Editing One-child policy (section)

== Formulation of the policy ==

In 1980, the central government organized a meeting in [[Chengdu]] to discuss the speed and scope of one-child restrictions.<ref name="Scharping" /> The notable aerospace engineer [[Song Jian]] was a participant at the Chengdu meeting. He had previously read two influential books about population concerns, ''[[The Limits to Growth]]'' and ''[[A Blueprint for Survival]]'', while visiting Europe in 1980. Along with several associates, Song determined that the ideal population of China was 700{{nbsp}}million, and that a universal one-child policy for all would be required to meet that goal.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Zubrin |first=Robert |title=Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism |date=2012 |publisher=[[The New Atlantis (journal)|The New Atlantis]] |isbn=978-1-59403476-3 |at=2646}}</ref> If fertility rates remained constant at 3 births per woman, China's population would surpass 3 billion by 2060 and 4 billion by 2080.<ref name="Scharping" /> In spite of some criticism inside the CCP, the ''family planning policy'',<ref>{{Citation |title=Family Planning in China |date=August 1995 |url=http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/celt/eng/zt/zfbps/t125241.htm |access-date=27 October 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141107041300/http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/celt/eng/zt/zfbps/t125241.htm |url-status=live |at=Section III paragraph 2 |publisher=Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Lithuania; Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China |archive-date=7 November 2014}}</ref> was formally implemented as a temporary measure on 18 September 1980.<ref name="boston">{{Cite news |last=Olesen |first=Alexa |date=27 October 2011 |title=Experts challenge China's 1-child population claim |work=[[Boston.com]] |url=http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/10/27/chinas_touting_of_1_child_rules_draws_challenges/ |url-status=live |access-date=10 July 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120105095058/http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/10/27/chinas_touting_of_1_child_rules_draws_challenges/ |archive-date=5 January 2012}}</ref><ref name="adc">{{Cite journal |last=Zhu |first=W X |date=1 June 2003 |title=The One Child Family Policy |journal=[[Archives of Disease in Childhood]] |volume=88 |issue=6 |pages=463–64 |doi=10.1136/adc.88.6.463 |pmc=1763112 |pmid=12765905}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=East and Southeast Asia: China |url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/china/ |access-date=10 December 2008 |website=CIA World Factbook}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Coale |first=Ansley J. |author-link=Ansley J. Coale |date=March 1981 |title=Population Trends, Population Policy, and Population Studies in China |url=http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/ckshih/ANG6366/1116/Coale%201981.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Population and Development Review |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=85–97 |doi=10.2307/1972766 |jstor=1972766 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121215045224/http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/ckshih/ANG6366/1116/Coale%201981.pdf |archive-date=15 December 2012 |access-date=27 March 2012}} Coale shows detailed birth and death data up to 1979, and gives a cultural environment to the famine in 1959–61.</ref> The plan called for families to have one child each in order to curb a then-surging population and alleviate social, economic, and [[environmental problems in China]].<ref name="cbc.ca" /><ref>{{Cite report |url=http://www.sinoptic.ch/textes/recherche/2006/200608_Rocha.Pascal_memoire.pdf |title=La politique de l'enfant unique en République populaire de Chine |last=da Silva |first=Pascal Rocha |date=2006 |publisher=[[University of Geneva]] |pages=22–28 |language=fr |access-date=6 November 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071128072311/http://www.sinoptic.ch/textes/recherche/2006/200608_Rocha.Pascal_memoire.pdf |archive-date=28 November 2007 |url-status=live |trans-title=The politics of one child in the People's Republic of China}}</ref>

=== "Virtual" population crisis ===
Despite the legitimate ongoing rapid growth of China's population and the evident effects it brought to society, using the term "population crisis" to describe the situation is disputed. Scholars including Susan Greenhalgh argue that the state intentionally created a virtual population crisis in order to serve political ends.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Greenhalgh |first=Susan |title="Science, Modernity, and the Making of China's One-Child Policy". |journal=Population and Development Review |volume=29 |pages=172–175}}</ref> According to state promotions, the looming overpopulation crisis would ruin the national agenda of achieving "China's socialist modernization", which includes industry, agriculture, national defense, and technology.<ref name=":4" />

China's attitude towards population control on the global stage in international forums evidenced an ambiguous stance on the nature of the crisis. In the mid-1960s, when global movements for birth control emerged, Chinese delegates expressed their opposition toward population control. In the first UN-organized [[United Nations world population conferences|World Population Conference]] held in [[Bucharest]] in 1974, they claimed that it was an imperialist agenda that Western countries imposed on Third World countries, and that population was not a determining factor of [[economic growth]] and a country's well-being.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last=Feng |first=Wang |date=19 February 2013 |title=Population, Policy, and Politics: How Will History Judge China's One-Child Policy? |journal=[[Population and Development Review]] |volume=38 |pages=115–129 |doi=10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00555.x |doi-access=free}}</ref> Yet, in the domestic setting the state leaders were already wary of the perceived "population crisis" that was thought to endanger the modernization of China.<ref name=":6" />

It is also suggested that mathematical terms, graphs, and tables were utilized to form a convincing [[narrative]] that presents the urgency of the population problem as well as justifies the necessity of mandatory birth control across the nation.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal |last=Greenhalgh |first=Susan |title=Science, Modernity, and the Making of China's One-Child Policy |journal=[[Population and Development Review]] |volume=29 |pages=171–172}}</ref> Due to the previous traumas of the Cultural Revolution, public and top state leaders turned to the charisma of science, and sometimes blindly worshipped it as the solution to every problem. As a result, any proposal that was veiled and decorated by the so-called scientific back-ups would be highly considered by both the people and the state.<ref name=":11" />

Arguments started to come out in 1979 suggesting that the excessively rapid population growth was sabotaging the economy and destroying the environment, and essentially preventing China from being a rightful member of the global world. Skillful and deliberate comparisons were made with developed and industrialized countries such as the United States, Japan, and France.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal |last=Greenhalgh |first=Susan |title=Science, Modernity, and the Making of China's One-Child Policy |journal=Population and Development Review |volume=29 |pages=172–176}}</ref> Under such a comparison, China's relatively low income per capita was attributed directly to population growth and no other factors. Though the data is truthful, its arrangement and presentation to readers gave a single message determined by the state: that the population problem is a national catastrophe and immediate remedy is desperately needed.<ref name=":12" />

=== Chinese population science ===
China was deprived of data, skills, and state support to conduct population studies. Due to [[Mao]]'s ambivalent attitude toward the population issue, population studies were abolished in the late 1950s. After Mao's death, family planning became a critical component and premise for reaching China's national goal: that is, to achieve "China's socialist modernization," which includes modernizing industry, agriculture, national defence, and technology.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Greenhalgh |first=Susan |date=2003 |title=Science, Modernity, and the Making of China's One-Child Policy |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3115224 |journal=Population and Development Review |volume=29 |issue=2 |page=167 |doi=10.1111/j.1728-4457.2003.00163.x |jstor=3115224}}</ref> Therefore, at this point, population science was closely related and tied with state politics. There was a perceived need to redefine population as a domain of science, identify the population problem in China, and propose a solution to it.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last=Greenhalgh |first=Susan |date=2003 |title=Science, Modernity, and the Making of China's One-Child Policy |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3115224 |journal=[[Population and Development Review]] |volume=29 |issue=2 |page=168 |doi=10.1111/j.1728-4457.2003.00163.x |jstor=3115224}}</ref> Such efforts included many groups of people with diverse backgrounds. Among these experts, two groups held the most influence in defining the population problem and providing a solution to it. They were a group of scientists led by [[Liu Zheng]], and another group led by [[Song Jian]]. Liu's group mainly came from a social science background, while Song's group came from natural science background.<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal |last=Greenhalgh |first=Susan |date=2003 |title=Science, Modernity, and the Making of China's One-Child Policy |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3115224 |journal=[[Population and Development Review]] |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=168–169 |doi=10.1111/j.1728-4457.2003.00163.x |jstor=3115224}}</ref>

==== Social scientists ====
Social scientists involved in this discussion in the mid-1970s, including Liu Zheng, Wu Cangping, Lin Fude, and Zha Ruichuan, prioritized the Marxist formulation of the population problem. They saw the problem as an "imbalance between economic and demographic growth", and wished to design a reasonable policy that considered the social consequences.<ref name=":7" /> These scientists came from the fields of social science, statistics, genetics, history, and many others. However, they had limited access to resources compared to the natural scientists who became involved in population policy making in 1978.<ref name=":8" /> Since population studies were forbidden from the 1950s until 1979, population science had made no progress between these two decades.<!-- Once set free from the restrictions, socially-oriented scholars found it difficult to engage in socially-oriented discussion of the population problem due to intellectual isolation{{Clarification needed|date=December 2022}} as well as detachment from this field of academia for 20 years.  << Partially unclear and probably mostly redundant to the previous statements. --><ref name=":7" />

==== Natural scientists ====
Natural scientists were interested in using [[Control theory (sociology)|control theory]] and applying it to the actual policy. The leader of the group, [[Song Jian]], was a control theorist at the Ministry of Aerospace Industry. He was known for his career in missile science. Yu Jingyuan and Li Guangyuan were trained engineers in the field of [[cybernetics]].<ref name=":8" /> Compared to the social scientists, this group of natural scientists had numerous advantages. They were politically protected during the Maoist period due to their importance in national defense and technology. They also had access to Western science. Eventually, they took an important role in examining the population model as well as designing the details of one-child policies.<ref name=":8" /> After quantitative research and analysis, they showed the top state leaders that the only solution would be a policy "to encourage all couples to have only one child, regardless of the costs to individuals and society".<ref name=":8" />

Although Greenhalgh claims that Song Jian was the central architect of the one-child policy and that he "hijacked" the population policy making process,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Greenhalgh |first=Susan |title=Just One Child: Science and Policy in Deng's China |date=2008 |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |location=Berkeley |page=Dust Jacket |language=en}}</ref> that claim has been refuted by several leading scholars, including Liang Zhongtang, a leading internal critic of one-child restrictions and an eye-witness at the discussions in Chengdu.<ref name="Hvistendahl2010">{{Cite news |last=Mara |first=Hvistendahl |date=2010 |title=Has China outgrown the one-child policy? |agency=Science |issue=329}}</ref> In the words of Wang et al., "the idea of the one-child policy came from leaders within the Party, not from scientists who offered evidence to support it."<ref name="Wang Judge">{{Cite journal |last1=Feng |first1=Wang |last2=Yong |first2=Cai |last3=Gu |first3=Baochang |date=2012 |title=Population, Policy, and Politics: How Will History Judge China's One-Child Policy? |url=http://dragonreport.com/Dragon_Report/Challenges_files/Wang_pp115-129.pdf |url-status=live |journal=[[Population and Development Review]] |volume=38 |pages=115–29 |doi=10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00555.x |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190606203524/http://dragonreport.com/Dragon_Report/Challenges_files/Wang_pp115-129.pdf |archive-date=6 June 2019 |access-date=20 July 2015 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Central officials had already decided in 1979 to advocate for one-child restrictions before knowing of Song's work and, upon learning of his work in 1980, already seemed sympathetic to his position.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Tien |first=H.Y. |url=https://archive.org/details/chinasstrategicd0000tien |title=China's Strategic Demographic Initiative |date=1991 |publisher=[[Praeger Publishing]] |isbn=9780275938246 |location=New York |language=en |url-access=registration}}</ref><!-- Moreover, even if Song's work convinced them to proceed with universal one-child restrictions in 1980, the policy was loosened to a "1.5"-child policy just five years later, and it is that policy which has been misrepresented since as the "one-child policy". Thus, it is misleading to suggest that Jian was either the inventor or architect of the policy.  <<  Unclear line of argument and probably redundant to the previous statements. -->