Has the “Three-Child Policy” also encountered reluctance in rural China?—evidence from new-generation women of childbearing age in western rural China

IF 5.7 1区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
Journal of Rural Studies Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-12 DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2026.104039
Jian Lan , Xingchao Hu , Zihan Li , Yuhao Ren
{"title":"Has the “Three-Child Policy” also encountered reluctance in rural China?—evidence from new-generation women of childbearing age in western rural China","authors":"Jian Lan ,&nbsp;Xingchao Hu ,&nbsp;Zihan Li ,&nbsp;Yuhao Ren","doi":"10.1016/j.jrurstud.2026.104039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Historically, rural fertility intentions in China exceeded those of urban areas. Drawing on 90 semi-structured interviews with new-generation rural women across nine western villages, this study identifies a marked shift toward persistently low intentions and widespread reluctance regarding third births under the Three-Child Policy. Three patterns emerge. First, a consolidated two-child norm, accompanied by explicit rejection of a third birth. Second, intensifying “multi-son anxiety” shaped by marriage-market pressures—high bride prices, housing expectations, and the financial risks associated with raising sons. Third, a growing turn toward individualised life orientations that prioritise parenting quality and personal well-being over patrilineal continuity or numerical ideals of family size. These transformations reflect heightened female autonomy alongside the economic, temporal and emotional costs of childrearing, heavy caregiving demands, parental burnout and anxieties about providing high-quality upbringing. Our findings highlight a structural mismatch between state pronatalist initiatives and women's lived aspirations. The analysis points to the need to transform the broader environment in which reproductive decisions are made—through reducing financial pressures, strengthening rural childcare and education support, and reshaping gendered care arrangements—if women's own preferences and life goals are to be meaningfully respected. The study thus foregrounds aspirations and constraints, offering an empirically grounded account of why third births remain undesirable for rural new-generation women.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":17002,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Studies","volume":"123 ","pages":"Article 104039"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016726000410","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Historically, rural fertility intentions in China exceeded those of urban areas. Drawing on 90 semi-structured interviews with new-generation rural women across nine western villages, this study identifies a marked shift toward persistently low intentions and widespread reluctance regarding third births under the Three-Child Policy. Three patterns emerge. First, a consolidated two-child norm, accompanied by explicit rejection of a third birth. Second, intensifying “multi-son anxiety” shaped by marriage-market pressures—high bride prices, housing expectations, and the financial risks associated with raising sons. Third, a growing turn toward individualised life orientations that prioritise parenting quality and personal well-being over patrilineal continuity or numerical ideals of family size. These transformations reflect heightened female autonomy alongside the economic, temporal and emotional costs of childrearing, heavy caregiving demands, parental burnout and anxieties about providing high-quality upbringing. Our findings highlight a structural mismatch between state pronatalist initiatives and women's lived aspirations. The analysis points to the need to transform the broader environment in which reproductive decisions are made—through reducing financial pressures, strengthening rural childcare and education support, and reshaping gendered care arrangements—if women's own preferences and life goals are to be meaningfully respected. The study thus foregrounds aspirations and constraints, offering an empirically grounded account of why third births remain undesirable for rural new-generation women.

Abstract Image

“三孩政策”在中国农村是否也遇到了阻力?——来自中国西部农村新一代育龄妇女的证据
从历史上看,中国农村的生育意愿高于城市地区。通过对来自9个西部村庄的90名新一代农村妇女的半结构化访谈,本研究发现,在三孩政策下,女性对第三胎的意愿持续低下,普遍不愿生育。出现了三种模式。首先,一个统一的二胎规范,同时明确拒绝第三胎。其次,由婚姻市场压力——高昂的彩礼、住房预期以及与养儿子相关的财务风险——形成的“多子焦虑”正在加剧。第三,越来越多的人转向个性化的生活取向,优先考虑养育子女的质量和个人福祉,而不是父系的连续性或家庭规模的数字理想。这些转变反映了女性自主性的提高,以及抚养孩子的经济、时间和情感成本、繁重的照顾需求、父母的倦怠和对提供高质量教育的焦虑。我们的研究结果突出了国家生育计划与妇女生活愿望之间的结构性不匹配。分析指出,如果要有意义地尊重妇女自己的偏好和人生目标,就需要通过减少财政压力、加强对农村儿童保育和教育的支持以及重塑性别化的照料安排,来改变生育决策所处的更广泛环境。因此,这项研究突出了愿望和限制,提供了一个基于经验的解释,为什么第三胎仍然不受农村新一代妇女的欢迎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
286
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Studies publishes research articles relating to such rural issues as society, demography, housing, employment, transport, services, land-use, recreation, agriculture and conservation. The focus is on those areas encompassing extensive land-use, with small-scale and diffuse settlement patterns and communities linked into the surrounding landscape and milieux. Particular emphasis will be given to aspects of planning policy and management. The journal is international and interdisciplinary in scope and content.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书