I actually took the time to look at those two sources, and as far as I can tell they provide no support whatsoever for your claim that “It was [China’s] widespread education pre-1979 that reduced fertility.” The word ‘education’ occurs exactly once in the first article, and in a sentence that doesn’t make any claims about education reducing fertility. As for the second article, to the extent that it attributes the fertility decline to anything, it attributes it not to “education”, but to economic development (pp. 158-159):
The third fatal problem with the “400 million births prevented” claim is that it totally ignores the most significant source of fertility decline worldwide: economic development… China’s rapid economic development since 1980 deserves the lion’s share of the credit for the [fertility decline].
From “Challenging Myths about China’s One-Child Policy”
The third fatal problem with the “400 million births prevented” claim is that it totally ignores the most significant source of fertility decline worldwide: economic development. As the popular slogan has it, “economic development is the best contraceptive”. China’s dramatic post-1978 economic boom and the profound social changes unleashed by rising incomes and levels of education and rapid urbanization would have driven down birth rates even in the absence of state birth planning campaigns. Given the much more rapid pace of economic and social change in China than in any of the 16 comparison countries used in Figure 3, it is highly likely that the trajectory of birth rate decline in China after 1980 due to this source alone would have been steeper than the average for the 16 comparison countries, and therefore even closer to the observed birth rate changes, as shown in the bottom line in Figure 3. In sum, the claim that China’s one-child policy prevented 400 million births is entirely bogus.
There were two separate claims that I made
1) One child policy had no effect on China’s total population
Yong Cai is the best researcher on this question. He clearly says one-child policy had little impact of China’s total population. Amartya Sen discusses this issue, and comes to similar conclusion.
2) Regarding effects of education of fertility.
Yong Cai is not the expert I would consult.
Income, education, urbanization all correlate with declining fertility, and he points that out clearly.
It is well known in the human development community that in 1979 pre-reform China had much better health, education, fertility indicators than would be expected given its level of income. The question is why? The answers lie in their social policies at that time (under Mao), where an emphasis was given to basic education and basic healthcare (with barefoot doctors 12)
Its interesting to note that I got downvoted for giving excellent sources. While you got upvoted for reading the articles and commenting. Basically I am outgroup/outcaste in EA.
Moving on.
I have read extensively on the topic of demographic change. Let me start with context it was asserted that
“China …. one-child policy gave it a bigger demographic dividend.”
I replied that one child policy had no effect on China’s population. My sources were Yong Cai et all, Amartya Sen has extensively commented on demographics and in his books explicitly compares Kerala, Tamil Nadu, China etc… and does not find differences in demographic trajectories of those places.
One child policy had no effect on China’s total population.
Regarding education and fertility, Yong Cai says socioeconomic development played a role in his paper “China’s Below-Replacement Fertility: Government Policy or Socioeconomic Development?”
Improvement in education, especially for women, has been shown in other settings to have an important depressing effect on fertility (Axinn and Barber 2001; Bongaarts 2003; Jeffery and Jeffery 1998).
He concludes
Below-replacement fertility in China, as in other societies, is driven to a great extent by the increasingly global forces of social and economic development.
Yong Cai is a specialist demographer focused on China, and not on the link between education and fertility. The best research on the link between education and fertility comes from Wolfgang Lutz and his coauthors. Amartya Sen is worth reading too.
Its interesting to note that I got downvoted for giving excellent sources. While you got upvoted for reading the articles and commenting. Basically I am outgroup/outcaste in EA.
I’m not sure I’m the right person to comment on this, given that I’m one of the parties involved, but I’ll provide my perspective here anyway in case it is of any help or interest.
I don’t think you are characterizing this exchange or the reasons behind the pattern of votes accurately. Bruno asked you to provide a source in support of the following claim, which you made four comments above:
One child policy had no effect on China’s population size. It was their widespread education pre-1979 than reduced fertility.
In response to that request, you provided two sources. I looked at them and found that both failed to support the assertion that “It was [China’s] widespread education pre-1979 than reduced fertility”, and that one directly contradicted it.
I didn’t downvote your comment, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect some people to downvote it in light of this revelation. In fact, on reflection I’m inclined to favor a norm of downvoting comments that incorrectly claim that a scholarly source supports some proposition, since such a norm would incentivize epistemic hygiene and reduce the incidence of information cascades. I do agree with you that ingroup/outgroup dynamics sometimes explain observed behavior in the EA community, but I don’t think this is one of those cases. As one datapoint confirming this, consider that a month or two ago, when I pointed out that someone had mischaracterized the main theses of a paper, that person’s comment was heavily downvoted, despite this user being a regular commenter and not someone (I think) generally perceived to be an “outsider”.
Moving to the object-level, in your recent comment you appear to have modified your original contention. Whereas before your stated that “widespread education” was the factor explaining China’s reduced fertility, now you state that education was one factor among many. Although this difference may seem minor, in the present context it is crucial, because both in comments to this post and elsewhere in the Forum you have argued that EAs should prioritize education over growth. Yet if both of these factors account for the fertility reduction in China, your position cannot derive any support from this Chinese experience.
Regarding voting. I have consistently been “controversial” when I have positive karma on a comment, I can see both +ve and -ve votes. While a few are not voted, and a lot of my comments get voted down.
You have 200 comments with 2000+ karma, I have 100 comments with 25 karma.
This is a pattern I see consistently.
I pointed out the context in which I made my comment.
China also opened up more, and the one-child policy gave it a bigger demographic dividend.
From reading Yong Cai and Amartya Sen etc.. its clear that one child policy had no effect on China’s population. First let’s agree on those facts.
Regarding education and fertility. I gave you a third paper by Yong Cai in which he acknowledges that education plays a role. Yong Cai is a China specialist not an expert on fertility and demography. As a scholar he reflects the thinking of his peers, and is cautious.
Wolfgang Lutz and others from IIASA and Wittgenstein center for demography research link between fertility and education. They are very clear that there is a strong link.
Whereas before your stated that “widespread education” was the factor explaining China’s reduced fertility, now you state that education was one factor among many.
I didn’t restate my position. I only quoted Yong Cai, it does not mean I agree completely with him.
I said as much when I wrote
Yong Cai is a specialist demographer focused on China, and not on the link between education and fertility.
You have to appreciate that this takes a lot of time, and a mental toll. If I dont give all my sources, it is because I have pondered this question for years and have read quite a few papers and books. I am not an academic to keep track and source everything.
lucy, given Linch’s admonition elsethread, I am taking a break from engaging with the content you present. I am not sure how best to phrase this, but I just wanted to say I empathize with your perception of being viewed as an outgroup/outcaste. I think that must feel quite bad. In spite of so far not agreeing a lot, I don’t want to contribute to you feeling that way, quite the contrary; I want everyone to feel welcomed here and in all EA spaces, and I apologize if my actions unwittingly had the opposite effect.
hey brunoparga, it is not one interaction that I find problematic. i am happy to be voted down when people respond back. it is those downvotes without a response that troubles me.
i like to interact and try to see others point of view, so its totally ok if you d’ont agree with me, say so, and explain your reasons. we may not agree at the end, but atleast we can try to understand each other.
I actually took the time to look at those two sources, and as far as I can tell they provide no support whatsoever for your claim that “It was [China’s] widespread education pre-1979 that reduced fertility.” The word ‘education’ occurs exactly once in the first article, and in a sentence that doesn’t make any claims about education reducing fertility. As for the second article, to the extent that it attributes the fertility decline to anything, it attributes it not to “education”, but to economic development (pp. 158-159):
From “Challenging Myths about China’s One-Child Policy”
There were two separate claims that I made
1) One child policy had no effect on China’s total population
Yong Cai is the best researcher on this question. He clearly says one-child policy had little impact of China’s total population. Amartya Sen discusses this issue, and comes to similar conclusion.
2) Regarding effects of education of fertility.
Yong Cai is not the expert I would consult.
Income, education, urbanization all correlate with declining fertility, and he points that out clearly.
It is well known in the human development community that in 1979 pre-reform China had much better health, education, fertility indicators than would be expected given its level of income. The question is why? The answers lie in their social policies at that time (under Mao), where an emphasis was given to basic education and basic healthcare (with barefoot doctors 1 2)
I like Amartya Sen’s discussion on China best
Its interesting to note that I got downvoted for giving excellent sources. While you got upvoted for reading the articles and commenting. Basically I am outgroup/outcaste in EA.
Moving on.
I have read extensively on the topic of demographic change. Let me start with context it was asserted that
“China …. one-child policy gave it a bigger demographic dividend.”
I replied that one child policy had no effect on China’s population. My sources were Yong Cai et all, Amartya Sen has extensively commented on demographics and in his books explicitly compares Kerala, Tamil Nadu, China etc… and does not find differences in demographic trajectories of those places.
One child policy had no effect on China’s total population.
Regarding education and fertility, Yong Cai says socioeconomic development played a role in his paper “China’s Below-Replacement Fertility: Government Policy or Socioeconomic Development?”
He concludes
Yong Cai is a specialist demographer focused on China, and not on the link between education and fertility. The best research on the link between education and fertility comes from Wolfgang Lutz and his coauthors. Amartya Sen is worth reading too.
Is the Demographic Dividend an Education Dividend?
I’m not sure I’m the right person to comment on this, given that I’m one of the parties involved, but I’ll provide my perspective here anyway in case it is of any help or interest.
I don’t think you are characterizing this exchange or the reasons behind the pattern of votes accurately. Bruno asked you to provide a source in support of the following claim, which you made four comments above:
In response to that request, you provided two sources. I looked at them and found that both failed to support the assertion that “It was [China’s] widespread education pre-1979 than reduced fertility”, and that one directly contradicted it.
I didn’t downvote your comment, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect some people to downvote it in light of this revelation. In fact, on reflection I’m inclined to favor a norm of downvoting comments that incorrectly claim that a scholarly source supports some proposition, since such a norm would incentivize epistemic hygiene and reduce the incidence of information cascades. I do agree with you that ingroup/outgroup dynamics sometimes explain observed behavior in the EA community, but I don’t think this is one of those cases. As one datapoint confirming this, consider that a month or two ago, when I pointed out that someone had mischaracterized the main theses of a paper, that person’s comment was heavily downvoted, despite this user being a regular commenter and not someone (I think) generally perceived to be an “outsider”.
Moving to the object-level, in your recent comment you appear to have modified your original contention. Whereas before your stated that “widespread education” was the factor explaining China’s reduced fertility, now you state that education was one factor among many. Although this difference may seem minor, in the present context it is crucial, because both in comments to this post and elsewhere in the Forum you have argued that EAs should prioritize education over growth. Yet if both of these factors account for the fertility reduction in China, your position cannot derive any support from this Chinese experience.
Regarding voting. I have consistently been “controversial” when I have positive karma on a comment, I can see both +ve and -ve votes. While a few are not voted, and a lot of my comments get voted down.
You have 200 comments with 2000+ karma, I have 100 comments with 25 karma.
This is a pattern I see consistently.
I pointed out the context in which I made my comment.
From reading Yong Cai and Amartya Sen etc.. its clear that one child policy had no effect on China’s population. First let’s agree on those facts.
Regarding education and fertility. I gave you a third paper by Yong Cai in which he acknowledges that education plays a role. Yong Cai is a China specialist not an expert on fertility and demography. As a scholar he reflects the thinking of his peers, and is cautious.
Wolfgang Lutz and others from IIASA and Wittgenstein center for demography research link between fertility and education. They are very clear that there is a strong link.
I didn’t restate my position. I only quoted Yong Cai, it does not mean I agree completely with him.
I said as much when I wrote
You have to appreciate that this takes a lot of time, and a mental toll. If I dont give all my sources, it is because I have pondered this question for years and have read quite a few papers and books. I am not an academic to keep track and source everything.
lucy, given Linch’s admonition elsethread, I am taking a break from engaging with the content you present. I am not sure how best to phrase this, but I just wanted to say I empathize with your perception of being viewed as an outgroup/outcaste. I think that must feel quite bad. In spite of so far not agreeing a lot, I don’t want to contribute to you feeling that way, quite the contrary; I want everyone to feel welcomed here and in all EA spaces, and I apologize if my actions unwittingly had the opposite effect.
hey brunoparga, it is not one interaction that I find problematic. i am happy to be voted down when people respond back. it is those downvotes without a response that troubles me.
i like to interact and try to see others point of view, so its totally ok if you d’ont agree with me, say so, and explain your reasons. we may not agree at the end, but atleast we can try to understand each other.