It has taken 20 years, but gendercide has finally made the front page of The Economist. Back in 1990, Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen wrote an astonishing article in the New York Review of Books claiming that 100 million girls had been aborted because of son-preference. This was happening mostly in China and India, but also in other Asian countries.

Some were initially sceptical of Sen’s allegations, and countered that the gigantic gender gap could be due to a higher rate of Hepatitis B amongst infant girls. But as the figures came in, there could be no doubt. A perfect storm of malign factors has created conditions in which girls are being aborted in the millions: son-preference, families with only one or two children, readily available abortion, and portable ultrasound equipment. As a result, the natural birth ratio of boys to girls – about 105 to 100. But in China and northern India, the ratio is now about 120 to 100. In some Chinese provinces the ratio is 130 to 100. In some places, the ratio for a third child has reached an incredible 200 to 100.

Even The Economist, which vigorously champions “legal, safe, and rare” abortion, is dismayed at this appalling gendercide. “The cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic,” it says in its editorial.

The most obvious of these is a huge surplus of young men who will never find brides. Governments are worried about how to cope with an army of restless young men who are unable to fulfil their fundamental aspiration to have a family.

“China alone stands to have as many unmarried young men—“bare branches”, as they are known—as the entire population of young men in America. In any country rootless young males spell trouble; in Asian societies, where marriage and children are the recognised routes into society, single men are almost like outlaws. Crime rates, bride trafficking, sexual violence, even female suicide rates are all rising and will rise further as the lopsided generations reach their maturity.”

The problem is not confined to China and India. Statistics from Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, the Western Balkans and Caucasus show similar trends. Even in the United States, the ratio of boys to girls is abnormally high among Chinese and Japanese Americans. And curiously, it is not a problem of poverty but of wealth. Gender ratios in India are highest in the wealthier regions.

What is to be done? The Economist ventures a few timid solutions. But they fail to strike at the heart of the matter because of its commitment to abortion as a basic right:

“All countries need to raise the value of girls. They should encourage female education; abolish laws and customs that prevent daughters inheriting property; make examples of hospitals and clinics with impossible sex ratios; get women engaged in public life—using everything from television newsreaders to women traffic police.”

Will any of these really change a preference for sons which has existed for thousands of years? Will they change social pressure for small families? Will they stop the greed of abortion doctors?

Banning abortion, encouraging larger families, and fostering a deep sense of inviolable dignity of every single human being are the only strategies which will be successful. But these are long-term solutions. How about jailing doctors who participate in gendercide? How about boycotting companies which sell portable ultrasound machines to doctors who use them to do abortions?

But the Economist’s article on gendercide is one of the best ever written on the topic. It’s required reading. 

The United Nations, which collects voluminous statistics across the planet, recently introduced disaggregated data for mortality rates to show data for children under five years of age. The latter are distinct from infant mortality rates which are much more widely quoted and cover deaths of babies under one year. The new data tell us that if infants make it beyond the first year of life, their chance of survival to age five becomes even more difficult: the mortality rates for those under five are generally higher.

Mortality rates for both infants and children under five years are expressed in number of deaths per 1,000. Data are further broken down to indicate male and female mortality and show that the female death ratio is lower than that of males nearly everywhere and, in the more developed countries, the rates are often both low and equal. This apparently is the corollary to the sex ratio at birth which, demographers point out, shows a somewhat higher number of boys being born.

There are only eight countries where the female mortality of the under fives exceeds that of males. The exceptions include China and India, the most populous countries with a solid record of tampering with the sex ratio at birth. In both countries, not only are fewer females being born – by decree of the one-child policy in China and by male preference choice in India – but surviving female babies are often abandoned or left to die, especially if food is scarce and families cannot feed all their children. Even anecdotal evidence bears this out. For example, visitors to Mother Theresa’s orphanages in Calcutta note the presence of more females than males.

Six other countries also have a higher under-five mortality rate for females: Afghanistan, Niger, Pakistan, Micronesia, Tonga, and Qatar. The first two have the world’s highest mortality rates for both males and females under five. Afghanistan is afflicted by war, tribalism, illiteracy, and severe underdevelopment. Niger shares similar characteristics but also has the world’s highest fertility rate (7.2) and one of the lowest life expectancy (57 years). See below for a summary of these rates.

Among developed countries the lowest rates – four per 1,000 – were recorded for both males and females in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Singapore. Four other countries showed rates of five per 1,000 for males and four per 1,000 for females: Czech Republic, Finland, Hong Kong, and Japan. The contrast between the results for Hong Kong and those of China could not be starker.

In China and India if abortion does not terminate females, then conditions in the first five years of life endanger their existence. When will they learn that tiny females matter? They are the future brides of males – and mothers of the next generation.

Mortality rates for children under five years per 1,000

                       – average 2005-2010

                           Males     Females

Afghanistan           233         238

Niger                    186         190

Pakistan                 91         100

India                     74           84

China                    25           35

Micronesia             41           43

Tonga                   17           27

Qatar                     9           12

Source: UN Statistical Yearbook, Fifty-second issue, 2008.

 

* Vincenzina Santoro is an international economist. She represents the American Family Association of New York at the United Nations.

As part of the annual meetings of the Commission on Social Development at the United Nations recently, The Republic of Korea sponsored a “side event” entitled: “Low Fertility and Aging Society in East Asia.” The presenters were a research director from the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, the Ambassador of Population issues of the Republic of Korea and a Korean Senior Fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu. A few officials from the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs were also present – and we engaged in a wonderful conversation afterwards.

Korea has the lowest fertility rate among the 30 OECD (most developed) nations: 1.19 in 2008, its population has started to decline and the population is aging rapidly. This has to be put into perspective. The Korean Government has had a very strong “family planning” policy since 1962. Now they are concerned about the consequences they have wrought. One of the officials, in his opening remarks stated outright that the current population situation “is not sustainable.” (It will be interesting to see whether the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development will take note when they meet in a couple of months…!)

Recent trends in Korea have included later marriages, an increase in the number of never married women, a failure of the fertility rate to recover after deep economic crises (the latest was the Asian currency crisis of 1997), a higher sex ratio at birth, and survey results that show a gap between the ideal number of children and actual births (similar results were found in the European Union) if conditions were better, and a recognition that in countries where fertility is higher there is a large number of out of wedlock births. On the last point, one chart showed Norway with an ‘illegitimacy’ rate of around 50%! Out of wedlock births in Korea are almost nonexistent. Charts of population structure, once known populations pyramids, now look more like quadrants and projections out to the end of the century make the diagram look more like a light bulb!

In response to a question, one Korean (from the East-West Center) said, almost in a whisper, that the government is trying to reform abortion policy so that “fewer conceptions end in abortion.”

In conversations with some government officials (they appreciated my question on the role of grandparents in helping raise grandchildren where mothers worked and day care might not be available), I suggested that the “family planning” policies and strategies of the past ought to change and that perhaps they should now focus on “planning families.” They liked my re-phrasing! We laughed and I added: “Remember you heard it here first!”

It was remarkable that such a conversation should occur on UN turf – but this may be yet another example of how rapidly things are changing and how one has to be ‘at the right place at the right time’ to pick up this intelligence. In my view, this is the third positive signal on population matters that I have noticed in UN circles in just a few months!

Vincenzina Santoro is the Chief United Nations representative of the American Family Association of New York

Isthe women’s equality movement leading to the extinction of females?China’s coercive one-child policy is well known but other countries arefreely expressing a population preference with similar direconsequences in the works. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)is well known for the promotion of gender equality through“reproductive health and reproductive rights” and provides assistanceto individual countries for many population related matters. Interalia, the latter includes the financing of various studies to collect,analyze and disseminate population data. One such study Recent Increase in the Sex Ratio at Birth in Vietnam: A Review of Evidence [1]provided some astounding analysis relating to abortion consequences inVietnam: a dynamic country with a population of 87 million – 14thhighest in the world – with a 90% literacy rate and a fertility rate of1.83 that is just below replacement (2.1). While these data were not inthe Report, they form a useful background/perspective for the findings.

Asa result of data collected from the 1999 population census andsubsequent Annual Population Surveys conducted by Vietnam’s GeneralStatistics Office, it was determined that the Sex Ratio at Birth (SRB)had exceeded the norm, was increasing annually and had reached "aconsiderably high level of 110/100" by 2006. That is, 110 boys werebeing born for every 100 girls. The global norm, established by theCreator, is considered to be a ratio of 104-106/100 according todemographers and “under normal circumstances it is quite stable overtime, across geographical regions, continents, countries and races.”

Estimatesfor 2007 show that the SRB rose further to 111/100 and appears to begrowing by a factor of one each year. Vietnam already has a higherratio than India as a whole although, the Report notes, in certainAsian regions (East China and Northern India) the "SRB levels are oftenabove 125."

But how did Vietnam get to this point? Somewhathesitantly, the Report mentions these contributing factors: theincreased availability of sex-identification technology (ultrasound andamniocentesis) and the long-standing preference for males in apatriarchal society. While stressing the need for more analysis, theReport merely footnotes the fact that data have not been compiled "forsex selection as a particular of abortion practices in the country."However, even a casual observer will notice a connection between skewedSRB data and readily available abortion "services." Moreover, "malepreference" is not a recent phenomenon but an ingrained tenet that UNgender policies have done nothing to address!

Indeed, theReport notes the choice of sons is "very strong" in instances of firstbirths – perhaps an offshoot of the overall fertility decline whichincludes preference for only one child. Baby girls are not allowed tobe born as nature intended, or if they are they may be given inadoption (usually for compensation), starved or abandoned, althoughthis is more true of India where the mortality rate for children underfive is unduly high relative to other developing countries.

An American TV advertisement of many years ago had a punch line: "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!"[2] In many Asian countries couples have done just that in indulging theirpreferences and ignoring future consequences. If current trendscontinue, Vietnam would catch up with the other Asian regions – withsimilar consequences 25 or so years down the road when, at marriageage, men will note a scarcity of likely brides. As a result, therecould be marriage at earlier ages for females, increased trafficking ofwomen across borders, and possible belligerency on the part of maleseither in pursuit of women or in a military sense.

Inessence, this is a Report on the negative consequences of abortion –hardly the kind one has been led to expect from UNFPA. Does ThorayaObaid, the UNFPA Executive Director who has spent more than threedecades at the UN, understand that her pursuit of reproductive choiceand gender equality have turned into reproductive "sororicide" andgender distortion?

The UN may not be Capistrano…..but I think I see a swallow!

Vincenzina Santoro is an international economist living in New York.She represents the American Family Association of New York.

Notes
[1] United Nations Population Fund, “Recent Increase in the Sex Ratio atBirth in Viet Nam: A Review of Evidence”, September 2009, 56 pages. Thestudy was a tripartite effort by the UNFPA, the Vietnamese GeneralStatistics Office and the French demographer Christophe Guilmoto whodid the analysis and prepared the Report, and originated from thefindings of the Vietnamese statistical authorities. Unless otherwisenoted, all quotes in this memo are from this source.

[2] This was an ad for a margarine, which supposedly tasted just like butter!

The penny has finally dropped for the Chinese government. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has admitted that gender imbalance because of its draconian one-child policy is a serious problem. In a report in the Chinese newspaper Global Times, demographers Wang Guangzhou and Wang Yuesheng sketched some of China’s intractable problems.

Sex-selective abortions: "extremely commonplace, especially in rural areas".

Scarcity of wives in rural areas: men in poorer parts of China will have to accept late marriage or no marriage at all. "The chance of getting married will be rare if a man is more than 40 years old in the countryside. They will be more dependent on social security as they age and have fewer household resources to rely on."

Abductions and trafficking of women: "rampant" in areas with excess numbers of men, according to the National Population and Family Planning Commission.

Illegal marriages and forced prostitution: also problematic.

The normal male-female ratio is between 103-107 males for every 100 females. But in 2005, the last year for which data are available in China, there were 119 boys for every 100 girls. In some areas the male-female ratio was as high as 130 males for every 100 females.

All this is old news, but it may be the first time that an official government body has acknowledged the horrific consequences of requiring couples to stop at one child. ~ London Telegraph, Jan 11

With a population of 141.9 million, Russia is registering a growth for the first time since 1995, says Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. For the past five years the number of Russian deaths had declined, while births had risen. Life-expectancy is about to reach the age of 69.

"We can say with a high degree of confidence that Russia will register a growth in population for the first time since 1995," said Mr Putin at an end-of-year government meeting broadcast on state television. A spokesman said that while the total growth was a minuscule 20,000, it was a "symbolic" milestone.

In part, the good news is due to Mr Putin himself. As demographer Carl Haub points out in the Population Reference Bureau blog "Behind the Numbers", in 2007 his government decided to give US$9,000 to women upon the birth of a second child. In 2007, births jumped nearly 9 percent over 2006 and, in 2008, by 6.4 percent over 2007. Russia’s total fertility rate (TFR) now stands at 1.49 (2008), up from its lowest slump of 1.16 in 1999.

Demographically things are still grim for Russia. The native population actually declined by about 224,000 last year. This is a lot better than the decline of 958,000 in 2000. The population will probably remain stable because of immigration from Central Asia and other former Soviet republics.

However, Mr Haub advises Russians not to celebrate yet. Things are going to get worse soon.

The number of young people moving up the age ladder into the prime childbearing ages is much less than those now in the childbearing years. As of January 1, 2009, there were 6.2 million females in the age group 20-24. The 15-19 age group was only 4.5 million and both the 5-9 and 10-14 age groups taken together totaled 6.5 million. As those younger age groups begin childbearing, births will certainly decline even if the TFR rises. Beyond that, deaths will rise as the elderly population grows significantly in size.

Gee, I missed this one from the hoo-haa surrounding the Copenhagen Summit. Sorry…

How can anyone dislike Boris Johnson, former editor of the Spectator, former MP, former shadow minister for the Conservatives, an old Etonian with unkempt blonde hair, a harum-scarum poupourri of astonishing talent and schoolboy silliness? He is currently mayor of London and his obiter dicta are faithfully reported by the London press. Like this one:

"There is no doubt that humanity faces a risk of environmental catastrophe. We are replicating too fast, hurtling towards nine billion souls on the planet like bacteria multiplying on a Petri dish."

How many children does dear old Boris have? Four. Are you scuttling around on the Petri dish with the other bacteria, Boris, old son, or is it just the benighted people south of the Equator? ~ London Evening Standard, Dec 14

Bangladesh is going to introduce a voluntary "one couple, one child" population planning policy by 2015 to curb its growing population.

The Director General of the Directorate of Family Planning Mohammad Abdul Qayyum told the Chinese news agency Xinhua that: "The Chinese policy influenced us in framing our policy though we are not making it mandatory." He said that the government plans to promote a "No more than two children, one is best".

"We are eager to develop relationship with Chinese population planning authorities for training our men, using modern contraceptive and other related matters," Qayyum said.

According to the government’s draft policy, one-child families will have preference in state schools and will be eligible for financial grants.

With a population of about 150 million and a birth rate of about 2.7 children per woman, Bangladesh is said to be the most densely populated country in the world. According to Mr Qayyum, "Overpopulation is a burden for the country. If we fail to achieve our target to reduce the present birth rate, it will soon be difficult to meet the basic demands of people. We may even fail to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by its targeted period of 2015."

News accounts of this initiative are sketchy, but administering it will be cumbersome: 21 ministries will be involved; religious leaders will have to be persuaded to promote the policy. It is unclear how the rights of the girl-child will be respected. According to an interview with Mr Qayyam in The Daily Star newspaper, "The policy will also encourage every fertile woman to give birth to only one girl child during her total reproduction age." ~ Xinhua, Dec 23; Daily Star, Dec 14;

 

Arguments from authority are very weak indeed, but when the authority is John Lennon, what the heck.

Check out this brief clip from an undated interview with Lennon and Yoko Ono on the Dick Cavett show.

Someone in the audience asks Yoko Ono about over-population and she expresses her scepticism. Then Lennon chips in, “I don’t really believe it… I think we’ve got enough food and money to feed everybody… There’s enough room for us and some of us can go to the Moon anyway.”

“I think you’re wrong about that,” says Cavett.

“Oh, I don’t care,” Lennon responds. It seems that he thinks that the population bomb was a beat-up by the government to distract the public from really important issues like Vietnam and Northern Ireland. 

It doesn’t prove anything, I suppose, but at least I’m in good company. ~ HT to John Smeaton.

China’s rapid economic development and America’s evident vulnerabilty after the Global Financial Crisis could make the Chinese a bit smug. But as leading demographer Nicholas Eberstadt points out in a frightening article in the Far Eastern Economic Review, China faces gigantic economic problems as the legacy of its one-child policy.

Inexorably—and by now inescapably—a host of new and unfamiliar demographic problems have arisen, all of which will plague China's next generation. These problems will compromise economic development, strain social harmony and place the traditional Chinese family structure under severe pressure; in fact, they could shake Chinese civilization to its very foundations.

First of all, China’s impressive growth rate has been fuelled by abundant cheap labour. But a repeat performance is unlikely. China’s population is about to start ageing rapidly and each generation of workers will be 20% smaller than the previous one.

Instead, leading Chinese economists—among them Professor Cai Fang, director of the Institute of Population and Labor Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences—argue that the Chinese economy has already reached a turning point where those seemingly unlimited reserves of rural labor have actually been tapped out, and any future increase in demand for labor will only be supplied by increasing wages.

Then, there is the “senior tsunami”. By 2035, one out of four rural dwellers will be over 65. Although Japan has the highest proportion of elderly in the world, its problems will be dwarfed by those of China., whose per capita income is 15 to 20 times lower than Japan’s. As nearly everyone knows, or ought to know, the US has a serious problem with its unfunded social security system. But its liabilities are equivalent to four months of total economic output. China’s, on the other hand, are more than 100% of GDP. “The existing social security system is doomed to collapse under its own weight,” says Eberstadt.

Add to this, the gender imbalance, which we have covered before in Demography Is Destiny. By 2020 about 20% of China's rural men between the ages of 35 to 44 will never have been married. What will happen?

Speculating about this is almost like imagining the end to a science fiction story—the drama takes us into a universe whose coordinates are far removed from the world we know. Even so, what may be hardest of all to imagine is that at the end of the day, this profound demographic disjuncture would leave China's economy, society and polity altogether unaffected.

The most subtle part of Eberstadt’s analysis has to do with China’s way of doing business. The family has always been central to its economy. But Chinese are growing up now in a “kin-less” society in which their only blood relatives are ancestors and descendants. They will have no siblings or cousins.

What will become of Chinese economic performance when this key element of the country's growth formula is radically altered? One can of course imagine compensating social adaptations, such as a more reliable rule of law or deeper affinities to friends. But if history is any guide, such social adaptations are often slow and halting, and there is no guarantee that they will emerge in time to remedy the loss of social capital that is taking place before our eyes.

No one can predict the future with certainty, but the legacy of the one-child policy could put the devastation of Mao’s Great Leap Forward in the shade, says Eberstadt.