followers, Malthus' claim to importance as an original thinker is supported by most of the best present-day thought.1 But his errors are not few. Taking his most careful statement of the three factors in his problem separately, and considering them only as tendencies in the sense that they would be true if not interfered with, they stand. But Malthus sometimes puts them together and so states them that their character as mere potential tendencies is lost. Thus with the tendency of population to increase. The undoubted strain of pessimism his work holds led him to underrate the future development of education and prudence. The power of a standard of living above subsistence is overlooked. Putting the ideas of checks and rate of increase together, and easily falling into too positive statement, the limitations and abstractions are forgotten. He knew what had happened; he saw what was happening; but, influenced by his surroundings, his vision as to what was to happen was unduly obscured. It is difficult to determine to what extent this indicates a serious limitation of his powers, and consequently is an adverse criticism. It would appear most just simply to hold that, lacking later data, he was not in as good a position as are we to judge of the efficiency of moral restraint. It has been suggested, too, that Malthus failed to distinguish between the desire for offspring, on the one hand, and that for sexual gratification, on the other. If the "passion between the sexes to which he refers should solely or chiefly concern the latter desire, it might remain virtually unchecked without increase in population. It might be considered as a given quantity without fearing overpopulation. This is evidenced by the low birth rate, small average family, and almost stationary population of France to-day. It must not be forgotten, however, that the application of this criticism may vary accordingly as we define the term "vice" under the preventive checks. Malthus' definition of "vice" was a broad one, and would largely 1 Those inclined to belittle are Ingram and Cannan, for instance; while, on the other hand, Cossa, Marshall, Ely, Patten, Bonar, Price, Cohn, and Carver are among those attaching great importance to his thought. cover the case suggested in this criticism. Indeed, he specifically states that "if we consider only the general term [preventive check] which implies principally a delay of the marriage union from prudential considerations, without reference to [moral] consequences, it may be considered in this light as the most powerful of the checks, which in modern Europe keep down the population to the level of the means of subsistence."1 Again, though this is not essential to his thesis, he has been criticized for a lack of breadth and foresight in his view of the possibilities of increased subsistence through improvements in agricultural science and transportation. Here, however, it is easy to overlook the fact that he said that subsistence might increase indefinitely, and that his argument had as its essential merely a different rate of increase as compared with population. On this particular point, if more attention had been given to his ratio, and less to his separate rates, there would have been less misunderstanding in this regard. Finally, when he puts his rates of increase in population and produce together, the fact that his idea of diminishing returns was limited, appears. While his idea is substantially correct, "he does not lay stress, at any rate with sufficient explicitness, on the limiting conditions of its application to fact."2 He does not appreciate to the full the possible effects of an increase in population in maintaining or swelling the rate of increase in subsistence. In these matters Malthus made too much of not being able to judge of the future except by the past. There is a sense in which this is true, but such an attitude may lead to undue narrowness of view. In a word, to the extent that Malthus gave ground for thinking the law of diminishing returns an historical one, he was wrong. This is true, on the whole, of his first edition, alone. In the later ones he lapses into similar statements, but more and more guards himself. His effort to attain a concise and forcible statement may be considered a factor in the misunderstanding of his doctrine. 1 5th ed., II, 218. 2 Price, Political Economy in England, p. 49. 3 See, e.g., Appendix to 3d ed. P As one of the most important of Malthus' services the fact is to be mentioned that he was the first to devote a treatise to the principle of population. Thus he deserves great consideration for calling attention to the economic significance of an important subject which had been neglected. He gave the problem a definiteness and distinctness which made its significance tangible. The Malthusian theory is important from the fact that it was partly instrumental in leading Darwin to his doctrine of Natural Selection. Darwin himself has said that his theory of the struggle for existence was only "the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal kingdom." Furthermore, Malthus collected a mass of valuable facts illustrative of his doctrine. These were important as showing the effects of various checks and stimuli, — emigration, poor laws, various customs. They influenced legislation, on the one hand, and on the other, they give him a claim to a place among the founders of historical economics.1 The Malthusian theory is especially essential to an understanding of the problems of social reform. Thus John Stuart Mill was prevented from unreservedly advocating governmental interference with wages, of a highly Socialistic character, only by his belief in the theory of population which Malthus taught. If the difficulties Malthus saw are real, they must be reckoned with. If they are not, and the Malthusian doctrine is to be rejected, some other theory must be produced which will better explain the facts upon which Malthus based his reasoning, and which others have confirmed. The economist cannot go far without recognizing the tendencies with which Malthus dealt; and those attempts to solve the social problem which run counter to the principle of population must ultimately fail. 1 Marshall, Principles of Economics, 4th ed., p. 256, note. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ON EARLY ENGLISH CONTROVERSIES CON- Malthus' essay provoked much discussion, and numerous works were put forth attacking his thesis, while others rallied to its defense. There were "anti-populationists" or "subsistencians" (followers of Malthus), and "populationists" (his opponents). Some of the books of the day were as follows: 1806: Jarrold (T.), Dissertations on Man, Philosophical, Physiological, and Political; in answer to Mr. Malthus's "Essay on the Principle of Population." The thought is optimistic, upholding Godwin, and proceeding from theological premises. Malthus' checks are held to "arise out of circumstances that are perfectly optional, and are most experienced under a bad system of government" (361). The most interesting point is his idea that anxiety and care lead to the extinction of those affected. 1807: Hazlitt (Wm.), A Reply to the Essay on Population in a Series of Letters. Published anonymously. This work argued that there is no limit to subsistence until the earth's surface shall be occupied and intensive culture resorted to. 1815: Gray, Happiness of States. "In all ordinary circumstances population has a tendency to increase, but not to over-increase; for this increase carries in itself the power of fully supplying its various wants." Population regulates subsistence. 1816: Weyland (John), The Principles of Population and Production, as they are affected by the Progress of Society; with a view to moral and political consequences. Argues from theological premises, the Malthusian principle running counter to the idea of a benevolent creator (p. 6). The natural tendency of population varies with the state of society. Naturally, it tends to keep within the limits set by the powers of the soil, only exceeding them through impolitic laws and customs. Some measure of excess is beneficial, as it stimulates progress. 1816 Grahame (James), An Inquiry into the Principle of Population, including an exposition of the causes and the advantages of a tendency to exuberance of numbers in society. 1818: Purves (G.), The Principles of Population and Production investigated; and the Questions, does Population regulate Subsistence, or Subsistence Population . . . discussed. "The notion of a constant tendency in subsistence to increase less rapidly than popula P tion, and consequently to check the latter by scarcity, is a wild fancy, utterly unknown to nature, and in as direct opposition to the results of her arrangements, as any such tendency in clothing, building, or any other division of the supply" (68). He follows Gray. Scantiness of subsistence tends to increase births, superfluity to diminish them. Abundance of untouched means existing in old countries refutes Malthus. Population has no natural ratio of increase, when compared with time. While the ratio of increase of subsistence is impressed upon it by the cultivator. 1818: Ensor (George), An Inquiry concerning the Population of Nations, containing a refutation of Mr. Malthus's Essay on Population. Advocates political reforms as the remedy. 1820: Godwin (Wm.), Essay on Population. Contains an essay by Booth on Malthus' ratios, which purports to refute Malthus' use of ratios of increase. Malthus' American statistics are criticized. Godwin argued that history shows population has not decreased in many states; and that in Sweden, where' conditions are favorable, population doubles but once in 100 years. Each new improvement makes a new start by placing population and subsistence rates on a new level of equality. Any excess of population comes in the shape of infants, which serves as a warning and enables adaptation. Moreover, each man has within him the power to produce more than enough for his subsistence. He lays any suffering due to overpopulation at the door of political facts. 1821: Ravenstone (P.), A Few Doubts as to the Correctness of Some Opinions Generally Entertained on the Subjects of Population and Political Economy. The tendency of population to increase is nearly equal in all times and places, and is not so rapid as Malthus thinks. No restrictive measures are needed, for subsistence depends upon numbers. In arguing that rates of increase are independent of social institutions he also undertakes to refute Godwin's arguments. 1822 Place (Francis), Illustrations and Proofs of the Principle of Population: including an examination of the proposed remedies of Mr. Malthus, and a reply to the objections of Mr. Godwin and others. Through a study of immigration to America Malthus' conclusions as to the rate of increase in population in that country are substantiated. Place himself emphasizes education as a remedy. 1 Purves was Gray's nom de plume! |