Introduction
The topic of population growth has gained traction from scholars in different disciplines. An increase in the number of people means that the economy should be large enough to sustain the housing, consumption needs, institutions, and resources such as land required for infrastructural purposes. Developed and developing economies are always thinking of new ways to sustain their populations while also keeping check on risks associated with overpopulation. Scarcity of economic resources such as land has always forced leaders to worry about the future of their economies. Scholars have taken up the task of investigating and proposing better policy frameworks that could governments in responding to concerns related to population and economic sustenance. Thomas Malthus, who lived from 1766-1836, is among the historical figures who attempted to resolve the puzzle of population growth and distribution of resources. The Malthusian theory has faced both appraise and criticism, and it is still studied in literature today. Some scholars have agreed that Malthus was wrong, but a critical view of his theory reveals that the theorist may have been wrong at the time of coining the theory, but one day he will be right.
An Overview of the Malthusian Theory
Thomas Malthusian coined and explained his theory on the relationship between population growth and economic resources in the essay titled “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” The essay was first published in 1798, but it was reviewed and revised in 1803 as explained by Rahman (14). Scholars have analyzed, critiqued, and raised several arguments about Malthus’ claims raised in the theory. In one of the quotes cited in the essay first published in 1798, Malthus claimed that human beings have a tendency to increase in an geometric ratio, while the needed resources such as food tend to increase in an arithmetic ratio (Malthus 7). This statement has been summarized and interpreted by Cooper and Walter to mean that human population increases with birth rate, while food production tend to increase at a slower rate. The fact that population increases at a higher rate means that there is a time when the population will overpower the available food resources, leading to a crisis (33). Malthus had anticipated that his predictions could happen within a short period, considering that an increase in population without a check could strain economic resources, governments, and other institutions in place. It was in Malthus’ point of view that nature could correct the consequences of unchecked population growth through natural factors such as war, diseases, and calamities. The theorist postulated that the possibility of the population overgrowing the natural resources was inevitable, considering the rate at which man was reproducing. Malthus foresaw a doomed future.
Malthusian theory can be visualized from a graphical point of view. The graph in figure one below is among the simplified versions that scholars have developed to explain the theory. According to Heavey and Walter, Malthus believed that an exponential increase in human population, specifically in England, could drive the graph to the point of crisis (9). The theorist believed that after the point of crisis, society could collapse and force people to revert to traditional methods without influence from industrialization. Many critics of Malthus have labeled him as a prophet of doom and a liar, bearing in mind that his predictions did not materialize. Additionally, people had hoped that industrialization and increase in population could trigger economic and social development, but Malthus was arguing on the contrary. A critical review from the point of critics reveals why the theorist may have made a mistake in coining this theory. Nevertheless, history has justified Malthus in some accounts that have been fulfilled in the past. For instance, Europe responded to overpopulation by opening doors to emigration to new lands that had been occupied. There have also been cases where the struggle for resources has seen people migrate to less populated areas throughout history.
While critics have labeled Malthus as a prophet of doom, the theorist was optimistic and provided a way out of the impending crisis that he had seen in Europe. The theorist suggested the option of positive checks and negative checks, which he believed could be used as a way out of the inevitable crisis. Malthus defined positive checks as natural calamities such as epidemics and wars. These factors can place positive checks on the population growth by increasing death rates as a result of starvation from famine. Malthus also defined preventive checks as artificial interventions aimed at controlling the population growth (Malthus 89). The theorist championed for adoption of preventive checks such as controlled fertility and restrained sex outside and within marriages. The theorist argued that where preventive measures failed, natural checks could apply directly. For instance, poor people who did not exercise controlled births could lose their children to diseases related to nutrition. People who did not take responsibility for their sexual desire risked being corrected by the natural positive factors.
The Malthusian Theory: Critical Review
Malthusian theory has attracted significant criticism compared to praise from demographers and sociologists. The theory has also been criticized by politicians and scholars from other disciplines after it has become evident that the doomsday predicted by Malthus may never materialize. While Malthusian arguments take different forms, a common point in any of the statements coined by the theorist is that an increase in human population leads to a decrease or a drop in economic resources. Scholars have proved that contrary to what Malthus had postulated, history has proved that the world economy is resilient enough to withstand population growth.
Technological advancements are among the counter-arguments that have been used against Malthusian theory. According to Heavey and Walter, Malthus was blind to the impact of the growing technology and the potential changes that technological advancements could have had on the population growth and food production (13). Instead, Malthus was pessimistic, where he believed that food production and other resources required sustaining man on the planet could continue diminishing throughout history. Throughout history, technological advancements have been key drivers to solving the problems that man has been facing. In the discussion and criticism of Malthusian theory, Cooper and Walter pointed out that technological advancements have remained key drivers in resolving any challenges that man has faced, even though it is not possible to tell when the problem is in progress (9). For instance, the industrial revolution has been cited as a key milestone in the fight against famine and poverty. During the industrial revolution, scientists came up with better ways and means of producing food which could not have been possible in the absence of technology. It is, therefore, evident that man has remained creative in coming up with strategies to solve challenges even when it does not seem possible at the moment. This counterargument has refuted the Malthusian theory.
Scholars have taken a computational approach to critic and prove that indeed, Malthus was wrong. According to Rahman, Malthus was more pessimistic with the relationship between population growth and food production (18). The theorist assumed that every child who is born comes to the world with a mouth to feed and a stomach to be filled, while ignoring that there is also a pair of hands that are used for resource production. Critics have stated that the pessimist theory of Malthus was focused on England alone, and the theorist did not consider that population increase leads to more manpower required for production. It is evident that an increase in manpower increases the production power of an economy, contrary to the pessimist approach viewed by Malthus. Additionally, neo-Malthusian theorists have proved that the world population does not double after every twenty-five years as argued by the theorist. Instead, the world population has been growing at a slower rate contrary to the Malthusian projections where he did not use any mathematical computations.
Malthus has been criticized for failing to acknowledge the role that people can play when allowed to manage or make decisions about birth control in response to economic needs at the individual level. Malthus assumed a fixed relationship between population growth and economic development, while failing to acknowledge that people can make decisions that could affect birth control and increase in food production. In an economic review of the theory by Unat, the author claimed that Malthusian had failed to take into account the fact that people could limit reproduction or only decide to give birth to a manageable number of children (145). For instance, it is now evident that many parents opt for family planning and other birth control techniques because they are more concerned about quality of education and food availed to families. Today, family planning is no longer a female issue, but men have also realized the importance of giving birth to the number of children that they can support. Globalization has opened doors for developed economies to trade with developing and underdeveloped economies and avail food to millions of people who may have starved today. Many families are no longer willing to give birth to the number of children that they cannot feed or educate. A case in point is England and Europe in general, where Malthus had anticipated a continuous population growth to the point of crisis, but the prophecy has not been fulfilled.
Applicability of Malthusian Theory
Despite the criticism faced by Malthusian, some of his concerns have been fulfilled, and could be inevitable. Proponents of the Malthusian theory have argued that people in Europe listened and took heed of Malthusian warning during his time, which prevented them from falling into the inevitable crisis. Cooper and Block explained that the Malthusian prophesies have only been postponed, but can occur in any time in future. For instance, people opted to use of contraceptives, delayed marriages, and birth control through family planning to avoid giving birth to a higher number of children that they could not control. In the absence of the Malthusian warning, Europe could have plunged into the point of economic crisis. Even though the main reason why people adopt family planning strategies has not been to avoid overpopulation, a combination of these strategies has always led to positive impacts in preventive checks that Malthus discussed in his theory. For instance, most families that adapt delayed marriages or family planning techniques are compelled by the rising costs of living.
It is important for stakeholders and governments to note that even though years have passed without fulfillment of Malthusian “doomsday,” the consequences of population growth and impact on economic growth and development are inevitable. Technological advancements and increase in food production and agriculture have only provided short-term results, but the long-term consequences are already taking shape. The increasing rates of global warming, outbreaks of epidemics and global pandemics, the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, and the rise in sea level attributed to environmental degradation are just but a few of examples that could prove Malthus right. Scientists have not discovered a better way of increasing the available land. Land is a limited resource, and any attempt to expand its availability has interfered with natural ecosystems, which has triggered human/wildlife conflicts and the rising cases of drought (Rahman 18). The consequences are already unbearable, considering the rising food prices and the increasing number of people dying of hunger and in dire need of relief food in developing economies in Africa and Asia.
Conclusion
The Malthusian theory points at the relationship between population growth and economic development. The theorist has faced criticism for postulating that the world was headed to a doomsday if positive and preventive measures were not in place to control overpopulation. Critics have condemned Malthus for taking a pessimistic approach towards humanity for assuming a fixed relationship between population and economic growth. The world has proved resilient against the Malthusian theory. Despite the criticism, one cannot ignore that most of the preventive measures in place today reflect the theorist’s point of view. People are more sensitive about family and birth control measures in response to rising costs of living. Positive checks are also active, and the impact is felt in every place across the globe in terms of global warning. Malthus may not have been right at the time of coining the theory, but history will prove him right one day.
Works Cited
Cooper, Aidan, and Walter E. Block. “Why Malthus Will Always Be Wrong.” Romanian Economic and Business Review, vol. 14, no. 4, (2019), pp. 32-41.
Heavey, Katharine, and Walter E. Block. “Is Doomsday Approaching? A Critique of Malthus.”
Malthus, Thomas Robert. “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” 1798.
Rahman, Mahfuzur. “Validity of Malthusian Theory of Population in 20th Century in Terms of Using Scientific Technology to the Economic Growth and Strength.” International Journal of Tax Economics and Management, vol. 1., no. 1, (2018), pp. 13-21.
Unat, Ebru. “A review of Malthusian theory of Population under the Scope of Human Capital.” FORCE: Focus on Research in Contemporary Economics, vol. 1., no. 2, (2020), pp. 132-147.