India's population expected to pass China's by 2030

[DanS]

China's population projections continue to be downwardly revised. The UN Population Division now expects India's population to pass China's by the year 2030, whereas previously we expected this crossover in about 2035. I assume that this means that China's population will begin to fall some 5 or 10 or so years before that time -- 2020 or 2025.

As I've mentioned in the past, population growth pretty directly impacts economic growth in an economy that is going in the right direction. China's population is growing at a 0.65% rate per annum nowadays, but the UN projects it will be shrinking at a 0.35% rate per annum in 2050. Relative to nowadays, that's more or less a 1% per annum drag on China's economy.

This drag should have a pretty huge impact on how we view China's rise. In short, it probably won't be as spectacular as some believe. China certainly won't be taking over the world.

From FT...

India’s population ‘to outstrip China by 2030’
By Mark Turner at the United Nations
Published: February 24 2005 18:02 | Last updated: February 25 2005 00:03

United Nations

According to the UN's latest World Population Prospects, released on Thursday in New York, there will be 1,395m people in India in 2025 and 1,593m in 2050. In China the population will grow to 1,441m by 2025, before dropping to 1,392m in 2050. Cheryl Sawyer, a UN demographer, said: “We've been saying for a while that India would cross over China before 2050. But the crossover has been getting earlier and earlier and we now say it will happen before 2030 (not including Hong Kong). This is five years earlier than we said two years ago.

“Based on analysis of the newest censuses, we're estimating lower fertility for China, while India's is slightly higher than we estimated in the past.”

In 2050, the world's population is expected to be 9.1bn people, up from 6.5bn now, with almost all the growth in developing countries. The numbers vary significantly according to differing scenarios and become less certain the further they project into the future. Demographic shifts depend on fertility, mortality and migration, which can be influenced by policy and social and economic trends.

The UN's population division said it did not doubt that India and China would exchange places, mainly because of differences in fertility. The only question was exactly when. China now has a fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman (though rising to 1.85), while India's is just above three.

Thomas Buettner, the chief of the UN division's estimates and projection section, said China's changing population was due to “modernisation and uprooting people from traditional lifestyles into the modern economy”, where “people have other opportunities that compete with having large families, like consumerism, travel and education”.

He said it was also due to a rigid population policy, although Chinese officials had started thinking about relaxing that policy because of concern about rapid ageing of the population. Europe's population, which recently underwent a reversal in growth, is also on a downward trend. According to a medium variant, it will drop from 728m now to 653m in 2050. That figure (which incorporates Russia but not Turkey) includes falls in Italy and Germany, although France and the UK will grow.

Japan's population declines from 128m to 112m, according to the same variant. “The population of developed countries as a whole is expected to remain virtually unchanged between 2005 and 2050, at about 1.2bn,” the report says. “In contrast, the population of the 50 least-developed countries is projected to more than double.”

The population of India will overtake that of China before 2030, five years earlier than expected, a United Nations population report predicts.

[GePap]

An endlessly growing population is hardly a plus when you already strain the limits of your natural resources as these two states do.

China still has 700 million poor peasants to make rich. One hopes India will at some point start imporving its eocnomy as well as China has, cause india has not moved nearly as many people out of poverty as China has.

[DanS]

That is true, as far as it goes. China is experiencing a lot of resource constraints because its economy is growing at a 9% real clip. An extra 1% or whatever is no big deal. On the other hand, there will come a time pretty soon when China will wish it had an extra 1% of growth, as does the U.S. nowadays.

[Dauphin]

As I've mentioned in the past, population growth pretty directly impacts economic growth in an economy that is going in the right direction.

One thing about population growth vs economic growth that has always intrigued me (but not enough to do any research) is what the effect is on PPP$ GDP per capita in general. For example, if a population growth rate is declining and GDP growth is also declinging the GDP per capita growth could still go up. IS that considered good or bad in economic circles?

[JohnT]

I'm sure that any scenario that involves declining population and economic indicators would be considered "bad" by 'most anyone, economists included.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by JohnT
I'm sure that any scenario that involves declining population and economic indicators would be considered "bad" by 'most anyone, economists included.

Even if everyone is getting richer faster than before?

[korn469]

yea like if the population declines by 2% and GDP declines by 1%

[DanS]

For example, if a population growth rate is declining and GDP growth is also declinging the GDP per capita growth could still go up.

Why would it happen like this? Over time, the GDP per capita should not be impacted, leaving aside the positive impact of having more people to share certain obligations and needs (defense, etc.).

[Urban Ranger]

Re: India's population expected to pass China's by 2030

Originally posted by DanS
As I've mentioned in the past, population growth pretty directly impacts economic growth in an economy that is going in the right direction.

This is not a clearcut issue. If you are getting a bigger educated population, then yes. However, if all you are getting are illterate peasants, I don't see how that is going to help.

[Odin]

More people in an already crouded country is good how? I think we should be trying to reduce the population to about 1/10 of what it is now before our increasing per person energy needs wreck the planet.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by GePap
An endlessly growing population is hardly a plus when you already strain the limits of your natural resources as these two states do.

China still has 700 million poor peasants to make rich. One hopes India will at some point start imporving its eocnomy as well as China has, cause india has not moved nearly as many people out of poverty as China has.

What's that statistic.... it'd take 40 earths to support everyone (currently) living to the standard of americans?

[Joseph]

I have seen some reports that it may in 2015 and not 2030.

[DanS]

This is not a clearcut issue. If you are getting a bigger educated population, then yes. However, if all you are getting are illterate peasants, I don't see how that is going to help.

The illiterate peasants contribute to society too. The US was built with such rough material.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DanS

The illiterate peasants contribute to society too. The US was built with such rough material.

Don't be too sure about that. The countryside suffers from widespread un- and underemployment, the opposite of the situation in the US during its days of frontier expansion.

I'm sorry, but IMO anyone who thinks China could in some way - any way - benefit from having more people needs a better understanding of the immensity the crushing weight of so many people sucking up a limited amount of natural resources, the resulting staggering levels of pollution in many areas, the galloping desertification, the choking population density, etc.

The implications for the world's environment are scary. One that really worries me these days are the plans for about 70 more conventional nucelar reactors. As is well known, Chinese typically place very little value on safety, especially in any situation in which it comes at the cost (no matter how small) of profit.

I can't recall having met anyone living here in China who felt that it would be in some way be beneficial to have still more people competing for the same amount of jobs, resources, food, living space, water, etc.

Photo: Shanghai subway station at rush hour. Try asking these folks if China would benefit from more people.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
That is true, as far as it goes.

What do you mean, "as far as it goes?" Do you people not see the environmental devestation around you? Do you honestly think that we can keep growing forever?