Social cost of upbringing needs review

At the end of 2013, the Chinese movie director Zhang Yimou and his wife Chen Ting admitted in a television interview they had breached the family planning regulations by giving birth to three children. The couple said they made a mistake and are willing to correct it by cooperating with the Wuxi Family Planning Committee and paying the social cost of upbringing - she hui fu yang fei - which it is estimated will be a record high of 7 million yuan ($1.15 million).

What is the social cost of upbringing and does it have reasonable grounds to exist? According to the official explanation, since China is a country with a huge population but limited natural resources, an excessive increase in the population would impose a burden on society as a whole that would eventually be too heavy to bear, impeding China's development into a prosperous and industrialized country. Accordingly, since children consume social resources and public services, parents should pay to offset the costs caused by any children not allowed under the family planning policy.

However, there are several issues arising from collecting payments intended to cover the social cost of upbringing, and it is time to take a closer look at the system.

The major criteria for calculating the social cost of upbringing is the per capita income in certain districts, the income of the parents, and the circumstances involved in violating the birth control policy. As a result, "the same life but different price" charges have emerged, as the same violation of the family planning policy could mean a different social cost of upbringing charge depend on the region. Take Beijing for example, the social cost of upbringing for couples violating the family planning policy is 3 to 10 times the average disposable income of urban residents or the net income of rural residents based on statistics from the Beijing Municipal Statistics Bureau. This is known as the cardinal number. However, different districts in the capital enjoy wide discretionary power when applying the fine. In Chaoyang, one of the richest districts in Beijing, the social cost of upbringing is 10 times the cardinal number compared to 5 to 6 times of cardinal number in Changping, a suburb in northern Beijing. The gap may amount to over 180,000 yuan, yet it is hard to say that a child born in Chaoyang would consume more resources and be a heavier burden on society than one born in Changping.

Similarly, it's unfair to say that an "extra" member of a rich family will necessarily consume more social resources than one from a less well-off family. If the rich are levied a higher social cost of upbringing charge, it is like a punishment for being rich, which contradicts the stated purpose of the fees.