Economic, Social and Demographic Thought in the XIXth Century: The Population Debate from Malthus to Marx PDF
Preview Economic, Social and Demographic Thought in the XIXth Century: The Population Debate from Malthus to Marx
Economic, Social and Demographic Thought in the XIXth Century Yves Charbit Economic, Social and Demographic Thought in the XIXth Century The Population Debate from Malthus to Marx 123 Prof.YvesCharbit Universite´ParisDescartes UMRCEPED(Universite´ParisDescartes-INED-IRD) 75006Paris France ISBN 978-1-4020-9959-5 e-ISBN 978-1-4020-9960-1 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9960-1 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2009920976 (cid:2)c SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009 Nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted inanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,recording orotherwise,withoutwrittenpermissionfromthePublisher,withtheexception ofanymaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurposeofbeingentered andexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework. Printedonacid-freepaper 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 springer.com ForVe´ronique Contents 1 ThePopulationControversyandBeyond.......................... 1 TheoreticalProgressandAffiliations ............................... 2 DemographicTheoryandEconomicTheory ......................... 4 DemographicDoctrinesandIdeology............................... 5 InterpretingTheoriesandDoctrines ................................ 6 2 Population,EconomicGrowth andReligion:MalthusasaPopulationist.......................... 9 TheCentralConcepts ............................................ 13 TheFirstModel:RegulationbyMortality ........................... 15 TheFirstModel:ScandinavianCountries ....................... 16 TheReformofthePoorLawsinEngland....................... 17 TheSecondModel:TheDemo-EconomicsofFertilityandNuptiality .... 20 TheAgriculturalEmploymentMarketandDemographicGrowth ... 20 TheLawofDiminishingReturns.............................. 21 TheThirdModel:EffectiveDemand................................ 23 ProductionandPopulation ................................... 23 Short-TermDemographicResponses........................... 25 EffectiveDemand........................................... 25 EnglandinMalthus’sTime................................... 27 AComprehensiveModelforMaximisingDemo-EconomicGrowth...... 31 SocialDoctrine............................................. 32 IndustryandAgriculture ..................................... 33 MalthusthePopulationist .................................... 37 MoralRestraint,thePrincipleofPopulationandDemo-Economic Growth ................................................... 38 ReligionandEconomicsintheConceptsof1798 ................ 42 ContradictionsandUnityinMalthus’sWritings ...................... 46 vii viii Contents 3 From Malthusianism to Populationism: The French Liberal Economists(1840–1870)......................................... 51 TheEconomistsasaSect ......................................... 51 ADoubleParadox............................................... 53 The1856Census:DemographicCrisisandEconomicProsperity ... 54 The1866Census:TheDecreasingFertilityandInternationalOutlook 55 PovertyoftheWorkingClassandtheDangersoftheRevolution ........ 57 IndustrialisationandItsDemographicImplications............... 58 ResponsestotheProblemofPoverty........................... 60 TheSecondEmpire:SocialPeace .................................. 62 ThePeasants:SmallHoldingsandRuralExodus................. 64 TheUrbanWorkingClasses .................................. 69 TowardsPopulationism........................................... 75 TheNewSocialism ......................................... 76 DemographicConditions:InfantMortalityandFertility ........... 77 MilitaryProblemsandPacifism ............................... 79 EmigrationandColonies..................................... 80 FromAnti-colonialismtoColonialism ......................... 81 EmigrationandColonisation ................................. 81 MalthusianismandtheBourgeoisIdeology .......................... 83 Annex:TheCausesoftheRuralExodus............................. 87 4 TheMalthusianTrap:TheFailureofProudhon.................... 93 AThinkerWhoCannotBeClassified............................... 93 TheTwoProgressions............................................ 95 TheEarlyCarnets:ToBeorNottoBeaMalthusian?............. 95 PopulationGrowth.......................................... 98 DoesProductionReallyIncreaseinGeometricalProgression? .....100 EconomicsandPopulation ........................................101 TheDemandforLabour .....................................102 TheRighttoWork ..........................................103 Emigration,ColonisationandEconomicPower ..................105 IndustrialisationandFreeTrade...............................105 MoralPhilosophyandSocialCriticism..............................108 PhilosophyandPoverty......................................108 ProgressandProvidence .....................................109 TheProudhonianModel ..........................................111 AgainstFertilityControl .....................................111 FertilityandWork ..........................................112 MalthusianRecommendations ................................114 TheLimitationsofProudhon’sIdeology........................115 TheMisuseofMetaphysics .......................................116 Contents ix 5 CapitalismandPopulation:MarxandEngelsAgainstMalthus ......121 AnAmbivalentHostility..........................................121 ThePovertyoftheWorkingClassesandthePoorLaws................125 TheEpistemologicalBreakof1845andPopulation ...................128 ApplyingtheMethodofPoliticalEconomytoPopulation .........128 FromEngelstoMarx:AnalysingtheCrisesofCapitalism .........130 TheAccumulationofCapitalandItsOrganicComposition.............134 Marx’sPrimitiveAccumulationVersusMalthus’sEffectiveDemand.....136 TheEffectiveDemand.......................................137 PrimitiveAccumulationintheHistoryofCapitalism .............140 Capitalism’sPopulationLaw:TheIndustrialReserveArmy ............141 CreationandDevelopmentoftheReserveArmy .................142 ConditionsfortheWorkingofthePopulationLawofCapitalism ...144 TheActualWorkingofthePopulationLaw..........................146 IncreasingtheIndustrialReserveArmy.........................146 TheInternationalDimensionofCapitalism .....................149 ChallengingtheTheoryontheBasisofDemographicFacts........150 DemographyandtheEvolutionofCapitalism ........................154 Annex:TheAlthusserianSchoolandPopulation......................157 TheEpistemologicalStatusofPopulation.......................158 ThreeKeyTheoreticalPoints .................................159 6 BeneathDemographicIssues ....................................163 WealthandPower ...............................................164 DemographicBehaviourandBourgeoisUniversalism .................165 TheStateandtheFamily .........................................166 TheorisingVersusHistoricising....................................167 Bibliography.......................................................171 Index .............................................................183 Chapter1 The Population Controversy and Beyond The two intellectual figures who dominated the whole of the nineteenth century, MalthusandMarx,wereandstillaresystematicallyopposed.A“clashofprophets” claimed in 1970 the title of an American textbook, which usefully provided large excerpts of what Marx and Engels wrote against Malthus. According to current understanding,Malthusishostiletoanexcessofpopulationbecauseitcausessocial sufferings, while Marx is favourable to demographic growth in so far as a large proletariatisafactoraggravatingthecontradictionsofcapitalism.Thisisunfortu- natelyanoversimplificationandafewscholarshavelongestablishedthatinhislater works Malthus seriously retrenched from his earlier opinion: population, far from being redundant, might well be insufficient to ensure sustained economic growth. AsforMarx,heprovesextremelyambivalenttowardsMalthus,simultaneouslyde- nouncing the sycophant of the Tories while claiming him to be an economist far superior to Ricardo. To be more precise, Malthus and Marx can be reasonably be opposedonlyinsofarastheirdemographictheoriesareconcerned,andagainonly ifonereferstothefirstedition(1798)oftheEssayonthePrincipleofPopulation.As soontheanalysisisbroadenedtothelatereditionsoftheEssayandtotheeconomic writings of Malthus, it is clear that he constantly raised the same question: when considered as an economic variable, how does population fit into the analysis of economicgrowth?Marxalsoaddressedtheproblem,assuredlylessobsessivelyand bothMarxandMalthuswereconcernedwithgrowthandnotequilibrium,amajor differencefromtheorthodoxyoftheclassicalschool.Fromthesamestartinganalyt- icalstandpoint,MarxestablishedaverydifferentdiagnosisfromthatofMalthusand builtasocialdoctrinenolessdivergent:therewasnowayoutofincreasedpoverty andclassconflictswereunavoidable. Whatwaslefttolesserthinkerstosayaboutoneofthemajorsocialissuesraised byindustrialisation?WhereasimportantscholarsconcentratedontheEnglishscene, relativelylittleisknownaboutnineteenthcontroversiesoverpopulationdebatesin France. They are dealt with here and again sweeping generalisations prevail. The French liberal economists, who prolifically wrote on population at the onset of the industrial revolution in France (1840–1870) are commonly assumed to be the uncompromising keepers of the Malthusian faith. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s views are usually considered as those of a socialist, who shared with Marx a vehement denunciation of the very same capitalist society which the French economists Y.Charbit,Economic,SocialandDemographicThoughtintheXIXthCentury, 1 DOI10.1007/978-1-4020-9960-1 1,(cid:2)C SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009 2 1 ThePopulationControversyandBeyond praisedduringexactlythesamedecades.Againitwouldbetoosimpleifthatsketchy opposition were true. As for the so-called neo-Malthusians, a closer study reveals themtobeanti-Malthusian,notonly,asitisoftenbelieved,atthedoctrinallevelof thepleaforcontraception,butbyquestioningtheveryprincipleofpopulationwhich constitutesthecoreoftheMalthusiantheory.AcarefulexaminationofProudhon’s conceptual framework shows that his ideas differ from Marx on two fundamental points.FarfrombeingamaterialistintheMarxiansense,histhoughthasastrong metaphysical dimension, in which the idea of God is central. He also pays a great deal of attention to what should be a moral demographic behaviour, a doctrinal preoccupationtotallyabsentfromMarx’swritings.Suchistheratherpuzzlingscene ofthenineteenthcentury,asfarasideasonpopulationareconcernedinFrance,not tomentionthefactthatthestagewasalsoquiteencumbered:radicalism(although itwasdecliningalongwithGodwin’sfadingstar),Christianpoliticaleconomy,the socialcatholicsinFranceandlaterthehygienistmovement.Muchthesamecanbe saidaboutotherEuropeancountries. TheoreticalProgressandAffiliations Isitpossibletoescapethesemovingsandsbysafelyconfiningoneselftothemore tranquil path of the history of ideas, and to the analysis of the progressive con- struction of demography as a science? After all since Malthus, the French liberal economists, Proudhon and Marx claimed in turn to have produced a theory of population, we would therefore expect some sort of a continuously enriched sci- entificcorpus,likeamajesticrivergrowingthankstosuccessiveconfluentstreams. Indeed there was a vast circulation of ideas in an intellectual space transcending thebordersofnation-states.TheEnglishpoliticaleconomistMalthuswasinspired by his compatriots Wallace and Petty, but the idea of an imbalance between vis nutritiva and vis generativa had been clearly formulated by Botero in Italy in 1635. Inspired by the French physiocrats as well as by Ricardo, Marx tried to revolutionise an economic system that was firmly entrenched in English capitalist society. But what is under question is precisely the very idea of progress. Indeed the Frencheconomists(aswellasMarx)arepost-Malthusians,andnotonlychronolog- ically.ButdidtheirpopulationlawsprogressfromthebaselinedrawnbyMalthus. Were they so to speak more proven? Letting aside Proudhon’s disconcerting com- putations,theFrencheconomistsmadeamajorcontributiontowhatwastobecome themoderneconomictheoryoffertility.Accordingtothestandardoflivingargu- ment (which they actually borrowed from English writers) the increase in welfare automaticallyinducesthedesiretoreducefertility,whereasMalthushadstatedthe oppositecausalrelationship.Progresscanalsobeassessedbylookingattheproblem fromtheangleoftheprogressiveconstructionofthetheoryofpopulation.Actually, demographystandsoutamongthesocialsciencesbecauseofthepaucityoftheory, therebeingonlyonemodel,namelythedemographictransition,formulatedin1934 TheoreticalProgressandAffiliations 3 byLandry.1Thetheoryofthedemographictransitionistheoverwhelmingdominant explanationofthepastofEuropeanpopulations.Asisknown,thedemographictran- sitionisnomorethanageneralisationbasedonavailablelongtermstatisticalseries ofdeathsandbirthsinseveralEuropeancountries.Forcenturiesthemortalityrate compensatedforthebirthrate,withnooveralldemographicgrowth.Thenthetran- sitionbeganwithafirststageofadecliningmortalityrate(exceptinFrance),while fertilityremainedhigh,henceanacceleratingpace.Thenagainadeclinefollowed inthebirthrate,nowresultinginamoreandmoreslowgrowth.Attheendofthe process(towardstheendofthenineteenthcenturyanduntiltheendoftheSecond WorldWar)bothrateswerelowandsincetheycompensatedeachother,onceagain populationgrewslowly.Now,ifitisrecalledthatMalthusandMarxwereacuteand widely-read observers of nineteenth century England, it is tempting to relate their theory to the stages of the transition. We would then have the possibility to reveal acontinuumbetweenpastandpresenttheories.Letusexaminethispossibilityand assume that the Malthusian system of 1798 expresses the demographic logic and equilibrium prevalent before the advent of demographic transition (high fertility and high mortality), while Marx writing in the 1860s would somehow echo the demographicregimecharacterisingthesecondphaseoftransition(dropinthedeath rate followed by lower fertility). Transition would then be a powerful synthesis of MalthusianandMarxistlawsonpopulation.Theideaisattractive,butthefirstclaim, as will be demonstrated in the chapter on Malthus, does not hold. It applies at the most to the first Malthusian model of regulation through mortality, but it does not takeintoaccountlatermodelswhereMalthusobservesthatthemiddle-classes,by andlarge,practisedprudentialrestraintinEnglandduringtheyears1820–1830.Itis equallyquestionabletolinkthesecondphaseoftransitiontoMarx.Hewascertainly interested in capitalism in its most ruthless form, but if the fertilitydecline can be explainedaspartofcapitalism’sevolution,itismorewithregardtothehalf-century that followed (1870–1914) the publication of Das Kapital in 1867. There was a generalriseinthestandardoflivingandanimprovementinthestatusofwomenas wellasariseinthecostofchild-rearingduetotheincreaseinthenumberofyears spentinschool,ariseintheexpenditureonhousingandhealth-care,ademandfor skilledworkersforindustrialproduction,etc.Lookingatthedemographictransition as a synthesis of a large set of demographic facts, one must therefore give up this 1Buttheillustrativedatagatheredsubsequently(inEuropeandtheindustrialisedcountries,and laterinthedevelopingcountries)ledtotheconclusionthattherearesomanydifferentpathsleading to the end of transition that ultimately it is the parameters of the model that are really impor- tant (Coale, 1973). Finally, later efforts at abstraction and modelling, particularly the theory of socio-culturalmodernisationformulatedbyThompson(1929)andNotestein(1953),weremarked by a strong ideology which further weakened the model’s theoretical validity and therefore its universality.ThearticlebySzreter(1993)onthehistoricalandpoliticalreasonsforthesuccessof Notestein’smodernisationtheoryascomparedtothepoorreceptionofThomson’stheoryisworth reading.
The list of books you might like
