THOMAS MALTHUS:
FUSFELD, CH 4
THOMAS ROBERT MALTHUS [1766-1834]
þ MAJOR PROBLEM IN EARLY 19TH C. BRITAIN =
CONCERN FOR THE POOR.
þ IN PREVIOUS CENTURIES, EACH PARISH CARED FOR ITS
OWN. TAX ON LANDOWNERS --> RELIEF FUNDS -->
PHILOSOPHY OF NOBLESSE OBLIGE.
þ BUT THIS ANCIENT SYSTEM OF POOR RELIEF BROKE
DOWN:
þ WARTIME INCREASES IN FOOD PRICES;
þ ENCLOSURES --> MANY MORE PEOPLE
DISPLACED
FROM THEIR
SMALL PLOTS
þ INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
þ GROWING CITIES & POPULATION
þ GROWING NUMBERS OF POOR.
þ CONSERVATIVE REACTION TO FRENCH REVOLUTION
þ NEW MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY
IMPOSSIBLE.
þ REFORM = ANATHEMA
þ YET GREAT INCREASE IN POOR --> BIG FINANCIAL
BURDEN ON LANDOWNERS.
þ PROBLEM OF POOR DUE TO THIS:
þ FOOD IS NECESSARY FOR MAN;
þ PASSION OF SEXES WILL REMAIN CONSTANT.
2
THOMAS ROBERT MALTHUS [1766-1834] [C]
þ "THE POWER OF POPULATION IS INFINITELY GREATER
THAN THE POWER IN THE EARTH TO PRODUCE
SUBSISTENCE."
þ STEPS TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY ARE FUTILE. WHY?
þ BECAUSE POP WILL INCREASE UNLESS
CHECKED BY
MISERY OR VICE.
þ FOR IF POOR GET MORE FOOD, THEY
WILL HAVE
MORE CHILDREN UNTIL FOOD/PERSON
FALLS BACK
TO SUBSISTENCE LEVEL --> THEN
POP INCREASE
TO STOP.
þ WAGES ALWAYS TEND TO SUBSISTENCE
LEVEL. WAGE
INCREASE --> WORKER HAS MORE
CHILDREN -->
WORKER FALLS BACK TO SUBSISTENCE.
þ TM'S CONCLUSION: PAYING RELIEF TO POOR WON'T
ELIMINATE POVERTY, BUT WOULD MERE INCREASE INCOME
OF POOR, ENCOURAGE THEM TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN,
POOR FALL BACK TO SUBSISTENCE AGAIN.
3
THOMAS ROBERT MALTHUS [1766-1834] [C]
þ TM: OLD SYSTEM OF POOR RELIEF RESPONSIBLE FOR
POVERTY. SOLN: ELIMINATE RELIEF PROGRAM.
þ RELIEF TO POOR ALSO BAD FOR THESE REASONS:
þ RELIEF --> POOR -->SHIFT OF WEALTH
FROM
THOSE WHO USED WEALTH PRODUCTIVELY
TO IDLE
POVERTY POP. --> SLOW ECON
GROWTH.
þ INSTEAD, THIS WEALTH SHOULD BE INVESTED
IN
PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY --> PROVIDE
JOBS &
PRODUCT.
þ TM: POOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN POVERTY. TO
ELIMINATE POVERTY, HAVE FEWER CHILDREN. ONLY
SOLN: MORAL REFORM --> HAVE FEWER CHILDREN.
þ TM: LABOR UNIONS NOT SOLN: HIGHER WAGES --> MORE
CHILDREN --> BID UP FOOD PRICES --> WEALTH SHIFT
FROM BUSINESSMEN TO UNPRODUCTIVE LANDOWNERS -->
REDUCED CAPITAL FOR BUSINESS EXPANSION --> NATION
WORSE OFF IN LONG RUN.
þ TM APPROACH TERRIBLE FOR POOR, BUT GREAT FOR
CONSERVATIVES BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM GOOD
ARGUMENTS FOR DOING NOTHING.
þ TM'S PRINCIPLE OF POPULATION --> MAJOR BUILDING
BLOCK OF CLASSICAL ECONOMICS.
þ REMAINED BASIS OF WAGE THEORIES FOR CENTURY.
þ TM: PRODUCTION MUST INCREASE FASTER THAN POP. IF
THERE IS TO BE ANY MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS IN LIVING
STANDARDS.
þ EUROPE & N.A ACHIEVED THIS.
þ BUT IN MANY OTHER COUNTRIES, POP.
GROWTH
EXCEEDS EXPANSION OF PRODUCTION.