Thomas
Robert Malthus was the first economist to propose a systematic theory of
population. He articulated his views regarding population in his famous
book, Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), for which
he collected empirical data to support his thesis. Malthus had the second
edition of his book published in 1803, in which he modified some of his views
from the first edition, but essentially his original thesis did not change.
In Essay
on the Principle of Population,Malthus proposes the principle that human
populations grow exponentially (i.e., doubling with each cycle) while food
production grows at an arithmetic rate (i.e. by the repeated addition of a
uniform increment in each uniform interval of time). Thus, while food output
was likely to increase in a series of twenty-five year intervals in the
arithmetic progression 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and so on, population was
capable of increasing in the geometric progression 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128,
256, and so forth. This scenario of arithmetic food growth with
simultaneous geometric human population growth predicted a future when humans
would have no resources to survive on. To avoid such a catastrophe,
Malthus urged controls on population growth. (See here for graphs
depicting this relationship.)
On
the basis of a hypothetical world population of one billion in the early
nineteenth century and an adequate means of subsistence at that time, Malthus
suggested that there was a potential for a population increase to 256 billion
within 200 years but that the means of subsistence were only capable of being
increased enough for nine billion to be fed at the level prevailing at the
beginning of the period. He therefore considered that the population increase
should be kept down to the level at which it could be supported by the
operation of various checks on population growth, which he categorized as "preventive"
and "positive" checks.
The
chief preventive check envisaged by Malthus was that of "moral
restraint", which was seen as a deliberate decision by men to refrain
"from pursuing the dictate of nature in an early attachment to one
woman", i.e. to marry later in life than had been usual and only at a
stage when fully capable of supporting a family. This, it was anticipated,
would give rise to smaller families and probably to fewer families, but Malthus
was strongly opposed to birth control within marriage and did not suggest that
parents should try to restrict the number of children born to them after their
marriage. Malthus was clearly aware that problems might arise from the
postponement of marriage to a later date, such as an increase in the number of
illegitimate births, but considered that these problems were likely to be less
serious than those caused by a continuation of rapid population increase.
He
saw positive checks to population growth as being any causes that contributed
to the shortening of human lifespans. He included in this category poor living
and working conditions which might give rise to low resistance to disease, as
well as more obvious factors such as disease itself, war, and famine. Some of
the conclusions that can be drawn from Malthus's ideas thus have obvious
political connotations and this partly accounts for the interest in his
writings and possibly also the misrepresentation of some of his ideas by
authors such as Cobbett, the famous early English radical. Some later writers
modified his ideas, suggesting, for example, strong government action to ensure
later marriages. Others did not accept the view that birth control should be
forbidden after marriage, and one group in particular, called the Malthusian
League, strongly argued the case for birth control, though this was contrary to
the principles of conduct which Malthus himself advocated.
Explaining
the Demographic Transition Model
Here
are the characteristics associated with each stage of the classic four-stage
DTM. In parentheses, the approximate dates of the onset of each stage are shown
as they occurred in Europe, but there was much variation even across that
region, so these dates are approximate.
Stage 1: Both birth and death rates are high and population
grows slowly, if at all (Europe between pre-history and about 1650).
Stage 2: Birthrates remain high, but death rates fall
sharply as a result of improved nutrition, medicine, health care, and
sanitation. Population begins to grow rapidly (began in Europe slowly
after 1650, then more rapidly after the Industrial Revolution spread in the
early 19th century).
Stage 3: Birthrates begin to drop rapidly, death rates
continue to drop, but more slowly. Economic and social gains, combined
with lower infant mortality, reduce the desire for large families (in Europe,
birthrates in some nations began to fall in the 19th century and spread across
the region by the early 20th century).
Stage 4: Both birth and death rates are in balance, but at a
much lower rate; population growth is minimal if at all (Europe since the
1970s).
The
theory of demographic transition assumes that a country will move from a
pre-industrial (agricultural) economic base to an urban, industrial one, with a
corresponding decrease in family size and population growth. The slowing
of population growth theoretically results from better standards of living,
improvements in health care, education (especially for women), sanitation, and
other public services. Although this four-stage pattern has been repeated in
other places besides Europe, there are local variations, sometimes significant,
as the trajectory of development is everywhere different and by no means
inexorable. For example, many of today's least-developed countries still retain
the high birth rates characteristic of Stage 2. Also, parts of Europe, Russia
and Japan may be entering a new, fifth stage, where birth rates are below death
rates, and the population ages and begins to decline.
Pause and Reflect 2:
Before continuing, think about the following questions and
discuss them with your classmates:
1. The demographic transition theory assumes that birth
and death rates begin to fall as nations develop their economies. Do you
think economic development is enough to stabilize a country's population? Why
or why not?
2. What has the demographic experience been in your
country? Does it fit the demographic transition model? Why or why
not?
|
Modern Theory of Population: The
Optimum Theory (Explained With Diagram)
by Tushar Seth Theory
of Population
Modern economists have rejected the
Malthusian theory of maximum population, which, if exceeded, will spell misery
in the country. Instead of the maximum population, the modern economists have
substituted the idea of the optimum population.
Meaning
of Optimum Population:
By optimum population is meant the
ideal number of the population that a country should have, considering its
resources. The optimum means the best and the most desirable size of a
country’s population consistent with its resources. It is the right number.
When a country’s population is neither too big nor too small, but just that
much which the country ought to have, it is called the optimum population.
Given a certain amount of resources,
state of technical knowledge and a certain stock of capital, there will be a
definite size of the population at which real income of goods and services per
capita will be the highest. This is the optimum size. The optimum number can,
therefore, be defined as the one at which per capita income is the highest.
Under-population
and Over-population:
If the population of a country is
below the optimum, i.e., below what it ought to be, then the country is said to
be under-populated. The number of the people is insufficient to take the
fullest possible advantage of the natural and capital resources of the country.
This is what happens in a new country.
The resources are vast; much can be
produced; but there are not men enough to carry on the work of production
efficiently. Under such conditions, increase in population will be followed by
an increase in the per capita income. But this increase cannot go on
indefinitely. When the shortage of man-power has been made up, the per capita
income will reach the maximum, and we shall say that the optimum has been
reached.
If, however, the population still
goes on increasing and the optimum is exceeded, then we shall have a state of
over-population. There will be too many people in the land. The resources will
not be sufficient to provide gainful employment to all. They will be thinly
spread over the teeming millions. Per capita income will diminish; the standard
of living will fall; war, famine and disease will be constant companions of
such a people. These are the symptoms of over- population.
Movement
towards the Optimum:
Let us suppose that the stock of
natural resources, capital equipment and state of technology remain fixed in a
country. Now assume that population, which is initially very small relative to
these other resources, begins to increase. With the increase in population, the
labour force of the country will also increase. As more and more labour is
combined with the fixed amount of these other resources, output per capita or
real income per head will rise. Why?
The output per capita will increase,
because the increase in the quantity of labour will make possible .greater
degree of specialisation and more efficient use of natural and capital
resources of the country. With a very small population or labour force, there
is only a limited scope for specialisation, for each labourer is required to do
all sorts of jobs. But as population, and, therefore, the number of workers
increase, specialisation becomes possible.
Each man then need not do all the
jobs or make all parts of a good. Everybody can concentrate on the job for
which he is best suited. Division of labour among the different workers, which
is made possible by the increase in population, greatly increases the
efficiency and productivity of labour. An increase in population will also
permit a fuller utilisation of the natural resources and capital equipment. If
the number of workers is small relative to the natural resources, then even the
resources actually available will remain under-utilised.
Moreover, the capital equipment is
not fully and effectively utilized if there is shortage of labour. If the
population increases and more labourers become available to be combined with
the given stock of the natural resources and capital equipment, output per
capita will no doubt rise.
There is another related factor due
to which production greatly increases as population expands in the initial
stages. When population of a country is small, market for the products of
industry is-also small. With this limited market for goods, producers are
forced to produce on a small scale. They are thus unable to take advantage of
the economies of large-scale production. As population increases, the market
for goods expands; large-scale production becomes possible which adds greatly
to the productivity of the economy.
For all these reasons, output per
capita, will rise for a time as pupation increases. As the population continues
to increase, a point will finally be reached when capital and natural resources
are fully utilized and, therefore, output per capita will be the highest. The level
of population at which per capita output or real income is the maximum is
called the optimum population.
Movement
Away From the Optimum:
If, however, population still goes
on increasing, that is, crosses the optimum point, output per capita will start
declining. The economy would then become over-populated. Why does the output
per capita fall when optimum point is exceeded? This is because there are now
more men in the economy than are needed by it. A given amount of capital and
natural resources have to be shared among a larger number of workers with the
result that each of them has a smaller amount of equipment, materials and
natural resources to work with. For this reason, the average productivity
declines.
It is very likely that many people
may not get employment and, therefore, add nothing to production. Pressure of
population on land increases. But the additional men, who get employment in
agriculture, add nothing to total production. In other words, marginal
productivity of these extra men in agriculture is zero or nearly zero. This is
what is commonly known as the phenomenon of disguised unemployment. Disguised
unemployment exist s in over-populated agricultural economics from where even
if some workers are withdrawn, total production does not fall.
Thus,
low standard of living, open and disguised unemployment, and food problem are
all signs of over-population.
It is clear that both
under-population and over-population-have disadvan tages. In both cases, the
per capita income is lower than it would be in the case of optimum population.
It is the optimum population with the highest per capita output which is the
best for a country to aim at.
Diagrammatic
Representation:
The
concepts of optimum population, under-population and over-population are represented
in the figure given below:
In this figure, size of population
is measured on X-axis and output per capita on Y-axis. It is evident from this
figure that in the beginning as copulation increases, output per capita also
increases. Output per capita goes on increasing with every increase in
population till OM is reached. At OM level of population, output per capita is
the highest and is equal to MP. If population now increases beyond OM, output
per capita falls. Therefore, OM is the optimum population.
If the actual population of a
country is less than OM, it will be under-populated and if the actual
population is more than OM, it will be a case of over-population. But it may be
noted that optimum population is not a fixed and rigid number but is a moving
figure. As explained above, optimum population is relative to resources and
technology. Given the amount of capital and natural resources and the state of
technology, there will be a definite size of population at which the output per
capita is maximum. But the quantity of capital and natural resources and the
state of technology are subject to changes.
In fact, changes in them often take
place. When there is any change in them, the optimum level of population will
also change. For instance, when either there is increase in the quantity of
capital equipment and available natural resources or the country makes.
Progress in technology, per capita output curve will shift upward and to the
right, with the result that the optimum level of population will increase.
The changes in the per capita output
curve, as a result of increase in resources or progress in technology and their
effect on optimum population, are shown in the Fig. 14.2. With certain given
resources and technology, per capita output curve is AR and the level of
optimum population is OM at which output per capita is MP, which is the highest
under the given circumstances.
When the quantity of capital and
natural resources increase or technology makes an advance, output per capita
curve shifts upward and to the right and is shown as A’R . With per capita
output curve A R’ optimum population is OM’, which is greater than OM. Now, if
the resources further increase or technology makes further advance, the per
capita output curve shifts to A “R”.
With per capita output curve A “R “,
optimum population is OM”, which is greater than both OM and OM’.
Thus, we see that with different
resources or different technology, there will be a different level of optimum
population.
Dalton has given a formula by which
we can judge the extent to which the actual population of a country deviates
from the optimum population. The extent of the deviation is called
maladjustment. The formula seeks to measure the degree of this maladjustment.
It is:
M = A-O/0/where
M stands for maladjustment.
A stands for actual population.
O stands for optimum population.
If M is negative, the country is
under-populated and if M is positive, the country is over-populated. For
instance, if the actual population of a country is 50 crores and its optimum
population is 35 crores, then that country is over-populated to the extent of
50-35/35 = 15/35 = 3/7
Malthusian
Theory and Modern Theory Compared:
The
following are the main differences between the Malthusian Theory and the
Optimum Theory:
(a) Malthus focussed his attention
on land and food production, whereas the optimum theory takes into
consideration all the resources and economic development in all its aspects,
i.e., all types of production.
(b) Malthus seemed to be thinking of
a maximum number for a country which, if exceeded, would spell misery.
According to the optimum theory, there is no rigidly fixed maximum.
(c) To Malthus, famine, war and
disease were the signs of over-population. But the optimum theory tells us
that, even in the absence of such distressing phenomena, there can be
over-population, provided it can be shown that per capita income has gone down,
or that with a decrease in population, per capita income will go up.
(d) The modern theory is optimistic,
whereas the Malthusian theory is pessimistic in outlook. Malthus was haunted by
the fear that population would outstrip food supply. The modern economists do
not suffer from any such apprehensions. “Malthus was obsessed by the fear of an
impending economic Hell: the profounder of the optimum theory are elated with
the hopes of a coming paradise.”
Population
Growth and Economic Development:
There is a mutual and close relation
between the growth of population and the economic development of a country. One
affects the other and is, in turn, affected by the other. This is brought out
by the Theory of Demographic Transition.
Effect
of Growing Population on Economic Development:
Rapid growth of population promotes
rapid economic growth, on the one hand, and retards it, on the other. Large
population produces an urge for economic development as an escape from poverty
and low standard of living. It offers a big market for goods and as such
attracts prospective industrialists. It compels the fullest possible use of the
available resources by means of better techniques.
In this way, a growing population
may accelerate economic growth. Japan is a shining example of an overcrowded
country advanced economically with a high standard of living. But in a country
like India growing population has proved to be the greatest curse and the
biggest obstacle in economic growth in a number of ways:
(i) It has created a serious food
shortage and necessitated the importation of huge quantities of food-grains.
Thus, valuable foreign exchange has been squandered. This could have been
better used for importing capital goods, e.g., plant, machinery and equipment
and accessories, and essential raw materials. This would have resulted in rapid
economic growth.
(ii) It has burdened the country
with a large unproductive population (e.g., children) who make no contribution
to production. The average expectation of life being low, there is a large
number of aged persons who form another set of unproductive consumers. The
number of unproductive consumers has been estimated in India at 250 million
nearly. How can a country carry such a heavy burden and still make economic
progress?
(iii) A large number of women
involved in frequent maternity are disabled from any productive occupation.
This also results in a waste of human resources and hampers economic
development
(iv) A fast-growing population
aggravation the unemployment problem. Disguised unemployment in rural areas and
a large-scale unemployment in urban areas is a common phenomenon in
over-populated but under-developed economies. This means that a large number of
people have to be fed and clothed, but who make no addition to the country’s
output. This leads to the diversion of the country’s resources away from
economic development.
(v) Over-population means low per
capita income which, in turn, results in a low standard of living and low
labour efficiency. This also hinders economic growth.
(vi) The most serious consequence of
the fast growing population is that it reduces the country’s capacity to save
and to invest. This is a crucial factor which checks economic growth.
On the whole, a fast growing
population acts as a drag on economic growth.
Effect
of Economic Growth on Population Growth:
Now let us see the other side. Prior
to economic development, a country has high birth rates and high death rates.
The birth rates are high owing to universal and early marriages, social
beliefs, customs and religious attitudes and, above all, from economic
necessity for supplementing the family income by children’s earnings.
The death rates are high owing to
poor diet, bad sanitary conditions and absence of adequate preventive and
curative medical facilities.But when a country enters the era of economic
growth, the situation improves, with better and more food, improved medical
facilities and better standard of living. The medical innovations coupled with
more abundant supply of food bring down the death rate. But with economic ease,
the birth rates continue to rule high.
The result is that the population
growth becomes still more rapid and there is a serious and alarming situation
caused by ‘population explosion’. However, when the country attains a high
degree of economic develop ment, the birth rates start falling.
People realise the advantages of
small families and have the knowledge and the means to plan their families. The
children are regarded more a burden than an asset. Small families and low mortality
become a typical pattern. This, in short, is the Theory of Demographic
Transition.
Comments
Post a Comment