Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
So friends, this is our third lecture on population theories. In the first two lectures, I have
discussed Malthusian theory of population, and Marxist theory of population. In Marxist
theory, last time I showed that Marx rejects Malthusian idea that there can be any natural
law of population, and he says that basically the relationship between population, and poverty
or unemployment is not a relationship between two independent factors.
Unemployed unemployed population or unemployment is only one part of the capital or one part
of the labor. The un-part unpaid part of the labor is represented by accumulated capital,
and the paid part by variable capital. So, it is a relationship between two components
of the same labor unpaid part, and paid part. And according to law of capital accumulation,
what we calls iron law of capitalist accumulation. As time progresses and as capitalist advancement
takes place, proportion of variable capital keeps on declining, means that part of the
capital which goes to workers in the form of wages facilities and perks declines and
fix capital increases. Then I also talked a little bit about Hardin’s
idea and Eldritch idea of population bomb, which are in a way more supportive of Malthusian
theory and made a comment that ultimately when you look at population policies around,
then policies of different countries are governed more by practical considerations rather than
by theoretical considerations. In today’s lecture, I will concentrate on demographic
transition theory, unlike the other two theories Malthusian and Marxian, which are speculative
theories. Demographic transition theory is more of a factual kind database, empirical
and a short factual. In sociology, you know the meaning of the
term facts, social facts Durkheim gave this concept of social fact. Durkheim would say
that something like suicide as a concept would deal with definitions, how is suicide define,
how does suicide gets defined. That is the conceptual part and the pattern relationships
or or of patterns, regularities in ideas, beliefs, values which can be discerned with
the help of empirical data or facts. They are outside individual’s consciousness.
In looked at from that perspective, in demographic transition birth and death rates are facts.
They have a pattern. As according to Durkheim suicide rate was a fact because for each culture,
there was a distinctive rate of suicide and for different categories of population there
were different suicide rates, likewise demographic transition is a fact because birth rates and
death rates represent demographic situation of a country, a culture, a social structure,
a society and they are unrelated to individual choice. They are result of individual choices
but, ultimately at the societal or macro level, they emerges facts.
So, demographic transition theory is one such attempt, which explains changes in demographic
regimes or changes in birth and death rates, in response to processes of development and
modernization. What happens to society? Is there a pattern? Can we say that a society
which is in the primitive stage or undeveloped stage and is characterize by high birth and
death rates. When it modernizes, when it develops what happens to its demographic regime. That
is the question the demographic transition theory attempts to answer.
So, demographic transition theory is an attempt to capture the history of change in demographic
condition. It is a process of change from a situation of high mortality and high fertility.
This should be fertility. A process of change from a situation of high mortality and high
fertility to a situation of low mortality and low fertility. Demographic transition
theory is based on the history of western, mainly north-west European countries and it
relates demographic transition to economic development and industrialization.
Let me use the board, so that the transition becomes more clear. You know demographic transition
theory says that initially in pre-transitional stage or you can call it primitive or ancient
society, primitive society. A society in pre-transitional stage or you may call it primitive society
has high and fluctuating death rates. Death rate is number of deaths per year divided
by average population for that year. So, number of death divided by average population.
Why average because population is changing every day, every minute, every second population
is changing. So, it is in some kind of average of population between first January and thirty
first of December and number of deaths in a year. You know, in primitive society as
we have seen when we were talking about world population growth, death rates were high and
fluctuating. The long term tendency of death law was around 15 per 1000, 50 per 1000 population.
In ancient society or in primitive society or in less developed less developed stage,
death rate was around 50 per 1000. Life expectancy at that time was around 20. When we discussed
demographic models, I said that in a theoretical case life expectancy is 1 upon c d r, you
see this kind of connection here. When life expectancy was around 20 and the population
was stable with 0 rate of growth, then the death rate of population was around 50 but,
it was fluctuating. You know sometimes it would rise to a level of 250 or 300 also.
If there is an epidemic, if there is severe malaria, small pox, plague or some such disease
or earth quakes or devastations or wars, then the death rate can rise to even 250 but, then
it also means that subsequently death rates can decline to a much more lower level. So,
there were fluctuations. As time pass, in stage 2 means in developing
stage or to use that term of demographic transition theory transitional stage. You find that death
rates, first the fluctuations are smoothened up, death rates remain high but, these fluctuations
become less severe and then death rates start declining. So, death rates are declining and
in the third stage or developed developed stage, this is stage 1, this stage 2, this
stage 3, developed stage, death rates have come to a very low level. How low? It may
be as low as 5 to 7 per 1000 population. Sometime back, our death rates were high and
fluctuating and the crude death rate was around 50. Today, it is almost one-tenth of that.
5 to 7 per 1000 population and life expectancy at this stage is around 82 years. That is
some of the developed countries like Japan or Sweden life expectancy for women has gone
up to 82 years. One major reason behind high crude death rate was high infant mortality
rate i m r. i m r was as high as 300 but, today this i m r has declined to around 3
per 1000 child birth. When thousand, in in country like Japan when
a thousand children are born, only 2 or 3 of them die before celebrating their first
birth day. All of them survive. So, this happen to mortality. As society progress from stage
1 to stage 2 and then stage 3, mortality started declining. During this time, as you have seen
that for millions of years, the rate of growth of world population was almost 0 or very low
that means fertility. If I show fertility by dotted lines, then fertility or crude birth
rate was also around 50 per 1000. So that, the growth rate of the population
is 0. We call it Z P G, zero population growth. In stage 1, we had 0 population growth because
mortality was high, fertility was also high and perhaps, along with mortality fertility
was also fluctuating. In those years, in which mortality of population was much better. On
long term basis, birth and death rates remained around 50 and we had 0 population growth but
as time passes as society developed, mortality declined, for quite some time fertility remained
same or fertility did not decline at the same pace at which mortality declined. So, fertility
remains high. And that means that the difference between
fertility and mortality, which gives us the growth rate that is increasing. We have increasing
growth rate during the transitional period and there is some time, when this growth rate
is maximum after that point fertility also starts declining and eventually, it is possible
as it has happened in some countries that the level of fertility goes below the level
of mortality or at least they remain at the same level. They may fluctuate, fertility
may fluctuate, death rate may remain low or some time increase a bit or decrease a bit
and the 0 population growth is again restored. So, this is the second stage is the period
of population explosion population explosion and the third stage is again the stage of
0 population growth. This is what the theory of demographic transition says. Now, why does
this happen, why did this happen, that death rates start declining and reach a low level
like this, can death rates improve further, why does birth rate decline, what maximum
value of growth rate is possible. These are all questions related to demographic transition
theory. This, according to classical version of demographic
transition theory, it explains reduction in death rate in terms of industrialization economic
development and urbanization, in a broad sense that industrialization economic development,
urbanization lead to transition in death rate. Though, many subsequent versions of demographic
transition theory reject this idea of death rates responding to urbanization, industrialization
and economic development but, in the classical form, it was said that death rates reduce
because of this. You see, normally we think that that death
rates reduce in response to public health expansion or improvement in medical technology
or health facilities, yes or development of antibiotics or advance in general advancements
in medical technology. That is there but, at least in the developed countries, in in
the countries of north west Europe, improvement in medicine was not the major factor. The
major factors were related to economic development to improvement in labor laws, political stability,
improvement in public awareness, education, improvement in nutrition and only subsequently
in the last century. When mortality declined further, then development of antibiotics or
improvements in surgical procedures, development of anesthesia and increasing role of public
health became important factors but, initially they were not the important factors.
It is easier to reduce death rate, death rates nobody wants to die and all societies want
to make an effort to reduce their death rate. There is not much opposition to improvement
in scientific medicine, opening of hospitals, DDT spray, there has been some resistance
somewhere. But by a large irrespective of socioeconomic status, religion, culture all
countries accepted all efforts on the part of the state to reduce death rates. But state
has limited capacity to influence birth rate; birth rate decision regarding births is taken
at the micro level, individual couple’s level and unless couples are themselves convey,
that it is in their interest to reduce family size. They will not do so.
So, it takes time for birth rates to decline. Death rates can decline due to state efforts,
macro level efforts and due to general improvement in socioeconomic conditions of society. But
birth rates decline only when the individual couple perceive that reducing birth rate is
in their interest. So, in short this is what demographic transition theory says. To repeat,
according to demographic transition theory, you can divide the history of demographic
transition in a country into three parts; stage 1, when death rate is fluctuating and
high, it is at the level of around 50 per 1000 and the life expectancy is 20.
The development, economic development, industrialization, urbanization death rates start declining and
eventually, they reach a low level, as low as say 5 to 7 per 1000. In this stage, life
expectancy has gone. Already gone up to 82 and there is a possibility that life expectancy
can improve further. Initially, in the stage 1, birth rates are also high and fluctuating.
On long term basis, birth and death rates remain at the same level. So, the growth of
population is 0 and then after some time, when death rates have already declined.
So, decline in birth rate, birth rate decline in response to two factors. In response to
one, decline in death rate and second, desire to limit family size for improvement in the
status. So, this is not very well understood phenomenon, why does birth rate decline, why
do couples limit family size. There may be several reasons behind and reasons varied
from country to country but, decline in death rate was suppose to be a necessary condition,
not the sufficient condition, in necessary condition for decline in birth rate and then,
general improvement in socioeconomic condition, modernization, development and this is what
demographic transition theory says. So stage one, in ancient society, survival
of society require that it reproduces at the highest level to counter the high force of
mortality cause by small pox, plague, malaria, infection diseases, wars, natural disasters,
shortage of food, conflicts and wars.
If a years was free from natural catastrophes, mortality were relatively lower and if there
were outbreaks of diseases, wars, fire, famine or abnormal rainfall, then mortality was high.
In this stage, the rate of growth of population was around 0.
In the stage 2, society develops, death rate starts falling, reasons are not adequately
understood but, have to do more with economic development, urbanization and industrialization
rather than expansion of public health facilities. Developments of antibiotics and better surgical
techniques have certainly played an important role in reduction of death rate but, mostly
in the second part. In the second part of the transition, in the last century not in
the first part and this reduction in death rate therefore, in absence of reduction in
birth rate led to population explosion.
Stage 2 society experience rapid population growth. Then finally, stage 3, there is equilibrium
between birth and death rates again, when couples start limiting number of children.
In stage 3, when death rates are low and birth rates are also low, you have the condition
of 0 population growth.
So, this is a typical picture of demographic transition, with blue colour transition in
birth rate is marked, red colour transition in death rate is marked and you see as society
moves to towards stage 2, then the population size starts increasing at a faster rate. Initially,
in this period, in the stage 1, the size of population remains same. Then the size of
population starts growing at faster and faster rate and in the stage 3 and 4, they, in this
picture we have shown stage 4 also, which is a more advanced stage.
You know, in some books demographic transition stops here. But in some other books, there
is an attempt to do justice to experiences of developed countries in contemporary times.
So, a fourth stage is shown and in this, by the time countries enter the fourth stage.
when birth and death rates are extremely low and fluctuating, then population size has
almost stabilize.
Demographic transition has not followed the same course in all parts of the world. This
is a very important point and this also explains why you had population explosion. I must talk
of population explosion only in 1950s. If I show the difference between developed
and developing countries, it is like this. In developed countries, you never had population
explosion. The reason was, that in developed countries it took a very long period of time
for death rates to decline. In a developed country, again the students of sociology can
understand these things better. This developed, developing; these are all ideal types. Otherwise,
when you go to a specific countries, then experiences in specific countries may slightly
differ from what we show here, in the form of graphs and diagrams.
In the developed countries, mortality started declining in 1750; not exactly 1750, means
some time in the second or third part of 18th century and death rates, before transition
also in the developed countries, death rates were relatively lower. May be for environmental
reasons or whatever or developmental reasons, death rates were slightly lower, fluctuating
over and it took a very long period of time to reach the level of death rate of contemporary
developed countries. It took a very long period of time. Today, in 2010, it is form now that
I am saying that life expectancy of 82 years increase from life expectancy of say 25 to
30. Developed countries had lower death rate and
a higher life expectancy than the case of developing countries has been. So, from 1750
to 2010, merely 260 years, the major change in death rate took place in this 260 years
time. Some demographer say that it took about 300 years, 3 centuries for death rates to
decline from nearly 25 to 30 death rate to a death rate of 7 or 8.
And during this time, their fertility had also started declining. Actually, in some
countries like France, when we talk of demographic transition model, we are referring to situation
in England. In France both fertility and mortality declined at the same time but, in classical
version of demographic transition, birth rate decline, birth rate decline follow and gap
between birth and death rate at any point of time never exceeded a figure like 0.6 percent
per year because it was a long term process. It took more than 2 centuries or even 3 centuries
for death rates to decline. So, death rates declined at a slower pace and in the mean
time, birth rate also started declining and they never had the problem of population explosion.
Anyway, less than one-third of the population of the world lived in developed countries
and when they started growing in 18th and 19th century, their growth rate was also never
very significant, maximum 0.5, in some countries 0.4, some countries 0.5, 0.6. Rarely, some
countries exceeded 1 percent. So, this was the situation in developed countries.
In less developed countries like India or other developing countries of south Asia,
Africa; what happen, the death rates were high and fluctuating and the situation remained
almost like this, till till the Second World War, till 19. if I If I write year 1950 here,
it will be arbitrary, we cannot exactly say that till 1950 death rates were same and then
suddenly but, this is indicative of a brought trend, that there was not much decline in
death rate in developing countries till the time of second world war.
After that and may be more because the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America became free
around this time and they had their own governments, they had advanced medical technology, DDT
and all these things were already available, what they needed was simply to borrow money
from developed countries for international organization and use that for expansion of
public health and suddenly, you find the death rate has declined. So, in this is in developed
countries, in developing countries there was a sudden decline in the death rate but, fertility
remained same. There are some indication that in some countries
including some parts of India, initially with modernization and economic development fertility
increased a bit. It is possible. Fertility can increase with with modernization but,
not much and it took quite some time for birth rate to reduce. Even now, our birth rate is
much higher than the death rate. Now, this express why in 1960s the world population
was exploded. First, nearly two-third of the world population lived in less developed countries
or developing countries. Second, the transition was sudden. Suddenly after Second World War,
death rates started declining, birth rates did not decline and this decline in death
rate was independent of started declining Hindu, Muslim, Christians, Africa, Asia, Latin
America. The extent of decline defers but, in all countries,
there was a decline in death rate, birth rates remained high. So, as a result of that you
find that many of the less developed countries during this time grew at a rate 3 to 4 percent
per year, with the doubling time of 20 to 25 years. Very rapid growth of population.
This is the cause of population explosion in the world. So, in 1960s we had explosion.
This was that time and demographic transition was occurring in less developed countries
and due to sudden decrease in death rate and constancy or slight improvement in birth rate,
there was a population explosion. So, this is what the slide explains, that
in the developed countries it took a very long time in mortality and fertility to decline
and since, the changes in both of them was slow, they did not experience, means developed
countries did not experience population explosion. In less developed countries, the change was
sudden. Now, it is easy for any state to work effectively towards reducing death rates,
there is no religious or political opposition to DDT spray or vaccination or immunization
program in the country. It is not that if congress party develops immunization program
for children, then BJP opposes. Nothing, everybody supports reduction in death rate.
But, this is not the case with family planning. If those of you who read literature of that
time and you know little bit about emergency period, when congress party and specially
under the leadership of Sanjay Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi was a very strong supporter of family
planning program. So, when congress party went for family planning in a big way promoting
sterilization, then it became a big political issue and the next parliamentary election
was fought on the issue of sterilization only and the congress party was defeated and Janata
came. So, it is not easy for states to reduce fertility.
Now, coming to causes of fertility decline, because this is the problem we are facing
now. For fertility to decline, the couples must perceive, a smaller family is a better
family than a larger family. This perception is important, individuals must recognize couples
must recognize that smaller family is better than a larger family. Second thing it is possible
to decide how many children one should have. You may like to have a small family but, if
you think that it is in the hands of god, that if god wants to give you a small number
of children, you will have small number of children; if god is sending more number of
children, you will have more number of children, where you cannot do anything.
People may not know that they can do something to limit family size, then also fertility
will remain high. So, this is second thing, that people must know that it is possible
to decide how many children one should have and then, there are several methods of birth
control that people are practicing, means norms; it must become a norm. People are practicing,
I am not the only person to practice family planning. Couples must realize that we are
not deviants, if we are trying to limit family size, if we are using contraceptive methods,
we are not deviants. It has become a norm and there is at least one birth control method,
which is easily available, affordable, safe, legitimate and acceptable. but, what is safe,
affordable, acceptable; these all depends on the culture.
Now, from your perspective or my perspective, from the perspective of educated people in
India or anywhere, easily available, affordable, safe, legitimate method must be ***. But
you know that in a country like India, most of the family planners are using sterilization,
that too female sterilization. If you look at statistics of family planning in India,
most couples are using female sterilization as the method of as the method of birth control,
which is not easily available. After all, it involves some surgical operation but, it
is affordable. As compare to condoms, it is not so easily
available, so affordable, so safe and but, it is legitimate because we are a patriarchal
society and in patriarchal society, we cannot take risk for men, we can take risk for women
only. Even if even if there are perception, even if there are rumor that in some village
somewhere after female sterilization 2 women died. No problem but, no men should become
weak after sterilization because man is so important and as a result of that we have
more of female sterilization than anything else.
The couples accepting condoms is hardly 5 percent and most people are using female sterilization.
Our country, our family planning program, our nacho national aids control program, where
they want that *** should become more popular and particularly in your age group, among
adolescents and young adults. Not only for the reason of family planning but, for preventing
the spread of *** AIDS epidemic and we must freely talk about that and motivate couples,
motivate youths, young adults to use condoms.
As far as evaluation of demographic transition theory is concerned, it has certain limitations
also. First, it only summarizes the empirical experiences of some industrially advanced
countries but does not present a coherent theoretical framework to establish relationship
between develop development and demographic transition. It cannot be used for making predictions.
So, suppose we know demographic transition theory, can we predict how much more time
Pakistan will take to reach below replacement fertility. We cannot and it completely ignore
the rule of migration. Demographic transition theory takes into consideration only birth
rate and death rate. There are many countries like countries of middle-east, which are greatly
affected by the process of migration, international migration. It does not talk about international
or national migration. And it does not explain it does not explain
the time that a country will take to reach low levels of birth and death rates. In some
country, in developed countries they have taken 250 years or 300 years. In some countries,
in the less developed world, they are taking much less time. It does not explain the causes
of change in death and birth rate, the causes of change have not been same everywhere.
And therefore, there are various versions of demographic transition theory. Some give
more importance to economic development, some to industrialization, some to social development.
Social development means not economic development, not income, not improvement in per capita
income but improvement in education, health and empowerment of women.
So, there are different versions of demographic transition theory in the sense, that they
use different explanatory variables for explaining why transition. In some theories, more importance
in is given to economic development, mostly in explaining transition in north-west Europe.
Economic development and industrialization were given more importance but when the transition
was observed in less developed countries, they have the social development, life expectancy,
then education and westernization means values in place of economic development or social
development, some demographers give more importance to values than state policies. In many countries
like China, state policies have played a more important role in reduction in birth rate.
In our country also family planning program and state policy has influence changes in
birth rates quite significantly. That our was the first country in the world
to launch an official family planning program in early 50s and as a result of that today,
more than 65 percent couples, married couples in India are using family planning methods
and man may be variety of other factors.
Some people are also talking about second demographic transition, in which this refers
to rapid fall in fertility to the below replacement level. Some of the developed countries, you
see the fertility has not only come to below replacement level 2.1 but average number of
children in many countries has gone down to 1.2 or 1.3, which is a cause of worry for
them and a cause of ageing of population. So, whether our country, whether India will
also have second demographic transition. Already some states like Kerala, Himachal Pradesh,
Goa, some states in India have gone below the replacement fertility. So, it is not zero
population growth. It is potentially a negative rate of growth of population.
Then there is third transition, some people use the term third transition for a situation,
in which after reaching below replacement fertility, some countries have shown some
sign of improvement. As in, when the developing countries will
achieve the replacement or below replacement level fertility, this issue will become important
for them also. So, in Kerala the next question would be, is it possible for Kerala to have
replacement level fertility? In the past we were worried about high fertility. Now, the
issue would be whether Kerala or Himachal Pradesh or Goa or Delhi would be able to maintain
the replacement level fertility at least or they will also suffer from negative growth
rate of population. Now, connected with the demographic transition,
is the threshold hypothesis. Some demographers ask this question in the context of the developing
countries, whether development, economic development, social development, industrialization industrialization
and urbanization will immediately produce results or it will take some time for them
to produce results in terms of reduction in birth and death rates.
So, the threshold hypotheses suggested, that some threshold level of socioeconomic improvement
is required, after which only further improvement in socioeconomic conditions will lead to reduction
in fertility, not before that.
And Bernard Berenson, a famous demographer use the following threshold level. For birth
rates to reach a level of 30 per 1000, adult literacy must be around 70, school enrollment
55, life expectancy 60, infant mortality 65 and so on and for birth rate of 20, the values
of these indicators should be this but this is debatable. Many countries have started
reducing their birth rate to lower levels, much before achieving this threshold level
of values. There are no fixed indicators for the decline of mortality and fertility.
But vital rates have fallen, mortality and fertility in different circumstances and broadly
speaking, one may say that some minimum level of change in standard of living is required
before people start thinking of planning family size. But it is not possible to fix any particular
value of the indicators and there is no agreement regarding, which variables must be given top
priority in applying threshold hypotheses, whether education or life expectancy or urbanization
or infant mortality rate or what the question is not easy to answer. Is it education, income,
urbanization, age of marriage, women’s empowerment or what that determines beginning of demographic
transition?
Now, you have some questions. We can take one or two questions before I go to the next
theory. Sir, when you talk about demographic transition theory and see that this stage
2, shows population explosion. So, is it good for nation for going through this stage and
if it is good. Demographic transition theory is a factual
theory. It is not bothered, whether growth of population is good or bad. It only say
that in response to factors of economic development, industrialization and urbanization death rates
start falling and so, if period of high growth rate of population commences, eventually when
birth rate has also declined, then we have a 0 population growth again.
But whether this growth of population is good or bad, generally the agreement is that the
growth of population in the developed countries. When they were passing through this transition
stage 2 was good. Their population was small density of population was small, they were
industrializing at fast rate and they needed labor. So, for economy of scale in their type
of population, perhaps this growth of population was good and this was a slow growth rate of
population. In developing countries, where economic resources
were scarce, capital was scarce, already there was so much of poverty, unemployment and economical
past and then, the growth rate of population was sudden. 3, 4; 3 percent, 4 percent, in
our country we never had 3 percent but, in our country also we went up to 2 point something.
Demographic transition is silent on whether this this much of growth of population will
be good or bad and by issue whether in India or less developed countries, growth of population
was good or bad has been a debatable question. Certainly, in the short run, rapid growth
of population is bad because it reduces your investment, savings investment; you have to
spend more on consumption and therefore, investment which is converted into growth rate of national
income by using some incremental capital output ratio, that is affected.
But in the long run, when children born today, enter the labor force after say age of 20
or so, it is possible to think of positive contribution of population growth also. We
are more of human capital and if you can give them skill, if you can provide them resources,
equipment to work, then you can also the benefit of their contribution.
Sir, the theory do you think, it says that the transitional theory is based on the fact.
Do you think that we are not ignoring one of the important fact that all societies are
not moving together. that all societies are moving from a culture to industrial society.
So, we cannot implement it in all society. This is a drawback of this theory.
This is a drawback of this theory that you cannot generalize on the basis of experience
of north western European countries. Even in north-west Europe, different countries
experience transition in different ways. Actually, this demographic transition theory does more
justice to experience of England and Wales. Not even to not all north European north western
European countries, France did not confirm to this pattern and in France decline in death
rate and decline in birth rate were almost the simultaneous process.
So, there was never any time when their population was growing at any high pace. You know demographic
transition theory assume that first there will be reduction in death rate and then,
reduction in birth rate will follow. But in France, both of this things happen simultaneously
and so, obviously different countries are following different models, not all countries
in the same region also have the same pattern. And sir because these are natural processes
one cannot direct that in a particular channel or direction means death rates, birth rates.
These are natural processes. So, obviously demographic transition should take place at
different levels. Here the the purpose of theorizing them sociologically
is to say that there may be biological processes but they are determined a lot by socioeconomic
cultural and psychological factors. So, from that perspective birth and death, birth and
death are biological phenomena but for us, for sociologists they are social facts and
we sociologists at least in what is called functional approach or systems approach like
to explain one fact in terms of other facts. So, we try to explain changes in birth and
death rates in terms of education, economic development, empowerment of women, urbanization
and so on. This is what. So finally, because there has been a debate
on debate along theoretical lines, debate along it is not clear what factors explain
transition. So, some people have suggested to, you know your question whether growth
is good or bad. That question can be answered better in terms of what we call optimum population
theory.
According to this optimum population theory, there are some basic assumptions of the theory
that there are five factors of production labor, capital, organization and enterprise.
one single factor produces nothing. Cost of production falls with increasing use of one
factor and increases thereafter. Perfect substitution of one factor by another
is impossible and optimum point arises, when the ratio of marginal productivity of factor
A to that of B is same as the ratio of price of factor A to that of B. This is the equilibrium
condition in economics literature. This is the point at which equilibrium of various
factors and population would be obtained and population is a non-specific factors, which
can be put to alternative uses.
Now, in its simple, what optimum population theory says that if you draw a relationship
between population and an indicator of development. Whatever your indicator of development is,
it may be say per capita income. Then initially as population increases, your per capita income
also increases. You can say there are increasing returns in terms of income there are increasing
returns of population and your per capita income is increasing. Population is increasing
and per capita income is also increasing. We are benefiting from economy of scale. Population
is increasing, per capita income is also increasing and there is economy of scale.
But beyond a certain limit, you see this economy of scale is also observed in case of urban
and rural areas. Why are large cities growing faster because there is economy of scale.
Urban areas metropolitan areas Bangalore, Bombay, Delhi; these cities are growing faster
than medium size or small towns because there is economy of scale. So, a certain amount
of population is necessary, a desirable condition for growth of income. But beyond a certain
level, further increase in population can lead to and normally leads to reduction in
welfare or reduction in per capita income. Same way it can talk about other indicators
of development. So, according to optimum population theory
optimum population theory, there is some size of population at which you derive maximum
benefit in terms of per capita income or other indicators of development.
This is optimum size of population and beyond this further increase in population is undesirable
because then, further increase will lead to reduction in the welfare.
Now, this theory has also been criticizes. Myrdal Gunnar Myrdal, the famous writer of
Asian drama. Myrdal say that the optimum theory is associated with new Malthusian and demand
for a small population on policy ground, then Gottlieb have stated that it is impossible
to compute an optimum. How do you compute? is India’s population optimum today or it
must rise a bit further? Or we have already crossed optimum, how do you determine such?
How do you determine such numbers? Or how do you answer such questions? Then optimum
population size depends on a variety of factors, such factors are resources, level of technology,
structure of economy, model of ownership, means means of production, class relations,
international situation and and they change with time.
Moreover, the optimum population size would depend on the criterion used for maximization
of welfare. Suppose, you say that on the basis of per capita income, this is the optimum
size of population. On some other basis, like infant mortality or life expectancy there
may be another optimum. So, that is another problem.
Let me finish today by a quotation from professor Mukerjee of lucknow school. That true optimum
of population is the integral optimum, which is based on a harmonious co-ordination of
the optima in the successive levels of ecology, economy and state in respect of A the expectation
of life. So, he is identifying, do you remember Radha Kamal Mukerjee of Lucknow. radha This
is a quote from Radha Kamal Mukerjee. So, he is indentifying various indicators in terms
of which optimum must be established. The expectation of life, real income real; real
income means income adjusted to changes in prices. If prices only are changing, if there
is inflation inflationary trend, then small increment in income can be due to is neutralize
the neutralized by change in prices, real income, personal happiness and self expression.
All these from the individual standpoint and of the stability of economic base and occupational
balance the regularity and continuity of employment and see national security in power. All of
the latter from the collective standpoint. So, if you think from individual standpoint,
if you thinks from collective standpoint. Radha Kamal Mukerjee has made discussion of
optimum population much more difficult by introducing the concept of individual standpoint,
collective standpoint and various dimensions of development life expectancy income, happiness.
How do you measure happiness? Self expression, how do you measure self expression? And at
the macro level, economic base, occupational balance, what is occupational balance and
national security in power. Mukerjee said that this optima was however
only a hypothesis. Though of a great analytical value, and cannot be quantitatively measured
or expressed. I think we stop here today. If there is any any more questions, we can
take up one question. So, we stop. Thank you.