I think if you look through the lenses of endogenous growth model, population growth is good for economic growth since the former increases the labor force and the stock of ideas.. Indeed, it depends on the country's institutions and political economy characteristics to reap the benefits of population growth by educating the workforce and creating an enabling environment for innovation...

This is an interesting question and I think the answer will hinge on the resources available to the population. Take a simple analogy of a bacterial or a fungal culture on a petri dish. As long as there is a suitable source of nutrients (resources), the culture will grow exponentially. This will continue until the depletion of nutrients causes the growth rate to end giving a sigmoid curve on a biomass-time or colony count-time graph - this is analogous to the microeconomy in the petri dish stagnating. Relocating a sample of the stagnated colony onto another petri dish with similarly available nitrients will cause another exponential rise in biomass. In conclusion, it is not so much the economic growth that causes the pressure on population, it is the depletion of available resources brought about by the surge in the economy of a vibrant population growth that ultimately puts the pressure on further population growth.

I guess a better question would be to compare the population growth with the growth in economic development (GDP Per capita growth) since higher economic growth (aka GDP growth) would not be a suitable proxy to understand the underlying question. Historically, the relationship between growth in economic development and population explosion can be divided into two phases (For Europe and US). 1) In the initial stages of industrial revolution, the population growth accelerated. An argument in support of this is that with increasing incomes, people were able to afford bigger families, leading to a population explosion (Pre 1900). However, as the labor force was absorbed by continued expansion, the trade off between raising a family and working started to weigh in (Especially as the female labor force participation rate increased) thus leading to a tapering off in the population growth (1900-1930) ultimately reaching a point of stagnation (1960-80s). A similar transition happened in South Korea as wikipedia notes

"The population of South Korea showed robust growth since the republic's establishment in 1948, and then dramatically slowed down with the effects of its economic growth. In the first official census, taken in 1949, the total population of South Korea was calculated at 20,188,641 people. The 1985 census total was 40,466,577. Population growth was slow, averaging about 1.1% annually during the period from 1949 to 1955,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea"

If you want a detailed discussion on the topic, you can consult the following book

DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS: From the Poverty to the Wealth of Nations

3e

By YUJIRO HAYAMI, YOSHIHISA GODO

Chapter 3:

Population Growth and the Constraint of Natural Resources

Population growth is a double edge instrument for economic growth as it provides demand stimulus to economy while providing human resource simultaneously. Well managed human resource (appropriately skilled/trained) can be a source of higher growth, foreign exchange if exported and social cohesion. Population growth is not a problem in itself rather poor management of population (human resource) is an obstacle in economic growth.

Well educated population can also contribute to research, innovation & ideas which are deemed to be sources of economic growth in recent literature. However, economic implications of population growth are likely to vary across countries depending on the level of education, training & skills.

Population growth in itself is not hindrance to economic growth. It is economy that make possible or impossible, if the economy is ready to observe working population than there will be an increase in per capita income or if economy has no potential to provide employment to the working population than there will be decline in the level of per capita income and ultimately on living standards that will create many other problems altogether. So in my point of view economic growth is function of many relevant variables among them population growth is one and how it affects to the economic growth will depend on economic, political and social indicators. Its a long debate and differs with time and place.

I thank you laszlo for throwing light on the issue but do you think that unskill labor could really limit growth going by the fact that most poor people cannot educate a large family size

Selsah i shar competely in your view thanks

Population growth is an impediment to economic development is an outdated and exaggerated theory. With more youth population and the ever increasing technology, achieving economic growth is not an issue. The real issue lies in access to and controlling resources. As of now, it is with a small group. That has to decentralized and equally distributed.

I agree with Colin. We live on a finite planet with far too many human beings for sustainability, and an unethical distribution of resources within and between countries. We are running out of water and soil, among many other precious resources. Economic growth accounting as measured by growth in GDP does not reflect the depletion of non-renewable resources and the biosphere and is thus a complete fiction. Increasing populations can only increase the strain on the finite biosphere and resource depletion. Those with high incomes and wealth impose a much larger per capita burden on our stained biosphere than those living in poverty.

The future will be grim unless world leaders recognize and address these issues. And I haven't even mentioned climate change yet.

I feel that population growth if not always, but most of the times puts pressure on economic growth. The factors which propel economic growth get neutralized if population grows beyond a certain limit, often affecting them adversely.

It is obvious that the per capita availability of all resources, whether natural or financial declines with growing population putting immense pressure on economic factors, which contribute to growth.

Both is wrong, I would state.

>The question is not really clear in its definition. What does pressure mean to you? Pressure to rise or pressure to shrink?

What really is "pressure" on economic growth? Economic growth is a summary of a lot of activities. How could you ask for "pressure" on a statistical value?

My feeling is that you want to ask:

"Has population growth put pressure (to rise the) economic growth (measured per head or in total?) ...

or has economic growth put pressure (to shrink) population growth?"

But even then it is not very plausible.

Economic growth and population growth CAN rise together or the other way round.

But there is no logical connection at all.

Please specify much more clear what you want to ask.

Anthony,

I agree with Muhammad Yousaf that economic growth puts pressure on population growth. Anecdotal evidence show this in the growth history of many industrialized nations. Development and economic growth data shows typically that as a country is developing in real terms (not lip service economic growth) labor force participation of both spouses becomes more probable or is a must in the formal sector whether private or public. Remember in the market economy world there is very little room for wiggle when it comes to the number of hours spent (in every 24 Hour Cycle) raising and caring for infants and young children. It becomes very very expensive for any given family to have many children as there is pressure on both spouses to work at least 8- 12 hours per day. That is why you have very low population growth rates for industrialized economies and large growth rates for developing countries. I believe, however, that in the early stages of industrialization a large population plays a key role in terms of aggregate demand for a countries manufactured products if there is gainful employment. Case studies are China and India. In economic growth theory we have what we call Steady State rate of growth. An economy will have high growth rates in the beginning but after say 20-30 years of sustained growth. the country will go through a terminal velocity phase and assume a Steady State growth rate. It is around this time or there about that probably population growth rates also reach terminal velocity phase or even decelaration.

I thank you Bamabas and Muhammed for your wonderful presentation. Please Muhammed i do i get the book you recommended

I agree with the views of Olaf Schilgen that economic growth is an enigma to balance the population growth and vice a verse but always it is not true. Kerala is a state of India have medium level of per capita income but keeps optimum population growth and other demographic indicators and keeps satisfactory level of living standards while other states have higher level of per capita income (comparison to Kerala) but their population growth is imbalanced and pressure on their living standard may be seen easily. Thus, it can be conclude that policy decision (good Governance) have also an important role.

Population growth usually results in the reduction in the income per capita. This makes it to be viewed that population increase impacts negatively on economic growth. But this is not always the case as many tend to take it to be because there are a times that population growth tends to be positively correlated with economic growth. So it all depends on the availability resources to support the increasing population.

There’s also the question of Distribution Systems, as Amartya Sen contends in his work

Dear Heather and Maria,

your comments are ethically right - but this was not the question really asked, I would say.

There is always a wider field of research or ethical judging or a missing field ...

but it was not asked.

As i said above, the question itself is quite incomplete. I would comment the question therefore as "very" incomplete.

Including your comments: I really have no idea, what the question is really asking for. Or shorter: "What is Antony wanting to ask? What is his intention?"

There are many other obstacles to development. In Latin America we should look to wealth and income concentration, rather to only on population growth. Demographic growth has been sharply falling down in the last decades, but since the 80s economic growth has been quite low, the lowest in average since early 1900, yes since 1900!

This goes back to the old question that Carlino and Mills tried to address with their classic JRS paper: do people follow jobs or do jobs follow people? The literature is pretty clear on the answer, it depends on the growth patterns of the national economy. During economic expansion periods, jobs follow people, but during economic slowdowns, recessions, people follow jobs.

The population and economic growth dynamic is mediated by income inequality and its impact on aggregate demand. The arugment is less about how population puts pressure on economic growth than whether economic growth that fuels inequality is sustainable in the long run.

This reminds me of the discussions at the end of the 1960s/beginning of the 1970s: Marxists vs Modernization theorists, the Club of Rome etc. First of all: there is no sound economic answer, it all depends on your economic paradigm. Second, try to correlate these variables... and the outcome is completely dependent on the type of correlation, index years, definition of variables, etc. For ex. I did this in the 1970s and found no significant correlation if we put everything in one basket. However, if you did a chi square then you found a more or less significant positive correlation between pop growth and econ growth. Ergo: it is all in the eye of the beholder.

In theoretical context, there are broadly three major perspectives concerning population and development linkages:

a) Pessimistic View - population growth has overall negative effect on resources and on economic growth (development) in particular- Malthus and NeoMalthusains - population control policy is based on this perspective.

b) Optimistic View - population growth has overall positive effect on economic development - Mercantilists and others who argued population is the ultimate resource - 7 billion people 7 billion possibilities.

c) Neutralists/Revisionists Perspective- population growth is not a major determinant of economic growth - Marxists, Julian Simon and Welfare Economists and others who have transformed themselves from Neo-Malthusian ideology to optimistic view points.

The revisionists (David Bloom and others) have innovated the theory of demographic dividend; their research have indicated demographic factors (rise in young labour force) as strong contributors to economic growth based on the experience of Asia and other developing countries.

I may add that during the last (just) 100 years (1900-2000), World Population rose from just a billion to 7 billion. But it’s also the century when human innovations, development and wealth creations have been unprecedented. However, critics may argue that it’s also the century of major environmental consequences – global warming, water shortages and overall unsustainable development.

The term "pressure" is the core problem in the question, i would say.

Any correlation which can be found ... is not at all a "reasoning" also in the same time.

But "pressure" inherently expresses a reasoning - and is asking of the way of reasoning.

Is it A -> B or B --> A?

The inherent constated reasoning of both statistical numbers (number of heads and economic growth) is taken as a given fact in the question.

But I would first ask, if that can (by any means) really be the case?

Asking for the direction of a reasoning ... and implicitly assuming there is such reasoning ... is not a good method or question.

I would therefore again ask for a better question. This one is not worth many thoughts.

I thank u Parianayagam for your wonderful exposition. It is enrishing. Olaf since you hqve problem with pressure i would advice you read malthusian and the neo malthusian theories on the consequences of population . Also read neo natalist population growth theory the question is not a recent discussion. I want to examine the relevant in a developing country. Statistically the issue could be resolve by causality test not logical transitivety

Well, I am not sure why I should read some books as long the question is not detailed and not sufficient in my opinion.

Your question:

"Has population growth put pressure on economic growth or

has economic growth put pressure on population growth?"

It is a question of a decision. It encloses the implication that one of both alternatives is the right one. There is no question of "what are implications of both views or such open questions ...

Your question implies that there is a consequentially connection ... which I would state as wrong.

An answer like the answer from Parianayagam ... does therefore not really fit to your explicit question of a decision between two options.

This is a pure logical statement - without any surrounding knowledge of other opinions. If Maltus had an argument ... well, bring it. If not: It is just an opinion.

That's all. I simply think the question is too unclear, too unspecific.

My idea is: There is a question behind, which you are thinking about ... why not asking it directly?

I thank you Olaf for your opinion . Iet me answer you without refering to theory. Pressure is a limiting point for example pumping a tire tube there is a limit you cannot go above in developing country economic limit, that is the ability to provide for children has limit the rate of fertiliy and consequently population growth. This is one aspect of the issue in another vien some individuals feel that population is the limiting factor on economic growth. This is the best i think i can go so u see it is not a logical issue it is empirical

From a sociocultural pov, as individuals and couples acquire higher education and incomes, they tend to have lower number of children, 1-2, instead of larger families.

Anyone who tries to answer this question without a thorough understanding of peak oil (and peak other things) and declining EROI (Energy Return On Investment) has no chance of getting it right.. While Olaf says that the last century was a time of increasing technology almost all of that technology was fueled by increased use globally of fossil fuels, and particularly oil, which increased at very close to the same rate as the global economy. Oil production increased at 3-5 percent a year during that century, but now production is flat and likely to decline, and new oil (and gas and....) are much more energy intensive to harvest. Countries that have had their own peak oil (such as Syria, Egypt, Indonesia, UK, Argentina and many more) are all facing serious economic difficulties and often social unrest. This will soon be a more general problem. All this is outlined quantitatively in Hall and Klitgaard's "Energy and the wealth of nations" (Springer). I would also like to point out that there are a number of reviewed publications (Ugo Bardi, Hall and Day, Graham Turner) that have found that as of today the Club of Rome baseline projections are essentially all on target after almost 40 years. The question of course is whether we will enter a period of violent oscillations that the CoR model predicts might happen soon.

Please: that is my view. I don't want to defend or argue it as I know all the arguments

Dear Charles,

You made a quite important point!

I totally agree to say that Economic growth is until today nearly totally fueled by fossil fuels, by fossil crude oil.

But I have a small comment to your words:

"While Olaf says that the last century was a time of increasing technology almost all of that technology was fueled by increased use globally of fossil fuels, and particularly oil, which increased at very close to the same rate as the global economy."

I would not directly say that the technology was fueled by the oil (or external energy at all). I would better say that it was the rise of more and more technology or knowledge of making energy used productively which caused and enabled the rise of economic growth.

The energy does not feed the technology - but feeds the machines which can produce with this energy all the kind of common goods.

It sounds quite similar but it is a big difference, i think.

And by the way: Your book is great.

Kind Regards,

Olaf

Thanks Olaf! Glad you liked our book.

When it comes to which comes first, the chicken or the egg, I opt for eggs and you for chickens..

Of course the use of energy required Wilkinson and Watt and the Scottish enlightenment and so on, I agree, but without the energy they would have been dead on arrival. I think we agree here.

I think there is a subtle difference in how we perceived "fueled by" -- I meant actually put into the engines, and I think you meant the innovation process itself. But overall I think we are very much on the same page.

This gives me an opening to say something more about energy, in this case about economics. In the usual basic history of economics the source of wealth for the three main schools of Western Economics is usually seen as:

1750 Physiocrats (Quesney) -- source of wealth is land

1800-1870 Classical economists: (Smith, RIcardo, Marx) -- source of wealth is labor

subsequently Neoclasssical economists (Walras... etc) -- Source of wealth = capital (Solow)

But in fact:

in 1750 the main energy running the economy was solar (and land intercepted it)

in 1825 the main source was the energy of human muscles

in last century it is capital, which is mostly machines to use the increasing important fossil fuels

So economic productivity at any time is all about energy .

In other words if you know how to look there is an energy component behind just about everything.

Charlie

Dear Charles,

we do argue on the same page, very much, I would totally agree!

Thanks very much for the short picture of economic history. I already saved your words in my citation database. ...

... because I work on a new economic theory ... stating that any given economy could be physically measured - by its total exergy used to produce all common and all capital goods. One measuring unit for the macro economy. Nothing else.

Because as you said: Energy lays behind everything.

The pure simple physical thing you need to run any given economy is: Energy and Matter. The amount of Matter ... is not a good unit to measure the "amount" of economic doing. But the energy ... is this unit for measuring the size of any given economy.

There is no way out of this argument ... Money is always relative (and the economic theory does not the "what it is relative to"-question really) ... the only absolute thing is ... well, for all kind of economic doing: Energy and Matter.

And both have the share of 100% - in their universe. Putting both together in a monetary description universe ... does not make sense at the end. Because (as I said) ... money is always relative.

The only 100% absolut unit for any (!) kind of economic doing is: Energy use to produce all the goods.

I know that this is very much against most todays economists ... but I am quite sure I am right. At the end, money is only paper for beeing used as a medium of exchange. Money is not the right unit to measure any macro economy and money is also not a medium of storage for value.

It is nothing else but for the use as we can see: Beeing used as a medium of exchange.

I did a paper about this. Quite short and probably not long enough to explain everything ... but it contains the core idea and its relevance ...

And coming back to the question here: By citing this theory I would say that the question raised here is not really sufficient to give a qualified answer.

It very much depends on a lot of not mentioned effects, factors and external inputs or systems. The question in my opinion is just too short.

Maybe you like my paper ...

Kind regards,

Olaf

p.s.:

Energy as the Numéraire of any Given Economy:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235412057_Energy_as_the_Numraire_of_any_Given_Economy?ev=prf_pub

or also a small "use case" for this theory:

Energy as the numéraire of any given economy for describing the phase out of a non-renewable economy by its physical units:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256086777_Energy_as_the_numraire_of_any_given_economy_for_describing_the_phase_out_of_a_non-renewable_economy_by_its_physical_units?ev=prf_pub

Conference Paper Energy as the Numéraire of any Given Economy

Conference Paper Energy as the numéraire of any given economy for describing ...

Well of course I love your paper! !!! I hope it has impact. The only thing is that I like our "whole economic system" diagram a bit more than yours.

Does this help others: Money (and debt) is an agreed upon lien on energy. If you have money it gains potency by giving you access to your national or the world's energy flow and the work it does.

Well, first I have to say thank you ... your work about the close correlation of energy and gdp was a trigger of starting to think about this widely (until today) unknown and not fully understood fact - as you mentioned above!

Most economist are feeling good with the definition of "what is economy at heart" by the phrase of dealing with some scarce goods ... ignoring the fact (in my opinion) that this is not at all a definition of "what is an economy" and also ignoring the question of how to measure it. As long there is no definition of "one part of economy" ... well, the definition is not sufficient - because there is no unit to measure it.

And I think, your fingerpointing on the correlation of energy consumption and gdp growth ... gives a very good hint where to search for it ...

And (coming back to this question) therefore the question of "Has population growth put pressure on economic growth or has economic growth put pressure on population growth?" ... is in my opinion touching one field of discussion about growth and population - but is not sufficient for a qualified answer.

But I agree that this is a very interesting field of discussion!

I observe that most developed countries models have limited applicabiily to the problems of a small open agriculturer economy for example what is the role of energy in a developing economy is it a financial variable

Well, you could name everything as a financial variable ... But nothing comes from paper money only. You Need someone build it if you want something. And the "Mister someone" in developed countries is mostly not a human anymore, but a virtual someone in the form of an energyslave.

You simply need a huge mass of energy to run a developed country ... Like US or so.

Read Charles Hall's papers or georgescu roegens papers or so about this.

You can say that the process of developing and in result of economic growth puts pressure on the energy need of an economy ... a huge pressure.

It is not population growth only, as I said.

The connection is only very thin ... as long as population growth normally comes with early stages of the process of developing, because it takes some time to stop the "formerly best working pension scheme" by getting much children in an undeveloped economy to a financial pension insurance in a far developed country.

And therefore, I think, your question was a bit to short to get the full picture, as mentioned above. But the discussion was quite fruitful, I think.

Anthony

In my middle years I was very interested in this question and spent many years or parts thereof living,learning and teaching in various "developing" Latin American countries.

I was initially astonished to find that Costa Rica was far more impacted by the oil price increases of 1973 (and 1979) than was the United States. I dug into this over the years and found that the agriculture of Costa Rica and other Latin American nations was extremely heavily dependent upon imported oil and petroleum-based agrochemicals: fertilizers, pesticides, animal feed supplements and so on. They were using more fertilizers per hectare in Costa Rica than was the Untied States! Costa Rica had to do this to feed its growing population, and even so it now imports about half of its food calories. All of this is published in exhaustive detail in two books: "Quantifying sustainable development" and "Making world development work: scientific alternatives to neoclassical economic dogma. " and various papers.

I had many wonderful graduate students over the years who have published similar analysis for Ghana, Niger, Nepal and so on. We keep finding a tremendous amount of oil behind whatever "economic or agricultural development is occurring.

Charlie

,I thank you Olaf and Charles for the angle you address this topic .Your views are,very insightful. Olaf i alreadyy downloaded your paper. Charles i find the case study of Costa Rica interesting how do i got the paper

I do i get the paper

Well its a book --Amazon. The big development book is available for $100 from Univ New Mexico Press. BUt I can try to send you some summary papers --it will take some time; Can you supply me with an address?

Charlie

Oh thanks my address is P O Box 5066 Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria. Or email, [email protected] Or [email protected]

I think Charles Hall's view points out that the relationship between the economy and development is based on the structure of the economy. If the driving power of economy is human resource, then it will have a positive relationship. In some studies about Chinese history, the division of labor, economic growth and population expansion occur at the same time in 18th century.

By the way, can I have the summary Hall mentioned about, please? My email is [email protected].

If Charles permit ok

Antony, it may be worth reading the works of Ester Bosrup who spent her life time studying: population, gender and agricultural development in developing countries.

Perianayangam can you give the link to his book. I will appreciate greatly

Anthony, The following are some of her works. There is a comprehensive note in Wikipedia about her and her works. I am giving you the link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ester_Boserup

You can follow-up the references.

Turner, B.L. II and Fischer-Kowalski, M. 2010. Ester Boserup: An interdisciplinary visionary relevant for sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(51): 21963-21965.

Boserup, E. 2000. My Professional Life and Publications 1929-1998. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. ISBN 87-7289-520-9

Boserup, E. 1981. Population and Technological Change: A Study of Long Term Trends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Boserup, E. 1976. Environment, Population, and Technology in Primitive Societies. Population and Development Review, 2, 21-36

Boserup, E. 1970 (reprinted 1997). Women's Role in Economic Development. London: Earthscan. ISBN 1-85383-040-2

Boserup, E. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. Chicago: Aldine. London: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 0-415-31298-1

Thanks men i appreciate greatly you are wonderful

Perhaps a Granger test could give you some additional insights, independently from the literature.

the relationship between population growth & economic growth is complicated, but my point is that it depend on the background of one's National economic and social environment. Some countries develop human capital and realize economics growth; but some countries just sale resource, they do not process these resource and make additional value, and added population could not realize economics growth.

I just give one point above, in fact, Some examples could be found for the issue.

my email: [email protected]

I am not a big fan of Boserup (although I appreciate her work) because during her analyses the industrialization of agriculture is taking place--even at a low level -- so it looks like the land is supporting more people and it is, but more oil is being used too, often indirectly.

Charles this is the problem. It is true that developed countries are at the tietary level of production moving beyond industrialisation but developing countries are are at primary level of production dominanted by agricultural production even at that their level of of production is backward. The energy intensity is still very low compare to the advance economy. So you see that Boserup work will make meaning in policies for developing economy

Anthony

Well maybe so, but you have to do the analysis explicitly and carefully and in my experience where I have put in the effort I have found that many "non industrialized" countries (e.g. Ghana, Costa RIca) use a rather amazing amount of energy. ...not necessary directly but through agro chemicals. The low productivity of many tropical countries comes from usually older and hence more nutrient-depleted soils (no glaciation) and (a rarely appreciated fact) that in the tropics night is never less than about 11 hours, and during the night the plants respire (use energy). Thus in temperate regions in the growing season you have sixteen hours of sunlight compared to eight of night, (2:1) but in the tropics usually twelve and twelve (1:1), so the plants respire away much of the day's energy profits.. Thus in the tropics you rarely get more than 2 tons per ha yield of Maize regardless of inputs, while in the temperate world you get four-ten per ha per year. .

Sure developing nations need development, I agree, but often yields are low even on well run agricultural research stations. Unfortunately there are some physical limitations.

Thank you Charles you got me you are great

Anthony if you can afford it you can get a digital version of my book "ENergy and the wealth of nations" from the publisher Springer. for about 45 dollars.

I will try we are currently on strike in our University

I am not an expert in this area but I want to believe that the two are intertwined and one may not be able to ascertain a causal relationship between them. There are examples of countries around the world that have put their large populations to some kind of economic advantage. So, one can infer that to some extent (within reasonable limits), population growth may encourage economic growth. On the other hand, uncontrolled population growth as we have in many African countries can in deed put pressure on economic growth. At the individual level, the corollary in African countries is that the poorer the family, the larger the family size. So, is it poverty that is encouraging large family or large family that is encouraging poverty?

Two way relationship between population and economic growth is well recognized. Poverty may be associated with relatively higher fertility due to lack of knowledge and access to contraceptive methods and low fertility (women with fewer children) is associated with better health of women and children and improved living conditions. The idea - whether develop is the best contraceptive or contraception is the best development - is well debated in the series of UN International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD): Bucharest/1974, Mexico/1984, Cairo/1994). The answer is actually both. Early modernization leads to demographic transition; age-structural transition is an outcome of demographic transition and its consequences include demographic dividend and subsequent ageing transition.

Thank you Prrianayagam. You are always great. Please can you provide a link to those conferences

Probably a bit far off from the current discussion, I recently have been working on conceptually modeling endogenous technological change and population growth (based on an overlapping generations model). This work is not empirical but it brings out the two-way feedbacks between production (linked to economic growth) and population. Perhaps you may find it interesting. You can find the open access paper in the following link:

http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/10/13505/2013/hessd-10-13505-2013.html

It is currently in an open discussion forum, so your comments on it would be most welcome as well!

Thanks Pande i will look at it

The paper entitled "Population and economic growth: a simultaneous equation perspective" might interest you.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2012.734596#.UoCcJSAVG70

Thanks Ho-Chuan i will check that out

Anthony, The following are some of the links to the UN ICPD conference discussion. More detailed search will be required. Sorry I could not respond to this quickly.

http://www.unfpa.org/public/home/sitemap/icpd/International-Conference-on-Population-and-Development/ICPD-Summary;

http://web.unfpa.org/icpd/icpd.cfm;

http://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/page_attachments/icpd_report_eng_fin.pdf

Oh thanks Perianayagam

You might want to read Julian Simon's The Ultimate Resource where he argues that, for all practical purposes, resources are limitless because of the human capacity to innovate and adapt. Quite controversial but also quite interesting for it can help shed light on this debate.

oh thanks Zagros but the link

It is a book from Princeton University Press. Here is the link to the table of contents:

http://press.princeton.edu/TOCs/c5941.html

You might want to ask your library to acquire it or get it on interlibrary loan.

Kiiza and Singh have got the basics right. Mostly population growth reduces income growth and income reduces population growth. Malthusian phases, mostly without trap, are the exception, but exist. In weakyly populated areas population growth may increase income. All other arguments have been tried as controls in regressions and do not change the basics. Ideas depend on high education and do not come from pure population growth.

Economic growth increase population to some extend. Poverty does not increase population, it increase birth rates. Food is the most important factor for living organizms. Without food humans cannot survive. This shortage in food decreases life standards and diminishes life expectancy and increase infant mortality. Perception of lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality motivates people to bear more children. This dynamic loop of variables may be enlarged. Shortly, looking the association between these two variables from a linear perspective is the most lethal error.

It depends on the strengths and the weakness of economy to the country. And how this country manages its resources and running projects to containment the increasing of population. In this case it is affect each other. Otherwise , the growth of population becomes a sort of issue.

Muhammad Hosnian thanks for your valid exposition. I like the empirical evidence

Ufuk Nagma thanks

More than population growth economic growth depends upon the population structure. In lagged and elderly regions it is very dificult to sustain young, technological skilled population and therefore they will leave the region creating the vicious cycle

Dear Enoma,

My little input is below:

The first step is to eradicate poverty from the entire world not rapid population growth for economic development. Basic education for all holds key and it could be argue that we don’t necessarily need more man power to realize economic development especially in the developed world. The adoption of automatic computerized machines in developing countries ensures that machines can produce one month's consumption of goods and services in a day. With basic education for all especially in the developing world of Africa, the manipulation of basic tools and equipment for production would be very easy. This would lead to high productivity in many sectors of the economy depending on which sector that is prioritized. Every country's economic growth depends mainly on Agriculture first and then Industries. We would need an educated workforce to man and mange machines and the resources in marketing distribution etc. An educated population would prioritize family planning and other forms of reducing their family size because they understand the consequences of large families in this 21st century.

Economic growth calls for more resources, and more people with higher incomes use more resources. Other creatures also enjoy this planet and the ecosystems which all dependent on us and we also dependent upon them. More people may well lead to increased industrial output at lower marginal costs, increasing per unit affordability and raising material standards of living, but we should recall that this model of interdependency often ignored environmental and resource impacts on the economy.

High population growth and migration lead to urbanization. However, the issue of urbanization provides opportunities for innovation, which would mean technology growth and the manufacturing sectors, would have to expand to take in both the technology as well as the population growth. But Sweden and other countries have very low population densities and are urbanized and could be considered as prosperous countries. Urbanization comes when better agricultural techniques are used, and less people are needed to produce food. England for example became more urban because of industrial revolution, not because of a remarkable population growth

Dear Bondinuba

The major cause of poverty in developing countries is larger family size and with little goverment assistance how can the poor finance education . In this situation population must be address first b4 poverty

Dear Anthony:

It is common to find a negative association between population growth and growth rate of GDP in a cross-country regression. But that does not establish any causality. So it is incorrect to argue that higher population growth reduces economic growth. Some influential studies in the endogenous growth literature show that population growth is essential for growth in R&D - not only through larger number of scientists/researchers that is essential for carrying out innovations, but also through the creation of a larger market for new technologies. See the works of:

Romer (1990):http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2937632?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103177903163

Grossman and Helpman (1991): Quality ladders in the theory of economic growth. Rev Econ Stud 58(1):43–61;

Aghion and Howitt (1992): A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60(2):323–351;

and more recent research on semi-endogenous growth models, such as

Jones (1995): R&D-based models of economic growth. J Popul Econ 103(4):759–783;

Jones (1999): Growth: with or without scale effects? Am Econ Rev 89(2):139–144.

Now, as far as household economics is concerned, the demand for a larger family size arises not only from the prevailing economic incentives, but also from the socio-cultural factors, or simply from a preference for larger number of children. We cannot implement policies to take care of the non-economic factors, so let's think about the economic incentives for having large number of children. In this respect, Barro and Becker's 1989 Econometrica piece is the seminal work: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1912563?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103177850753

The Barro-Becker framework has been used to explain a wide range of issues such as poverty-trap, demographic transition, and transition from a Malthusian trap to self-sustained growth path. If you Google "Barro-Becker" and/or "quantity-quality tradeoff" you will come across tons of research in this area.

I am not an expert, but conceptually there seems to be good reasons why a country's GDP should change due to revaluation of its pre-existing cultural or physical assets. It works both ways - revaluation as well as devaluation. For example, a new scientific discovery in Mesopotamian civilization could 'appreciate' the significance of the existing pyramids in Egypt, and this will have 'real' implications for the current Egyptian GDP. There is nothing wrong with that. But this revaluation should be based on wider significance of the historical assets, not merely based on internal reasons (e.g. property revaluation because the government needs additional tax revenue). Similarly there are cases where cultural or historical devaluations may reduce GDP. Historically many European countries attach a lot of value to leisure - but being excluded from GDP, higher quantity of leisure 'devalues' GDP. Similarly, if women's role in the household is properly evaluated, many country's GDP will appreciate, and for good reasons!

You are right. However, in economic models 'quality' is assumed to have a zero lower bound. This 'scaling' is done for convenience (e.g. using log utility, etc.).

Of course, dreaming about it will not help. But if you were to discover an antique piece in your attic and find a buyer for it your 'net worth' will most definitely increase. The object you found may not have been worth as much when it was produced/used. A perfect micro example of how revaluation should increase value of your current assets.

I beg to differ.

1. We were talking about real GDP, which is by definition inflation-adjusted.

2. Yes, the antique piece is wealth, but as soon as you find a buyer (this was the crucial part) and is able to sell, it becomes income. Some people may consider this income should not be included in current GDP, as the piece was produced years ago. But the value-added today comes from the 'service' of discovery and putting it up for sale. So income is backed by some production.

3. The third point has nothing to do with the issue we were discussing. It depends on whether the good in question is an exhaustible natural resource, and the institution of property rights prevailing in the country in question.

Thanks Hak and Jayanta for ur exposition

1. Let us first recognize that BOTH population and income depend on economic factors (among other factors). Population does depend on the economy, as fertility, mortality, and migration respond partly to economic incentives.

2. Hence, as both population and income are determined jointly as a function of other factors, the answer to the question "Has population growth put pressure on economic growth or has economic growth put pressure on population growth?" depends on which factor one considers. Let me take two examples.

3. Suppose a new virus emerges, killing many working age adults. As a consequence, both population and economic growth will be reduced. One could have the impression that the population decline generates an economic decline, but it is only true in the context of this example.

4. Suppose a new (religious or cultural) norm emerges, pushing people to have as many children as possible, even if there is no resource left for educating them. Then, population will rise and economic growth will be reduced by the lack of human capital. Here, one could have the feeling that population growth puts pressure on economic growth, but, again, it is context specific.

5. To sum up, population and income are both endogenous variables, and it makes no sense to wonder whether one influences the other without reference to the exogenous factor that is at play.

I agree with David. Both are endogenous variables (though one possibly can imagine a counterexample when it is not the case) and should be analysed accordingly.

Yes, this is a classical example of endogeneity in growth type models we use in our lectures. But it is an important question though for many developing countries nowadays. Another interesting issue (which was mentioned before) is the demographic composition role in country's growth.

Population growth is closely linked with economic development. On the one hand, labor shortages will slow the rate of economic growth in industrialized countries, but on the other hand, a high birthrate in a developing country may stress limited renewable resources. Governments in western and other industrialized countries like Japan are challenged to create effective immigration policies and programs to increase the birthrate, while countries with weaker economies pursue public health policies to reduce population growth. Globally, a smaller population presents multiple benefits from an ecological perspective, but some economies are challenged by low birthrates and are redirecting their need for unskilled labor to countries with higher populations and lower wage demands.

Yes, the population growth and economic growth are usually closely linked, but not always. China and India experienced huge population growth for the best part of the 20th century without much economic growth. The endogeneity between population growth and economic growth is present only when there is a tight link between economic activity and fertility decisions. In case of China and India, this link was broken for most part of the last decade. For most modern societies, the link is tight.

Let’s look at the latter case, where population growth and economic growth depend on each other. But how is the nature of dependence? Let’s examine some of the ‘exogenous’ factors that affects both population and economic activity, and then we will be able to isolate whether the two are positively or negatively related.

One example of exogenous ‘shock’ is AIDS in Africa. It wiped off huge population - mainly young adults, reducing available human capital, taxable income, diverting public expenditure from productive assets like schools, general health, and infrastructure towards battling AIDS. Higher mortality also reduced saving and incentive to accumulate human capital, reducing future growth prospects. A UNDP study estimated that average growth rate for 30 sub-Saharan economies over the period 1990–2025 would be between 0.56 and 1.47% lower because of the AIDS epidemic (see Over, M. ,1992. “The macroeconomic impact of AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa, Population and Human Resources Development”, The World Bank). This gives an example of a positive relationship between population growth and economic growth.

Consider a second exogenous shock – natural disasters, such as earthquake, tsunami, etc. that mostly affect economic activity rather than population. Tsunamis in Japan destroyed factories and homes, resulting in huge loss of capital assets (not so much human lives). This caused loss of output and income, reducing economic growth. This is however only the first round (short run) effect. After a period of time recovery spending may have led to higher output and employment. There is evidence to support this conjecture (e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1093/ei/40.4.664/abstract). Japan may not have registered a steady long run growth of GDP in recent decades, but we all know that Japanese population growth has been negative during this time. This example establishes a negative (or no) relationship between population growth and economic growth.

Yet another example is the impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. Louisiana was able to bounce back from the disaster, with tourists returning and hotels in the French Quarter reopening. However, the population, which is currently 30 percent below its 2000 level, may never fully recover. Again, a negative relationship between population growth and economic growth post 2000.

Conclusion? It depends on the policies pursued in promoting economic growth and economic incentives for families to alter fertility choices.