GGRC02H3 Chapter Notes - Chapter week 4: Silt, Industrial Revolution, Pastoralism
THE IMPACT OF SCARCITY AND PLENTY ON DEVELOPMENT: ESTER BOSERUP
- there is a sharp difference between human societies of old vs today (eg. hunter-gather
vs today)
were these differences related to accessibility of food? did scarcity of- food
promote development?
-French Physiocratic School suggested that dev. Of human societies dep. On the size of
the agricultural surplus (total food surplus produced in a given society) physiocrats
saw this surplus as the means for increasing pop.
- Other Political economists looked at the surplus at a per head basis Malthus suggested
increase would gradually reduce this supply leading to the elimination of this surplus
and eventually starvation
The escape from Malthus’ population trap was to increase productivity of land and
labour to feed a larger pop. however: unless the change was rapid, it would only
be temporary and the tech would be “eaten up” by the increasd pop. Due to
improved nutrition
- This neo-malthusian theory is unrealistic
1. Tech progress in agriculture would not result in further pop. Growth in cases
where factors other than insufficient food supply were the effective restraints on
population
2. Malnourished were always the poor would lose more than they would gain by
changes in agricultural technology their mortality might even increase
3. Malthusian theory overlooks the effect of pop. Increase on tech. changes
oeg. Grren revolution and modern-birth control were born b/c larger pop.
Lead to tech. trasnfers and invention of new methods and tools
- Pop increase has 2 effects on systems of production
1. The negative effect of diminishing returns (when existing agri. System must feed
more people) still, this provides motivation for more intensive programs for
production which can raise productivity of land
2. Make it possible to build (and finance building of) collective investments in
physical and human infrastructure of various types (eg.
water/energy/transportation)
opositive effects of this outweigh and negative effects of a higher man-land
ratio on food supply and development
- b/c pop. Increase motivated and facilitated tech. changes its effects on dev. Were
positive
- people can adapt to increasing pop. By means other than intensifying agriculture and
introducing tech changes can change total food supply by shifting diet from animals
that use land extensively (eg. cows) to thigns like chicken/pork etc. // can replace
cereals w/ tubers/roots that hae more yield p/acre // can increase military strength to
conquer neighbouring nations // can get people to emigrate from the population, or
introduce birth prevention and infanticide
Food supply and development in the ancient world
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
- in primitive society, food supply is plentiful when man-land ratio is low becomes even
scarcer whne pop. Becomes larger
even in regions w/ poor soil/climate small pop. Can get sufficient food by applying
primitive technology
if climatic conditions preclude agriculture pop. That is suff. Small can obtain food
by hunting/fishing
areas w/ better climate and soil limit between easy and difficult food supply will be
at higher pop. Densities, but there will be a limit where plenty gives way to scarcity
unless methods of obtaining food are changed
- population trends in pre-history varied from one period to another some died b/c
fertility < mortality rates, others avoided increase by migration/infanticide or by high
mortality form disease/war/stavartion
adapted to increasing man-land ratio by eating new types of food and by
introducing systematic food production
- wide diff. in pop. Trends
most early food producing people used long-fallow systems: if pop. Increases, land
which has been fallowed for the “usual # of years” becomes scarce and so it
becomes necessary to shorten the fallow period however fallowing is good b/c:
perserves land fertility/reduces weed/plant disease/protects against erosion
obefore chemicals, shorterning of fallowing period required using more labour
to spread fertilizer/remove weeds/plants
othis additional labour and capital input was a deterrent to intro. Of more
intensive system of agriculture (B/c man-land ratio was low enough to allow
people to fallow the land for long periods)
if fallow was shortened, needed labour-intensive techinques if they
didn’t use these, the land would become infertile, yields would
decline and people would starve
- sociesties around the world avoided that pitfall by shifting to more intensive agri.
Systems more intensive = can support LT pop. Growth
- most ancient societies settled in mountains w/ gathering and pastoralism which
replaced agriculture as pop. Increased, they accommodated this increase by
intensifying agri. And small systems of flow irrigation, while other people emigrated to
the plains
Mesopotamians and other Asia peoples started implementing tech. used by other
peoples (eg. flow irrigation. Use of oxen) all allowed for food surpluses
other large scale urbanization occurred among people who didn’t benefit from any
of these tech. eg. Mayan people built their temples from rock and clay; only use
man-labour for construction and intensive agricultural operations (eg.
handweeding); mayans show that large pop. Can be created w/ primitive tools and
difficult conditions of food production and transportation
- comparing mayan pop. To Europe shows it would have been harder for the Mayan pop.
To produce surplus for their family (esp. b/c Eur pop. Density at the time was pretty low)
euro were importing food-supply tech. from Asia/North Africa combined low mand-
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
The impact of scarcity and plenty on development: ester boserup there is a sharp difference between human societies of old vs today (eg. hunter-gather vs today) On the size of the agricultural surplus (total food surplus produced in a given society) physiocrats saw this surplus as the means for increasing pop. Other political economists looked at the surplus at a per head basis malthus suggested increase would gradually reduce this supply leading to the elimination of this surplus and eventually starvation. The escape from malthus" population trap was to increase productivity of land and labour to feed a larger pop. However: unless the change was rapid, it would only be temporary and the tech would be eaten up by the increasd pop. Tech progress in agriculture would not result in further pop. Growth in cases where factors other than insufficient food supply were the effective restraints on population.
