| Literature DB >> 31684106 |
Ling Yang1, Kai Zhao2, Zhen Fan3.
Abstract
The paper aims to examine the population ageing process in northeast China, typically perceived as a region experiencing dramatic demographic change and socio-economic slowdown that is much deeper and more significant compared to other regions. Using the 2000 and 2010 census data at the sub-regional level, the SEM (spatial error model) estimation suggests that at least seven socio-economic factors are associated with the evolution of the ageing pattern in northeast China, including birth rate, mortality, education, healthcare conditions, the level of economic development, urbanization, and population mobility. However, these associations vary according to time and space, which are further confirmed by the geographical weighted regression (GWR). These findings imply that there are complicated and diversified factors which may be associated with the deteriorating population ageing at the local level in northeast China. Therefore, the sustainable development of the northeast region may not be delivered by dichotomous policy interventions, such as the control of birth rate or mortality rate, as many of the previous studies have focused on; instead, the implementation of ageing policy shall be consistent and complementary with the principles of social benefits, for example, providing incentives for improving regional economic structures, or by policies aimed at building up an adequate "tolerant culture" for slowing down population outflows.Entities:
Keywords: ageing; birth rate; northeast China; socio-economic factors
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31684106 PMCID: PMC6861940 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16214265
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The location of the northeast region in China.
Definitions of variables.
| Variable Labels | Description |
|---|---|
| Demographic factors | |
| Aged population | The local residents older than or equal to 65. Hence, the level of ageing is defined in the usual way as the number of aged population divided by the total population |
| Birth rate | The average annual number of births during a year per 1000 persons in the population |
| Mortality | The average annual number of deaths during a year per 1000 population |
| Socio-economic factors | |
| Illiteracy rate | The percentage of illiterate population over the total population |
| Health1 | The number of employees who work in the health and medical industry divided by the total population employed |
| Industrial sector size | The number of workers employed in the secondary industry including mining, manufacturing, production and supply of electricity, gas and water and construction, divided by the total population employed |
| Urbanization level | The rate of urban population over the total population |
| Population mobility | The ratio of the total number of local residents who have unmoved more than 6 months over the total number of permanent residents |
Note: (1) following Yuan et al. (2007) [25], we assume a lower level of illiteracy rate has a certain positive effect on the ageing of a population, as it signals a higher level of social provision including education quality; (2) following Yang et al. (2016) [22], we assume the decline of traditional industries is accompanied with a dramatic outflow of young skilled population, thus accelerating the process of population ageing in the northeast region; (3) following Liu et al. (2015) [26], a value of population mobility greater than 1 indicates a sign of population inflow whereas that of smaller than 1 implies an outflow. In less developed regions in China, the population flow mainly comprises of young and middle-aged labor, thus a population outflow inevitably increases the proportion of ageing population over total population and the ageing of population is likely to accelerate more quickly and severely.
Figure 2Ageing index of the cities in northeast China. (a) Year 2000; (b) Year 2010.
Figure 3LMS index of the cities in northeast China. (a) Year 2000; (b) Year 2010.
Spatial econometric estimation 1.
| Year 2000 | Year 2010 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLS | SLM | SEM | OLS | SLM | SEM | |
| Birth rate | −6.05 *** | −5.61 *** | −6.17 *** | −7.04 *** | −6.54 *** | −6.10 *** |
| (−6.72) | (−4.67) | (−6.82) | (−6.87) | (−6.11) | (−7.31) | |
| Mortality | 8.33 *** | 6.52 *** | 5.03 *** | 7.24 *** | 5.75 *** | 3.61 *** |
| (13.99) | (11.34) | (12.03) | (10.00) | (10.47) | (11.02) | |
| Illiteracy | 0.22 | 0.88 *** | 1.50 *** | 1.01 ** | 1.03 *** | 1.41 *** |
| (0.16) | (5.83) | (3.76) | (2.43) | (3.61) | (3.73) | |
| Health 1 | 3.77 *** | 2.64 *** | 0.94 ** | 1.07 | 0.60 | 0.31 |
| (5.37) | (4.87) | (2.40) | (0.06) | (0.10) | (0.14) | |
| Industrial sector size | 1.86 *** | 1.16 *** | 0.11 | 1.85 *** | 1.13 *** | 0.71 * |
| (7.54) | (6.33) | (0.43) | (4.70) | (4.01) | (1.76) | |
| Urbanization | −4.66 *** | −3.03 *** | −0.61 | −0.68 | 0.11 | 0.98 ** |
| −8.52) | (−8.92) | (−1.06) | (−0.81) | (0.14) | (2.26) | |
| Population mobility | 5.12 *** | 3.77 *** | 0.03 | −6.93 *** | −7.14 *** | −7.82 *** |
| (3.89) | (3.41) | (0.12) | (-5.83) | (−4.36) | (−4.90) | |
| constant | 7.83 *** | 5.03 *** | 5.13 *** | 7.03 *** | 4.68 *** | 7.85 *** |
| (13.15) | (11.02) | (10.04) | (11.45) | (10.82) | (10.97) | |
| LIK | −188.14 | −160.26 | −145.07 | −265.63 | −248.86 | −242.28 |
| AIC | 392.29 | 338.53 | 306.15 | 547.27 | 515.73 | 500.56 |
| SC | 418.43 | 367.94 | 332.29 | 573.41 | 545.14 | 526.70 |
| R2 | 0.73 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.63 | 0.70 | 0.74 |
| Moran’s I (error) | 4.16 *** | 6.11 *** | ||||
| LM (lag) | 47.22 *** | 32.62 *** | ||||
| LM(error) | 12.83 *** | 30.57 *** | ||||
| Obs | 194 | 194 | 194 | 194 | 194 | 194 |
Note: dependent variable: the proportion of ageing population; T-values in parentheses, Sig: * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01; ‘Health 1’ is measured by the number of employees who work in the health and medical industry divided by the total population employed.
Comparison of mortality rate between elderly population and young population.
| China | Liaoning | Jilin | Heilongjiang | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 2010 | 2000 | 2010 | 2000 | 2010 | 2000 | 2010 | |
| 0–14 | 0.043 | 0.011 | 0.016 | 0.004 | 0.020 | 0.003 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| 65+ | 0.397 | 0.419 | 0.440 | 0.434 | 0.350 | 0.300 | 0.305 | 0.357 |
| 0–34 | 0.079 | 0.029 | 0.043 | 0.019 | 0.050 | 0.017 | 0.042 | 0.017 |
Note: the results are expressed in percentage points, unit: the ratio of deaths over the total population.
Spatial econometric estimation 2.
| Year 2000 | Year 2010 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLS | SLM | SEM(1) | SEM(2) | OLS | SLM | SEM(1) | SEM(2) | |
| Birth rate | −2.61 *** | −2.48 *** | −3.08 *** | 3.08 *** | −6.64 *** | −5.84 *** | −3.03 *** | −3.07 *** |
| (−5.60) | (−6.97) | (−7.59) | (−7.58) | (−6.59) | (−6.73) | (−6.99) | (−6.46) | |
| Mortality | 7.48 *** | 4.91 *** | 4.97 *** | 4.95 *** | 7.56 *** | 5.10 *** | 4.59 *** | 4.89 *** |
| (12.96) | (9.63) | (9.20) | (9.07) | (9.21) | (6.72) | (5.22) | (5.69) | |
| Education expenditure | −0.06 | −0.12 ** | −0.13 ** | −0.13 ** | −0.07 | −0.11 | 0.01 | −0.05 |
| (−0.77) | (−2.12) | (−2.40) | (−2.41) | (−0.46) | (−0.86) | (0.02) | (−0.33) | |
| Health 2 | 0.35 * | 0.41 *** | 0.38 *** | 0.38 *** | 0.56 ** | 0.45 * | 0.39 | 0.40 |
| (1.82) | (2.73) | (2.88) | (2.87) | (1.97) | (1.87) | (1.61) | (1.61) | |
| Industrial sector size | 2.10 *** | 0.75 *** | 0.10 | 2.20 *** | 1.30 *** | 1.25 *** | ||
| (7.34) | (3.19) | (0.35) | (5.72) | (3.86) | (3.17) | |||
| Tertiary sector size | −0.36 | –0.52 | –0.58 | –0.61 | –1.86 * | –2.07 ** | –1.26 | –2.19 ** |
| (−0.54) | (–1.00) | (–1.13) | (–1.18) | (–1.95) | (–2.56) | (–1.58) | (–2.52) | |
| Urbanization | –2.77 *** | –0.93 ** | –0.61 | –0.04 | 0.78 | 1.54 ** | 1.92 ** | 1.73 ** |
| (–5.16) | (–2.19) | (–1.06) | (–0.09) | (1.16) | (2.65) | (3.09) | (2.80) | |
| Population mobility | 5.36 *** | 0.58 | 0.05 | –1.00 | –6.89 *** | –8.61 *** | –8.31 *** | –8.51 *** |
| (3.07) | (0.42) | (0.12) | (–0.61) | (–3.61) | (–5.27) | (–4.40) | (–4.56) | |
| constant | 6.32 *** | 2.57 *** | 6.03 *** | 6.11 *** | 6.72 *** | 3.83 ** | 8.64 *** | 8.34 *** |
| (7.52) | (3.54) | (8.74) | (8.31) | (4.48) | (2.84) | (6.41) | (6.23) | |
| LIK | –200.00 | –161.65 | –224.76 | –160.40 | –266.44 | –253.93 | –258.21 | –244.50 |
| AIC | 418.01 | 341.29 | 465.53 | 340.81 | 550.88 | 525.86 | 532.42 | 509.00 |
| SC | 447.42 | 373.49 | 491.68 | 370.71 | 580.29 | 555.27 | 558.56 | 541.68 |
| R2 | 0.70 | 0.81 | 0.61 | 0.83 | 0.63 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.70 |
| Moran’s I (error) | 5.70 *** | 10.12 *** | 4.70 *** | |||||
| LM (lag) | 79.19 *** | 43.88 *** | ||||||
| LM(error) | 76.71 *** | 48.01 *** | 25.02 *** | |||||
| Obs | 194 | 194 | 194 | 194 | 194 | 194 | 194 | 194 |
Note: dependent variable: the proportion of ageing population; T-values in parentheses, Sig: * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01; ‘Health2’ is measured by the number of hospital beds per capita, SEM(1) is the estimation excluding industrial sector size, and SEM(2) includes both industrial sector size and tertiary sector size.
Figure 4The spatial variability of the effect of birth rate on population ageing. Note: the coefficients within the Liaoning province were not significant in 2010. (a) Year 2000; (b) Year 2010.
Figure 5The spatial variability of the effect of mortality on population ageing. (a) Year 2000; (b) Year 2010.
Figure 6The spatial variability of the effect of industrial structure on population ageing. (a) Year 2000; (b) Year 2010.
Figure 7The spatial variability of the effect of healthcare conditions and population mobility on population ageing. (a) Healthcare conditions in 2000; (b) Population mobility in 2010. Note: the coefficients of healthcare conditions were not significant for all cities in 2010; the coefficients of population mobility were significant in the northern border of Jilin, eastern Jilin, and eastern Liaoning.