Last month, China officially acknowledged that its population began to decline last year — about nine years earlier than Chinese demographers and the UN had projected.
The implications of this are hard to overstate. It means that all of China’s economic, foreign and defense policies are based on faulty demographic data.
For example, Chinese government economists have predicted that by 2049, China’s per capita GDP could reach half or even three-quarters of that of the US, while its overall GDP could grow to twice or even three times that of its rival.
However, these forecasts assumed that China’s population would be four times that of the US in 2049.
The real figures tell a very different story. Assuming that China is lucky enough to stabilize its fertility rate at 1.1 children per woman, its population in 2049 would be just 2.9 times that of the US, and all its key indicators of demographic and economic vitality would be much worse.
The faulty predictions do not affect only China. They imply a geopolitical butterfly effect that could ultimately destroy the existing global order.
Chinese authorities have been acting in accordance with their longstanding belief in a rising East and declining West.
Similarly, Russian President Vladimir Putin believed that as long as Russia maintained stable relations with a rising China, the declining West would be powerless to hold him accountable for his aggression against Ukraine.
In its haste to abandon Afghanistan to focus its resources on China, the US might have unwittingly emboldened Putin further.
Population aging is likely to have a permanent, major drag on China’s economy. As Italy’s experience shows, the old-age dependency ratio — the number of people older than 64, divided by those aged 15 to 64 — has a strong negative correlation with GDP growth, as does the median age and the proportion of people older than 64.
In 1950, Japan’s median age was 21, compared with 29 in the US. As one would expect, Japan subsequently benefited from years of faster economic growth.
However, by 1994, the prime-age labor force — people aged 15 to 59 — began to decline, whereas the US working-age population is not expected to fall until 2048.
By 1992, Japan’s median age was 5.5 years above that of the US, and its old-age dependency ratio began to exceed that of the US. Not surprisingly, its GDP growth has been lower than the US’ ever since.
Japan’s per capita GDP rose from 16 percent of the US level in 1960 to 154 percent in 1995.
However, by last year, that figure had fallen to 46 percent, and it is likely to fall below 35 percent.
Similarly, owing to their young populations, Taiwan and South Korea achieved rapid economic convergence for more than five decades, with per capita GDP soaring from 5 percent of the US level in 1960 to 42 percent and 53 percent respectively in 2014.
However, both economies have since stagnated as their workforces have shrunk, putting them on track to fall below 30 percent of US per capita GDP.
In China’s case, the median age in 1980 was 21, eight years younger than the US’, and from 1979 to 2011, its GDP grew at an average annual rate of 10 percent.
However, China’s prime-age labor force — people aged 15 to 59 — began to shrink in 2012, and by 2015, GDP growth had decelerated to 7 percent before slowing to 3 percent last year.
An average of 23.4 million births per year from 1962 to 1990 made China “the world’s factory.”
However, even China’s own exaggerated official figures put last year’s births at just 9.56 million. Chinese manufacturing could continue to decline as a result, creating new inflationary pressures in the US and elsewhere.
While China’s population was 1.5 times larger than India’s in 1975, even the Chinese government’s exaggerated official figures show that it was smaller last year — 1.411 billion compared with 1.417 billion.
In reality, India’s population surpassed China’s a decade ago, and it remains on track to be about 1.5 times larger than China’s in 2050, with a median age of 39 — a full generation younger than China’s, at 57.
By 2030, China’s median age would already be 5.5 years higher than that of the US, and by 2033, its old-age dependency ratio would begin to exceed the US’.
Its GDP growth rate would begin to fall below the US’ from 2031 to 2035, at which point its per capita GDP would hardly have reached 30 percent of its rival’s — let alone the 50 percent to 75 percent predicted by Chinese official economists.
If the US is overtaken as the world’s largest economy, it would be by India, not China.
China is investing heavily in artificial intelligence and robotics to offset the economic drag of aging.
However, these efforts can go only so far, because continuing innovation relies on young minds.
Moreover, robot workers do not consume, and consumption is the major driver of any economy.
China’s decline is likely to be gradual. It could remain the world’s second or third-largest economy for decades.
However, the huge gap between its waning demographic and economic strength and its expanding political ambitions could make it vulnerable to strategic misjudgements.
Memories of past glory or fear of lost status could lead it down the same dangerous path that Russia has taken in Ukraine.
China’s leaders should heed the lessons of Russia’s botched invasion and wake up from their unrealistic “Chinese Dream” of national rejuvenation.
The Chinese government’s policy approach is a formula for demographic and civilizational collapse.
The US also has lessons to learn, given its apparent failure to manage a declining Russia.
The US and its allies — including Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and the UK – would also be dealing with societal aging and resulting economic slowdowns.
Their combined share of the global economy already fell from 77 percent in 2002 to 56 percent in 2021, and that trend is likely to continue.
The geopolitical implications should be obvious. If the major powers are wise, they will cooperate in good faith to forge an enduring global order before they no longer have the power to do so.
Yi Fuxian is a senior scientist in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS