How to treat the practice of "strictly controlling population size" in Beijing and other cities

First of all, it should be clear that the policy of "strictly controlling population size" comes from the central government, not from the local policies of cities such as Beijing and Shanghai. In fact, I don't think the Beijing-Shanghai local government welcomes this policy very much. It seems that the former mayor of Beijing was transferred because of poor implementation. After the new mayor took office, he suddenly stepped up his efforts to "catch people".

It is understandable that the Beijing-Shanghai local government does not welcome this policy. They can also see the scale effect of population agglomeration. This will effectively promote the development of local economy, not only increase government tax revenue, but also have many other benefits. Leaders want the areas they control to be strong, influential and well-known.

It can be seen that from the perspective of Beijing, Shanghai and other cities, "strictly controlling the population size" is not a good policy.

However, from a local perspective, a bad policy may be a good policy from a global perspective. This often happens when the army is fighting. The group army ordered a regiment to hold its ground and buy time for the maneuver of the main force. From the point of view of a regiment, this order is terrible, simply terrible. This regiment was actually abolished! But from the point of view of the group army or a higher level, although this order is regrettable, it has to be done in order to win the war. If you really win the war because of this, then this is a good command.

This is the case with Tashan blocking war and Shangganling campaign.

Then, from the central or national point of view, why should we introduce the policy of "strictly controlling the population size"?

There is a book "Big Countries and Big Cities", which is about urbanization. A few friends recommended it. I looked for it the other day. If it was two or three years ago, I would agree with the contents of the book 100%. But today, I disagree.

Big country and big city discusses the scale and agglomeration effect of population concentration from many angles. I agree with all these analyses. My question is: of course, a large number of people will benefit, but at what cost? Only by comprehensive analysis of costs and benefits can we judge whether the social model of super-large cities (with a population of more than 20 million to 30 million) is good or bad.

The author also talked about the cost of mass population gathering. He believes that it mainly includes three aspects: congestion, pollution and high crime rate. The author analyzes these three "urban diseases" one by one and thinks that they can all be solved by technological progress and strengthening management. Therefore, there is no need to artificially suppress the urban population for fear of these "urban diseases". On the contrary, we should let more people enter big cities, make super-big cities more super, and stimulate the agglomeration effect as much as possible.

I agree with the author's analysis of these three "urban diseases". But I think there are more and more troublesome "urban diseases" ignored by the author. The existence of these "urban diseases" makes me doubt the model of super-big cities.

The author did not mention the "urban diseases" in Beijing-Shanghai megacities, including:

I. Political security issues

In fact, since the French Revolution, all previous revolutions and political upheaval have erupted in cities. China's revolutionary process of "rural encircling cities" is a rare counterexample. The color revolution and the Arab Spring that we witnessed also broke out from the core cities.

Tens of millions of people live densely together, and a large part of them are young people. Once the economy declines and the unemployment rate rises, the threat to political stability is obvious.

A city like Beijing and Shanghai, if there are no restrictions, I believe it is no problem to gather a population of 50 to 60 million or even hundreds of millions. Calculated by 50 million, if the unemployment rate reaches 10% (the unemployment rate in many European countries is much higher now), it means that there are three or four million unemployed, dissatisfied with society and even emotional young people wandering in the capital.

Take the French Revolution as an example. Before the Great Revolution, Paris highly concentrated the population, elites and various resources of France. Paris is France. As a result, riots broke out in Paris and the national order soon collapsed. At the same time, although the overall level of urbanization in Britain is very high, the population is not highly concentrated in London, but relatively evenly distributed in many large, medium and small cities across the country. Therefore, the social structure of Britain is safer and more stable.

Tocqueville's book The Old System and the Great Revolution clearly pointed out this dangerous situation in Paris before the revolution. It is said that Tocqueville's book is widely circulated at the decision-making level. Most of them have seen this part, so it is completely logical and far-sighted to formulate a policy to evacuate the population of megacities and gradually separate the political center from the economic center.

As a member of ordinary people, I have to admit that if it is for political security, I can accept this policy. I don't want to live in revolution or political turmoil.

Second, the problem of low fertility rate.

After all, the space in a megacity is limited, and it is impossible to accommodate everyone who wants to live. The direct result is high housing prices. This is the case in super-large cities all over the world. After the house price rises, people have to reduce the living area and increase the living density. However, the living density directly affects people's fertility desire.

Someone has done experiments to keep mice in a narrow space. Rats that especially like to breed actively reduce their fertility. It can be seen that in densely populated megacities, the low fertility rate is an unsolved problem.

With the current housing conditions in Beijing and Shanghai, it is not easy to have a house of about 100 square meter. But living in a house of 100 square meter, how many children would you like to have? I think three at most. And most people will only have one child, or even none at all. The overall fertility rate will only be much lower than the natural replacement level.

China's family planning policy has not been fully liberalized. The reason for this is actually mainly because the two-child policy meets the fertility wishes of most people. There is not so much resistance to the family planning policy.

It can be seen that from the perspective of population reproduction, megacities themselves are an unsustainable system. It must constantly introduce people from outside to maintain its highly centralized production system. This is China's advantage. America can absorb immigrants from all over the world. China can absorb people from all over the country. It is very difficult for a country like Japan, which has no source of immigrants. At present, there is no solution to this difficulty.

If you place an order in the morning, the courier will deliver it in the afternoon. This agglomeration effect is certainly good. But the question is, is this situation sustainable or temporary addiction and death? Individuals and enterprises don't have to consider this kind of problem, but the national government must plan ahead, consider these long-term problems, make arrangements as soon as possible and find solutions.

The only solution is to increase people's living area and reduce population density. If there are tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of people in Beijing and Shanghai, immortals can't solve this problem. Only by evacuating the population of megacities and developing urban agglomerations can urbanization be realized and the population density be avoided.

Some agglomeration effects may be lost, and express delivery may be delayed for a day or two. But this urban model is sustainable.

Third, the balance of regional development

Megacities are unsustainable in the most basic population reproduction, and they must introduce people from outside. Megacities like Beijing and Shanghai are actually relying on their own advantages and attractiveness to "pinch the top" from all over the country. The best talents in the world are attracted to Beijing and Shanghai.

From the perspective of Beijing and Shanghai, this is certainly gratifying. However, as the central government, we must consider the balance of development throughout the country. If Beijing-Shanghai "bonus hunter" continues to spread all over the country, the result will only be that resources and advantages are increasingly concentrated in a few mega-cities, while the development of other vast areas is stagnant or even hopeless. All the local people who worked so hard went to Beijing and Shanghai.

China is a big country, not a city country like Singapore. We must consider the coordinated and balanced development of all localities. Moreover, China is not generally large, but extremely large. It is particularly difficult to solve this problem, and more resources need to be invested.

The talents and resources of the whole country are concentrated in a few "points", even if the super-high economic benefits are realized, it is unwise. This will fundamentally undermine the cohesion and stability of the country. In the long run, it is not impossible to split the country.

Nowadays, many people have repeatedly emphasized the intolerable places outside the first-tier and second-tier cities, such as poor legal environment, low government level, poor investment conditions, poor business environment and so on. These statements are probably true. However, the problem is that it still depends on people to improve these drawbacks. If the slightly better talents are attracted away, it will become a negative elimination trend at the local level. The solution of the problem is even more distant and even desperate.

Don't think that Beijing and Shanghai can be immune. All aspects of China's economic development are inseparable from our dependence on its vast territory, large population and strategic depth. It would be the greatest folly to destroy or even sacrifice the whole structure of the country in pursuit of local agglomeration effect and rapid development. This is no longer a penny wise and pound foolish, it is simply a crime and self-harm in state governance.

The "urban disease" of megacities also includes the destruction of people's ideas by highly detailed division of labor. There are similarities with Marx's "alienation". It is no accident that the anti-social, anti-human and anti-production ideas of "white left and small fresh" are all produced in super cities. Therefore, it is necessary to find a balance between the degree of division of labor, city size and population density, rather than blindly becoming a super city.

It is not easy to do this, but we should not give up because of difficulties and let all kinds of anti-social, anti-human and anti-production ideas grow and develop. This is the most serious and fundamental threat to a country. If this problem is not handled well, the country will weaken and society will disintegrate and be replaced by others.

However, this problem is complicated and needs further analysis. I can't say clearly now. We'll talk later.

In short, the policy of "strictly controlling population size" means that you can't enjoy all the conveniences and advantages of a big country without paying the corresponding costs. China, a big country, can't solve the problem of national development only by a few super cities. It is necessary to retain a considerable number of outstanding talents and build new cities outside megacities, and of course rural areas should also be built.

This process sounds tragic, but it's no big deal if it's not sensational. If everyone does not leave civilized and prosperous Europe, where is the United States today? In the United States today, not all the population is concentrated in the urban areas of several megacities. High-income people like NBA stars are traded today and will pack their backpacks and go to another city tomorrow.

The balanced distribution and extensive mobility of the population, especially the outstanding population, is precisely the main driving force to promote all kinds of quality services, including government services, to the whole country. Compared with many countries, the level of government management and business services in the United States is much more balanced nationwide, which is the result of the frequent flow of a large number of Americans in China. According to statistics, an American has to move across cities several times on average in his life. As a result, the American language is more unified. There are dialects all over the United States, but they can understand each other.

As for whether this policy is a resurgence of planned economy. I think today, it is no longer necessary to evaluate a policy by whether it is a planned economy. There will be many government executive orders and market interventions in China in the future. However, even if there were more, it would be impossible for China to rebuild the planned economy. Do you think China, which is already the largest trading country in the world, can do it behind closed doors? Is it necessary to worry about this?

It is impossible to engage in a planned economy in any sense without closing the door to the outside world. Of course, there are many other conditions for a planned economy. That thing is actually very difficult. Few countries can do it. Most of these conditions in China are gone forever.

In this case, I think it is more important to analyze and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the policy itself, rather than whether it conforms to a certain classification. The world is not black and white, and neither is policy.