Boserup - IB Geo Class of 2010

Boserup believed that people have the resources of knowledge and

technology to increase food supplies.
Boserup opposes Malthus' theory; she suggested that population growth has enabled
agricultural development to occur. Her theory assumes people knew of the techniques
required by more intensive systems and used them when the population grew.

For example demographic pressure (increase in population density) promotes

innovation and higher productivity in use of land (e.g. irrigation, weeding, crop
intensification, better seeds) and labor (tools, better techniques).

This graph shows how the rate of

food supply may vary but never
reaches its carrying capacity
because every time it is getting
near, there is an invention or
development that causes the
food supply to increase.

These changes often induce

agricultural innovation but
increase marginal labour cost to
the farmer as well: the higher the
rural population density, the
more hours the farmer must work
for the same amount of produce.
Therefore workloads tend to rise
while efficiency drops. This process is what Boserup describes as "agricultural
intensification".
Strengths
Although Boserup is widely regarded as being anti-Malthusian, both her insights and
those of Malthus can be comfortably combined within the same general theoretical
framework.
Boserup argued that the changes in technology allow for improved crop strains and
increased yields; which was supported by evidence of GM crops and the 'Green
Revolution'.

Boserup accepts that overpopulation can lead to unsuitable farming practices which
may degrade the land e.g. population pressure as one of the reasons for desertification
in the Sahal region (fragile environments at risk)

Weaknesses
The theory has been instrumental in understanding agricultural patterns in developing
countries, although it is highly simplified and generalized.
Boserup's theory is based on the assumption of 'closed' society - which is not the case in reality
e.g. migration

It is less convincing as an explanation of short-term trends, and in this case the "short"
term can last for decades.
One may speculate that she was more interested in less developed countries than in advanced
countries.
"Boserup seems to neglect the different nature of modern technology or the new role of capital.
Her world is a two-factor world -- labor and land. "
"Unfortunately, the places with the food shortages tend to have low-tech agriculture, and the
high-tech parts of the world tend to have high living standards and plenty of food."
At some point, the population may get so huge that they can't be fed no matter how inventive
they are. Indeed to feed more mouths people have to dig deeper into the environment, to divert
more biological productivity for themselves, to demand more from the soil, to use more water,
more fertilizer etc.; Can the environment really sustain this kind of pressure in the long run?
__________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND:
Ester Boserup was not a professional economic historian and this
is not properly speaking a work of history. Boserup was part of the
staff at the United Nations and she wrote the book out of her
experience as a consultant in developing countries. Usually, it is
labeled as "anti-Malthusian" and encapsulated with a sentence
such as "population growth causes agricultural growth." This is
undoubtedly an implication of her model and comes in handy to
scholars who do not believe that the (human) carrying capacity of
a given area is set, and cannot be exceeded.
THEORIES:
Boserup opposes Malthus' theory that states that the size and growth of a population
depends on the food supply and agricultural methods by arguing that agricultural
methods are dependent on the size of the population. Although Boserup is widely
regarded as being anti-Malthusian, both her insights and those of Malthus can be
comfortably combined within the same general theoretical framework.
Boserup also stated that in times of pressure, people will find ways to increase the
productivity of food by increasing machinery, the workforce, fertilizers etc. Where
Malthus believes that in these times when food supplies are insufficient, the extra
people will just die.

This graph shows how the rate of

food supply may vary but never
reaches its carrying
capacity because every time it is
getting near, there is an
invention or development that
causes the food supply to
increase. The more dense
population is, the more intensive
cultivation becomes. She argued
that when population density is
low enough to allow it, land tends
to be used intermittently, with
heavy reliance on fire to clear
fields and fallowing to restore
fertility (often called slash and
burn farming). Numerous studies have shown such methods to be favourable in total
workload and also efficiency (output versus input). In Boserup’s theory, it is only when
rising population density curtails the use of fallowing (and therefore the use of fire) that
fields are moved towards annual cultivation. Contending with insufficiently fallowed, less
fertile plots, covered with grass or bushes rather than forest, mandates expanded efforts
at fertilizing, field preparation, weed control, and irrigation. These changes often induce
agricultural innovation but increase marginal labour cost to the farmer as well: the
higher the rural population density, the more hours the farmer must work for the same
amount of produce. Therefore workloads tend to rise while efficiency drops. This
process of raising production at the cost of more work at lower efficiency is what
Boserup describes as "agricultural intensification". The theory has been instrumental in
understanding agricultural patterns in developing countries, although it is highly
simplified and generalized.
In Boserup’s theory, it is only when rising population density curtails the use of
fallowing (and therefore the use of fire) that fields are moved towards annual
cultivation - she suggests this happens in two ways:

First Way - change fallow times or stages - Forest Fallow, Bush Fallow, Short Fallow,
Annual Cropping, Multi-cropping. Contending with insufficiently fallowed, less fertile
plots, covered with grass or bushes rather than forest, mandates expanded efforts at
fertilizing, field preparation, weed control, and irrigation.

Second Way - New Farming Methods. These changes often induce agricultural
innovation but in LDC's these changes also increase marginal labour costs to the farmer
as well: the higher the rural population density, the more hours the farmer must work for
the same amount of produce. Therefore workloads tend to rise while efficiency drops.
This process of raising production at the cost of more work at lower efficiency is what
Boserup describes as "agricultural intensification". New Farming Methods can include:

 New Techniques - Hydroponics, weather control, improves irrigation (ground

water, canals), fertilization, pesticides, herbicides, machines, Green Revolution
(Hybrid seeds), GMO's, Green Houses, Desalination, stop Desertification, etc.
 New Organizations - Co-operatives, Agribusiness, Vertical Integration,
Communes, Kibbutz etc.
 Land Reform - Gavelkind laws (absentee landlords), Plantations,
 Development of Marginal Lands - Greenhouses, fertilization, irrigation, Global
Warming may help, etc.
 Cultivation of the Sea - Aquaculture
 Synthetic Foods - Chemicals to simulate, replicate food. EG. Cool Whip - no milk.
Question of nutrition.

Ester Boserup argued that changes and improvements occur from within agricultural
communities, and that improvements are governed not only by outside interference, but by those
communities themselves.

Using extensive analyses of the costs and productivity of the main systems of traditional
agriculture, Ester Boserup concludes that technical, economic and social changes are unlikely to
take place unless the community concerned is exposed to the pressure of population growth. In
sharp contrast to widely accepted ideas, she shows how population growth may be the main
stimulus to agrarian change. In developing this theme, the author identifies successive stages of
agriculture, characterized by differences in techniques of cultivation and in social structure and
show how they can be explained by differences in population density. This book is of relevance
not only to economists, but also to historians interested in the way present changes in agrarian
communities parallel those of the past.

Examples:
A household has to work more to keep the same level of income. The intensification
(one stage to another due to population growth) brings about an improvement in tools
(from the digging stick, to the hoe, to the plough) and in the long run also brings some
investments in land improvement (e.g. irrigation schemes). With pre-industrial
technology, land improvements had to be done manually by peasants. ]

On a global level the growing suffering and famine in some LEDC’s may reinforce Malthusian
ideas. On a national scale some governments have been motivated by increasing populations to
develop their resources to meet growing demands.

Boserup’s idea is based upon field studies in Southeast Asia and she developed her
idea under a number of assumptions. “The Green Revolution in Asian countries using
HYV (hybrid) seeds from Mexico & the Philippines are seen as evidence to support
Boserup. Food production in India has been rising faster than population in the 80’s and
90’s”.
Arguments:
"The model has its own weaknesses. It is surely convincing as an account of long-term
growth. It is less convincing as an explanation of short-term trends, and in this case the
"short" term can last for decades."
"In her world, intensification is possible up to a point, but sooner or later it has to reach a limit."
"One may speculate that she was more interested in less developed countries than in advanced
countries, or simply she did not want to add a stage which could not fit easily in a model based
on the length of fallow.”
"Boserup seems to neglect the different nature of modern technology or, if you want, the new
role of capital. Her world is a two-factor world -- labor and land. "
"Boserup assumes that population growth is exogenous, following a standard practice among
economists in pre-Beckerian time. Today, however, most consider population growth to be
endogenous, and largely affected by economic calculations. People could reduce population
increase by delaying marriages, controlling births, migrating and the like. Slower population
growth would, ceteris paribus, reduce the drive to agricultural intensification."
"Unfortunately, the places with the food shortages tend to have low-tech agriculture, and the
high-tech parts of the world tend to have high living standards and plenty of food."
"Some point, the population may get so huge that they can't be fed no matter how inventive they
are. Indeed to feed more mouths people have to dig deeper into the environment, to divert more
biological productivity for themselves, to demand more from the soil, to use more water, more
fertilizer etc., etc., Can the environment really sustain this kind of pressure in the long run?"