What if Thomas Malthus was right again?

Supporting analyses, the Malthusian theory demonstrates that the improvement in food productivity that our ancestors experienced did not increase either the well-being or the income of the population in the long term. In the short term perhaps but not in the long term. For what ? Because over the centuries and countries, when a productive improvement appeared, families who could benefit from it certainly saw their income increase but took the opportunity to have more children. So that after one or two generations, the quantities of food available were no longer sufficient to feed the enlarged population. There was no question of globalization yet, so we must remember that there were borders, economic, political and geographical. Famines too, sometimes caused by natural disasters like the plague. With, as a major consequence, the death of many children and adults, including those needed for food production, which inevitably fell sharply. It was necessary to wait for a new significant progress in production and productivity to inaugurate a new cycle of several generations.

A virtuous circle

Malthus is no longer there to confirm or not the validity of his theory after the 18th century but that does not prevent other economists from doing so. Some invalidate it from the Industrial Revolution, on the grounds that it is no longer a question of dietary improvements but of the birth of industry whose exponential progress exceeds the needs of the population. This first continued to grow and then stagnated in developed countries.

Average income per capita: Lasnois earn on average €10,000 more than the rest of Walloons (FIGURES)

In the cradle of industrialization, in England, Germany and Belgium in particular, families grew without risk of famine because their income remained stable over time. These revenues will even increase. A virtuous circle is then put in place. Technological advances require a more skilled workforce; this demand thus promotes general education and compulsory education for all children. Driven by the rise in living standards, particularly for women and their access to the world of work, the birth rate is falling in Europe, which is therefore deviating from Malthusian cycles.

Europe was the champion during this period of technical, economic, social and knowledge development, gradually limiting child labor. In England as elsewhere, studies show that the rate of surviving adults was higher in families who invested in people, namely who sent their children to school.

The feeling that life is always more expensive

The economist Oded Galor reports that the income per citizen of the world was multiplied by 10 between 1870 and 2018. The distortions between countries are great since this ratio is 12 in Europe but stagnates at 4 in Africa. And large disparities sometimes exist between citizens of the same country. Industrial development is not the only factor explaining income growth. Political and cultural models also seem to have their influence, this economist illustrating his point by comparing North Korea to South Korea.

Between the average income and the price of real estate in Brussels City, the contrast is striking

The observation of growth in individual income over time contrasts with the general feeling that life is always more expensive. The explanation may be that if gross income increases, disposable income appears to fall. In addition, income allocation in 2024 is not identical to that of 1970, which also contributes to the feeling of less purchasing power. The share of housing costs in net income may be higher; for leisure and communication, there is little doubt about it.

It is also possible that the Malthusian theory is still true but that the economic cycle is much longer than before the Industrial Revolution. Generally speaking, Western citizens have been overconsuming for several decades and enjoying growth without worrying about the planet’s limited resources. This can make us think that our overconsumption is a withdrawal of future income or a deferral of costs. Taking this into account would validate the Malthusian theory according to which in the long term, the increase in productivity (no longer just food productivity) does not increase average income per capita.