The Character and Logical Method of Political Economy

J. E. Cairnes

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781136918254
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business generale
• Index: Business

First Published in 1966. This is a collection of lectures on political economy originally from Dublin in 1875 with a second revised edition in 1888. Containing subjects and opinions around mathematics in the development of economic doctrine, the science of wealth, the position of economic speculation in terms of matter and mind, methods of economic investigation, and proposed solutions.

LECTURE VII.

OF THE MALTHUSIAN DOCTRINE OF POPULATION.

§ 1. I ALLUDED in the opening lecture of this course to the present unsettled and unsatisfactory condition of Political Economy with regard to some of its fundamental principles, attributing this state of things, as you will probably remember, to the loose and unscientific views which prevail respecting the character of economic doctrines, and the kind of proof by which they are to be sustained or refuted. This led me in the succeeding lectures to explain and illustrate at some length the character and method of the science. I now propose to vindicate the importance of the topics on which I have been insisting, by showing, in the instance of some fundamental doctrines, the manner in which unscientific views regarding the nature and method of the science have operated in producing those differences of opinion to which I have referred.

One of these doctrines, as I conceive quite fundamental in the science of Political Economy, though impugned and controverted in several recent publications, is the doctrine of population as propounded by Malthus. It would of course be quite impossible, within the compass of a single lecture, to notice, much less satisfactorily to answer, all the various objections that have been in times past, or may still be, urged against this doctrine; and it would be unnecessary were it possible, most of them having received as full an answer as they deserve either from Malthus himself or from succeeding writers. I shall therefore confine myself to those which, either from their novelty, or from the circumstance that they have been lately indorsed by some economists of position, or from their logical character, will be most suitable to the object which I have in view—the illustration of economic method.

In order, however, that you should appreciate the force of these objections, it will be necessary for me to state the doctrine against which they have been advanced.

The celebrated Malthusian doctrine is to the following effect, viz., that there is a “constant tendency in all animated life to increase beyond the nourishment prepared for it;” or, with reference more particularly to the human race, that “population tends to increase faster than subsistence.” From what I have already said of the character of an economic law, as well as from the terms of the proposition itself, you will at once perceive that it is not here asserted that population in fact increases faster than subsistence: this would of course be physically impossible. You will also perceive that it is not inconsistent with this doctrine that subsistence should in fact be increased much faster than population. It may also, perhaps, be worth remarking that the doctrine, as it is stated by Malthus, is not invulnerable to verbal criticism. The sentence, “population tends to increase faster than subsistence,” is elliptical, and the natural way of supplying the ellipsis would be by reading it thus: “Population tends to increase faster than subsistence tends to increase;” but it can not with propriety be said that subsistence “tends to increase” at all. I mention this verbal inaccuracy, not because I think it is likely that any candid or intelligent reader could be misled by it, but because I have seen it dwelt upon by anti-Malthusian writers. But, waiving verbal cavils, what Malthus asserted, and what it is the object of his essay to prove, is this—that, regard being had to the powers and propensities in human nature on which the increase of the species depends, there is a constant tendency in human beings to multiply faster than, regard being had to the actual circumstances of the external world, and the power which man can exercise over the resources at his disposal, the means of subsistence are capable of being increased.

The reasoning by which Mai thus established this proposition was as follows: he had first to ascertain the capacity and disposition to increase inherent in mankind—in other words, the natural strength of the principle of population. Now, in order to discover the real character of any given principle, obviously the proper course is to consider that principle as it operates when unimpeded by principles of an opposite tendency. Malthus, accordingly, took an instance in which the external conditions were most favorable to the uncontrolled action of the principle of population. This was the case of new colonies, where a population with all the resources of civilization at their command are brought into contact with a new and virgin soil. In these he found that population from internal sources alone, and excluding immigration, frequently doubled itself in twenty-five years.¹ This rate of increase was evidently not owing to any thing peculiar or abnormal in the physical or mental constitution of the inhabitants of such countries, but owing to the favorable character of the external circumstances under which the principle of population came into play. He therefore concluded that the ratio of increase, according to which population doubles itself in twenty-five years, represents the natural force of the principle—the rate at which population always tends to increase—the rate at which, if unrestrained by principles of an opposite character or by the physical incapacity of sustaining life, population always will increase.

On the other hand, on looking to the means placed at man's disposal for obtaining subsistence, Malthus found that it was physically impossible that subsistence could be increased at this rate. The surface of the globe is limited; the portions of it suitable to cultivation and accessible to human enterprise are still more limited; and the difficulty of obtaining food from a limited area increases as the quantity raised from it is increased.¹ If, e. g., 40,000,000 quarters of corn are produced annually in the United Kingdom at present, it might be possible at the end of twenty-five years, by means of improved agricultural processes, to raise 80,000,000 quarters annually: it is perhaps conceivable that, by forcing to the highest degree every patch of cultivable land in the kingdom, at the end of fifty years 160,000,000 quarters might be raised: certain, however, it is that the annual production of corn in the United Kingdom could not go on forever at this rate; but it is no less certain, in view of the capacity of increase in human beings, that the population of the United Kingdom could, and, in view of their natural propensities in the same direction, that they would, proceed at this rate forever, till brought to a stop by the physical impossibility of obtaining food—supposing, that is to say, that their natural power and disposition to multiply operated unchecked by principles of an opposite character.

The result, therefore, of the consideration of these facts by Malthus was the enunciation of the doctrine which I have just stated—that there is in human beings a tendency to multiply faster than subsistence; to increase faster than subsistence is capable of being increased. Population, however, as I have said, whatever might be its tendency, could not increase faster than subsistence, inasmuch as human beings can not live without food; and further investigation sliowed that subsistence in most countries, and in all improving countries, had in fact increased faster than population. Malthus therefore turned his attention to the discovery of those antagonizing principles which keep in check the natural power of population. These, he found, were reducible to two classes, which he designated the preventive and positive checks. The preventive checks included all causes which operated in restraining the natural power or disposition of mankind to increase their numbers, and were generally comprised under the two heads of prudence with regard to marriage, and vice, so far as it interfered with fecundity. The positive checks included those causes of premature death incident to a redundant population, of which the principal were insufficient food, famine, disease, and war.

§ 2. Such, in outline, is the doctrine of Malthus; and such the line of reasoning by which it was established. As to its importance, it is scarcely too much to say that, while throwing a strong light on not a few of the darkest passages of history, it in a short time revolutionized the current modes of thinking on social and industrial problems. The material well-being of a community mainly depends on the proportion which exists between the quantity of necessaries and comforts in that community and the number of persons among whom these are divided, of which necessaries and comforts by far the most important item is food. All plans, therefore, for improving the condition of the masses of mankind, in order to be effectual, must be directed to an alteration in this proportion, and, to be permanent, must aim at making this alteration permanent. Now, Malthus showed that the strength of the principle of population is such that, if allowed to operate unrestrained, no possible increase of food could keep pace with it. It consequently followed that, in order to the permanent improvement of the masses of mankind, the development of principles which should impose some restraint on the natural tendency of the principle of population was indispensable; and that, however an increase in the productiveness of industry might for a time improve the condition of a community, yet this alune, if unaccompanied by the formation of habits of self-control and providence on the part of the people themselves, could not be relied upon as an ultimate safeguard against distress.

The same discovery¹ of Malthus—in his own language, “the constant pressure of population against subsistence”—gave the key to many social and historic problems: disclosed, for example, the latent cause by virtue of which the world has been peopled; which forced the shepherds of Asia from the primitive birthplace of the human race; which led the Greeks to throw off numerous colonies; which compelled the great migrations of the northern barbarians; and which is now sending successive swarms of emigrants to carry the English race and language to the utmost corners of the earth.

Armed with the same principle, Malthus was enabled to give a complete and philosophic answer to the communistic plans which were at that time ardently advocated by Godwin, Owen, and others, by showing that, as such schemes offered no inducement to the exercise of prudential restraint, and removed those which already existed, they were defective just in that point without which human improvement was impossible: they provided no security against a redundant population — none, therefore, against the want and misery which a redundant population must occasion.

The practical lessons which Malthus deduced from the law of population were no less important. Up to the time when the essay on population was written the prevailing opinion among statesmen of all shades of politics was that a dense population was the surest proof of national prosperity, and the encouragement of population the iirst duty of a statesman. As the gentle humorist put it, the honest man who married early and brought up a large family was thought to do more real service than he who continued single and only talked of population. Under the influence of this delusion, colonization¹ was discouraged, as tending to depopulate the mother country, while the poor-laws, over and above their indirect influence in undermining individual providence, placed a direct premium upon multiplication; and in general every plan for the improvement of society was approved and supported just in proportion to its supposed influence in augmenting the numbers of the people. The reasonings of Malthus went, as I have explained, to establish a conclusion directly opposite to this—to show that, as regards the number of a people, the danger lay on the side, not of deficiency, but of excess; and that, therefore, plans of social improvement were to be approved, not in proportion as they tended to encourage the increase of population, but in proportion as they tended to develop those qualities of self control and providence ou which its restriction within due limits depends.²

Such were some of the consequences which resulted in social and political theory and practice from the great work of Malthus. It appears to me that, in following the course which led him to the result he reached, Malthus followed the only course by which important economic truths are to be discovered. You will observe, his method was strictly in conformity with that which I have been recommending in these lectures as the scientific method of Political Economy. He commenced by considering the nature and force of a known principle of human nature: he took account of the actual external conditions under which it came into operation; he traced the consequences which would result supposing it to operate unrestrained under these ascertained conditions; he then inquired how far in fact the principle had been restrained; and, lastly, investigated the nature of the antagonizing agencies through the operation of which trie restraint was effected. By these means he arrived at the ultimate causes in the principles of human nature, and the facts of the external world on which the condition of the mass of mankind in the matter of subsistence depends, and furnished for the first time the solution of an important problem in the laws of the distribution of wealth.

§ 3. So much, then, for the doctrine of Malthus; and now for his opponents. One of the most prominent of the writers who have recently taken the field against him is Mr. Rickards, late Professor of Political Economy at Oxford. Of his work on “Population and Capital” the chief portion is devoted to an elaborate attack on the position of Malthus. The objections advanced by Mr. Rickards are not absolutely new,¹ but they are stated by him with greater fullness and clearness than I have seen them elsewhere, and I shall, therefore, avail myself of his statement of them. The following passage is taken from the work just referred to:

“It is obvious that there are two methods by which the respective rates of increase of man and of subsistence may be compared. They may be regarded—I mean, of course, both the one and the other—either in the abstract or in the concrete; either potentially or practically. We may investigate, for instance, according to the laws of nature manifested by experience, what is the stated period within which a given society of human beings are physically capable of doubling their numbers, abstracting the operation of those checks that impaired longevity and increased mortality which may be found practically keeping down the number of any society. On the other hand, wre may estimate the potential rate of increase of those animals or substances which are adapted for human subsistence, assuming no obstacle to their multiplication to arise from the difficulty of finding hands to rear or space upon the earth to nourish them. By this method we may ascertain which of the two elements, population or subsistence, is physically capable of the greater expansion in a given time. Or we may adopt another mode of testing their relative rates of increase—we may compare the progress of man and of production in the actual state of any community, or of all communities together. In all existing societies there are checks in operation upon the multiplication of the human species. There are checks, likewise, upon the indefinite increase of the animal and vegetable world. We may take the operation of the checks into account on both sides of our calculation. In any given country, or in the world at large, if we like it better, we may compute, with reference to the actual state of things—looking to the experience of the past, and to the circumstances of the present, to all the causes, social, moral, or political, which restrain the propagation both of man and of his food—what has actually been, or what probably may be henceforward, the comparative rates of increase of population and of production. Either of these two methods of comparison would be fair and logical. I need scarcely add that the latter will be more likely to conduce to a useful practical conclusion. But a third method, which can not fail to lead us by the road of false logic to an utterly wrong result, is that of comparing the potential increase of mankind, according to the unchecked laws of nature, with the actual progress in any given country of production, excluding the operation of the counteracting forces on the one side, importing them into the estimate on the other. It is no wonder, when we use such a balance as this, if the scales are found to hang prodigiously unequal….

“But it requires nothing more than a careful attention to this point to bring out in a clear point of view the fundamental fallacy of the whole argument. What is that ratio in regard to the multiplication of subsistence which Mr. Malthus has placed in contrast with the potential increase of human beings? Not the potential increase of animal and vegetable existences proper for the food of men under the like favorable conditions; ‘the power left to exert itself with perfect freedom,’ limited by no check or obstacle, which formed his datum in regard to population. He enters into no estimate as to the periods in which, according to the laws of nature, the fruits of the earth, the corn, the olive, and the vine, are capable—it is vain to talk of duplication in such cases, but—of multiplication, some thirtyfold, some sixtyfold, some a hundredfold. He omits to consider the almost marvelous fecundity of some of those animals which form, in civilized communities, the chief subsistence of the mass of the people…. His calculation as to the ratio in which subsistence may be multiplied is founded upon the state of things then actually existing in England. He compares the abstract with the concrete — nature, in the region of hypothesis, acting in ‘perfect freedom,’ with nature obstructed by all the ‘checks’ which restrain production in the actual world.”¹

The first point to be remarked upon in this...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Preface to Second Edition
• Preface to First Edition
• Table of Contents
• Lecture I. Introductory.
• Lecture II. Of the Mental and Physical Premises of Political Economy, and of the Logical Character of the Doctrines Thence Deduced.
• Lecture III. Of the Logical Method of Political Economy.
• Lecture IV. Of the Logical Method of Political Economy.— (Continued.)
• Lecture V. Of the Solution of an Economic Problem, and of the Degeee of Perfection of Which It Is Susceptible.
• Lecture VI. Of the Place and Purpose of Definition in Political Economy.
• Lecture VII. Of the Malthusian Doctrine of Population.
• Lecture VIII. Of the Theory of Rent.
• Appendices.