Lianhe Zaobao published a well -known population expert Yi Fuxian's article on February 27th, China is withering, which can be described as deafening.Especially according to Mr. Yi's prediction, if "China is difficult to stabilize the fertility rate at 0.8, by 2050, the population will drop below 1.02 billion, and it will drop to 310 million by 2100."
First of all, this article will not have different opinions on whether the Chinese population has shrunk severely, and whether it will quickly fall to Mr. Yi's expected numbers, because the accurate analysis, comparison and judgment of various data must be required behind it.And the actual situation in the future may be more severe; it is to point out that this is not just "China is withering", but that all Western countries are "withered", or that almost all industrial modernization countries or regions are withered.The potential.It's just that because of the "only children's policy" that China has pursued for decades, it has made the decline in this population a shocking trend.In other words, the population atrophy of the West is accompanied by the slowly presentation of modern industrialization, and the population changes in China are falling sharply.
Based on this, the author wants to start a wider range of thinking from the perspective of crisis generally facing this era of humanization.Although the author is not an expert in the population in any sense, since 10 years in Germany, it has been more than 20 years since I continued to think about this issue.Great attention.At that time, I understood the German government's effort to understand the birth rate of the population through welfare policies, but I also asked some questions and made my suggestion to the Federal Prime Minister's Office.
Welfare promoting fertility may not be ineffective
Therefore, I want to talk about welfare to promote fertility.It can be clearly seen from Yiwen that the welfare system is "costly and invalid", and the author has cited examples of Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and Singapore and Japan.But I do not fully agree that Mr. Yi said that the "benefits to promote fertility policies" is "high and ineffective". At least from Japanese data, it is still "from 1.26 in 2005 to 1.45 in 2015."Therefore, it cannot be said that "invalidity" is completely said, and it cannot even be said to be a schedule for slowing soldiers.Especially for countries like China who are "not rich first", the "welfare fertility policy" in front of young people of childbearing age will obviously still have a certain effect. At least for at least a period of time, the rapid decline in the population will block the population.The momentum plays a more positive role.
In fact, "Although China has turned to the second child in 2016, the number of births is still declining sharply" "the lowest level since 1790", it cannot be said that it has nothing to do with the government.Otherwise, the result of shrinking population will at least not "nine years earlier than the government's prediction."After all, for most young people who live in the city today, life pressure, especially in the face of children's educational costs, is quite heavy and helpless.They urgently needed the government to quickly take out a "fertility policy" to soothe anxiety and let them dare to have a second child and want to have a second child.
Moreover, the author also holds a certain attitude towards Mr. Yi's view of "China's‘ not getting rich first ’s old -the old’ and lacks the financial resources of Japan.Because Mr. Yi has been listed earlier, "Chinese household disposable income is equivalent to 44%of GDP (GDP), while the United States is 72%and the United Kingdom is 65%.Four times the GDP, and the United States is 1.6 times. "If we make some adjustments to this data, it is more conducive to encouraging young people to give birth, it should be said that there is still a considerable policy space.
In addition, the author did not fully agree that Mr. Yi pointed out that Chinese decision makers are facing a dilemma of real estate bubbles, or young couples who are unable to raise two children.The author believes that if real estate is already a bubble, it will break sooner or later. In this case, it is not a dilemma. It is rather a problem that must be cautious and must be solved in time.By relieving dilution, it will be reduced step by step until decisive piercing this bubble, otherwise it will endanger the entire economy represented by the Chinese manufacturing industry.
From the current data, in the face of the rapid increase in land use and labor, more and more developed western countries and even Chinese private entrepreneurs have transferred domestic production lines to Southeast Asia and other low costs such as lower costsState or region.The author has repeatedly pointed out in many comments that the manufacturing industry is the foundation of a country, which is related to the country and the livelihood, and it is more related to the rise and fall of the National Games.If the manufacturing industry is hollow, it is not the problem of "weak raising two children", but that the skin will be attached.
By then, it will inevitably cause social conflicts and political turmoil.We only need to look at the Jasmine Revolution in North Africa and Iran's turban storms, and we will soberly recognize that many problems such as the unemployment rate brought by the poor manufacturing industry will be high.Therefore, the author does not think, "If the bubble is really broken, the Chinese economy will slow down, and the financial crisis will erupt worldwide."The key depends on how to deal with this bubble carefully and actively. If it is handled properly, although there are some pain, it will not only lead to the slowdown of the Chinese economy, but even fully release the dividend of China's manufacturing industry, so that China's manufacturing industry will continue to lead the world.
After traveling in Europe and the United States, I always believe that although China's reform and opening up has far exceeded 4,000 years in some ways, it has just opened this round of global Dongfeng.There are more exciting (of course there are countless challenges) waiting for China.Recently, China has reported many policies and atmospheres that are good for the private economy, which is the case, and this "real estate bubble" has always been a huge obstacle that cannot be ignored or inherited during the reform.
Secondly, the author also does not fully agree with Mr. Yi said that China "lacks the financial resources of Japan to imitate Japan" with "copying Japan's policy to reduce the cost of childcare."You know, most people in China have never enjoyed any kind of benefits such as reducing tuition fees, maternity subsidies, and housing subsidies (with Japanese policies as a reference).morning.In short, the author also has a cautious retaining attitude towards Mr. Yi's "increased the disposable income of the family to 60%to 70%of GDP to increase fertility rates.Because as long as you imagine, when China's "home disposable income increases to 60%to 70%of GDP", the Chinese purchasing power and happiness satisfaction will be directly related to social stability and long -term security of the country.At that time, even if government power was "weakened" in some fields, what was wrong?After all, the ultimate purpose of the good governance of the people's desire should never be "strengthening the power of the government", but rather is to maximize "realizing the happiness of the people's life, the harmonious society, and the long -term state governance of the country."Under this premise, whether the population declines is not so important.
The population quality is far better
In the end, what I want to point out is that we should not compare the population with the influence of the country.In 1820 (37%), which accounted for the highest population in China in China, it was precisely the eve of China who was about to face internal and external troubles, and 3,000 years ago.In contrast, the population of the Great British Empire, which is at the same time, must be ignored in the small proportion of the world's population.For another example, from 1980 to today, although China's population ratio has continued to decline from 22%, it has been unprecedentedly improved in integrating globalization and successful as a world factory.The "Chimerica" (Chimerica); Fred Bergsteng, director of the Peterson Institute of International Economic Research, the United States, also proposed to build a G2 model for Sino -US economic relations.At a meeting to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and the United States, the strategist of the Obama Foreign Affairs Consultant's strategic person in the election period also emphasized that the constructive interdependence between China and the United States is a global political and economic stability.The important source is to fully promote an informal "two -country group".
In a word, the development of science and technology and economy must be far better thanPopulation growth, and the quality of the population is far better.Instead of poverty, it has fallen into the trap of an irreplaceable population.
Of course, the author does not think that the population is withered and it itchy and can be released, but that is another question that needs to be further discussed.
The author is a professor at China University of Political Science and Law, a researcher at the Ash Democratic Governance and Innovation Center of Kennedy College of Harvard University
