Short answer: The goal of faster national GDP growth can be achieved when labor force growth is slowing only by increasing GDP per capita growth.  So, if the goal is to reduce population growth while increasing national GDP, productivity per capita must increase.

Longer answer   

The family planning policies adopted after the 1960s were intended to reduce the birth rate because of concerns of Malthusian overpopulation – more demands for food than could be delivered by the domestic economy that would lead to mass starvation and political discontent.

The economic reform policies adopted after 1978 were intended to increase GDP per capita. That is to say “move people to jobs where their output was higher”. Example, Farmer Li produces annual GDP output of $500 on the farm, but she can produce output of $2000 per annum in the manufacturing industry making goods for export…which also earns needed foreign currency. So, moving a migrant laborer from farming to manufacturing could increase GDP. Moving 250 million internal migrants from the farms to the factories could and did have a huge positive effect on GDP.

In conclusion, the family planning policies started in the 1960s raised questions about the strength of China’s economic future. If population growth slowed and GDP per capita did not increase, China faced collapse. The economic reforms post 1978 showed that modernization and urbanization were the way to achieve both slower population growth and higher national GDP.

Conclusion

Mao was a revolutionary not an economist. He achieved the revolution but failed to modernize China because he was pre-modern in his thinking. Deng Xiao Ping understood economics and thus China grew rapidly after the 1978 economic reforms.

Modified Question: How might looking at the Chinese & US responses to Covid-19 help students understand fundamental differences between an authoritarian state (China) and a democratic one (the USA)?

UN-WHO Covid-19 Country Statistics For 1/3/2020-11/12/2021

China has had 127,018 confirmed cases with 5,697 deaths. China’s 2021 population is 1.447 billion or 433% of US population.

The US has had 46,501,534 confirmed cases with 752,960 deaths. The US 2021 population is 334 million or 23% of China.

The US has had confirmed cases at 366 times the Chinese level and deaths at 132 times the Chinese level (data not adjusted for population size).

Adjusting for China’s larger population, the US has had confirmed cases at 1585 times the Chinese rate as % population and deaths at 572 times the Chinese rate as % population.

Different National Responses

China was quick to impose domestic and international travel restrictions while promoting quarantining, social distancing, and contact tracing systems. 74% population is fully vaccinated.

American politicians were slow to adopt a national response and state/city level responses have varied widely. 58.7% population is fully vaccinated.

Questions

Which country was best organized to meet the Covid-19 challenge?

Which country best served public health?

Did China’s political system help it to effectively manage Covid-19? In what ways?

Did the US political system hurt Covid-19 management? In what ways?

Sources

https://covid19.who.int/region/amro/country/us

https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/

When I taught junior High School in China in 2014-15 and part of 2016, I tried to teach this very complex topic, essentially, contrasting China's political system with ideal-types of 'Western' democracies- using powerpoint !   Certainly, this is a topic bound to fascinate many students around the world, a topic which it can be hard to find sufficiently unbiased coverage of.  That is, even distinguished American China scholars writing in the New York Review of Books often wear their contempt for China's political system like a badge of pride...

(1)One interesting, because relatively simple, way to draw the contrast between authoritarian/democratic states is to compare China and the United States' (or another countries') constitutions, provided we understand that the word 'political constitution' has a narrower (documental) and a wider (institutional) meaning.

(2) It's also the case that countries in which Marxist-Leninist groups attained power in the XXth century standardly described themselves as 'democracies', which can help to focus the question for students.   A further complication is that modern representative democracy differs enormously from its ancient Greek origins (and this contrast about ancient vs. modern democracy is a topic students are drawn to as well, and a great and accessible literature exists about it).  Scale is relevant here : even if contested elections work, to some extent, in India, are they really workable at the SCALE of the biggest states in the world in general ? Does this change in the digital age ?

(3) In my China period, I read quite a lot about whether and to what extent China is democratic.   China cannot be described as democratic in terms of pluralist party contestation (although the constitution of the PRC formally recognizes certain non-communist parties, these seem to be merely ornamental, wiedling no real power at all).   Some of even the American Political Science literature DOES claim, however, that China IS democratic AT LEAST at more local, smaller-stakes, levels, including procedures for choosing local party or municipal officials. The general point seems to be that the CCP vets candidates and excludes non-party candidates increasingly as one rises up in the hierarchy toward higher echelons at the center.  Can the CCP be described as at least INTERNALLY democratic ?  Can there be a one-party democracy or an authoritarian democracy ?  The issue of whether China is IN SOME WAYS democratic is fascinating and important.

(4) The contrast between authoritarianism and fascism is also relevant here; so is the contrast between parliamentary and presidential and mixed systems around the world; so is the question of to what extent the CCP is really Communist since the 1980s or even socialist.

(5) According to a classic article, representative assemblies (i.e., parliaments) do three things : they REPRESENT people, they deliberate, and they break-ties (or make decisions)-these three functions are supplemental to the basic law-making and law-enforcement (security)  functions of government (and another one is to facilitate wealth-creation).  Given these three neutral criteria-deliberation, representation, and decison-making- how does the performance of the CCP actually compare to another country's (say, the American) political system ?

(6)One commonly subdivides 'government' into executive, legislative, and judicial branches- the question of the lack of independence of China's judiciary (and the effectiveness of China's legal system more generally) is an obviously interesting focal point deserving further analysis...

 (7) A great activity for students (which I haven't tried) would be to set up a debate between advocates of China's or the American political system; another great activity would be to have students look for bias in Chinese coverage of American politics AND vice versa...

Thank you for bringing this important issue (the Hukou System) back to our attention, which is something I had read about in the years I was in China (2014-15-16)...Something which I didn't see discussed in the video presentation section I just watched is the original RATIONALE for this sytem (which is a descendant of older household registration systems in China, and which also existed in some form in other east Asian countries).  Was the Hukou system in the XXth century derived particularly from the Marxist idea of even development (or industrialization) across the countryside ?  Was it a response to China's peculiar demographic situation : i.e., overpopulation in the last two centuries, treaty ports, booming Eastern provinces, resource scarcities- perhaps also the unique revolutionary role Mao ascribed to the peasantry ?   It will be interesting to consider what reforms have taken place since 1976 (of the Hukou System) and which others may be announced, for example, in the next party Congress (of November 2022).   I'm interested to look at the film you suggested (Last Train Home).   Nations standardly limit EXTERNAL migration (though some less orthodox critics have questioned aspects of that).  Can restrictions on INTERNAL migration be justified for the same or different reasons as limits on international migration ?   What would economists say about the costs/benefits of such limits on internal migration (in addition to obvious concerns about Human Rights)?

How might looking at the Chinese Communist Party help students understand fundamental differences between authoritarian states and democratic ones? Why would young people choose to join the communist party?

Comparing the structure of political states is a helpful way for students to visualize the flow of power. As we saw in the lecture, the top-down structure of the CCP makes it abundantly clear that the purpose is centralization of power. Power flows from above, and flows down to be disseminated by the lower echelons. The tiers of power are held together by commitment to the centralized ideology. There are plenty of visualization for democratic states, which demonstrate checks and balance of power among different government branches. Students could use both visualizations to discuss the ideological and logistical differences.

As to the reason why people might join the communist party, it would be helpful for students to think about other groups or communities that people voluntarily join in school or in their communities (Clubs, churches, programs, political parties). There are a myriad of reasons, but students could discuss why joining a popular group might have advantages, especially if it comes with economic opportunities. What are the pull and push factors? How could it potentially protect members' interests to join such an organization? Who else is in the party that you might otherwise have not encountered or made connections with? And what of ideology, if you are passionate about the values that the party represents? 

I was surprised to learn that Animal Farm is a widely read in China. I also just found this article about a play version of the novel.  When we get to post- Mao China in my history class I plan to refer back to their study of Animal Farm and discuss why a book that makes fun of communism is popular in a communist country.  I would also like to look at the Chinese use of "reunification" to describe the joining of two countries that were never unified - sounds like rewriting history. I also think a comparison of Chinese propoganda to Russian propoganda would be interesting.

https://www.npr.org/2002/11/16/845088/orwells-animal-farm-travels-to-china

Washington Post

In Beijing, a Scene Not Even Orwell Would Recognize

BEIJING

Just hours after China's new leaders took a bow and the curtain fell on the Chinese Communist Party's 16th Congress last month, the curtain rose on a Beijing stage production of George Orwell's "Animal Farm."

The timing of the production of Orwell's blistering critique of totalitarian society and revolution gone awry had all the ingredients for cultural and political fireworks. Orwell's novel had been banned for decades here, and only published in a limited edition in 2000. Though inspired by Stalin's Soviet Union and published in 1945, four years before China's communists took power, Orwell's fable reads like a startlingly apt indictment of the Chinese communist system. So when I heard about the play, I imagined a packed house, bookish Chinese students discussing its meaning in hushed voices -- and maybe a police raid to shut it down.

Instead, director Shang Chengjun's version of "Animal Farm" at the 700-seat Central Drama Academy Experimental Theater is playing to half-empty houses and is unlikely to make back the money Shang invested. Moreover, the audience's reception has been tepid. Apparently, not even the police are interested.

This twist in China's political story is one that would have dismayed Orwell. While he worried that the misuse of words would render them meaningless, he said he wrote "to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people's idea of the kind of society they should strive after." That Orwell's story, intended to provoke readers, has been greeted here with mere indifference explains much about contemporary China. While Orwell envisioned totalitarianism sustained by force and terror, the Chinese Communist Party is sustained by the public's political apathy as much as the party's capricious, intense, yet intermittent oppression.

Why this indifference? One reason: The Chinese are too busy to think about what they euphemistically call "the big things of the nation." The unprecedented opportunities presented by China's economic reforms have concentrated people on getting rich, not making revolution, be it democratic, Cultural or otherwise. China's economy has grown by an average of 9.3 percent a year since 1989, perhaps the longest rapid growth streak of any modern nation. Besides, the last time a lot of Chinese got together to think about "the big things of the nation" in Tiananmen Square in 1989 -- they were crushed by the tanks and armor of the People's Liberation Army.

It would be a mistake to confuse this indifference to politics with indifference in general, however. The sheer energy of the Chinese at the turn of the 21st century is mind-boggling. They already own more mobile telephones than Americans. While world trade stagnates, China's exports are up 21 percent for the first 10 months of 2002. Foreign investment is falling almost everywhere except here; it has risen 20 percent so far this year to more than $46 billion. And domestic car sales this year have jumped 55 percent.

China's energy is focused on production and consumption -- not self-reflection. This country is all id and no superego. Its citizens hunger for sex, food, money, goods and cheap thrills. Ecstasy flows freely in the nightclubs; heroin is cheap; hashish is cheaper. Most of mymale friends older than 40 have a mistress and are proud of it. Most of my friends younger than 40 will do the same when they make enough money.

Communism as an ideology is dead. It has been replaced by hedonism in the Peoples Republic of China. Nationalism may appeal to a few hot-headed students but it can't compare to a night on the town with a hot hostess at a Karaoke bar.

"In the eyes of the post-communist personality," Wang Xiaoying, a professor at Hong Kong University writes, "there is 'communist' morality and there is naked self-interest, but nothing in between. Thus the abandonment of communism means . . . farewell to all values and scruples." What's left, she says, is a "frenzied scramble for money or pleasure."

Those kinds of party animals aren't interested in "Animal Farm."

Some people here blame the director for the lackluster reception to his theatrical version of "Animal Farm."

They have criticized Shang's version as Orwell-Lite, a cartoon, fun for the whole family. The actors sport goofy costumes -- pigs, mules, horses and chickens. One newspaper compared it favorably to Disney's "Lion King." The production features slapstick comedy, dance, and music ranging from klezmer to tango to the Irish singer Enya. It also has inside jokes that refer to current Chinese television shows.

Little of that seems true to the original Orwell satire about animals who capture their farm from its drunken owner and try to establish a model community in which all animals are equal. Two of the revolutionary elite, the pigs, battle each other for control of the revolution, and the victor, named Napoleon, triumphs amid bloody purges. He then negotiates an alliance with the humans, establishes his own personal dictatorship, and modifies revolutionary slogans, most famously: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

Shang's critics say he has soft-pedaled Orwell's message to please China's preternaturally paranoid censors. The dogs loyal to the porcine dictator Napoleon only kill one character during the play -- and it's offstage. In the book, they rip the throats out of numerous of Napoleon's perceived enemies.

For sure, Shang substantially re-wrote Orwell, but he did so to make a point. In his version of "Animal Farm," Shang keeps Orwell's critique of dictatorship but adds an important and subtle twist. Instead of blaming the dictatorial Napoleon for Animal Farm's ills, the director blames the common animals for being too stupid or weak to stick up for themselves. Shang's play is more Ayn Rand than George Orwell.

"My play is about how stupid and devious the common people can be," he says. "In my play, they are the ones to blame." Sounding like a character out of "Atlas Shrugged," he continues, "I didn't like Orwell's idea that it was all the fault of the leaders. People should take responsibility."

Shang turns the relationship between Napoleon and his rival Squealer into husband and wife -- an echo of China's late dictator Mao Zedong and his wife and propagandist, Jiang Qing. He also has rewritten the animals under their control into archetypes of Chinese society. There's the honest but stupid horse who labors selflessly for the revolution and ends up thinking he's going off to a martyr's graveyard only to be sold as horsemeat. There's the donkey who is only interested in protecting himself and dies alone. While in Orwell's book, "traitors" of the revolution are ordered executed by Napoleon, the tragic chicken in Shang's version is pressured into committing suicide for speaking the truth, reminiscent of vicious episodes from China's Cultural Revolution. Finally, in a nod to the exodus of thousands of Chinese students, there's the parrot, who flies off to "paradise" (read the United States), and finds it, well, paradisiacal.

Shang's criticism of the masses resonates only among educated Chinese, who blame the country's predicaments on their fellow countrymen, not their government. Chinese refer to each other as having "low quality" -- lacking in education, values or beliefs -- thereby justifying authoritarian rule. "China needs an emperor" is a common saying.

In just a few short years, the egalitarianism once advocated by Chinese has been replaced by cutthroat social Darwinism. While once one of the world's most equitable societies, China is now one of its least fair. The vast wealth gap has opened up between the gated communities in rich Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou and the laid-off men and women roaming around their railway stations, not to mention dirt-poor Ningxia or Gansu provinces in the west.

This wealth-gap hasn't spawned sympathy for China's underclass of laid-off workers and underemployed farmers. In the cities, among China's intellectuals, it's spawned contempt. Orwell wrote "Animal Farm" from the perspective of the proletariat. Shang directed it from the perspective of the budding middle class. Orwell's innocents have been rewritten as idiots.

Shang's own life explains his attitudes. His family expected him to get a job on an assembly line, but he got himself into business. He sold sundries on a street-side stall, ran a restaurant and finally owned a candy factory employing 90 workers. A chance meeting with an elderly actress in his hometown, Dalian, changed Shang's life. "She discovered that I had other talents besides making money," he says. "She pushed me to go to university."

To Shang, China's opportunities outweigh its injustices. "If I made it," he says, "other people could have made it, too."

Perhaps that's why he tweaks the final scene of "Animal Farm" by omitting a dispute that breaks out over cheating in a card game between Napoleon and one of the once-reviled humans the pig-dictator has befriended. In a gesture that would be appreciated by a Communist Party that recently welcomed capitalists into its ranks, Shang ends with man and pig raising their glasses in a toast to their new business alliance.