China's population with a KMT victory
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
Higher. Between no Great Leap Forward and no one-child policy, China would have a higher, more demographically stable population.
Alot of people assume that if KMT came into power that China's population would definitely be higher because of the no one child policy, but nothing lowers fertility rates like economic prosperity, the richer a nation becomes the less children it produces as the quality of life increases, and if a KMT China would be able to enact Deng like economic reforms 30 years earlier than OTL, we could see a China that actually has equal or less people than OTL China, not necessarily higher.
I'm not so sure about that. Yes, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution proved to be horrible humanitarian disasters, however at the same time the CCP did so many good things for the Chinese people that the KMT couldn't and wouldn't have done.
To quote from "Impact of the Rural Reform on Financing - Rural Health Services in China" by
Mary Young (specialist in global health and child development at the World Bank):
"After the liberation, during the period from 1950 to 1980, the health status of the Chinese people has improved remarkably. Public health measures, combined with a reduction in malnutrition and improved water supplies and sanitation, have reduced the infant mortality rate from 250 per 1000 live births in 1950 to less than 50 in 1980. Life expectancy increased from 35 in 1949 to almost 70 in 1980 (1). Indeed, the achievement of accessible primary
health care for virtually all people in a country with a per capita income as low as $290 (1980) is unique in the world (2)."
The massive increase in life expectancy and the rapid decline of infant mortality were a direct result of the CCP's "Patriotic Health Campaigns" (including the institutionalization of the famous barefoot doctors, large-scale midwifery training, campaigns against malnutrition and the implementation of the iron rice bowl, massive improvement of the water supply, and immunization promotion). These campaigns would not have been possible without the CCP's land reforms and anti-illiteracy efforts (which themselves would not have been possible without the jiǎntǐzì).
The "Patriotic Health Campaigns" safed the lives of dozens (if not hundreds) of millions of chinese people. Just think about it: Within 30 years, infant mortality decreased fivefold. When the CCP took power in 1949, the population of China was 542 million. When Mao died in 1976 the population had allmost doubled, reaching 930 million.
Per capita GDP (PPP) increased sixfold between 1950 and 1980, despite the fact that the population in the same timeframe doubled. With the exception of the Great Leap Forward, the CCP's economic pollicies were extremely successfull (which was the main reason why an incredibly overoptimistic campaign like the Great Leap Forward was attempted in the first place. The party suffered from the "dizzy with success" syndrome).
Now, a more competent CCP leadership could have definetly attained these archievements without the disasters of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. However the KMT couldn't.
After WW2 the ROC suffered from massive hyperinflation, uncontrollable organized crime, widespread destruction following WW2, rampant malnutrition and diseases, a massive inflow of american capital and goods that bankrupted chinese corporations, a huge wealth disparity, and heavy pollitical instability (both within and outside of the KMT). The future doesn't look too rosy for China had this state of affairs continued. It'd be a poorer and less populous country (there wouldn't be a need for a "One Child Pollicy", because, as a result of increased infant mortality, there would be less people to begin with). Overall it'd be comparable to India, yet more unstable and heavily dependent on the US economically (at least for the time beeing).
Infant mortality is one thing, but without the economic and environmental disaster of the Great Leap Forward, and the ruthless application of the one-child policy, I still think that there would be greater population growth. It would be slower for the first five-ten years, but then would probably go up a lot faster, simply because children are a key source of cheap labor for impoverished farmers.
No one child policy but demographically transitions so add 250 million more chinese
There is also the effect of a ongoing civil war. The lack of a Communist takeover does not waive them away entirely. Another bloody internal war between the KMT & Communists can kill how many people each year? Combat casualties, disease, famine, ect.. ect...
No one child policy but demographically transitions so add 250 million more chinese.
mial42
Gone Fishin'
You could make a reasonable argument for all three positions; it mostly depends on economic development. If the KMT is able to develop China significantly faster, the population will be lower due to the well-known inverse relation between prosperity and birth rates; if not, the population will be higher due to no one child policy and less famine, and it's entirely possible that the factors could counteract and get around the same result over all. My best guess would be a slightly, but not hugely lower population. OTL, the CCP was able to dramatically reduce death rates without significantly increasing prosperity, leading to an extended stay on the steep part of the demographic curve; I expect a competent KMT to do both at the same time (as wound up happening in Taiwan; but a KMT that wins the Civil War may not undertake those reforms) and an incompetent one to do neither, either one resulting in a lower population.
What makes you think that the KMT couldn't have developed China faster than the CCP (not asserting that they necessarily would have, just that they could have)? The KMT succeeded dramatically on Taiwan.
Can I ask for your source on per-capita GDP (PPP) increasing sixfold between 1950 and 1980 (and if this is simply an artifact of rebuilding after a brutal Civil War)? According to the IMF [source], China's GDP per-capita (PPP) in 1980 was $311. Data on 1950 doesn't seem to be readily available, but according to wikipedia, the estimates range from $370 to $448, which is not 1/6 of $311.
Why not? They surpassed them by a wide margin on Taiwan. Obviously, it's entirely possible that the KMT is too riven by factionalism and corruption to do that in TTL, by I think it's also entirely possible that, given peace and time, they solve those issues, and indeed, those problems probably have to be lesser than OTL for the KMT to win the Civil War in the first place.
After WW2, the ROC was in the middle of a brutal civil war after getting devastated by the Japanese. Obviously if it had remained in said brutal civil war, it wouldn't have gotten richer, but the premise of the thread is that the KMT wins. Historically, the KMT was able to govern Taiwan effectively (not asserting that they 100% would've been able to do the same to all of China, considering the loss in the Civil War and dependence on the US forced them to reform, only that they had the capability). Likewise, an influx of US capital and goods is probably a good thing long-term; after all, this was critical to China's OTL incredible economic performance post-1980.
I agree, what was written above was written without context
China's population would be higher not due to the one child policy (birth rates already started to plummet a year before it was instituted) but due to not having maoistic imbecilism killing off swathes of people.
Instead of Japan being the big bad economic boogeyman of the 80s it would be China, and there would be no crash. So basically China would just get to the point it is now 40-50 years earlier. Political tensions and all.
Instead of Japan being the big bad economic boogeyman of the 80s it would be China, and there would be no crash. So basically China would just get to the point it is now 40-50 years earlier. Political tensions and all.
It would likely be slightly lower. Before the one child-policy, the communist government supported large families they stopped because they couldn't feed them anymore. Honestly, KMT China would be more wealthy than otl China and would be having lower birthrates a lot earlier. So the one-child policy was a policy to fix the prior policy of getting a lot of kids. But I would like to remind people that the farmers were allowed to have a second and even a third child if the first and second is a girl. Honestly, you would likely get the lower birthrates around the 80s, the one-child policy was implemented in 1979. However, I don't think the birthrates of KMT China during the 50-70 will be higher, likely lower because of lack of government support.
brooklyn99
Banned
Oh I'd say higher for sure. Mao was a humanitarian disaster disguised as a human.
Edit: Also, the "China would be a backwater without the glorious CCP"-PRC propaganda outlet is BS. Look at the Nanjing decade for reference. China would still be advancing by leaps and bounds without an empire barging in and wrecking their sh**, even moreso without Mao's stupidity.
Just like the whole "without the Bolsheviks and their famines, Russia would still be a medieval state" schtick. Both these viewpoints are used by Tankies and other apologists of the PRC and the Evil Empire, to retroactively justify the atrocities and massive amounts of deaths that occurred under these heinous regimes.
Edit: Also, the "China would be a backwater without the glorious CCP"-
Just like the whole "without the Bolsheviks and their famines, Russia would still be a medieval state" schtick. Both these viewpoints are used by Tankies and other apologists of the PRC and the Evil Empire, to retroactively justify the atrocities and massive amounts of deaths that occurred under these heinous regimes.
Last edited:
110% agreed. I don’t get how some people say that the CCP ultimately was better for China than the KMT. Sure the KMT was corrupt and done some really stupid things and killed probably tens of thousands of its own people and still been in authoritarian, even it are worst I’d pale in comparison to the GLF or CR. Also with the KMT in power it enters the global market in the 50s instead of the 70s.
I would say the population would be slightly higher than OTL. The estimation can be made based on Taiwan's population grow.
Taiwan
According to 1956 census, Taiwan population was 9,356,000
According to 2010 census, Taiwan population was 23,162,000
The average annual growth rate was 1.68%
The first mainland census was in 1953. The total population was 582,603,417. If we calculate population using 1.68%, the projected population in 2010 would be 1,509,204,192. The actual population in mainland was 1,339,724,852. The difference is about 170 million.
Due to the concern with overpopulation, Taiwan implemented family planning policy in late 60s. I would imagine Nationalistic government would have done the same in mainland. The population growth rate in 70s and 80s would have slow down dramatically. Same as today's Taiwan, the project population would be reaching its peak in 2020. Overall population would start to decline after that.
Taiwan
According to 1956 census, Taiwan population was 9,356,000
According to 2010 census, Taiwan population was 23,162,000
The average annual growth rate was 1.68%
The first mainland census was in 1953. The total population was 582,603,417. If we calculate population using 1.68%, the projected population in 2010 would be 1,509,204,192. The actual population in mainland was 1,339,724,852. The difference is about 170 million.
Due to the concern with overpopulation, Taiwan implemented family planning policy in late 60s. I would imagine Nationalistic government would have done the same in mainland. The population growth rate in 70s and 80s would have slow down dramatically. Same as today's Taiwan, the project population would be reaching its peak in 2020. Overall population would start to decline after that.
For people with easy access to the demographic/economic information, and enough time on their hands...what would be the various (take you pick what) numbers in China if we just pugged in the analogous Taiwanese growth rates? Population has been covered but what about, say, steel production, or GDP per capita, auto production, agricultural output, etc., by 1960, 1970, 1980, etc. I know that they would never translate that exactly in real life but it might be fun speculation.
