Jacob Dearing
Dec. 16th, 2015
Critical Abstract #17
Article author: David Grigg
Article title: Ester Boserup’s Theory of Agrarian Change
In Ester Boserup’s theory she is fundamentally explaining the causes behind the transition from extensive agriculture, the subsistent amount of land and labor use, and intensive agriculture, a response to a demand from population density and development. The unique element in her argument, as David Grigg explains, is that she believes, “population growth is independent of the food supply” in that output does not cause the increase but changes in agricultural methods do. What I found most interesting behind Boserup’s argument is its similarities to the mathematical concept of optimization or the comparison of profit from increasing one unit of production to cost of increasing production. This is the defining point of Boserup’s argument as she claims that the damage and cost of intensification offsets the goal of increased profit. This is important; as a common belief of population growth is that it causes economic improvement. Also, like this mathematical concept, there are objectives and constraints, the objective being to increase output and the constraint being elements such as land quantity and quality which is an issue listed by the author as the decrease of a “fallow period” influences both.
David Grigg’s analysis of Boserup’s theory doesn’t seem to be aimed at discrediting it but at highlighting assumptions used within it that should be reevaluated. Some of these are assumptions of: consistent population growth, a unitary objective of cultivators, prioritization of leisure, and most importantly the theory is built on preindustrial cultivation practices. This is a diverse perspective on population growth effects and given its reconsideration could show interesting ideas.