|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
139859
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
China’s controversial one-child policy continues to generate controversy and misinformation. This essay challenges several common myths: that Mao Zedong consistently opposed efforts to limit China’s population growth; that consequently China’s population continued to grow rapidly until after his death; that the launching of the one-child policy in 1980 led to a dramatic decline in China’s fertility rate; and that the imposition of the policy prevented 400 million births. Evidence is presented contradicting each of these claims. Mao Zedong at times forcefully advocated strict limits on births and presided over a major switch to coercive birth planning after 1970; as much as three-quarters of the decline in fertility since 1970 occurred before the launching of the one-child policy; fertility levels fluctuated in China after the policy was launched; and most of the further decline in fertility since 1980 can be attributed to economic development, not coercive enforcement of birth limits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
145245
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
China’s leaders often claim that the rising tide of mass protests in recent years is primarily driven by popular anger over the widening gap between rich and poor. However, in a series of national surveys that I helped direct, it becomes clear the average Chinese citizen is less angry about current income gaps than citizens in many other societies. There also is no clear increase in such anger over time (despite a sustained rise in income inequality). The primary drivers of popular anger lie elsewhere—primarily in power inequalities, manifested in abuses of power, official corruption, bureaucrats who fail to protect the public from harm, mistreatment by those in authority, and inability to obtain redress when mistreated. China’s leaders have done an impressive job in recent years of addressing poverty and material inequality, thus keeping the distributive injustice social volcano dormant. However, they have so far been unwilling or unable to make fundamental reforms to address procedural injustices. Unless they can provide Chinese citizens with more effective protections from the arbitrariness and abuses of entrenched power, a shared sense of injustice will persist, and this active volcano will continue to smolder, with the potential to erupt and threaten Party rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
115615
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The country's sharp increase in income inequality is not the result of the rich getting richer while the poor become poorer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
067000
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
192175
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Ezra Vogel, the Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences, Emeritus, at Harvard University, was one of the world's leading authorities on East Asia. In a career spanning more than 60 years, he published ground-breaking works on both China and Japan based upon detailed fieldwork, in-depth interviews and documentary research, using near-native fluency in both languages. He established a distinguished record in public policy advocacy, promoting better relations between the United States and rising East Asian powers, and among those powers. He also played a leading role in organizations dedicated to promoting better understanding of Asia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
039228
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Berkeley, University of California Press, 1974.
|
| Description |
viii, 271 p.
|
| Series |
Michigan Studies on China
|
| Standard Number |
0520024990
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 013136 | 303.40951/WHY 013136 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
130395
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Despite repeated pledges by China's leaders to reduce the gap between rich and poor, income inequality has continued to rise. China's Gini coefficient, a standard measure of income inequality, was higher in 2007 than in the United States, Russia, or most other societies. Why have China's income gaps increased so fast and so far, despite programs designed to promote greater equality? Standard explanations, such as income gaps inevitably rising with rapid economic development or in a post-socialist transition, cannot explain the Chinese case. Paradoxically, the sharp rise in inequality is driven more by the legacy of China's socialist system than by market forces or the global economy. It will not be possible to bring China's soaring income gaps under control unless the new leaders who took power in 2012-2013 are able to make much more fundamental reforms than have been attempted to date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|