Excellent article Charles.

But I’d like to know which country is represented by the dot in the top righthand corner of your graph, which has both the highest population growth rate and the highest per-capita economic growth.

I would assume that the measurement of per-capita growth is purely in dollar terms and doesn’t take into account inflation or non-fiscal factors. I certainly can’t believe that in Australia we have seen a 60% per-capita improvement between 1997 and 2007 in average per-person ecomomic gain in real terms or improvements in quality of life that are supposed to stem from it.

But the point is well made - that there is a very poor correlation between population growth and per-capita improvements.
----

Spot on Leigh.
----

<< Even the most cursory glance at the reality of these countries' economies exposes the shallowness of the argument that population control is a factor. >>

Pericles, of course there are other factors. But your post, as well researched and composed as it is, doesn’t discount the assertion that a stable population or very low growth rate is indeed a major factor.

Charles Berger's argument is garbage because the comparison between Australia and the EU countries just doesn't stack up. Of course an EU would be going fine with a smallish population they have direct access to the large EU common market which means that people and trade flows easily through their country. We haven't got anything like that working for us on our giant continent where we are the only countryi.

An ageing population is a major problem for us so we need extra workers, who in turn will have children etc at the replacement rate. We can hold 36 million. We do have enough water we just need to be a lot more intelligent about how we manage it. We waste a lot of water in Australia. We use good drinking water on gardens when we could recycle water. We lose a lot of rain water in our drainage system. We don't want to drink recycled water.

Worse still more than half of Australia's population lives in just 5 cities. But the cities surrounding them, liku the smaller towns are ignored. People and jobs could be moved out there. We can do it. We just don't have the brains or the guts to invest in nfrastructure and to plan ahead. We just like scoring cheap points. Thats why these greenies, anti-immigrationists, and closet n not so closet racists are banding together against population growth.

I see this as just part of an obsession with growth - absence of growth in almost any economic parameter is seen as evidence of stagnation and inevitably of decay. But is there or has there ever been any system in which exponential growth will not or has not already led to collapse?

Pericles: I'm didn't claim that a stable population is the cause of Norway's economic prosperity, I cited it as an example of a country where a stable population is consistent with economic prosperity.

You're right that the causes of Norway's prosperity include prudent investment of revenue from non-renewable resources, an abundance of renewable energy resources, and great transport infrastructure despite a challenging climate and topography. So which of those things don't apply (or couldn't apply) to Australia?

(And yes, they're tremendous greenhouse polluters, though not quite so bad as we are.)

Ludwig: It's official OECD data on per-capita economic growth, and yes I think it is before inflation and exchange rate fluctuations. The data point at the top right of the chart is Ireland - booming economy during this period due to low tax regime within EU and a tech boom, which fuelled migration, including the return of quite a few Irish expats.

jjplug: not convinced that an ageing population requires more workers... I refer to Peter MacDonald, one of Australia's leading demographers, on this question: "it is important that the message is heard that our population cannot be kept young through immigration. The problem is that immigrants, like the rest of the population, get older and as they do, to keep the population young, we would need an increasingly higher number of immigrants. … It is demographic nonsense to believe that immigration can help to keep our population young."

An ageing population will require us to be creative and compassionate. It may require some reprioritisation of our considerable wealth and economic success. More migration won't solve the problem, and in the long term will exacerbate it.

Weasel words, Mr Berger.

>>Pericles: I'm didn't claim that a stable population is the cause of Norway's economic prosperity, I cited it as an example of a country where a stable population is consistent with economic prosperity.<<

"Consistent with" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

It's akin saying that Zimbabwe's vast mineral resources are "consistent with economic prosperity".

Either there is, or there is not, causality.

If there is no causality, as you are happy to allow, then your question "why can't Australia be more like Norway" is without merit.

You even admit this here:

>>...the causes of Norway's prosperity include prudent investment of revenue from non-renewable resources, an abundance of renewable energy resources, and great transport infrastructure despite a challenging climate and topography. So which of those things don't apply (or couldn't apply) to Australia?<<

All of the above variables apply exactly to the condition in which we find ourselves. We sit on our hands, do nothing, and blame "population".

The paradox is, of course, that if we were able to make any headway as a country on these key issues, we would be able to sustain a considerable multiple of our present number.

And Leigh, you are being unduly pessimistic.

>>It’s not a case of governments ‘might not’ be able to provide enough water and infrastructure; it is a definite will not.<<

As far as water is concerned, we are constrained substantially by government diktat - the "no dams" policy. For centuries, civilizations around the world have built dams in order to provide their water supplies. Where's the logic that says "hey, I know we are short of water, but you're not allowed to collect any..."

Blaming "population" is a cop-out. Using it to further an anti-immigration policy is dishonest.

Although I generally agree with the author's arguments,Norway is definitely a special case it's an oil kingdom with polar bears, it's not your average OECD nation.

When politicians say that "Australia's economy is growing",they're certainly not referring to per growth in per capita GDP which is somewhat unimpressive.High population growth is simply the easy way for lazy politicians to claim "progress".The real measure is how much each citizen benefits from this growth--not much when the dysfunctions of a high rate of population increase are considered. When the world is consolidating into trading blocs of billions of consumers it's difficult to see the advantage of adding a few hundred thousand people to this old tired desert.There are too many vested interests promoting high immigration because it increases their profits at a cost to the nation.

Economics is not a science, so let's be sceptical about economic modelling and as the author suggests, refer to real national economies.