Vol. 1(2) SEP 2011 - SAVAP International

Academic Research International
ISSN: 2223-9553
Volume 1, Issue 2, September 2011
countries there is a negative correlation between fertility and income for families classed by
income size. Since the fertility differentials are too large to be offset by plausible mortality
differentials, Kuznets thinks we can assume a higher rate of natural increase for the lower
income and social status groups than for the higher groups. All this makes problems for the
economic advancement of the poor, for preventing economic and social inequality widening,
and for ensuring an adequate upward flow of potential human talent from the lower classes.
Developed nations have solved this problem of inequality by a variety of institutional
changes. Yet even here, “the problems may be accentuated when a rise in the over-all rate of
population growth means a greater differential between the lower and upper economic and
social groups, and acceleration in the growth of the former; or when technological changes,
requiring more education and investment in human capital, may impede upward economic
and social mobility that in the long run is indispensable to the efficiency of the economic
society”.
The problems arising from population increase differentials between classes are more acute
for underdeveloped countries with their lower overall per capita income and smaller
economic reserves than for developed countries. “If a high rate of population increase would
bring about an even wider income inequality than now exists in the underdeveloped
countries, the consequences in the way of misery, failure of unity, and loss of political
viability might indeed be dire” (Kuznets, 1967).
We will not attempt here to make any assessment of the whole economic and social picture
conjured up by Kuznets. But we just note that as far as the supposed negative relationship
between income and fertility is concerned, the study of Schoumaker (2004) on 25 sub-
Saharan countries showed that in all the countries studied, the poorest women had a much
higher fertility than the better off women, although economic status was not measured by
income and expenditure, but indirectly by an index based on asset ownership and housing
characteristics. Readers who wish to explore further the range of issues raised by Kuznets
might like to consult Birdsall et al (2001) and Bhaskar and Glyn (Eds.) (1995). Rather, we
will look at some specific research which provides evidence that population is either
positively or negatively related to some forms of environmental degradation, with particular
reference to work on the Kuznets curve. We start with work on agricultural and natural
resources, then move on to studies on emissions and ecological footprints.
Research providing evidence on the relationship between population growth and
environmental deterioration
There are numerous studies which provide evidence about the relationships of human
population growth to changes in agriculture and natural resources. Focusing on rural
population growth, Pender (2001) concludes that the evidence is mixed. Sometimes
population growth seems to have had beneficial environmental effects; but other studies have
found that population growth has been associated with various aspects of resource
degradation.
Now one of the biggest studies carried out in this subject area is that by Tiffen and colleagues
(Tiffen et al.,1994). And Pender, in a brief introductory paragraph, on which the paragraph
above is based, takes this publication as his example of beneficial population growth effects.
Copyright © 2011 SAVAP International
www.savap.org.pk
www.journals.savap.org.pk
172