But according to official data, the SRB climbed from 107.4 in 1980 to 116.9 by 2000 and has been around 120 since 2004. If a SRB of 107 is taken as the baseline, China’s high SRB from 1982 to 2010 has resulted in nearly 20 million ‘additional’ males. Moreover there are currently is no sign that the high SRB will fall back to normal levels as the number of excess males will further increase over the next one or two decades.
The recent increase in China’s SRB has been closely related to its family planning program and fertility decline. This is indicated by the facts that the emergence of an abnormal SRB in the early 1980s followed the introduction of the one-child policy and stricter fertility regulations (in comparison with those put in place in the 1970s). These were accompanied by the implementation of the so-called ‘one-vote veto’ in the evaluation of government performance at various administrative levels (that is, the performance of the government is judged largely or entirely on the basis of its achievement in family planning). Further, the deterioration of the SRB was observed when China’s fertility fell far below replacement. A higher SRB has often been found in rural areas where couples were allowed to have an average of 1.5 children. These patterns largely arise from sex-selective abortion, which has been used by some women to ensure the birth of a son, although other factors have also contributed to the reportedly high SRB in the rural areas.
It is worth noting that a high SRB has also been recorded in several populations where family planning programs have not been as strict as that in China or have not been in place at all. They include countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, India, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. During their fertility decline, the SRB in these populations also departed considerably from its normal range. While a small family has become the norm for this generation, the chance of having both sons and daughters will inevitably decrease. It is unfortunate that under these circumstances, some of those who want a small number of children and at least one son turn to sex-selective abortion. This is a regrettable example of traditional culture leading to an undesirable consequence in an era of rapid demographic and social change.
The increase in the SRB in China and other countries has deep historical and cultural origins. China has been a patrilineal society for thousands of years, where preference for sons and female infanticide have long been a feature. For example, the desire to have two sons and one daughter and the practice of infanticide in the Song dynasty has been recorded by several scholars. These practices existed among ordinary people as well as the ruling class. This is shown by a significantly higher female infant mortality, in comparison with that for males, in the royal lineage of the Qing Dynasty. A relatively high SRB was recorded through to the mid-20th century, although it became less obvious in the 1960s and 1970s when China’s social and economic environment meant that food distribution in rural areas was generally favourable to childbearing and sex discrimination was addressed by the government. In recent decades, there has been a secular change in reproductive culture, and controlling population growth has become one of the major objectives of government’s socio-economic policies.
The distorted SRB is now an unwanted reality and will have a significant impact on China’s future demographic and social development. While the high SRB will further upset the balance of males and females in the marriage market and result in many unwelcome social and psychological effects, speculation about the impact of the problem on security and other issues should be treated with caution. There is an urgent need for the Chinese government and society to take action to restore a normal ratio. At the same time, this is a complex problem where cause and consequence can’t easily be unraveled.
Zhongwei Zhao is currently a Professor at the Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, College of Arts and Social Sciences, the Australian National University. Chen Wei holds a PhD from the Australian National University (2004) and is Professor of Demography (2006), Center for Population and Development Studies, People’s University of China.
According to CIA World fact Book The sex ratio at birth in 2010 for China was 114 males per 100 females. By way of comparison the world average was 107, Australia was 106 and the U.S. was 105. Conclusion, ergo, there is an imbalance. However new born babies and their gender balance do not have social impacts. Babies also die. China has a very high infant mortality rate. many live births do not make adulthood.
Where gender imbalance can come into play as a social factor is when surviving babies reach adulthood in the 15-64 year age bracket. This is the important employment and sexually active and procreative period in a man’s life.
Again according to CIA World Fact Book the sex ratio of people in the 15-64 age bracket is 106/100 for China, 103 for Australia and 100 for the U.S.
So the bolter comes back to the field markedly
China is a big country, it will sort it self out.
The assumption that a greater number of young males than young females in a society is a bad thing is utter nonsense. In the first place, the demographic difference has never occurred in the entire history of the whole planet before, and thus there is zero evidence to support such a bizarre notion. The very idea that there is something wrong with a large male labor force is preposterous. People may discover to their shocked psyches that a labor force with significantly more males than females could actually be good for a nation. What a radical idea!
In the second place, a demographic with more males than females obviously gives females a larger choice of mates from the general pool, thus increasing the odds for each female of picking a good partner. So, over a generation, the odds will be measurably higher than in other, standard nations that the lucky males will be good providers, good husbands, and good fathers. Therefore, over the average of a very large nation, the children of these couples will probably be (a) more intelligent, (b) taller and stronger, (c) more successful, and, (d), of observably better character than the human male norm; calmer, more sociable, levelheaded, practical, and productive.
I’m no genetist, but I can predict that any genetist could sit down at his computer and write the program to give anyone the mathematical odds that the children of the next generation will be measurable superior to the human norm, and a very close mathematical measurement of by how much. This kind of mathemathical model in genetics is very simple and commonplace nowadays. Writing it would take an expert half a day.
I’m impressed with Stephen Sullivan’s insightful comment. Zhongwei Zhao has made some interesting points and I enjoyed the article immensely, but by reporting a single – not conclusively significant – metric to justify their claims the argument is somewhat lacking. I see unreasonable justifications of this nature between cause and effect too often in print today.
Regarding the first comment from First Advisor, I think you have alluded to a fascinating problem in the soft sciences. With so little data (historically) to work with, how can we make intelligent inferences about the long term effects of such a thing as gender imbalance? One way is that we simulate environments under controlled situations and infer patterns and trends. By this I mean take large groups of people and emulate such situations as gender imbalance and see what conclusions we can make. So I disagree with your statement that the author’s assumption is nonsense, based on your argument of having historically zero evidence. It is important to recognise that conclusions may be derived using the scientific method based on experimental observations, given a sample size (even artificially created) given a statistically significant sample size.
The logic in the second comment from First Advisor I find extremely disconcerting. I find it interesting that such conclusions can be reached without lack of hard evidence as is stated in the first paragraph. I assume this paragraph is written in order to provoke, so I will not take it seriously, as it has implications pertaining to a super race, as made notorious for example by Nazi ideology.