Yi, Zeng. 1996. "Is Fertility in China 1991-92 Far Below Replacement Level?", POPULATION STUDIES, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 27-34.

 

Summary Data

Source and Comparisons

Fertility Rate

Year
1992 Report SFPC (State Family Planning Commission)

1.65

1991
 

1.52

1992
     
Replacement Rate

2.20

  
     
1995 US Rate (Based on Starr, 1997)

2.10

1995
     
     
PAST DECADE IN CHINA    
MAX 1982

2.87

1982
MIN 1985

2.20

1985
     
1990 Census

2.3 to 2.2

1990

 

Issue: Why the huge and sudden drop recorded in 1992 survey?

 

A. Why 1992 Survey might have increased underreporting

1. Background: Coverage of Study

2. Three Unique Features -- purpose to guarantee quality of results, unfortunately might have in fact biased results

1) Enumerators

In past Surveys: Not FPC (Family Planning Commission)

  • For example: 1990 census generally were not FPC employees
  • Many not highly skilled -- highschool students, retirees,…
  • When FPC employees used, used outside area they administered

 

1992 study exclusively used FPC workers and they checked areas that they administered

  • Why such approach
  • Cut costs
  • Locals well acquainted with situation, harder to hide information from them

 

Results: Although promised punishment would not occur to FPC officials if results change from past, trust was low

Local Officials already caught in a lie may need to continue

Why low trust??? Past Problem of 1990 Census

Example in Anhiu Province for 1990 census stated:

  • Truth to be unpunished -- please report the truth
  • However after count conducted law was changed and punishment applied -- sorry, we caught you

 

 

2) Questionnaire

  • Unplanned births highlighted in 1992 survey (tip-off)
  • Result -- least likely to report most recent unplanned birth when fine not yet paid
  • Focus on unplanned births could cause officials to suggest lying as the correct strategy -- long history of telling the Govt. what it wants to hear

 

3) Title of survey made it look like permanent register -- increase fear level of respondents

  • No one wants to get on permanent list

 

 

C. "One Vote Down" Campaign 1991 -- Another problem

 

D. Empirical Evidence of Underreporting

1. Studies demonstrates underreporting close to 30% -- see 1993 survey as example

 

2. Systematic errors (bias) apparent by reviewing past surveys

 

Summary of Data -- note trends

Reported Total Fertility from various sources  
  Survey Survey Census Survey
Year

1987

1988

1990

1992

1986

2.37

2.42

2.39

2.45

1987

2.51

2.59

2.58

2.55

1988

  

2.29

2.46

2.27

1989

    

2.30

2.24

1990

    

2.18

2.04

1991

      

1.65

1992

      

1.52

 

Before 1992: Matching-up/Catching-up Phenomena -- later values always bigger than initial value (note each row)

  • Why? Perhaps fine already paid or dealt with in other manner
  • Officials might benefit from higher "corrected" numbers and lower "false" current values

1992 Survey: Seems to have special new problems, perhaps result of "one vote down" and other factors

  • Errors even in earlier data starting with 1988

 

D. Adjustment of 1992 results

 

Table 3: Adjustment of TF in 1992 Survey  
Year Reported TF Under-reporting rate Adjusted TF

1990

2.042

0.160

2.432

1991

1.653

0.248

2.197

1992

1.520

0.275

2.097

 

 

Conclusions