Introduction:
Population growth has been widely described to be the cause of our environmental
problems. Some economists see the population exceeding the carrying capacity
of the land we live on. However, a second group of neo-Malthusian economists
claim that increasing populations are the drive efficiency by creating technology
to increase the carrying capacity without degrading the environment. In
neo-classical thinking we would call the carrying capacity the steady state.
However circumstances can create reproductive externalities and feed-back
loops that make reproduction persistent beyond what would be considered
sustainable (Dasgupta 2000). One model suggests that environmental degradation
is part of a vicious cycle, whereby groups of people will increase the number
of children the have in order to maximize their share of a common good such
as water (Dasgupta 2000). However the cause of environmental problems, there
is no debate over the solutions. Policy and institutional changes must be
made in order to 'internalize' these environmental externalities associated
with free-riding on common goods in order to reduce the high fertility rates
associated with it.
This paper will be divided into four sections. The first section will discuss
the efficiency model that increasing population is good for the environment.
The second section will discuss three persistent models of environmental
and reproductive externalities. The third will discuss a fourth persistent
model, the vicious circle. The final discussion will cover solutions to
the problems of the vicious circle as well as policy and institutional changes
that will encourage sustainable development.
The Efficiency Argument
With increased population comes necessity for efficient use of resources.
The population growth produces more able minded people who are technologically
adapted (Johnson 2001). People can also create knowledge, universities and
institutions now contribute greatly to new technology produced (Johnson
2001). Knowledge will only grow faster as developing countries invest in
human capital and research (Johnson 2001). Africa for example is a vast
untapped human resource. Increases in the efficiency of the land we have
been using mean that we get more produce from the same land we were using
40 years ago.
This increase in population over the last few centuries has made the majority
of nations better off in terms of living standards. Most people in Europe
today are better off than their grandparents living in poverty in 1750 (Johnson
2001). Life expectancy has nearly doubled in the same time period (Johnson
2001). These are reasons to believe that the increase of population has
made the world better off and that environmental degradation has not decreased
to the effect that populations are starving because of the limits in carrying
capacity.
Reproductive Externalities
Cost sharing is the first of the persistent models and deals with communities
that share kinship responsibilities. These communities are typical of sub-Saharan
Africa, whereby the responsibility of raising a child is shared among members
of the kin-based group. The most common of these family types are patrilineal
(Dasgupta 2000). These communities are characterized by communal land tenure.
The father is rarely responsible for raising the child and so do not bear
the cost of them (Dasgupta 2000). In addition often times a large family
is rewarded by a greater share of land (Dasgupta 2000). All of these factors
decrease the personal cost of having a child and put the problem more on
the shoulders of the community. This is a source of reproductive externalities
that stimulate fertility (Dasgupta 2000).
Conformity can play a role in fertility decisions and can make decisions
on having a child hard to change even when it is in the family's best interest.
Reasons for the initial high fertility rate can be quite rational, high
mortality rates, low population densities and threat of outside extermination
(Dasgupta 2000). This is a common problem in India, where only the birth
of a male child ensures the parents security in old age. This does not have
to continue forever and can be altered by access to the outside world through
newspapers and television (Dasgupta 2000).
In some countries where long-term relationships are unstable people build
new ones based on children in order to maintain an economic dependence (Dasgupta
2000). One example of this is in the Yoruba area of Nigeria, where woman
will have children with more than one man (Dasgupta 2000). Another is children
provide old age security.
The Common Problem: Vicious Circle
Common goods are most important to the livelihood of those in poor areas
and as a result the most problematic areas of free-riding (Dasgupta 2000).
Free access to resources creates a problem whereby anyone who wants resources
can get them but for an opportunity cost of time. This also means that if
a family wishes to get more of the good they simply need to find more hands
to harvest it (Panayotou 1996). Children are an easily exploited for this
resource gathering. They do not go to school in most poor areas (Dasgupta
2000). While each family is having more kids the situation of the common
good is getting worse because of overuse or outright depletion.
An argument against the vicious circle is that communities will not just
sit back and watch the exploitation of their resources and will establish
community management systems (Panayotou 1996). These systems vary from taboos
and customs to more active management (Panayotou 1996). Institutional community
responses are more familiar, such as state ownership of forests and water.
The key to management is proper enforcement. Without enforcement there is
the tendency to degenerate into open access.
A test of the vicious circle in Pakistan found the theory plausible but
that the evidence of the empirical case study provided no clear answer (Filmer
and Pritchett 2002). In this study three premise that must be true in order
for the vicious circle model to be true. First, collection goods should
be a reasonably important component of household income. Second, the depletion
costs of goods should not fall entirely on the household, in other words
the common good causality. Lastly, children should be an important part
of the collection labor of the family. The study found that collected firewood
was important to income but that children did not systematically increase
the chances of collection versus buying the wood. The authors admit that
the inconclusive evidence but suggest the plausibility of the argument.
Solutions to Promote Sustainability
A mix of population policies and institutional changes must be implemented
if any country hopes to solve the problem of environmental degradation.
Full cost pricing can ensure a stable high steady state. A natural steady
state is determined by the productivity of forests fisheries and agricultural
land (Panayotou 1996). The market can correctly regulate the scarcity in
resources by maintaining the right commodity prices (Panayotou 1996). In
Chile and much of the American Mid-west, systems of water rights regulate
the price of water to sustainable levels. A competing perspective promotes
a provision of infrastructural goods, such as cheap sources of household
fuel and potable water that might decrease the need for families to increase
numbers to collect these common goods (Dasgupta 2000). In addition to reducing
use, high commodity prices increase the development of resource-saving environment-friendly
technology (Panayotou 1996). By correctly measuring the value of your commodity
you will ensure that it is used more efficiently.
Land reform and privatization of land can also cause the effect of sustainable
land use. Deforestation is a major problem is several major Asian countries
and it is a problem where population policies would do little help (Panayotou
1996). In this instance it is the removal of subsidies to ranchers and a
reform of land ownership laws for forest clearing that will do the most
good (Panayotou 1996). Poor farming practices that result in erosion and
desertification of land can be stopped by similar measures, securing land
ownership and responsibility for the longevity of productive land and reducing
price supports for erosive crops such as maize, cassava and sugar cane on
high slopes (Panayotou 1996). Policies like this put the real cost of deforestation
and poor farming on those who are cutting down the trees and harvesting
the land, not on the community as a whole.
Population policies can also have the desired effect of reducing the persistent
nature of many of the previously discussed population problems. Measures
that empower woman and make them more responsible can be effective in reducing
the conformity population problems among others (Dasgupta 2000). More educated
women more likely to find employment. An employed mother bears more opportunity
cost by having to raise children and this can effectively limit the amount
of children a family has (Panayotou 1996). In addition to opportunity cost,
education means that they might use resources more effectively (Panayotou
1996). The weakness of population policy is that they occur too slowly and
more often rapid and flexible responses are needed to promote the kind of
changes necessary for sustainable development (Panayotou 1996).
Conclusions
While it has been claimed many times over that population has been the cause
of environmental problems, it is just as likely to be poor institutions
and policies. There is some substance to the efficiency argument and given
the proper framework, limiting open access to common goods, it should work.
In addition to institutional changes and policy measures the measures should
also include family planning and population policy to be balanced.
Given the neo-classical view, a society will tend upon a steady state. It
is important for a country in order to maintain a high steady state to commit
to sustainable environmental practices. A high steady state is the result
of capital depreciation and investment as well as technological adaptation
in the long run. Proper management of resources will encourage technological
adaptation and ensure the capital invested in natural resources does not
depreciate. This should increase the likelihood of a high steady state.
Filmer, Deon and Pritchett, Lant H., "Environmental degradation and the demand for children: searching for the vicious circle in Pakistan" Environment and Development Economics v7 (2002): 123-146
Dasgupta, Partha, "Population and Resources: An Exploration of Reproductive and Environmental Externalities" Population and Development Review, v26 n4 (December 2000): 643-689.
Johnson, Gale D., "On Population and Resources: A Comment", Population and Development Review, v27 n4 (December 2001): 739-747.
Panayotou, Theodore, "An Inquiry into Population, Resources and Environment" in The Impact of Population Growth on Well-being in Developing Countries, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996, pp. 259-298.