What would your reaction be? Would you dash out onto the streets excitedly, thanking God and start celebrating the arrival of an extra eighteen million people bringing with them long-awaited economic prosperity? Or would you go into some kind of a panic and perhaps start thinking of applying for a permanent residence in neighbouring Botswana? Well, I’m dramatising the issue a bit, because in reality population growth doesn’t usually occur at that speed, but it does capture the essence of the point I want to raise here.
The question about population growth and its relationship to economic growth and development has bedevilled economists for decades, if not centuries – if you include Thomas Malthus, regarded as the father of modern population studies, in this long-running debate. And, 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 bane? Early this year two Namibian economists, Dr Roelof Botha and Rainer Ritter, came out in support of the positive correlation between high population growth and a high per capita growth.They say, 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.There you are.You have heard it from the horse’s mouth as it were.So, I urge all Namibian men to remove that latex and get down to business! 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.Unless, of course, economists, including our own, can now convince the Chinese to relax that policy because of the supposed economic benefits.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 made back to their countries? But here is the question for our economists: What is the required optimal population size and population growth that would lead to an exponential growth in the economy? What’s the threshold? What would be the ideal population (size/growth rate) for Namibia for it to take off? Closer to home, for example, you have countries like Egypt with a population of close to 70 million and Nigeria with more than 100 million in addition to her millions in petro-dollars but there doesn’t seems 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 Brian O’Linn, Frank Fredericks or an Oscar Mengo.The question is how long does it take before societies get the equivalent of these people? Then it’s also argued that population growth may also spur technological innovations because of the increased stress high population puts 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 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, to buy the products of industries or just to provide the needed labour.Whereas in a primary economy like ours, the ball game is quite different.Just imagine what effect the arrival of our imaginary eighteen million people on Namibian soil would have on basically everything from the natural and social environment, water and grazing to land itself, which we are constantly reminded is a scarce resource.I think the people at our municipalities or indeed any other service provider, for example, would be totally overwhelmed.I’m sure they will innovate.Then a plot of land will start at a million dollars back in my own village and water would have to be rationed if the present state of affairs is anything to go by.And Government probably will have to start resettling people on our rivers by giving out boats and fishing nets.But don’t panic.We are not there yet.But what’s the flipside to this? Well, if we accept the ‘high population growth, high per capita growth’ hypothesis; then it means there will be no significant economic development in some of our low-population countries.Unless there are other factors to make up for it.But what are these? Personally, I would prefer to live in a decent economy than a big one.And, 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 bane? Early this year two Namibian economists, Dr Roelof Botha and Rainer Ritter, came out in support of the positive correlation between high population growth and a high per capita growth.They say, 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.There you are.You have heard it from the horse’s mouth as it were.So, I urge all Namibian men to remove that latex and get down to business! 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.Unless, of course, economists, including our own, can now convince the Chinese to relax that policy because of the supposed economic benefits.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 made back to their countries? But here is the question for our economists: What is the required optimal population size and population growth that would lead to an exponential growth in the economy? What’s the threshold? What would be the ideal population (size/growth rate) for Namibia for it to take off? Closer to home, for example, you have countries like Egypt with a population of close to 70 million and Nigeria with more than 100 million in addition to her millions in petro-dollars but there doesn’t seems 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 p
ro-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 Brian O’Linn, Frank Fredericks or an Oscar Mengo.The question is how long does it take before societies get the equivalent of these people? Then it’s also argued that population growth may also spur technological innovations because of the increased stress high population puts 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 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, to buy the products of industries or just to provide the needed labour.Whereas in a primary economy like ours, the ball game is quite different.Just imagine what effect the arrival of our imaginary eighteen million people on Namibian soil would have on basically everything from the natural and social environment, water and grazing to land itself, which we are constantly reminded is a scarce resource.I think the people at our municipalities or indeed any other service provider, for example, would be totally overwhelmed.I’m sure they will innovate.Then a plot of land will start at a million dollars back in my own village and water would have to be rationed if the present state of affairs is anything to go by.And Government probably will have to start resettling people on our rivers by giving out boats and fishing nets.But don’t panic.We are not there yet.But what’s the flipside to this? Well, if we accept the ‘high population growth, high per capita growth’ hypothesis; then it means there will be no significant economic development in some of our low-population countries.Unless there are other factors to make up for it.But what are these? Personally, I would prefer to live in a decent economy than a big one.
Stay informed with The Namibian – your source for credible journalism. Get in-depth reporting and opinions for
only N$85 a month. Invest in journalism, invest in democracy –
Subscribe Now!