Population Versus Prosperity

Population is the number of inhabitants in a particular area.  Research has shown that human population began three million years ago. Since then population growth was in spurts depending on food availability, climate, natural disaster and epidemics, then in geometrical progression with the advent of medical science. Once the population in a particular place increased, and the availability of food decreased people migrated to other suitable places. In this blog, let me explain the relevance of population to economic growth and prosperity.

One thing we should examine is whether the current population growth holds back economic development and destroys the living environment. Does economic growth precede population growth or population growth precedes economic growth? Many people consider that excessive population growth in the third world hampers development. But recent history shows that steady population growth is a stimulus for economic growth. Current world population growth is 1.03% and in 1968  and 1969, it was the highest at 2.09%. In fact the relationship between population growth and economic development is a complex issue.

Reasons for population growth in the last two centuries are due to the longevity of human race and high fertility. People live longer and are more  healthier than before. This is attributed to the advance in medical science, and treatment system. But huge inequalities exist across continents and analysis of global population growth rates shows that population growth is rapid in certain parts of the globe. We know that fertility is high in the lower middle class, certain  religions and in under developed countries.  Religious authorities who are against birth control  helped to increase the percentage population of their religion . Religious interference and faith resulted in the population explosion in countries like Bangladesh.

But at the same time, we should look into the manoeuvring of excessive population growth through stringent measures as happened in China between 1975 and 2015. During Mao Zedong’s period, the birth rate fell from 37 per thousand to 20 per thousand. At the same time the longevity increased from 35 years in 1948 to 66 years in 1976. Chinese population control  was achieved through contraception, abortion, sterilization and late age of marriage. Since traditional Chinese families preferred male child to female child, there was an imbalance in the male to female ratio in the Chinese population.  The authoritarian Chinese government enforced the compliance through, coercion, fines and imprisonment. India being a highly populated country, Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi imposed similar draconian measures during national emergency in 1975 to curb population explosion.

 In Japan the economic growth stalled in 1990s because of the growth of older people relative to  reduced working age people. Affluent Japanese were living longer and practised low fertility. Japan did not correct this demographic change through liberal immigration policy and the situation still continues. Same demographic changes happened in China. The enforced reduction in fertility from 1975, reduced the working age population. At the same time, relatively high number of older people living longer drastically affected the economy adversely. Older people do not help to produce food or pay tax, but consumption of food and usage of services continue. In 2016, china abandoned one child policy, allowing one couple to have two children. Chinese authorities consider that it is the balanced approach to regain its GDP growth and economic development.

However, fertility rates in some developing Asian, South American and African countries will remain high, thereby inflating population growth. Most population growth in the coming decades will come from the demographic momentum arising from young people. This group will enter their reproductive years soon and account for 80% of the world population growth. Until 2050, 70% of future world population growth  will take place in just 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia excluding  China.

Rise in income and standard of living will lead to fall in fertility. This is what we have seen in Japan,Italy, Germany and other developed European countries, where there is a dearth of available workforce. We witnessed how Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany allowed huge number of refugees and asylum seekers in the last decade against strong opposition from the UK. Scandinavian countries like Sweden also gave abode to overwhelming number of asylum seekers, to such an extend that it will tilt the demography of the country. It has been predicted that the high fertility rate of asylum seekers predominantly from  the Muslim community will change the Swedish culture, tradition and customs in the generations to come!

Population explosion affects the environment and carbon dioxide emission, because greater the number of people, greater the waste they produce. Consumption of meat, and fossil fuels like coal, gas and oil  increases methane and carbon dioxide emission which trap heat like a glass house. The ramification of  global warming has a  far reaching detrimental effect on extinction of animals and plants, climate change, melting glaciers, severe droughts, rise of sea level and so on. Plastics and non biodegradable waste have deleterious effect on animals and fauna in the sea. If the population growth increases at this rate, by 2064 the global population would be 9.7 billion. In that scenario, world will have to witness all the catastrophic effects as elaborated above.

The sustainable  population growth, which  will help the economy will be 2.3 children per family. Artificial intelligence (AI) and robots are able to substitute human work force in many services, defence and industries while maintaining an optimum population growth. But negative population growth for a prolonged time will ensue ageing population, who are not capable of operating devices such as  AI or robots. In negative population growth consumer demand and trade will suffer and tax collection  will be reduced. This will adversely affect current living standards and general economy of the country.