Birthrates in South Korea

[wushijiao]

Although this is about South Korea, I think China may also soon face the problem of having birth rates that are too low. As a broad stereotype, urban centers in America can get labor from south of the border. Europe gets lots of labor from Eastern Europe. and the Middle East. Urban China gets labor from the agricultural parts of the country. But, sooner or later, birthrates might fall dangerously low in central China.

Also, where will South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan get their labor from? If they come from abroad, how will this redefine their cultures and politics?

In South Korea, the decline has been so precipitous that it caught the government off guard. Policies devised to discourage more than two children, like vasectomies and tubal ligations, were covered under the national health plan until last year. This year, the plan began covering reverse procedures for those two operations, as well as care for a couple's third or fourth child.

Successful family planning, coupled with changing mores, led the birthrate to drop below the ideal population replacement level of 2.1 in the 1980's and then more precipitously in the mid-1990's. Now on average a South Korean woman will have 1.19 child in her lifetime - a rate lower than Japan's birthrate of 1.28, comparable to Taiwan's 1.22, and higher than Hong Kong's 0.94. Mr. Park, of the Health Ministry, said the government committed itself to raising the birthrate only last year. "We should have started these policies in the late 1990's, but we had been focused on decreasing the birthrate for 40 years and it was hard to change directions," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/international/asia/21birthrate.html?pagewanted=1&hp&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1124611366-1qI1PKtJxldRDcjHZeRTIQ

[bhchao]

South Korea and Japan have very homogeneous populations. Although I could be wrong, they are unlikely to rely on immigration to alleviate future labor shortages. Both countries also have cultural norms that foreigners would have to adhere to. South Korea is a Confucian society where respect and deference to elders or people of authority is important. So there could be a mismatch between Korean cultural values versus those of outsiders.

Low birth rates might be a bigger problem where manual labor is used extensively. Fortunately South Korea and Taiwan have a large knowledge-based, high technology industry; and are transitioning into a service-oriented economy.

Nowadays many companies design their products in their home countries and delegate assembly to inexpensive labor workforces in countries like China.

[wushijiao]

South Korea and Japan have very homogeneous populations. Although I could be wrong, they are unlikely to rely on immigration to alleviate future labor shortages. Both countries also have cultural norms that foreigners would have to adhere to.

I think that is what is interesting about the situation. How will traditionally homogeneous societies deal with a surge of people that don't fit in. Europe is trying to re-assess if multi-culturalism works, especially if some immigrant groups reject pluralism and the values of the home country.

The Economist had an interesting article about demographics a while back. The original 15 non-communist, Western European countries have had decreasing birthrates for years. Meanwhile, the US had a drop, but then recovered to nearly 2.1.

Thus:

By 2040, using the new census's “middle series” projection, America's population will overtake Europe's. This forecast has already proved too low. On the “high-series projection”, the crossing point occurs before 2030 (see chart 2). Admittedly, this projection is based on high assumptions about fertility rates—over 2.5 in 2025-50. But if this proves correct, Europe's population in 2050 would be 360m and falling, America's would be over 550m and rising. Half a billion people: in other words, America would be twice the size it is now. Europe would be smaller. Obviously, straight-line projections over 50 years need to be taken with plenty of salt. All the same, the numbers are startling.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056

[bhchao]

Korea's birthrate has fallen below Japan's birthrate. The attitudes in Korea towards child-bearing seems to differ from those in the US, where giving birth before marriage is more common. In Korea, people place stronger emphasis on having a solid foundation first, such as economic or job security. Achieving financial wealth or security seems to take precedence over childbearing. This may also be true in Japan or Hong Kong, where birthrates are also low.

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200605/200605080023.html

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200605/200605080025.html

The environment in the US is more favorable towards child-rearing. For example, companies like Ernst & Young and Deloitte & Touche offer financial incentives, flexible time off, and generous maternity leaves to working mothers. In contrast, corporations in Korea don't stack up in that regard.

[wushijiao]

South Korea's new rate 1.08 babies per woman must be one of the lowest rates in the world. What will South Korea be like when it starts to need massive amounts of immigrants? Who knows.

This situation also applies to Shanghai, I think. I found this:

"The total fertility rate of Shanghai is 1.33 children per woman, and it is much lower than the 2.25 mean level for the country as a whole at that time."

http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/database/chinadata/shanghai.htm

That means, most likely, that Shanghaiese culture will be diluted by "外地人" as time goes on.

Also, this is a bit interesting, talking about China's coming demographic crisis of underpopulation:

"While there is little about China's position in the year 2025 that we can predict with confidence, one critical aspect of China's future can be described today with some accuracy: her population trends. Most of the Chinese who will be alive in 2025, after all, have already been born.

The most striking demographic condition in China today is the country's sparse birth rate. Though most of the population still subsists at Third World levels of income and education, fertility levels are remarkably low--below the level necessary for long-term population replacement, in fact. This circumstance of course relates to the notorious "One Child" policy of China's Communist government, applied with varying degrees of force for nearly two decades.

Ironically, by laboring so ferociously to avoid one set of "population problems"--namely, "overpopulation"--Beijing has helped to ensure that another, even more daunting set of problems will emerge in the decades ahead. Those population problems will be, for Beijing and for the world, utterly without precedent. While impossible to predict their impact with precision, they will impede economic growth, exacerbate social tensions, and complicate the Chinese government's quest to enhance its national power and security.

How can we know fairly well what China's demography will look like 25 years from now? Because according to the latest estimates by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, about a billion of the 1.2 billion Chinese living on the mainland today will still be alive in 2025--accounting for about seven out of every ten of the 1.4 billion Chinese then alive.

The main population wildcard in China's future is fertility. The Census Bureau suggests that the nation's total fertility rate (TFR) now averages a bit under 1.8 births per woman per lifetime (significantly below the 2.1 births necessary for long-term population stability). For broad portions of the Chinese populace, fertility appears to be even lower--as depressed as 1.3 lifetime children per woman in some cities. In Beijing and Shanghai, TFRs may actually have fallen under one by 1995!

The Census Bureau assumes Chinese fertility will average about 1.8 births per woman through 2025. But today's childbearing takes place under the shadow of the country's severe--and coercive--anti-child campaign. Might not the birth rate leap up if that program were discarded or reversed? It's impossible to be sure, but bits of evidence suggest that a revolution in attitudes about family size has swept China since Mao's death--and that this would prevent fertility from surging back toward more traditional patterns, even if all governmental controls were relaxed. Consequently, the Bureau projects that China will be reaching zero population 25 years from now. "

http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/database/chinadata/shanghai.htm

I've done informal surveys in classes sometimes when we discuss the "One Child Policy", (which the students usually don't feel timid about debating, by the way). Almost all students seem to want just one kid, maybe two, almost never three, and sometimes zero. Who can blame them? It costs a small fortune to educate a kid in modern Chinese cities these days.

I can't help but wonder how the poverty gap will be closed when educated Shanghaiese are waiting until they are in their late-20's/early 30's to have one kid, while people in the countryside raise two kids in poverty, in areas with sub-standard schools.

[skylee]

According to one of the posters of this thread, the birth rate of the city of Shanghai is/was the lowest in the world, being 4.8 births per 1000 population or 0.8 kid per woman.

According to the latest figures (2004) on the unescap website, the total fertility rate of Hong Kong is 0.9 child per woman.

The HK Government now wants three children from each couple but there are just no incentives for people to do so.

[Lu]

The Census Bureau suggests that the nation's total fertility rate (TFR) now averages a bit under 1.8 births per woman per lifetime (significantly below the 2.1 births necessary for long-term population stability). For broad portions of the Chinese populace, fertility appears to be even lower--as depressed as 1.3 lifetime children per woman in some cities.

This only shows that the one child-policy is working, doesn't it. And the whole point of that policy was that there are too many people in China, the population was supposed to become smaller. 'Population stability' is not what they wanted to achieve.

This policy has maybe not been that great an idea: even 20 years ago the government should have realized that there would be too many old people for too few young people to work for them. But it's too late to do anything about that now, even if couples are allowed more children now.

I can't help but wonder how the poverty gap will be closed when educated Shanghaiese are waiting until they are in their late-20's/early 30's to have one kid, while people in the countryside raise two kids in poverty, in areas with sub-standard schools.

Maybe those countryside children will enable China to continue growing with the speed it's growing now? Poor people make cheap labor. And China has too many college graduates already.

(I don't mean to suggest all of these things are good developments, by the way.)

[bhchao]

This only shows that the one child-policy is working, doesn't it. And the whole point of that policy was that there are too many people in China, the population was supposed to become smaller.

It is working, but it's because couples don't have a choice. It is also contributing to the lopsided male-female ratio in China because the the preference for boys is aggrandized considering the penalties for having more than one child.

On the other hand, the decline in the birthrate in South Korea is attributed to socioeconomic considerations made by the woman. This can also hold true for Japan and Hong Kong.

Currently women outnumber men in both South Korea and Hong Kong because of the increasing life expectancy for females combined with the declining birth rate. Even though boys are still preferred over girls, the actual occurrence of giving birth to a baby girl is increased because couples know they can always have a chance in having the second baby being a boy even though the first was a girl.

Recently Seoul announced measures and financial incentives to support multicultural families in South Korea. This is due to the rising number of Korean men marrying foreign wives who are perceived to be more receptive in raising large families or more than one child. In the long run I see Korea becoming less homogeneous, with the definition of a Korean citizen to incorporate foreigners who permanently work, live, and marry there.

[bhchao]

Might not the birth rate leap up if that program were discarded or reversed? It's impossible to be sure, but bits of evidence suggest that a revolution in attitudes about family size has swept China since Mao's death--and that this would prevent fertility from surging back toward more traditional patterns, even if all governmental controls were relaxed

This change in attitude on family size will grow with the pace of urbanization. There are many disadvantages of raising a family in an urban setting. Take New York City for example, one of the worst places to raise a family in my opinion unless you are very affluent. High property prices, low access to quality schools, unhealthy environmental conditions, and congestion are all urban symptoms that inhibit raising a family.

Soaring property prices in Seoul's speculative real estate market is a problem that politicians are trying to keep under control. It's already a campaign issue in the upcoming May 31 mayoral race in Seoul.

South Korea has one of the fastest urbanization rates in the world, and urbanization offers earnings power, ambition, and prestige to women who want a better life. Therefore it is natural to put your financial foundations on solid ground first before having kids. As a result, it's not surprising to find very low birth rates for Shanghai, Seoul, and Hong Kong. I would agree that fertility attitudes will not revert to traditional patterns in China even when government controls are lifted, provided the current pace of urbanization.

When American WWII soldiers returned home after the war, they were able to raise large families and give birth to the baby boomers because of the open space available to them in the suburbs. If you visit Irvine, CA today, you would concur that it is a very good setting to raise a family.

The current immigration debate sums it pretty well. Why are illegal immigrants in the US here in the first place?

There is a Korean film called Wedding Campaign about two rural farmers who want to get married and have kids, but can't find a woman willing to live with them in the countryside. Knowing that no fancy and sophisticated urban woman would marry two bums, they go to Uzbekistan and embark on a wedding campaign there to find a foreign wife interested in marrying them.

[Lugubert]

It's not just about country-wide rates. Some think that there are other problems as well: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=166456