Read this article to learn about the Optimum Theory of Population!
The
optimum theory of population was propounded by Edwin Cannan in his book
Wealth published in 1924 and popularised by Robbins, Dalton and
Carr-Saunders. Unlike the Malthusian theory, the optimum theory does not
establish relationship between population growth and food supply.
Rather, it is concerned with the relation between the size of population
and production of wealth. The Malthusian theory is a general theory
which studies the population problem of a country in keeping with its
economic conditions. Thus the optimum theory is more realistic than the
Malthusian theory of population.
Definitions:
But what is optimum population? The
optimum population is the ideal population which combined with the other
available resources or means of production of the country will yield
the maximum returns or income per head. The concept of optimum
population has been defined differently by Robbins, Carr- Saunders and
Dalton. Robbins defines it as “the population which just makes the
maximum returns possible is the optimum population or the best possible
population.” Carr-Saunders defines it as “that population which produces
maximum economic welfare.” To Dalton, “Optimum population is that which
gives the maximum income per head.” If we were to examine these views,
we find that Dalton’s view is more scientific and realistic which we
follow.
Statement:
The optimum population is that ideal size
of population which provides the maximum income per head. Any rise or
diminution in the size of the population above or below the optimum
level will diminish income per head. Given the stock of natural
resources, the technique of production and the stock of capital in a
country, there is a definite size of population corresponding to the
highest per capita income.
Other things being equal, any deviation
from this optimum-sized population will lead to a reduction in the per
capita income. If the increase in population is followed by the increase
in per capita income, the country is under-populated and it can afford
to increase its population till it reaches the optimum level. On the
contrary, if the increase in population leads to diminution in per
capita income, the country is over-populated and needs a decline in
population till the per capita income is maximised.
But the
optimum level is not a fixed point. It changes with a change in any of
the factors assumed to be given. For instance, if there are improvements
in the methods and techniques of production, the output per head will
rise and the optimum point will shift upward. What the optimum point for
the country is today, may not be tomorrow if the stock of natural
resources increases and the optimum point will be higher than before.
Thus the optimum is not a fixed but a movable point.
According to
Cannan, “At any given time, increase of labour up to a certain point is
attended by increasing proportionate 5 returns and beyond that point
further increase of labour is E attended by diminishing proportionate
returns.” The per capita —income is the highest at the point where the
average product of labour starts falling. This point of maximum returns’
is the point of optimum population. This is illustrated in Figure 17.
2.
The
size of population is measured on the horizontal axis and the average
product of labour on the vertical axis. AP is the average product of
labour or income per head curve. Up to OP level, increases in population
lead to a rise in the average product of labour and per capita income.
Beyond OP, the average product of labour and per capita income fall.
Hence when population is OP, the per capita income is the highest at
point L. Thus, OP is the optimum level of population. To the left of OP,
the country is under-populated and beyond OP, it is over-populated.
However,
OP is not a fixed point. If due to inventions there are improvements in
the techniques of production, the average product of labour might
increase and push the level of per capita income upward so that the
optimum point rises. This is shown in the figure where the AP
1 curve represents the higher average product of labour and point L
1 shows the maximum per capita income at the new optimum level of population OP
1.
Dalton’s Formula:
Dalton
has deduced over-population and under-population which result in the
deviation from the optimum level of population in the form of a formula.
The deviation from the optimum, he calls maladjustment. Maladjustment
(M) is a function of two variables, the optimum level of population О
and the actual level of population A. The maladjustment is M= A – 0/0
When
M is positive, the country is over-populated, and if it is negative,
the country is under-populated. When M is zero, the country possesses
optimum population. Since it is not possible to measure O
1 this formula is only of academic interest.
Its Superiority over the Malthusian Theory:
The optimum theory of population is superior to the Malthusian theory on the following grounds.
(1)
The Malthusian law is a general study of the population problem because
it is applicable to all countries irrespective of their economic
conditions. The optimum theory is superior to the Malthusian theory
because it studies the population problem in relation to the economic
conditions of a particular country.
(2) Malthus had a narrow
vision. He related the growth of population to food supply. Cannan, on
the other hand, had a much wider outlook. He related the problem of
population to the total production of the country, both industrial and
agricultural.
(3) The Malthusian theory is a static concept which
applies to a period of time. The optimum theory is a dynamic one because
over a period of time the per capita income may rise with the expansion
in output due to improvements in knowledge, skill, capital equipment
and other elements in production. This may raise the optimum level of
population. Thus the optimum theory is more realistic.
(4) The
Malthusian doctrine is simply theoretical and is devoid of all practical
considerations. It regards all increases in population bad, for they
bring untold miseries to the people. Malthus wrote, “The table of nature
is laid for a limited number of guests and those who come uninvited
must starve.” On the other hand, the optimum theory is very practical
because it regards an increase in population not only desirable but also
necessary for the maximum utilisation of the country’s natural
resources.
(5) The Malthusian theory of population is based on the
unrealistic assumption of the niggardliness of nature. This belief
arises from the operation of the law of diminishing returns in
agriculture. But the optimum theory takes a realistic view when
according to this the law of diminishing returns does not operate in
agriculture immediately but after the optimum point is reached. In other
words, first the law of increasing returns operates up to the optimum
point and the law of diminishing returns after it.
(6) Malthus was
so much obsessed by the fear of over-population that he ignored a
fundamental fact that a newly born child ‘comes not only with a mouth
and a stomach but also with a pair of hands’. The optimum population
theory allays all such fears of the Malthusians by stressing the fact
that increasing population increases the labour force which helps raise
the optimum expansion of the country’s natural resources.
So long
as the actual population is less than the optimum, the increase in
population is safe and good. It is only when the actual population
exceeds the optimum that the increase in population needs control Thus
unlike the Malthusian theory which necessitates the use of preventive
checks all the time for fear of the country being over-populated, the
optimum theory is free from all such taboos and is silent about any type
of checks to control population.
(7) Malthus was essentially a
pessimist who portrayed a gloomy picture about the future of mankind
which was full of misery, vice, floods, droughts, famines and other
natural calamities. The optimum theory; is superior to the Malthusian
theory because it does not suffer from any pessimism, rather it adopts
an optimise and realistic attitude towards the problem of population
when it relates population to the wealth of the country.
Its Criticisms:
Despite the superiority of the optimum theory over the Malthusian theory of population, it has serious weaknesses.
(1) No Evidence of Optimum Level:
The
first weakness of the optimum theory is that it is difficult to whether
there is anything like an optimum population. There is no evidence
about the optimum population level in any country. In fact, it is
impossible to measure it. For optimum population implies a qualitative;
well as a quantitative ideal population for the country. The qualitative
ideal implies not only physique knowledge and intelligence, but also
the best age composition of population. These variables are subject
change and are related to an environment. Thus the optimum level of
population is vague.
(2) Correct Measurement of Per Capita Income not Possible:
Another
difficulty pertains to the measurement of per capita income in the
country. It is not an easy task to measure changes in the per capita
income. The data on per capita income are often inaccurate, misleading
and unreliable which make the concept of optimum as one of doubtful
validity.
(3) Neglects the Distributional Aspect of Increase in Per Capita Income:
Even
if it is assumed that per capita income can be measured, it is not
certain that the increase in population accompanied by the increase in
per capita income would bring prosperity to the country. Rather, the
increase in per capita income and population might prove harmful to the
economy if the increase in per capita income has been the result of
concentration of income in the hands of a few rich. Thus the optimum
theory of population neglects the distributional aspect of increase in
the per capita income.
(4) Optimum Level not fixed but oscillating:
The
concept of the optimum population assumes that the techniques of
production, the stock of capital and natural resources, the habits and
tastes of the people, the ratio of working population to total
population, and the modes of business organisation are constant. But all
these factors are constantly changing. As a result, what may be the
optimum at a point of time might become less or more than the optimum
over a period of time. This is illustrated in figure 17.3.
AP
1
is the average product of labour or per capita income curve. Suppose
there is an innovation which brings a change in the techniques of
production. It shifts the per capita income curve to AP
2. As a result, the optimum level of population rises from OP
1 to OP
2 with the increase in per capita income E from P
1M
1 to P
2M
2. If the per capita income rises further due to a change in any of the above assumed factors, the AP
2, curve will shift upward. The AP
2 or AP
1
curve can also shift downward if, for instance, the capita income falls
due to an adverse change in the given factors. If the locus of all such
S. points like M
1 M
2 etc., are joined by a line,
we have the PI curve which represents the path of the movement of the
optimum population as a result of changes in the economic factors. If,
however, the actual level of population is assumed to be OP
0 and the optimum level OP
1 then the country is over- populated. If OP
1 is the optimum level, then the country is under-populated. Thus the optimum is not a fixed level but an oscillating one.
(5) Neglects Social and Institutional Conditions:
The
optimum theory considers only the economic factors which determine the
level of population. Thus it fails to take into consideration the social
and institutional conditions which greatly influence the level of
population in a country. A lower level of optimum population may be
justified from the economic viewpoint, but such a level may be harmful
keeping into view the defence considerations of the country. For
instance, economic consideration may prevent us from having a large
population but the danger from foreign aggression may necessitate a very
large population to safeguard our territorial integrity. Thus the
optimum theory is imperfect and one-sided.
(6) No Place in State Policies:
The
concept of optimum population has no place in the policies of modern
states. While fiscal policy aims at increasing or stabilising the level
of employment, output and income in a country, no reference is made to
the optimum level of population. This theory is, therefore, of no
practical use and is regarded as useless.
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/population/the-optimum-theory-of-population-economics/10891/