Both articles, Jeff Kling and Lant Prichett’s, “Where in the World is Population Growth Bad?” (1995), and Prichett’s, “Population, Factor Accumulation and Productivity” (1994), examine the possible relationship between population growth and the growth of output per a worker. Though the tests use different variables, both articles conclude that population growth has a weak correlation with the growth of output per a worker. The two articles reach this conclusion, by running regression analysis on various independent variables to determine if the growth rate of the population can lead to improving a countries output per a worker. The tests examine such independent variables as, per capita income, land endowment per individual, physical capital, and years of schooling. Despite popular belief, the results are not statistically significant to prove that the population growth has an effect on the output per a worker.
Kling and Prichett’s article examines the instances when population growth will worsen economic performance; however, they fail to find in any instance when population growth will be bad. Kling and Prichett’s test the effect of population growth by region, by landownership per a person, and by changes in time. Testing various regions proved that there is no significant evidence that population growth is worse in some countries and better in others. Additionally, ownership of land did not result in proving that land ownership has a statistically significant effect on output. Finally, while testing time changes, Kling and Prichett generated interesting data on the labor force growth in 1980s, but the data could not predict whether this effect will be applicable in the future.
The article reaches the conclusion that growth in the labor force has a small, but insignificant effect on the growth of output per a worker. Additionally, one cannot prove that a policy that works in one country will have the same effect in another. Most importantly, Kling and Prichett state that reducing the population growth should be a priority in those countries where it will have a positive effect; however, it is hard to determine if the policy will actually succeed in a certain country.
The second article, written solely by Prichett, examines the effect of population growth on the marginal output per a worker; and, like the first article, it proves that population growth is weakly negatively related to growth in output. Prichett examines the relationships between population growth and such independent variables as, the growth of capital per worker on population growth, education in the labor force, and the impact of population growth on the growth residual. Despite popular belief that there is a fixed amount of capital and quality of education, Prichett’s work proves otherwise. His investigation in these three areas proves that there is no limit to capital or to the quality of education. Prichett’s article establishes the misconceptions with common population theory. Actually, his research states that there is a weak negative relationship between these factors and population growth. Prichett questions the validity of popular theory about population growth.
Both Kling and Prichett’s article, “Where in the World is Population Growth Bad?” and “Population, Factor Accumulation and Accountability” have similar conclusions, and their stories illustrate the difficulty in forming population policy. Currently, there is a common misconception that population growth will decrease output per a worker. However, these articles prove that there is a weak correlation between population growth and production. The two articles demonstrate the problem with modern theory and difficulty in correcting for it.
Kling, Jeff and Prichett, Lant, “Where in the World is Population Growth Bad?”, World Bank, 1995.
Prichett, Lant, “Population, Factor Accumulation and Productivity”, World Bank Working Paper, September 28, 1994, pp.1-31.