China's one-child policy puts a price on human life

A woman forced to undergo a late-term abortion receives 70,600 yuan in compensation.

How much is a human life worth? The Chinese authorities appear to have valued it at 70,600 yuan (£7,160). That is the amount they have agreed to pay to the family of Feng Jianmei, a woman forced to undergo a late-term abortion because she could not afford the fine for breaking China’s strict one-child policy.

The case, which I blogged about last month, caused outrage worldwide after a photograph of Feng with the dead seven month old foetus was distributed online.

The family – who suffered harassment and were labelled “traitors” for talking to foreign media – had planned to take legal action but have decided not to after the government announced the payout. Feng’s husband, Deng Jiyuan, told the Associated Press that his family wanted to return to normality.

While forced abortions are technically illegal in China, they are not unusual, given that the 300,000 officials employed to enforce the one-child policy receive financial incentives to meet quotas of abortions and sterilisations.

The sheer violence of what happened to Feng – who was hooded, bundled into a car and given an injection that induced a stillbirth – is difficult to comprehend. The emotive power of this incident has segued into a wider debate about the one-child policy, with prominent researchers both outside and within China urging authorities to ease the restrictions.

Chinese government researchers argued that the policy must be relaxed because of the drastically ageing population and an impending labour shortage. A group of Chinese scholars also signed a letter calling for a change to the law, reiterating the risk to economic sustainability – with the imminent crisis of a shortage of young workers – but also the human rights issue. James Liang, one of the signatories, said: "From an economic perspective, the one-child policy is irrational. From a human-rights perspective, it's even less rational."

So what are the chances of a change? If past example is anything to go by, they are slim – calls for a relaxation of the rules are nothing new. The regime still believes that there are too many people (an impression borne out by overcrowded urban centres) and besides, is risk-averse. The sheer size of China makes any central change slow.

While officials debate the economic and rational arguments for and against the one-child policy, women and families will continue to suffer. Last month, a former official with China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission made an astonishing tearful apology on television in Hong Kong. In an interview with Pheonix TV, Zhang Erli said: "I felt sorry for our Chinese women. I feel guilty. Chinese women have made huge sacrifices. A responsible government should repay them."

But "repayment" goes little way towards tackling the trauma of a forced abortion, or the invasiveness of vaginal checks and random pregnancy tests which are commonplace in some areas. Zhang Kai, a lawyer advising Feng and her family, dismissed the pay off: "70,000 for a person's life? It is too little."

The best repayment would be to end this policy, which is being used as a brutal tool against women and their rights over their own bodies.

A baby looks up at its mother on a street in Beijing. Photograph: Getty Images

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Who benefits, and who loses out, from David Cameron’s housing plan?

The prime minister’s plan to scrap the affordable rental homes requirement, explained.

What has Cameron actually announced about housing today?

In David Cameron’s closing speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester today, he announced plans to change the requirements to build affordable rented homes in new developments so developers can build "starter homes" instead of homes to be leased at affordable or social rents. 

The policy is geared toward ensuring that his party meets its campaign pledge of building 200,000 new homes by the close of this parliament, by taking the emphasis off renting (affordable housing requirements usually refer to rented, not owned houses) and onto owning. It should, claims Cameron, take us from “Generation Rent” to “Generation Buy".

What sort of houses will they build instead?

"Starter homes" are homes sold at 80 per cent of market rates to those under 40. These an be sold for a maximum of £450,000 in London, and £250,000 everywhere else. 

That sounds quite good!  

There is a chance that Cameron is right – that removing these obstacles will make developers move through the planning process more quickly, and will help boost the number or houses built. 

But (and this is a big but): most predictions so far are that this won’t happen, and if it does, it’ll only help a very specific demographic. As my colleague Stephen Bush has already pointed out, the announcement is good politics, but bad policy. It makes it look like Cameron is doing something about the housing crisis, while scoring points with big property developers along the way.

My colleague Jonn Elledge, meanwhile, notes that this system could actually slow down housebuilding, as the houses will take longer to sell than they would to let. Moreover, if housebuilding is more profitable in the long run, this will push up land – and therefore house – prices. 

Who'll benefit?

Tory voters and their children, in a nutshell. The starter homes will mostly be one or two bedrooms, and will be aimed at working couples.

Shelter calculated earlier this year that a couple would need a combined income of £76,957 in London and £50,266 in the rest of the UK to afford one of these homes, which makes it clear that they're aimed at well-off professionals. If you're in a stable relationship, earn £40,000 or £26,000 a year each and are looking to get on the housing ladder, you're in luck. 

Who won't it help? 

Everyone else. Under this policy, the Conservatives are effectively redefining “affordable”, just as they co-opted the phrase “living wage” earlier this year. By most peoples' definitions, a housing option only available to those with access to £80,000 in earnings a year is not affordable. The situation outside London is a little better. 

That’s not to say the affordable housing requirements were perfect before – these, too, were defined by some councils as 80 per cent of market rents, which in many places equates to anything but affordable. Yet removing the requirement for affordable rentals leaves nothing for those unable to afford to buy, leaving the squeezed lower-middle (and most young people) increasingly in the lurch.

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.