Malthusian Dynamism and the Rise of Europe: Make War, Not Love

Malthusian conditions are a byword for stagnation. We argue that this view is wrong. Europe’s relative riches in 1700 are best understood as the result of Malthusian forces favoring high per capita output. Favorable shifts in mortality and fertility schedules were responsible. Incomes between 1300 and 1800 rose because of two related but distinct European “inventions”—a peculiar marriage pattern and a specific mortality regime. These interacted with the political, social, and economic environment in such a way as to make higher equilibrium incomes sustainable. Even in a simple Malthusian world, incomes can change, but only in the short run. They did so markedly after the Black Death. As landlabor ratios rose in an economy subject to strong declining marginal returns, workers became more productive. Income after 1350 rose— perhaps by as much as a factor of three (Henry Phelps-Brown and Sheila V. Hopkins 1981; Gregory Clark 2005). In a Malthusian world where land-labor ratios are a prime determinant of income levels, such riches should not last. Birth rates increase; death rates fall. Population rises in response to the windfall. Eventually, the economy returns to the previous equilibrium, with identical wages and population size.