Kling and Pritchett (1995) debate conflicting theories of population growth’s affects on economic growth, performance, output per capita, and other variables. Central to their debate are the exceptions to the Malthusian based theory that population growth results in lower standards of living. They acknowledge the revisionist, or Neo-Malthusian, belief that deleterious effects on economic growth and performance only occur under the proper conditions. However, they challenge this belief, calling out the absence of empirical support. They call for empirical support and then “suggest a method for the search for the instability of the regression over samples is to search for a variable to divide the sample and examine whether one finds plausible differences in the coefficients across the two sub samples.” This notion sought a variable capable of equating factors that represent the affects of population growth with the goal of scaling the factors and determining their relative associations.
Pritchett (1994) takes a close look at the affects of population growth rates on output per worker and capital per worker, with references to other affected variables. Pritchett presents the notion that population growth need not result in a negative manner for the economy of a developing nation. “Measures of capital suggest that, in developing countries, capital per worker grew more rapidly when population growth was rapid.” Meanwhile, his findings in this paper further support his work with Kling, in Kling and Pritchett (1995), as discussed below. His findings support the lack of a dependable variable in identifying where population growth will be bad. “There is no correlation between the rate of capital accumulation per worker and the rate of population growth.”
Pritchett (1994) identified other variables that are not correlated with population growth, such as physical capital per worker and growth in schooling the labor force. Pritchett (1994) does identify one “mildly negatively related” variable to rapid population growth: growth in output per worker. This work, however, is not considered very heavily in Kling and Pritchett (1995).
Kling and Pritchett set out on a quest to find some measurable variable that indicates where population growth will be bad. They note that Kuznets (1967) “…found no correlation between population growth and economic performance.” They also note a very minor association of population growth rate and GDP per capita growth from origins of the now developed countries. Kling and Pritchett’s research then reveals that “higher population growth is not associated with significantly less rapid growth rates of output per capita.” The importance of understanding the many variables capable of afflicting and influencing economic development and performance echoes throughout the paper. It is with this attitude that Kling and Pritchett remind us that, “many low population growth countries also had low per capita growth while many high population growth countries also had high per capita growth.” Thus, while rapid population growths can have deleterious effects, so too can they have beneficial effects under different circumstances.
Kling and Pritchett ultimately conclude that, there simply exists no empirical evidence to support any “plausible conjectures” of the general effect of population growth on a given and dependable variable. Kling and Pritchett suggest prioritizing the identification of those countries where population growth might impose the greatest negative effects.