Vietnam rightly worries about the harm US tariffs would inflict on its success, and even more bullish aspirations. The levies would slow an economy that has racked up impressive rates of growth. The past few months have also revealed a challenge of a different nature: a declining birthrate.
This is a country, often hailed as a development model, that has a lot on its plate. It should avoid going overboard on sweating demographics. That is not an existential issue — yet. In some ways, the trend toward fewer births could even be called a victory. Trade, linked so intimately with the decades-old industrialization plan, is the more vital front. The setting of priorities is important, but they can travel on two tracks.
The government last week scrapped a long-standing rule that limited households to no more than two kids. Couples would now be allowed to welcome as many babies as they wish. At first glance, the shift looks dramatic and recalls China’s panicked jettisoning of its iconic one-child policy a decade ago. All the more so because both nations have communist rulers, showed a penchant for central planning before discovering that markets can enrich and saw pint-sized families as a path to poverty elimination.
Illustration: Yusha
There is a healthy pragmatism to repealing the policy. In practice, Vietnamese authorities tended to turn a blind eye to people who exceeded the quota, with the important exception of party cadres (those who contravene risked losing their jobs). And with fertility retreating, as is the case in many parts of the world, there would have been little enforcement required. Arguably, Vietnam’s pivot brings the law into line with reality. However, the root cause of the decision does point to an underlying concern.
Having pulled off what was initially intended in 1988, when the fertility rate was more than 4.0, officials now fret having gone too far: The rate declined to a record low of 1.9 per woman last year. That put the estimate of how many children a woman would bear below the replacement level for a third consecutive year. Numbers like this tend to get attention.
That has certainly been the case with neighbors whose commercial success Hanoi has sought to emulate. Japan, South Korea and Singapore, whose numbers are significantly lower, are rolling out steps to make motherhood more attractive. Developing countries such as Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia are witnessing the same trend with a lesser degree of consternation — and fewer resources to throw at the issue. The Philippines actually welcomes the advent of smaller households.
While future labor shortages and the fiscal strains that come with a smaller workforce supporting more retirees are worth planning for, any anxiety needs to be kept in perspective. Television dating shows and propaganda posters urging couples to get busy are fine and unlikely to cause harm. However, officials should also be clear-eyed that the benefits would be modest. Singapore also tried to play matchmaker. That initiative has been wound down.
The hefty tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump are a far greater worry and show the vulnerability inherent in another part of Vietnam’s development strategy. Like China in the era of former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), the nation sought a way to wealth through wooing foreign manufacturers. Factories initially focused on churning out cheap goods for American consumers. More recently, technology firms came to see Vietnam as a cornerstone of a “China Plus One” approach: shifting production to a place that is close to the supply chains still reliant on China, but not actually in China. The idea was to avoid falling foul of Washington as it sought to constrain Beijing. Then came the tariffs, set at a steep 46 percent.
In some ways, if the tariffs — suspended for 90 days — were to hit, this was probably the least inopportune time. The economy expanded almost 7 percent last quarter, a bit slower than the blistering clip of last year. The government is sticking to its goal of double-digit growth in the coming years. This sort of ambition assumes that the trade wars are either temporary or not so severe that it forces a radical rethink.
Scope for deals? Sure. Vietnam has dispatched top negotiators to the US, pledged to dismantle barriers and even put a Trump-branded golf resort on the fast track. Can Hanoi’s model, conceived when Washington was attached to free trade, survive in a less benign era? In the event Trump’s efforts to upend the economic order succeed, Vietnam would need to do more than just navigate between the two giants. It would have to interest investors on its own terms, not as the China alternative or a “China-lite.”
This is a more existential question than shoring up the birthrate. Plan for a future of smaller families by all means, but do not wring your hands over fertility. Take the win. Panic would not get you very far with tariffs, either, even if anxiety certainly seems warranted.
Daniel Moss is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asian economies. Previously, he was executive editor for economics at Bloomberg News.
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
An American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) spokesperson on Saturday rebuked a Chinese official for mischaracterizing World War II-era agreements as proving that Taiwan was ceded to China. The US Department of State later affirmed that the AIT remarks reflect Washington’s long-standing position: Taiwan’s political status remains undetermined and should only be resolved peacefully. The US would continue supporting Taiwan against military, economic, legal and diplomatic pressure from China, and opposes any unilateral attempt to alter the “status quo,” particularly through coercion or force, the United Daily News cited the department as saying. The remarks followed Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently sat down for an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in which he openly acknowledged that ChatGPT’s model behavior is indeed influencing the entire world, and that he himself is responsible for the decisions related to the bot’s moral framework. He said that he has not had a good night of sleep since its launch, as the technology could bring about unpredictable consequences. Although the discussion took place in the US, it is closely related to Taiwan. While Altman worries about the concentration of power, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already weaponized artificial
RSS