From 1979 to 2015, China implemented the “one-child policy,” a nationwide policy designed to limit families to one child. The policy was promoted as necessary for economic growth and national stability. Leaders believed that controlling the population would accelerate per capita income growth.
In this blog, I explore how different scholars have evaluated the purpose, implementation, and consequences of the one-child policy. By analyzing three academic articles, I aim to better understand whether the policy truly served the “common good,” and what costs it imposed on individuals and society. Each article provides a unique lens: one focuses on political motivation and demographic consequences, another on human rights and ethical implications, and the third on economic and educational outcomes.
Why the Policy Was Created
In my first research article, “Population, Policy, and Politics: How Will History Judge China’s One-Child Policy?” by Wang Feng, Yong Cai and Baochang Gu. One of the main ideas is that China’s one-child policy was driven by economic growth rates and GDP growth rather than by scientific needs. One meaningful quote is: “A strategy of GDP growth has remained the chief goal at all levels of the Chinese political system, and the population has been made a lifeless number, not an aggregation of individual lives. In this pursuit.” This quote demonstrates the true motives behind China’s one-child policy. The policy-making process ignores the dignity and choice rights of individual lives and treats people as the number in political calculations. Another quote is “Both the temporal sequence of policy formulation and the prevailing style of decision-making of the CDP however suggest clearly that the idea of the one-child policy came from leaders within the Party, not from scientists who offered evidence to support it.” This quote indicates that the leader first formulates an idea, and then seeks data and scientists to provide rational argument.
Another idea is the one-child policy has altered the traditional multi-child family structure in China, causing long-term psychological and elderly care pressures on families. One meaningful quote is: “…the designers of the policy anticipated a faster pace of population aging as a result and acknowledged the policy’s deleterious effect on the kinship structure of the Chinese family.” This quote clarifies that the destructive impact of the policy is foreseeable, but the government didn’t take effective measures to deal with it. Another quote is “China today has about 150 million families with only one child, accounting for more than a third of all families… This is the population structure which China will have to confront the challenge of rapid population aging at the societal level.” This quote indicates that the only child of a generation has to shoulder the responsibility of taking care of two generations of elderly people, which brings extremely heavy pressure. This is not only a pressure within the family, but also impacts the entire country. The country will face significant challenges in areas such as healthcare, insurance and elder people institutions.
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)
How It Hurt People
In my second research article, “China’s One-Child Policy, a Policy without a Future: Pitfalls of the ‘Common Good’ Argument and the Authoritarian Model” by Jing-Bao Nie, one of the main ideas is that the one-child policy caused massive suffering, especially to women, and was enforced through authoritarian violence by the state. One meaningful quote is: “The one-child policy and the application of the authoritarian model have instead caused massive suffering to Chinese people, especially women, and made them victims of state violence.” This quote demonstrates that the policy, although presented as beneficial to society, actually created large-scale harm to individuals—particularly women, who suffered most under its enforcement. Another important quote is :“Numerous Chinese people, especially women, have had to endure suffering on a massive scale.” This highlights the long-lasting and widespread impact of the policy, focusing on how deeply personal and physical the damage was for those subjected to forced abortions, sterilizations, and state control over reproduction.
Another idea is that the justification of the one-child policy using the argument of the “common good” masked deeper ethical flaws, including violations of individual rights and long-term demographic harm. One meaningful quote is :“The greatest irony of all is that, while originally designed to improve living standards and help relieve poverty and underdevelopment, the one-child policy has inflicted massive suffering and state-directed violence.” This quote shows that the policy failed its own purpose—rather than helping people, it harmed them, making the ethical foundation of the policy weak and contradictory. Another quote is ：“Due to the widespread practice of sex-selective abortion, 30–40 million (or even more) females are missing from the population… prohibition has been ineffective.” This demonstrates one of the policy’s most devastating unintended consequences: a serious gender imbalance that not only reflects discrimination but will affect future generations socially and economically.
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)
What It Achieved
In my third research article, “Does Population Control Lead to Better Child Quality? Evidence from China’s One-Child Policy Enforcement” by Bingjing Li and Hongliang Zhang, one of the main ideas is that stricter enforcement of the one-child policy led to a decrease in family size and was correlated with a small increase in educational outcomes, demonstrating a quantity–quality trade-off. One meaningful quote is :“Our instrumental variable (IV) estimates show that having an additional sibling decreases the education level by 0.12 for boys and 0.07 for girls.” This quote highlights the central conclusion that more children in a family reduce the average educational outcomes of each child, especially for boys. Another quote is :“An additional sibling lowers the probability of attending junior secondary school by 13.3 and 11.1 percentage points for boys and girls, respectively.” This provides more specific evidence that having fewer children may allow parents to invest more in each child’s education, thus improving child quality.
Another idea is that although stricter enforcement had some educational benefit, the overall contribution of the one-child policy to human capital growth was modest and may not justify its heavy social costs. One meaningful quote is :“Despite evidence for the existence of the quantity-quality trade-off in China, our quantitative estimates suggest that China’s OCP made only a modest contribution to the human capital development.” This quote reveals that the educational improvements from the policy were small relative to the harm and social restructuring it caused. Another quote is :“Our estimates imply that the OCP at most increased men’s income by 3.7% and women’s income by 2%.” This shows that even in economic terms, the benefit was limited, raising questions about whether such gains were worth the ethical and demographic consequences of the policy.
The One-Child Policy in China, while initially promoted as a solution to economic and social issues, has had far-reaching consequences that were not fully anticipated. As discussed in the three research articles, the policy was driven primarily by the desire for GDP growth, with little regard for individual rights or long-term demographic effects.
Wang Feng and his colleagues highlight how the policy’s focus on economic growth disregarded the human impact, turning people into mere numbers for political calculations. The policy’s imposition on family structures has created a pressing burden, especially in terms of elderly care and social support.
Jing-Bao Nie’s article emphasizes the ethical flaws of the policy, particularly the authoritarian measures used to enforce it, which resulted in widespread suffering, particularly among women. The policy’s justification through the lens of the “common good” concealed the harm it caused to individual rights and gender equality.
Lastly, Bingjing Li and Hongliang Zhang’s article presents a more measured perspective, suggesting that while the policy did reduce family sizes and had some positive educational effects, its overall contribution to human capital development was modest and did not justify the heavy social and ethical costs.
In conclusion, while the One-Child Policy may have provided short-term economic benefits, its long-term consequences have left deep scars in Chinese society. These three articles collectively argue that the policy’s cost in human suffering, gender imbalance, and demographic instability far outweighs its benefits.
Works Cited
Feng, W., Cai, Y., & Gu, B. (2013). Population, Policy, and Politics: How
Will History Judge China’s One-Child Policy? Population and
Development Review, 38(s1), 115–129.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00555.x
NIE, J.-B. (2014). China’s One-Child Policy, a Policy without a Future:
Pitfalls of the “Common Good” Argument and the Authoritarian
Model. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 23(3), 272–287.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180113000881
Li, B., & Zhang, H. (2017). Does population control lead to better child
quality? Evidence from China’s one-child policy enforcement.
Journal of Comparative Economics, 45(2), 246–260.