A Farewell to Alms

A Farewell to Alms SummaryChapter 2 The Logic of the Malthusian EconomyMost societies before 1800 follow one simple rule of population stability: in the long run births had to equal deaths. That is to say, despite variations of population in the short term, population in long run remains at equilibrium. Note that different equilibriums mean different levels of population, but at all these points births had to equal deaths. The Malthusian model explains the mechanism of population stability before 1800. It is based on three assumptions: 1. Each society has a birth rate, determined by customs regulating fertility, but increasing with material living standards. 2. The death rate in each society declines as living standards increase. 3. Material living standards decline as population increases. Back to the Malthusian model, it can be more clearly explained with a graph. The three lines represent the three assumptions of Malthusian model respectively. This graph shows that population level and income at equilibrium is not determined by technology, governance or public infrastructure, but birth schedule and death schedule, namely how birth rates and death rates change with respect to income. For example, if initial income is y0 and population N0, the income would lead to a birth rate higher than death rate, causing the population to increase. As population increases income decreases, leading to the convergence of birth and death rates. When birth rate equals birth rate, income and population reach the point of equilibrium. But why would income decline when population increases? The tradeoff between income and population, otherwise known as technology schedule, is validated by the Law of Diminishing Returns. Any production system employs a variety of inputs: labor, land and capital. If one input is fixed, the increase of the other inputs would lead to increases in overall output, but with smaller increments each time. This is particularly true for Malthusian economies as most of them are agricultural societies suffering from the constraint of land. A good example of diminishing returns is how land is cultivated: from pastoral shepherding to grain crop cultivation to more labor intensive garden land cultivation. Each move requires more labor inputs but has smaller increment of output. Technology advance also doesn’t help. Isolated technological advance before Industrial Revolution pushes the income curve rightward, resulting in an increase in population but no change of income (living standard). (see graph)Hence the interesting facts about Malthusian economy: (a) Since population is constant, life expectancy is the inverse of death rate. For example, if death rates are 33 per thousand, life expectancy is 30 years. If death rate = 50 per thousand, life expectancy = 50 years. This has to be true for population to stay constant. (b) In a stationary population, birth rate = death rates.(c) Hence in Malthusian economies, birth rate is the inverse of life expectancy. The higher the birth rate, the shorter people will live!(d) Elements that increase life expectancy, such as improvement in sanitation and declines in violence and disorder, therefore reduce the death rate schedule (pushing the death rate curve leftward). Better sanitation will result in lower living standard!(e) Point (d) is exemplified by living conditions of British and Chinese peasants before 1800. Britons’ poor hygienic conditions giver them shorter lifespans, but also a much more affluent life in terms of calorie intake, variety of foods, average heights and lower Engel index. Good governments, the ones that store grains in public grainaries to hedge against harvest failures, also make peasants’ life(living standards) more miserable by pushing down death rates. (f) In fact, British peasants right after the Black Death, a plaque that costs lives of millions of Europeans, enjoys the highest living standards ever seen in agricultural societies! Black Death pushes the death rate curve right ward and leaves the equilibrium income at a higher point. (g) Government aids for poor who are in the Malthusian trap reduce their living standards in the similar fashion. As the aids target those with children, it pushes down the cost of fertility and drives up the birth rate. The birth rate curve moves leftward, and equilibrium point moves leftward as well.Chapter 3 Living StandardsEmpirical evidence supports that the Neolithic Revolution, i.e. the settlement of mankind and invention of agriculture, actually reduces the living standard. Peasants before 1800, even the richest among them, live a poorer life compared with their hunter-gatherer ancestors. This is proved by their calorie intake, variety of foods, percentage of income spent on food, real wages, average heights. Peasants also work much longer than hunter-gatherers (8.8 vs 5.9 hours per day).The Neolithic Revolution did not bring more leisure but more work. Interestingly, the author claims that no genetic influence has been found in determining heights. The difference between average heights across societies, is attributed to either nutrition at childhood (comparing heights of Africans and Europeans) or dietary differences (comparing heights of rich Japanese society at 171cm and that of Europeans at 177-183cm). Many, including me, could find this annoyingly counterintuitive.

However, modern production technologies, developed in rich countries,are designed for labor forces that are disciplined, conscientious, and engaged.

瞧黑死病让英格兰农民吃的多好，多数中国农民现在都远未达到这水平。

1800年前的经济皆可由马尔萨斯理论解释：人口和生活水平直接关联。但要说1800年前的中国比西欧穷，又难以接受。难道大唐盛世的人不富足？中国人植物性蛋白摄入比较多，以农耕水平的发展，文化的选择有关（中国并不是崇尚肉食的社会）；特定时间内饥荒比较多，可能是因为战争。