Population - Certainly not an asset!

India Uncut , known for its wry humor, is one of my favorite blogs. I came across an article today which says the population of India need not a burden as everyone thinks:

 The Population Myth

A recent study by Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute, titled ‘Too Many People?’, looks at the impact of population on the world. First, Eberstadt finds no link between population density and poverty: he points out that Monaco, with a population density almost 40 times that of Bangladesh, is doing well for itself. So are Bermuda and Bahrain, which are more “overcrowded” than Bangladesh and India.

Eberstadt’s report also points out that over the last century, the real prices (deflated by the value of manufactured products) of wheat, maize and rice have dipped sharply, as have the real prices of non-renewable resources such as metals. Life expectancy has shot up in this time. Eberstadt concludes that while the natural resources of our planet might be limited, we are “now experiencing a monumental expansion of a different type of resource: human resources. Unlike natural resources, human resources are in practice always renewable and in theory entirely inexhaustible. 

Indeed, these human resources are the most valuable of all. All human beings, if allowed to express their creativity, add more value to the world than they consume. When two people exchange goods or services, both benefit, and more people means more trade. More people also means more specialization and division of labour —one theory holds that England’s industrial revolution was enabled by this.

 

But I think what weakens this theory is that the examples of countries cited above like Bermuda/Bahrain are very small countries in size compared to India. So, their density of populace might be high but the govt has still a much lesser number of people to cater to. Therefore, such countries can more easily invest in human capital and get people to be productive. Much harder in a vast and diverse country like ours where party manifestos still promise to cut back on computers to create menial jobs.

If population growth was undesirable, why would people migrate to cities in such large numbers? In cities, we become part of economic networks that are larger than what we would get in smaller places, with more opportunities, and a greater chance to specialize. Across history, the prosperity of a nation has gone hand in hand with increasing urbanization. India’s cities may have much that is wrong with them—they are congested, polluted and lack all sorts of infrastructure—but still people flood in every day.

Well, people flock to cities to get jobs. Because kids of farmers in villages do not want to do farming the hard way.  If living in villages was better, they wouldnt. They move to cities because they do not have an option. Not because they fancy living in the cities. 

Amartya Sen's essay on Population: Delusion and Reality  is a very interesting read. 

The population problem is serious, certainly, but neither because of "the proportion between the natural increase of population and food" nor because of some mpending apocalypse. There are reasons for worry about the long-term effects of population growth on the environment; and there are strong reasons for concern about the adverse effects of high birth rates on the quality of life, especially of women. With greater opportunities for education (especially female education), reduction of mortality rates (especially of children), improvement in economic security (especially in old age), and greater participation of women in employment and in political action, fast reductions in birth rates can be expected to result through the decisions and actions of those whose lives depend on them.