China to offer childcare subsidies in bid to boost birthrate
The country's population has declined for three consecutive years, with United Nations demography models predicting it could fall from 1.4 billion today to 800 million by 2100.
The nationwide subsidies apply retroactively from January 1, Beijing's state broadcaster CCTV said, citing a decision by the ruling Communist Party and the State Council, China's cabinet.
'This is a major nationwide policy aimed at improving public wellbeing,' CCTV said.
'It provides direct cash subsidies to families across the country, helping to reduce the burden of raising children.'
There were just 9.54 million births in China last year, half the number than in 2016, the year it ended its one-child policy, which was in place for more than three decades.
The population declined by 1.39 million last year, and China lost its crown as the world's most populous country to India in 2023.
Marriage rates are also at record low levels, with many young couples put off having babies by high child-rearing costs and career concerns.
'Very costly'
Parents in Beijing welcomed the fresh subsidies, but said more needed to be offered for them to consider having extra children.
'For young couples who just got married and already have a baby, it might actually encourage them to consider having a second child,' Wang Xue, a mother to a nine-year-old son, told AFP.
'After all, the subsidy does help ease their burdens … and also offers some psychological comfort.'
But she said the new measures would not be enough to convince her to have a second child.
'Having one child is manageable, but if I had two, I might feel a bit of (financial) pressure,' the 36-year-old said.
Zhang Wei, a 34-year-old father of a daughter and son, said the new subsidies were 'a good start' because raising children was getting more expensive.
'Compared to our generation, the costs have definitely increased exponentially,' he said.
'Groundwork for the future'
While analysts said the subsidies were a step in the right direction, they warned that the new measures alone would not reverse China's population decline, nor boost its domestic spending slump.
'It is encouraging that the government finally moved to use fiscal subsidies to boost fertility,' Pinpoint Asset Management president and chief economist Zhiwei Zhang said.
It also showed the government recognised the 'serious challenge' that low fertility rates posed for the economy, Mr Zhang added.
Zichun Huang, China economist at Capital Economics, said the policy marked a 'major milestone' in terms of direct handouts to households and could lay the groundwork for more fiscal transfers in the future.
But he said the sums were too small to have a 'near-term impact on the birthrate or consumption'.
Many local governments have already rolled out subsidies to encourage childbirth.
In March, Hohhot, the capital of China's northern Inner Mongolia region, began offering residents up to 100,000 yuan ($21,352) per newborn for couples with three or more children, while first and second children will be eligible for 10,000 ($2135) and 50,000 ($10,676) yuan subsidies.
In Shenyang, in northeastern Liaoning province, local authorities give families who have a third child 500 yuan ($106) per month until the child turns three.
More than 20 provincial-level administrations in the country now offer childcare subsidies, according to official data.
Premier Li Qiang vowed to provide childcare subsidies during the government's annual work report in March.
China's shrinking population is also ageing fast, sparking worries about the future of the country's pension system. There were nearly 310 million people aged 60 and over in 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
South Korea's jailed ex-leader Yoon Suk Yeol takes off prison uniform, resists questioning
South Korea's jailed former president, Yoon Suk Yeol, has again refused to attend questioning by investigators, using a new method to resist — taking off his prison uniform and laying down on the floor at his detention room. Removed from office in April over his ill-fated imposition of martial law, Yoon was sent back to prison last month as he stands a high-stakes trial over rebellion and other charges. He faces investigations into other criminal allegations that are not related to his martial law decree in December but target him, his wife and others. On Friday, Min Joong-ki, a special counsel named by his liberal rival and new President Lee Jae Myung, sent investigators to retrieve Yoon from a detention centre near Seoul after the former president twice defied requests to attend questioning. The team was tasked with delving into allegations surrounding Yoon's wife, Kim Keon Hee, including that she and her husband exerted inappropriate influence on the then-ruling party's election nomination process in 2022. The team had a court-issued detention warrant that authorised them to bring Yoon out of his detention facility by force, but said they were hoping for his voluntary cooperation. "Without wearing his prison uniform, the suspect lay down on the floor and strongly resisted his detention," assistant special counsel Oh Jeong-hee told a televised briefing. Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho separately told politicians that Yoon took off his shorts and short-sleeved shirt and put them back on after investigators left. Ms Oh said her team members refrained from using physical means out of safety concerns, but notified Yoon that they would execute the warrant next time. She urged Yoon to cooperate as the Korean people are closely watching whether the enforcement of law is applied to everyone equally. Yu Jeong-hwa, a lawyer for Yoon, accused the special counsel team of trampling on his client's dignity and honour by discussing his dress in prison, according to local media reports. Yoon's defence team earlier said he was unable to attend his trial and undergo questioning by investigators because of heath problems. They said in a statement on Thursday that Yoon has cardiovascular, autonomic nervous system and eye issues. They cited an unidentified hospital as saying that Yoon faces the risk of blindness because he failed to receive medical treatment for the past three months. Yoon's imposition of martial law, which brought armed troops into Seoul streets, lasted only several hours before politicians voted down his decree unanimously. He argued his decree was a desperate attempt to draw public support of his fight against the "wickedness" of Mr Lee's Democratic Party, then the main opposition party, which had obstructed his agenda, impeached top officials and slashed the government's proposed budget. AP
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Adelaide City Council plans for 50,000 CBD residents without 'destroying the city'
South Australia's first appointed town planner, Charles Reade, was a prominent exponent of "garden cities" — an early 20th century urban planning movement that emerged in response to the overcrowding in British cities during the industrial revolution. Mr Reade, a New Zealander, envisaged cities surrounded by green space, combining the best of urban and rural living. In 1914, before his appointment by the SA government, he toured Australia to spruik the concept, and the Adelaide City Council gave him access to Town Hall to deliver a lecture. Unbeknownst to the council, the title of Mr Reade's presentation was: "Garden cities versus Adelaide slums and suburbs". It was to be an exhibition of the poor state of the city's housing with images of dilapidated alleys and overcrowded backyards projected to the audience on lantern slides. It caused outrage. "NO SLUMS IN ADELAIDE," read The Advertiser front page the next day, quoting an indignant Acting Mayor of Adelaide Alderman Cohen. "We have long held the reputation of being the Garden City of Australia," Mr Cohen reportedly said on October 5, 1914. "I therefore give this statement as to the existence of slums in Adelaide a most emphatic and strong denial, and I defy Mr Reade or anyone to point out the existence of any slums in our city." The slums controversy came in a year when the population of the Adelaide CBD had swelled to a record 43,000 people – more than double the population estimated to be living within the CBD today. Now, the council wants to return to its 1910s population peak. Town Hall adopted a "City Plan" last year that targets 50,000 residents living in the CBD and North Adelaide by 2036. Lord Mayor Jane Lomax-Smith said the target reflects "the need to repopulate the city". "Setting a target of 50,000 means we'll be going back, back to the future, back to the sort of numbers we had in the last century," she told the ABC. Returning to 50,000 residents does not mean returning to the days of slums, Dr Lomax-Smith argues. "There's always progress in building development and the way people live," she said. But the population growth will, according to others, require a fundamental change to Adelaide's skyline. A 2023 council report found that accommodating even just 46,300 residents by 2041 could require building thirty-six 36-storey towers. The city currently has three. Meanwhile, the City Plan outlines that 1,000 new dwellings a year — or 2.7 homes a day — will be needed to reach the 2036 target. "If we were to achieve a doubling of our population in just 11 years, there would have to be cranes in the sky all over the central part of the city," said Greg Mackie, former chief executive of the History Trust of SA and a former city councillor. "But there's a massive amount of potential latent developable sites in the CBD, particularly if you think about the western end." The City Plan forecasts that the West End, including areas around Grote Street, West Terrace and Whitmore Square, can accommodate more than a third of the population growth needed to reach 50,000 residents. But other areas like North Adelaide, North Terrace and the East End are earmarked for much less growth, partly due to their high-level of heritage protection. "To get to 50,000, we don't want to destroy the city," Dr Lomax-Smith said. "It would be easy if we just demolished every building in the city and built tower blocks — 50 tower blocks, easy, get to 50,000 — but they would probably be mainly single-person units, and it would damage the character of our city. "One of the most important things is to protect the quality of life." Finding space for 50,000 residents is one thing — getting them to live in a city is another. "Australians on the whole have not been used to living in a house without a garden and off-street parking," Dr Lomax-Smith said. In the decades after Charles Reade lectured Adelaide about its slums, families flocked to the suburbs in search of more space. From 1947 to 1972, the city's population dropped from about 35,000 to 14,000, according to the council's archives. "Everyone was concentrated on building a house on a quarter-acre block and having their own place to live with their families," said Professor Emma Baker, director of the Australian Centre for Housing Research at the University of Adelaide. "So, there was kind of a gutting out of the city over those years, and it probably reached the kind of peak in the 1980s." While the CBD's population is growing again, it is more to do with migration and international students than suburban families attracted to city living. Most City of Adelaide residents either live on their own (40.8 per cent) or with their partner (25.6 per cent), according to the 2021 census. Just 8 per cent of city households — 970 in total — are couples with children. "The city has become a place where young people live maybe temporarily while they're studying," Ms Baker said. "About a quarter of the people who sleep in the city every night are students, so that's roughly the same proportion that Cambridge has. "So, we're a student city, we're a rental city, and people tend to … move into the city, live there for a while and move out later on as they get older." It's a vastly different picture than the early 20th century when big families lived in small city houses, or "slums". The average size of an Australian household in 1911 was 4.5 people; it is now just 1.7 in the City of Adelaide. Planning Institute of SA president Cate Hart said without families in the city, "what the city council is trying to strive for won't occur". "Single bed apartments to meet a student demand is not going to reach your 50,000 people," she said. "You actually need to build development that will accommodate three and four people per household." Ms Hart, who supports the council's plan, argues the public and private sector need to drive a "culture of living in the city" through good design and a diversity of housing. "Apartment living is not for everybody, and cookie cutter apartments will not drive a new culture," she said, adding that the city would need townhouses, "shop top living" and mid-rise development. The council will need help from the private sector to reach its target, but pulling off a major housing project within the CBD is not always easy. "It's not enough to just zone an area and think 'job done'," said Planning Minister Nick Champion. "Because the nature of private development is it comes in fits and starts, they have to get feasibility and capital, and they have to struggle against construction costs which are quite high at the moment." Further complicating matters is that the City of Adelaide is not the only local government area with housing growth on the horizon. The whole of Greater Adelaide will need another 315,000 houses by 2051, according to the state government's 30 Year Plan released last year. Around a third of this growth is earmarked for the sprawling northern suburbs. Jamie McClurg, executive chair of a real estate developer, said the suburbs are "typically a safer investment" for developers. "Certainly, those sort of markets are easier to produce and deliver stock," he said. It comes as his company nears completion on a major mixed-use apartment development on the former North Adelaide Le Cornu site. The land stood vacant for more than 30 years after various development plans fell over. "There's available land that can be just developed on straight away — it tends to be caught up in a lot of conversations and not probably enough action to my mind," Mr McClurg said. He is sceptical that the 50,000 population target will be reached. "I think that we have seen through the last couple of decade people set targets and not be responsible for achieving them," he said. "I just would expect the people that are leading us to understand the math that they're committing to and deliver on it."
ABC News
7 hours ago
- ABC News
Trump's new tariffs reveal somewhat vindictive and irrational strategy
Myanmar, Laos, Serbia and Syria. They seem unlikely targets for some of the most aggressive moves in Donald Trump's war on the global trading system. Yet these small and troubled nations are among those facing the highest tariffs from the United States in the wake of its president's slew of August 1 trade announcements. Myanmar, which mostly exports clothing to the US, and Laos, which predominantly exports electronics equipment, now face 40 per cent tariffs on the goods they sell to America, while Serbia will be hit with a 35 per cent tariff and Syria 41 per cent. None of these countries have been notably the subject of the same public Trumpian wrath as, say, Canada (35 per cent) and Brazil (50 per cent) since "Liberation Day" on April 2. And the country which is arguably the biggest target or threat to the US in terms of world trade — China — was not mentioned at all but will be engaged with in further negotiations. Having said that, there is still a 40 per cent on goods regarded as being "trans-shipped" to avoid higher tariffs (for which read "trans-shipped from China"). And the tough treatment on Friday of South-East Asian nations which are manufacturing hubs for China must be seen as an indirect assault on the regional economic superpower. In Australia, the focus on Trump's tariff announcements on Friday (AEST) was of course primarily on the "relatively" good news that we were still only facing a 10 per cent tariff, when the spectre of a 15 or 25 per cent generic rate had been mentioned by the US president in the days leading up to the announcement. The outcome somewhat took the wind out of the sails of those who have been criticising the prime minister for not getting to the White House, or into any meeting with Trump, and instead boosted the argument that there was little to be lost from staying out of his uniquely coiffed hair. Australia will enjoy the 10 per cent tariff rate being applied to those countries that buy more goods from the US than they export to America: that is, that run a trade surplus with one of the world's biggest economies. The new tariff regime starts at 10 per cent, based on trade balance, lifts to a 15 per cent rate for countries that only have a small deficit, while those with big deficits, that haven't negotiated, or that have otherwise incurred the ire of the president face this much wider and more unpredictable range of outcomes. It's worth pausing for a moment of silence to mark the momentous shift in global affairs that the Friday announcement confirms: the shift not just from a free trade ambition to a protectionist one by the United States, but a shift to a system of fairly arbitrary, vindictive and sometimes irrational decisions. Beyond that, though, the patterns in the trade deals that have been done to date — or perhaps more appropriately the lack of patterns and rigour — raise a range of other questions about their impact, and the extent to which they appear in some cases to be little more than standover tactics of lesser or greater actual import. Take the deals struck with Japan and the European Union last month. Both exemplified some striking features of the "deals" being done. In both cases, the parties documented very different understandings of the deals they thought they had done. There were also glaring holes in the deals in terms of major sectors about which there was only a conspicuous silence. For example, the EU deal was silent on wine and spirits. Most of the deals have yet to be formalised or legislated. Finally, the US has been claiming in almost all of the deals that it struck prior to August 1 that they involved massive commitments of investment in the US by the trade partners involved. For example, in Japan's case, the White House announced that Japan would create a $US550 billion fund to invest in the US, with Trump making the investment decisions and the US government receiving 90 per cent of the profits. It seemed this astonishing deal was news to Japanese negotiators who, the New York Times reported, had already made an offer (which in itself seemed extraordinary): to create a $US400 billion investment fund with half the profits going to the US government. The US president subsequently referred to the deal that he announced as a "signing bonus", which underpinned Japan "only" facing a 15 per cent tariff impost, even as doubts were aired about whether the investment would ever materialise. The NYT reported that Japan's chief trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa told Tokyo that the deal was that Japan would offer a blend of investment, loans and loan guarantees, totalling up to $550 billion, with profits to be allocated based on each side's committed risk and financial contribution. There have been similar scenes unfolding over possible investments from the European Union and South Korea. Equally unsettling has been the increasingly blatant intrusion of non-trade factors into the tariff decisions announced by the White House. Brazil is facing 50 per cent tariffs because Trump doesn't like the way former president, strongman and Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro is being treated by the Brazilian judicial system, where he is facing up to 40 years in prison for allegedly plotting a coup to stay in power after losing the 2022 election. By agreeing this week to a Trump demand for a ceasefire, Thailand and Cambodia appear to have ended up with lower 19 per cent tariffs they had originally been proposed. Canada appeared to be facing a more punitive tariff regime than Mexico at 35 per cent — which Trump said was due to Prime Minister Mark Carney signalling Canada would recognise statehood for Palestine. But it turns out the higher tariff rate will not apply to goods covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. That covers an estimated 94 per cent of Canada's exports to the US. The tariff decisions will have a very different impact to those suggested by the headline numbers in other countries too. For example, Germany may only face a 15 per cent tariff as part of the EU deal but is particularly exposed through its big automotive exports to the US. Another shock was the 25 per cent rate applied to India. This caused immediate political blowback for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi who claims "bestie" status with the US president but who immediately faced intense criticism at home that this elevated position had not saved India from a punitive tariff rate. What happened in India is just one of the examples of the political shock waves caused around the globe by Trump's moves, in addition to any economic impact they may have. There is considerable concern in Europe, for example, about how European Union member nations react to its deal. The federated nature of the EU structure lends itself to a lot more public debate about a deal not directly negotiated by national leaders. The concern among European political analysts this week is that the deal will play into the hands of far-right and nationalist groups in fuelling resentment against both the EU and sitting governments. It will take countries around the world some time to see how these domestic pressures play out. And then there's the question of how such a deliberately uneven playing field affects their relative competitiveness to each other, even when direct trade with the US is left out of the calculations. It feels like a certain resignation has crept into global trade discussions in the past few months. It is driven as much by a trade-off between uncertainty and certainty as specific tariff numbers. If there is one thing we seem to know about Donald Trump, it is that all that uncertainty is unlikely to end any time soon. Laura Tingle is the ABC's Global Affairs Editor.
