Question

Document E
Source: Jane Golley, “The Costs and Benefits of China’s One-Child Policy,” The Conversation, November 21, 2013.


The one-child policy has unquestionably caused fertility to decline more rapidly than it otherwise would have...and has therefore played a significant role in China’s demographic transition...explaining up to one- quarter of its per capita GDP growth in the last three decades....

With that rapid GDP growth has come better nutrition, rising levels of education, longer life expectancies, and higher living standards for the vast majority of Chinese people....

This is not to deny the substantial, and in many cases immeasurable, costs of the policy.... Aside from the obvious economic costs of having more dependents and fewer workers in the population, the policy places a huge burden on single Chinese children at the bottom of the resulting “4 - 2 - 1” family structure (four grandparents, two parents and one child).

Even more consequential is the dramatic rise in China’s sex ratio at birth, the costs of which will be borne by an estimated 30 million or more Chinese men who will be looking for a wife in 2030 but unable to find one. The one-child policy–in combination with a traditional preference for sons and widespread access to ultrasound technology to detect gender* since the mid-1980s–is at least partly to blame.

Other significant emotional costs result from not being allowed to determine your family’s size, being coerced into terminating second pregnancies, or giving birth to a second child who is not allowed to enroll in school or to access the healthcare system.

* Ultrasound technology enables doctors and parents to see a picture of the fetus when it is in the mother’s womb. Some Chinese parents chose to abort fetuses that ultrasound revealed to be female.


According to the article, what were some benefits of the one-child policy? It caused fertility to decline more quickly than it would have, helping China’s demographic transition. That GDP growth brought benefits for the population: better nutrition, higher levels of education, longer life expectancy, and improved living standards for most Chinese people.


Imagine that you are a young Chinese worker living with your parents and grandparents. Do you support the one-child policy? Explain your thinking. As a young Chinese worker living with my parents and grandparent



According to the article, what are some of the emotional costs of the one-child policy?



How can you use this document to argue for China’s one-child policy?

Answer 1

1) Benefits of the one‑child policy (from the article)
- It sped up fertility decline and helped China’s demographic transition.
- That faster transition contributed substantially to economic growth (the article says it explains up to one‑quarter of per capita GDP growth over the last three decades).
- The GDP growth resulting from that transition produced broader improvements: better nutrition, higher education levels, longer life expectancy, and higher living standards for most Chinese people.

2) As a young Chinese worker living with my parents and grandparents — would I support the policy?
I would have mixed/reluctant opposition. I appreciate the material benefits the policy helped bring — higher incomes, better education and health care for my generation — but I would not fully support the policy because of its heavy personal and social costs. Living in a “4‑2‑1” household means I (as the only child) would likely face intense financial and emotional pressure to care for two parents and four grandparents as they age. I would also object to the coercive aspects described in the article (forced pregnancy terminations and restrictions on second children) and to the broader social consequences such as a skewed sex ratio that creates instability and loneliness for many men. So while I value the economic gains, I would oppose the policy as a fair, humane long‑term approach.

3) Emotional costs cited in the article
- Heavy burden on single children in the 4‑2‑1 family structure (responsibility for supporting and caring for many elders).
- Emotional harm from not being allowed to decide family size and from coercion (forced abortions/termination of second pregnancies).
- Emotional distress when a second child is born but cannot access schooling or healthcare because of policy limits.
- Broad social/emotional costs from the dramatically skewed sex ratio at birth (the article estimates ~30 million men will be unable to find wives by 2030).
- Many costs are described as substantial and in some cases immeasurable.

4) How to use this document to argue FOR the one‑child policy
- Use the strongest empirical claim: the policy materially accelerated fertility decline and accounted for a large share (up to one‑quarter) of per capita GDP growth; link that to concrete improvements (nutrition, education, life expectancy, living standards).
- Emphasize societal benefits: faster modernization, reduced dependency ratios during key decades (the “demographic dividend”), and improvements in public welfare made possible by economic growth.
- Acknowledge the harms explicitly (coercion, 4‑2‑1 burden, skewed sex ratio) so the argument appears balanced and credible — then argue that the economic gains were necessary to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty and to fund systems that improve everyone’s lives.
- Offer policy nuance: frame the one‑child policy as a historically driven, unusual measure adopted under difficult demographic circumstances; argue that its short‑term economic benefits justified its temporary use but that it should be accompanied (or later replaced) by reforms to address its harms (e.g., ending coercive enforcement, promoting gender equity, social safety nets for elder care).
- Use the article’s concrete figures and examples (GDP contribution, 4‑2‑1, 30 million men figure) in debates to anchor the argument in observable costs and benefits rather than abstract claims.

If you’d like, I can draft a short pro‑policy paragraph you could use in an essay that incorporates these points while acknowledging the policy’s costs.