Ester Boserup's theory of agrarian change: a critical review
Grigg, D.
Progress in Human Geography 3(1): 64-84
1979
ISSN/ISBN: 0309-1325 PMID: 12311646 DOI: 10.1177/030913257900300103Document Number: 466823
As discussions of the positive effect of population growth upon agricutural change have been less common than focus on the negative effects, Ester Boserup's book, "The Conditions of Agricultural Growth," and her subsequent work in which it is argued that population growth is the prime cause of agricultural change is of great importance. The objective of this essay is to review earlier attempts to relate the intensification of agriculture to population growth, to outline Boserup's theory, and to examine the criticisms which have been made of the theory. Boserup maintains that population growth is the cause rather than the result of agricultural change and that the principal change is the intensification of land use. The theory of agricultural development posed by Boserup is more subtle and complex than that of any of her predecessors. She sees population pressure as a major cause of change in land use, agricultural technology, land tenure systems, and settlement form. Boserup argues that population growth is independent of food supply and that population increase is a cause of changes in agriculture. The principal means of increasing agricultural output is intensification. Boserup's work has had a varied response from readers; other economists have been less than enthusiastic. It might seem as if the critics of Boserup's theory have left it in tatters. Her central argument, that intensification reduces labor productivity, remains unproven. There are few who would agree that an increase in the frequency of cropping is the only possible response to population pressure; the extensive margin can be extended, higher yielding crops adopted, and methods that increase yields introduced independently of increases in the frequency of cropping. Emigration or the control of numbers may relieve population pressure. Intensification can also take place without population pressure, under the stimulus of urban growth or the development of trade. It is difficult to accept that population pressure is the only cause or agrarian change or that the increased frequency of cropping is the only response to population pressure, yet the thesis is a fruitful interpretation of agrarian change. Assuming population growth as a change mechanism can lead to important new conclusions regarding the nature of agrarian change in western European history.