3 ms·
I would have thought that that the "one child" policy played a large part, since it allowed a larger investment in fewer children by parents and society. This,
by Merrill 7y ago
I would have thought that that the "one child" policy played a large part, since it allowed a larger investment in fewer children by parents and society. This, coupled with an educational system that is able to spot talent and develop talented children, has produced a dramatic increase in China's human capital, without which liberalization would be ineffective. The US had a similar emphasis on developing talent in the late '50s and '60s after the Sputnik shock.
- justicezyx 7y agoCannot be further from truth than this. The timing doesn’t Evernote align...
- oska 7y agoCompare the crude birth rate since 1920 for Thailand and China on this Gapminder chart [1]. You'll see that Thailand started with a birth rate higher than China's. In 1967 they were at around the same level at which point they both simultaneously started trending down. Thailand maintained a smooth curve down to its present level which is lower than China's. China's downward curve was interrupted in 1979 (introduction of the One Child Policy) when it curved upward for a bit. So, despite all the myth-making, China's One Child Policy was an authoritarian disaster that did not reduce births beyond their already downward trend. In fact, it disrupted the already established trend. [1] https://www.gapminder.org/tools/?from=world#$state$time$startOrigin=1920&endOrigin=2018;&entities$show$country$/$in@=chn&=tha;;;;&entities_colorlegend$filter$;;&marker$axis_x$zoomedMin=1920;&axis_y$which=crude_birth_rate_births_per_1000_population&zoomedMin:0&zoomedMax:50&scaleType=linear&spaceRef:null;&color$which=country&spaceRef=entities;;;&chart-type=linechart https://www.gapminder.org/tools/?from=world#$state$time$star...