Population problems are imaginary

The argument that population retards economic growth is dangerous. This contradicts all the facts and evidence in front of us. Many sparsely populated countries are incredibly poor. Whether a nation is poor or rich depends on the availability of economic framework that provides incentives for working hard and taking risks. The key elements of such framework are economic liberty, secured property rights and fair and sensible rules of the market that are enforced equally. The argument that population retards economic growth is dangerous, writes Thompson Ayodele and Olusegun Sotola in The Guardian. For the past three decades, there have been debates whether there is a link between population and economic growth. The argument has been that increased population retards economic growth. This assertion is dangerous.
It merely draws attention away from the real barriers to economic growth. An increase in population is an impetus for growth. The pattern of population growth in Nigeria in the last two decades does not indicate that an increase in population will lead to demographic disaster.
Between 1991 and 2008, Nigeria population increased from 88 million to 150 million, an increase of about 70 per cent. If an increase of about 70 per cent in 17 years did not have demographic effect, then the argument that demographic disaster will occur in 2050 when the population climbs to 213million (an increase of 42 per cent in 44 years) seems not to hold water.
On the contrary, the problem is not too many people but lack of economic freedom. Therefore, the usual gloom-doom associated with increased in population is largely misplaced.
In actual fact, a long-term outlook of Nigeria population indicates the likelihood of a decline. The population increased by over 70 per cent between 1991 and 2008 (17 Years), and it will be growing by only 42 per cent in 44 years. Contrary to this, research has shown that the more the people, the more the prosperity. It is more likely to see highly creative and innovative people in China, India, Indonesia and Nigeria than other small countries.
Across the world, there are more millionaires in big cities than sparsely populated countryside.  It may interest us to know that famine and starvation has occurred in sparsely populated countries than densely populated ones. Julian Simon, in one of his publications, argues that less people don’t actually bring about economic growth. He rhetorically asks: why are our ancestors not more prosperous when they were just a few thousands on the planet?
The implication of reduced population in economic term is on entrepreneurship and economic development. This will limit the market prospects for future products. Increased in the number of newborns alone can stimulate the economy. They can create market for some set of goods which interlink with the whole economy. More importantly, they grow up into productive work force. They marry, pay tax, defend the country against external aggression and care for the elderly.
The beliefs that high population density breads poverty flew in the face of facts. If population density causes poverty, Japan and Hong Kong should be the poorest parts of the world today. These are areas with high population density but highly prosperous despite limited landmass. Practical examples exist in aged society. Many developed economies are at present promoting population growth. This is noticeable in some Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries
where policy makers have designed policies aimed at arresting the ageing population. A perfect example is Australia. Since May 2004 Australia government has announced a “Baby Bonus” policy, paying women an initial A$3,000 per new child. The campaign since 2004 has been tagged: one baby for your husband and one for your wife and one for the country.
It is incontrovertible that human beings are the ultimate resource. Other resources are useless without human innovation and exertion. An increase human’s number should therefore not be viewed as a disaster. The population problem is a bogeyman. It prevents us from seeing human beings as the ultimate resource. Rather proponents of high population encourage people to think that people are a burden who are incapable of changing their economic conditions without government help. However, the truth remains that government is the big problem.
It is government policies which hinder wealth creation that are keeping the people poor, under-achieved and less innovative. Whether a nation is poor or rich depends on the availability of economic framework that provides incentives for working hard and taking risks. The key elements of such framework are economic liberty, secured property rights and fair and sensible rules of the market that are enforced equally.