|
1.3 Billion? Big Deal
Ray McFarland Chinadaily.com.cn Updated: 2006-01-11 14:06
Of course population management is a concern for any country, as too many or too few people can throw a wrench in economic and social development. Concerning China's huge population Premier Wen Jiabao once said: "Any small problem multiplied by 1.3 billion will end up being a very big problem, and a very big aggregate divided by 1.3 billion will come to a very tiny figure."
Premier Wen is right. There is no way of getting around the country's large population. It is very difficult, almost impossible, for most people, including Chinese people themselves, to really visualize 1.3 billion people. But here is one way of looking at it: If every Chinese citizen gave you one jiao (roughly equivalent to 1 US cent), you would have over US$13 million in your account.
So understandably, many in China, from the average person to the media to high-level politicians lament China's heavy population burden as being an obstacle to economic and social development. But really, how accurate is this assessment?
Surprisingly, China is not the most crowded country in the world. Not even close. If you look at population density, China has far to go before it can claim that mantle. When judging whether a country has a potential population problem, density is a better measure than overall population. While China has the most people in the world it also has the second or third largest area of land, whereas India has the second largest overall population but only the 7th largest land area. Also, can it truly be argued that the United States, with an estimated population of nearly 260 million people, has a larger population problem than, for example, Indonesia, with roughly 242 million people?
According to one source's estimation, in 2005, among countries with an area of over 5,000 sq km, Bangladesh, with 1,002 people per kilometer, ranks as the most crowded. China, with a modest 136 people per km, ranks 31st, behind such countries as South Korea (4th; 492), Vietnam (17th; 253), the United Kingdom (19th; 247), and Germany (20th; 231). As you can see, this list includes both developed and developing countries. That is the point: A large population in itself does not automatically lead to problems. Instead, other factors play a larger role in a country's fortunes.
(Now, as with any statistics, population density is just an average. For example, a place like Beijing has a much higher density, while many places in West China has almost nobody. But this phenomenon is true in almost all countries.)
For example, China's nearly 30 years of great economic growth likely is due more to it's reform and opening-up policy, which began in the late 1970s, and less to its one-child policy, which began in the early 1980s, after China's initial economic growth had already taken off. So it stands more to reason that China's struggles with poverty in the 1950s and '60s were due more to it being closed to the world than to it having a booming population.
Actually it would do China good to pay a little less attention to the overall population. For one thing, it would allow China to learn and benefit more from a wider array of countries.
During the 2003 SARS epidemic, of all the countries directly affected, Vietnam got SARS under control the fastest. In the early stages, one of the fears (which never materialized thankfully) in China was the spread of the virus via the floating population of migrant workers. Now, like China, Vietnam also has a substantial floating population. So during one Dialogue (a program on the China Central Television 9 English Channel, or CCTV9) interview, an expert, when asked about whether China could learn form Vietnam in managing SARS among the floating population, said no because China had a larger floating population than Vietnam.
Unfortunately now I can't remember the exact figures, but at that time I calculated and found that while obviously China had a larger overall floating population, Vietnam had a higher floating population density. In other words, Vietnam had a higher challenge in managing SARS among its population. It is easy to see really.
For example, there are two countries: A and B. Country A has 100 police officers and 20 criminals. Country B has 20 officers and 5 criminals. While country A has more criminals, it can assign an average of 5 officers per criminal (100 divided by 20) whereas country B, while it has only 5 criminals, can assign only 4 officers per criminal (20 divided by 5). It is easy to see which country has the bigger challenge. So contrary to that expert on CCTV9, China could have learned from Vietnam's experience, hence reaping even greater results.
Also, paying less attention to overall population could help improve etiquette. I believe, and some of my Chinese friends have concurred, that some of the bad behavior that some people display in China is due to the mentality of "In China, with such a huge population, resources are limited. So I have to get mine before it's too late." This mentality explains why some people do rude things such as dish in line, board buses before others have gotten off, cross the street when the light is red, and so on.
But this mentality is very flawed. While it may was necessary in China in the 1950s and 1960s for people to literally push for their share in society, now, after 20-plus years of great economic growth, the situation is completely different. Actually though, even if all of China was as crowded as its Macao Special Administrative Region (17,865 people per square kilometer), in many cases, it would be better to be more courteous, not less. That would lead to better population management. Actually, China could use its heavily crowded Macao and Hong Kong regions as an example, as I believe that the people in those areas obey traffic rules, are very courteous, and so on.
So as a matter of speaking, maybe people in China should look elsewhere instead of rushing to use "1.3 billion" as an excuse for various economic problems and bad social etiquettes. If a large population automatically led to problems, then South Korea would not be developed and Singapore, with a population density of 6,389 per sq km, would not be renowned for its good manners. In the end, the mentality and actions of people, not the amount of people, determines a country's appearance.
Write to Raymond McFarland at:[email protected]
|
