Malthus on norway

Abstract Malthus visited Norway in 1799 and his impression of the country's demographic experience was important in determining the character of the second edition of his Essay on the Principle of Population. He relied for the most part on non-statistical sources. This led him to exaggerate, e.g. the size of households, the number of unmarried farm servants and to miss important features, e.g. differences in marital age patterns, regional variations in fertility and nuptiality. The bias of his itinerary and of his main informants is also apparent. Statistical material not available to Malthus indicates that he was right to stress the late age at marriage in Norway but wrong to ignore the operation of the positive check. Mortality was frequently high in late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century Norway, much higher than Malthus ever realized. This destroys the symmetry, as well as the morality, of Malthus's exposition.     

Malthus on Godwin’s of population

A number of the issues raised by Godwin in his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice recur in subdued form in Of Population. These are issues that Malthus himself considered only to interpret them differently. Most outstanding of the points of difference between the two were: (1) the augmentability of the food supply, which Malthus put far below Godwin’s estimate; (2) the rate of growth of population which Godwin believed to be negligible and Malthus to be potentially great; (3) man’s disposition to control his numbers when necessary, regarding which Godwin was much more optimistic than Malthus; (4) the interpretation each put upon the constraining role of institutions. The two men had more in common than is usually assumed.     

Robert Wallace on Population and Utopian Government

The two writers whose visions of a utopian future for humanity Malthus chiefly sought to puncture through his principle of population were Godwin and Condorcet. The objection Malthus had to both was that the prosperous and egalitarian society they envisaged would be undermined by the population growth it brought about. As Malthus himself acknowledged, this was not a novel argument: in the second (1803) edition of the Essay, he listed the authors from whom he had “deduced the principle”—David Hume, Robert Wallace, Adam Smith, and Richard Price. Wallace, the closest among these four to being a Utopian thinker, explicitly saw population growth as clouding the future: unlimited increase would impair prosperity, but efforts by the society to curtail it would require “cruel and unnatural customs.” Wallace's views of Utopia are set out in his book Various Prospects of Mankind, Nature and Providence, published in 1761. There are twelve “prospects” in all. The first is titled “A general view of the imperfections of human society, and of the sources from whence they flow”; the second presents a “model of a perfect government”; the third investigates the feasibility of this model; and the fourth adduces the proposition “The preceding model of government, tho' consistent with the human passions and appetites, is upon the whole inconsistent with the circumstances of mankind upon the Earth.” The remaining prospects go further into the natural world, the nature of happiness, and the afterlife. Prospects I and IV are excerpted below. Under a perfect government, “poverty, idleness, and war [would be] banished; the earth made a paradise; universal friendship and concord established, and human society rendered flourishing in all respects.” Yet paradoxically, such a society would be overturned “not by the vices of men, or their abuse of liberty, but by the order of nature itself.” This objection is enough to defeat the “airy systems” of the Utopians. Wallace calls for a middle way for government and society, “to set just bounds to every thing according to its nature, and to adjust all things in due proportion to one another.” He writes: “it is more contrary to just proportion, to suppose that such a perfect government should be established in such circumstances, than that by permitting vice, or the abuse of liberty in the wisdom of providence, mankind should never be able to multiply so greatly as to overstock the earth.” Wallace was born in Edinburgh in 1697 and died there in 1771. He was a presbyterian minister who held various offices in the Church of Scotland. In addition to the Prospects, his other major works were Characteristics of the Present Political State of Great Britain (1758) and Dissertation on the Numbers of Mankind in Antient and Modern Times (1753). The latter included a vigorous rejoinder to Hume's argument (in his Dissertation on the Numbers of Mankind, published the preceding year) that the classical world was not more populous than the present. Wallace's argument for the populousness of ancient nations supported the view earlier put by Montesquieu—who arranged for a French translation of Wallace's book. Modern editions of Wallace's writings appear in the series Reprints of Economic Classics published by Augustus M. Kelley, New York.     

Gregory King,Robert Malthus and the Origins of English Social Realism

In this article I compare King and Malthus in respect of their ability to penetrate what is here called social opacity, the resistance of all social structures to objective analysis by contemporaries, demographic and other forms of analysis. It accords to King the distinction to have been the first person ever to have recognized the issue, to have set out to penetrate social opacity as it was in his generation, and thus to have been the first to write out a systematic account of any social structure in what, in his age, could be called objective terms. His attitude is described as one of Gregorian realism. Malthus is equally distinguished by realism, but in a very different, much more theoretical mode, reminiscent of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. His attitude is named Malthusian realism in contrast to Gregorian. It is insisted that both Gregorian and Malthusian realism are equally parts of the required equipment and outlook of all social scientists, demographers especially. On the way to the conclusion that David Glass, in whose honour the paper was delivered as a lecture, was a Gregorian, it is shown that the originator of the notion of deliberate, redistributive transfers from the propertied to the poor by means of the national taxation system was Tom Paine in Rights of Man (1790).     

Johann Peter Süssmilch: A German Prophet in Foreign Countries

The clergyman Johann Peter Süssmilch (1707–1767), chaplain to King Frederick II of Prussia, deserves to be called the father of German demography and was recognized as such in his own lifetime in his country of origin and throughout Europe, except possibly in France and Italy. In his Göttliche Ordnung (1741 and 1761–2), he attempted to explain the regularity of vital phenomena as being due to divine intervention. His conception of a ‘divine’ order soon gave way to that of a ‘natural’ order. His life tables, though incorrect, continued to be used by insurance offices well into the nineteenth century. His views about the relationships between mortality on one hand, and fertility and nuptiality on the other led to controversies between Malthus, Sadler and other scholars. Later, his ideas were given a broader economic and social interpretation. Whether as the last representative of ‘primitive’ demography, or the first scientific scholar of the subject, he contributed to the triumph of political arithmetic throughout Europe.     

Alfred Marshall on the Growth of Population

Classical views of population, as expounded in the works of Smith, Malthus, and Mill, retained their influence through the nineteenth century and into the twentieth—until sidelined, many would argue, by the marginalist revolution in economics. Oddly, Alfred Marshall (1842–1924), the major figure in that revolution, was, when it came to population, himself firmly in the classical tradition. He diverged from it in two main respects. Writing in the late nineteenth century he had of course to take account of Darwinian theory, with the potential implications it suggested for differential fertility. And, deriving from his interests in industrial organization and efficiency and in biological analogies in economics, he gave greater attention than his forebears to the possibility that returns to labor could routinely be increasing as well as diminishing. Marshall, the preeminent economist of his time, was for most of his career professor of political economy at the University of Cambridge. His major work, Principles of Economics, was first published in 1890, and then in a series of revised editions over the rest of his life. The final—8th—edition appeared in 1920. (A “ninth” variorum edition was issued in 1961.) The Principles has been described, by G. J. Stigler, as the second greatest work in the history of economics. The contributions to theory and method warranting such praise, however, are chiefly in the later parts of the volume. Up to and including Book IV (The Agents of Production: Land, Labour, Capital and Organization), the reader is given the impression, according to Keynes, of “perusing a clear, apt and humane exposition of fairly obvious matters.” Certainly in comparison to the rest, these early sections were left fairly intact in their 1890 form over subsequent editions. But Keynes also remarks, in his lengthy obituary of Marshall, how deceptive that surface smoothness could be—and notes that Marshall “had a characteristic habit in all his writings of reserving for footnotes what was most novel or important in what he had to say.” The excerpts below are taken from Book IV, Chapters IV (§§1–2, 4–5) and XIII (§3), of the 1890 edition of the Principles. In the first, Marshall presents a brief, selective history of population doctrines up to Malthus, and then the doctrine “in its modern form”; in the second, from the concluding chapter of Book IV, he explores the applicability of the law of increasing returns—stated, earlier in the chapter, as: “An increase of labour and capital leads generally to improved organization, which increases the efficiency of the work of labour and capital.”     

On Estimating the Expectation of Life at Old Ages: Reply to Professor Coale

In 1758, an article containing the view that resources limit population growth was published in Copenhagen. This paper gives a short presentation of the author Otto Diderich Lütken's life and literary production. His radical views on the question of population are given, and a comparison is made with the theories of Thomas Robert Malthus. A brief account of his views on other economic issues is also presented. The literature concerning his writings is reviewed. A discussion of who influenced him, and of his influence on others, ends this paper.     

Malthus and the Philippines

Jose D. Drilon, Jr., president of Food Terminal, Inc., and a former undersecretary of the then Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources in the Philippines, attributes the widening gap between food supply and demand in developing countries to the high rate of population growth and to the inability of poor countries to produce more food. This situation, in which many countries are facing hunger, was predicted by Thomas Robert Malthus as early as the 16th century. The primary concern of Malthus was the problem of making the food supply keep pace with a constantly growing population. The question arises as to how reliable is Malthusian theory. According to Drilon, Malthus was correct in predicting that population would expand at a rate not previously imagined but that the other aspects of Malthusian theory might not hold true due to the intervention of human beings. For example, it is hoped that the imbalance between population growth and food production can be minimized in the future. In the Philippines there is good reason to be concerned about the validity of Malthusian theory. Although the country's growth rate has been reduced from 3.01% in 1970 to 2.6%, it is still quite high. However, the Philippines has actually been producing sufficient food to feed its population. To make the Philippines self-sufficient in rice, the government initiated the Masagana 99 program in May 1973. Technical and material resources from the public and private sectors were provided to aid rice producers. A nationwide information campaign was also launched to familiarize the farmers with the new methods of rice culture. Masagana 99 has been costly but effective. Since the launching of the program, rice production in the Philippines has been increasing at 7% a year. The government is now using the Masagana 99 formula to increase the production of other crops.     

James Mill on the Growth and Limitation of Population

The brief passages reproduced below from James Mill's 1821 work, Elements of Political Economy, present an early analysis of total and net fecundity, a discussion of the scope and limits of government influence on fertility, and a reflection on the goal of a stationary population. In his preface Mill describes the Elements as “a school‐book in political economy”—it was in fact based on the lessons he gave to his then barely teenaged son—and he disavows any claim to originality. Moreover, the chapter on wages, from which the excerpts come, has been generally disdained because of its espousal of the discredited wage‐fund theory of wage determination. But Mill's treatment of population is as fresh and stimulating as it is concise. James Mill (1773–1836) is now known more as the father of John Stuart Mill—and as the designer of the latter's famously rigorous education—than for his own writing. Born and educated in Scotland, Mill moved to England, making his living as a journalist. On the side, he was writing what became a three‐volume History of British India (1817), which led to long‐term employment in the London office of the East India Company. Mill's thinking on economics was strongly influenced by his friendship with David Ricardo and on public policy by Jeremy Bentham. The group of reformist thinkers that surrounded him, known as the philosophical radicals, were protégés in the main of Bentham. Mill, like others in this group, was a proponent of family planning, albeit far more cautious on the subject than the propagandist Francis Place. “Prudence,” which for Malthus meant only delay of marriage, Mill took equally to cover control of marital fertility: it should comprise measures “by which either marriages are sparingly contracted, or care is taken that children, beyond a certain number, shall not be the fruit.” In the last of the excerpts, offering an unapologetic vision of bourgeois leisure and affluence, he anticipates J. S. Mill's notable chapter on the stationary state (Book IV, Chapter 6) in the Principles of Political Economy (1848)—see the Archives item in PDR 12, no. 2. The text is reproduced from the 3rd edition of the Elements (London, 1826), this part of which is virtually the same as the first edition aside from some minor improvements in expression. The excerpts are from Chapter 2, Section 2, pp. 46–50, 57–59, and 63–66.     

The malthusian theory in pre-civil War America

Abstract Malthusian pessimism was singled out as the most vulnerable expression of the dominant, classical school of economics. Boston idealists, who saw the Malthusian concept as 'a curb to all reform', searched for a rebuttal in the study of institutional economics. The Pennsylvania protectionists, centred about Henry C. Carey, attacked the Malthusian concept as a barrier to the proposed 'American system' which was designed to increase population densities by promoting industrial growth. The fusion of these two schools of thought with the Free Soil elements in the Republican party brought about what many at the time considered a decisive defeat of the Malthusian philosophy in America. Clearly this was not so, for Malthus was never more popular than in post-Civil War America. Why this was so is the subject of this paper. There are various possibilities: The growing influence of Spencer, Mill and Darwin was certainly a factor, and four years of civil bloodshed appear to have reconciled many to the tragic view of life found in the Malthusian concept. Also, the wagefund doctrine was widely accepted during this period of industrial growth. Whatever the reasons, Malthus again proved his curious vitality after being buried by his enemies.     

Population and Poverty in Classical Theory: Testing a Structural Model for India

There has for many years been debate over the relationships between population growth rates and poverty. India is a country which provides a good testing ground for hypotheses about this relationship because since Independence a relatively high proportion of the population have lived in poverty; and there also exist reasonable data. This paper develops a simple structural model to investigate the relationship between population growth and poverty in particular, testing a series of hypotheses developed from the work of Marx and Malthus. The data are analysed at state level, and attention is drawn to the problems that this might cause as behaviour is typically determined at the individual household level. The results show that agricultural productivity and the process of landlessness are better predictors of poverty at a state level than the population growth rate. It is argued that the results fit better with the views of Marx than those of Malthus.     

Production functions and population theory

The persistence of the population problem in many developing countries' especially in Asia, must mean that the relation between population trends and productivity has to be kept continually under review. In recent years the economists' interest in this relation has shifted away from the Keynesian stagnation analysis, with its emphasis on the influence of population trends on the level and composition of consumption and investment, to a reconsideration of their influence on production. It is a striking testimony to the influence of Malthus that his theory is still under active consideration and that it frequently serves as starting point, as it does for Professor Belshaw, for an analysis of the economics of population. Divorced from its particular context, in which value judgements particularly distasteful to many commentators abound, and reformulated in terms of modern production theory, it clarifies the main issues, by showing what facts are required and what logic demands in order to provide a useful answer to practical problems of policy. Readers of the first two chapters of Professor Buquet's book will find ample confirmation of the sterility of much of the debate regarding optimum populations which developed largely from differences of opinion about definitions of “good” and “bad” economic criteria for policy than from faults in logic. The debate continues and the posthumous career of Parson Malthus still occasions even personal abuse! It would be difficult, however, to accuse Professor Belshaw of taking sides in the Malthusian debate. He takes the Malthusian analysis for what it is worth, shows where it fits the facts and where it does not, provides convincing evidence of a Malthusian problem in Asia by a skilful round-up of well presented statistics, and then, instead of committing himself to a forecast of what is likely to happen in Asia, he illustrates through the modern theory of production what are the pre-conditions for a removal of the population problem. This is surely a sensible procedure and contrasts favourably with the sibylline utterances of a number of distinguished amateur social scientists.     

Bertil Ohlin on Population,Trade, and Territorial Expansion

The international economic problems of the 1930s–in the aftermath of World War I and the depression—at first sight have few resonances with the present day. The leading powers of the time protected their industries behind high tariff walls. Most of them possessed colonies or were intent on regaining those lost in the war. Restoration of the free‐trade regime of the decades prior to 1913, and creation of a new financial architecture to support it, seemed a remote prospect. In all kinds of ways the post‐World War II and especially the post‐Cold War world is in vastly better shape. Yet some of the themes of the earlier period remain relevant. The colonies are gone and territorial expansion is virtually inadmissible, but the options for dealing with international imbalances in factor supplies and factor prices are otherwise the same: international trade, capital flows, and migration. The insight that international trade and international movements of productive factors could be substitutes owes much to the work of the Swedish economist Bertil Ohlin. Ohlin's magnum opus. Interregional and International Trade (1933), building on earlier work of Eli Heckscher, developed what became known as the Heckscher–Ohlin model of international trade. In its simplest form it described trade in a two‐region, two‐factor, two‐good economic system. With subsequent generalizations, the theory accommodated not just trade in goods but also movement of factors. Capital flows were principally of interest, but labor flows were formally analogous. The practical differences between the two, of course, were considerable: migration was not an acceptable mode of factor price equalization. Nor is it today, when worries about rapid population growth attach to poor countries rather than (as they did in the 1930s, if speciously) to industrialized states claiming lebensraum. Indeed, it is less so, since the population sizes of the sending countries are multiples of their 1930s levels and high migrant flows encounter resistance in the receiving countries. The passage reproduced below comes from a project on economic reconstruction and financial stabilization organized by the Carnegie Endowment and the International Chamber of Commerce. One output of this project was a volume International Economic Reconstruction: An Economists' and Businessmen's Survey of the Main Problems of Today (Paris: International Chamber of Commerce, 1936), over half of which consisted of a study entitled Introductory Report on the Problem of International Economic Reconstruction, by Ohlin. The excerpt is part of Chapter 7 of this report: The Problem of “Overpopulation,” Colonies, Markets and Raw Materials. Bertil Gotthard Ohlin (1899–1979) had a distinguished career as a politician as well as economist. He was a long‐time member of Sweden's parliament, in which he led the Liberal Party—mostly in opposition. During 1944–45 he was Minister of Trade. In 1977 he received the Nobel prize in economics (together with James Meade) for contributions to the theory of international trade.     

SHORT REVIEWS

Books reviewed in this article: Adele E. Clarke , Disciplining Reproduction: Modernity, American Life Sciences, and “the Problems of Sex” Delia Davin , Internal Migration in Contemporary China Anton Kuijsten, Henk de Gans, and Henk de Feijter (eds.) The Joy of Demography… and Other Disciplines: Essays in Honour of Dirk van de Kaa William Petersen , Malthus: Founder of Modern Demography Eric B. Ross , The Malthus Factor: Population, Poverty and Politics in Capitalist Development Nicholas Van Hear , New Diasporas: The Mass Exodus, Dispersal and Regrouping of Migrant Communities Thomas M. Wilson and Hastings Donnan (eds.) , Border Identities: Nation and State at International Frontiers     

Life-Stories and Storied Lives: Genre and Reports of Lived Experience in Gay Personal Literature

ABSTRACT

Personal literature may be written either as a life story such as an autobiography or memoir or as an autobiographical novel. Using the three volumes comprising the memoir of author Paul Monette and the three volumes comprising the autobiographical fiction trilogy of journalist and novelist Edmund White, this article explores the goal of each author for selecting a particular genre in which to write about lived experience. Each author enjoyed an elite education and came to adulthood in postwar America in the decade prior to the gay rights era beginning in the 1970s, and each writer participated in the sociosexual culture emerging over the succeeding decade. Each writer became HIV+ in the 1980s (Monette died of complications attending AIDS in 1995), and each writer experienced the loss of his lover to AIDS. While Monette and White each experienced the anti-gay prejudice of postwar American society, Monette's youth was less troubled than that of White who grew up in a complex family with a distant yet harsh father toward whom he was also sexually attracted. While Monette's goal in writing a memoir was that the suffering of his generation of gay men should be remembered, White's goal was more personal, choosing autobiographical fiction in his effort to overcome his feelings of shame about being gay founded on his desire for his father.     

John Weyland on Encouragements to Population Increase

Modern worries about the economic and social consequences of low fertility and eventual population decline have led to numerous proposals for subsidy arrangements aimed in effect at “buying” healthy and potentially productive children. The most innocuous of such schemes, typically with welfare rather than population goals in mind, is the institution of the family wage—paying labor based on family size. The passage reproduced below, from John Weyland's Principles of Population and Production (1816), offers an early instance of such a scheme being argued for on demographic grounds. Weyland's account of the “artificial” encouragement of population increase begins with an artless analogy to managing a stud‐farm, but the stance is mercantilist rather than totalitarian and is leavened by a strong concern for the health and morals of the future citizens. That the state might wish to raise its population growth was of course contrary to Malthusian doctrine. The long and contentious debates on Britain's Poor Laws gave more prominence to the opposite goal: that of preventing births that threatened to become a charge on the community. Weyland, however, asserted that the tendency of population was to “keep within the powers of the soil to afford it subsistence.” A prior population increase (to a level “just beyond the plentiful supply of the people's want”) was a necessary stimulant to productivity—indeed, was “the cause of all public happiness, industry, and prosperity.” (Modern versions of this view are found in the writings of Ester Boserup and Julian Simon.) Moreover, he argued, with urbanization came an inevitable fall‐off in population growth—reaching “a point of non‐reproduction” when around a third of the population lived in towns. Malthus responded to Weyland in an appendix to the fifth (1817) edition of the Essay: Weyland's premise, he wrote, is “just as rational as to infer that every man has a natural tendency to remain in prison who is necessarily confined to it by four strong walls.” Weyland's book as a whole he dismissed in unusually intemperate terms: “It is quite inconceivable how a man of sense could bewilder himself in such a maze of futile calculations, and come to conclusions so diametrically opposite to experience.” More concisely, and specifically on the subject of the extract below, an entry in the Essay's highly distinctive index reads “Encouragements, direct, to population, futile and absurd.” John Weyland (1774–1854) was an English rural magistrate of independent means. He took an active part in the Poor Law debates of the early nineteenth century, arguing for payments under them to include child allowances. The full title of his major work is: The Principles of Population and Production as they are affected by the Progress of Society with a View to Moral and Political Consequences (London, 1816). There are modern reprints by A. M. Kelley and Routledge/Thoemmes Press. The excerpt is from pp. 167–175.     

The female antihero and police power in FX’s Justified

The male antihero in the police procedural is marked by a fundamental conflict. On the one hand, his hypermasculine behavior signals that he is an independent actor with no allegiance to the state for which he works. On the other hand, his actions usually work to shore up the power of the state, which relies on his hypermasculine displays of independence to get the job done. Through this sleight of hand, audiences are encouraged to embrace the cop and loathe the system, not recognizing the fundamental complicity of the two. We argue that this formula is significantly interrupted in Season Two of Justified, when audiences are introduced to a female antihero—Mags Bennett—as powerful and trigger-happy as its main protagonist—Raylan Givens. As Mags emerges as the primary unlawful force of the show, Raylan increasingly aligns himself with the federal forces he was more at odds with in Season One. Mags strips Raylan of his antihero status, exposing him as a working stiff for the feds. The season ends with Mags’s death, but not before it presents audiences with a glimpse of an alternative order—one in which toxic masculinity gives way to matriarchal ascendance and extra-legal violence is revealed as the modus operandi of the state.     

On some theoretic issues about planned control of population]

There are basic differences between Marxian and Malthusian population thought: 1) For Marx, population is a social phenomenon--human reproduction belongs to social production and population laws are social laws influenced by the means of production. Marx recognized that human reproduction had both a natural and a social relationship, but Malthus population theory only acknowledges the natural relationship of human reproduction. Malthus believed that if population grows without interference, it will double every 25 years, or geometrically. It is evident Malthus substituted biological possibilities for the objective inevitability of population evolution, and natural population laws for social population laws. 2) Marx believed that social production is the unification of material production and human reproduction. Material production is controlled and necessitates control of human reproduction. For Malthus, the growth of the means of subsistence never catches up with the growth of the population, but Marx said that even though land is limited, the development of production forces is limitless. Marxist theory postulates that man is basically a producer, but that population must be planned because not everyone is a producer (e.g., children and the unskilled). 3) Malthus believed that in capitalistic countries unemployment, famine, and poverty stem from too many births by the laboring class, i.e., population determines the economy. The only solution to population problems is to have fewer children. For Marx, economics determines population problems.