What do you think?
Rate this book
Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure
First published in 1965
Hardcover
First published June 1, 1965
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 21, 2019
(PDF to be found here) I've been letting The Conditions of Agricultural Growth digest for a while before reviewing it. I have no background whatsoever when it comes to agronomy and Boserup's study is obviously quite dated, so I have no scientific criterium whatsoever to hold it to. Why bother with it, then, though? Primarily because her Malthusian adversaries have much less still to back up their views with.
Malthus models population growth as an exponentially steepening curve, only hemmed in by the carrying capacity of the environment. Once the bucket is nearly full, the absolute limit is reached, and should a society rely on technological intervention to temporarily push upward the rim, it will still spill over – the real carrying capacity can only be ignored for so long. The moral of this theory is devious: the poor should be left to their own devices or, preferably, stopped from breeding, as throwing them a bone will only come back to bite society in its ass in the form of massive starvation and unrest. Most places in the world are, he implies, naturally very close to the carrying capacity of the land. Boserup's counter-model is as simple as it is elegant: the carrying capacity of a given soil or area is not a fixed value but rather a historical variable, and by changing techniques a growing civilization makes trade-offs between labour productivity, soil fertility and the breadth of agricultural surface required. Thus, the earliest agricultural societies depended on long fallow periods (acres are only sown and harvested every few decades, so as to allow the fertility to recuperate normally) and fire-clearing. This resulted in a minimum of labour input in exchange for enough produce. As population density increases and the spatial requirements of long-fallow agriculture become too high, societies are not forced to migrate or starve (as Malthus would have it) but rather to intensify their agricultural practice, either by introducing more technological input or by shortening fallow periods (which in the final analysis also necessitates irrigation and artificial fertilization). As the cheapest and simplest innovations are chosen first, the marginal benefits of every subsequent innovation lessen and relative labour productivity per crop decreases even as absolute crop yield shoots up. This intensification (rather than extension) of agriculture does not necessarily lead to soil exhaustion.
What Boserup does so magically is explaining this process in a historically-materialist fashion, without even once citing Marx or Engels (the closest she comes to this is a few references to Adam Smith). She navigates conversations about “primitive” and Global South agriculture without once resorting to idealist essentialist shortcuts, always underlining the role of necessity and contingency. The collapse of agricultural economies in certain peripheral countries is not explained by referring to perceived laziness or lack of foresight but (even though she lacks an awareness of imperialism) by contextualizing it in the framework of lower returns on labour in agriculture (compared to urban work). The material reproduction of society and a notion of ecological-societal metabolism are always implicitly part of the framework, and as such Boserup’s study streamlines incredibly naturally with Marx’s own ecology or Vernadsky’s holistic “biosphere”.
We can’t have our cake and it too, however. That Boserup is not a Marxist becomes apparent in her reification of population growth, which is deemed to be a constant, and her erasure of class. The natural companion to The Conditions of Agricultural Growth is Engels’ Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, as its discussion of historical property relations is a scientific study, while the scientificity of Boserup stops at her linking population growth and labour techniques – when she tries to explain how population growth fosters hierarchies, her analysis falls flat on its face, and she doesn’t attempt to tackle the question of how class and population growth interact at all.
Nevertheless, the model she proposes is solid and thought-provoking, and any Marxist worth their salt knows to sift the materialist from the idealist within one and the same text. Recommended.
Malthus models population growth as an exponentially steepening curve, only hemmed in by the carrying capacity of the environment. Once the bucket is nearly full, the absolute limit is reached, and should a society rely on technological intervention to temporarily push upward the rim, it will still spill over – the real carrying capacity can only be ignored for so long. The moral of this theory is devious: the poor should be left to their own devices or, preferably, stopped from breeding, as throwing them a bone will only come back to bite society in its ass in the form of massive starvation and unrest. Most places in the world are, he implies, naturally very close to the carrying capacity of the land. Boserup's counter-model is as simple as it is elegant: the carrying capacity of a given soil or area is not a fixed value but rather a historical variable, and by changing techniques a growing civilization makes trade-offs between labour productivity, soil fertility and the breadth of agricultural surface required. Thus, the earliest agricultural societies depended on long fallow periods (acres are only sown and harvested every few decades, so as to allow the fertility to recuperate normally) and fire-clearing. This resulted in a minimum of labour input in exchange for enough produce. As population density increases and the spatial requirements of long-fallow agriculture become too high, societies are not forced to migrate or starve (as Malthus would have it) but rather to intensify their agricultural practice, either by introducing more technological input or by shortening fallow periods (which in the final analysis also necessitates irrigation and artificial fertilization). As the cheapest and simplest innovations are chosen first, the marginal benefits of every subsequent innovation lessen and relative labour productivity per crop decreases even as absolute crop yield shoots up. This intensification (rather than extension) of agriculture does not necessarily lead to soil exhaustion.
What Boserup does so magically is explaining this process in a historically-materialist fashion, without even once citing Marx or Engels (the closest she comes to this is a few references to Adam Smith). She navigates conversations about “primitive” and Global South agriculture without once resorting to idealist essentialist shortcuts, always underlining the role of necessity and contingency. The collapse of agricultural economies in certain peripheral countries is not explained by referring to perceived laziness or lack of foresight but (even though she lacks an awareness of imperialism) by contextualizing it in the framework of lower returns on labour in agriculture (compared to urban work). The material reproduction of society and a notion of ecological-societal metabolism are always implicitly part of the framework, and as such Boserup’s study streamlines incredibly naturally with Marx’s own ecology or Vernadsky’s holistic “biosphere”.
We can’t have our cake and it too, however. That Boserup is not a Marxist becomes apparent in her reification of population growth, which is deemed to be a constant, and her erasure of class. The natural companion to The Conditions of Agricultural Growth is Engels’ Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, as its discussion of historical property relations is a scientific study, while the scientificity of Boserup stops at her linking population growth and labour techniques – when she tries to explain how population growth fosters hierarchies, her analysis falls flat on its face, and she doesn’t attempt to tackle the question of how class and population growth interact at all.
Nevertheless, the model she proposes is solid and thought-provoking, and any Marxist worth their salt knows to sift the materialist from the idealist within one and the same text. Recommended.
December 1, 2017
This is a dense, academic treatment of a seemingly simple, yet key, tenet of the Theory of Population developed by Malthus. Boserup effectively turns Malthus upside down. Malthus regards the the food supply as inelastic, so the food supply limits (or drives) population growth--the food supply is the independent variable and population growth is the dependent variable. Boserup, on the other hand, sees reality as quite the opposite, where "population growth is here regarded as the independent variable which in its turn is a major factor determining agricultural developments."
While this might seem like a trivial distinction, which direction the arrow of causation points has immense consequences for the study of history and the social sciences. What drew me to this book was its ubiquity in the bibliographies of recent "big history" writers and their influnces (Ian Morris, Yuval Noah Harari, Francis Fukuyama, David Christian). I was not let down by the clarity of understanding this book has provided in untangling the theoretical roots of of major arguments in their works. Having read dozens of arguments that referenced Boserup, I figured it was essential reading.
"A-ha" moments abound in this book. Again, it is so dense that if it has not already been done, someone could publish an annotated version, adding 200-300 pages of clarification and more textured historical examples to make it more digestible for the casual reader. That said, you need to take your time with this one and really digest her argument. It represents the most valid challenge to Malthus' theory and continues to persevere, preventing the Malthusian view from being the only game in town. 5 STARS. But, not necessarily for the casual reader.
Available as a free pdf at http://www.biw.kuleuven.be/aee/clo/id...
Quotes:
p. 86 “In fact, it is a valid generalization to say that in feudal economies the most prosperous periods are those when population is rising rapidly, and much land clearing, irrigation and terracing of hillsides is going on. In periods of rapid population increase, the desire for additional soldiers and luxuries can, more easily than in periods of stagnant population, be satis¯ed without depopulation of the villages and neglect of agriculture. In other words, population growth often seems to be the cause of prosperity, in sharp contrast to the causation from prosperity to population growth and poverty, which was suggested by Malthus.”
p. 104 “We have found that it is unrealistic to regard agricultural cultivation systems as adaptations to different natural conditions, and that cultivation systems can be more plausibly explained as the result of differences in population density: As long as the population of a given area is very sparse, food can be produced with little input of labour per unit of output and with virtually no capital investment, since a very long fallow period helps to preserve soil fertility. As the density of population in the area increases, the fertility of the soil can no longer be preserved by means of long fallow and it becomes necessary to introduce other systems which require a much larger agricultural labour force. By the gradual change from systems where each cultivated plot is matched by twenty similar plots under fallow to systems where no fallow is necessary, the population within a given area can double several times without having to face either starvation or lack of employment opportunities in agriculture.”
p. 105 the complex changes which are taking place when primitive communities change over to a system of shorter fallow are more likely to raise labour costs per unit of output than to reduce them. Therefore, it seems implausible to explain upwards changes in rates of population growth as a result of this type of agrarian change. It is more sensible to regard the process of agricultural change in primitive communities as an adaptation to gradually increasing population densities, brought about by changes in the rates of natural population growth or by immigration.”
While this might seem like a trivial distinction, which direction the arrow of causation points has immense consequences for the study of history and the social sciences. What drew me to this book was its ubiquity in the bibliographies of recent "big history" writers and their influnces (Ian Morris, Yuval Noah Harari, Francis Fukuyama, David Christian). I was not let down by the clarity of understanding this book has provided in untangling the theoretical roots of of major arguments in their works. Having read dozens of arguments that referenced Boserup, I figured it was essential reading.
"A-ha" moments abound in this book. Again, it is so dense that if it has not already been done, someone could publish an annotated version, adding 200-300 pages of clarification and more textured historical examples to make it more digestible for the casual reader. That said, you need to take your time with this one and really digest her argument. It represents the most valid challenge to Malthus' theory and continues to persevere, preventing the Malthusian view from being the only game in town. 5 STARS. But, not necessarily for the casual reader.
Available as a free pdf at http://www.biw.kuleuven.be/aee/clo/id...
Quotes:
p. 86 “In fact, it is a valid generalization to say that in feudal economies the most prosperous periods are those when population is rising rapidly, and much land clearing, irrigation and terracing of hillsides is going on. In periods of rapid population increase, the desire for additional soldiers and luxuries can, more easily than in periods of stagnant population, be satis¯ed without depopulation of the villages and neglect of agriculture. In other words, population growth often seems to be the cause of prosperity, in sharp contrast to the causation from prosperity to population growth and poverty, which was suggested by Malthus.”
p. 104 “We have found that it is unrealistic to regard agricultural cultivation systems as adaptations to different natural conditions, and that cultivation systems can be more plausibly explained as the result of differences in population density: As long as the population of a given area is very sparse, food can be produced with little input of labour per unit of output and with virtually no capital investment, since a very long fallow period helps to preserve soil fertility. As the density of population in the area increases, the fertility of the soil can no longer be preserved by means of long fallow and it becomes necessary to introduce other systems which require a much larger agricultural labour force. By the gradual change from systems where each cultivated plot is matched by twenty similar plots under fallow to systems where no fallow is necessary, the population within a given area can double several times without having to face either starvation or lack of employment opportunities in agriculture.”
p. 105 the complex changes which are taking place when primitive communities change over to a system of shorter fallow are more likely to raise labour costs per unit of output than to reduce them. Therefore, it seems implausible to explain upwards changes in rates of population growth as a result of this type of agrarian change. It is more sensible to regard the process of agricultural change in primitive communities as an adaptation to gradually increasing population densities, brought about by changes in the rates of natural population growth or by immigration.”
Read
September 28, 2020optimistic perspective on the future of humanity
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews