Human Cultural Evolution: In Favor of the Boserup Theory
by Lynden S. Williams
Introduction
This is the last
of a three part series on human cultural evolution. First we examined the ‘supply-side’ or
Malthusian Theory of cultural evolution; second we explored the ‘demand-side’
or Boserup Theory. In this third section I will argue in favor
of the demand-side or Boserup Theory and discuss some of the implications of
that perspective for human history. I
strongly recommend you read Parts One and Two prior to reading this section.
The Boserup Theory
The
Boserup Theory holds that increases in demand are usually necessary to
stimulate major changes in human culture.
As explained in detail in the previous section, increased production
usually requires intensification of land use, and the Law of Diminishing
Returns generally results in increased labor requirements when land is used
more intensively; the Law of Least Effort acts to discourage changes that
require increased labor input unless increased demand requires that change. In addition, living at higher densities and
a more sedentary lifestyle promotes exchange of ideas and formal education. Therefore, population growth (or other
increased demand) is the cause for intensification of land use rather than
the result, and it may give rise to innovation that could increase per capita
productivity. For most of pre-human
and human history, increases in demand resulted from population growth, and
population growth continues to compound increasing demand in those societies
where per capita consumption is increasing.
Thus, in contrast to the Malthusian Theory which postulates innovation
and discovery as necessary to allow or stimulate population growth, the
Boserup Theory holds that population growth (and by extension other increases
in demand) is usually the cause for evolution of a more productive economy.
Boserup
(in her 1965 book) focused almost exclusively on intensification of
agricultural systems, showing that increasingly intensive farming systems
(forest fallow, bush fallow, short fallow, annual cropping, &
multi-cropping) is an historical sequence forced by increased demand, mostly
resulting from population growth. It
is suggested here that other stages in human cultural evolution (the
omnivorous, habitat, and urban-industrial revolutions) can also be explained
by the same process. When we examine
these changes in diet, habitat, farming, and industrial development, it
becomes clear that the wisest and most powerful would not have been those
most likely to have initiated them.
Rather, it would have been those individuals and groups who were least
able to defend their resource base or survive in the previous environment that
would have been forced to make those changes.
The Omnivorous
Revolution
One
of the first significant changes in human culture must have been the change
from vegetarian to a diet that included meat.
All other primates remain mostly or totally vegetarian. What caused our species of primate to make
that change? It must have taken place
over many thousands of years given the need for the digestive system to
evolve those changes required to process meat. And, that change must have been a very
painful one—probably beginning with occasional consumption of carrion. Could that change have been caused by other
than insufficient vegetable resources to meet demand? Could those sources of increased demand
have been caused by other than population growth or inability to defend
sufficient territory for an adequate vegetarian resource base?
The
change to an omnivorous diet resulted in very significant advantages over the
longer term. Vegetarians must spend
most of their time gathering and eating; carnivores by contrast need to spend
a relatively small portion of their time eating—once per day in the case of
most large carnivores. As omnivorous
creatures humans were able to greatly reduce the amount of time spent
gathering and eating. The need for
meat required methods of procuring it, which for humanoids that could only
mean learning to use tools. Thus, the
changed diet provided the motive to make those weapons and other tools needed
to pursue that new lifestyle. When
omnivorous primates come into conflict with vegetarian primates, they win!
The Habitat Revolution
The next significant stage in human
culture resulted from the movement of humanoids into the tropical
grasslands. Except for a few primates,
forest animals are usually quite small (mostly arboreal where most of the
annual production in the forest takes place).
Suitable weapons for hunting these animals are blowguns and bows &
arrows or light spears. Those weapons would be completely inadequate to kill
the large grazing animals in the seasonally dry grasslands or allow humanoids
to defend themselves against large grassland predators. What, other than population pressure within
the tropical forest regions would have forced humanoids onto the grasslands,
and who, other than those unable to defend their territory within the forest
region, would have made that move?
Once again, the move to the tropical
grassland was accompanied by very significant advantages over the longer
term. Grassland humanoids developed
weapons (had to develop weapons) far superior to those who inhabited the
forest. Tropical grasslands are far
more extensive, allowing for rapid population growth. And grassland animals are larger, requiring
fewer kills to provide subsistence for the family. When grassland humanoids confront forest
humanoids, they win!
The
next significant stage in human cultural evolution was movement of people
into the seasonally cold latitudes.
Absent clothing and controlled fire even a slight decline in
temperature would cause great discomfort or even death for humans. What, other than population pressure within
the tropical grasslands would have forced humans into the seasonally cold
regions, and who, other than those unable to defend their territory within
the savannas, would have made that move?
Once humans learned to survive
the winter season, the pace of the spread poleward must have increased
dramatically. In just a few hundred
thousand years humans inhabited and dominated almost the entire ice free land
area of the earth.
The
move to seasonally cold regions was accompanied by some very significant
advantages. For the first time humans
were completely removed from the hot wet environment where their disease
organisms evolved. Humans emerge as
‘exotic species’ with few natural enemies, including diseases —and take their
prey by surprise.[1] When mid-latitude humans confront humans in
the tropics, they win!
Evolution of
Agriculture
The
evolutionary process of mutually beneficial symbiosis between life forms is not
confined to humans. Animals tend to
spread the seeds of those plants they consume. Plant-animal symbiosis usually resulted in
a tasty fruit with a bitter or toxic seeds, so that the consumer will spit
them out (and thus plant them).
Alternatively seeds can be small and indigestible so they can pass
through the digestive system of the consumer and come out viable and
fertilized—for example, the bird/berry bush and the human/tomato
symbioses.
The
evolutionary process that resulted in domestication of plants and animals did
not stop ten thousand years ago; indeed, I have witnessed several examples of
the process of human/plant (or animal) symbiosis in progress. Once in the Kekchi Maya community I
accompanied my friend to his “mata hambre” (kill hunger) crop along the side
of a nearby stream. His main crop was
a long fallow slash & burn field in the forest, but he would plant this
crop annually along that portion of the stream that was flooded each year
bringing a fresh layer of rich silt, as a reserve in case the main crop
failed. The crop was perhaps an acre
of corn, intercropped with squash. As
we walked through the field he would take out weeds with his machete (which
he always carried with him). I noticed
that there was one ‘weed’ that he did not cut, and asked him about it. I think he called it ‘calalu’, (but
can’t be sure and don’t think it is the same plant of West African origin
that I get on Wikipedia online; wish I had keep better notes!) I asked if he had planted it; he responded
no, it is a volunteer, but we let it grow because it has a ‘very nice leaf’
(used as a condiment and in concentration as a medicine for children with
dysentery). He said, we Maya have
always known about this plant; it puts out seeds on top in April, and as we
pass by we just grab a handful and scatter them about, so that next year
there will be more of them.
Once
I accompanied the same friend to his forest plot to help bring home a load of
corn. They build sheds with thatch
roofs about a foot and a half off the ground, near their plots to store their
corn. As we approached the shed a very
large snake emerged from under and crawled to a nearby bush; my friend did
not seem to notice the snake. “You did
see the snake, didn’t you?” I
asked in near disbelief. You mean that snake? “Yes!” Oh he lives under the corn
shed; he kills the rodents and birds that come to eat my corn. And added: all corn sheds have a snake under to keep
the pests away. “Really? Is it the same species of snake”?
Yes. “So you guys go out
and find one and put him under there?” No, we just build the shed and the snake
will find it. I knew I was
witnessing evolution big time. If the
Maya continued that practice for a few more thousand years (they won’t;
population growth will not allow them to continue forest fallow agriculture)
that species of snake would become dependent upon Maya sheds, just as the
Maya are already dependent upon the snake to protect their corn. Note that the snake knew the human did not
want him around when he came for corn, but also knew he did not have to move
too far away to hide—given the mutual beneficial relationship, the killer human will not come after
him. On another occasion in an East
Indian community south of the Maya village, I saw a large snake (can’t be
sure it was the same species) crawling toward a house which was also about
two feet off the ground; it had a house cat clinging to its tail but didn’t
seem to mind. The woman of the house
ran out and used a broom to shoo the snake away. [Hell,
I thought it was a corn shed, the snake thought.]
Many Kekchi
Maya farmers who practiced forest fallow maintained a hunting stand at the
edge of their plot which was used to hunt (using a shot gun) wild animals
(mostly a forest species of peccary, and tepezcuintle,
a rodent the size of a very large house cat) that come by at night to eat
the crops. I was not able to determine
whether the primary purpose was to protect the crop or to procure the
meat. Some of the farmers would plant
a special crop around their plot meant to attract those animals; again, I do
not know if the reason was primarily to discourage the animals from eating
the main crop or to attract them. When
they killed an adult animal that had young, the young were gathered when
possible and brought back to the village to be raised for food. Whatever the primary reason, these animals
provided a very tasty meal. The peccary were simply confined with (European)
pigs that seemed to get along fine with them.
Young tepizcuintle were
penned separately and fed, but would sometimes reproduce in captivity. These animals are obviously semi-domestic. I speculate that introduction of the fully
domestic European pig eliminated much of the pressure to continue the overt domestication
process with the peccary and tepezcuentle.
The Agricultural Revolution
The
evolutionary process animal/plant symbiosis can be greatly speeded up when
gathering of fruits and plants is very intensive, and especially when the
gatherer is aware of the fact that seeds will produce new plants and begins
to deliberately spread those seeds that are most desirable. As the human population increased beyond the
capacity of the natural landscape to support it, humans began to transform
the natural landscape to a cultivated landscape. The agricultural revolution was a very
significant step in human cultural evolution.
That process occurred over many thousands of years as ever more
intensive gathering led to the evolution of cultigens.
But
why would people give up their hunting and gathering life style and settle
down with the weeds and their animal equivalents (lice, rats, roaches, etc.) that
evolve to take advantage of the more permanent dwellings that farmers must
have, to achieve an increased work load and a poorer diet? Who, other than those unable to secure
sufficient wild resources, would be forced into that situation?
Once
again, agriculture provides important advantages over the long term. The potential for population growth is
greatly increased. Agricultural people
are sedentary and thus have a motive to construct elaborate living
quarters. Living at higher densities
increases the exchange of ideas and encourages formal education, including
development of a system of writing.
Agriculture appears to be essential for the innovations that led to
bronze, iron, and later steel, tools; indeed, the development of
‘civilizations’ all depended upon high density settlements made possible by
agriculture. When agricultural people
confront hunter-gatherers, they win!
The Urban-Industrial
Revolution
The
urban-industrial revolution was coincident with rapid population growth in a
region that experienced severe population pressure. The insular location of England conveyed
some significant advantages. England
was close enough to one of the world’s centers of civilization to acquire
much of the culture, but sufficiently remote to be able to avoid the periodic
ravages of invading hoards and contagious diseases.[2] But that island was successfully invaded by
the Romans and later by the Normans, and there was clear danger of another
invasion from the mainland. Military
power at the time depended upon the number of steel covered man/animal units
a country could put into the field.
The potential human and animal populations was a function of crop and
pasture land, and France had a supply of crop and pasture land that England
could not match. At that time steel
was made with wood charcoal, and England had essentially deforested their
country in an attempt to match the supply of steel produced in France. The existence of coal in England was known;
indeed, coal had been used for space heating since Roman times. But no known fire box for steel production
would withstand the greater heating properties of coal, so that making steel
with coal was thought to be impossible.
It is clear that population pressure, deforestation, and the imminent
threat of invasion from the mainland played an important part in what was to
become the first urban-industrial country on earth. The English built that fire box and quite
suddenly became the most powerful country on earth.
Prior
to the industrial revolution power was mostly disbursed over the countryside,
dependent upon availability of crop and pasture land. In sharp contrast, coal could be cheaply
offloaded from river barges at strategic points; it was necessary for people
to cluster at those points in order to have access to this new form of
energy. Unfortunately, these new cities
were extremely unhealthy with sewage running in open ditches, and
characterized by extreme poverty; indeed, life expectancies in 18th
and 19th Century cities was about 10 years lower than in rural
areas. In short, people would not
voluntarily move to the city.
However, feudal lords owned virtually all the land and they wanted to
increase their wool production given the growing market for textile
production. They instituted the
‘enclosure’ movement which forced large numbers of peasant farmers to migrate
to cities.[3] Once again, over the longer term there were
many very positive advantages that would accrue from the urban-industrial process. When urban-industrial people confront
agricultural people, they win!
Increased Speed of
Change and Geometric Population Growth
Each stage in
the process of major culture change was accomplished much more rapidly, but
associated with exponential growth in the population. The ‘Habitat Revolution’, in which humans
moved from the hot-wet tropics of the Old World into higher latitudes and
eventually populated all of the ice-free land surface of the earth occurred
over a period of hundreds of thousands of years and increased the population
from a few hundred thousand to several million. The ‘Agricultural Revolution’, in which
humans changed from dependency upon hunting & gathering of mostly wild
plants and animals to dependency on domestic plants and animals took place
over a period of several thousand years and increased the population to
several hundred million. The ‘Urban-Industrial
Revolution’, in which much of the human population agglomerated into cities
to produce manufactured products and services has taken place in just the
past few hundred years and has increased the population to several billion.
The Demand-Side Theory
of Human Cultural Evolution
It
follows from the Boserup Theory that population growth is a prime driver,
perhaps the prime driver, of human cultural evolution. Absent population growth humans would have
had no motive for the change to an omnivorous diet and extending their
habitat into the savannas of Africa and seasonally cold latitudes of
Europe. Population growth in the
tropical rainforest region of central Africa would have provided the
incentive to drive weaker clans into the seasonally dry tropical grasslands
where their tools and weapons would have been of little use and where they
would face fierce predation from large grassland carnivores. However, that is precisely the challenge
that would have provided the stress of
experience essential for development of tools and weapons appropriate for
hunting and defense in the tropical grasslands. Likewise, only those clans unable to defend
sufficient space in the savannas to feed their growing populations, would
have been pushed into the seasonally cold latitudes where they would be
motivated to develop clothing (wrap themselves in animal skins) and learn to
control fire.
One
might attempt to counter this argument by noting that clans or groups living
near the margins of the tropical forest regions would have periodically
experienced the need for tools and weapons needed to live in the seasonally
dry grasslands. This counter argument
begs the question; why would people have chosen to live in marginal areas
unless population growth resulted in pressure within the more suitable area,
and wouldn’t it have been those least able to defend their space within the
core area that would have been pushed to the margins?
This
suggests the statement some of the last
shall be first is very relevant to human cultural evolution. The word ‘some’ is critical; most families
and clans forced into the seasonally dry grasslands and seasonally cold
latitudes almost certainly perished.
However, the reward for the survivors was incredible, and certainly
unthinkable by those who remained behind in the more suitable region. Population growth beyond the support
capacity of the hunting and gathering lifestyle appears to have caused people
to adopt agriculture. Likewise, the
urban-industrial economy appears to have been a necessary change that was
forced on people who had no viable alternative.
Thus
we have a complete reversal in the cause for innovation. The idea that people developed weapons and
clothing, and learned to control fire, in the hot wet tropics where those
innovations were not needed is rather farfetched. Likewise, the voluntary migration of the
strongest and wisest into seasonally dry or cold environments was most
unlikely. The Boserup Theory suggests
that innovation was an act of desperation on the part of those groups who
faced the stress of experience in an environment that is incompatible with
known methods of procuring a livelihood.
Throughout
most of human history increased demand would have been driven almost
exclusively by population growth.
Goods and services other than those required for survival were mostly
unknown until very recently. Even
after per capita consumption began to increase, a growing population would
compound the increase in demand. The
rapid decline in population growth produced by the ‘demographic transition’[4]
was coincident with rapid economic development in many countries. We must remember, however, that rapid
population decline produces a generation in which the working age population
is very large in comparison with the number of children and elderly requiring
care and support. This very favorable
demographic situation often resulted in a very rapid expansion in per capita
consumption, or said another way, rapid economic development. The U.S. economy received a second jolt
when the ‘baby boom’ generation reached working age from 1960 through 1985;
most Latin American economies are now experiencing the same rapid expansion,
as are many countries in Asia—notably China and India. Most African countries now have the same
opportunity, but it is not clear that the political/economic systems in those
countries will allow them to take advantage of their very positive age structure. However, after the ‘boom’ generation begins
to retire the economic impact of low population growth is reversed. The ratio of workers to dependents becomes
rapidly worse. Almost without
exception, when fertility rates drop below the replacement level economies
have stagnated. Witness Japan and most
European countries after about 1990.
The U.S. and China will soon face those same demographic problems, and
Latin America is only a few decades away.
Some Components of
Population Pressure
If
population pressure is the prime driver in human cultural evolution we need
to focus on what causes population pressure to increase in one area rather
than another. Certainly one obvious
component of population pressure is the ‘circumscribed area’ factor. When a fertile region is circumscribed by
desert or mountains population pressure on resources can occur rapidly. Thus, we see agriculture evolving first in
river valleys surrounded by desert in the Near East and Egypt, and in
highland basins surrounded by mountains in Middle and South America. The extensive plains of North America,
Europe, and Asia, would presumably be far more suitable for agriculture, but
very few cultigens evolved in these regions, and agriculture arrived very
late—brought by persons migrating from more densely settled circumscribed
regions where agriculture evolved. It
appears that in those regions where people could simply expand their
settlement area they were less likely to experience the sort of population
pressure required to force major changes in lifestyle. Once again the direction of causation is
reversed. Rather than agriculture
evolving in those regions where environmental factors favored that
development, it evolved almost everywhere in circumscribed areas, where
population pressure forced people to intensify their production systems.
Another
source of population pressure results from the migration of humans into areas
where they were previously absent—the exotic species factor. Agriculture evolved in Middle and South
America a mere few thousand years after humans first arrived; that same
process occurred much more slowly in the Old World. Absent natural enemies population growth in
the Americas would have been much higher than in the Old World. Humans arrived in America as big game
hunters, and taking their prey and predators by surprise, were able to
quickly dominate both. The mastodon,
mammoth, rhinoceros, and hundreds of other (mostly large) animals were
quickly driven to extinction in America by early hunters. Indeed, extinction of large animals was
coincident with the arrival of humans throughout the world, and survival of
such animals was mostly limited to those areas of the Old World tropics where
human predation began much early with very primitive weapons, giving animals
the necessary time to adopt fear of humans and defensive behavior. The rate of population growth in the
Americas was many times greater than that of the Old World; indeed, in
approximately the same time required for humans to move from southern to
northern Scandinavia, humans moved from northern Alaska to the tip of Tierra
del Fuego in South America. We must
consider the facts that in contrast to the move north in Scandinavia, people
were moving into a far more suitable environment in the Americas, that people
in America had very little disease (having passed through that Arctic
decontamination region where tropical diseases cannot exist[5]),
and that animals in America had no understanding of, and therefore no defense
against, the human hunter.
Population Theory and
Human Cultural Evolution
"There
are two kinds of creatures in the world, fat things and thin things. Fat things are controlled by some other
scarce resource, like nest sites or position in the group, while thin things
are controlled by the food supply."
Kenneth Boulding (Economist)
Thomas
Malthus obviously believed humans are ‘thin things’, that is a creature with
population growth controlled by the food supply; indeed, he did not seem to
be aware of species that have limits on their population other than the food
supply. Certainly, most large mammals
appear to be primarily ‘thin things.’ That is, when the food supply is ample they
appear to reproduce near the biological maximum rate. Even in the cases of those species that are
controlled directly by predation, one can argue that it is food scarcity
caused by overpopulation that increases their vulnerability to the
predator. Consider the caribou and
wolf population cycles in the sub-arctic of North America. When the wolf population is low, the
caribou population expands rapidly; as the caribou population peaks near the
maximum carrying capacity, the wolf population begins to expand rapidly. The consequent collapse of the caribou
population resulting from wolf predation produces a subsequent collapse in
the wolf population, followed by a renewed expansion of the caribou, and
thereafter, the wolf population.
Whereas the direct cause for the rapid decline in the caribou
population is wolf predation, it can be argued that it is weakness induced by
food scarcity that actually makes the caribou easy prey for wolves, and the
absence of easy prey that causes the wolf population to decline rapidly.
Are
humans ‘thin things?’ Do they
reproduce as rapidly as possible when sufficient food is available? Or, are humans ‘fat things’; do they have
some instinctive or cultural mechanism that limits their population growth
below the maximum carrying capacity? Obviously,
people now do maintain their population well below the carrying
capacity. Did they always have that
ability and inclination? If so, why didn’t
we remain vegetarian primates confined to the hot wet tropics of Africa? The Boserup Theory suggests that some human
groups did overpopulate their resource base and found it necessary to make some changes.
Could the Direction Of
Causation Have Been Otherwise?
Does
it make sense to suppose people living in the hot-wet tropics invented the
weapons they would need to live in tropical grasslands before they moved
there? Absent those weapons, would
they have moved there voluntarily?
Would people in the tropics have made clothing, shelter, and weapons
needed to live in seasonally cold regions before they moved there and
experienced the need for those innovations?
Or, would some people have been pushed to the margins of the hot-wet
environment, by population pressure, where they adopted survival technology
and techniques? Would those pushed out
of the home environment have been the more inventive and resourceful; or
would they have been those least able to compete for space and food in the
home environment? Did corn, wheat,
beans, and all the other domestic cultigens (that have evolved a symbiosis
with humans) exist prior to agriculture, so that a hunter could ‘discover’
them? Even if those food crops had
been available (as they are to most hunter-gatherers groups today) would a
hunter voluntarily decide to settle down and live with the weeds, rats, lice,
and roaches, so he could be a farmer who works all day to provide himself
with a very poor diet? Doesn’t it make
more sense to believe population pressure reduced the amount of space per
family to the point that it was impossible for people to sustain themselves
by hunting and gathering, and that intensive gathering of plants produced the
symbiotic interdependency between plants and humans that we call agriculture? Would 18th and 19th Century farmers have
voluntarily moved to cities where sewage ran open in ditches in front of the
hovels that served as dwellings, and where children worked 10 to 14 hours per
day for starvation wages? In fact, the
first English cities were filled with peasants who were pushed off the land
by the Enclosure Movement, and U.S. cities were filled with emigrants from
Europe who faced starvation if they remained in Europe.
What,
other than necessity, could have motivated people to make any of those major
changes, and what other than population growth could have made those changes
necessary? From the perspective of the
Boserup Theory, people were dragged kicking and screaming into each more
advanced stage of civilization where they faced an immediate deterioration in
their life style. If this is true,
then it would appear that only population growth beyond the support capacity
of the previous production system could explain why people made the change. Higher population densities produced
diminishing returns to labor that resulted in an immediate deterioration in
people’s lifestyle. Higher densities
provided the incentive for each of the major changes in the relationship
between humans and their habitat.
People
are forced to offset diminishing returns to labor by working longer. Thus, farmers had to work more than
hunter-gatherers and their reward was a poorer diet and more disease. Early industrial workers in 18th and 19th
Century cities worked even more and faced a life expectancy 10 years less
than farmers. Only recently has energy
from fossil fuels allowed for a decrease in the workweek. Likewise, it is only recently that diets
for most people improved and life expectancies extended, and only recently
that life expectancies in cities became equal to or higher than those in the
countryside. In low-income countries
today, most young people who move to cities do so voluntarily because they
expect to have a better and richer life in the city than they would have had
in the countryside. That is a very
positive change from urbanization in Europe and America where life
expectancies were much lower than in the countryside, and where cities could
only be filled with people forced off the land. Nevertheless, the people of low-income
countries are paying a high price for development. Industrial production destroys the
livelihood of many artisans and craftsmen.
Some of those persons may be able to retrain for better jobs in new
industries; but most have little chance for a new job and are pushed aside
and forgotten. Often traditional
cultural values are incompatible with development. Young people often understand this quickly,
and discard the beliefs and values their parents hope to pass to them. The result is an older population that is
insulted and depressed and a younger population frustrated by a loss of
traditional values before a suitable replacement can be identified.
If it is true that there is no wind so ill
that it does not blow someone good, the inverse is also true. Economic development is the only hope of
well-being for the people of low-income countries around the world. But economic development will produce
dislocation, loss of livelihood, loss of tradition, shortage, exploitation,
and for some, starvation and death.
Those horrors must be weighed against the alternative: Retaining the
Traditional Society. Traditional
society cannot provide the goods and services that people everywhere now hold
dear, and to retain that system is to risk becoming a curiosity for tourists
and anthropologists, an endangered people with little hope of making a
cultural contribution to the future of the species.
If
the Boserup Theory is correct, then a substantial amount of rewriting of
human cultural evolution is in order.
In addition, the vast increase in human populations over the past
half-century in less developed countries takes on a very different perspective. Consider this: “We have seen the capacity of the earth expand, and seen population
growth help to expand it, at each stage of economic evolution, from the
hunting and food-gathering to the subsistence-agriculture regime, and thence
to the regime of commercial agriculture and the industrial regime. There may be at least one more step in this
evolution, and when that step has been taken, it may appear that the massive
growth of population in our times was necessary for it.”[6]
It
is sometimes suggested that the Boserup Theory holds that population growth
has always, and will continue to, result in sufficient innovation and
technology to offset diminishing returns to labor. On the contrary, the Boserup Theory holds
that population growth has generally not resulted in sufficient innovation to
offset diminishing returns to labor!
Throughout most of history humans have been hunter-gatherers; as such,
they would have reached carrying capacity very quickly and thereafter
experienced little if any population growth.
We must assume that either continual starvation kept populations in
check, or people evolved some sort of homeostatic cultural trait that reduced
fertility. Anthropological studies of
hunter-gatherers suggest the latter explanation is more plausible. Hottentots in southeast Africa were
migratory, moving considerable distances every few months when game became
scarce; their culture required women to carry all their children under age four. Having two children under the age of four
was an almost certain death warrant for the mother. Obviously, high infant and maternal
mortality would also have a major effect on reducing fertility. When hunter-gatherers invade territory
where people were previously absent—as they did with the initial invasion of
Europe and Asia, and later Australia and the Americas—they take prey by
surprise and experience an initial period of rapid population growth. It is estimated that humans spread from
what is now Alaska to the southern South America in just a couple of thousand
years. Along the way they drove 200
genera of animals (mostly large mammals) to extinction, and quickly reduced
the carrying capacity for hunter-gatherer peoples. Agriculture evolved very quickly in the
Americas—only some 5,000 years or so after people arrived as hunter-gatherers. It is also significant that cannibalism was
widely practiced throughout the Americas and in other regions where people
invaded as exotic species. It is a
simple fact that exotic species tend to overpopulate their habitat; when that
happens they may become an important food source for those able to acquire
that food source.
Are the Malthusian and
Boserup Theories Relevant Today?
The
Malthus and Boserup Theories can be interpreted in the broader context of
supply versus demand as the cause for economic growth. Today, population growth is just one source
of new demand, but population growth does compound other sources of increase
in demand. A rate of economic growth
that does not exceed the rate of population growth is by definition a
development failure; economic development requires per capita levels of
production to increase which means growth in production must exceed that of
the population. The Malthusian Theory
can be thought of as a supply-side view of development; that is, development
can occur only to the degree that people are able (with new technology and
working harder) to increase production faster than new demand. Malthusianists often refer to this
relationship as the race between population growth and food production (or
production generally).
On
the other hand, the Boserup Theory can be viewed as a demand-side process
where economic development may occur when real demand in the marketplace
provides the incentive for producers to increase the production of goods and
services they are able and willing to supply.
The more important source of demand is raising expectations of people
who feel they need more goods and services that were previously luxuries or
unknown, compounded by population growth.
Do
we have an economic downturn because the supply of goods and services is
inadequate, and because we cannot increase production fast enough to keep up
with demand? Or, is economic downturn
caused by faltering demand for goods and services that we could easily
produce if demand for them existed? We
are pretty sure that in technologically advanced countries the problems are
on the demand side. When the economy
turns down we try to stimulate demand by cutting interest rates and taxes and
by increasing government consumption of goods and services.
How about low-income countries? Is the economy of Ghana limited by the
inability of the people to increase production of goods and services for
which there is real demand in the marketplace? If so, they need to stimulate production by
adopting new technologies and modernizing their farms and factories. If the supply of food can be increased by
introducing modern farming systems, the problems of hunger and malnutrition
can be addressed. Likewise, if modern
factories and business practices are introduced, then the supply of goods and
services can be increased. Thus,
development initiatives should focus on the introduction of new technology
and new methods to solve the problems of limited supply. That assumption drives most development
strategies in low-income countries today.
However,
if the economy is limited by the absence of demand (real demand backed by
money) for goods and services that people could easily produce if they had an
incentive, then trying to increase production will have little stimulating
effect for the economy. Rather, Ghana
should use the power of government to stimulate demand, just as we do in the
technologically advanced countries.
Over the past
40 years I have interviewed a very large number of farmers in various
countries of Latin America. One
question at the top of my list is why the farmer does not increase
production: Why not clear a bit more land and plant an additional
quarter-hectare of corn? Why not apply a bit more fertilizer to that field so
you can use it every year, instead of leaving it fallow every other year? Why
not plant alfalfa in that field rather than making use of it for natural
pasture? I have never met one farmer who responded that he did not know how,
or was not able, to increase production. Rather, they have all responded: There is no market for the additional
production; or, there is no way to
get the additional production to the market; or, the owner of the truck going to the market town will charge me more
than I will get for the product; or, most commonly, the government has set the market price below my production cost.
Most factories in poor countries operate far below capacity, and would be
more than happy to increase production. The capital goods used in factories
are mostly produced in technologically advanced countries where the size of
the market is very large. Because most poor countries have much smaller
markets (lower incomes and often smaller populations) many machines in factories
operate well below capacity. Even in those cases in which a factory is
operating at capacity, owners would love to expand their operations with new
buildings, capital goods, and workers, if they had a market for the products.
They do not increase production because there is no market demand for the
products they are willing and able to produce. I have never met a shoe-shine boy who was
unable or unwilling to shine more shoes; never met a street vendor who was
unable or unwilling to sell more goods; never met a taxi driver who was
unable or unwilling to haul more passengers; and so on for every sector in
the economies of Latin American countries. The problem is not inability to
produce; rather, the problem is the absence of someone to buy the product.
How can development be promoted by policies that aim at doing what people are
already willing and able to do—increase production—rather than doing what
people cannot do—increase real demand?
Hungry people
with no money do not create demand for food.
Likewise, people with no money do not stimulate demand for the goods
and services produced in the non-farm sector.
Hungry people with no money is NOT a food problem; that is a money
problem! Likewise, when people with no money lack housing, clothing, and most
other goods and services, the problem is NOT scarcity of housing, clothing,
etc. Increasing the supply of food and other goods and services will not
cause people with no money to purchase those commodities. Lack of money is
caused by low salaries and wages, unemployment and under-employment, or by
disability resulting from age or physical/mental conditions. Those problems
can only be solved by increasing salaries and wages, providing employment for
able-bodied persons and providing charity for those who cannot work because
they are destitute children, elderly, or physically or mentally
disabled. Often enterprise is slowed
or prevented by misguided government bureaucracies that make it difficult or
impossible to establish a new business, and by government attempts to set the
prices of commodities below the cost of production. In Latin America many business activities
are ‘informal’, that is unlicensed and unregulated. In many countries the informal sector of
the economy is often the most productive and competitive. Indeed, if the informal economy did not
exist, levels of unemployment and poverty would be many times higher. The best thing governments in poor
countries can do to stimulate economic development is get out of the way! As Brazilians say: Our economy grows at
night when the government is asleep.
Over the
longer term, and especially in the later stages of development, increasing
salaries and wages will depend upon increasing productivity with improved
technology and labor-saving capital. In addition, improved technology may
result in lower cost production and thus lower prices that can have a
stimulating effect on demand. But, the first step toward increasing demand is
being sure all able-bodied persons have access to employment. Modern technology
is mostly labor-saving, and will tend to reduce the number of jobs in
traditional sectors. Often the capital goods available to poor countries are
already overly focused on labor-saving technology. Until poor countries are
able to fully employ those people who want jobs, labor-saving technology is
not likely to be appropriate technology.
We must also
remember that there is no demand for a commodity until the existence of that
commodity becomes known to potential consumers. In rich countries, advertising
is an essential ingredient in stimulating demand; advertising causes people
to want things that they would otherwise have been content to live without.
In poor countries, the demonstration effect (becoming aware of a desirable
item by seeing it used by another person) as well as advertising plays that
role. It does not matter (for economic growth) whether the things people are
convinced to want are actually worthwhile (in the judgment of outside
observers). It only matters that
people want them enough to increase their production sufficiently to get
money to pay for them.
It is often
suggested that sale of goods and services that are judged to be of trivial
value should be curtailed, so that consumers would spend their money on goods
and services that are ‘worthwhile.’ This view is very questionable. Unless
the consumer who spends money on things judged to be of trivial value can be
induced to start “wanting” those goods judged to be ‘useful’ (even though
their actions suggest otherwise) total market demand will tend to decrease in
direct proportion to curtailed demand for “trivial” items, causing the
economy to shrink. (Restrictions on the consumption of harmful and addictive
substances and services are justifiable for health and safety, rather than
economic reasons.)
Political and
Emotional Perspectives
The Malthus
and Boserup Theories provide alternative interpretations of the human
condition from a political and emotional perspective. The Malthusian Theory is a pessimistic view
of the human condition. Some people
may be inclined toward that theory because they see humans as a scourge or
blight on an otherwise beautiful natural world. From this viewpoint, the Malthusian Theory
should be correct because it will stop or reverse human population growth
while there is still hope to save the natural world. The Boserup theory is a more optimistic view
of the human condition. It suggests
that people can and often have responded positively to the challenge of
population growth by expanding production hundreds of times that possible
under conditions of low population density.
Some people may be inclined toward the Boserup Theory because they
hope it is true or because they prefer to have a more optimistic outlook on
life.
However, at
issue here is not what we want to be true, but what we think is true! Which of these two theories best explains
human cultural evolution, and which provides the more valid framework for
economic development of low-income countries today? In order to make a rational judgment on
which of these theories is true (or is more true, or is true more often, or
true in a particular country, etc.) we must first understand both
theories. Without a clear
understanding of the Malthusian Theory and the Boserup Theory, one has no
basis for making a judgment regarding either!
The Malthusian
and Boserup Theories provide us with startlingly different viewpoints on the
human condition. Both attempt to
explain the parallel course through history of population growth and human
caused increase in production. These
theories differ on which of those two variables is cause and which is effect,
and that makes all the difference!
Next Stage of Human
Cultural evolution and Who Will Achieve It?
Will there be
one more stage in human cultural evolution?
That is, will there be a massive transformation in the way humans
obtain their livelihood, accompanied by a massive increase in the population
(or income)? If so, who will achieve
that new revolution? It seems unlikely
that humans could again experience high birth rates and greatly increase the
population. On the other hand,
population growth has become a small component of total demand.
Any
significant change in the human economy would appear to be related to our
energy source. So, what comes after
fossil fuels? I don’t know; but I can
guess who will discover it—whoever runs out of petroleum first. That won’t be Islamics, given that they are
loaded with petroleum. And it won’t be
the U.S. given the oil and gas strikes in the Dakotas and the Mid-West. Will it be Japan; they have almost no
petroleum and little coal? Against
that is a fertility rate in Japan well below replacement level. Of course European people around the world
now have fertility below replacement level.[7] European peoples have attempted to offset
population decline with massive immigration from poor countries. In Europe most immigrants are Islamic
people; in the U.S. they are Hispanics.
In both cases, however, immigrants face severe discrimination. Anyone who thinks these immigrants are
going to provide retirement and health care for an elderly population that
imported them as cheap labor just hasn’t thought about it very much. Of course, Japan cannot employ that
short-term solution, given that their culture cannot accept outsiders as Japanese.[8] From the Boserup perspective, a declining
population and declining demand (for other than health care) removes the
motive and stimulus for innovation. On
the other hand, who in 1650 could have guessed that England would become the
first industrial nation and take over the world?
A Word of Caution
We have no
definitive proof that either the Malthus or Boserup Theories are correct or
incorrect. Both theories recognize the
positive relationship between population growth and growth of the food
supply. Of necessity, the two
variables are positively correlated over the long term. A population cannot grow unless the food
supply expands, and there is no reason to expand the food supply unless there
is an increase in the number of consumers.
A strong positive correlation between X and Y suggests a causal
relationship between them. But, we
cannot say whether X is the cause for Y or the other way about; nor can we be
sure that both X and Y are not caused by some third factor. In order to establish one variable as a
cause and the other as the effect, we must find a logical causal linkage
between the two.
By way of
analogy, undersea earthquakes are correlated with tsunamis (misnamed tidal
waves in the U.S.). We see no way a
tsunami could produce an earthquake, nor can we postulate some third factor
as the cause for both earthquakes and tsunamis. On the other hand, causal relationship
between an undersea earthquake and a tsunami is obvious (even if not
completely understood). When an
undersea earthquake occurs we issue tsunami warnings to coastal areas
(although in many cases the tsunami does not occur). When a tsunami occurs without a recorded
undersea earthquake, we assume that an undersea landslide or earthquake went
undetected. Consider another case:
During the polio epidemic in the 1950’s researchers found a strong positive
correlation between the risk of polio and the percentage of surface area
covered by concrete and asphalt. There
seems to be no possibility that concrete could cause polio, nor could polio
cause concrete. Nevertheless, the
positive correlation does strongly suggest a causal link between the two
variables. In this case, the
percentage of the ground surface covered by concrete and asphalt is a very
good proxy for human population density, and the relationship between a
contagious disease and density is obvious.
The logic that
Malthus used to establish food production as the cause for population growth
has not proven to be true. We know
that many people reduce their reproduction rate to replacement level even
though they could easily support many children; and we know that in many
places around the world people have maintained a high rate of growth in food
and other production over the past couple of hundred years. Nevertheless, it is possible that some
human groups did, or do, reproduce at a very high rate until they run out of
food, and we cannot be sure the high rate of increase in the rate of
production can be continued into the future.
It has been suggested that medieval Europe faced a Malthusian Trap in
which inability to increase the food supply limited population growth, and
that the same could be true in some low-income countries today. In addition, there may be some other causal
link between the food supply and population growth that would make the former
the independent variable upon which the latter depends. For example, it is suggested that the
production systems that have allowed the food supply to increase rapidly
cannot be altered in a manner that would make them sustainable in the future,
and that human population growth causes irreparable damage to the
environment. If this is true, then
food production may decline in the future and Malthus’ positive checks will
stop and reverse population growth.
The logic
Boserup used to posit population growth as the cause of increased food
production seems compelling.
Population growth would certainly encourage people to work their land
more intensively, and if they fail to do so population growth could not be
sustained. Given the fact that a more
intensive land use system will produce diminishing returns to labor, it is
difficult to understand how someone would accept the penalty of having to
work more without the demand produced by population growth. Likewise, it is easy to see how high
population densities provide increased opportunities for specialization and
division of labor, and how literacy and formal education have tended to
evolve in human societies only under conditions of relatively high density.
However, we
cannot be sure population growth will always promote a more productive
system, nor can we be sure that the pace of innovation will always keep
production equal to or ahead of population growth. Boserup noted that when people respond to
population growth with land use intensification without innovation the result
is an involuted agricultural system, such as in parts of Asia, where men,
women and children work long hours to produce just enough rice to keep
themselves alive.
Boserup also
takes issue with the view that intensive land use systems will necessarily be
more destructive to the environment (in terms of the future carrying capacity
for humans). She observes that more
intensive land use systems tended to improve the production capacity of the
land for human food. The most
productive land on earth is in the densely settled regions of Europe and Asia
where the natural fertility of the land was relatively low. The gray-brown podzolic soils of Western
Europe, akin to those of northeastern U.S., are not very fertile under
natural conditions, but they have been made the most fertile soils on earth
with composting and fertilizing, and careful use. Likewise, tropical soils of much of South
and Southeast Asia would not be suitable for multi-cropping were it not for
the development of the paddy system in which nutrients are taken from the
water rather than the soil. Boserup
argues therefore, that soil fertility, and by extension the capacity of the
earth to support humans, is mostly human-made.
Human
exploitation of the world’s oceans, lakes and rivers remains today mostly in
the hunting and gathering stage. In
those few regions where aquaculture has replaced gathering of wild species,
the production of fish and sea food has increased far beyond that possible
under natural conditions. Most of the
trout consumed in the U.S. is produced on a few dozen acres of land near the
Snake River in Idaho. If there is a
limit on the amount of trout that can be produced, it is not apparent to the
people who run that facility. Indeed,
production has been cut back recently because of competition by cheaper
producers in Chile. Fish farming may
hold a potential for expanding food production akin to replacement of wild
plants and animals with domestic varieties on land.
In sharp
contrast, many environmentalists argue that human use of the land is
detrimental to the long-term sustainability of our production system. They warn that our soils are eroding away
and forests are being depleted.
Burning fossil fuels, on which our industrial system currently
depends, adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that may lead to global
warming with devastating consequences around the world. Some view the promise of fish farming with
horror, predicting that replacement of wild species with domestic varieties
will devastate the world’s oceans and lakes.
But then, what
would early primates in the hot-wet tropics of Africa have thought about
consumption of meat, or migrating to the seasonally dry tropics or the
seasonally cold latitudes? And what
would hunter-gatherers have thought about settling down with the weeds and
their animal equivalents to become farmers?
And what would farmers have thought about moving to cities where
sewage ran open in the streets? I do
not hold that the human future is secure as we move to this next stage of
cultural evolution. But, I doubt that
any concerns based on our current lifestyle could be relevant to that issue.
|
[1]
It might be assumed by some that animals would
have an instinctive fear of human hunters; however, anyone who has visited the
Galapagos Islands or any other region where humans have been mostly absent,
knows that animals that do not know humans do not fear humans. Early hunters in the new world used thrusting
spears (far too large for a single man to throw) to kill the mammoth—that is
three or four men walked under the animal and (on the count of three) thrust
that spear into the mammoth’s heart (and then ran out before it collapsed on
top). The mammoth would have had no more
fear of a human than of a deer or rodent. That explains why 200 genera of
mostly large mammals were driven to extinction in America during the first
couple of thousand years after humans arrived. Notice that deer are not able to ‘defend’
themselves against cars. It’s really
quite simple: only the front end bits, and only if you are on that
pavement. But, the deer still haven’t
figured that out!
[2]
Japan enjoyed the same geographic relationship
with China, and experienced similar advantages.
Note that Cuba also had that geographic relationship with the Aztec
Empire, but the Spanish invasion precluded exploitation of their location.
[3]
Early industrial cities in the U.S. were mostly
filled with European immigrants who faced starvation in Europe.
[4]
The transition from high birth and death rates to
low birth and death rates that began in the more technologically advanced and
richer countries, and has now spread throughout most of the world.
[5] The exceptions include those diseases that evolved into
the human body and were thus not eliminated by mid and high latitude
environmental conditions. One such
disease was syphilis, which began as a skin disease in Africa but evolved into
the human body to be transmitted sexually.
Venereal syphilis arrived in Europe a few years after Columbus’ voyage
and spread through that continent with devastating results. Native Americans also had the stomach virus
that we now call ‘Montezuma’s Revenge’; Spanish conquerors suffered from that
malady, as you will if you if you travel to Latin America and fail to be very
careful of what you eat and drink (and likely even if you are careful).
[6]
J.D. Durand, “World Population: Trend and
Prospects,” Population and World Politics, P.M. Hauser (ed), The Free
Press, 1958.
[7]
This is the first time any species of life on
earth has voluntarily failed to reproduce.
What could account for this incredible and disastrous turn of
events? I have speculated that it is
caused by the ‘Green Religion’—that is the belief that humans are unnatural and
are destroying an otherwise beautiful natural world, and alternatively, that
cradle-to-the-grave socialism has removed in important incentive for
reproduction (note that fertility below replacement level began in communist
countries). Notice that most people are
not even aware of this looming disaster and there is almost no mention of it in
the media.
[8]
Even second and third generation Koreans who are
indistinguishable from Japanese and who speak the language as natives carried
the same ‘outside person’ card that I carried while living in Japan.
No comments:
Post a Comment