Malthus believed that while technological progress might increase a society’s resources,thereby improving the standard of living,this would only lead to more population growth,which would cycle people back into lower living standards. Malthus also believed that overpopulation invited the forces of “natural” population-slashers such as famine and pestilence.
Birth rates are declining.iStock
Overpopulate and perish:they don’t call economics the dismal science for nothing.
In the centuries since,Malthusianism has gone in and out of fashion,and has been used as an intellectual justification for nefarious purposes such as eugenics policies,and for more idealistic ones,such as environmentalism. But Mathusianism maintains its relevance – we are having a variation of the debate in our politics now.
Australia has a housing crisis so deep we must acknowledge we have failed the most basic test of progress;that is,we will not leave future generations better off than their predecessors.
A household with two median incomes. For part-time workers and single-income households,home-owning is laughably out of reach without the assistance of family wealth.
Young people without family wealth don’t feel secure enough to start families. They are delaying having children to the point where they have fewer kids than they would have liked,or increasingly,they have none at all. (For people who love babies,this is sad!)
Infrastructure in our cities has lagged population growth,and there is pressure on services. Dutton summoned this sense of neo-Malthusian crisis in his budget reply speech. The solution he proposed was,although between him and shadow treasurer Angus Taylor,the Coalition policy was confused in the aftermath.
To ordinary voters trying to keep up,it was unclear whether the Coalition planned to cut permanent migration or the net migration,by how much and over what period. But the headline message is clear – a vote for the Coalition means a vote for lower migrant numbers.
Writing inThe Australian on Friday,opposition immigration spokesman Dan Tehan said that “over five years the Coalition’s targeted reduction in migration intake is around one-quarter,relative to Labor”. Tehan said the Coalition would “welcome an election fought on the issue of immigration”.
Last week,Dutton emphasised the Malthusian message,telling the ABC:“It’s not just housing. People know that if you move suburbs,it’s hard to get your kids into school,or into childcare. It’s hard to get into a GP because the doctors have closed their books. It’s hard to get elective surgery. These factors have all contributed to capacity constraints because of the lack of planning in the migration program.”
The comments have resonance for anyone who lives in a major city,although not all of us would blame the migration program for it. To me,it makes more sense to blame successive state and federal governments which have failed to plan for projected population growth.
In such conversations,people tend to overlook the remarkable GDP growth driven by immigration,from which we have all benefited.
What few in the political debate will acknowledge is. Across the OECD,as well as in the super-economies of China and India,birth rates are declining. Women no longer have enough children to replace the population –.
This is big problem in an ageing population. You simply don’t have enough working-age people to look after the dependent sections of the population (children and the elderly) while also paying taxes to fund essential services.
A 2020 paper published in expressed the problem in the kind of dry econo-speak that makes the ovaries shrivel. “Continued trends in female educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in fertility and slow population growth … policy options to adapt to continued low fertility,while sustaining and enhancing female reproductive health,will be crucial in the years to come.”
Some countries,such as Hungary,are creating pro-fertility policies to get women moving. It is unlikely to work. According to the latest issue ofThe Economist,“it is a mistake for countries to try to spend their way to more births”. Better to adapt to the changing demographic environment,which means rethinking welfare payments and the retirement age.
Under Anthony Albanese,Labor has tried to lift female workforce participation,which I applaud on a policy level while often cursing on a personal level:it often seems like a sick joke that women are now expected to mother properly while also working full-time.
Says Dr Liz Allen,a demographer at the Australian National University Centre for Social Policy Research:“The majority of people in the world live in populations with below-replacement fertility rates.”
The declining fertility rate is driven by advances in female education and workforce participation,as well as in the efficacy and availability of contraception,along with “declining rates of religion,changing family norms and social expectations of women”,Allen says. All these factors have the effect of delaying the formation of relationships,with the result that the median age at which women give birth is later and “the window of reproductive opportunity is constrained”.
Economic pressures follow. The nation’s labour force needs are not met and,eventually,living standards will go backwards,just as Malthus dolefully predicted.
“And then we get conflicts,” Allen says. “Young people need early-learning,child and maternal healthcare,but at the end of the life course,we have those who need aged care,pension support,healthcare.” Allen adds:“Working-age people are pulled in each way to fund the young and old population.”
Sounds like a neo-Malthusian catastrophe,and not one that migration cuts will fix. Quite the contrary.
Jacqueline Maley is a senior writer and regular columnist.