If Roe v. Wade contributed to the U.S. crime drop of the 1990′s, could China’s one-child policy be having the opposite effect today?
When the Chinese government instituted the policy in 1979, it touched off a wave of sex-selective abortions as pregnant couples decided that if they could have only one child they would benefit most from having a boy. That helped leave modern China with the largest gender imbalance in the world. Today, there are 37 million more men than women in China, and many of the boys are growing up unable to find a job or start a family.
So what are these “surplus” boys doing to fill their time?
In The New Republic, Mara Hvistendahl reports that as the first generation of one-child boys have reached adolescence, the youth crime rate in China has more than doubled, as idle and frustrated boys turn to crime “without specific motives, often without forethought.”
We’ve looked at the effect of unwantedness on children. But what happens when unwantedness hits a generation of men as they get older?
P.S.: Mara Hvistendahl is a former research assistant of Dubner’s who, a few years ago, took the great leap of moving to China because she thought it would be a great place to be a journalist. Go Mara!
and 
. You can also watch it on 
It’d be interesting to see how China’s pornography market is doing as a result of this imbalance.
It’s not just that this new generation of young men are idle and frustrated at being unable to find jobs or girlfriends or wives (i.e., neither money nor sex).
It’s that this is a generation of men who were raised as “little emperors”–treasured only children/sons who were the center of their parents’ universe. They were (relative to the prevailing economic standards of their times) pampered, spoiled, and indulged at any time. OCH (#7) believes that these little emperors will transform China into a more individualistic society that delivers greater rights across the board. I believe that instead, they will transform China into a country of–to put it rudely–major jerks and boors.
Such people, IMO, are more likely to commit crimes and behave in a way that is detrimental to society.
Your hypothesis seems quite likely. Another example of the ‘law of unintended consequences.’
Not that the Chinese government acted in an ethical or moral manner when invoking this dictate.
“….of the opinion that instead of crime, these single young men will be mobilized into China’s army for the purposes of increasing China’s dominance.”
Male soldiers and sailors think of only one thing after the days work is done: women!
Say what you will about America’s problems, but it is our general lack of these sorts of pervasive social dysfunctions that will give us a structural advantage compared to other nations in the long run.
Look how scared we were of Japan until their tradition bound society initiated a decade long economic implosion which is now being followed by a general depopulation caused by the high cost of raising a family and a complete bar on immigration.
China might be booming now as well, but at some point the roving gangs of bachelor males and massive environmental contamination will have to be reckoned with.
Other commenters have suggested that women will be highly prized so will get a good education. This seems unlikely as even the least desirable woman will be sought after in this severe shortage.
Why invest in an asset you’ll be able to sell off (i.e. reverse dowery) for pretty much the same amount no matter what you do?
It is more likely the men will get more education to make them more competitive for the few women available.
Russia gave the greatest number of victims in World War II – about 20 million, most of them men. Even more are estimated to have been killed during the time Stalin and his successors ruled the country. This left the country with a small number of men relative to the number of women. Even today Russian men are 88% of the women in the country. This makes for a difference of 10 million. Combined with the fact that alcoholism is a common problem with the men, women did not have much of a choice when looking for a husband. I know for a fact that in the 70s and 80s lots of Russian women got married to foreigners and moved out of the country (within the former Eastern block of course). This was a way to survive and create a family for many women.
If we apply that analogy to Chinese men, I expect an increased number of mixed marriages as well as an increased migration of single Chinese men out of the country. That migration may be already happening to Canada, US and Australia but because of the cultural differences, it will be difficult to start a marriage with a local woman. So I expect also an increased migration to the countries from South-East Asia, which are culturally closer to China than the Western world.
Mike (#13): “it is our general lack of these sorts of pervasive social dysfunctions that will give us a structural advantage compared to other nations in the long run.”
Yeah, keep on believing that Manifest Destiny crap and see where America is in 20 or 30 years. It’s been steadily losing its economic, scientific and cultural leadership, and there are no signs of this trend reversing.
While there are imperfections in the Japanese model, Japan was never a threat to U.S. economic dominance for the same reason it was never a threat to U.S. military dominance: it’s simply too small of a country to overcome a healthy nation the size of the United States.
China and India obviously do not have that problem. And they have the past economic mistakes of the U.S., Japan, and Europe to learn from.
Incidentally, the U.S. has its own set of “pervasive social dysfunctions” to deal with–distinct and different, but no less detrimental than those of China.
1.) For instance, the U.S. in general makes self esteem a greater priority than deserving high self esteem. Our children are continually told by everyone that it’s OK if you don’t achieve excellence and you shouldn’t feel bad about it. As a result, American schoolchildren get DUMBER as they get older. They start first grade at about the same achievement level as their international peers, but by the time they’re 18, they’re one of the least accomplished.
2.) Along the same lines, compared to other industrialized countries, the U.S. in general doesn’t place very much value on education and academic achievement. In Norway and Finland, only the brightest are allowed to teach. Here, those who can’t do, teach. In Asia, while young children admire movie and pop stars, they also know and admire their countries’ leading scientists. Here, kids want to be like Paris Hilton and Barry Bonds.
3.) Pervasive racism. Sure, racism is pervasive in China and Japan. But it causes less friction there because they are homogenous societies. The U.S. isn’t.
I realize these are gross generalities and oversimplifications, but quite frankly, from size alone, the U.S. is already competing at a disadvantage. Even if the U.S. achieve the same growth rates as China, it’s going to lose out on sheer size. It has to do BETTER. And I don’t think that a belief in our structural supremacy is helpful. Even if it existed. Which it doesn’t.