Has Thomas Malthus been a free market friend or a foe?

Has preeminent demographer and economist Thomas Robert Malthus, whom has been widely criticized for his population time bomb theory, been taken out of context? 

Yes says Michigan State University professor Ross B. Emmett at the FEE

Robert Malthus (his friends called him “Bob”) was one of the primary interpreters of Adam Smith for the generation after Smith. Indeed, a lot of people who pick on “Thomas” Malthus get Bob Malthus wrong.

That’s not to say that Malthus was right about everything. But even more than Smith, Malthus’s economics built upon the idea that all humans similarly respond to incentives; and he thereby rejected the idea of natural hierarchy. Writing in a country that had excessive restrictions on labor markets—take a look at the Poor Laws—Malthus was an advocate of free labor markets. And Malthus argued that private property rights, free markets, and an institution that would ensure that both parents were financially responsible for the children they bore (that is, marriage) were essential features of an advanced civilization.

“Wait a minute,” you may be thinking. “Are we talking about the Malthus who claimed back in 1798 in his Essay on the Principle of Population that population growth would decrease per capita wellbeing? Isn’t this the guy who argued that the combination of population growth and natural resource scarcity would create catastrophic consequences, including disease, starvation, and war for much of the human race? And didn’t he miss the benefits of entrepreneurship and innovation, blinded as he was by the fallacy of land scarcity?”

That Malthus—let’s call this one “Tom”—is more a creature of ideological opponents of markets than of Malthus’s own writings. So maybe we should revisit Malthus and see what he actually said.

It all begins with a thought experiment: what would happen to human population in the absence of any institutions?

The answer is the population principle, which is the only thing most people know about Malthus. And it’s largely correct. In the absence of institutions, humans are reduced to their biological basics: Like animals, humans share the necessity to eat, and the passions that lead to procreation. To eat, humans must produce food. To procreate, humans must have sex. If there are no institutions, human population will behave like any animal population and increase to the limit of their ecology’s carrying capacity.

The biological model is simplistic; it treats humans as mere biological agents. It is this biological model that produces all the results people usually associate with Malthus’s name. And it’s not very far off from people’s conditions when their institutions have suddenly been disrupted by things like conquest, revolution, or war. (Consider the dual problems of war and drought that resulted in famine for Ethiopians in 1983–85, for example.)

But for Bob Malthus, the biological model is only a starting point. The model set up his next concern: the incentives created by different institutional rules for families’ fertility choices (in Malthus’s terms: the decision to delay marriage). The comparative institutional analysis that emerged from his further investigation became the basis for his defense of the institutional framework of a free society.

Read the rest here

On the vilification of Thomas Malthus

It turns out the mainstream view of Tom (as opposed to the real “Bob”) was first created by opponents of markets, sustained throughout the nineteenth century by lovers of hierarchy, and resuscitated in the twentieth century by environmentalists committed to the view that there are natural limits to economic growth. These environmentalists picked out the bits they liked and scrapped the rest, as it suited their agendas.

Mangling of the definitional context of politically sensitive issues such as liberalism, capitalism, inflation or deflation and etc..., has been a typical communications strategy used by statists to skirt on the argumentation of substance.