Escaping Malthus: The Contraceptive of Prosperity
Thomas Malthus, an English economist, is well known for creating the branch of population thought known as Malthusian theory. His theory about the behavior of the human population, as stated in An Essay on the Principle of Population, says, “It may safely be pronounced, therefore, that population, when unchecked, goes on doubling itself every twenty-five years, or increases in a geometrical ratio” (Malthus). In his time, the late 18th Century, human population did increase rapidly, but that rate of increase has slowed to a near halt in economically developed countries (Eberstadt). Something has clearly changed about the human condition since Malthus wrote his commentary. From 1798 to 2010 is a rather large time span, allowing time for many changes which may have caused the drop in fertility. This drop in fertility is called the demographic-economic paradox (Klingholz). Two particular factors which contribute to the demographic-economic paradox can be isolated. Broadly, the changes have economic and social components, more specifically, economic structure as opportunity cost, along with religion as a social norm.
The economic structure of what are now called the ‘developed’ countries is highly specialized, with people working in one skill area ("Glossary"). Those developed countries also have a much higher percentage of inhabitants in urban areas versus rural areas than the ratio in developing countries ("Urbanization"). Those factors, specialization and urbanization, tend to contribute to a high cost of living in developed countries. Because of that high cost of living, any action tends to have more “opportunity cost.” Opportunity cost is, in economics, the loss incurred by a person by choosing a specific action over another, or by choosing to do nothing ("Opportunity"). Before the urbanization of the developed countries, there was great incentive to have many children, as each child was a net economic gain at a very young age. This is because they might work on a family farm or contribute to a family-run business (Kröhnert and Klingholz). Because of the greater urbanization of the developed countries, the people of those countries have stronger economic incentives against having many children
The cost of having children continues to rise, reaching new heights recently: a child born in 2009 will cost a middle-class family roughly one-quarter million dollars to raise to the age of 18 (Lino). Even as the cost of raising a child increases, the opportunity cost for the mother also increases. Currently, women have a much greater chance of earning more money than men than they did in 1970, meaning they are giving up much more should they choose to take leave to have or raise a child (Fry and Cohn). Economic factors are very important to a person when deciding to change their life as much as a having a child will. On a standard psychological scale of 0-100, with 100 being the death of a spouse, pregnancy was rated a 40 in terms of stressful life events, with stress used here to mean ‘change in routine’ (Fontana). With that magnitude of change in routine, it is very likely that a person would consider the long term economic consequences.
The economic analysis, however, does not take ideals into account. A columnist for the Washington Post, Nicholas Eberstadt, offers a well-phrased indictment of only examining the economic factors:
The main explanation for the U.S.-European fertility gap may lie not in material factors but in the seemingly ephemeral realm of values, ideals, attitudes and outlook. In striking contrast to Western Europe, which is provocatively (but not unfairly) described as a "post-Christian" territory these days, religion is alive and well in the United States. (Eberstadt)
His statement is well supported elsewhere. Three psychologists conducted a study which found that the strongly religious are far overrepresented among people with the largest families. After controlling for confounding variables, they found that religiosity continued to be the sole strong correlation (Blume et. al). Their argument hinges upon the statement, “… it is a matter of the readiness to pass up on options. Making no decision often amounts to a decision against having children. Becoming a bit pregnant is literally an impossibility (Blume et. al).” People who are strongly religious tend to hold pro-natal attitudes, and so are strongly in favor of having children. Those who are less religious tend to hold much weaker attitudes, and so do not have as many children (Blume et. al). In essence, pro-natal attitudes are directly related to religious attitudes. As one becomes stronger, the other becomes stronger, and vice-versa.
From that information, it is safe to say that the demographic-economic paradox is fostered by a combination of economic and associated social factors. As the economy becomes more active and vibrant, cities tend to develop, bringing the higher opportunity cost of children and the lower immediate benefit children. The secularization of society which tends to accompany economic progress also contributes to the drop in fertility. In short, rising economic prosperity creates conditions which make having children costly and which cause ambivalent social attitudes toward having children (Blume et. al). This combination of causes leads to the obvious effect of escaping Malthus’s dire predictions for humanity: “…the constant tendency in the human race to increase beyond the means of subsistence (Malthus).” In addition to escaping the fate Malthus predicts, the demographic-economic paradox may actually cause a transition of the world’s demographics. The world’s population is changing from a relatively young cohort to an older, caused mainly by the decline in fertility currently occurring in the developed world (Gavrilov, Heuveline). Shifting demographics have the potential to remake society, and so deserve far more analysis. Greater attention to this topic is needed in order to understand the demographic-economic paradox and its possible effects on the human condition.
No comments:
Post a Comment