Why experts question whether China’s one-child policy was necessary in the first place

China’s unprecedented demographic experiment with its one-child policy has left the nation grappling with severe unintended consequences decades after implementation. The policy, once hailed as a solution to overpopulation concerns, employed coercive measures including forced abortions, widespread sterilization, and financial penalties that fundamentally altered the country’s social fabric.

Recent official statistics reveal China’s birth rate has plummeted to historic lows, with population decline persisting for four consecutive years. This demographic downturn has prompted authorities to completely reverse course, abandoning the one-child restriction in 2015 and subsequently permitting two children per couple in 2016, followed by a three-child allowance in 2021.

The policy’s most damaging legacy includes a severe gender imbalance resulting from traditional preferences for male children, creating a generation of only children now burdened with supporting multiple elderly relatives. These individuals, once celebrated as ‘little emperors’ during their childhood, now face immense financial and emotional pressures as they become responsible for two parents and potentially four grandparents.

Demographic experts like Mei Fong, author of ‘One Child: The Story of China’s Most Radical Experiment,’ argue that China has essentially ‘demographically shot itself in the foot.’ The nation now confronts an aging society with insufficient working-age population to support retirees, threatening government finances and pension systems.

Despite implementing various incentives including cash subsidies and tax adjustments, Chinese authorities are discovering that reversing decades of population control mentality proves significantly more challenging than altering policy frameworks. The experience mirrors global patterns where economic development typically correlates with declining birth rates, though China’s case remains uniquely exacerbated by its extreme interventionist approach.