Henry George on Malthus
Anthony Fitzgerald
[]
Introduction
This paper will present my reading of Book 2 of Henry George's
Progress and Poverty. I believe I have absorbed the main ideas
and principles of this section. I intend to present these in such a
way as to be faithful to the text. I am confident that any creative
licence I display that is divergent from the text, will serve to
highlight the meaning I think is intended by the author. In this
respect I also hope to be consistent with the rest of his thought. Now
and then also I may allude to something current for the purpose of
illustration or put the ideas in a slightly different order and form.
My apologies to any one who thinks I have omitted something important.
I would be happy for you to comment during question time on any matter
I may have neglected. I heartily commend all those present to read and
re-read the text for your own benefit. At the end of my summary of the
four chapters I will discuss some aspects of the developing world's
'population explosion' and connect these with some of George's views,
mainly those taken from Book 2, but at times with views he may have
had if he was alive today. This section may well reflect some of my
personal views.
I have deferred to Henry George's chapter headings in this summary
and I will try to remember to refer to some page numbers now and then
for those who may be following the text. My written version is
reasonably well footnoted with such information.
Book 2
Chapter 1- The Malthusian theory, its genesis and support.
Henry George is concerned in this Book with disproving the Malthusian
Theory as expressed in his "Essay on Population". In this
chapter he describes the theory, its origins and its influence. The
theory of course has never been proven but given its wide acceptance
it may as well have been. He in different places describes it as an
apparent "self evident truth", "an accepted truth",
"an unquestionable truth" given the wide extent of its
endorsement. George's explanation for the wide acceptance of the
related wages theory, its twin, could well be applied to this theory's
general acceptance. The reason is that "masses of men rarely take
the trouble to separate the real from the apparent". [1] The
theory has to do with the so-called pressure of population on
subsistence. One description he gives of the theory is, "that
population naturally tends to increase faster than subsistence".
[2] In mathematical terms, there is a geometric increase in population
but an arithmetic increase in food production. [3] Today's
mathematicians seem to have another way of describing, increasing at
an increasing rate with the word, exponential. The geometrical aspect
seemed to have some slight empirical basis with the example of a
population doubling in North America in 25 years and its food
production increasing by the same amount each year. [4] It is accepted
today that the doubling of population is dependent on the annual
percentage increase of population and this has taken 37 years in our
recent history. George comments that these two variables are naively
brought together by Malthus and he shows the tenuous and arbitrary
nature of this linkage. George notes that J.S. Mill had a different
mathematical version of the Malthusian idea. For him population had an
arithmetic increase whilst subsistence increased at a decreasing rate.
So the gap between the two is still exacerbating and both agree in
asserting that natural tendency of population to outrun
subsistence.[5]
Book 1 has been concerned with criticizing the capital fund of wages
theory. This theory states that Wages fall because the increase in the
number of labourers necessitates a more minute division of capital. In
other words poverty appears as increase in population necessitates the
more minute division of subsistence which is seen in this theory to
derive from capital. He asserts that this theory and the population
one mutually blend with, strengthen, and defend each other. [6] George
notes that this current theory influenced Adam Smith's wages theory.
He also shows how Ricardo's law of rent seems to support both
theories, i.e. rent would rise as the necessities of production would
force cultivation to less and less productive lands. Malthus saw the
imperatives of his theory. One was that a preventative check was
necessary and this would involve the population displaying moral
restraint and prudence. He is not reliant on abstinence alone. The
second imperative which he had greater confidence in, he called the
positive check. It is simply the increase in mortality as a result of
vice and misery. The choice between these two checks could well be
seen as dismal.
George notes the theory's reliance on analogies with the animal and
plant kingdoms. He makes mention of its connection with Darwin's
theory of survival of the fittest by natural selection. A difference
however, is that Malthus' theory is devoid of an idea of progression.
It also seems to be in line with facts e.g. the prevalence of poverty
amid dense populations. [7] He concedes how it is understandable to
workers, who see the cause of low wages, as competition caused by the
pressure of numbers. Poverty gives the idea there are too many people.
[8] At the other end of the social strata the theory is soothing
because it preserves the status quo against possibility of revolution.
[9] In language not wanting in strength he maintains that it parries
the demand for reform, shelters selfishness from question and
conscience. [10] Since the theory is seen as necessary it conveys the
false impression that poverty is not the result of greed or social
maladjustments but result of universal laws. [11] A consequence of
such thinking is that, Nature is seen as niggardly or perhaps we would
say today 'stingy'. Such a 'scientifically' appreciated nature is
meant to be dispiriting to those who would seek to reform society's
power structures. For Malthus, nothing can be done to eliminate
poverty individually or collectively except education and preaching
the necessity of prudence.[12] In this context it might be remembered
that Thomas Malthus was a Parson. In the grave choice between food and
sex, he seemed to opt for the latter. He had eight children.
Although George is at odds with this theory he acknowledges its
strength and triumph in all circles of influence. He announces his
intention to erode it grounds by subjecting it to a frank examination.
[13]
Chapter 2- Inferences from facts
In this chapter George claims that Malthus' theory is as untenable as
wages fund theory when analyzed. The first reason is facts used to
support it do not prove it and analogies do not countenance it. Then
there are facts which conclusively disprove it. [14]
George denies that the tendency to reproduce involves poverty.
Although a geometric progression and an arithmetic one can be
distinguished and illustrated there is no necessary reason to attach
one to population and the other to the ability to produce food. George
uncovers the real causes of poverty and he lists them. They are "unsocial
ignorance and rapacity, bad government, unjust laws or destructive
warfare". [15] George makes a series of assertions on what we
might call, if we were given to hyperbole, 'over- population' or 'the
population explosion'. It would seem that if ' the prophet of San
Francisco' did not regard this idea as blasphemous, that it was at
least a 'slap in the face' of Providence by the hand of man, which he
vicariously was not prepared to countenance. On page 128, after a
consideration of poverty in Ireland, he asks rhetorically, "Is it
not impiety far worse than atheism to charge upon natural laws misery
so caused?" [16] His statements seem rather incredible and
provocative even for that time but he draws on a good deal of
empirical evidence. He says the dangers of over-population have never
appeared. He denies that over-population has ever afflicted mankind.
On page 110 he states, "Compared with its capacities to support
human life the earth as whole is yet most sparsely populated"
[17] He wonders how the earth could be "so thinly populated".
[18] In today's world in spite of all of the concern or could we say
hubbub about over-population, it is still really only a here and there
problem. It does not affect the entire globe. Further it is a now and
then problem as well. George puts the issue in perspective where he
says, history shows both decline and increase of population. It is a
relative problem and the main thing it is related to is material
poverty. It is not the cause of poverty but its result.
George's approach is then to question the theory's status as a law by
casting doubt over its universality. It seems to be with a deal of
sarcasm that he wonders how that so many can be ignorant of dire
consequences of this natural tendency. He cites the Jews, the
Egyptians and Hindus of past times as not following any procedures
resembling Malthusian prescriptions. He tackles objections seemingly
presented by the 'stock' examples of over-population, in China, India
and Ireland. After all even in his time China and India were the most
densely populated countries. He in each case shows how the apparent
problem arises from the form of social organization which has "shackled
productive power and robbed industry of its reward". [19] The
defects of social organization can be 'boiled down' to either
landlordism or taxation. With regards to India and Ireland,
landlordism is the problem and absentee landlordism at that. The only
reason the potato famine wreaked its devastation in Ireland was that
all the other foods were being stripped from them in rent.
Chapter 3- Inferences from analogy
In Chapter 3 George attacks the analogies by which the theory is
supported. He claims the analogies are inconclusive. He concedes the
strength of reproductive force in the animal and plant kingdom, and
that plants and animals do press the limits of their subsistence. He
directly relates this to human subsistence in a positive sense; as all
things that furnish human subsistence have the power to multiply many
times. He concludes that the reproductive forces of plant and animal
species amply supply human wants. More human beings will always mean
more food if they but co-operate and tap these forces. He is confident
that humans cannot press the limits of their subsistence until "the
limits of the globe are reached" [20]
George also deals with the so-called law of diminishing returns that
has been allied with the law of rent. Since the law of rent is such a
main plank in his own ideas it is not surprising that he deals with
the diminishing productiveness of land as one goes out to the margins.
He sees no problem so long as it is seen as a relative truth. [21]
Ultimately, life does not use up the forces that maintain life. These
forces have ever greater potential because man is the only animal
whose desires increase as they are fed. Man is the only unsatisfied
animal. [22] He can realize this greater potential because of "a
progression away from and above the beasts".[23] For the beast
additional supplies are only for multiplication but with the human
being they precipitate an elevating change of desire from quantity to
quality.[24] An increase of food is not the cause of an increase in
population in humans, but its effect. Amidst such built-in abundance
and obvious self-sufficiency, intellectual and social desires become
more important than mere physical desires. He comments on Smith's
observation, "(A) rich man for luck, a poor man for children"
to the effect that wealth really answers the so called 'population
problem'. Wealth brings "independence, leisure, comfort, and a
fuller and more varied life." [25] Near the end of this chapter
he concludes that true law of population accords with and is
subordinate to the law of intellectual development. This seems to say
that population can be brought into line by reasonable desires as the
higher development of the individual becomes a possibility.[26] Maybe
this could be related to Oscar Romero's "being more".
Chapter 4 -Disproof of the Malthusian theory.
George in this chapter proposes it seems, 'to take the bull by its
horns'. George asserts that men ignore fact when blinded by a
pre-accepted theory. Early in this chapter he includes a lengthy quote
from J.S. Mill's "Principles of Political Economy" after
which he states without much in the way of rhetorical flourish, "(A)ll
this I deny. I assert the very reverse of these propositions is true"
[27] His five key points against Mill I have set out below; I have
omitted the "other things being equal" proviso of some of
them and paraphrased others in the interests of brevity. Firstly, "a
greater number of people can be collectively better provided for than
the smaller". Secondly, "the injustice of society is the
cause of want and misery." Thirdly, "new mouths to be fed
come with two hands to produce more". Fourthly, "a greater
population means a greater comfort given to each individual provided
there is equitable distribution". Finally, "in a state of
equality the natural increase of population would tend to make every
individual richer instead of poorer". [28]
He then submits the question to the test of the facts. He notes that
in denser populations, wealth is devoted with more lavishness to
non-productive use. This is clearly seen by the existence of "costly
buildings, fine furniture, luxurious equipages, statues, pictures,
pleasant gardens and yachts". [29] He further observes that a
larger population contains a greater unproductive class in which he
includes both thieves and police. [30] He admits the historical
decline in wages in California but draws attention to the increase in
efficiency of labour. [31] In like fashion he asserts the richest
countries are not where nature is most prolific but where labour is
most efficient. The proof of this is fewer labourers produce more
wealth. Inequality of distribution is in every case the reason for
this enhanced efficiency not being reflected in the maintenance and
improvement of wages.[32]
George deals with the objection of "accumulated wealth"[33].
It suggests that communities can rest on their past deeds and live off
their stored wealth. He notes that wealth does not bear much
accumulation.[34] Whilst some accumulated wealth is necessary the
wealth produced by past generations no more account for present
consumption "than dinners eaten last year supply a man with
present strength".[35] "Wealth is constantly recreated".
[36] Stop labour in any community and wealth vanishes. [37] Nature is
a relatively insignificant factor when compared to labour for George
as seen in this statement, "Twenty men working together where
nature is niggardly produces more wealth than one can produce where
nature is most bountiful".[38] The reason for this is that a
denser population means a greater division of labour hence improved
economies of production and distribution. [39] The conclusion to this
chapter also concludes Book 2 well and the reader is left in no doubt
that we must look not at the production of wealth but "the
maladjustments of men" to find what produces "poverty amid
advancing wealth".[40]
'Over-Population' - A Developing World Problem?
The perceived population problem has led to renewed interest in
Malthus' theory. The extent of this problem needs to be considered.
80% of the World's Population and 98% of the world's increase in
population comes from the Developing world. [41] These figures tend to
support the view held by George that over-population is a relative
problem.
You might recall Cardinal Pell touching on this issue during the
recent WYD. I am not concerned whether it was Cardinal Pell, Cardinal
Snell or Cardinal Bell but something 'rings true' in the issue that
was raised. The ABC's "Landline" ran a story called "Populate
and Perish" which echoed the Malthusian warning. It seemed to
pour cold water on the Cardinal's comments and avert their danger in
terms of "global warming". An American academic held up
China's population very low percentage increase as an example to be
emulated in the West. He stated that such miniscule increases are
consistent with economic growth. Against this I could make the
following points. Firstly, even a very low percentage increase in
China amounts to a very big increase of population in real terms.
Secondly, this learned expert might be pressed further for truly
representative examples of his 'low percentage increase being good for
the economy' thesis.
One thing I have learnt from Henry George is to bring the Malthus
theory to the test of the facts. I think we can subject the ideas of
today's Malthusians to the same kind of thing. In my research for this
paper I found an article with an interesting title, "Population
explosion theories shrink before the facts." In developed
countries three factors seem to be significant in lessening the
'population explosion' problem; Lower fertility rates, improved
quality of life and contraception. The second of these factors is
clearly present in the thought of George and even in the book we have
been looking at. The first factor where this is an effect of delaying
having children due to economic factors could be related to a type of
poverty also present in the developed world, rather than purely as
progress. The last factor may not have been totally foreseen by
George. Perhaps he saw 'the natural economizing of desires' in a
context of plenty, being sufficient to achieving 'population control'.
I think he would have been aghast at the 'foisting' of contraception
and other policies for that matter, on developing countries by
developed countries. Maybe their intention is to fight "over-population"
before poverty. According to George's principle all they need do is
end poverty. The stringent policy of limiting one child per family in
China, in this case implemented by its own rulers, would have been for
him one of the worst manifestations of state control. In chapter 2 of
the book I have dealt with today draws attention to the vast amount of
unused land in China and its potential to support larger numbers. The
issue of contraception in developed countries, I think, would have
also caused him concern as a social philosopher, inasmuch as this
contributes to a drastic decline in a population's ability to conserve
itself. It does not seem to be altogether consistent with population
containment by the elevation and economizing of desires which he
seemed to advocate. It also seems to allow some 'convenient'
side-stepping of the underlying economic poverty. I don't think he
would have regarded some of its effects in any way as the kind of
progress he would be promoting. He would have seen today's shallow
kind of advance as the poverty that it is. Look at technologically
advanced Japan, where new technology in vending machines can recognize
teenagers and circumvent their efforts to buy cigarettes and alcohol
before they put a magazine photograph of an older person in front of
the camera.[42] Look at New York. The kind of license depicted in its
"Sex in the City" TV series and recent movie, to the extent
it is represents a real state of 'affairs', in my opinion, has no part
in the Liberty he was to champion. Consider the widespread addiction
to 'trashy' television shows, which has been known to have dampening
effects on population growth. Maybe at times television does cater to
the "eyes of the mind" and is used to satisfy higher
desires. [43] George's 'Savannah story' which occurs later in Progress
and Poverty gives a much better indication of the real potential of
true Liberty in a city. Progress must occur towards "higher forms
of desire" and "knowledge". [44] I am sure he would
have been alive to a deeper poverty problem, manifest in both
developed and developing nations, to be solved rather than one that
could be answered by a simple technical solution. He is after all, a
natural law man, par excellence.
Developed countries due to all of these factors and additionally due
to advances in medicine, seem to be 'afflicted' by the problem of an
ever-expanding aging population and not enough 'new blood' in the form
of new babies. Just recently the median age of Australians has jumped
a few years to 37 years. [45] Some countries may escape this problem
for a time, like the USA by way of immigration. It is hard to accept
that bigger natural increases will not be necessary for any developed
country to maintain their way of life. I think George would find it
strange that unwedded teenagers could be encouraged by the state into
'a career path' of having children because there are no other
worthwhile jobs for them to do. He might too find it disappointing
that women who are gainfully employed have not sufficient economic
encouragement to start families. It seems natural increases in
population could even be accommodated in developing countries were
their poverty problem addressed adequately. The solution to the
respective population growth 'problems' in the developing and
developed worlds, would for George entail eliminating poverty, first
and foremost.
Consistent with George's predictions agricultural production of food
has kept pace with population growth. The problem of distribution of
food highlighted by George is still with us today. Some are worried
about the increasing demands of food production upon the environment.
George is also deeply concerned for the environment. This problem is
not helped by the huge quantities of unused land in all countries that
is held out of use by either land monopoly or types of monopoly
generated by it. Today there appears to be two distinct attitudes to
this population and environmental problem. On the pessimistic side,
there are those who fear the degradation and overwhelming of the
earth's biophysical environment by increased food production. On the
optimistic side, there are those that see the earth's population as a
resource to bring to the problem and who are confident in the
potential of technology to help solve the problem. George's ideas are
more aligned with the positive attitude. However, George would not
refer degradingly, to humans as 'resources' and the kind of
co-operation he envisages goes far beyond mere technology. A reversion
must be made not just to natural physical laws but to social laws as
well. George was a Physiocrat not a technocrat. Much of the
development of cities that takes place in developing and developed
countries is really more the result of private property in land rather
than to natural beneficial processes. In George's view, the over
crowding in cities of the developed world and developing world, 'their
population problem' and 'their environment problem' is due to
disproportionate wealth concentrations caused by the private
appropriation of a socially produced reality, called rent. An
environmentally friendly world would result from society collecting it
and using it for the common good. Not to collect it involves
neglectfully not using good intra-marginal land that is most apposite
to use, and wastefully using land that is marginal and fragile.
Conclusion
I must conclude before I 'steal the thunder' of other books and
chapters which will no doubt be brought out by speakers who are to
follow. I think I have shown why population increases appear
'excessive' in some parts of the developing world. I trust I have
alerted those present also to the dangers of inadequate increases of
population. Hopefully, we can solve our problems of imbalanced
increases in population by going back to Henry George's level headed
ideas many of which are in this great book we are considering at this
conference.
- Henry George. Progress and
Poverty, p.91.
- Ibid., p.91.
- Ibid., p.93.
- Ibid., p.92.
- Ibid., p.95.
- Ibid., p.97.
- Ibid., p.96.
- Ibid., p.98.
- Ibid., p.99.
- Ibid., p.99.
- Ibid., p.97.
- Ibid., p.100.
- Ibid., p.102.
- Ibid., p.103.
- Ibid., p.106.
- Ibid., p.128.
- Ibid., p.110.
- Ibid., p.107.
- Ibid., p.114.
- Ibid., p.132.
- Ibid., p.133.
- Ibid., p.134.
- Ibid., p.135.
- Ibid., p.135.
- Ibid., p.138.
- Ibid., p.139.
- Ibid., p.135.
- Ibid., p.141-142.
- Ibid., p.143.
- Ibid., p.144.
- Ibid., p.145-146.
- Ibid., p.147.
- Ibid., p.148.
- Ibid., p.148.
- Ibid., p.149.
- Ibid., p.148.
- Ibid., p.148.
- Ibid., p.150.
- Ibid., p.150.
- Ibid., p.150.
- Most of the modern day facts
in this section have been gleaned from a current school Geography
textbook.
- I heard this on the radio.
- Henry George. Progress and
Poverty, pp.135-136.
- Ibid., p.134.
- I heard on the radio as well.
|
