Malthus and the Assault on Population
by Murray N. Rothbard
One of the first Smithian economists, and, indeed, a
man who was for two decades the only professor of political economy in England,
was the Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834). Malthus was born in Surrey, the
son of a respected and wealthy lawyer and country gentleman. Malthus graduated
from Jesus College, Cambridge, in 1788 with honors in mathematics and five
years later became a fellow of that college. During that same year, Robert
Malthus became an Anglican curate in Surrey, in the parish where he had been
born.
Malthus seemed destined to lead the quiet life of a
bachelor curate, when, in 1804, at nearly 40, he married and promptly had three
children. The year after his marriage, Malthus became the first professor of
history and political economy in England, at the new East India College at
Haileybury, a post he retained until his death. All his life, Malthus remained
a Smithian, and was to become a close friend, though not disciple, of David
Ricardo. His only marked deviation from Smithian doctrine, as we shall see, was
his proto-Keynesian worry about alleged underconsumption during the economic
crisis after the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
But Malthus was, of course, far more than a Smithian
academic, and he gained both widespread fame and notoriety while still a
bachelor. For "Population" Malthus became known worldwide for his
famous assault on human population.
In previous centuries, insofar as writers or
economists dealt with the problem at all, they were almost uniformly
propopulationists. A large and growing population was considered a sign of
prosperity, and a spur to progress. The only exception, as we have seen, was
the late-16th-century Italian absolutist theorist Giovanni Botero, the first to
warn that population growth is an ever-present danger, tending as it does to
increase without limit, while the means of subsistence grows only slowly. But
Botero lived at the threshold of great economic growth, of advances in total
population as well as standards of living, and so his gloomy views got very
short shrift by contemporaries or later thinkers. Indeed, absolutists and
mercantilists tended to admire growing population as providing more hands for
production on behalf of the state apparatus as well as more fodder for its
armies.
Even those 18th century writers who believed that
population tended to increase without limit, curiously enough favored that development. This was true of the
American Benjamin Franklin (1706–90), in his Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind and the Peopling of
Countries(1751). Similarly, the physiocrat
leader Mirabeau, in his famous L'Ami des Hommes ou traité de la population (The
Friend of Man or a Treatise on Population) (1756), while comparing human reproduction to that of rats — they
would multiply up to the very limit of subsistence like "rats in a
barn" — yet advocated such virtually unlimited reproduction.
A large population, said Mirabeau, was a boon and a
source of wealth, and it was preciselybecause people
will multiply like rats in a barn up to the limit of subsistence that
agriculture — and hence the production of food — should be encouraged. Mirabeau
had picked up the "rats-in-a-barn" metaphor from Cantillon, but
unfortunately did not inherit Cantillon's highly sensible and sophisticated
"optimum-population" realization that human beings will flexibly
adjust population to standards of living, and that their noneconomic values
will help them decide on whatever trade-offs they may choose between a slightly
larger population or a smaller population and higher standards of living.