The special issue was initiated with the intention for a discussion of the possible applicability of the conceptual framework of Second Demographic Transition (SDT) in Asian countries as a means to analyzing and predicting the population dynamics in the 21st century under the scenario of the fertility down below the replacement in Asia.

We are extremely honored to have invited Dr Ron J. Lesthaeghe, one of prominent proponents of the concept of SDT, and Dr Stuart Gietel-Basten, an internationally renowned scholar on Asian demographics together with me as guest editors for the special issue. Not only have both of them dedicated themselves enormously over the whole process of the editing work, but also written their insightful and critical commentaries especially for the special issue, all these efforts will certainly ensure the special issue to be most informative to the Chinese and international audience who are interested and concerned.

I would like also to take this opportunity to express deep thanks to the authors who have submitted their research papers to the special issue and revised professionally as response to the comments from anonymous reviewers. We have invited two prominent scholars, who are most knowledgeable to the theme of the paper to serve as reviewers for each submitted paper, all of them spared their time to have offered their comments decently and constructively, which are most helpful for revision and finalization of the papers to be published in the special issue. While the reviewers have made their comments anonymously, their wisdom and time should be equally acknowledged and clearly appreciated.

There are four research papers to be included in the special issue of China Population and Development Studies (CPDS) in the third issue for 2022, which address the SDT situation in China, Japan, Indonesia and India, respectively. Due to the space limit of the journal the other two research papers based on empirical studies for the special issue will be published in the next issue of the journal.

The case of China is examined in the paper by Yu and Xie who have published extensively on the subject over years in China and internationally. With the most updated information, they have examined once again the situation concerning SDT in China, with a number of observations, interesting but not necessarily consistent with the features suggested by SDT. They reveal that people tend to marry later and less but still marry, people tend to have child(ren) later and less but still have children. Cohabiting without marriage becomes widely acceptable but only as prelude rather than alternative to marriage. They have seen more tolerance to nonmarital childbearing but very few children are actually raised in nonmarital families, and more tolerance toward women with no children but very little voluntary childlessness. They observed divorce rate is still low compared to other SDT countries but it does occur more frequently among the younger cohorts in particular. Given that the SDT required changes seem not occurring “simultaneously” in China, they ask whether China is demonstrating a “distinctive” pattern of the SDT.

What they have observed situation of SDT in China may not be called “unique” as can more or less be seen also in the other Asian countries as discussed in the papers in the special issue. One may also ask whether the applicability of SDT is necessarily to require the suggested features to be present at once or can be shown partially or emerging in sequence. In other words, the observed pattern is seen as “distinctive” or simply be read as “transitory” given the short history of subreplacement fertility in China/Asia, and the pattern of the SDT has not yet sufficiently unfolded, which may take time to be conclusive.

Japan is an important country in regard to the applicability of SDT in Asia since it is the first developed country with socioeconomic development closely resembling to the level of the pioneer SDT countries in Europe with long-term fertility much below replacement. Interestingly in the paper by Raymo, the Japan case shows somehow similar SDT situation as seen in China, such as delay in marriage and childbearing, more often cohabitation but short-lived, and not accompanied with nonmarital childbearing nor seen as a replacement of marriage. But Japan is still different given its higher development level and longer history of low fertility. While Japan had fallen to a fertility so low (TFR at 1.25 in 2005) for so long (below replacement since 1974), it does not demonstrate the ideational and behavioral changes as shown associated with SDT, such as evidence of growing individuation, which is inconsistent with the SDT suggested “inverse relationship between individuation and very low fertility”. Even with much improved education and employment, many Japanese women are still seen as the most appropriate caregivers for family and children.

While Yu and Xie call the China case as a “distinctive pattern”, Raymo calls the Japan case as a “distinctive pathway” of SDT, even calls for an “East Asian pattern of the SDT”. So far as that the ultimate purpose of SDT is proposed for understanding the below-replacement fertility following the completion of FDT is concerned, it may consider the possibility of different versions and pathways when applying it to the settings different from the European countries. This may also suggest the future direction for research on the applicability of SDT in Asia.

Indonesia is an Asian country with special significance, not only because its huge population size (rank third in Asia only next to China and India), but also the largest Muslim dominated country in the world with enormous religious influence. As the paper by Utomo et al. argues, Indonesia presents an even more complicated picture, given the salient heterogeneous situation within the vast country, the key features of SDT, either in terms of fertility decline or ideational changes, may not be likely to occur altogether “in a uniform manner”, which can be an important reminder in examining the applicability of SDT in Asia. While it is not as serious as in some other Muslim dominated countries, the religious influence is still quite obvious in social life of the country.

Nevertheless, while as the paper suggests the social norms still discourage divorce, and marriage is still seen as a religious obligation, women do show great autonomy along with much improvement in education and employment. While the induced abortion is still stigmatized it is nevertheless increasing. While polygamy is still religiously promoted, it is in fact becoming less popular particularly among the young people. The paper thus calls against the temptation toward “binary categorization”.

How much the SDT framework can be applicable to the demographic situation of India is of great concern since it is soon to be the number one country in population size surpassing China. The paper by Visaria argues against the necessary connection between below replacement fertility and individuality. Fertility has been reduced to 2.0, a rate below replacement in India with diffusion of small family norm, and the average age at marriage has been raised and child marriage becomes less, but marriage of women remains universal and mostly arranged. Meanwhile, though it expects “slow increase” in non-marriage, particularly among the urban elites, cohabitation is still seen as a taboo and unlikely to become acceptable “in the near future”. The paper shows remarkable convergence of the two-child family norm and even wide spread of one child family in a heterogeneous country, though the childlessness is still not an option. The demographic situation in India as assessed in the paper may suggest the country likely at a junction between FDT and SDT. While the paper argues India may have its own way toward SDT, it also notes that the behavior of Indian couples may have been “under-researched”.

Besides the four country-specific papers included in the special issue, there are other two empirical study based papers to be published in the next issue of CPDS. The paper by Zhou contributed to the discussion of the applicability of SDT in Asia by taking a qualitative approach to do in-depth interviews among the highly educated urban young women and men in Nanjing and Beijing, China with regard to their perception on cohabitation. While the survey sample is small due to its qualitative nature, the finding is by no means trivial. The finding discovered that while cohabitation is widely accepted in China as shown by statistics, it is in fact quite perceived differently by gender. While for men it is seen as a risk reduction strategy to avoid possibility to marry a “worry wife”, for women it is rather seen as a risk-amplification which may lead to certain unfavorable marriage prospect. This is indeed another serious reminder in examining the applicability of SDT, i.e., a gender perspective is indispensable to look at the behavior changes such as cohabitation, as highlighted in the paper as “gender asymmetry” and “gendered tension”.

Taking the advantage of the available data the paper by Lai and Song is taking a comparative approach by using the survey data in 2006 and 2016 to look at the attitudinal changes on cohabitation, childbearing and divorce over the decade in four East Asian societies. It is discovered that while the other three societies of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have shown more liberal trend, the Mainland China demonstrated a trend otherwise toward more conservative.

The comparative study of the four cases may sometimes not be looked very compatible, for example, given the enormous size and tremendous variation within society of Mainland China as well as at a relatively lower development level such as education, one of the key features of SDT, as indicated in the sample description for Mainland China society. As noted in the paper, the attitudes towards cohabitation and childbearing among Chinese respondents with college education “had change little” compared with the overall conservative tends in the society. Should the sample for Mainland China society be made as such as in the above paper by Zhou among the highly educated urban young men and women in Chinese cities (who are called forerunners of SDT in this paper), the finding might come differently as shown in this study. In the sense proper caution might be exercised when the finding is to be interpreted.

My task was to set the special issue as a sound platform for a sound discussion of the issues centered to the applicability of SDT in Asia. I think the job is so far well done due largely to the sincere devotion of the tremendous efforts of all the people involved which make it possible.

From 1986 van de Kaa and Lesthaeghe edited the special issue for a Dutch sociology journal of Man and Society, in which they proposed “Two demographic transitions?” as the title for the introduction chapter (also soon after that, van de Kaa’s English paper entitled as “Europe’s second demographic transition” was published in PRB’s Population Bulletin in 1987), to the special issue of China Population and Development Studies on second demographic transition in Asia in 2022, it took a span of more than three decades. Rather, the applicability of the concept beyond the European continent remains a question to be fully answered.

The special issue of CPDS is clearly suggesting a daunting challenge undoubtedly ahead of in particular the young generation of demographers and sociologists for further research on the applicability of SDT in Asia, as a historical mission for them to shoulder on, which is likely the key to the understanding of the population dynamics in the 21st century.