Economic Demography

The most robust trend in economic demography might also be one of the least publicized: rapid economic growth follows when the fertility rate falls below about 2.5. China and India illustrate the point. Go to Gapminder and compare total fertility and per capita gdp through time. In 1950, both had total fertility rates around 6 (with India slightly lower) and both were very poor 418 UX for China, 538 for India inflation adjusted dollars. Sometime during 1978, China caught up and passed India, each country now making about 800 per yr. But China's fertility rate was now 2.8 while India's was 4.6.

What happened next was dramatic. China's fertility rate dropped to 1.7 and China grew explosively, sextupling it's gdp per capita to 4959. India's fertility rate dropped too, but much more slowly and only to 2.5, and its gdp grew only half as much, to 2452.

These are the biggest guys on the block, but other have similar results. South Korea has grown steadily, but very rapidly since getting below the magic 2.0 number. Macau is atypical, but it to grew exposively after its fertility went all the way down below 1.

India and China are among the world's most productive lands but agriculturally and intellectually, so why are their people so poor? There is more than one reason, I'm sure, but the one that impresses me is that they just have way too many people.

Asia shows strong signs of clawing its way out of the Malthusian trap, but sub-equitorial Africa seems hopelessly trapped. It wouldn't hurt if more of the world would just acknowledge that we know the way out. Technology, infrastructure, and a economic legal system, sure, but the for the payoff -> fertility.

UPDATE: Why does **** stupid blogger insist on interpreting dollar signs as some sort of escape character? This post was incoherent enough without that.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

The most pointed critique of social security and liberalism in general is the libertarian critique. The problem with libertarians, for a liberal, is that we have too much in common. We both believe in individual rights, tolerance of individual differences, and dislike government prescription of religion. The basic difference, it seems to me, is the different answers we give to Cain's (with thanks to the Captain - my original version had the corpse asking the question!) famous question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's not really my basic bitch against the libertarians though. My real complaint is the same as my complaint against most religion - its premise is a fraud. For those who can't stand to wait for the punchline, I believe that trying to implement libertarian principles leads to tyranny or social disintegration. Demonstrating that takes some historical (and pre-historical) context. For all but the last 15,000 or so of the 100,000 years the human spec
Read more

Uneasy Lies The Head

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown ........... Shakespeare Henry IV, Part II. So it is with us and our slightly distant primate cousins , so it seems. A 9-year study of wild baboons in Kenya by Princeton University and the Institute of Primate Research may turn conventional assumptions of alphas males upside down. The study found that alpha males have high testosterone levels, which allows them to dominate other baboons, get access to more food, and attract better mates. This is expected. Surprisingly, though, the alpha males also have high levels of stress hormone glucocorticoid, which scientists measured from their feces samples. In fact, the stress of alpha baboons was on par with low-ranking baboons. The convention wisdom is that access to food and females provides life security and thus less stress for dominant males. Conversely, weak males who are constantly threatened by starvation and physical violence from stronger males are thought to be more stressed. The st
Read more

We Call it Soccer

The US played its best, and maybe only good game of World Cup, but lost thanks to brilliant goalkeeping by the Swedish keeper and the bizarre method soccer uses to settle ties when three US stars could not put the ball on frame from the 12 yard spot.  At the end it came down to a blocked shot that spun in by maybe a couple of centimeters. Well, that's football - too much like life.   Which brings me to a modest proposal.  Replace the thirty minute overtimes with as many 7-player 15 minute periods as needed to settle it.  Scoring should be much easier with fewer players.
Read more