[Title | Contents | Acknowledgements | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 | Chapter 12 | Chapter 13 | Chapter 14 | Conclusion

Chapter 9

Population and Environment:
Both these are minor issues

Population

A quick overview of the issues involved "The real problem is not excess people, but excess government."

Population and Environment: some facts

India has "outperformed" many nations of the world in population. See this note by the Population Reference Bureau.

Our population is seen to be a problem by some. While it is definitely a major issue to discuss and find a solution about, I do not seriously think of it to be the cause of any problem. Consider the population growth rates of the USA and India. In the 1890s, a hundred years ago, the population of India was about 290 million, and that of the USA was 63 million. Today, the US population has increased to more than four times its 1890 level, without any hindrance to its economic growth. (see US Census Bureau statistics at :this website. Similarly the Japanese population has increased from about 40 million a hundred years ago to 126 million today (over three times), without in any way harming economic growth. On the other hand, the population of UK increased only from about 40 million to 59 million today, and yet we know that the UK has lost out considerably to nations such as Japan and USA in relative terms. The Indian population has not yet reached four times its 1890s level and we are in serious trouble. Actually, we are much poorer now than we were, relative to the nations of the world at that time. Does any of this indicate that population has anything to do with becoming rich, or poor?

A given population is excessive only with reference to the ability of its support systems. Our infrastructrue (roads, public water supply), and our administration is so poorly managed and in such deplorable condition that it appears that our population is excessive. In that sense, I also agree. When compared with the facilities that are required to support a given population, we are in deep trouble. We should not have had so many children.

But when looked at in the absolute context, there is NO population level known to mankind so far, that can be laballed as excessive or unsupportable.

It often appears that we have lagged behind so far in the race for economic development that we shall never be able to catch up with the West. But clearly, if the West could increase its population in such a large way without compromising economic growth, then there is hope for us yet, provided we find out what caused their growth and what caused our lack of growth. The answer clearly emerges - the correct economic policy causes growth, and bad economic policy causes slow growth.

There is also incontrovertible evidence that economic growth leads to lowering of fertility. The case of Thailand, which I am studying in great detail, is a case in point. In less than one generation, its fertility dropped precipitously from levels close to that of India a generation ago to levels found only in the most developed nations in the West.

Once we have gone over the initial hump of high fertility, low saving rates, low per capita incomes, etc., and set into place the human capital required for economic growth, our savings rates should shoot up (as the number of children to be looked after by each family declines), and our people, being more capable, should be able to generate more wealth in each year than was generated in our entire past (I do tend to sound a bit foolish, making such statements, but some of these statements are over-emphasized for the sake of impact). In any case, I broadly agree with Julian Simon that population growth has not been a great drag to economic growth anywhere.

A note on the Relative Share of the Population of the Indian Peoples

India's population remained broadly stable till 1921, commencing its upward growth thereafter as the health facilities started improving and mortality diminished. This growth was seen with great concern by many Indians and foreigners.

But, with the help of longer series of data, it becomes useful to see this population in the global perspective. Tables 1a and 1b in Appendix III show the relative share of India's population to the world total, since 1750 AD. We see that undivided India's population was around 1/5th of the world's total, and slipped to about 17% in 1900. It is now in the process of recovering and will ultimately marginally exceed the original 1/5th share. This implies that the outcry about India's population growth is not quite warranted.

The population of divided India will grow much slower than the populations of Pakistan and Bangladesh, increasing its global share by 14.2% from 1950, while Pakistan and Bangladesh combined will increase their share by 89% in the world population in the same period.

India has only 15% of the world's population but produces 20.8% of the rice in the world, as well as 9.8% of the wheat. Today India also happens to be one of the three largest exporters of foodgrains in the world, with surplus foodstocks that could feed its entire population for months.

There is little correlation between population (or density) and per capita income. Theoretical views such as those of Simon provide adequate support for this view. Empirically, this seems to hold true for India in a big way, with higher populations sometimes leading to higher incomes.

In general, the Malthusian view is not a valid description of human behavior, which is extremely complex.

Environment

We are right to be looking at the environment as an issue of concern. But a few things are essential to note:

1. Technology not only brings pollution, but clears up pollution: Advanced technology leads at first to increased pollution, but then, as economic growth is fuelled at a rapid pace, this leads to a surplus which is then utilized to develop technologies that reduce pollution. Today's oil (used in cars) is far less polluting than anything used earlier. The car engines use less oil, and pollute less. The Thames river was extremely polluted and dirty, but the appropriate use of money and technology, the Thames has been one of the cleanest rivers in the world for many years now. Los Angeles was one of the most polluted cities in the world. Today, despite having more than 80 million cars, its pollution levels are rapidly abating.