Introduction to Optimum Population Theory
Imagine you have a kitchen. You’re preparing dinner for your family. If there are just the right number of people—say, five family members—and your kitchen can comfortably feed and serve all of them, things are smooth. But if suddenly, ten more guests arrive uninvited and your kitchen resources remain the same, there’s a problem. You don’t have enough food, plates, or space. On the other hand, if only one person shows up in a fully-equipped kitchen, the resources are underused. This idea of a “just right” number—not too many, not too few—is at the heart of the Optimum Population Theory.
🔍 Background: Reaction to Malthusian Theory
Let’s now go back in time—to the late 18th century, when Thomas Malthus, a British thinker, proposed his famous Malthusian Theory of Population. He said:
- Population grows geometrically (1, 2, 4, 8, 16…), while
- Food supply grows arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5…).
So, over time, population will outstrip food supply, leading to vice (like crime, war) or misery (like famine, disease).
This was a pessimistic view. According to Malthus, the limit of population is land’s ability to produce food. If land can grow food for 100 people, then 101 would be too many. That 101st person is a burden.
💡 Enter Optimum Theory: A More Balanced Perspective
Now, some modern economists found this view too narrow and outdated, especially with changing times and new resources.
Two such economists—Prof. Edwin Cannan and Carl Saunders from the London School of Economics—proposed an alternative: the Optimum Theory of Population.
They argued:
- Don’t judge population based only on land and food.
- Instead, evaluate population in light of all available resources—technology, capital, labour, natural wealth, infrastructure, even human skills.
So, the “optimum” population is that ideal number of people where productivity per person is highest. It’s like the perfect number of chefs in a kitchen where the workflow is smooth, efficient, and nothing goes to waste.
🔄 How Is It Different from Malthusian View?
Let’s list it clearly:
| Aspect | Malthusian Theory | Optimum Population Theory |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Food supply (land) | All resources (holistic) |
| Tone | Pessimistic (doom) | Balanced (productive) |
| Resource Base | Fixed (land-centric) | Expandable (new tech/resources) |
| Outcome | Misery if unchecked | Opportunity if managed well |
So, Cannan and Saunders basically said: “Population isn’t a curse—it depends on how well we use our resources.”
🔁 Dynamic Nature of Optimum
One key insight of the Optimum Theory is that the optimum is not fixed. Why?
Because:
- Resources change—New technology is discovered.
- Population changes—Birth rates fall or rise.
- Economies evolve—Shifts in industry, trade, education, etc.
So, what was “optimum” in the 1950s is not the same today. A country with more skilled people and better infrastructure might support a larger population now than it could a century ago.
Hence, the optimum condition is only sustained when resource exploitation keeps pace with population growth.
So, to sum up:
- The Malthusian theory focused only on land and food and predicted disaster if population outgrew resources.
- The Optimum Population Theory, introduced by Edwin Cannan and Carl Saunders, takes a broader, more modern view—including all kinds of resources and productivity.
- The goal is not just to survive, but to find the sweet spot where every person contributes most efficiently to society.