Population and Prosperity
Published by Yazad Jal August 17th, 2004 in EconomicsThe tide is turning. After years of being fed the nonsense that our large and increasing population was the main reason for our lack of prosperity, I was quite surprised to see the Times of India making a bold stand. A news article on today’s front page accompanied by the lead edit inside.
Well, yours truly had touched upon the topic more than four years back. For more from the CCS stable on the issue, there is Sauvik Chakraverti’s “Population Causes Prosperity” in pdf format and a powerpoint file which he used to present at seminars.
More telling than the Times of India is what’s written on the websites of leading “Population NGOs” like Population First and the International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF). Very little mention of “population control” (on the IPPF frontpage, I could not even find the word “population”) More emphasis on “sexual and reproductive health” and “women’s issues”. Population First explains this “paradigm shift”.
In a limited perspective, issues concerning population are often understood as a problem of numbers. “Control the numbers, and you control the problem”, went the simplistic analysis that required little elaboration and was the focus of communications programmes and government policy.
Now, governments and policy makers have recognised that the problem lies in the limited approach to population matters, reducing it to numbers rather than studying it as an issue that has at its heart the problems caused by denial of women’s rights.
As a result, the vocabulary of population issues has changed. Indian policy makers do not talk about population control anymore. Instead, we hear of women’s rights on the valid argument that only a woman empowered with basic rights can exercise her reproductive rights and make an informed choice. New focus is now placed on male participation in programmes that see reproductive choices and family health as a joint responsibility of the couple, and not just of the woman. This helps correct the imbalance caused by unfair pressure on the woman, who anyway is seen as having a lesser say in the decision making at home and in the community.
Yes, there is some paradigm shift, but not as much as I’d like it to be. If it was a serious shift, then Population First would have first changed their name to reflect the changed paradigm.
The real issue is not population at all — control or no control. Yes, sexual and reproductive health, women’s rights are important, but I see no connection with population here, apart from the tautologous. What if a woman makes an informed choice to have 5 kids? I very much doubt her getting any support from Population First!
25 Responses to “Population and Prosperity”
- 1 Trackback on Aug 20th, 2004 at 10:44 pm
- 2 Trackback on Sep 2nd, 2004 at 2:50 am
well increasing population is a problem there is no doubt about that.
what the article conveys is that if a vast majority i.e. over 75% of the popoulation is working then the country will grow faster. This is true even if the population is low but a high percentage is working.
It would be misleading to think that a large population by itself will result in the prosperity of a country infact it would be disasterous if the employment opportunity growth does not keep up with the population demand.
Lets not abandon family planning yet.
And how exactly is increasing population a “problem”?
the article conveys is that if a vast majority i.e. over 75% of the popoulation is working then the country will grow faster
Really? Where? I’d be hard pressed to name even one country where 75% of the population is working. Can you?
I have never said that large population by itself leads to prosperity. Sauvik’s work (and I concur with his views) basically states that people are the main creators of wealth. So population (large or small) causes prosperity. If you see a country with a large population but poor, then there’s something else causing that poverty.
BTW, employment opportunity growth sounds like one more tired cliché from the socialist eras. If we have a free market, we wouldn’t be talking about it. We’d be seeing it happen.
well both us and japan two of the most industrialised countries reached where they are when a high percentage of the population was working.
now that the demographics are changing they will have a greater number of pensioners as compared to the working population and therefore their economy will slowdown in the years to come.
india had a bigger population than us and european countries for the better part of its independent existence and where is the prosperity due to population.
free market will definitly ensure faster growth & in case of india superfast growth but that will happen even with a low population. singapore and the noradic countries score high on free market ratings have low population and are prosperous
I think you are missing an important aspect - as I am an environmental consultant I am concerned with the costs of population growtg. As this report reveals,
http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/ranking.htm
India is currently running at a eco deficit of 0.3 contributed directly to by the size of the population. As the economy grows, the per capita foot print will only continue to grow. I see this as a serious problem given that we are already running at a deficit.
Ck, I vaguely remember this ecological footprint stuff. Let me dig out something. This should do: Measuring Santa Monica’s Feet
Plus, please do not post “naked” urls. There is a formatting toolbar on the comment box. Click on the “link” button.
Kautilya,
There is a difference between
(a) the US and Japan have a lower paercent of their population as working now compared to 20 years back and
(b) the US and Japan had 75% of their population as working.
(a) I agree with. (b) has no foundation in fact.
India’s prosperity has been hampered by various other factors. Read the pdf booklet by Sauvik Chakraverti.
I fully agree that freer markets ensure faster growth. Note, to your Singapore I can add Vietnam. Small population — quite poor. So lets focus on freeing our markets and ignore the “population” part.
The concept of ecological footprint is far more complicated than just arable land - it is the amount of natural resources used to create a product. In many cases these are not taken into account. A classic exmaple is microchip manufacturing - seems like a great non-polluting industry doesn’t it - no smoke-stacks - and seems to use nothing but silicon and copper. In reality the chip industry is of the most hazardous and each chip produces severa times its weight in hazardous and corrosive chemicals. Additionally (I don’t have the exact figures but you can look it up) the manufacture of each chips requires hundreds of gallons of water which again cannot be re-used because it picks up haz chemicals.
To the avg. consumer a wafer thin silicon chip looks innocent and non-polluting - but in reality the materials that go into its production and its by-products are many times more.
This is where ecological foot print comes in. You can’t afford to think only about the production of the chip but you also have to think about where the resources (sometimes direct and at other time indirect) come from and also what happens to the by-products - currently drums and drums of highly toxic water which are stored because it is to expensive to treat safely - also the reason why chip manufacturers move thier operations to developing countries becase they quite happily dump the water into our water table - un acceptable in the US.
So if I were you I’d more closely investigate the concept of eco footprint. Companies like HP, 3M and Boeing have all embraced the concept and calculate eco foot prints for thier products and have adopted a cradle-grave product tracking system.
BTW your link system doesn’t seem to work for me
The Nuts Game
Yazad’s link thing doesn’t seem to work - here’s the link
http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/Nuts%20Game.htm
If the links don’t work, use the code as below:
Title here
there can be a lot of conflicting examples that can be cited.
all i can say is
“show me the money”
As the Nuts example shows - you can’t leave natural resources upto the people to consume resposnsibly - becausle all evidence and historical precedents show that they will have scant regard for the environment and try to grab as much as they can before anybody else. Even the offer to make everybody ‘richer’ in the long run by controlling immediate consumptio does ot stop us from disregarding logic and relying on our primary urge - greed (which Yzazad thinks is good) HOwever it is definitely bad when dealing with a limited resource - especially one, if consumed sustainable can keep renewing itself and provide a steady supply - it is a real tragedy when greed blinds us to the long term.
CK, The nuts game demonstrates the tragedy of the commons. I remember it being shown in the “greed” video which you too had seen (Jul 99).
Let me trace your argument:
1. Limited resources and
2. Increasing population leads to
3. Decreasing resource per person
1. stays contstant while 2. keeps increasing which ends up in 3. dwindling down to nothing.
The main error is in 1. I think there are more resources today than there were 100 years ago. Resources are not limited or constant. Maybe a reading of Julian Simon’s Ultimate Resource 2 might help.
For a shorter read, try this record of Simon’s bet with John Ehlrich, which Ehlrich lost badly.
I think a far more important resource than the oil we dig up from the ground is the mind that devised a way to get that oil out and use it for purposes never thought of by our ancestors.
There is a simple way to prove or disprove your argument CK.
Calculate whatever figure you are trying to calculate for India some time in the past, say 1940.
If you accept that the average Indian was poorer in 1940, but if those figures “prove” that the average Indian had access to greater “resources” around that time, then you must accept that those figures are a poor measure of actual wellbeing.
I think we have differing notions of ‘resources’. I am in complete agreement with Simon and actually believe that we will never run out of coal or oil or iron or copper - if the present reserves run out we can always rely on human ingenuity to find new ways to extract the resourcs we need. I agree compeltely that an increasing population will not have any effect on these resources.
The naural resources I am talking about are the ones that are not often taken into account - clean air, drinking water etc. These are directly impacted by an increasing population. Air and water serve as natural sinks for the wastes genereated by human activities. But like any sink, there is only so much that they can abosrb before the natural cleaning mechanism breaks down. Look at rivers like the Yangtze and the Ganga, their natural ecosystems have long since stopped functioning and are now no more than glorified waste disposal conduits. Look at the air quality around Delhi and Mumbai - again this is a self cleaning mechanism but pushed beyond a certain limit this breaks down.
Now there are technological solutions to this - and in the developing world with their unlimited $ can afford to spend money on making the environment better. In the US it is estimated that over $8 billion a year is spent on environment protection - and that is for a population 1/3 the size of India’s. But remember that their land mass is much bigger and they have virtually unlimited natural resources. Albeit the population consumes a lot more but India is rapidly going to catch up. Can you tell me how much India spends a year on environment protection?
With all the money that the US spends there are still toxic waste sites and the famous LA smog.
So Yazad, given my definition of a resource the 3 points you mentioned hold true:
1. Limited resources and
2. Increasing population leads to
3. Decreasing resource per person
There are limited air and water resources (we cannot manufacture breathable air in any large quantities or rivers - maybe someday but not in the forseeable future).
When everybody in India drives a car - there is just not enough air to go around to accomodate the exhaust fumes of a billion cars. Electric cars etc might well cut down the problem - but its going to be massive.
Yazad,
Though I normally wouldn’t do this, i think CK is right on this one.
Natural resource access and control have been a source of conflicts very frequently in Africa and there is no gurantee that this situation would stabilise in an anarcho-capitalistic society.
The amount of money spent in defence in an anarcho-capitalist society will vary from the present day. But one pretty obvious guess i can make is that a whole lot of area will be un-owned and not looked after, because bearing the costs of defending them will now be done by private corporations and not by the government.
But the presence of this can lead to it being used as a dumpster by anyone. This includes the air and water resources. It will become almost impossible to adjudicate the losses due to air/water pollution as the polluter and the victim will always have different views.
There will be some hard-assed negotiations and some resolution will come across that puts a price on water and air and its cleanliness. But again, in negotiations between an insurance company representing the town populace and that representing the industries, who do you think will have an upper hand?
Ck, Pollution is a contentions issue. There are libertarian solutions like pricing the pollution, etc. But that’s not the issue here.
Your link between increasing population and pollution is tenous. An intuitive example is of Europe. During the communist era, Eastern Europe had far more pollution and lesser population density than Western Europe. Contrary to what your paradigm suggests!
Prakash, youve gone far ahead of even Ck! Do you think there is any connection between population and supposedly scarce resources (and further, if so, does it warrant action to reduce population?)
Western Europe spent a lot more money on pollution control and regulation than Easter Europe. Again I don’t have the figures on hand but I’m sure you will accept that the amount of money and the number of environmental regulations in Western Europe was probably a couple of degress of magniture above Eastern Europe.
The libertarian system of pricing pollution is flawed. It assumes that if the polluter pays the victim of pollution a sufficient amount of money as compensation (or if they strike a deal), all is well in the world. But the model only accounts for the discomfort caused by the pollution (as a good and product) and not for the ecological service provided by the resource. Libertarian principles applied to the pollution in the Ganga would account only for compensating river dwellers for the amount of pollution that the poluuter dumped in the river. It completely ignores the ecological services that the Ganga offers humans (I am completely ignoring any mention of wildlife, extinction etc - thoug they are importnat and am talking only in terms of human costs). The true cost of the ecological services offered by the Ganga would be equivalent to the construction of a canal that flows alongside - which would cost billions.
An estimation of the proces of ecological services offered by nature (but not paid for by anybody) runs into the trillions of dollars amny times more than the current GDP of the world.
The bottom line is this - we use natural resource services (don’t confuse services with plain resources like copper, oil etc) but nobody pays for it. This is a flaw in the market mechanism - whenever a service is consumed for free even though there is a cost associated with it. Now somebody is paying the cost for the use of those services.
In the US they have carefully calculated the cost of those services using scintific measures. Every waterbody in the US has whats called a TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load. This is the total amount of pollution that the waterbody can accept without significant loss in services. If the pollution is kept below the TMDL, it will clean it self out The US regulations do not say that you cannot pollute the water , they say we understand that pollution will occur but here is a limit beyond which this waterbody can no longer clean itself out.
I think this TMDL limit has been exceeded several times by rivers like the Ganga who have now lost their ability to clean themselves out. It is easy to calculate that higher the population, the sooner the TMDL is reached. Look at the Sea around BOmbay - we dump raw sewage into it - now the sea has the capacity to absorb raw sewage as long as it is below its TMDL. Once the TMDL threshold is crossed it loses the ability and stops working as a ‘flushing’ resource and breaks down.
TMDL modelling is a complicated process. You not only have to model the pollution from a single factory but you also have to model the interaction of that pollutant with other pollutants which together could give rise to a natural resource service breaker. Which is where the libertarian model of polluter pays breaks down in the face of real-world complexity. Poluter A says hey its not me - my pollution is harmless, its because of what polluter B is adding that make my pollution dangerous. Now try and translate that to a waterbody like lake Michigan with potentiall a million polluters - each individually potentialy harmless but together they can bre up a toxic mix.
When someday we understand how all those pollutants interact, factor in climate, water temperature, seasonal variation, bacteria breeding cycles and dissolved oxygen content, we could possibly work out a libertarian pricing model - but till then we are stuck with good old regulations - sometimes unfair, sometimes random, sometimes just plain wrong - but it seems to be working as I don’t thing twice about taking a swim in Lake Michigan right in the heart of Chicago with a thousand factories and 5 million residents (not counting the pollution from all the auto makers across the lake in Detroit).
When was the last time you could take a swim of Chowpatty?
Whats the difference between Lake Michigan and Chowpatty
- Strict env regulation
- millions of $ spent on pollutin control
- and oh yes about 10 million people extra in Mumbai.
Ck, Is it really the 10 million extra people in Bombay?
You make a long case for environmental regulation (which I will not take up here as it’s off-topic). Fine.
However, you assume Bombay has the same “per-capita pollution creation” as the Detroit area. I disagree. I’m not an environmentalist, so my concept might not be as elegant, but bear me out. My assumption is that the average person in Bombay generates less garbage/pollution than the average person in the Detroit area.
How much less? I don’t know. But if it’s less by a factor or 3, we can count out the population effect completely. Now I base this on the assumption that the richer you are, the more garbage you create. I have anecdotal evidence of that while working in waste management projects a few years back.
As Bombay gets richer and the per capita pollution creation increases, we will see a lot of other effects kicking in — regulation being one of them. Currently we’re too poor to regulate not too populous.
It’s not the amount of garbage and waste that you create but what you do with it. I agree completely that I generate about 3 times more garbage than you do back in Bombay - but my garbage is sorted (or elseI get a huge fine) into kitchen waste and recyclables which are then further sorted by plastics, carboard, glass etc. Whne you throw out your garbage - it ends up in a ladfill someplace - and the plastics just sit there slowly leaching into the air and water.
When I flush my shit down the toilet it goes through a complicated waste disposal process and the water is purified before it every makes it to the open water (actually purified to an extent that it would be considered potable water in India). When you flush your shit - it ends up bobbing around Marine Drive just west of Malabar Hill.
As Bombay gets richer, I doubt that more will be spent on pollution control - simply because there is not enough money to do it. There is not enough money to manage the present waste - let alone the waste in 50 years - when the populatin of Bombay could easily be around 30 million. The costs of managing the waste of that magnitude are prohibitive. I live in Washington State (not Wash DC) which about the size of most of Southern India and it has a population of only 6 million. Bombay alone at present has twice that population in an area the size of one of the smaller cities in Washington (actully I think areawise its actually smaller than Seattle which has a population of only 0.5 million). Where do you think the waste from those 30 million people is going to go. In Washington with practically unlimited resources - natural and $ - waste is still an expensive issue - but Bombay with huge geographic and money constraints - I don’t think Bombay will EVER be rich enough to handle that kind of volume - we’re literally talking about thousands of tons of shit.
Well, I understand people are the biggest creators of wealth - even more in the modern day when technology is the main money spinner.
But all across history - the most populous nations have not been the richest. I guess there is a optimality coeff which depends on various societal factors. If your analogy is taken blindly - Bangladesh should atleast have a booming economy.
I agree that my post went off-topic. Then could we open up the topic i raised - Pollution control in an anarcho-capitalist world?
I think all people consider population problem as a cause of other social problems but i as social work graduate do understand that population is the product of other social and economical problem so we have to understand that first
Thank u