Effects


As boys are preferred in China, couples began having scans to determine the gender of the child. In many cases, an abortion was carried out if the woman was pregnant with a girl. This gender bias led to a greater number of boys being born. This has created a gender imbalance in the country, with 117 boys for every 100 girls. In response to this, the government banned scans to determine gender in many parts of the country, although this had little effect in resolving the problem.


Birth rate in China (per 1,000)


10 20 30 40 50


45 35 25 15 5


0


Birth rate Death rate


Effects


The potential of a financial reward combined with the lack of available birth control led to a 93 per cent increase in births between 1965 and 1967. However, this initial success was counteracted by a significant increase in infant and maternal fatalities. As a result, by 1975, the total fertility rate (TFR) had fallen to just 3.7 per 1,000.


Birth rate in Romania (per 1,000)


22 24 26 28


20


12 14 16 18


1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Great Leap Forward


One-child policy


: Fig. 1.15 Impact of the one-child policy on birth rates in China


The one-child policy moved China from stage 2 to stage 4 of the Demographic Transitional Model (see Section 1.6) very rapidly, meaning the rate of population growth slowed greatly. Birth rates fell below the replacement level at 1.55 children per fertile woman, with some urban areas having a fertility rate of less than 1.0.


As of 2016 China’s government has removed the one-child policy in order to prevent the population from ageing rapidly and to prevent further population decline. Couples are now allowed to have two children. While couples are allowed to have larger families, their family planning is still controlled by the government.


Demographers fear that the move will not be enough to prevent future issues. This is mainly due to the fact that the old policy has led to a societal culture of having one child or remaining childless. The first signs of this occurred in 2012 when the government relaxed the policy, allowing for 12 million couples to apply to have a second child. However, only 1.4 million


14


10 8


1960 1970 1980 : Fig. 1.16 Birth rates in Romania


The state failed to take into account the relationship between socio-economic development and population growth. As most of the government’s money was invested in agriculture and heavy industry, whose produce was sold off to pay foreign debt, the standard of living declined.


By the mid-1980s Romania’s standard of living was equal to that of a Lesser Developed Country (LDC), with a shortage of even the most basic childcare needs such as nappies, milk formula and infant clothing.


The high level of poverty led to many couples placing their children in state-run orphanages, where conditions were terrible.


By the mid-1990s, birth rates began to decline to more natural figures. Birth rates now average 9.27 per 1,000, while death rates average 11.9 per 1,000.


1990 2000 2010


ELECTIVE 5 PATTERNS AND PROCESSES IN THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194