Anthony Browne

The following is an excerpt of an article published in Population Press.

Studies by the OECD show there is no correlation between population size and GDP per capita. If big populations create wealth, then the world’s most populous countries, China and India, would be the richest, not among the poorest. Many low-population countries, such as Norway and Switzerland, are very wealthy. Ireland, with only four million people, has overtaken Britain’s 60 million in GDP per capita. By far the smallest member of the European Union, Luxembourg, is also by far the wealthiest.

Once, countries needed large populations for military strength in a hostile world: large numbers of people meant large armies. Women in Victorian Britain were urged to lie back and think of England so that they could help sustain an overstretched empire. Women in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were urged to have babies to promote the power of their country. But with kill-by-satellite, large armies don’t matter; with international peace treaties, being small no longer means being vulnerable.

Political leaders still like large populations because it enhances their prestige, and their negotiating power. Nowhere is this better seen than on a local level-for example, Quebec is promoting population growth as a form of demographic warfare against Anglophone Canada. Leaders of Midwestern US states with falling populations want to reverse the trend so they can become more important on the national stage.

The same is true on the international level. Canada has an explicit program of rapid population growth so that it can hold its own against its domineering neighbor. Australian leaders want more citizens so they can hold their own against the vast populations of India, China, Indonesia and Malaysia.

Read the full article here.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Khaw Boon Wan: Train system is a complicated engineering piece of work, “it will fail sometimes, hopefully rarely. But it will fail.”

Minister for Transport Khaw Boon Wan in his speech at the 5th…

零工经济和电动滑板车禁令下的收入困境

自本月5日起,电动滑板车禁止在行人道上驾驶,这间接影响了GrabFood送餐员的生活,甚者有者感叹因为部长一句话,而失去了上千元的收入。 一名以GrabFood送餐员维生的网民希瓦(Siva),于脸书发文有关禁用电动滑板车一事对送餐员的影响,此文一出立即引发网民热议,但从他的分享也得以知道,送餐员的薪资竟比一般工薪阶级更高。 据希瓦表示,他在担任送餐员的过程,每月至少会有3500元的固定收入,比起以前在办公司担任白领工作的2200元更高。 再对比人力部职业工资调查(The Occupational Wage Survey),如果希瓦所言属实,他所挣收入恐怕比起清洁工与劳工、司机、工地工头的所得还要高,甚至还比秘书、服务及销售人员都高。 数据显示,公共巴士司机与罗厘司机的收入,平均是1600元至2400元;而一名餐厅服务员的收入则达1400元,均低于送餐员的收入,加上送餐员的上班时间弹性,让单亲父母能够暂时解决时间的问题,如此看来,虽然送餐员工作并非正职,但这未免不是一份“好工作”。 尽管希瓦表示已尽量遵照当局设下的一系列条规,但自禁用令开始后,希瓦担忧收入将大幅缩水,尤其在现在劳动市场低靡,人人求职不易的年代,更是难以寻求新出路。   劳动力市场低靡  国人转向零工经济…

年轻时有骑脚车被撞后逃经历 余振忠冀探讨完善脚踏车道、提升道路使用者醒觉

前非选区议员余振忠: 个人代步工具(PMD)近日由于一些“错误”的原因频频上头条。个人代步工具一开始较低调,但随着陆交局2013年为了能够鼓励步行与骑脚踏车,而开始有所增长。最后,当局于2017年时通过《活跃通勤法》,允许个人代步工具用户及送餐公司使用行人道,并且限速每小时15公里。 自此,行人道意外大增,也促使政府数度反复政策,直至今年11月5日起,电动滑板车才正式禁止在行人道上使用。 那我作为一名驾驶者、脚踏车、行人以及个人代步工具用户,我分享我个人看法。 我也是偶尔使用个人代步工具而已,那是我女儿的,她平常用来通勤到她距离不到一公里距离的上班地点。当然,在电动滑板车禁令发布后,由于路线无法与自行车连接后,她索性将之兑换成现金。比较可惜的是,这确实是她上下班最便捷的方式,而且我也数次使用她的个人代步工具,用于短途行程,过程都相当顺利便捷,而且没有出现过任何事故。 与此同时,自我年轻开始,我也是一名脚踏车骑士,除了可以做运动,它也可以让我通勤。我对于骑士上路的安全性一直相当担心,因为我们的道路本来就对骑士非常不友善,而且开车司机往往相当不耐烦。我有此担忧,也是因为我年轻时曾发生过严重车祸,当时我仍在上大学,正在我家附近,勿洛地区附近骑脚车。一辆载着工人的罗厘飞快地从我身边掠过,擦撞我脚车的侧面,也把我撞倒在路上。 年轻时骑脚踏车曾出车祸 当时我明显听到工人以福建话向着司机表示,“撞倒了,快点跑”,是的,就是所谓的肇事逃逸。一切发生在电光火石间,我来不及看见车牌号码,我的脚车手柄也损毁了,身上还带有伤痕,但庆幸没有任何骨折。在惊吓后,我将手柄放回去,再推着脚车回家。自此之后,我变得相当谨慎。换言之,我也会开始降速。 当我加入国会时,我针对脚踏车道与共享道路课题提出更多建议与呼吁。我记得在我其中一次的发言后,时任淡滨尼集选区议员伍碧虹向我透露,她听到我的发言后感到欣慰,因为有更多议员为骑脚车的人发言了。她表示这段时间来,只有她一人在倡导这件事,而当时的淡滨尼社区被誉为是新加坡首个脚踏车市镇,拥有比其他社区更多的脚车道。 然而,无论是在我、还是她或是其他人的反映下,政府给予的回应是,“我们确实有在新加坡大部分地区设立公园联道”。是的,这是一项相当好的休闲设施,但它能解决日常通勤工作、购物或载孩子上下课吗?不,多数都无法做到,所以还是必须回到危险及不友善的道路上行驶。 脚车用户通勤、出行的不便 因此,当我每次看见国家发展部为私人地产拨出资金进行升级时,我就纳闷为何他们不考虑提升脚车道呢。据我所知,弗兰克园(Frankel…

An ageing population? – Part 4

~by: Gordon Lee~ Welcome to the last part of this article. In…