Population Again
By Kevin
When I was studying the Singapore population back in 2004-2005 as part of my 'Major Research Paper' (supposedly a Chinese High innovation as part of the Integrated Programme to make good use of the time otherwise used to prepare for O Levels), the total fertility rate of Singapore stood around 1.26. It was already pretty controversial that time because people were basically screaming about how our country has been below replacement fertility for many years and that the people were not reproducing themselves.
In the Population in Brief 2011 (pity I didn't have such a reference material during those days when I was working on the research), it seems that fertility in Singapore has fallen even further but it seem to have stopped being such a big deal as the government internalized the social message at large, 'don't bother us with this matter'. There's even a line that says, "We recognise that getting married and starting families are personal choices and decisions." And in a typical Singapore-style bossiness that cannot tolerate inaction or lack of response to something deemed unsocial, it went on, "The Government aims to create a pro- family environment, through a comprehensive set of measures, including the Baby Bonus cash gift and co-savings, tax reliefs and rebates, as well as child care subsidies."
Up, up, up more slowly now...
In the latest LSE100 module which I recently completed, we explored the question, 'Is Population Growth a good thing?'. I was thrown back into a world I was familiar with from research and study of Human Geography back in High School. The Demographic Transition Model, Pro- and anti-natal policies, the 'development as a contraception' argument and so on. It was both interesting and somewhat annoying that themes in the discipline hasn't quite changed much. I guess the discipline is in itself shaped by the themes so I can't expect too much. But to consider population growth over a longer period and look at its dynamics from the perspective of the development of the human civilization and forward is interesting especially when you add technology, resource constraints and the notion of ideas into play.
And of course, more dramatically, the world just crossed a new milestone of having 7 billion people in the world - I remembered that the 6 billion mark was crossed some time in late 1999; my Geography teacher used so say that she and her geography class got the chance to watch the countdown (or count-up?) to 6 billion. More so than ever, we're all just another tiny soul wandering around the increasing crowded surface of our planet.
China’s One Child Policy Too Successful?
By Wei Seng
Time to plan again for national policy
I apologise for not having written in a long time. I've been facing a drought, trying to find inspiration for writing but being unable to do so even while combing through The Economist. Finally I found something to write about, and it is with regard to the One Child Policy of China.
China's One Child Policy is staple for Population Studies / Demography in Human Geography lessons in secondary school and JC. It is a very good study of how draconian government policy can tremendously influence a country's demographic development and transition. The Economist provides an update about the "over-success" (if there is such a word to mean that something is so successful that it becomes a liability in itself) of the One Child Policy.
In essence, now fertility rates have dropped quite a bit since the start of the policy in the late 60s / early 70s, and now the country is no longer facing a population boom but instead the threat of an ageing population, with a younger generation that is unable to support its rapidly ageing older generation. In the article the writer provides anecdotes, but the main idea is that the repressive policy has become too successful at lowering birth rates and controlling population expansion, such that now if the government is going to terminate the One Child Policy and get people to give birth to more children, the people might not be able to do so. Not that the low birth rate now can be ascribed to the One Child Policy, but more of the realities of today's society: intense competition for everything from school spots to housing, high costs of living in the urban areas (given that many more Chinese live in cities now than ever) as well as the career-mindedness of people in general.
Certainly looks very familiar to another country: Singapore. Sure, we had no One Child Policy, but our Stop at Two policy, while far from being as draconian as the One Child Policy, was enforced with some strictness, and in the end the economic development of the country contributed to plunging birth and fertility rates that are among the lowest in the world.
Chances are, there will be no easy solutions to China's dilemma (as well as Singapore's). At least for Singapore, the government is proactive in promoting childbirth, whereas the Chinese government is in denial that the One Child Policy is outdated and no longer relevant. And it has always been difficult for governments to fight economic and societal incentives and disincentives in childbirth, until repressive measures like the One Child Policy were implemented. Would another similarly repressive policy that encourages childbirth help boost birth rates? I am a bit suspicious, because the people of China today are no longer as ready to believe in what their government claims they should do for the nation or in the iron-fisted methods of doing things.
Parcel Here!
By Kevin
Heavy but weighs zero grammes
This week's read/watch/listen parcel starts with a little introduction of a new book The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins and a Q&A session that follows under Berkeley's Arts & Letters programme on FORA.tv. The site holds a wonderful collection of intellectual and academic videos from different events and places.
The book itself was recently published and praised by The Economist for its educational value. To be frank I've never read Richard Dawkins but from his readings of The Greatest Show on Earth in the video, I reckon I'd enjoy his style of demonstrating his arguments using long analogies that are probably closer to the heart of readers (rather reminiscent of Abraham Lincoln's speeches).
He compares Creationist to Holocaust Deniers, those who argues that Evolution is full of gaps to a stubborn lawyer who declares that more evidence is less. He questions the plausibility of Marsupials engaged is some sort of migration programme where they emigrate en masse from Mount Ararat to Australia - such was the witty humour that Dawkins use to entertain readers and frustrate those who believed in the literalism of Noah's Ark. Dawkins is critical and knows clearly what exactly he is out defend in the book.
Next, some readings on the fertility decline around the world in The Economist, something I wrote about previously as well as an article on price wars on The New Yorker by James Surowiecki. There's a video accompanying the article from The Economist about population.
Finally, find out more about Vincent van Gogh's life from The Economist's Editor Highlights Audio.
You Shrink, We Grow!
By Kevin
Now You See 4, Next You See...
Recently, The Economist ran the story on the global fertility decline on its cover, acknowledging the significant impacts demographic have on economies. About 5 years ago, when I embarked on my first research paper (a simple one at High School level) I wrote about the aging population of Singapore. I was examining the impacts of our drastically lowering fertility since the 1970s in the background of a world where greying population was more or less restricted to some rather advanced economies, and perhaps some old "emerging economies" (I always wonder when they would ever emerge totally). In my research paper, I traced the changes in fertility from the 1970s to 2000s and related it to the increasing wealth as well as the government policies. I argued that government policy to reduce fertility worked then because of the fact that they converged with social development but I didn't draw much relationship with the economy even though I recognized one. Singapore, of course, was one of the success stories for population planning and control during those times; today, more countries are making it, intentionally or otherwise.
The idea that population's impact on the economy is neutral dominated in the past but things have changed. The Economist discussed in depth how changes in demography have impacted economic development around the world. Looking at the world as a whole, the article speculates what will happen to a world at replacement fertility of 2.1. It is important to note how this figure is rather arbitrary, attempting to account for infant mortality and yet not considering the fact that women may pass away before reaching child-bearing age. One issue the article overlooked, however, is the fact that when this day comes, some country will be facing population decline while others have very slight growth in population yearly; the world will have to be a more mobile place (at least administratively) for labour and mankind in general so that no country will be facing hollowing out of population.
The fact that rich world nations who have previously dipped below the fertility of 2.1 is now returning to that figure sounds like consolation for the others who face the prospects of a declining population. The general economic impact of a consistently declining population remains unknown but is expected to be rather unfavourable.