Boserup, Ester. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Boserup, Ester. 1970. The interrelation between population trends and agricultural methods in Economic Development and Population Growth. Edited by H.P. Lexington, Gray and S. S. Tangri, pp.66–70. Cambridge, MA: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Boserup, Ester. 1975. The impact of population growth on agricultural output. Quarterly Journal of Economics 89:257–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boserup, Ester. 1976. Environment, population and technology in primitive societies. Population and Development Review 2:21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boserup, Ester. 1981. Population and Technological Change: A Study of Long-Term Trends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boserup, Ester. 1985. Economic and demographic interrelationships in sub-Saharan Africa. Population and Development Review 11:383–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boserup, Ester. 1999. My Professional Life and Publications 1929–1998. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Bronson, Bennett. 1972. Farm labor and the evolution of food production in Population Growth: Anthropological Implications. Edited by B. Spencer, pp. 190–218. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bronson, Bennett. 1975. The earliest farming: Demography as cause and consequence in Population Ecology and Social Evolution. Edited by Steven Polgar, pp. 53–78. The Hague: Mouton. Republished in Origins of Agriculture (1977). Edited by C.A. Reed, pp. 23–48. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Caldwell, John C. 1998. Malthus and the less developed world: The pivotal role of India. Population and Development Review 24:675–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childe, V. Gordon. 1936. Man Makes Himself. London: Watts.Google Scholar
Coale, Ansley J. 1974. The history of human population. Scientific American 321:41–51.Google Scholar
Cohen, Mark Nathan. 1977. The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Darby, H.C. 1956. The clearing of the woodland in Europe in Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, Vol. 1. Edited by W.L. Thomas, Jr, pp. 183–216. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Darity, William A. Jr. 1980. The Boserup theory of agricultural growth: A model for anthropological economics. Journal of Development Economics 7:137–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deevey, Edward S. Jr. 1960. The human population. Scientific American 203:195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dupâquier, J., A. Fauve-Chamoux, and E. Grebenik (eds.). 1983. Malthus: Past and Present. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopkins, A.G. 1973. An Economic History of West Africa. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Iversen, Johs. 1949. The Influence of Prehistoric Man on Vegetation. Copenhagen: Danish Geological Bureau. Publication No. 6.Google Scholar
Lee, Ronald Demos. 1986. Malthus and Boserup: A dynamic synthesis in The State of Population Theory: Forward from Malthus. Edited by D. Coleman and R. Schofield, pp. 96–130. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Malthus, Thomas Robert. 1959. The First Essay. Edited by Kenneth E. Boulding. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Essay first published 1798.Google Scholar
Malthus, Thomas Robert. 1960. A summary view of the principle of population in On Population: Three Essays. New York: New American Library, pp. 13–59. Slightly abridged version of 1824 supplement to Encyclopaedia Britannica.Google Scholar
Malthus, Thomas Robert. 1989. Principles of Political Economy. Edited by John Pullen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. First published 1820.Google Scholar
Myrdal, Gunnar. 1968. Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations. 3 Vols. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Narr, Karl J. 1956. Early food-producing populations in Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, Vol. 1. Edited by W.L. Thomas, Jr, pp. 134–51. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin. 1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Ricardo, David. 1817. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Sauer, Carl O. 1956. The agency of man on the earth in Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, Vol. 1. Edited by W.L. Thomas, Jr, pp. 49–69. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Julian. 1981. The Ultimate Resource. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stewart, Omer C. 1956. Fire as the first great force employed by man in Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, Vol. 1. Edited by W.L. Thomas, Jr, pp. 115–133. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, William L. Jr. (ed.). 1956. Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wrigley, E.A. 1986. Elegance and experience: Malthus at the bar of history in The State of Population Theory: Forward from Malthus. Edited by D. Coleman and R. Schofield, pp. 46–64. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
A theory is a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something. Malthus and Boserup both had their own theories about population growth relating to food supply. A general limitation of this evaluation is the fact that they lived through different eras that resulted in the theories being published based on how the world was in that particular time period. Thomas Malthus lived through the 18th– 19th century while Ester Boserup lived through the 20th century. This time frame is essential due to the fact that these theories were divided by the Industrial Revolution, which automatically means that the view on the world was different.
The Malthusian theory is based on the fact that “a population can never increase beyond the food supplies necessary to support it”. Malthus believed that human population increased geometrically while food supplies can only grow arithmetically, which means that food supply should be high enough before any geometric population growth takes place. This is an interesting case because since this all took place before the Industrial Revolution, Malthus used math and what he believed was logic to figure out how to balance food supply and population growth. He found it more important to deal with food supply first because of the fact that food supply can remain without human population while human population cannot remain without sufficient food supply. Though some might think the Malthusian theory is very limited and “closed”, it is certainly not. At his time, Malthus could not foresee globalization so he worked with what he had. During that time period the world was closed and the Malthusian theory was a great way to maintain the balance between food supply and human population growth.
Boserup’s theory is different than the Malthusian theory due to increased amount of technological advancement. Unlike Malthus, Boserup believed that “an increase in population would stimulate technologists to increase food production”. This is the opposite of what Malthus believed because during her time, the farming technology had dramatically risen and food supply was not the main concern for human population. The base of Boserup’s theory is “necessity is the mother of invention”. This is an important saying because it describes how after this rise of technology and industry, food supply would come after the growth of human population. In other words, the food supply depended on the population size unlike in Malthus’ time where human population depended on food supply. Like any theory, Boserup’s theory contains various limitations, one being the act of immigration and emigration. This is a limitation to her theory because emigration for example usually occurs in areas of over population and lack of globalization that means that some of Malthus’ theory should still be in action today. Also, the fact that overpopulation is occurring shows that food supply is not high enough, or that it is not distributed equally.
To conclude, these two theories are somewhat different to one another mainly due to the fact that Malthus and Boserup are from completely different eras. There were around 7 million people in Britain was alive, and there are more than 60 million today. I might lean towards the Malthusian theory due to the fact that I live in a LEDC and I witness lack of food supply almost every day.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.