Table Of ContentEconomic, 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.
