Namibian Population Growth: A Boon Or Bane?

“POPULATION growth in Africa will place an increasing strain on the availability of water, throwing up some potentially frightening scenarios, including the rise of water mafias”, wrote Samantha Spooner in a recent article published in The Namibian.

We are constantly told that Namibia is a small country – the population, that is, and not the size of the country. So what would your reaction be? Would you dash out onto the streets excitedly, thanking God and start celebrating the arrival of an extra 20 million people bringing with them the long-awaited economic prosperity associated with large populations?

Or would you go into some kind of a panic and perhaps start thinking of applying for a permanent residence to some sparsely populated island? Well, I’m dramatising the issue here. But it does capture the point I want to raise.

The question about large populations and their relationship to economic growth and development has bedeviled economists for decades, if not centuries. I think economists still don’t have the answer. So, where do you stand in this debate? Do you regard population growth as a boon or a bane? Some Namibian economists came out in support of the positive correlation between high population growth and a high per capita growth.

They would argue, for example, that: “Namibia’s drawback is its small population.” So they argue that the country needs a higher population growth rate in order to achieve a high economic growth rate. This also reminds me of former President Nujoma’s urging, some years ago, that Namibian men should get out of bars/shebeens and start making babies because our population is very small.

The singular example of China’s recent economic performance is usually cited in support of the “high population growth leading to high economic growth rate” hypothesis. I just hope that the Chinese are taking kindly to this because they themselves have for years been battling high population growth, hence the “one child per family” policy.

And if indeed there is a positive correlation, then I don’t see the reason why they should be worried about high population growth. There is another question that we need to pose in passing, though: Is China growing or are other countries growing within China? In other words, how many American and Western companies are relocating to China because of cheap labour and the large consumer market, but at the same time exporting the wealth so created back to their own countries?

And here is the question for our economists: What is the required optimal population size that would lead to an exponential growth in the economy? What would be the ideal population size for Namibia to take off? Closer to home, for example, you have countries like Egypt (which is third) with a population of close to 70 million, with Ethiopia close to 100 million and Nigeria about 150 million, but there doesn’t seem to be a China-like growth in the offing.

There are also other candidates on the African continent with national populations approaching the 50 million threshold and the story is still the same: either low economic growth or stagnation altogether in some cases. The pro-population growth group will never stop at anything to push their point home.

There are other benefits to be had, we are told. So, it is argued that one more baby is one more future taxpayer. Then there is what is called the genius principle, which argues that the more babies there are, the greater is the likelihood that one of them will grow up to be a mathematics, science or sports genius.

The question is how long does it take before societies get the equivalent of the Einsteins? Then it is also argued that population growth may spur technological innovations because of the increased stress high populations put on available resources.

So, society is thus forced to improvise, innovate and in the process, progress.

The point that is missed here is that we fail to differentiate between an economy that depends on primary economic activities on the one hand and one depending on secondary (manufacturing) activities on the other. The latter, of course, would need a huge consumer market, assuming that most people have purchasing power (not to forget the export market).

Just imagine what effect the arrival of our imaginary 20 million people on Namibian soil would have on basically everything, from the natural and social environment, water and grazing, to land, which we are constantly reminded are fragile and scarce resources. I think the people at our municipalities or indeed any other service provider, for example, would be totally overwhelmed.

Then a plot of land would be out of reach for the majority and water would have to be rationed if the present state of affairs is anything to go by. There seems to be a total disjuncture between what economists are telling us about the advantages of large populations and what environmentalists are warning us about.

Personally, I would prefer to live in a decent wealthier economy than a big one but with millions of poor people – India, Nigeria, and China come to mind here.