• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
China's One-Child Policy Should be Ended—Quickly

Source: Getty

Article

China's One-Child Policy Should be Ended—Quickly

Rising income, not the one-child policy, has driven down China's fertility rate. The policy has outgrown its limited purpose and should be ended to reverse lingering gender imbalances.

Link Copied
By Vikram Nehru
Published on Mar 5, 2012
Program mobile hero image

Program

Asia

The Asia Program in Washington studies disruptive security, governance, and technological risks that threaten peace, growth, and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific region, including a focus on China, Japan, and the Korean peninsula.

Learn More

Over 30 years ago, in 1980, China launched its one-child policy.  Today, the country’s demographic dividend is spent.  Its labor force is set to decline in absolute terms.  The old-age dependency ratio (the number of people above the age of 65 for every person of working age) is expected to double over the next two decades, reaching the level of Norway or the Netherlands by 2030.  Some observers have put two and two together and argued that the one-child policy has been the reason behind this demographic transition.

But that’s not so.  The sharp decline in China’s fertility rate—from 5.9 in 1960–1965 to near 1.5 today—would probably have occurred anyway.  After all, other rapidly growing East Asian countries also have fertility rates that have declined just as fast as China’s—such as Korea, Thailand, and even Indonesia (although Indonesia, with a lower per capita income, is behind by a couple of decades—see graph).  And none of them had a one-child policy.

The reason behind declining fertility rates in most countries is rising incomes and living standards.  As these factors rise, health services improve, which in turn reduces infant and child mortality.  Couples don’t find it necessary to have many children to help them in their old age.   Higher incomes and more education, especially for young girls, means that women tend to have fewer children later in life.  Moreover, children become less important as a safety net in old age as other social security instruments become available.  And with higher incomes, education is less a luxury and more a necessity—and the cost of education becomes an important factor in deciding family size.

It is true that these factors were not predominant in the decisionmaking of most Chinese couples.  Their decisions were dictated by the one-child policy.  But had the one-child policy not been in place, there is a strong likelihood that the decision to have fewer children would have been voluntary with exactly the same results—just as it was in Thailand and Korea.

Interestingly, China’s one-child policy was not applied uniformly across the country.  Urban areas were stricter than rural ones, and different provinces had different rules.  Minorities were usually exempted.  When couples had a child with disabilities, they were allowed to have a second child.  Given the preference of most Chinese to have at least one son, those with a daughter were sometimes allowed to have another child (especially in rural areas).

More recently, some provincial governments have relaxed the requirements in a few select areas as a policy experiment.  In most, if not all cases, the fertility rate has barely budged.  All this suggests that if the one-child policy were to be removed tomorrow, China’s fertility rate would probably not rise appreciably.  And even if it did, it would be a one-off increase and would immediately begin to fall again.  Indeed, if China were to grant its rural population and urban migrants the same access to social services as urban residents enjoy, the fertility rate is likely to decline even faster.

So removing the one-child policy will unlikely have any impact on the overall population of China.  The government recognizes this and is beginning to dismantle it, albeit slowly.  This slow pace is unfortunate for two reasons.  First, parents choosing a second child are prevented from having one on account of the policy, and in some cases may be forced to undergo an abortion.   As important, the one-child policy is an important factor contributing to China’s “missing women”—there are over 30 million fewer women in China today than would be the case if its gender balance resembled that of other countries.  This has occurred for a number of reasons: sex-selective abortions, infanticide, neglect, or abandonment.  Some of this can be attributed to the constraints imposed on families as a result of the one-child policy, and is all the more reason China should accelerate the removal of the one-child policy.

Source:  United Nations. 2011.  “World Population Prospects:  The 2010 Revision”, United Nations Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/fertility.htm)

About the Author

Vikram Nehru

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Asia Program

Nehru was a nonresident senior fellow in the Carnegie Asia Program. An expert on development economics, growth, poverty reduction, debt sustainability, governance, and the performance and prospects of East Asia, his research focuses on the economic, political, and strategic issues confronting Asia, particularly Southeast Asia.

    Recent Work

  • In The Media
    Southeast Asia, the Redback, and Reality

      Vikram Nehru

  • In The Media
    Now Comes Aung San Suu Kyi’s True Test of Leadership

      Vikram Nehru

Vikram Nehru
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Asia Program
Vikram Nehru
East AsiaChinaEconomy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • China Financial Markets
    Commentary
    China Financial Markets
    Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?

    China’s rapid technological progress and its first-rate infrastructure are often cited as refuting the claim that China has been systematically overinvesting in non-productive projects for many years. In fact, as the logic of overinvestment and the many historical precedents show, the former is all-too-often consistent with the latter.

      Michael Pettis

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Much-Touted Middle Corridor Transport Route Could Prove a Dead End

    For the Middle Corridor to fulfill its promises, one of these routes must become scalable. At present, neither is.

      Friedrich Conradi

  • Article
    India’s Press Note 3 Gamble: Opening the FDI Door to China

    On March 10, 2026, India’s Union Cabinet approved amendments to Press Note 3, a regulation that mandated government approval on all foreign direct investment (FDI) from countries sharing a land border with India. This amendment raises questions primarily about whether its stated benefits will materialize and if the risks have been adequately weighed. This piece will address the same.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What Does Nuclear Proliferation in East Asia Mean for Russia?

    Troubled by the growing salience of nuclear debates in East Asia, Moscow has responded in its usual way: with condemnation and threats. But by exacerbating insecurity, Russia is forcing South Korea and Japan to consider radical security options.

      James D.J. Brown

  • Vietnam's Top Leader To Lam meets with young representatives from China and Vietnam participating in the "Red Study Tours" at the Great Hall of the People on April 15, 2026 in Beijing, China. T
    Commentary
    Why Vietnam Is Swinging in China’s Direction

    Hanoi and Beijing have long treated each other as distant cousins rather than comrades in arms. That might be changing as both sides draw closer to hedge against uncertainty and America’s erratic behavior.

      • Nguyen-khac-giang

      Nguyễn Khắc Giang

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.