The simplest test (the term attest has a different meaning and is not what you meant) would be, using time series regression analysis, to use the rate of population growth as your dependent variable and per capita income as the independent variable. For example:

% delta population = a + b (per capita income) + error term

The most commonly used and available variable for per capita income would be real GDP per capita.

The hypothesis consistent with Malthus' prediction would be that the coefficient b of the per capita income variable would be positive and statistically significant. I am not sure from your question what level of training you have in statistical (econometric) analysis but this is the simplest approach.

There are potential issues in this simple formulation including reverse causation (does higher population growth cause changes in per capita income?) which could be tested for. If you have enough data, a long enough time series, it would be better to use annual data rather than, say, quarterly or monthly data, since the relationship you are looking for is a long run relationship. It would also be good to try looking at a lagged relationship, in other words does the current rate of population depend on the growth in per capita income years ago (higher income--> more marriages and more survival--> more children (and surviving children) a year or several years later. Much more could be said about such a test but I hope this helps.

Dear Muhammad Yusuf Ibrahim

Thank you very much for your great question. Sorry I can't answer it. Malthus' contribution to the population-food resource ratio has been many-sided until now.

One of them is to link it to demographic theory based on the fear of overpopulation expressed by Malthus, when his interest was supposedly in the field of political economy. The theoretical body of demography - first demographic transition, second demographic transition, reproductive revolution, etc. The theoretical body of demography - the first demographic transition, the second demographic transition, the reproductive revolution, etc. - has no clear relationship with the economic dimension - or with the behaviour of food production growth. Its development has been based on statistical regularities present in developed countries, but it is only partially adapted to the demographic dynamics of the rest of the world - the migratory component, the abrupt changes in mortality between countries, which are complemented by other theories such as the epidemiological transition, health transition, etc., are not explained.

The law of diminishing returns was associated with Malthus, although it existed previously. But the popularization of the arithmetic progression of food and the brake it puts on population growth is due to Malthus. However, elements such as the level of distribution of wealth, the functioning of social institutions, among others, which formed his theory the "Principle of population", which he debates with the physiocrats and pre-socialist thinkers, in the context of an agrarian society of the end of the 18th century.

It should be noted that, up to the present day, studies of the relationships between: food and population, fertility and food, population size and economic growth, demographic changes and economic development, population growth and economic growth, economic development and availability of natural resources. They have not had major scientific advances; on the contrary, the lack of consensus in the abundant literature within the economic sciences is increasing. In particular, with regard to the study of economic growth, which is monopolised by economic theory. A reference published in The Economist magazine in 1992 (quoted in Corrales 1996), shows the spirit of this controversy: "the degree of ignorance of the economy about economic growth has been one of the best kept secrets" (p. 41).

Sorry not to give too much. We await further contributions.

Best regards and at your disposal

Fernando (from Argentina)

Estimado Muhammad

Muchas gracias por su gran pregunta. Disculpe no poder dar respuesta a la misma. El aporte de Malthus respecto a la relación población–recursos alimentarios, ha tenido múltiples vertientes hasta la actualidad.

Una de ellas es vincularlo a la teoría demográfica a partir del miedo a la superpoblación expresado por Malthus, cuando se supone que su interés estaba en el plano de la economía política. El cuerpo teórico de la demografía – primera transición demográfica, segunda transición demográfica, revolución reproductiva, etc. –, no presenta una clara relación con la dimensión económica – o del comportamiento del crecimiento de la producción de alimentos–. Su desarrollo se ha basado en regularidades estadísticas presentes en los países desarrollados, pero muy parcialmente se adecua a la dinámica de demográfica del resto del mundo –quedando fuera de la explicación el componente migratorio, los cambios abruptos en la mortalidad entre los países, que se complementan con otras teorías como la transición epidemiológica, transición sanitaria, etc.–

La ley de rendimientos decrecientes fue asociada a Malthus, si bien existía previamente. Pero la popularización de la progresión aritmética de los alimentos y el freno que pone al crecimiento demográfico se debe a Malthus. No obstante, elementos como el nivel de distribución de la riqueza, funcionamiento de las instituciones sociales, entre otros, que conformaron su teoría el “Principio de la población”, que debate con los fisiócratas y pensadores presocialistas, en el contexto de una sociedad agraria de fines del siglo XVIII.

Cabe destacar que, hasta la actualidad, los estudios de las relaciones entre: alimentación y población, fecundidad y alimentación, tamaño de población y crecimiento económico, cambios demográficos y desarrollo económico, crecimiento de la población y crecimiento económico, desarrollo económico y disponibilidad de recursos naturales. No han tenido mayores avances científicos, por el contrario, se incrementa la falta de consenso en la abundante bibliografía dentro de las ciencias económicas. En particular, en relación al estudio del crecimiento económico, monopolizado por la teoría económica. Una referencia publicada en la revista The Economist en el año 1992 (citada en Corrales 1996), da cuenta del espíritu de esta polémica: “el grado de ignorancia de la economía sobre el crecimiento económico ha sido uno de los secretos mejor guardados” (p. 41).

Perdón por no aportar demasiado. Quedamos a espera de otros aportes.

Saludos y a disposición

Fernando (Desde Argentina)

I should have added in my initial response that instead of a time series approach an equally simple way would be to do a cross sectional analysis. Use data on population growth and per capita income from a variety of countries with differing income levels. Also, if there is some reason not to use regression analysis just setting up the data in a scatter diagram would offer some insight into the relationship.