Since the breakdown of inter-Korean ties and the failed Trump-era talks in 2019, North Korea has doubled down on nuclear weaponization. In 2022 alone, the regime tested over 70 ballistic and cruise missiles. It also reportedly continues to produce advanced fissile material, which experts say can fuel up to 90 nuclear warheads.

Pyongyang’s growing alignment with Moscow and Beijing has deepened the crisis. In exchange for supplying Russia with artillery shells, ballistic missiles and even troops for its war on Ukraine, North Korea has gained valuable political cover—and likely technological support—from the Kremlin. China, meanwhile, has provided an economic lifeline for the isolated nation and brushed off Western countries’ requests to pressure the regime. This emerging axis has emboldened Pyongyang, enhancing its missile and nuclear capabilities while forming a united front that threatens U.S. influence and the security of Japan, South Korea and the U.S. mainland.

Taken together, these developments cast doubt on the sincerity of Kim’s statement and the notion that talks could alter the North’s strategic calculus. Nonetheless, Washington seems intent on restoring diplomacy with Pyongyang in the hopes of resetting relations. 

Even if such a summit were to occur, it would likely yield little progress. For decades, the United States has insisted on denuclearization as the foundation for improving ties, oscillating between diplomacy and military threats as a way of bringing about the “complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement” (CVID) of North Korea’s nuclear program. Successive administrations have tried different approaches—including the 1994 Agreed Framework, which temporarily froze the North’s plutonium production, and the 2012 Leap Day Deal, which briefly halted nuclear and missile testing—but each of these efforts ultimately unraveled as Pyongyang reneged on its commitments and pressed ahead with weaponization. Kim’s position on denuclearization continues this pattern, pouring cold water on the prospect of a negotiated settlement.

What, then, motivated Kim to make such a statement? Given Pyongyang’s upgraded weapons arsenal, he lacks the same incentive to extract concessions from Washington as during Trump’s first term. Back then, North Korea displayed a markedly different attitude toward negotiations; the historic Panmunjom Declaration with the South in April 2018 affirmed their shared goal of achieving “a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula,” and the Singapore Summit with Trump later that year fueled hope that U.S.-North Korea relations were entering a new chapter.

The talks ultimately collapsed in October 2019 due to disagreement between both sides over sanctions relief and the terms of complete denuclearization. This was because, despite the economic incentives, Kim was fundamentally unwilling to abandon the regime’s most important source of security and status—an arsenal his family had spent nearly half a century developing. Knowing that nuclear weapons were his regime’s primary source of leverage and domestic legitimacy, he concluded that maintaining this arsenal was worth the economic cost.

Nearly seven years later, Pyongyang’s upgraded nuclear and conventional weapons capabilities have strengthened Kim’s leverage. However, his demands have fundamentally changed: rather than seeking comprehensive sanctions relief or warmer ties with Washington and Seoul, he is solely focused on persuading the White House to recognize North Korea’s nuclear status.

This would confer several benefits to his regime on the domestic and international stage. Shaped by the trauma of the Korean War (1950-53) and President Harry Truman’s nuclear threats, North Korea has long viewed its nuclear arsenal as the sole means to guarantee its survival. For years, Kim has cited the examples of Libya and Iraq as cautionary tales against denuclearization. In this vein, recognition by the United States would not only strengthen his regime’s legitimacy, but also the narrative that North Korea’s nuclear status is irreversible and a key pillar of its national identity—boosting Kim’s leverage at home and abroad.

Nuclear recognition would also give North Korea more room to maneuver between Moscow and Beijing. China remains wary about Pyongyang’s rapprochement with the Kremlin, fearing it will undermine both its economic leverage and its ability to balance between the United States and its allies in the region. It has thus adopted a more cautious stance toward the nuclear issue, officially supporting denuclearization yet refusing to meaningfully pressure the regime; such caution would evaporate if Washington were to recognize Pyongyang as a nuclear power. Although this would not eliminate all sources of friction within the Russia-China-North Korea axis, it would enable Kim to effectively balance ties between Moscow and Beijing, strengthening the regime’s regional and global influence.

Given Kim’s hardened stance on the nuclear issue, the United States must develop a clear, comprehensive strategy to constrain Pyongyang. Instead of yielding to Kim’s demands, Washington should reaffirm its commitment to denuclearization as a way to blunt the axis’s destabilizing influence and avoid nuclear brinkmanship in East Asia. This includes tightening enforcement of existing sanctions on North Korea and imposing secondary sanctions on Russian and Chinese firms that enable Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions. Washington should also continue to deepen trilateral security cooperation with South Korea and Japan, expanding joint military exercises, facilitating allied weapons transfers and increasing high-level coordination among top security officials as a strong signal to the regime of the alliance’s continued resolve. President Trump’s Asia trip last October was a positive step in that direction, but the administration must continue to build on this momentum and pursue additional measures to counter the regime.

Additionally, Washington should craft a long-term strategy to deter the regime militarily. That includes reaffirming its extended deterrence commitments to Tokyo and Seoul, and, if necessary, maintaining the option of targeted strikes against North Korea’s nuclear and missile facilities. Such action would be both unlikely and unwise, but it must remain viable to cast a shadow of power across the negotiating table.

The North Korean nuclear threat has grown dire in recent years. The regime’s rapidly advancing weapons arsenal and strategic alignment with Moscow and Beijing present an increasingly complex challenge for the United States and its allies. Although Kim’s offer to resume talks may seem like a tempting diplomatic offramp, Washington should stand firm and marshal all available resources to achieve the goal of peaceful denuclearization. This would not only bring stability to the Korean Peninsula but also strengthen Washington’s credibility among its allies in the Indo-Pacific and beyond, an outcome that would reaffirm U.S. leadership at a moment when it is being tested on multiple fronts.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post Boon or Bluster?: Assessing Kim Jong Un’s Latest Message to the United States appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The involvement of North Korean troops fighting on Russia’s side of the war in Ukraine is perplexing. Throughout its entire history, North Korea has never launched a foreign military intervention, so their presence in the Russian-Ukraine war is unprecedented. 

Russia is at a turning point in its history. With the war in Ukraine waging on for nearly three years, its ultimate status remains unclear; however, the war has undoubtedly questioned the U.S.-led global order. After the start of the invasion, Western nations immediately imposed trade and economic sanctions on Russia, effectively isolating it and reducing it to a pariah state similar to North Korea. 

As the war in Ukraine has gone on far longer than Russia anticipated, Russia has begun to run low on ammunition and manpower. Unwilling to back down on Ukraine, Moscow’s options for wartime trade have become largely restricted to the handful of other countries who have similarly been isolated from the Western financial world, such as Iran and North Korea. Russia has already been turning to Iran for thousands of cheap yet deadly drones throughout the war. As for North Korea, the country has spent decades preparing for a war with South Korea and the United States. As a result, outside of Russia itself, North Korea possesses the largest arsenal of artillery munitions of any country in the world. Realizing this and sharing a land border with North Korea, Putin saw a golden opportunity to restock on munitions by shipping artillery shells from Russia’s far east to the far west into Ukraine. 

In exchange, Russia agreed to give North Korea some of its significantly more advanced military technology compared to North Korea’s frozen in time Soviet military armaments. Previously, nearly the entire world including Russia was united in restricting trade with North Korea because of its nuclear weapons program. This restricted North Korea’s military from advancing into the modern day, especially compared to their South Korean counterpart. However, now that Russia has been ostracized by the Western world, its previous cooperation with Western powers has been abandoned, prompting Russia to seek new trading partners to counter its isolation.

The Russian Defence Minister visited Pyongyang in July 2023. Afterwards, Kim Jong Un traveled across the border to meet personally with Putin in September 2023. In summer 2024 Putin personally visited Kim on his own turf in Pyongyang for the first time in 24 years, pledging to support one another in the event of an attack on either country.

This marks a significant departure from North Korea’s previous attempts to normalize relations with the United States during the Trump administration, and realign its relations with Russia similarly as they were during the Cold War era. 

The details of Putin and Kim’s meetings are unknown, but the U.S. state department suggests that, since mid 2022, roughly 11,000 shipping containers have entered Russia from North Korea presumably carrying primarily munitions. Western estimates suggest that roughly 1.6 million to 6 million artillery shells have entered Russia from North Korea worth several billions of dollars. These shells are of debatable quality and reliability but have undoubtedly given Russia the edge in munitions while Russia restocks from their own factories. In October 2024, Western intelligence sources reported that roughly half of the Russian artillery shells used in Ukraine came from North Korea.

North Korea is arguably the most militarized country in the world. North Korea spends 36% of its GDP on military spending, which is nearly the same as Ukraine (37%) with an ongoing invasion across its territory. However, since North Korea is so impoverished, this is only a fraction of the spending the United States and South Korea spend on their militaries. 

Pyongyang knows that once Russia restores itself on munitions, its need for North Korea will diminish. As a result, in order to maintain the relationship and gain further military advances from Russia, North Korea is left offering Russia the only other thing they have that Russia is in need of: its massive reserves of soldiers. Approximately 30% of the entire North Korea population is either actively serving or in the reserves. All North Korean men are required to serve ten year terms while women are required to serve eight year terms. The country has more than 1.3 million personnel in their active duty army. This is almost as much as the 1.4 million U.S. personnel and more than Russia’s 1.1 million personnel.  

The New York Times estimated in October 2024 that approximately 115,000 Russian soldiers have been killed fighting in Ukraine, in addition to another 500,000 that have been wounded. Russia likely considered doing a larger mandate draft as Ukraine has done but it knows it would presumably make the war deeply unpopular. As a result, Moscow calculated the better option for itself is to give North Korea more technology in exchange for manpower. The Ukrainian military suspects that Moscow will use these North Korean troops to deploy in the Russian Kursk Oblast which Ukraine acquired in their counter offensive in August 2024. The presence of North Korean troops in Russian territory leads to frightening implications for the war and the rest of the world. 

Currently, the Ukraine-Russia war is at its worst point for Ukraine since the start of the war, with Russia slowly advancing further into Ukraine’s territory as Ukraine faces extreme artillery and manpower shortages. North Korean forces entering the Kursk Oblast would allow Russian troops to redeploy to the Russian offensive helping to increase their advances. The current North Korean troops are still untested with significant language barrier and operational differences to overcome. However, if North Korean soldiers prove effective it could suggest that these 10,000 troops are only the start of a much larger share of forces entering Russia to help the war effort. 

As for what this means outside of the Russian-Ukraine war, the Korean peninsula has become extremely precarious. In January 2024, Kim Jong Un formally called for an alteration to the North Korean constitution to remove all commitments to a peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula. Furthermore, he had the constitution changed to label South Korea as the nation’s “primary foe and invariable principle enemy.” In addition, he ordered the arch of reunification, a monument constructed in 2001 symbolizing Korea’s eventual reunification, to be destroyed. These moves effectively eliminate the long standing peaceful reunification of Korea from North Korea’s official policy. This has led several North Korea analysts to suggest that Kim Jong Un plans to go to war with South Korea. The publication does not suggest a specific when or how, only that Kim has made it in his mind to do so eventually. 

That being said, the South Korea military still far outclasses the North’s in almost every way. The rationale for North Korea to invade the South can be seen as extremely irrational. However, with the aid of advanced Russian technology in the form of advanced missiles, submarines, and more, South Korea is on high alert.

The involvement of North Korean troops in Russia’s war against Ukraine marks an unprecedented shift with significant implications for global security. For Russia, North Korea’s vast munitions and manpower alleviate critical shortages, enabling its prolonged offensive. For North Korea, the partnership offers advanced military technology, currently desperately needed by the Kim regime to bolster its aggressive ambitions. This alliance not only complicates Ukraine’s defense but also destabilizes the Korean peninsula, as Kim Jong Un dismantles the long standing peaceful reunification efforts and escalates hostile rhetoric toward South Korea. With authoritarian regimes deepening ties and defying international norms, the ripple effects of this partnership extend far beyond the battlefields of Ukraine, threatening to reshape regional dynamics and global power balances.

The post Why North Korean Troops are in the Russia-Ukraine War and What it Means for the Rest of the World appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Despite diligent efforts to contain the radiation, around 5.5 metric tons of radioactive water leaked from the area in February 2024. Although the water was successfully contained before escaping the premises, preventing the surrounding environment from being contaminated, TEPCO was unable to prevent the damage done to its reputation. 

While the initial reactions to the 2011 meltdown in the international sphere were mainly those of sympathy and a growing general weariness of nuclear power, the tone changed after Japan’s announcement that it would release the treated wastewater into the ocean beginning Aug. 24, 2023. The international community, specifically Japan’s neighbors, was furious about the decision as they believe the wastewater is still toxic; however, their outcries did not deter the Japanese government’s decision. The recent wastewater spillage of 5.5 metric tons occurred around half a year after the initial release of wastewater and only contributes more to the anti-dumping rhetoric present, fighting for a reversal of Japan and TEPCO’s initiative.

South Korea, arguably one of Japan’s most valuable neighbors due to the two nations’ respective alliances with the United States, has been one of the first and most vocal in calling out Japan’s actions. The relationship between the two countries has historically been incredibly tense and volatile, largely due to Japan’s colonization of Korea during World War II. To this day, both Japan and South Korea continue to harbor resentment towards one another, making cooperation between the two difficult. However, Japan’s decision to dump the wastewater was originally viewed as a unique opening for the South Korean government to better its relationship with Japan. Under Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, the South Korean government endorsed Japan and TEPCO’s dumping but was instantly met with outrage from the majority of the South Korean citizenry, who took to the streets to protest the endorsement. South Korea quickly switched its position to one of condemnation for Japan, increasing its number of trade restrictions on the regions around Fukushima.

Although the new South Korean trade restrictions harmed Japanese exports, specifically in the aquatic sector, China’s reaction to the wastewater dumpage was far worse. Unlike South Korea, the Chinese Communist Party did not waver in its response, instantly putting pressure on Japan to stop its wastewater disposal and banning aquatic goods from Fukushima and other surrounding prefectures. Ignoring the Chinese warning, Japan continued to carry out its plans, causing China to retaliate still further with a universal ban on all Japanese aquatic-based products. The import bans from South Korea and China, as well as several other countries, severely harmed Japan’s fishing sector, however, Japan’s overall economy remains strong.

Accusations about the immorality of wastewater dumping are constantly being thrown at Japan by its neighbors, but are the criticisms even valid? In terms of hazard levels, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has consistently reported that TEPCO’s wastewater dumps have all been significantly below legal radiation limits. Likewise, the entire site is compliant with IAEA guidelines, even having an IAEA office on-site for constant feedback and monitoring. The recent radioactive water spillage was one of the only notable incidents during the entire decommissioning process of Fukushima Daiichi, meaning that such mistakes are a rare occurrence. This can be attributed to TEPCO’s commitment to prevent any accidents from happening twice, being aware of the dangerous nature of the hazards they handle. While it has not necessarily done a perfect job, TEPCO has made a large effort to keep Japan compliant with the rules of the IAEA, preventing further backlash from occurring.

In addition to verifying the levels of radiation in wastewater, the IAEA is also responsible for ensuring that radiation in fisheries and other aquatic resources remains at a safe level. As such, the fish and other products produced in Fukushima prefecture have been declared legally safe for consumption, contrary to public concerns.

In terms of the international community, the case against Japan becomes far weaker when considering that some of the dissenting countries, namely China, also have a history of releasing radioactive wastewater into the ocean. China’s wastewater has actually been shown to have higher traces of tritium, a radioactive isotope created from nuclear power plants, compared to Fukushima Daiichi.

International tensions surrounding Japan’s release of radioactive wastewater most likely do not, in actuality, stem from the perceived dangers of TEPCO’s operations, but rather from Japan’s difficult history with its neighbors. Due to the precarious relationship between Japan, South Korea and China, experts theorize that it is Japan’s colonial World War II background that created a lack of trust between it and the larger international community. Becoming a major colonial power, Japan managed to colonize parts of China, all of Korea and a large section of Southeast Asia. Aside from the colonization of the respective countries, Japan also enacted the policy of comfort women in the places they conquered, forcing women into sexual slavery in brothels. The horrors of colonization, pleasure women and other terrible acts still hang heavy in the minds of many South Korean and Chinese citizens, making cooperation between the three countries difficult—the situation of Fukushima Daiichi is but another part of this pattern.

While the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown was purely domestic, its consequences had an expansive international reach. With increasing pressures from rival nations, Japan’s attitudes towards Fukushima Daiichi need to shift or else their already strained relationships might reach a breaking point. Despite this, through cooperation with protesting countries, a common ground towards the disposal of toxic wastewater could be reached, ultimately resolving this decade-long issue.

The post Fukushima Daiichi: From Local Disaster to National Issue appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

At present, Taiwan is the leader in semiconductor manufacturing. Taiwanese state-owned company Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) is the world’s leading manufacturer by a large margin. TSMC alone produces almost 70% of the world’s microchips and over 90% of the most advanced semiconductors. In America, Congress reports that only 12% of the global market share of semiconductors is manufactured domestically, a decline from 37% in 1990. This results in significant American dependence on Taiwan.

Due to the production of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry, China, which has threatened Taiwan with invasion for decades, has yet to fulfill its threats. This production of microchips has created an impenetrable utilitarian forcefield, making Taiwan untouchable to China, as China needs the advanced chips Taiwan produces. As China continues to make threats of invasion against Taiwan, the United States has stood by Taiwan, promising to protect it from China and pledging U.S. troops to be on Taiwanese soil in the event of an invasion. Through this, the diplomatic bond between Taiwan and the United States has grown significantly, with Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, visiting Taiwan in Aug 2022. 

It is important to note that despite the United States promising military protection to Taiwan, this is not the United States’ official foreign policy stance. Officially, the United States recognizes China’s One-China policy, agreeing that Taiwan is a part of mainland China and that China has sole legal control over Taiwan for geopolitical reasons. Officially, the United States and Taiwan do not have diplomatic relations. 

On May 15, 2022, TSMC announced that it would be building a fab, a semiconductor manufacturing center, in Arizona. This was a big win for the U.S. semiconductor industry. With a $40 billion investment and the expertise that TSMC will bring, U.S. production of semiconductors is expected to increase considerably. Furthermore, the Arizona TSMC fab is projected to produce three-nanometer semiconductors by 2026, the second most advanced type of semiconductor currently available. TSMC’s fabs in Arizona have several implications on a global scale that may only be realized after a period of time.  

The most obvious implication is that creating a fab in Arizona would naturally strengthen the relationship between Taiwan and the United States. With a decreased cost in transportation, increased opportunity for trade and improved connections between business leaders in the United States, TSMC and the United States would be expected to develop closer ties. Closer ties between TSMC and the United States could mean that the United States would be more likely to protect Taiwan from a potential Chinese invasion given the value of the semiconductors to the United States. However, it is doubtful that the United States would change its official foreign policy status.

Second, a less obvious implication of the creation of an Arizona fab would be the negative effect on the Taiwanese-American relationship. The fab in Arizona is expected to mostly influence the American semiconductor industry. With an estimated annual revenue of $10 billion, TSMC would make back its initial $40 billion investment in only about four to five years. Furthermore, the American semiconductor industry would gain invaluable expertise that might take years or decades without TSMC. 

While this sounds like a win-win situation for both TSMC and the United States, one aspect is easily forgotten. One of the main reasons why Taiwan has U.S. protection is due to Taiwan’s unparalleled semiconductor industry which produces a large majority of the semiconductors used around the world. If Taiwan’s semiconductor industry were to stop producing semiconductors, “no other company will be able to fill the gap in the short term” according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

If the U.S. semiconductor industry were to compete with Taiwan’s after the U.S. industry gained expertise and understanding of TSMC’s methods, then the Taiwanese industry would lose some value as consumers could simply buy from the United States instead of Taiwan. If Taiwan loses this global competitive advantage, it might also lose its bargaining power on the world stage. With a producer that could produce a semiconductor competitive with or better than TSMC’s, global consumers would quickly shift their consumption away from TSMC and towards the new producer. 

The potential unravelings of these trends could have negative implications for Taiwan. Without their utilitarian forcefield of the semiconductor industry, the United States may not find a reason to spend resources and risk U.S. lives protecting Taiwan. 

Militarily, Taiwan is severely outmatched against China. China’s military budget of $225 billion in 2023 dwarfs Taiwan’s budget of $19 billion. On water, China’s 86 naval ships and 59 submarines would dominate the Taiwan Strait against Taiwan’s 26 naval ships and four submarines. In the air, China operates almost 3,000 aircraft compared to Taiwan’s 500. On land, China operates over 4,000 tanks more than Taiwan and has two million active military personnel compared to Taiwan’s 200,000. Without the U.S. and allies’ protection, Taiwan would be defenseless to a Chinese invasion. 

Although it is known that China has wanted to forcefully annex Taiwan for decades, it has stopped short of doing so due to the threat of triggering U.S. protection and the destruction of Taiwan’s valuable semiconductor industry.

However, if the United States were to create a competitive semiconductor industry, it may lose some of its incentive to protect Taiwan. Meanwhile, if China were to believe that the United States would not defend Taiwan and that it could successfully invade Taiwan, China would be more likely to invade Taiwan. 

To this end, some experts expect an invasion as soon as 2025. However, Taiwan’s foreign minister predicts conflict in 2027 — marking the 100-year anniversary of the foundation of the People’s Liberation Army with an invasion of Taiwan.

The post Taiwan’s Tightrope: The Balancing Act amid China-US Power Play appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Discrimination based on race or nationality is not illegal in South Korea. Frequently, business owners will put similar “no foreigner” signs on their front doors and many nightclubs are notorious for outright refusing to let non-Koreans inside.

For the past 16 years, there has been a push for the introduction of a comprehensive anti-discrimination bill; however, all attempts have been rejected by the South Korean Parliament. In 2014, the UN called out the government for breaching its treaty obligations, yet almost ten years later, action still needs to be taken. 

There are also many nuanced yet significant challenges of living as a foreigner in Korea. Without a Korean national identity card or phone number, people cannot reserve tables at restaurants, order delivery or book a taxi in advance. This has resulted in the creation of apps specifically to help foreigners navigate and warn others of discriminatory establishments around the country. 

The number of exclusionary nightclubs has significantly increased in recent years—with some even banning specific nationalities and races. In a viral TikTok video, a foreigner in Korea shows a sign listing “Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt” as nationalities forbidden from entering a Seoul nightclub. Another viral TikTok post shows a man walking by an infamously discriminatory club and getting pinned against the wall by security. Actions like these are beginning to raise many red flags as blatant acts of racism.

As a largely homogenous country, xenophobia and prejudice against non-Koreans is not a new phenomenon. With a foreign population of only 0.5% in 2000, the country is still adjusting to racial diversity in its population. The nation’s foreign population has tripled in the last decade (with most immigrants coming from China, Vietnam, Thailand and the U.S.) and is expected to increase in the upcoming years. 

Yet multiculturalism is becoming an integral part of Korean society. Popular neighborhoods in Seoul, including Itaewon and Hongdae, have grown diverse and include businesses owned by many foreign nationals. Upon entering Itaewon, a giant blue sign hangs over the street that says “Welcome to Korea!” and sidewalks are filled with gold plaques representing countries from all around the world.

Famous Korean shows like “Itaewon Class” have raised awareness for tackling the ‘taboo’ of racial discrimination against many foreigners. The character Toni, who is half Korean and half Guinean, has to explain to customers why he doesn’t speak English at his restaurant. This show received overwhelmingly positive feedback for the portrayal of struggles experienced by minorities, even in Korea’s most diverse neighborhood, Itaewon.

Looking into the future, the government plans to attract 300,000 foreign college students by 2027 through the Study Korea 300K Project. Multiculturalism is integral to that goal and is becoming increasingly important for the economy. South Korea also intends to have these students stay long-term—offering a fast-tracked path to permanent residence if they study at a Korean university. This project has been put in place to increase economic activity by increasing the amount of high-skilled workers. 

Though there is a push to embrace diversity and migration for college degree individuals, the South Korean government treats its migrant workers poorly, subjecting them to dangerous living conditions and providing few worker protections. This system has been cited as “modern-day slavery” with over 500 Thai national deaths alone since 2015. 

Migrant workers typically enter the country through the Employment Permit System (EPS) that legally ties them to their usually abusive employers. Currently, around 500,000 migrant workers are doing the so-called ‘dirty work’ (manufacturing, agriculture, and construction, among others) that South Koreans frown upon as an occupation. Half of these workers are there through the EPS and the other half are undocumented—usually overstaying their tourist visas. Documented or not, there are no legal systems in place to protect labor rights nor protections from arbitrary expulsion. 

In the past couple of years, there has been a dramatic increase in protests showing support for migrant worker rights. Many of these demonstrations have been fighting against the thousands of “unknown” manufacturing workers’ deaths. These large-scale demonstrations portray that Korean nationals are concerned about the well-being of foreign national workers. The government must realize that the future relies on foreigners working blue and white-collar jobs in the country. 

South Korea’s tug-of-war with becoming an increasingly multicultural society goes beyond just the need to implement anti-discriminatory policy. With the world’s lowest fertility rate, at 0.78, immigration may be the only answer to ensuring South Korea’s future as a nation. The number of foreign-born residents is expected to reach 10% by 2030, meaning the country must address these issues now and spearhead inclusivity from the workplace to nightclubs.  

The entire definition of South Korea’s national identity is changing at an exceptional rate. This tug-of-war is the result of these growing pains that were bound to happen. Rapid globalization coupled with the expansion of Korea’s soft power has had massive outreach to various demographics—something Korea has not previously experienced. 

There is a difference between discrimination and rejecting Westernization that Korea must acknowledge when considering the impacts of racism within the country. Further, there are ways to implement anti-discriminatory policy without using Westernized frameworks that the country can consider. Putting up a sign that states “no foreigners allowed” is designed specifically to bar people from entry due to the color of their skin.

Looking past the deaths of thousands of foreign national migrant workers is racism and a massive human rights violation that both Korean citizens and international institutions are beginning to become alarmed about. 

How will South Korea adapt to the transformation of its culture and identity? It’s up to the government to figure it out, and they should act hastily—to secure the economic and social goals they outline in the Study 300K Project and to hire a needed 300,000 migrant workers by 2030. It is crucial that the government stops the harm it allows migrant workers to endure and it must end the mistreatment of foreigners by businesses.

The post South Korea’s Tug of War With Multicultural Identity appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Though Taiwan only has a population of 23.5 million, its 2022 gross domestic product amounted to about $761.69 billion USD — ranking it #21 in the world — and is projected to reach $990.75 billion by 2028. Taiwan is crowned as one of the “Four Asian Tigers” alongside Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea — the Southeast Asian countries that experienced rapid industrialization and economic growth beginning in the 1960s and 1970s. Taiwan earned the title initially through its export-oriented economic strategies of exporting semiconductors, electronic components and computer hardware. 

Currently, Taiwan plays a vital role in the global supply chain, specifically in the technology sector. They are still a major producer and exporter of high-tech products. Taiwan’s tech companies dominate about “two-thirds of the semiconductor foundry market share with Taiwan Semiconductor Market Company (TSMC) controlling 84% of the production for the most advanced and efficient chips.” As a result, an increased number of “multinational corporations have invested in Taiwan in recent years, and demand for local talent with bilingual proficiency has also increased.” 

Further, the United States’ goal of trying to ‘decouple’ from China, meaning, trying to significantly decrease or sever economic dependence on Chinese supply chains, technology and trade in order to avoid national security risks and intellectual property theft has the potential to strengthen trading ties between Taiwan and the United States. From Taiwan’s perspective, this is another reason for their Bilingual 2030 pursuit — to increase its competitive advantages and international mobility to gain trading partners going forward, especially against competitor suppliers like Brazil, India and South Korea. 

Taiwan’s economic come up story and current success appear phenomenal at first glance. However, a closer look reveals that for both exports and imports, Taiwan’s “relative importance within global trade has fallen steadily since 2000.” In 2000, Taiwan ranked 14th in the world via exports, accounting for 2.3% of total world exports; in 2019, Taiwan ranked 17th in world exports, reducing its share of total exports to about 1.7%. Similarly, the bilateral trade relationship between the United States and Taiwan has greatly diminished. The United States has fallen to the fourth — from the first — largest trading partner for Taiwan since 2000. 

China and ASEAN (The Association of Southeast Asian Nations) members such as Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and Maynamar have had a competitive advantage over Taiwan through cheap labor and large domestic markets — attracting more foreign investment and trading partners — a key explanation for Taiwan’s diminishing trading relationships. 

In addition, Taiwan’s domestic workforce is predicted to steadily decline over the next decade. 2022 was a year with a historically low number of births and the most deaths ever, indicative of Taiwan going into a negative growth by 2031. Consequently, Taiwan’s economic structure is no longer “labor-intensive, it is technology-intensive,” and now needs to fill shifting industry and talent shortage demands in “biomedicine, green energy, defense, modern agricultural and the circular economy.”

To counter the low fertility rates and push to create a ‘Silicon Valley for Taiwan,’ Taiwan also seeks to gain 400,000 white-collar foreign workers by 2030 with at least 20,000 being Silicon Valley-adjacent innovators and 200,000 overseas students. Despite this goal, Taiwan suffered a 5% decline in total foreigners from 2020-2021 — with some critics arguing Taiwan can make itself more expat-friendly, such as boosting English-speaking rates. 

Coupled together — a decrease in global trade, diminishing trading relationships, negative population growth, shifting industry demands amidst talent shortages and a decline in needed expats explain why Taiwan is desperate to recruit foreign technical workers and boost its labor force. More so, it explains why Taiwan sees becoming a bilingual English-Mandarin nation as a key facilitator to these goals and overall productivity growth. Taiwan can’t supply a cheap, domestic labor force like China and ASEAN members did to increase exports and certain trading relationships. But, Taiwan can boost its English proficiency as a means of reducing barriers to foreign investment and facilitating itself as a a hub for multinational firms looking to enter the Asian market.” Likewise, Taiwan can hope to outcompete Hong Kong. Singapore, India and the Philippines where English is widely used in business, governmental and professional sectors. 

The Bilingual 2030 policy realizes Taiwan’s shifting demands and meets them with a twofold policy. Its first aim is to “help Taiwan’s workforce connect with the world,” and secondly, to “attract international enterprises to Taiwan and enable Taiwanese industries to connect to global markets and create high-quality jobs.” For these aims to be achieved, Taiwan’s workers must not only align their professional expertise with international standards, but also collaborate with counterparts from other countries and work in global markets targeted by Taiwan’s industries. 

Bilingual 2030 will stress college and senior high school education, supplemented by integrating English proficiency at all stages of education. In 2021, 21% of grade 12 and 6.5% of grade 9 students reached the B2 level (high-intermediate level) or higher on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for Languages, statistics that make 2030 bilingualism achievable. However, their high performance in receptive skills, reading and listening, were incongruent with their mediocre performance in writing and speaking — which is precisely what Taiwan wants to improve. The Ministry of Education has formulated six goals to bridge writing and speaking gaps and achieve bilingual proficiency. 

First, accelerate the development of bilingual higher education. The Ministry of Education plans to select universities that are able to speed up the implementation of bilingual teaching and make them a beacon for other Taiwanese universities. The ministry will collaborate with the British Council to provide consulting to universities in hopes of achieving the 50-50-50 target by 2030 — at least 50% of all university sophomores should have achieved B2 in listening, speaking, reading and writing, at least 50% of all sophomore and master students should have done at least 50% of their credits in full English for that academic year. 

Second, balance and optimize bilingual conditions for schools at the senior high school level and below. At a glance, this means enhancing students’ ability to use English in daily life, having STEM schools integrate more English, and adopting all-English teaching in English classes. Further, Taiwan seeks to form partnerships with the U.S., U.K. and Australia and have Taiwanese schools establish sister-school partnerships with these target countries — specifically to conduct online bilingual classes. By 2030, Taiwan hopes to have “one in every six schools nationwide to establish a partnership with a foreign sister school.”

Third, develop digital learning. The Ministry of Education aims to distribute technology to remote areas to bridge proficiency gaps between urban and rural areas. Likewise, Taiwanese university students with higher proficiency will online-tutor remote and disadvantaged students. 

Fourth, expand the provision of affordable English proficiency tests to gauge the progress of Bilingual 2030. With the support of the Ministry of Education, Taiwan developed their own English proficiency test — about a half to one-third the price of foreign English tests — to increase access for more rural, economically-disadvantaged demographics. 

Fifth, raise civil servants’ English proficiency. Bilingual 2030 will initially focus on the civil service whose work is integrated with international affairs and where English is pertinent to their job. In the future, English will be taught to all civil servants and the portion of English testing on civil service exams will be increased. 

Sixth, establish an administrative body dedicated to policy promotion and implementation. Bilingual 2030 is still a novel and nebulous long-term initiative and requires various stakeholders to collaborate and reach a consensus. The Bilingual Policy Development Center will “assist with the horizontal integration of measures relating to education, examinations, and training across 31 related government agencies. It will provide these agencies with vertical specialized services ranging from policy research to policy execution and consolidate international cooperation efforts under the policy.” 

In addition to the six initiatives, Taiwan has plans for multiple other ancillary initiatives. For example, there are plans to have “government regulations, policies, and websites in legally binding English” eliminating translation barriers to foreign businesses. The government will also “promote the establishment of an exclusively English-language television station, and both TV and radio broadcasters will be encouraged to produce English-language programming.” While Bilingual 2030 is still ongoing trial and error with each municipality and school having to acclimate the policies to its students, it’s a significant step for the island’s future.  

Taiwan faces various economic challenges which will only be exacerbated in the face of rapid globalization, the rise of AI, its volatile relationship with China and competition from neighboring countries. However, Taiwan can control its future by endowing its workers and future generations with bilingualism, global perspectives and international mobility. 

The post Taiwan’s Bilingual 2030 policy — why Taiwan has formulated it and what it entails appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The women born during the one-child policy should be bolstering the workforce and becoming wives and mothers. Instead, China grapples with a surplus of bachelors, a booming bride trafficking industry to heal lost causes, a labor shortage and a shocking population decline. 

China’s skewed sex ratio has produced a textbook supply and demand problem, with bachelorettes as the products and bachelors paying the price. Many marriages in China operate on a dowry system, where the groom gives the bride’s family a financial gift as a token of appreciation. In some provinces, dowry payments now average over $20,000, creating a bidding war between eager bachelors. Governments are working to set a limit for bride prices, but it is an insufficient remedy to the high demand. Some rural areas with faulty transportation systems are even shifting into “bachelor villages,” with an unusual excess supply of middle-aged bachelors. Experts warn that this demographic makeup will become the new norm, predicting that in 2055, there will be 30% more single men than women. 

In a cruel attempt to provide wives to desperate bachelors, an elaborate bride trafficking ring was formed in Southeast Asia. In February, police detained two women in the Bac Lieu province of southern Vietnam for allegedly trafficking over 30 females, many of whom were children, into China to be sold as wives. The two ringleaders targeted financially struggling women, promising employment and a paycheck of $4,000 to their families back home. However, once these women arrived in China, they were sold as wives for upwards of 400 million VND, which is almost $17,000. From 2019 to 2021, it is estimated this trafficking ring generated more than $42,000, and it is not alone. Activists assert that thousands of women are trafficked from Southeast Asia into China yearly. 

China’s working population is also expected to fall 40% from its 2010 levels in the next 100 years. The women born during the one-child policy now stand precariously on the seemingly mutually exclusive line between corporate success and familial obligations. Women occupy the esteemed role of “president” in 241 Chinese companies, almost triple the amount in 2012. Yet this success juxtaposes a female employment rate of 61.6%, the lowest the country has seen in decades. Women are doing better than they ever have in the workplace, yet fewer of them are in the workplace than ever before. 

Interestingly, despite this exodus of female workers, fertility rates continue to wither. China’s national birth rate plummeted to a record low in 2022, with 6.077 births per 1,000 people, as did the national fertility rate, with 1.1 children per woman. The population is shrinking, and the future of China hangs in the balance.

2022 was the first year since the end of the Great Leap Forward, a famine that wiped out millions, that the country’s population decreased. China desperately blasts propaganda encouraging couples to “have children for the country.” Even the People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s official newspaper, dedicated a whole page to family planning, featuring an op-ed titled: “Having Children is a Family Matter and a National Matter.” Fearful of a future with an exorbitant elder-dependency ratio and a deepening labor gap, local governments are even going so far as incentivizing births. Shenzhen provides parents of three children with an annual subsidy of $890 until their third child turns three. Other cities, such as Jinan, have followed suit, providing a monthly stipend of $83 for the second and third child until they turn three. 

The one-child policy is not the only perpetrator of this deeply rooted gender imbalance. Globally, sex ratios at birth remain skewed to favor men. In 2006, in the U.S., 104.9 males were born for every 100 females. Malawi’s sex ratio was the closest to equal, but even then, 100.3 males were born for every 100 females. China’s patriarchal cultural makeup is to blame. Traditionally, the bloodline is passed down through the male side; thus, having a son ensures a retirement plan, while having a daughter forecasts abandonment. 

The exaggeration of these “missing women” has been much debated, as many experts attribute the skewed ratio to neglected birth registration. Yet, the gender imbalance in the world’s second-largest economy remains undeniable. The one-child policy left women forgotten, disregarded, and underappreciated. Now, China and the world must deal with its reverberating consequences.  

The post The Missing Women of China: Where are they now? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

On February 3, officials at Memphis Zoo in Tennessee announced the unexpected death of one of their giant pandas, Le Le (which means ‘happiness’ in Chinese). An autopsy revealed that Le Le died of heart disease. 

Le Le and his partner Ya Ya came to the United States in 2003 as part of a joint research program between the Memphis Zoo and the Chinese Association of Zoological Gardens – an initiative focused on panda protection and conservation.

Le Le was initially expected to be returned to China with his partner Ya Ya (‘cute girl’) in April of this year. Due to their scarcity, pandas are usually offered on loan by China, with the expectation of return at the end of the term. Le Le’s death brought grief and sorrow to the global community but also sparked fury among animal rights  and panda lovers, who believe that Le Le and Ya Ya were suffering from mistreatment in the zoo, a factor which they allege caused Le Le’s passing. 

Over the last two years, U.S. animal rights organizations such as In Defense of Animals (IDA) and Panda Voices have repeatedly requested that the Memphis Zoo send their pandas back to a sanctuary in China. The reason for this request stems from their claims of malnourishment, skin disease and excessive caging of the pandas. Disheartening images of Le Le and Ya Ya have circulated, showing both pandas as grubby, distressed and malnourished. This specific image of Ya Ya was tweeted by IDA in late November of 2021. In early 2022, panda activists in both the United States and China expressed similar concerns about Le Le’s and Ya Ya’s health conditions, especially when comparing them to pandas within similar age ranges living in other zoos around the world.

The Memphis Zoo responded to the criticisms and defended itself in a statement after Le Le’s death, calling out misinformation. They explained that they truly cared for Le Le and Ya Ya and had been looking after them and closely monitoring their health conditions. This did not assuage public concerns. Le Le’s death trended on Chinese social media, with Chinese panda lovers calling for the early return of Ya Ya. Some panda lovers residing in the United States have donated money for better food and treatment of Ya Ya and even flew to Memphis to ensure her safety. Meanwhile, others streamed videos about Le Le and Ya Ya’s experience on the digital screens at Times Square in New York City, hoping to bring more public attention to the issue. 

Pandas have been considered an important part of U.S.-China relations from the very start. In 1972, President Nixon’s visit to China paved the way for the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between the two countries. As a gesture of friendship, China gifted two giant pandas to the United States. Since then, more and more pandas have traveled to different countries around the world to promote cross-cultural communication and collaboration, as well as propel research on animal preservation. Currently, around 20 countries in the world have pandas; three U.S. zoos have currently loaned pandas from China. This long-term initiative by China has had dual benefits: not only are people interested in learning about China as a result of pandas, but the joint efforts also contributed to the removal of pandas from China’s endangered species list in 2021. 

Chinese people also refer to giant pandas as Guobao (‘national treasure’), a strong indicator that they take pride in pandas and see them as a representation of their country. According to People’s Daily, four characteristics are essential for an animal to attain status as a so-called national treasure: the animal is unique or mostly owned by a specific country; it reflects the country’s cultural characteristics; it represents the country’s image; and it is closely related to the country’s development. Pandas’ black-and-white appearance echoes China’s philosophical concept of Yin and Yang, and the species is well-built and signals humbleness, peace and harmony. These concepts constitute the national image that China wants to show the world. In fact, one of the mascots during the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics was a panda; The 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics also had the panda as the only mascot.

Scholars consider pandas to be China’s soft power, which refers to a country’s values and culture that foreigners find attractive. Sharing these values and cultural aspects with international audiences will pique their curiosity and increase their favorable perception towards this specific country. This will eventually help improve bilateral relations, encourage commerce, communication and other types of exchanges between the domestic and foreign public. In a New York Times article, political science professor Andrew J. Nathan from Columbia University said that pandas constitute an image of friendship diplomacy. Even with tensions rising between the United States and China over the past decade and the American public holding a generally negative view of China, pandas remain an aspect of China that they find positive. The Smithsonian National Zoo’s panda habitat continues to be the destination spot for tourists; when a panda cub was born at the National Zoo in 2020, over 4.2 million users watched the live stream.

Politicians often see panda diplomacy as one-way diplomacy, or China’s political tool to influence the foreign public. However, they fail to understand that panda diplomacy works both ways and carries a reverse effect, as the meanings that pandas embody also make them important to Chinese people. Le Le’s death is unlikely to create further damage to inter-governmental U.S.-China relations overall, as neither the Chinese nor the U.S. government officials have commented on this. The incident also does not carry any direct political implications. Yet it will, to some extent, affect how the Chinese public views the United States, making them believe the country is disrespectful of its relations with China. This in turn may potentially discourage cross-cultural communication and exchanges between the two countries, making them less likely to cooperate in international affairs.

For the Chinese public, giving out their ‘national treasure’ to a foreign country is a gesture of goodwill. However, the death of Le Le and the controversies surrounding panda mistreatment at Memphis Zoo has only made Chinese panda lovers question the sincerity of the United States. Chinese news media commented in an editorial: “The current look of Ya Ya not only breaks the hearts of the Chinese people. We hope that its health condition can improve after returning to China. When even giant pandas are affected and implicated, it indicates the China-US relations are already quite bad. This is a strong warning signal. It shows that the hostile posture of some Washington elites toward China has already affected the normal and friendly interactions between the two peoples.”

The dispute over panda mistreatment in the United States might have also unexpectedly changed and furthered relations between the Chinese public and other countries. The death of Le Le  panda lovers examine how pandas are being treated in other countries. Chinese media as well as content creators compared and contrast how pandas are being treated in different countries. The zoo in South Korea received praise for their care of three pandas. The caretaker Kang Cherwon, who Chinese panda lovers affectionately called “Grandpa Kang,” decided to learn Chinese and teach Chinese to the South Korean-born panda cub Fu Bao, in hopes of reducing language barriers for the cub after she returns to China. In an interview with Chinese media this March, Cherwon introduced the pandas’ conditions in Chinese. Panda treatment in Russia, Qatar and Japan has also been reported more favorably.

China’s panda diplomacy, as a part of public diplomacy, can be considered successful as it promotes positive engagement between China and the foreign public. In essence, China’s panda diplomacy continues to establish cultural ties between China and other countries. Panda lovers across the world are now waiting to see if Ya Ya will recover after she returns to China this April. Her condition and behavior at home will soon provide a concrete answer to what her real experience at the Memphis Zoo was like. What follows might once again cause further reverse effects between the U.S. and Chinese public, hindering cross-cultural interactions and understanding.

The post Death of Le Le and the Reverse Effect of China’s Panda Diplomacy appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The notion of hensachi is closely related to the culture of shame within Japan. Shame occupies an important place in the moral system of East Asian civilization. In Confucian texts, shame links personal value and social perception. The assessment of others has become the primary motivation for forming a “Japanese personality.” 

The knowledge of shame is the foundation of Japanese virtue. Under the influence of shame culture, Japanese people have a strong sense of group consciousness and conformity to collective standards, ideals which support the formation of Japanese society’s cultural and political identities. 

On the one hand, the culture of shame promotes the importance of hard work and attaining a state of “perfection” through self-cultivation, as such a virtue would contribute to society’s development. But on the other hand, it emphasizes the importance of “knowing shame” as the basis of virtue and that individuals should not act outside the existing rules.

In some aspects, the development of the modern-day shame culture is closely related to the prevalence of hensachi. Beyond academics, more factors, such as appearance, personality, and job employment, are analyzed for deviance. After research, I found three parts that intertwined with the uniqueness of such culture in three components of Japanese society —1) Political Factions, 2) Corporate Culture, and 3) Family Values. 

1. Political Factions

The formation of factional politics in Japan is inextricably linked to the traditional

social and cultural relationship of dominance and subordination. Political factions, in other perspectives, are more like conventional social structures and organizational forms. The faction still follows the traditional family principle of familial kinship. After the Meiji Restoration, the high level of economic modernization remained the core of society and culture.

For example, in the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, there are many factions with a dominant leader at the core of politics within each faction. The most dominant faction, in turn, influences the party’s policies and emphasizes the leader rather than the party’s ideology. Under such a system, many follow the leader, thus tying back to the idea of hensachi, a signifier of unification without space for deviance from mass belief. 

2. Corporate Culture

In the 19th century, the power of corporations was concentrated in a single person, and most companies employed relatives as their foremost directors. Thus, most enterprises started as family businesses. The business operates in many areas, employs many people, and accounts for a significant portion of the gross national product. An example of such an enterprise is Mitsubishi, which expanded from a small group of people to a huge corporation. 

Japanese businesses believe that the traditional culture of morality and order provides the ideological basis for all activities. In addition, companies are often viewed as an extension of the family and emphasize the need to create a family atmosphere of harmony within the company, transforming the employment relationship into a form of “kinship.”

This type of kinship has led many people in Japan to believe that employees are a part of the company and should be loyal and willing to devote themselves to it. Managers should not only guide their employees but also pay attention to their lives and give them a sense of belonging and security. Employees tend to have a simple collective mindset and subordinate individual interests to the collective will. 

As a result, Japanese entrepreneurs see business not only as an economic entity to gain profits but also as a place to satisfy a wide range of employee needs to connect them within one unit. Japanese companies’ continuous and rapid development is closely related to employees’ loyalty to the company. In addition, Japanese companies also regard public welfare and national benefit as their responsibility and consider the pursuit of social responsibility a priority. In this sense, Japanese corporate culture has also played a positive role in promoting the construction of the rule of law and morality in Japanese society.

3. Family Values

Last but not least, the family values in society build the foundation of the idea of hensachi and subsequent political and cultural values. Families are considered well-disciplined and promote internal collaboration, suggesting that everyone has a role in the family. Moreover, traditional family values are the first stage to start the cycle of finding the “right” position in society, contributing to the culture of shame when failing to achieve one’s pre-proposed role.

For instance, the Japanese culture has introduced a family culture into the businesses, viewing them as homes where the proprietor must consider keeping and expanding the “family” business.

The modern state of the nation itself shapes the Japanese family system. The formation of the family involves two overarching influences. First, with the capital/industrial system as the main body, the state worked to establish a set of family systems that could supply sufficient labor for the industry to meet the needs of national industrialization. Second, with the state as apparatus, Japan established a “family-mediated” management system that exercised direct domination over individuals, eliminating individual differences from the fundamental units in society.

“Hensachi,” a unique word that only exists in the Japanese language, speaks to the volume of collectivism and the concerns of social harmony within Japan. The three parts of society that were being analyzed: 1) Political Factions, 2) Corporate Culture, and 3) Family Values all tie in with the idea of avoiding being deviant, revealing a bottom-up social value system that promotes harmony and prosperity within Japan. It is interesting to note how cultural identities define a nation’s political, economic, and individual characteristics. 
However, as globalization grows, we are witnessing a new trend within Japanese society: groups of individuals seek ways to express themselves differently. These expressions are considered bold and against strict societal norms and unspoken rules. Moreover, as the declining birth rate and high suicide rate raise consciousness, people are seeking ways to interpret their lives in new ways.

The post How Does “Hensachi” Define Japan’s Political & Cultural Values appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

For the first time in decades, the number of deaths in China exceeded the number of births in 2022, a shift that could profoundly reshape the global economy. So why is a declining population not good news? 

The first problem is that a declining population also means an aging population without a stable foundation of support. Populations generally rely on the young to support the elderly. 

As China’s social security system is relatively underdeveloped, its elderly rely heavily on government assistance. In the short term, negative population growth will reduce government spending on newborns and youth development. As we see less labor force participation in the Chinese economy, fewer citizens are required to support a growing elder population, leading to reduced tax revenue being collected from the smaller participating working force and contributing to significant economic pressure. 

An aging population, in turn, means an increase in the burden of pensions and medical care for the whole society and a continuous accumulation of the risk of social insurance revenues not covering expenses, which affects social harmony and stability. China’s social insurance system relies heavily on financial subsidies and cannot maintain a self-sustaining balance. 

In other words, the funding of social programs ultimately depends on taxes paid by the working-age population, and concerns about the long-term fiscal future of China stem primarily from the rising proportion of older dependents — that is, the ratio of older people to the working-age population. 

As the proportion of China’s elderly dependents soars, the government faces the difficulty of imposing heavier taxes, which would restrain people’s willingness to spend or decrease government spending. This may be detrimental to many families and individuals relying on government support. 

The other problem is more subtle but also severe. To maintain full employment, a country must maintain high aggregate spending to keep up with the economy’s productive capacity. A shrinking population would make this task easier by reducing production capacity. 

However, a declining population, especially working-age, often reduces some essential expenditures, especially investment. Therefore, the impact of negative population growth on the demand side of the economy is more prominent. 

In the case of specific per capita consumption, population reduction means a decline in total consumption. At the same time, due to the bearish market outlook and deteriorating expectations, corporate investment decisions tend to be conservative, and investment intentions subsequently decline, inhibiting entrepreneurship and private enterprises. 

As a result, the development gap between industries is widening, and traditional industries such as agriculture and foodstuffs, textiles, and daily necessities are facing more significant difficulties in development. 

Some production capacities and enterprises will be scrapped and withdrawn from the market. If the number of workers declines, there is less need to build new capital. In the long run, the declining population would signify the slowdown of China’s economy. All else being equal, China, with a declining working-age population, might be more susceptible to economic weakness. 

Beyond the problems already discussed, the government might save public resources. Negative population growth reduces the number of people served by infrastructure, public facilities, and other corresponding services, posing a greater challenge to the economies of scale and value realization of public resources. 

Taking education resources as an example, with the implementation of the new urbanization strategy, urban-rural and regional population movements have accelerated. The school-age population in many rural areas and small towns has significantly declined, resulting in many school buildings being left unused. Population shrinkage will also significantly increase the difficulty of allocating public resources, placing higher demands on timely grasping population changes and making scientific forecasts.

Beyond domestic impacts, economists are worried that China’s shrinking workforce could be detrimental to the global economy because China remains one of the world’s largest export countries. Moreover, since the country’s demographic and economic development prospects are bleaker than expected, the world may be facing the question of who will fill the gap for a cheap labor force. China’s past “miracle” and former status as the “world’s factory” was based on a labor surplus. Today, the country is facing a labor shortage.

However, there may be opportunities for China to change this negative outlook. First, it is critical to promote economic transformation and development to enhance national welfare. With negative population growth, less production capacity will be reserved to meet the demand of the newborn population in the future, and a greater amount of national income can be released for consumption and welfare, thus improving living standards. 

Negative population growth in China will create favorable conditions for expanding the role of consumption in economic development and promoting economic transformation. At the same time, given a certain amount of resources, a declining population means a higher per capita share of resources and an improved level of welfare. 

Second, population decline might alleviate the pressure on resources and the environment and strengthen ecological protection. Reducing China’s population is conducive to easing ecological carrying pressure, promoting environmental protection and restoration and promoting more coordinated development of population, resources, and the environment.

The negative population growth trend has led many to lament that China may enter an aging society before it becomes affluent. This phenomenon will likely imply slower economic growth, as the government will soon outlive its income when health care and social welfare costs soar. This internal impact may motivate the Chinese government to seek new directions regarding their regime. It may lead to possible changes, such as new regulations regarding birth policies, in the country in the following years.

The post China’s Population Decline and the Ripple Effects appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.