Will China's Demographics Constrain Its Foreign Policy?
Much has been written about China's sharp demographic shift, but less attention has been paid to how this might affect—or even constrain—its international behavior. Let me highlight a few key themes.
To begin, the nature of the demographic shift is pronounced. I have previously written on China's limited response to the problem as well as the ongoing deterioration that makes the issue cumulative. In other words, the situation is worsening and government efforts to mitigate it have largely fallen short.
The data are stark: in 2024, China's total fertility rate stood at approximately 1.1, roughly half the 2.1 replacement level required for population stability. Similarly, the population declined by around 2 million in 2023. Admittedly, that figure is modest in the context of a population of 1.4 billion, but the longer-term trend is sobering: Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences—not known for pessimism—projects a low-end scenario in which China's population falls to 525 million by 2100.
This is a pronounced downward trend, but what is the significance? What does it matter if China's population drops by more than 50%? In terms of China's economy, much or all of that decline will be offset by automation and workforce upgrades. Ironically, despite this demographic headwind, China's economy is still expected to perform reasonably well in the near term.
So the population decline might not be consequential on its own—and perhaps not economically meaningful in the short run—but could it influence China's foreign policy?
Let's explore four possible implications:
1. Military recruitment
The U.S. Defense Department estimates the People's Liberation Army at over 2 million uniformed personnel. This points to a double crunch: first, China will need to increase recruitment incentives as the youth population shrinks. Second, a more tech-oriented military means it must offer salaries that outpace those in the private sector. PLA requirements will not be met by simply recruiting average high school graduates. Why should a talented young coder join the military when the private sector pays more?
2. Military budget
As personnel costs rise faster than procurement costs, China is likely to face a crowding-out effect—more money for people means less for equipment. This is one reason the PLA is investing heavily in drones and cyberwarfare. If China can disable Taiwan's banking system, internet, and power grid, then a new aircraft carrier becomes less urgent. Cyber capabilities won't replace traditional military assets entirely, but they allow the PLA to balance tech and conventional force projection more effectively.
3. The near abroad
Demographic pressures in China must be considered alongside similar trends in East Asia. South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are experiencing even steeper population declines. Projecting a strategic disadvantage for China based on shrinking demographics overlooks this regional context.
4. PLA doctrine
Perhaps the most important reason demographic disruption won't produce immediate changes in international behavior is the enduring nature of PLA doctrine. The PLA views its mission as protecting China's sovereignty, and it believes this can only be achieved by maintaining military superiority over its neighbors. This has become something of a state religion—as much a matter of ideology as of strategy. The PLA's appetite for growth appears open-ended. It may take decades of population decline before this changes.
In sum, China's population shrinkage has profound implications. It raises questions about how citizens accept government messaging around prosperity and progress. But in foreign policy, constraints may not be immediate. Still, the nature of China's international behavior and military engagement could evolve in subtle ways under the weight of demographic pressure. Ever so slightly, an increase in costs and a decrease in options could constrain behavior over the long run.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
43 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
A clash over a promotion puts Hegseth at odds with his generals
WASHINGTON - In the spring, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth decided not to promote a senior Army officer who had led troops over five tours in Afghanistan and Iraq because Hegseth suspected, without evidence, that the officer had leaked sensitive information to the news media, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. When Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Sims II was cleared of the allegations, Hegseth briefly agreed to promote him, only to change course again early this month, the officials said. This time, Hegseth maintained that the senior officer was too close to Gen. Mark Milley, a former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whom President Donald Trump has accused of disloyalty. Hegseth's sudden reversal prompted a rare intervention from Gen. Dan Caine, the current chair of the Joint Chiefs. He urged Hegseth to reconsider, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Hegseth met with Sims one final time but refused to budge. Sims is expected to retire in the coming months after 34 years in the military, officials said. Through a spokesperson, Sims and Caine declined to comment. A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment on Hegseth's role. The standoff over his promotion reflects an ongoing clash between Hegseth's highly partisan worldview, in which he has written that the Democratic Party 'really does hate America,' and the long-standing tradition of an apolitical military that pledges an oath to the Constitution. Hegseth's actions could shape the military's top ranks for years to come. His insistence on absolute loyalty, backed with repeated threats of polygraphs, also creates uncertainty and mistrust that threaten to undermine the readiness and effectiveness of the force, officials said. The tension between top military officers and their civilian leaders has been persistent since the earliest days of Trump's second term, when senior administration officials ordered the removal of Milley's portrait from a Pentagon hallway. Caine, who pressed Hegseth on Sims' behalf, got the job of Joint Chiefs chair after Hegseth and Trump fired Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., his predecessor. Hegseth accused Brown, who is Black, of prioritizing diversity over the combat effectiveness of the force. Also removed during the first months of the new administration were the first woman to command the Navy, Adm. Lisa Franchetti; the first woman to command the Coast Guard, Adm. Linda Fagan; Hegseth's senior military assistant, Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short; and the U.S. military representative to the NATO military committee, Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield. All were dismissed as part of a campaign to root out diversity, equity and inclusion from the military and restore what Hegseth has described as a 'warrior ethos.' Hegseth also recently withdrew the nomination of Rear Adm. Michael 'Buzz' Donnelly to lead the Navy's 7th Fleet in Japan -- its largest overseas force -- amid reports in conservative media that seven years earlier the admiral had allowed a drag performance to take place on the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan. The decision not to promote Sims, who is white, seems unrelated to any issues of race or gender. Rather, the general's career seems to have become tangled up in broader suspicions about leaks and a mistrust of senior military officers that have defined much of Hegseth's first six months on the job. Hegseth, a former Fox News host and an Iraq War veteran, came to the Pentagon with little managerial experience. Since his arrival, a series of firings and resignations in his inner circle have left him with only a skeleton staff of civilian aides to run his office. He has been without a permanent chief of staff since late April. Ricky Buria, a recently retired Marine colonel who has forged a close relationship with Hegseth, has been serving in the critical role. But White House officials, who have concerns about Buria's competence and qualifications, have blocked Hegseth from formally appointing him to the job, officials said. Buria, meanwhile, has clashed repeatedly with many of Hegseth's closest aides and some officers in the Pentagon. This spring, Eric Geressy, a retired sergeant major who served with Hegseth in Iraq and now advises him in the Pentagon, threatened to quit after an argument with Buria, according to people with knowledge of the situation. Around the same time, the White House directed Hegseth to cease using polygraph tests on his team, after one of his senior aides complained, a former Pentagon official said. The rift and the decision to stop the polygraph testing were reported earlier by The Washington Post. Geressy briefly went to his home in Florida before Hegseth persuaded him to return, officials said. Hegseth is also still contending with a review by the Pentagon's inspector general related to his disclosure on the Signal messaging app of the precise timing of U.S. fighter jets' airstrikes against the Iranian-backed Houthi militia in Yemen in March. The office has received evidence that the information that Hegseth put in the commercial chat app came from a classified Central Command document, according to two U.S. officials with knowledge of the review. The classified origins of the information were reported earlier by the Post. The infighting, investigations and personnel churn have strained Hegseth's ability to manage critical operations in the Pentagon. Hegseth found himself in the crosshairs this month after Democrats and Republicans in Congress blamed him for pausing critical shipments of interceptors and other arms to Ukraine without sufficiently consulting with the White House or the State Department. The suspension was particularly jarring because just days earlier Trump had said he was open to selling more weapons to Ukraine after meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of a NATO meeting in The Hague. It also left the impression that Hegseth and his top aides had failed to keep the president and senior White House officials in the loop. As aides to Hegseth traded blame, and then tried to play down the impact of the pause, Trump dramatically overruled the Pentagon, saying he was unhappy with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. In a further twist, Trump endorsed a plan for NATO countries to send Patriot antimissile systems to Ukraine and replace them by purchasing new arms from the United States. It was an approach conceived by NATO countries. Hegseth has delegated responsibility for working out details of the arms transfers to senior U.S. military officers in Europe. The frustration with Hegseth is seeping out. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who cast the deciding vote to confirm Hegseth, this month called him ill-suited to lead the Pentagon. 'With the passing of time, I think it's clear he's out of his depth as a manager of a large, complex organization,' Tillis told CNN. For now, Hegseth's missteps do not seem to have hurt his standing with the person who matters most: Trump. Like Trump, Hegseth had a career in television before joining the administration and relishes the performative aspects of his job. As defense secretary, he regularly posts videos that show him exercising with troops. The photo ops -- known inside the Pentagon as 'troop touches' -- are a central part of almost all his public appearances, current and former aides said. Several officials have complained that the photos and videos -- including one that he posted from Omaha Beach in Normandy in which he joins Army Rangers carrying a soldier on a stretcher as part of D-Day remembrances -- are distractions that serve primarily to bolster his image. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said that Hegseth retained Trump's 'full confidence' and cited the 'critical role' he played 'in ensuring the flawless execution' of the strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June. Current and former military officials said that Trump largely bypassed Hegseth in the days leading up to the strikes and instead relied on Caine and Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, the head of Central Command, for counsel. But officials with knowledge of the president's thinking said Trump especially admired his defense secretary's combative response at a news conference to reports questioning the effectiveness of the attack. Today Hegseth is managing the Pentagon with a smaller immediate staff than when he started in January. Several top aides were forced out or quit. In late April, three top aides were fired and escorted from the building. Hegseth has repeatedly accused them, without offering evidence, of leaking classified information to the media. The fired aides, who have not been charged with any wrongdoing, were recently told that an investigation into the allegations against them was in its final stages and would soon be shared with the Pentagon's senior leaders, officials said. In the wake of their dismissal and a series of negative stories about Hegseth's performance in the job, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, offered a window into how Hegseth views the department he now runs. 'This is what happens when the entire Pentagon is working against you and working against the monumental change you are trying to implement,' she said. That same spirit seems to animate the Pentagon today. Only a few months ago, Sims' promotion to four stars seemed to be a given. Of the last 21 officers to hold his current position, 19 were promoted to four-star rank. 'He's the type of person you would want your kids serving under -- extremely dedicated, selfless and loyal,' said Brynt Parmeter, who stepped down in June as the Pentagon's chief talent management officer and has known Sims for more than three decades. The Pentagon gave a more muted assessment. In a statement, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon's chief spokesperson, thanked Sims for his 'decades of service.' 'We wish him well in his future endeavors,' Parnell wrote. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
JD.com, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:JD) Fundamentals Look Pretty Strong: Could The Market Be Wrong About The Stock?
It is hard to get excited after looking at (NASDAQ:JD) recent performance, when its stock has declined 2.2% over the past week. However, a closer look at its sound financials might cause you to think again. Given that fundamentals usually drive long-term market outcomes, the company is worth looking at. In this article, we decided to focus on ROE. Return on equity or ROE is an important factor to be considered by a shareholder because it tells them how effectively their capital is being reinvested. In short, ROE shows the profit each dollar generates with respect to its shareholder investments. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. How Is ROE Calculated? Return on equity can be calculated by using the formula: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for is: 16% = CN¥49b ÷ CN¥309b (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). The 'return' is the profit over the last twelve months. So, this means that for every $1 of its shareholder's investments, the company generates a profit of $0.16. Check out our latest analysis for Why Is ROE Important For Earnings Growth? We have already established that ROE serves as an efficient profit-generating gauge for a company's future earnings. We now need to evaluate how much profit the company reinvests or "retains" for future growth which then gives us an idea about the growth potential of the company. Generally speaking, other things being equal, firms with a high return on equity and profit retention, have a higher growth rate than firms that don't share these attributes. Earnings Growth And 16% ROE At first glance, seems to have a decent ROE. Even when compared to the industry average of 16% the company's ROE looks quite decent. Consequently, this likely laid the ground for the decent growth of 8.6% seen over the past five years by Next, on comparing with the industry net income growth, we found that reported growth was lower than the industry growth of 12% over the last few years, which is not something we like to see. The basis for attaching value to a company is, to a great extent, tied to its earnings growth. What investors need to determine next is if the expected earnings growth, or the lack of it, is already built into the share price. By doing so, they will have an idea if the stock is headed into clear blue waters or if swampy waters await. If you're wondering about valuation, check out this gauge of its price-to-earnings ratio, as compared to its industry. Is Making Efficient Use Of Its Profits? has a healthy combination of a moderate three-year median payout ratio of 31% (or a retention ratio of 69%) and a respectable amount of growth in earnings as we saw above, meaning that the company has been making efficient use of its profits. While has been growing its earnings, it only recently started to pay dividends which likely means that the company decided to impress new and existing shareholders with a dividend. Upon studying the latest analysts' consensus data, we found that the company's future payout ratio is expected to drop to 22% over the next three years. However, the company's ROE is not expected to change by much despite the lower expected payout ratio. Summary Overall, we are quite pleased with performance. Specifically, we like that the company is reinvesting a huge chunk of its profits at a high rate of return. This of course has caused the company to see a good amount of growth in its earnings. With that said, the latest industry analyst forecasts reveal that the company's earnings growth is expected to slow down. Are these analysts expectations based on the broad expectations for the industry, or on the company's fundamentals? Click here to be taken to our analyst's forecasts page for the company. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Vought won't rule out more rescissions funding cuts before September
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said his office is considering more options to claw back funding approved by Congress and isn't ruling out sending more bills to lawmakers with further cuts before September. Vought confirmed on CBS News' "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday that "we are looking to do [a] rescissions package" to take back some funding from the Education Department. A rescissions bill is the president's request to rescind funding already appropriated by Congress. Last week, President Trump signed a bill clawing back foreign aid, NPR and PBS funding, becoming the first president in decades to receive approval for such a measure. "We're thrilled that we had the first rescissions package in decades, and we've got the process moving again," Vought said of the $10 billion clawback. Asked to confirm there'd be no rescissions package before September, as Congress attempts to fund the government and head off a shutdown, Vought responded, "Not here to say that. We're looking at all of our options, we will look at it and assess where the Hill is, what are the particular funding opportunities that we have?" Asked about National Institutes of Health funding for research into heart disease and cancer that has yet to be released, Vought replied, "We're going through the same process with the NIH that we did with the education." He alleged NIH had wasted funds, claiming "$2 million for injecting dogs with cocaine that the NIH spent money on, $75,000 for Harvard to study blowing lizards off of trees with leaf blowers." He vowed to go "line by line to make sure the NIH is funded properly" and said funding would be released "when we are done with that review." Vought's use of rescissions measures to amend government spending is seen by Democrats and some Republicans as a backdoor method of infringing on Congress' constitutional power of the purse. "Rescissions is just a Washington name for double cross," Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, also on "Face the Nation," said after Vought's interview on the program. "They support one thing one day — the president even signs off — and then they come back and say they change their mind." But the OMB director argued, "We have the ability and the executive tools to fund less than what Congress appropriated" under the Impoundment Control Act, which enables the president to delay spending funds appropriated by Congress, and he didn't rule out a legal battle over the executive branch's authority to revise lawmakers' spending downward, if it "could find waste" by an agency. Vought has also caused GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune some headaches with a comment he made Thursday suggesting the appropriations process must be "less bipartisan." But this put Thune in a bind as he oversees negotiations to avoid a government shutdown in October, since Republicans hold a slim majority of 53 - 47 in the Senate, and most legislation must reach a 60-vote threshold. "It's going to take 60 to fund the government," Thune said in response to Vought's remark, and he added, "we plan to move [appropriations] bills that will have cooperation from the Democrats." Van Hollen said it was ironic that Vought is "calling for these deep cuts to education, NIH, when he has asked for an increase for his OMB budget." And referring to reduction-in-force — or RIF — staff cuts the administration wants across the government, Van Hollen added, "He asked for a 13% increase for his OMB budget. He's asked for more people to join the OMB staff while he's talking about RIF-ing people at other departments." The Maryland senator said that Democratic senators, as they negotiate funding government operations, are "asking for four Republican senators just to publicly declare that when they say they're gonna fund the Veterans Affairs Department, that they actually mean it."
