> The "war on terrorism" brings China yet closer to USA and some
> interests of India and Russia in alignment with USA's. It will be
> interesting to see how it will affect US economic policy toward them.
India's total exports (to all countries) were about $45 bn in fiscal 01-02. China's trade surplus with the US alone is $70-80 bn. Condition of smaller and less developed countries like Cambodia is even worse. I don't think the war on terrorism is going to change the picture dramatically.
> >Why China needs one child policy, if it doesn't contribute to the
lowering
> >of fertility?
>
> The party elite in China must have thought that it would. The elite
> in general tend to prefer a top-down solution to any problem, unless
> stiffly resisted from below, even when the solution in question does
> not work _and_ there are proven solutions that work better than it.
Why no other state in the world could propose and implement this "solution"?
Ulhas
Economist.com
China
Men without women
Jun 20th 2002 | BEIJING
>From The Economist print edition
The consequence of family planning
IT HAS been more than 20 years since China implemented its harsh yet effective family-planning policy. By limiting urban couples to a single child and most rural couples to two, China has managed to slow the growth of the world's largest population. Now, however, the government must figure out what to do about the policy's unintended consequence: a huge and potentially destabilising sex imbalance. Statistics just released based on the 2000 census disclose that, in the country as a whole, about 117 boys are born for every 100 girls. The imbalance is extraordinary in some areas, exceeding 135 for 100 in southern Hainan province.
(snip)