Superiority of OPT over Malthusian
1. Scope and Relevance
- Malthusian Theory is a general theory. It assumes the same logic applies to all countries, regardless of their economic development.
👉 Example: It applies the same fear of overpopulation to the UK, Ethiopia, and Japan—without considering their economic capacity.
- OPT, however, is country-specific. It studies population in relation to the economic condition of each country.
So, while Malthus gave us a blanket theory, OPT tailors the analysis based on actual national context.
2. Focus of Analysis: Food vs. Total Production
- Malthus had a narrow focus: he believed population must be measured only against food supply.
⚠️ In modern economies, we don’t rely just on agriculture.
- Cannan (and later OPT theorists) took a broader approach, linking population to the total production—both industrial and agricultural.
Imagine judging a country’s health only by the quality of its bread. OPT instead looks at everything from bread to buildings.
3. Static vs. Dynamic Nature
- Malthusian theory is static. It assumes:
- Population grows geometrically
- Food supply grows arithmetically
- And disaster is inevitable
- OPT is dynamic. It accepts that:
- With time, technology, skills, and capital improve
- So, per capita income can rise even with a growing population
- The optimum level itself can shift upward
🧠 Note: Some geographers say OPT can be both static and dynamic, depending on interpretation.
4. Attitude Toward Population Growth
- Malthus saw any population growth as dangerous—linked with famine, war, and disease.
❌ It’s inherently pessimistic.
- OPT, on the other hand, is realistic and flexible:
- It sees population growth as potentially beneficial—if managed well.
- Labour is productive, not just consuming mouths.
A child isn’t just a burden; they also bring hands to work and a brain to innovate.
5. The Law of Returns: Diminishing vs. Increasing
- Malthus based his theory on the Law of Diminishing Returns:
- More population = Less output per head = Crisis
- OPT refines this:
- Initially, population growth leads to increasing returns (better division of labour, efficient resource use)
- Only after the optimum point do diminishing returns kick in
6. Philosophical Outlook: Pessimism vs. Optimism
- Malthus was deeply pessimistic. His vision of the future was filled with misery—famines, wars, and nature’s revenge.
- OPT offers an optimistic, yet grounded view:
- Human beings are resources, not just burdens
- Economic potential increases with managed population growth
Where Malthus saw a problem, OPT sees possibility.
🧾 Comparative Summary Table
| Aspect | Malthusian Theory | Optimum Population Theory (OPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Universal, applies to all | Country-specific, considers context |
| Focus | Food supply | Total production (agriculture + industry) |
| Nature | Static | Dynamic (can evolve with progress) |
| Assumptions | Fixed tech/resources | Tech, skills, and capital can grow |
| Outlook | Pessimistic | Optimistic and practical |
| Returns Logic | Only diminishing returns | Increasing returns until optimum, then diminishing |
| View on Population Growth | Negative (more people = misery) | Conditional: More people = more hands, if managed well |
📌 Final Thoughts
“Malthus ne humein daraaya, Cannan ne humein samjhaaya. 😊”
Where Malthus treated humans as a burden on nature, the Optimum Population Theory reminds us that humans can also enrich nature—through labour, innovation, and cooperation. It is not just about how many people a country has, but how those people are empowered and employed.