For those who may not be familiar, Malthus pointed out that the human population grows exponentially while sources of food grow linearly, as a function of land. Thus, population will grow until it outstrips food production, at which point famine will ensue and bring the population back in line with its sustenance. What kept famine at bay were: war, plagues, disease, poverty, and all other vices by which nature might keep mankind's demand for food short of its own supply. As Heilbroner eloquently puts it,
The troubled Reverend was driven to the conclusion that the incorrigible and irreconcilable divergence between mouths and food could have only one result: the larger portion of mankind would forever be subjected to some kind of misery or other. (90)
Thankfully, due to technological advancements in the production of food, particularly the Green Revolution, and increased use of birth control, Malthus's dismal forecast for the future has not yet been realized. However, in Malthus's time, some were so convinced of this seeming inevitability, they justified the destruction wrought by poverty by removing legislation for their assistance (Heilbroner specifically cites William Pitt, the Prime Minister, removing a poor relief bill). Malthus reasoned that famine was the the worst thing the population could succumb to and alternative to reducing population, regardless of its severity, was preferable to it.
That brings me to this question - all questions of the class distribution of healthcare aside - would the Malthus of 1820, at the publishing of his Principles of Political Economy, be for moving the percentage of Americans who have access to health insurance from 83% to 96%, as the bill which just passed the House suggests, or against it? Would he think it should be the opposite, that the best thing the government can do for its constituents is pass legislation that will lower the number of individuals with access to healthcare? If Malthus were alive in 2009, with the knowledge that birth control has become more widespread and food production has become more sophisticated behind him, would his answers be the same?
I'll venture a post with my hypotheses at a later time.
Posts
Cowen and Shenton (1995) in their work Doctrines of Development argue that Malthus was responsible for sinking the Enlightenment's conception of social progress as linear and inevitable. Now all of a sudden, progress required management. In the physical and psychological dislocation accompanying the throes of the early Industrial Revolution, politicians and social theorists decided that progress had to be secured through a conscious effort of society's trustees. Bankers as the doorkeepers of investment capital were popular choices to fill this (theoretical)role; Compte and the Saint Simonians both thought they'd be ideal. Cowen and Shenton argue that since then, our definition of development has only shifted in who we believe constitutes the appropriate trustees (white Europeans for Africa, entrepreneurs for America, etc). The alarmism of Malthus was an important step towards our modern conception of development.
ReplyDeleteObviously Malthus underestimated the human capacity for innovation. That being said, one would wonder if Malthus would agree that technology has proven itself as savior or merely demonstrated its capacity to delay the inevitable. Perhaps Malthus (and Tyler) would be persuaded by research on environmental Kuznets curves (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/science/earth/21tier.html?_r=1)that suggest as a society's wealth and technology grows so does its citizens preference for a clean environment and so it begins to pollute less. I am more Malthusian in my attitude toward climate change than the Kuznets curve literature.
On the health care issue, I doubt (though I could be very wrong) that extending minimal health coverage to another 13% of the population is going to substantially increase the total population. I would think that factors like immigration and our current birth rate will be more important factors in driving American population growth.
Secondly, I'll make a similarly ill-informed argument that expanding health coverage and reducing health care costs (two admittedly different actions) could actually reduce population growth. The cost of health insurance and health expenses are a a major financial burden on working class families. If those costs could go down, the standard of living of those families would go up, and, according to Malthus, birth rates would go down. All of that's on a shaky foundation. Are birth rates higher for working class Americans? Do we see a "demographic transition" (rapidly falling birthrates after a certain level of development is reached) in American history? Even if those premises are correct, lowering health care costs would only be one piece of that puzzle, which I believe is really about empowerment of marginalized constituencies.
I think Malthus would be ok with the general premise of expanding health coverage.
I concur with your point about that providing minimal health coverage to an additional 13% of the country will substantially increase the population. But if we look at it from a Malthusian perspective, this is essentially a wage increase for the lower class of individuals who cannot currently obtain health coverage. The assumption he made in his original hypothesis regarding population growth is that all wage increases the working class accrued were then bred away.
ReplyDeleteThat said, he also agreed that the wealthier classes had lower birth rates for a variety of reasons (knowledge of birth control, "moral restraint", incentive to invest in fewer children in order to maintain that class, etc.). You could argue that because this is an increase in wage for the lower class, and a decrease in wage for the upper class, you may ultimately get a lower birth rate for the population as a whole.
I think the Malthus of 1820 would be against it, as if it has the tendency towards anything, it would be to keep the population alive longer. I need to put more thought into how the Malthus of 2009 might respond.