Optimum Population, the Malthusian Population Theory and the Demographic Transition Theory

By Funom Makama

Optimum population may be defined as the type of population which when combined with the available resources and the given level of existing technology secure a maximum return per head. Optimum population is neither too small or too large. In other words, optimum population stands in between the two other extremes of over population and under population. It is the best type of population and it differs from country to country and from time to time. Optimum population is dynamic, hence it changes according to the changing quantity and quality of a country's available resources.

Implications
1. At a given level of technology, it balances population with available resources.
2. The management or control of economy that has optimum population is very easy.
3. An optimum population ensures or secures a maximum return per head.
4. An optimum population is the population that produces full employment.
5. Optimum population is a dynamic population that changes with the changing quantity and quality of a country's available resources.
6. Optimum population also ensures the highest standard of living in a country.

Malthusian Population Theory
The Malthusian population theory is the outcome of an easy title "An Essay on Population"written in 1798 by Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, an Anglican clergyman and a well known political economist. The essay he wrote was influenced greatly by the rate at which the population in Europe at that time was growing at a very fast rate. In his essay, he highlighted the relationship between population and means of subsistence.

The main features of Malthusian theory
The main views or features of the Malthusian theory about population are:
1. That population was growing at a geometric progression such as 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc, while food production or supply was growing at an arithmetical progression such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.
2. That there is a tendency for all living things to grow beyond the food available to them.
3. That unless population increase is matched with means of subsistence, negative and positive checks will come into force.
4. That the checks can be war, diseases, epidemics and famine
5. That population is essentially limited by the means of subsistence.

Developments or events that have proven Malthusian theory wrong
Developments or events that have rendered Malthusian theory wrong or irrelevant in present day situation is found in developed countries such as England, America, Japan, Germany etc. These developments include:
1. Development of technical knowledge and mechanization: The development of technical knowledge and mechanization of agriculture in advanced or developed countries has helped to increase food supply.
2. Changes in social attitude: Changes in social attitude like family size and family planing or birth control in these countries.
3. Efficient transportation system: Increased efficiency in the transportation system enables more materials to be provided to areas that needed them.
4. Industrial revolution: The industrial revolution, especially in Europe, also changed the idea of land as a fixed factor of production.
5. Medical improvement: Medical improvement by way of efficient health care services also enables people to enjoy long life thereby proving Malthus theory wrong.
6. Opening of new colonies: The opening of new colonies like America, Canada, Australia etc provided the necessary land for human habitation.
7. Interdependency of nations: The interdependency of nations for goods and services available in large quantities as a result of international trade.

Developments or events that have proved Malthusian theory right
Developments or events that have proved Malthusian theory right or valid in developing countries in Asia and Africa. These events are as follows:
1. Negative attitude: Negative attitude like practice of polygamy, giving birth to many children, etc, have made the population of many developing countries increase on daily basis.
2. High population and low food production: The population of many developing countries is growing at a geometric progression while food production is growing at an arithmetical progression.
3. Difficulties in eradicating poverty; Poverty, which is inherent in a given society according to Malthus, has proven extremely difficult to be wiped out of many poor countries.
4. Poor economic development: Rapid population growth militates against rapid economic development and it grows faster than per capital income.
5. Fallen standard of living: The standard of living of many developing countries has fallen as a result of increase in population.

Demographic transition theory
The theory of demographic transition is the latest attempt made to provide a historical analysis into the population problems of developing countries. It tends to explain the reasons why all developed countries several years ago went through three identical stages of population history. The demographic transition theory puts up a model which recognizes three main stages in the process of population growth or demographic transition. The three stages are:
Stage 1: The pre-industrialization stage: The main feature of this stage is high birth rate and high death rate. The population at this stage is either static or increasing or decreasing at a very low rate. The population transition remains fairly stable.
Stage II: Transitional stage: This stage is characterized by high birth rate accompanied by low death rate. This stage leads to high population as a result of a number of factors such as industrialization, urbanization, better diet, higher income, improved medical services, etc. This stage marks the beginning of demographic transition. Many developing countries are currently at this stage of population growth.
Stage III: Post transition stage: This stage is characterized by a low birth rate and low death rate. In other words, there is a relatively stable population with an older and larger population. This stage is associated with developed countries.

Criticism against demographic transition theory
1. It is completely wrong to use the theory for general applications as it varies from one country to another.
2. Crude birth rate widely used in the theory is not the only way to measure fertility.
3. The main causes of decline in population may be different countries.
4. It fails to predict the levels of birth and death rates.

I laugh so hard whenever I get spam mails of scammers earning 3digit/4digit/5digit figures just like that for free. There is no way you can earn such amount in a short period of time through the internet just like that. For such a thing to happen, you need hardwork, determination, consistency and microscopic observations. And one of the ways you can apply all these factors in order to achieve great success is through Article networking. You need not buy any e-book to learn and it is not a system of making money, rather a strategy of hard work/good work put together to yield maximum success. For more information about this new strategy (Article Networking) go to the link below 

Talcott Parsons AGIL paradigm

Talcott Parsons AGIL paradigm

The heuristic scheme Parsons used to analyze systems and subsystems is called the "AGIL Paradigm", "AGIL scheme".[176] To survive or maintain equilibrium with respect to its environment, any system must to some degree adapt to that environment (Adaptation), attain its goals (Goal Attainment), integrate its components (Integration), and maintain its latent pattern (Latency Pattern Maintenance), a sort of cultural template. These concepts can be abbreviated as AGIL. These are called the system's functional imperatives. It is important to understand that Parsons AGIL model is an analytical scheme for the sake of theoretical "production," it is not any simply "copy" or any direct historical "summary" of empirical reality. Also the scheme itself doesn't explain "anything" as little as the periodical table in the natural sciences explains anything in and by itself. The AGIL scheme is a tool for explanations and no better than the quality of those theories and explanation by which it is processed.
In the case of the analysis of a social action system, the AGIL Paradigm, according to Parsons, yields four interrelated and interpenetrating subsystems: the behavioral systems of its members (A), the personality systems of those members (G), the social system (as such) (I) and the cultural system of that society (L). To analyze a society as a social system (the I subsystem of action), people are posited to enact roles associated with positions. These positions and roles become differentiated to some extent and in a modern society are associated with things such as occupational, political, judicial and educational roles.
Considering the interrelation of these specialized roles, as well as functionally differentiated collectivities (e.g., firms, political parties), the society can be analyzed as a complex system of interrelated functional subsystems, namely:
The pure AGIL model for all living systems:
(A) Adaptation.
(G) Goal Attainment.
(I) Integration.
(L) Pattern maintenance. (L stand for "Latent function").
The Social system level:
The economy — social adaptation to its action and non-action environmental systems
The polity — collective goal attainment
The societal community — the integration of its diverse social components
The fiduciary system — processes that function to reproduce historical culture in its "direct" social embeddedness.
The General Action Level:
The behavioral organism (or system). (In later version, the foci for generalized "intelligence.").
The personality system.
The social system.
The cultural system. (See cultural level).
The cultural level:
Cognitive symbolization.
Expressive symbolization.
Evaluative symbolization. (Sometimes called: moral-evaluative symbolization).
Constitutive symbolization.
The Generalized Symbolic media:
Social System level:
(A) Economic system: Money.
(G) Political system: Political power.
(I) The Societal Community: Influence.
(L) The Fiduciary system (cultural tradition): Value-commitment.
Parsons elaborated upon the idea that each of these systems also developed some specialized symbolic mechanisms of interaction analogous to money in the economy, e.g.., influence in the social community. Various processes of "interchange" among the subsystems of the social system were postulated.
Parsons' use of social systems analysis based on the AGIL scheme was established in his work Economy and Society (with N. Smelser, 1956) and has prevailed in all his work ever since. However, the AGIL system does only exist in a "rudimentary" form in the beginning and is then gradually elaborated and expanded in the decades which followed. A brief introduction to Parsons' AGIL scheme can be found in chapter 2 of The American University (with G. Platt, 1973). There is, however, no single place in Parsons writing where the total AGIL system is visually displayed or explained—the complete system have to be reconstructed from multiple places in his writing. The system displayed in "The American University" is only the most basic elements and should not be mistaken for the whole system

William Graham Sumner American sociologist

William Graham Sumner

October 30, 1840 — April 12, 1910

“Civil liberty is the status of the man who is guaranteed by law and civil institutions the exclusive employment of all his own powers for his own welfare.” –W. G. Sumner

William Graham Sumner was born in Paterson New Jersey on October 30, 1840, the son of Thomas Sumner and Sarah Graham. Although not formally educated, his father was a supporter of free trade and temperance. When Sumner was eight his mother died, leaving him and his two siblings in the care of an affection-less stepmother. His parents stressed the values of sobriety, autonomy, and personal responsibility. These ideals had a significant influence on his direction and subsequent works. After graduating from high school in Hartford where he spent most of his childhood, Sumner attended Yale University and obtained his degree in 1863. He then went on to study in Germany, Switzerland, and at Oxford, where he prepared for the Episcopalian clergy. Sumner returned to Yale as a classics tutor from 1866-1869 and was ordained a minister of the Episcopal Church in July of 1869. He served as a minister in the Church of the Redeemer in Morristown, New Jersey from 1870-1872, where he struggled with the conflicts between religion and scientific positivism. This clash between his instincts of individual freedom and the necessary checks on “progress” became visible in some of his later writings. In 1871 he married Jeannie Elliott with whom he had three sons (one died in infancy). He spoke rarely of his wife and family, but his views on the value of monogamy and family are seen in his later writings. In September of 1872, Sumner began a position as professor of political economy and social science at Yale. There he became part of the “Young Yale” movement, a reformist group opposing traditional classroom recitation. Sumner was one of the institution’s most popular and controversial teachers. He became an instrumental figure in the reformation of the American university system, from the old “divinity-classics” towards modernism.

In 1873 Sumner entered into the political arena, serving as New Haven alderman until 1876. In the fall of 1877, he sat in on the electoral commission to investigate fraud in New Orleans during the 1876 presidential election. Deeply disheartened by both experiences, Sumner curbed his political activities to an extensive term on the Connecticut State Board of Education (1882-1910).

As a classical economist, Sumner supported an extreme laissez-faire policy, opposing any governmental actions that obstructed natural economic affairs. His “A History of American Currency” (1874) supported the preservation of a sound currency against the use of silver. In 1878 Sumner turned his attention to the turbulence in the labor movement, contesting labor unions as harmful monopolies. On August 22, Sumner testified before a Representatives concerned with investigating the Causes of the General Depression in Labor and Business. In “Protectionism: The –ism that Teaches that Waste Makes Wealth” (1885) and "Lectures on the History of Protection" (1883), which he delivered before the International Free-Trade Alliance, he defined the tariff as a tax that benefits some Americans over others.

In the early 1880s, Sumner received criticism from Yale President Noah Porter for the use of Herbert Spencer’s Study of Sociology (1873) as a classroom textbook. Although he agreed to use other texts, the ensuing battle for academic freedom gained wide publicity and popularity for Sumner. In 1883 Sumner published “What the Social Classes Owe to Each Other”, an attack on attempts to regulate the economy and assuage social problems. (also see excerpts from the essay here and here)

After an extensive absence from public life due to a decline in health, Sumner returned to the public eye as Vice President of the Anti-Imperialist League in 1899. His speech, “The Conquest of the United States by Spain”, was delivered before the Phi Beta Kappa Society of Yale University on January 16, 1899. During this time he was also a member of the Philippine Independence Committee. In his best-known encyclopedic book Folkways (1906), Sumner added the terms “folkways” and “mores” to the vocabularies of American sociologists. He believed that these were the most powerful influences on human behavior, even when irrational. A Social Darwinist and Conservative in thought, Sumner worked continuously in charting the evolution of human customs, folkways and mores. He believed that these forces, developed naturally through the course of evolution, made any attempts for social reform useless. Sumner advocated that humanity could only survive in an environment untouched by attempts to change the “natural laws of social development”. Trained in the ideals of inductive empiricism, Sumner’s concepts were based on observations of particulars. Sumner defined the concept of ethnocentrism, the attitudes of superiority concerning one’s own group in comparison to others.