foods, the application of new sources of power and the use of new processes, the improvements in methods of transport and communication, the rise of an efficient mechanism of exchange-all have led to a better industrial organisation, which tends to substitute increasing for diminishing

returns.

The problem of population turns principally on organisation. Britain's population at the end of the nineteenth century was about ten times what it was in Elizabeth's time, yet the country was, in a sense, less over-populated in the later than in the earlier period. So-called overpopulation is frequently a matter of under-organisation. Increase in numbers makes a thorough division of labour more possible, and the production of goods per head, instead of diminishing as the pessimist expects, actually increases.

Sir William Beveridge has shown that from the epoch 1854-64 to the epoch 1905-13 the coal production per head in the United Kingdom increased from 2.6 to 5.9 tons, the pig-iron production 2.7 to 4.3 cwts., the raw cotton consumption from 28.1 to 42.2 lbs., and the raw wool consumption from about 10 to 12.6 lbs. Real wages increased from 60.7 to 101.0 (on the basis, 1913=100).* It is true of course that so far as food production is concerned, Britain does not produce sufficient for her requirements. About 80 per cent. of the wheat and 40 per cent. of the meat consumed in this country comes from abroad. But it is a commonplace in economics that an industrial country such as Britain, by specialising in the production of other articles in the production of which she has a greater relative advantage, is able to exchange her products for a

*The Economic Journal, Dec. 1923, p. 462. Similar increases are demonstrated in the case of shipbuilding, exports, and the consumption of food and drink.

greater amount of food and raw materials than she would economically be able to produce for herself.

All this does not mean that the growth of population can be left to look after itself. Increasing the food supplies is only one factor in the problem. The operation of the different checks, affecting both the quantity and the quality of the population, needs equal consideration. The preventive check, meaning a low birth rate, is more humane than the positive check, with its high death rate. The birth rate in England and Wales is little over a half of what it was fifty

Restriction of
Population.

years ago, as is shown in the following table :*

In conditions where a high birth rate leads almost inevitably to a high death rate, the solution to the problem lies largely in the curtailment of the number of births. The birth rate in India is nearly double that in England and Wales; but as the death rate there is more than double that in this country, the survival rate (i.e. the difference * Report of Chief Officer of Health, 1920 (Cmd. 1397).

† Civilian population only.

between the birth rate and the death rate) is appreciably higher in England and Wales than in India.*

The standard of life plays an important part in the growth of population. The more advanced a community, the greater is the insistence on a recognised standard of living. There is no absolute standard; as will be shown more fully later, it varies from class to class, and for the same class from time to time. But though not strictly determinate, it serves as a check on the increase of population. When people are living on the verge of starvation, foresight and restraint are weak. Birth control is more common in more prosperous families. Paradoxical though it may seem, an improvement in the standard of life, by strenghtening the will to retain and even advance that standard, tends up to a point to restrict the rate of increase. The poorer classes have, on the average, larger families than the well-to-do classes, i.e. the rate of increase varies inversely with the power of maintenance.† While the main reason for the small family is the desire to main* See H. Cox, The Problem of Population, pp. 26-7.

†The following table by Bertillon (quoted in Bailey: Modern Social Conditions, p. 110) is interesting in this connection. It shows that on the average the very poor have about two or three times as many children as the very rich.

tain the children in a standard of life at least as high as that enjoyed by the parents, contributory factors are the age at which the different classes attain their maximum earning capacity, and the age at which they marry. The unskilled worker can reach his highest earning power early in life-even in his 'teens. The more skilled and better-paid workers have a longer time to wait, while some people, "professional" workers for example, do not reach their full earning power until life is fairly advanced. The age of maximum earning capacity naturally affects the marrying age and therefore the number of children.

Emigration is often advocated as a means of solving the population problem. It is true that while some countries have an extremely dense population, which cannot apparently be maintained in a decent standard of life, other countries are very sparsely populated and are crying out for immigrants. Between such countries a flow of population might take place with advantage. Many contend at the present time that the emigration from this country to the Colonies should be increased, in order to reduce the "surplus" of labour here, and to distribute the world's population more equally.

Some writers maintain however that a reasonable flow of population from a country does not necessarily in the long run reduce its population, while a constant flow into a country need not over a period increase the population. This apparent inconsistency is explained by the Malthusian argument. Reduction in the population lightens the pressure on the means of subsistence, the struggle for livelihood is not so intense, and with an increase in the birth rate and a fall in the death rate, the reduction is soon balanced. On the other hand, immigration increases the pressure on subsistence and makes the check on population more effective.*

* Cf. Fairchild, Applied Sociology, pp. 217-18.

Quality of
Population.

In any case, emigration cannot be depended upon as a final solution. To particular countries it might give a degree of relief, but as the population of the world increases, resort must be made to other methods. The last, and perhaps the most important, of all these considerations is the aspect of quality rather than mere quantity of population. Too much attention has been focussed in the past on numbers; too little on the health, efficiency and happiness of the people.* It is better to have limited numbers of a high quality than a large population of whom a vast proportion must die in the unequal struggle for life. While modern industrial methods and the social environment do not always make for improved health, there has been on the whole a distinct advance in the quality of the people during the last century. The birth rate has fallen, but so has the death rate. Medical science, along with better sanitation and hygiene, is steadily raising the quality of the people.

Certain authorities pin their faith to "Eugenics" as a means of improving the quality of the population. They would apply the laws of heredity with the two-fold object of preventing procreation on the part of certain people, and encouraging it on the part of others. The first or "negative" method is to exercise a control, if possible, over the marriage of the seriously diseased, feeble-minded or otherwise defective. Failing this, some eugenists advocate

*The military view of population has not been considered in these pages, though it has many adherents in some countries. The French population is at a standstill, while the German population continues to grow. The French patriot deplores the situation and seeks means to stimulate the birth rate. It is questionable whether such a policy is justifiable from the purely economic standpoint— but so long as a war threatens, one cannot expect public policy always to put well-being before defence.