Paul: This an excellent question! I think there are three main positive outcomes from a high level of population growth:

1. Larger labor force

2. More consumers (increased demand)

3. Larger tax base for the government

However, there may be three main negative outcomes:

1. More students in school

2. Demand for more jobs. If more jobs aren't available, higher unemployment

3. Possible more burden on government aid programs

The net effect will depend on the ability of the economy to create more jobs as the population grows and the ability of schools to meet the higher demand.

The youth through innovation and wealth creation.

يساهم في النمو في حالات معينة على سبيل المثال وجود مشاريع تشغيلية تستوعب أعداد كبيرة من الشباب القادرين على العمل.

@ Stock Paul. Very aptly summarized.

I would like to add that the so called Demographic Dividend should be utilized by enhancing skill development in the relevant areas to avoid unemployment and drive the economy.

Yes; it does. Others argue that without proper infrastructural development, it may not. However, it seems to have a positive contribution even in developing countries. See the paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40277590.pdf

I we remember Robert Malthus population has a negative impact on economic growth, because the world population was growing exponentially and while agricultural production increased in an arithmetic progression.

@ Martha

Malthus theory does not hold in the current scenario.

What he said was applicable may be a century ago.

The influence of population growth on economy is not well studied. I addressed this question in one of my papers. The basic idea is that there exists optimal population density. Article Socio-economic influences of population density

Population will determine the labour force and it will affect the production and therefore GDP and economic growth

I want to comment to the answer of Paul Stock. Yes, there are both positive and negative effects. If consumers live in a city, higher population will create both higher demand and tax base. I see no problem in higher demand for schooling. It is solvable and creates jobs. But we should not forget about interaction with nature (agriculture, fishing, mining, etc). Resource dynamics is rarely studied by economists, only by environmentalists. Here I tried to make a theoretical model that predicts a catastrophe from the unbounded population growth. First for the nature, and then for the human civilization as well. See Conference Paper Model of Dynamic Interaction between Economics and Nature

To

Yuri Yegorov

Well crafted answer. Role of environmental is being overshadowed by economists with the single agenda of upping the GDP.

As a general rule, goods and services have less growth than the population.

Population explosion leads to more consumption and drive in economy but inept planning may lead to environmental issues.

Need is to strike a balance between resource use and eco-preservation.

Hello Rajiv:

Population growth has a negative effect because of poverty, is a multifaceted concept, which may include social, economic, and political elements.

Martin Ravillion, How long will it take to lift one billion people out poverty?

He considers two scenarios for reducing by one million the number of people surviving one less Than $1.25 a day, "Pessimistic Path" would take 50 years or more to lift one billion people out poverty. "Optimistic Pat" would take lift one billion people out poverty by 2025-2030.

To

Kunal

Very important info

In the world population debate, the general concerns involve mainly three interconnected consequences of the population explosion: 1) the growing poverty in the world and famine; 2) the exhaustion and pollution of natural resources essential to human survival; and 3) the migration pressure from the poor South to the rich North (Van Bavel, 2004).

Also, population growth increases rural-urban migration, creates higher urban agglomeration and misery in urban areas.

Yes, High population means more brains who will come with innovative ways to increase the economic activity of the country. The richest countries have population as one of the contributing factor. In Africa, we have Nigeria, South Africa, Ethiopia etc.

There are underpopulated and overopulated countries. There are different influences of population density on economics. I was considering this question in my paper: Article Socio-economic influences of population density

Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) .

The Malthusian Theory of Population is a theory of exponential population growth and arithmetic food supply growth, population grows faster than resources, leading to progressive population poverty.

Yes, first of all, if we relate the models of classical, traditional economy to a highly developed economy, in which in the previous years the process of changes in the demographic structure consisting in the aging of the society was noticed. In such a situation, the increase in the scale of births in the following period several years and after a period of several or several years, i.e. when the new generation of the birth boom enters the period of professional activity, then another pro-development impulse will appear in the economy.

Thank you, Greetings,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

As say Dariusz, in many countries (European) aging is playing a negative role in economic growth, because he number of working-age people is expected to decline steadily.

Population growth, if indeed it is a problem, is a nicer problem to have. What is often referred to as a population problem, in reality, relates to how resources are deployed and allocated.

The debunked Malthusian theory is a classic. By assuming a static technology, the math is projected unchanged and predetermines the outcome. Technology however changes all the time. With each technological shift, resources that were critical become obsolete as they were replaced by enhanced means of production that proved more efficient than the previous one. For this reason, the famine that Malthus predicted did not quite work out. In fact, in areas where severe famines were experienced, the causes went deeper into corruption, how society was organised, and how the resources were plundered.

A young population tends to make the economy grow faster, through consumption, production, and investment to meet future needs. An aging population may slow, with consumption patterns changing. In societies that is depopulating, the economy would tend to decline as less people are around to drive economic activities.

It´s difficult root of problem, because the problem is not the population itself, but the fact that they do not have the resources to obtain the goods necessary to survive.

It depends on the type of economy, sectoral structure of the economy, its stage of development, etc. For example, in economies of developing countries, economies of intensive growth but with low levels of production technology, rapid population growth is correlated with increasing number of jobs for people in newly opened and developing production and service companies. On the other hand, in highly developed economies with a high level of technological development, a high level of implementation of modern Industry 4.0 technologies in production processes, e.g. a high level of involvement of robotics and artificial intelligence, technologies that learn machines, etc., many new places are not quickly created in production processes work, so rapid population growth is not essential.

Regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Thomas Malthus established an important relationship between population and wealth but maintained that basic idea as an inexorable constituent of an unequal society, where the privileged rich did not need an excessive population if it could cause them problems to increase its wealth. John Maynard Keynes, refers to the Malthusian theory in his book The Economic Consequences of Peace (1919), when he mentions the possible economic and social disaster due to the pressure of the population in Germany, which indeed happened.