July 10, 2004
KINGDOM IN THE MIDDLE:
India to overtake China as most populous nation (IAN MATHER, 7/11/04, Scotland on Sunday)
According to figures produced for the United Nations World Population Day, which falls today, China is currently the world’s most populous country with 1,289 million, followed by India with 1,069 million, and the US third a long way behind with 292 million.But India is catching up fast, and if present trends continue, will overtake China by 2035.
The main reason is that India has never followed China’s Draconian "one child’’ policy. At the height of the birth control campaign by the Chinese communist government couples who stopped at one child were given preference in education, healthcare, housing, and jobs. Couples who produced an "out-of-quota" child could be fined or lose access to education or other privileges.
Though the policy has been softened, the impact of the period when it was applied most harshly is now being felt.
"Between the 1960s and the 1980s China experienced one of the most rapid declines in fertility ever recorded in a national population. In just 15 years, the number of children a woman would expect to have fell from about six to just over two", says Professor Nancy E Riley, an expert on population and social change in China at Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine.
In demographics present trends never continue, Indian rates are likely to slow and China's to implode. We too seldom recognize a fact mentioned in passing there though, that the United States is unique in combining a huge population with a high level of economic and political development. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 10, 2004 11:51 PM
But we have a ridiculously low population density.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 11, 2004 12:20 AMAKA: Plenty of room for more.
Posted by: oj at July 11, 2004 8:28 AMDavid-- But high population density has never necessarily impeded economic and political development. Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
Posted by: John Thacker at July 11, 2004 11:13 AMNew York, L.A., etc.
Posted by: oj at July 11, 2004 11:27 AMDavid, you say that as if it were a bad thing. We have the benefit of density in our major urban areas, with the wealth of resources and freedom of movement afforded by our large empty areas. We do not have to be filled to the brim to enjoy national success.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 11, 2004 11:47 AMEurope (excluding Russia) is about the size of North America, with more people, as big (or bigger) economic output and a high level of political development.
Britain, about the size of Georgia and Alabama combined, has nearly as quarter as many people as the US, extremely high economic output and reasonable political development.
Switzerland does pretty well without a big population.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 11, 2004 1:57 PMIt's easy with a small population, that's the point.
The question is why is Europe fading so fast:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242
Posted by: oj at July 11, 2004 2:07 PMFading according to what time frame or standard?
The US share of world economic output has been dropping like a stone since 1947 or thereabouts, Europe's has been rising steadily since then.
Africa looks better than either, but who wants to be like Africa?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 11, 2004 4:29 PMThe global GDP is $30 trillion+, our is $11 Trillion.
Europe will by the end of the century.
Harry:
You are going to start measuring Europe's output in 1947? OK, then let's start the US in 1786 (and we won our war). Please.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 11, 2004 9:46 PMWell, Orrin doesn't say where he starts from.
It matters.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 12, 2004 2:17 PM