Formal comment on “Assessing the impact of the ‘one-child policy’ in China: A synthetic control approach”
Autoři:
Daniel Goodkind aff001
Působiště autorů:
Independent Researcher, Arlington, VA, United States of America
aff001
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie:
Formal Comment
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222705
Souhrn
For nearly half a century, parents in China have faced compulsory quotas allowing them to have no more than one or two children. A great debate in recent years over the impact of this program on China’s population continues in PLOS ONE with the publication of Gietel-Basten et al. (2019). The core question concerns how much higher China’s birth rates might have been had birth quotas not been enacted and enforced. Gietel-Basten et al. argue that the selection of such comparators in recent studies may reflect subjective choices. They profess to avoid such subjectivities by using what they present to be a more scientific, objective, and transparent statistical approach that calculates a weighted average of birth rates of countries with other characteristics similar to China’s. Yet the authors make subjective choices regarding the non-fertility characteristics used to form their comparators which leads to an underestimation of the impact of birth planning. Moreover, their visual presentation, which focuses on the two key sub-phases of the birth program, underrepresents its overall impact. Their comparators suggest that China’s population today would be just 15 million more had it not enacted any birth restrictions since 1970 (one percent above its current population) and that in the absence of one-child limits, which began in 1979, China’s population would be 70 million less. At the same time, the authors acknowledge that the one-child program has had numerous negative consequences. It seems fair to ask how such consequences could result if the program had no significant impact on childbearing decisions.
Klíčová slova:
Sex ratio – Children – Comparators – Science policy – China – Young adults – Fertility rates – Birth rates
Zdroje
1. Goodkind D. The astonishing population averted by China’s birth restrictions: Estimate, nightmares, and reprogrammed ambitions. Demography. 54, 1375–1400 (2017). doi: 10.1007/s13524-017-0595-x 28762036
2. Wang F, Cai Y, Gu BC. Population, policy, and politics: How will history judge China’s one-child policy? Population and Development Review. 38 (Suppl. 1), 115–129 (2013).
3. Whyte M, Wang F, Cai Y. Challenging myths about China’s one-child policy. China Journal. 74, 144–159 (2015).
4. Hvistendahl M. Analysis of China’s one-child policy sparks uproar. Science. 358, 283–284 (2017). doi: 10.1126/science.358.6361.283 29051354
5. Wang F, Cai Y, Ke S, Gietel-Basten S. Is demography just a numerical exercise? Numbers, politics, and legacies of China’s one-child policy. Demography. 55, 693–719 (2018). doi: 10.1007/s13524-018-0658-7 29623606
6. Gietel-Basten S, Han X, Cheng Y. Assessing the impact of the “one-child policy” in China: A synthetic cohort approach. PLOS ONE (Forthcoming).
7. Gu BC, Wang F, Guo ZG, Zhang EL. China’s local and national fertility policies at the end of the twentieth century. Population and Development Review. 33, 129–147 (2007).
8. Goodkind D. If science had come first: A billion-person fable for the ages (A reply to comments). Demography 55, 743–768 (2018). doi: 10.1007/s13524-018-0661-z 29623609
9. Banister J. China’s changing population. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press(1987).
10. Tien HY. China’s strategic demographic initiative. New York, NY: Praeger (1991).
11. Scharping T. Birth control in China 1949–2000: Population policy and demographic development. London, UK: Routledge (2003).
12. Greenhalgh S, Winckler E. Governing China’s population: From Leninist to neoliberal biopolitics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (2005).
13. Goodkind D. Estimates of averted Chinese births, 1971–1990: Comparisons of fertility decline, family planning policy, and development in six Confucian societies (Research School of Social Sciences Working Papers in Demography). Canberra: Australian National University. 38 (1992).
14. Short S, Zhai F. Looking locally at China’s one-child policy. Studies in Family Planning. 29, 373–387 (1998). 9919631
15. McElroy M, Yang D. Carrots and sticks: fertility effects of China’s population policies. American Economic Review 90, 389–392 (2000). 18478649
16. Liu H. The quality–quantity trade-off: evidence from the relaxation of China’s one-child policy. Journal of Population Economics. 27, 565–602 (2014).
17. Nagel D. Determinism in history. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 20, 291–317 (1960).
18. Coale A. Rapid population change in China, 1952–1982. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (1984).
19. Johnson KA. China’s hidden children: Abandonment, adoption, and the human costs of the one- child policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (2016).
20. Fong M. One child: The story of China’s most radical experiment. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2016).
21. One Child Nation. Amazon Studios (2019). https://www.onechildnation.com
Článok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 11
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Nejasný stín na plicích – kazuistika
- 10 varovných príznakov primárnych a sekundárnych imunodeficiencií
- Somatizace stresu – typické projevy a možnosti řešení
- Kombinace metamizol/paracetamol v léčbě pooperační bolesti u zákroků v rámci jednodenní chirurgie
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- A daily diary study on maladaptive daydreaming, mind wandering, and sleep disturbances: Examining within-person and between-persons relations
- Molecular validation of clinical Pantoea isolates identified by MALDI-TOF
- Pathways to conspiracy: The social and linguistic precursors of involvement in Reddit’s conspiracy theory forum
- Urticating setae of tarantulas (Araneae: Theraphosidae): Morphology, revision of typology and terminology and implications for taxonomy
Zvýšte si kvalifikáciu online z pohodlia domova
Všetky kurzy