 October 1997. Retrieved 31 October 2008.
21. One-Child Policy Lifted for Quake Victims’ Parents, by Andrew Jacobs. New York Times, 27 May 2008. Retrieved May 28, 2008.
22. Baby offer for earthquake parents BBC. Retrieved on 31 October 2008.
23. China Amends Child Policy for Some Quake Victims
24. Yardley, Jim (11 May 2008). "China Sticking With One-Child Policy". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 November 2008.
25. "New rich challenge family planning policy." Xinhua.
26. "China's One-Child Policy". TIME. July 27, 2009. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
27. "First systematic study of China's one-child policy reveals complexity, effectiveness of fertility regulation". Today@UCI. University of California Irvine. April 18, 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-19. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
28. People's Daily Online - Wuhan sees negative population growth
29. CIA World Factbook
30. Family Planning Law and China's Birth Control Situation
31. ^ John Taylor (2005-02-08). "China - One Child Policy". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
32. Barry Naughton, The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2007.
33. 全慰天:社会主义经济规律与中国人口问题 Google Translated Version
34. ^ Tain Z (1983). "". Renkou Yanjiu (in Chinese) (2): 13–4. PMID 12313010. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
35. Wen TZ (1981). "". Renkou Yanjiu (in Chinese) (3): 8–11. PMID 12264239. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
36. Susan Greenhalgh. 2003. "Science, Modernity, and the Making of China's One-Child Policy", Population and Development Review 29 (June): 163-196.
37. U.S. Embassy Beijing June 1988 report PRC Family Planning: The Market Weakens Controls But Encourages Voluntary Limits.
38. PRC journal Social Sciences in China .
39. ^ Therese Hasketh, Li Lu, and Zhu Wei Xing. 2005. "The effects of China's One-Child Family Policy after 25 Years", New England Journal of Medicine, 353, No. 11 (September 15): 1171-1176.
40. Mosher, Steven W. (1993). A Mother's Ordeal. Harcourt. ISBN 0151626626. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
41. ^ Don't Fund UNFPA Population Control
42. "Forced Sterilization".
43. "Implications of China's Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities".
44. "Genetic testing, governance, and the family in the People's Republic of China".
45. "Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China" (PDF).
46. Smith, Chris (8 August 2004). "The United Nations Population Fund Helps China Persecute Women and Kill Children". National Right to Life Committee. Retrieved 2 March 2009.
47. Damien McElroy (2002-02-03). "China is furious as Bush halts UN 'abortion' funds". London: Telegraph.
48. Sichan Siv (2003-01-21). "United Nations Fund for Population Activities in China". U.S. Department of State. Archived from the original on 19 February 2003.
49. "UNFPA Welcomes Restoration of U.S. Funding," UNFPA News, January 29, 2009.
50. Haider Rizvi, "Obama Sets New Course at the U.N.," IPS News, March 12, 2009.
51. "Rethinking China's one-child policy". CBC. October 28, 2009. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
52. "计生委新闻发言人:11%以上人口可生两个孩子 (English: "Spokesperson of the one-child policy committee: 11% or more of the population may have two children)" (in Chinese). Sina.com. 10 July 2007. Retrieved 7 November 2008.
53. Daniela Deane (July 26, 1992). "The Little Emperors" (Document). Los Angeles Times. p. 16.
54. ^ "Consultative Conference: "The government must end the one-child rule"". AsiaNews.it. 2007-03-16.
55. "Advisors say it's time to change one-child policy". Shanghai Daily. 2007-03-15.
56. "Over 1,900 officials breach birth policy in C. China". Xinhua. 8 July 2007. Retrieved 11 November 2008. But heavy fines and exposures seemed to hardly stop the celebrities and rich people, as there are still many people, who can afford the heavy penalties, insist on having multiple kids, the Hunan commission spokesman said.
57. ^ "Over 1,900 officials breach birth policy in C. China". Xinhua. 8 July 2007. Retrieved 11 November 2008.
58. "Over 1,900 officials breach birth policy in C. China". Xinhua. 8 July 2007. Retrieved 11 November 2008. Three officials... who were all found to have kept extramarital mistresses, were all convicted for charges such as embezzlement and taking bribes, but they were not punished for having more than one child.
59. Chen Wei (2005). "Sex Ratios at Birth in China" (PDF). Retrieved 2 March 2009.
60. "Chinese facing shortage of wives". BBC. 2007-01-12. Retrieved 2007-01-12.
61. See the Central Intelligence Agency report Sex ratio.
62. "Where Boys Were Kings, a Shift Toward Baby Girls,"New York Times, December 24, 2007.
63. "The worldwide war on baby girls". The Economist. March 8, 2010. Retrieved May 4, 2010.
64. Oster, Emily (2005). "Hepatitis B and the case of the missing women". Journal of Political Economy. 113 (6): 1163–1216. doi:10.1086/498588. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
65. Monica Das Gupta, "Explaining Asia's 'Missing Women,'" Population and Development Review 31 (September 2005): 529-535.
66. This tendency to favour girls in high parity births to couples who had already borne sons was also noted by Coale, who suggested as well that once a couple had achieved its goal for the number of males, it was also much more likely to engage in "stopping behavior", i.e., to stop having more children. See Ansley J. Coale (1996),"Five Decades of Missing Females in China", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 140 (4): 421-450.
67. Zeng Yi et al. 1993. "Causes and Implications of the Recent Increase in the Reported Sex Ratio at Birth in China", Population and Development Review 19 (June): 283-302.
68. Barbara A. Anderson and Brian D. Silver. 1995. "Ethnic Differences in Fertility and Sex Ratios at Birth in China: Evidence from Xinjiang", Population Studies 49 (July): 211-226.
69. Weiguo Zhang, "Child Adoption in Contemporary Rural China," Journal of Family Issues, 27 (March 2006), p. 306.
70. "China’s Sex Ratio at Birth: From Doubts About its Existence to Looking for a Solution." Population Research 1/2006 issue　原载《人口研究》2006年第1期]
71. "China’s Sex Ratio at Birth: From Doubts About its Existence to Looking for a Solution." Population Research 1/2006 issue　原载《人口研究》2006年第1期.
    "If we do pay more attention to the problem of the rising sex ratio, still the focus is on the rights of males such as the right to marry, and ignores women’s rights such as the right to survive, the right to reproduce, the right to health, etc. This approach inflicts even more harm on women. If this approach is taken, women will never be able to escape their subsidiary position and their role of satisfying the desires of others. Robbing females of their right to exist is for the sake of giving birth to males – that is putting the right to survive of males first. Moreover, protecting women’s right to exist is merely for the purpose of provide a wife to sons. A measure to ensure that a counterpart is available to ensure that male can exercise his right to marry. In both case, the male is primary and the female is subsidiary."
72. "China’s Sex Ratio at Birth: From Doubts About its Existence to Looking for a Solution." Population Research 1/2006 issue　原载《人口研究》2006年第1期].
    "Therefore, how a researcher approaches the question of the sex ratio at birth – from what point for view, considering whose rights – is critical. This depends upon the values of the researcher, the humanistic orientation of the researcher and the consciousness the researcher has about gender and gender discrimination. Protecting the right to exist, the right to reproduce, and the right to health of girls should be at the very core of policy and action measures to control sex ratio at birth. That is because females are the biggest victims of the rising sex ratio. The rising sex ratio is in fact robbing females of their right to exist and completely discriminates against females."
73. "China’s Sex Ratio at Birth: From Doubts About its Existence to Looking for a Solution." Population Research 1/2006 issue　原载《人口研究》2006年第1期].
    "Social controls on methods of selective reproduction are needed not only because of the higher birth ratio that results but also because selective reproduction harms the body and soul of the mother and robs unborn infants (regardless of being boy or girl) of their right to live. Selective reproduction itself should be more closely regulated and brought under control."
74. "China’s Sex Ratio at Birth: From Doubts About its Existence to Looking for a Solution." Population Research 1/2006 issue　原载《人口研究》2006年第1期].
    "Even aside from the question of the rising sex ratio at birth, we should also intervene against and oppose elective abortion. Elective abortion robs unborn female infants of their right to live and their right to exist, accentuates the social custom of favoring males over females. Not only does it harm women’s bodies it also reduces women to the role of a mere tool for reproduction. Women bodies and spirits are suffering grievous wounds. Therefore no matter what the results of an elective abortion might be, we should intervene against and oppose elective abortion. The rise of the sex ratio at birth is only one among several reasons for intervening on selective reproduction."
75. http://www.wsic.ac.cn/Appendix/Download.aspx?AppendixMainId=SAM-1229 Li Shuzhuo, Wei Yan and Jiang Quanbao, "Girl Survival in China: History, Present Situation and Prospects", background materials for the August 2005 conference "Women and Health" available online in Chinese. The conference was sponsored by the United Nations Fund for Population Activities.
76. See Human Rights Watch report A Policy of Fatal Neglect in China’s State Orphanages and CHINESE ORPHANAGES A Follow-up.
77. Sten Johansson and Ola Nygren. 1991. "The Missing Girls of China: A New Demographic Account", Population and Development Review 17 (March): 35-51.
78. Weiguo Zhang. 2006. "Child Adoption in Contemporary Rural China", Journal of Family Issues 27 (March): 301-340.
79. See Weiguo Zhang (2006), cited earlier.
80. U.S. State Department report, "Immigrant Visas Issued to Orphans Coming to the U.S.", at http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/stats/stats_451.html.
81. Demick, Barbara (20 Sept. 2009). "Chinese Babies Stolen by Officials for Foreign Adoptions". Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
82. See Associated Press article US State Department position.
83. See publication of the United Kingdom Parliament position regarding Human Rights in China and Tibet.
84. See Amnesty International's report on violence against women in China.
85. Sarah Lubman (2000-03-15). "Experts Allege Infanticide In China 'Missing' Girls Killed, Abandoned, Pair Say". San Jose Mercury News (California).
86. Associated Press (14 February 2006). "China: Drug bid to beat child ban". China Daily. Retrieved 11 November 2008.

Further reading

• Better 10 Graves Than One Extra Birth (ISBN 1-931550-92-1, Laogai Research Foundation)
• Greenhalgh, Susan, (2008). Just One Child: Science and Policy in Deng's China (ISBN 978-0-520-25339-1, University of California Press)

External links

• Family Planning in China
• Illegal births and legal abortions – the case of China

• Chinese numbered policies
• Birth control law and case law
• Human rights abuses
• Demography
• Population density
• Demographics
• Fertility