Population, in human biology, the whole number of inhabitants occupying an area (such as a country or the world) and continually being modified by increases (births and immigrations) and losses (deaths and emigrations). As with any biological population, the size of a human population is limited by the supply of food, the effect of diseases, and other environmental factors. Human populations are further affected by social customs governing reproduction and by the technological developments, especially in medicine and public health, that have reduced mortality and extended the life span.
Few aspects of human societies are as fundamental as the size, composition, and rate of change of their populations. Such factors affect economic prosperity, health, education, family structure, crime patterns, language, culture—indeed, virtually every aspect of human society is touched upon by population trends.
The study of human populations is called demography—a discipline with intellectual origins stretching back to the 18th century, when it was first recognized that human mortality could be examined as a phenomenon with statistical regularities. Demography casts a multidisciplinary net, drawing insights from economics, sociology, statistics, medicine, biology, anthropology, and history. Its chronological sweep is lengthy: limited demographic evidence for many centuries into the past, and reliable data for several hundred years are available for many regions. The present understanding of demography makes it possible to project (with caution) population changes several decades into the future.
Basic components of population change
At its most basic level, the components of population change are few indeed. A closed population (that is, one in which immigration and emigration do not occur) can change according to the following simple equation: the population (closed) at the end of an interval equals the population at the beginning of the interval, plus births during the interval, minus deaths during the interval. In other words, only addition by births and reduction by deaths can change a closed population.
Populations of nations, regions, continents, islands, or cities, however, are rarely closed in the same way. If the assumption of a closed population is relaxed, in- and out-migration can increase and decrease population size in the same way as do births and deaths; thus, the population (open) at the end of an interval equals the population at the beginning of the interval, plus births during the interval, minus deaths, plus in-migrants, minus out-migrants. Hence the study of demographic change requires knowledge of fertility (births), mortality (deaths), and migration. These, in turn, affect not only population size and growth rates but also the composition of the population in terms of such attributes as sex, age, ethnic or racial composition, and geographic distribution.
Demographers distinguish between fecundity, the underlying biological potential for reproduction, and fertility, the actual level of achieved reproduction. (Confusingly, these English terms have opposite meanings from their parallel terms in French, where fertilité is the potential and fécondité is the realized; similarly ambiguous usages also prevail in the biological sciences, thereby increasing the chance of misunderstanding.) The difference between biological potential and realized fertility is determined by several intervening factors, including the following: (1) most women do not begin reproducing immediately upon the onset of puberty, which itself does not occur at a fixed age; (2) some women with the potential to reproduce never do so; (3) some women become widowed and do not remarry; (4) various elements of social behaviour restrain fertility; and (5) many human couples choose consciously to restrict their fertility by means of sexual abstinence, contraception, abortion, or sterilization.
The magnitude of the gap between potential and realized fertility can be illustrated by comparing the highest known fertilities with those of typical European and North American women in the late 20th century. A well-studied high-fertility group is the Hutterites of North America, a religious sect that views fertility regulation as sinful and high fertility as a blessing. Hutterite women who married between 1921 and 1930 are known to have averaged 10 children per woman. Meanwhile, women in much of Europe and North America averaged about two children per woman during the 1970s and 1980s—a number 80 percent less than that achieved by the Hutterites. Even the highly fertile populations of developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America produce children at rates far below that of the Hutterites.
The general message from such evidence is clear enough: in much of the world, human fertility is considerably lower than the biological potential. It is strongly constrained by cultural regulations, especially those concerning marriage and sexuality, and by conscious efforts on the part of married couples to limit their childbearing.
Dependable evidence on historical fertility patterns in Europe is available back to the 18th century, and estimates have been made for several earlier centuries. Such data for non-European societies and for earlier human populations are much more fragmentary. The European data indicate that even in the absence of widespread deliberate regulation there were significant variations in fertility among different societies. These differences were heavily affected by socially determined behaviours such as those concerning marriage patterns. Beginning in France and Hungary in the 18th century, a dramatic decline in fertility took shape in the more developed societies of Europe and North America, and in the ensuing two centuries fertility declines of fully 50 percent took place in nearly all of these countries. Since the 1960s fertility has been intentionally diminished in many developing countries, and remarkably rapid reductions have occurred in the most populous, the People’s Republic of China.
There is no dispute as to the fact and magnitudes of such declines, but theoretical explanation of the phenomena has proved elusive.
Biological factors affecting human fertility
- the age of onset of potential fertility (or fecundability in demographic terminology);
- the degree of fecundability—i.e., the monthly probability of conceiving in the absence of contraception;
- the incidence of spontaneous abortion and stillbirth;
- the duration of temporary infecundability following the birth of a child; and
- the age of onset of permanent sterility.
The age at which women become fecund apparently declined significantly during the 20th century; as measured by the age of menarche (onset of menstruation), British data suggest a decline from 16–18 years in the mid-19th century to less than 13 years in the late 20th century. This decline is thought to be related to improving standards of nutrition and health. Since the average age of marriage in western Europe has long been far higher than the age of menarche, and since most children are born to married couples, this biological lengthening of the reproductive period is unlikely to have had major effects upon realized fertility in Europe. In settings where early marriage prevails, however, declining age at menarche could increase lifetime fertility.
Fecundability also varies among women past menarche. The monthly probabilities of conception among newlyweds are commonly in the range of 0.15 to 0.25; that is, there is a 15–25-percent chance of conception each month. This fact is understandable when account is taken of the short interval (about two days) within each menstrual cycle during which fertilization can take place. Moreover, there appear to be cycles during which ovulation does not occur. Finally, perhaps one-third or more of fertilized ova fail to implant in the uterus or, even if they do implant, spontaneously abort during the ensuing two weeks, before pregnancy would be recognized. As a result of such factors, women of reproductive age who are not using contraceptive methods can expect to conceive within five to 10 months of becoming sexually active. As is true of all biological phenomena, there is surely a distribution of fecundability around average levels, with some women experiencing conception more readily than others.
Spontaneous abortion of recognized pregnancies and stillbirth also are fairly common, but their incidence is difficult to quantify. Perhaps 20 percent of recognized pregnancies fail spontaneously, most in the earlier months of gestation.
Following the birth of a child, most women experience a period of temporary infecundability, or biological inability to conceive. The length of this period seems to be affected substantially by breast-feeding. In the absence of breast-feeding, the interruption lasts less than two months. With lengthy, frequent breast-feeding it can last one or two years. This effect is thought to be caused by a complex of neural and hormonal factors stimulated by suckling.
A woman’s fecundability typically peaks in her 20s and declines during her 30s; by their early 40s as many as 50 percent of women are affected by their own or their husbands’ sterility. After menopause, essentially all women are sterile. The average age at menopause is in the late 40s, although some women experience it before reaching 40 and others not until nearly 60.
Contraceptive practices affect fertility by reducing the probability of conception. Contraceptive methods vary considerably in their theoretical effectiveness and in their actual effectiveness in use (“use-effectiveness”). Modern methods such as oral pills and intrauterine devices (IUDs) have use-effectiveness rates of more than 95 percent. Older methods such as the condom and diaphragm can be more than 90-percent effective when used regularly and correctly, but their average use-effectiveness is lower because of irregular or incorrect use.
The effect upon fertility of contraceptive measures can be dramatic: if fecundability is 0.20 (a 20-percent chance of pregnancy per month of exposure), then a 95-percent effective method will reduce this to 0.01 (a 1-percent chance).
Induced abortion reduces fertility not by affecting fecundability but by terminating pregnancy. Abortion has long been practiced in human societies and is quite common in some settings. The officially registered fraction of pregnancies terminated by abortion exceeds one-third in some countries, and significant numbers of unregistered abortions probably occur even in countries reporting very low rates.
Complete elimination of fecundability can be brought about by sterilization. The surgical procedures of tubal ligation and vasectomy have become common in diverse nations and cultures. In the United States, for example, voluntary sterilization has become the most prevalent single means of terminating fertility, typically adopted by couples who have achieved their desired family size. In India, sterilization has been encouraged on occasion by various government incentive programs and, for a short period during the 1970s, by quasi-coercive measures.
As noted above, the science of demography has its intellectual roots in the realization that human mortality, while consisting of unpredictable individual events, has a statistical regularity when aggregated across a large group. This recognition formed the basis of a wholly new industry—that of life assurance, or insurance. The basis of this industry is the life table, or mortality table, which summarizes the distribution of longevity—observed over a period of years—among members of a population. This statistical device allows the calculation of premiums—the prices to be charged the members of a group of living subscribers with specified characteristics, who by pooling their resources in this statistical sense provide their heirs with financial benefits.
Overall human mortality levels can best be compared by using the life-table measure life expectancy at birth (often abbreviated simply as life expectancy), the number of years of life expected of a newborn baby on the basis of current mortality levels for persons of all ages. Life expectancies of premodern populations, with their poor knowledge of sanitation and health care, may have been as low as 25–30 years. The largest toll of death was that exacted in infancy and childhood: perhaps 20 percent of newborn children died in their first 12 months of life and another 30 percent before they reached five years of age.
In the developing countries by the 1980s, average life expectancy lay in the range of 55 to 60 years, with the highest levels in Latin America and the lowest in Africa. In the same period, life expectancy in the developed countries of western Europe and North America approached 75 years, and fewer than 1 percent of newborn children died in their first 12 months.
For reasons that are not well understood, life expectancy of females usually exceeds that of males, and this female advantage has grown as overall life expectancy has increased. In the late 20th century this female advantage was seven years (78 years versus 71 years) in the industrial market economies (comprising western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand). It was eight years (74 years versus 66 years) in the nonmarket economies of eastern Europe.
The epidemiologic transition
The epidemiologic transition is that process by which the pattern of mortality and disease is transformed from one of high mortality among infants and children and episodic famine and epidemic affecting all age groups to one of degenerative and man-made diseases (such as those attributed to smoking) affecting principally the elderly. It is generally believed that the epidemiologic transitions prior to the 20th century (i.e., those in today’s industrialized countries) were closely associated with rising standards of living, nutrition, and sanitation. In contrast, those occurring in developing countries have been more or less independent of such internal socioeconomic development and more closely tied to organized health care and disease control programs developed and financed internationally. There is no doubt that 20th-century declines in mortality in developing countries have been far more rapid than those that occurred in the 19th century in what are now the industrialized countries.
Infant mortality is conventionally measured as the number of deaths in the first year of life per 1,000 live births during the same year. Roughly speaking, by this measure worldwide infant mortality approximates 80 per 1,000; that is, about 8 percent of newborn babies die within the first year of life.
This global average disguises great differences. In certain countries of Asia and Africa, infant mortality rates exceed 150 and sometimes approach 200 per 1,000 (that is, 15 or 20 percent of children die before reaching the age of one year). Meanwhile, in other countries, such as Japan and Sweden, the rates are well below 10 per 1,000, or 1 percent. Generally, infant mortality is somewhat higher among males than among females.
In developing countries substantial declines in infant mortality have been credited to improved sanitation and nutrition, increased access to modern health care, and improved birth spacing through the use of contraception. In industrialized countries in which infant mortality rates were already low the increased availability of advanced medical technology for newborn—in particular, prematurely born—infants provides a partial explanation.
The deliberate killing of newborn infants has long been practiced in human societies. It seems to have been common in the ancient cultures of Greece, Rome, and China, and it was practiced in Europe until the 19th century. In Europe, infanticide included the practice of “overlaying” (smothering) an infant sharing a bed with its parents and the abandonment of unwanted infants to the custody of foundling hospitals, in which one-third to four-fifths of incumbents failed to survive.
In many societies practicing infanticide, infants were not deemed to be fully human until they underwent a rite of initiation that took place from a few days to several years after birth, and therefore killing before such initiation was socially acceptable. The purposes of infanticide were various: child spacing or fertility control in the absence of effective contraception; elimination of illegitimate, deformed, orphaned, or twin children; or sex preferences.
With the development and spread of the means of effective fertility regulation, infanticide has come to be strongly disapproved in most societies, though it continues to be practiced in some isolated traditional cultures.
Mortality among the elderly
During the 1970s and 1980s in industrialized countries there were unexpectedly large declines in mortality among the elderly, resulting in larger-than-projected numbers of the very old. In the United States, for example, the so-called frail elderly group aged 85 years and older increased nearly fourfold between 1950 and 1980, from 590,000 to 2,461,000. Given the high incidence of health problems among the very old, such increases have important implications for the organization and financing of health care.
One of the main factors affecting fertility, and an important contributor to the fertility differences among societies in which conscious fertility control is uncommon, is defined by the patterns of marriage and marital disruption. In many societies in Asia and Africa, for example, marriage occurs soon after the sexual maturation of the woman, around age 17. In contrast, delayed marriage has long been common in Europe, and in some European countries the average age of first marriage approaches 25 years.
In the 20th century dramatic changes have taken place in the patterns of marital dissolution caused by widowhood and divorce. Widowhood has long been common in all societies, but the declines of mortality (as discussed above) have sharply reduced the effects of this source of marital dissolution on fertility. Meanwhile, divorce has been transformed from an uncommon exception to an experience terminating a large proportion (sometimes more than a third) of marriages in some countries. Taken together, these components of marriage patterns can account for the elimination of as little as 20 percent to as much as 50 percent of the potential reproductive years.
Many Western countries have experienced significant increases in the numbers of cohabiting unmarried couples. In the 1970s some 12 percent of all Swedish couples living together aged 16 to 70 were unmarried. When in the United States in 1976 the number of such arrangements approached 1,000,000, the Bureau of the Census formulated a new statistical category—POSSLQ—denoting persons of the opposite sex sharing living quarters. Extramarital fertility as a percentage of overall fertility accordingly has risen in many Western countries, accounting for one in five births in the United States, one in five in Denmark, and one in three in Sweden.
Since any population that is not closed can be augmented or depleted by in-migration or out-migration, migration patterns must be considered carefully in analyzing population change. The common definition of human migration limits the term to permanent change of residence (conventionally, for at least one year), so as to distinguish it from commuting and other more frequent but temporary movements.
Human migrations have been fundamental to the broad sweep of human history and have themselves changed in basic ways over the epochs. Many of these historical migrations have by no means been the morally uplifting experiences depicted in mythologies of heroic conquerors, explorers, and pioneers; rather they frequently have been characterized by violence, destruction, bondage, mass mortality, and genocide—in other words, by human suffering of profound magnitudes.
Early human migrations
Early humans were almost surely hunters and gatherers who moved continually in search of food supplies. The superior technologies (tools, clothes, language, disciplined cooperation) of these hunting bands allowed them to spread farther and faster than had any other dominant species; humans are thought to have occupied all the continents except Antarctica within a span of about 50,000 years. As the species spread away from the tropical parasites and diseases of its African origins, mortality rates declined and population increased. This increase occurred at microscopically small rates by the standards of the past several centuries, but over thousands of years it resulted in a large absolute growth to a total that could no longer be supported by finding new hunting grounds. There ensued a transition from migratory hunting and gathering to migratory slash-and-burn agriculture. The consequence was the rapid geographical spread of crops, with wheat and barley moving east and west from the Middle East across the whole of Eurasia within only 5,000 years.
About 10,000 years ago a new and more productive way of life, involving sedentary agriculture, became predominant. This allowed greater investment of labour and technology in crop production, resulting in a more substantial and securer food source, but sporadic migrations persisted.
The next pulse of migration, beginning around 4000 to 3000 BCE, was stimulated by the development of seagoing sailing vessels and of pastoral nomadry. The Mediterranean Basin was the centre of the maritime culture, which involved the settlement of offshore islands and led to the development of deep-sea fishing and long-distance trade. Other favoured regions were those of the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. Meanwhile, pastoral nomadry involved biological adaptations both in humans (allowing them to digest milk) and in species of birds and mammals that were domesticated. Once completed, these adaptations allowed humans to consume the meat of most male newborn animals and the maternal milk thereby made available.
Both seafarers and pastoralists were intrinsically migratory. The former were able to colonize previously uninhabited lands or to impose their rule by force over less mobile populations. The pastoralists were able to populate the extensive grassland of the Eurasian Steppe and the African and Middle Eastern savannas, and their superior nutrition and mobility gave them clear military advantages over the sedentary agriculturalists with whom they came into contact. Even as agriculture continued to improve with innovations such as the plow, these mobile elements persisted and provided important networks by which technological innovations could be spread widely and rapidly.
That complex of human organization and behaviour commonly termed Western civilization arose out of such developments. Around 4000 BCE seafaring migrants from the south overwhelmed the local inhabitants of the Tigris–Euphrates floodplain and began to develop a social organization based upon the division of labour into highly skilled occupations, technologies such as irrigation, bronze metallurgy, and wheeled vehicles, and the growth of cities of 20,000–50,000 persons. Political differentiation into ruling classes and ruled masses provided a basis for imposition of taxes and rents that financed the development of professional soldiers and artisans, whose specialized skills far surpassed those of pastoralists and agriculturalists. The military and economic superiority that accompanied such skills allowed advanced communities to expand both by direct conquest and by the adoption of this social form by neighbouring peoples. Thus migration patterns played an important role in creating the early empires and cultures of the ancient world.
By about 2000 BCE such specialized human civilizations occupied much of the then-known world—the Middle East, the eastern Mediterranean, South Asia, and the Far East. Under these circumstances human migration was transformed from unstructured movements across unoccupied territories by nomads and seafarers into quite new forms of interaction among the settled civilizations.
These new forms of human migration produced disorder, suffering, and much mortality. As one population conquered or infiltrated another, the vanquished were usually destroyed, enslaved, or forcibly absorbed. Large numbers of people were captured and transported by slave traders. Constant turmoil accompanied the ebb and flow of populations across the regions of settled agriculture and the Eurasian and African grasslands. Important examples include the Dorian incursions in ancient Greece in the 11th century BCE, the Germanic migrations southward from the Baltic to the Roman Empire in the 4th to 6th century CE, the Norman raids and conquests of Britain between the 8th and 12th centuries CE, and the Bantu migrations in Africa throughout the Christian Era.
Modern mass migrations
Mass migrations over long distances were among the new phenomena produced by the population increase and improved transportation that accompanied the Industrial Revolution. The largest of these was the so-called Great Atlantic Migration from Europe to North America, the first major wave of which began in the late 1840s with mass movements from Ireland and Germany. These were caused by the failure of the potato crop in Ireland and in the lower Rhineland, where millions had become dependent upon this single source of nutrition. These flows eventually subsided, but in the 1880s a second and even larger wave of mass migration developed from eastern and southern Europe, again stimulated in part by agricultural crises and facilitated by improvements in transportation and communication. Between 1880 and 1910 some 17,000,000 Europeans entered the United States; overall, the total amounted to 37,000,000 between 1820 and 1980.
Since World War II equally large long-distance migrations have occurred. In most cases groups from developing countries have moved into the industrialized countries of the West. Some 13,000,000 migrants have become permanent residents of western Europe since the 1960s. More than 10,000,000 permanent immigrants have been admitted legally to the United States since the 1960s, and illegal immigration has almost surely added several millions more.
Slave migrations and mass expulsions have been part of human history for millennia. The largest slave migrations were probably those compelled by European slave traders operating in Africa from the 16th to the 19th century. During that period perhaps 20,000,000 slaves were consigned to American markets, though substantial numbers died in the appalling conditions of the Atlantic passage.
The largest mass expulsion is probably that imposed by the Nazi government of Germany, which deported 7,000,000–8,000,000 persons, including some 5,000,000 Jews later exterminated in concentration camps. After World War II, 9,000,000–10,000,000 ethnic Germans were more or less forcibly transported into Germany, and perhaps 1,000,000 members of minority groups deemed politically unreliable by the Soviet government were forcibly exiled to Central Asia. Earlier deportations of this type included the movement of 150,000 British convicts to Australia between 1788 and 1867 and the 19th-century exile of 1,000,000 Russians to Siberia.
Forced migrations since World War II have been large indeed. Some 14,000,000 persons fled in one direction or the other at the partition of British India into India and Pakistan. Nearly 10,000,000 left East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) during the fighting in 1971; many of them stayed on in India. An estimated 3,000,000–4,000,000 persons fled from the war in Afghanistan during the early 1980s. More than 1,000,000 refugees have departed Vietnam, Cuba, Israel, and Ethiopia since World War II. Estimates during the 1980s suggested that approximately 10,000,000 refugees had not been resettled and were in need of assistance.
The largest human migrations today are internal to nation-states; these can be sizable in rapidly increasing populations with large rural-to-urban migratory flows.
Early human movements toward urban areas were devastating in terms of mortality. Cities were loci of intense infection; indeed, many human viral diseases are not propagated unless the population density is far greater than that common under sedentary agriculture or pastoral nomadism. Moreover, cities had to import food and raw materials from the hinterlands, but transport and political disruptions led to erratic patterns of scarcity, famine, and epidemic. The result was that cities until quite recently (the mid-19th century) were demographic sinkholes, incapable of sustaining their own populations.
Urban growth since World War II has been very rapid in much of the world. In developing countries with high overall population growth rates the populations of some cities have been doubling every 10 years or less.
Natural increase and population growth
Natural increase. Put simply, natural increase is the difference between the numbers of births and deaths in a population; the rate of natural increase is the difference between the birthrate and the death rate. Given the fertility and mortality characteristics of the human species (excluding incidents of catastrophic mortality), the range of possible rates of natural increase is rather narrow. For a nation, it has rarely exceeded 4 percent per year; the highest known rate for a national population—arising from the conjunction of a very high birthrate and a quite low death rate—is that experienced in Kenya during the 1980s, in which the natural increase of the population approximated 4.1 percent per annum. Rates of natural increase in other developing countries generally are lower; these countries averaged about 2.5 percent per annum during the same period. Meanwhile the rates of natural increase in industrialized countries are very low: the highest is approximately 1 percent, most are in the neighbourhood of several tenths of 1 percent, and some are slightly negative (that is, their populations are slowly decreasing).
global human population in 2019
The rate of population growth is the rate of natural increase combined with the effects of migration. Thus a high rate of natural increase can be offset by a large net out-migration, and a low rate of natural increase can be countered by a high level of net in-migration. Generally speaking, however, these migration effects on population growth rates are far smaller than the effects of changes in fertility and mortality.
An important and often misunderstood characteristic of human populations is the tendency of a highly fertile population that has been increasing rapidly in size to continue to do so for decades after the onset of even a substantial decline in fertility. This results from the youthful age structure of such a population, as discussed below. These populations contain large numbers of children who have still to grow into adulthood and the years of reproduction. Thus even a dramatic decline in fertility, which affects only the numbers at age zero, cannot prevent the continuing growth of the number of adults of childbearing age for at least two or three decades.
Eventually, of course, as these large groups pass through the childbearing years to middle and older age, the smaller numbers of children resulting from the fertility decline lead to a moderation in the rate of population growth. But the delays are lengthy, allowing very substantial additional population growth after fertility has declined. This phenomenon gives rise to the term population momentum, which is of great significance to developing countries with rapid population growth and limited natural resources. The nature of population growth means that the metaphor of a “population bomb” used by some lay analysts of population trends in the 1960s was really quite inaccurate. Bombs explode with tremendous force, but such force is rapidly spent. A more appropriate metaphor for rapid population growth is that of a glacier, since a glacier moves at a slow pace but with enormous effects wherever it goes and with a long-term momentum that is unstoppable.
The most important characteristics of a population—in addition to its size and the rate at which it is expanding or contracting—are the ways in which its members are distributed according to age, sex, ethnic or racial category, and residential status (urban or rural).
Perhaps the most fundamental of these characteristics is the age distribution of a population. Demographers commonly use population pyramids to describe both age and sex distributions of populations. A population pyramid is a bar chart or graph in which the length of each horizontal bar represents the number (or percentage) of persons in an age group; for example, the base of such a chart consists of a bar representing the youngest segment of the population, those persons less than, say, five years old. Each bar is divided into segments corresponding to the numbers (or proportions) of males and females. In most populations the proportion of older persons is much smaller than that of the younger, so the chart narrows toward the top and is more or less triangular, like the cross section of a pyramid; hence the name. Youthful populations are represented by pyramids with a broad base of young children and a narrow apex of older people, while older populations are characterized by more uniform numbers of people in the age categories. Population pyramids reveal markedly different characteristics for three nations: high fertility and rapid population growth (Mexico), low fertility and slow growth (United States), and very low fertility and negative growth (West Germany).
Contrary to a common belief, the principal factor tending to change the age distribution of a population—and, hence, the general shape of the corresponding pyramid—is not the death or mortality rates, but rather the rate of fertility. A rise or decline in mortality generally affects all age groups in some measure, and hence has only limited effects on the proportion in each age group. A change in fertility, however, affects the number of people in only a single age group—the group of age zero, the newly born. Hence a decline or increase in fertility has a highly concentrated effect at one end of the age distribution and thereby can have a major influence on the overall age structure. This means that youthful age structures correspond to highly fertile populations, typical of developing countries. The older age structures are those of low-fertility populations, such as are common in the industrialized world.
A second important structural aspect of populations is the relative numbers of males and females who compose it. Generally, slightly more males are born than females (a typical ratio would be 105 or 106 males for every 100 females). On the other hand, it is quite common for males to experience higher mortality at virtually all ages after birth. This difference is apparently of biological origin. Exceptions occur in countries such as India, where the mortality of females may be higher than that of males in childhood and at the ages of childbearing because of unequal allocation of resources within the family and the poor quality of maternal health care.
The general rules that more males are born but that females experience lower mortality mean that during childhood males outnumber females of the same age, the difference decreases as the age increases, at some point in the adult life span the numbers of males and females become equal, and as higher ages are reached the number of females becomes disproportionately large. For example, in Europe and North America, among persons more than 70 years of age in 1985, the number of males for every 100 females was only about 61 to 63. (According to the Population Division of the United Nations, the figure for the Soviet Union was only 40, which may be attributable to high male mortality during World War II as well as to possible increases in male mortality during the 1980s.)
The sex ratio within a population has significant implications for marriage patterns. A scarcity of males of a given age depresses the marriage rates of females in the same age group or usually those somewhat younger, and this in turn is likely to reduce their fertility. In many countries, social convention dictates a pattern in which males at marriage are slightly older than their spouses. Thus if there is a dramatic rise in fertility, such as that called the “baby boom” in the period following World War II, a “marriage squeeze” can eventually result; that is, the number of males of the socially correct age for marriage is insufficient for the number of somewhat younger females. This may lead to deferment of marriage of these women, a contraction of the age differential of marrying couples, or both. Similarly, a dramatic fertility decline in such a society is likely to lead eventually to an insufficiency of eligible females for marriage, which may lead to earlier marriage of these women, an expansion of the age gap at marriage, or both. All of these effects are slow to develop; it takes at least 20 to 25 years for even a dramatic fall or rise in fertility to affect marriage patterns in this way.
Ethnic or racial composition
The populations of all nations of the world are more or less diverse with respect to ethnicity or race. (Ethnicity here includes national, cultural, religious, linguistic, or other attributes that are perceived as characteristic of distinct groups.) Such divisions in populations often are regarded as socially important, and statistics by race and ethnic group are therefore commonly available. The categories used for such groups differ from nation to nation, however; for example, a person of Pakistani origin is considered “black” or “coloured” in the United Kingdom but would probably be classified as “white” or “Asian” in the United States. For this reason, international comparisons of ethnic and racial groups are imprecise, and this component of population structure is far less objective as a measure than are the categories of age and sex discussed above.
Geographical distribution and urbanization
It goes without saying that populations are scattered across space. The typical measure of population in relation to land area, that of population density, is often a meaningless one, since different areas vary considerably in their value for agricultural or other human purposes. Moreover, a high population density in an agrarian society, dependent upon agriculture for its sustenance, is likely to be a severer constraint upon human welfare than would the same density in a highly industrialized society, in which the bulk of national product is not of agricultural origin.
Also of significance in terms of geographical distribution is the division between rural and urban areas. For many decades there has been a nearly universal flow of populations from rural into urban areas. While definitions of urban areas differ from country to country and region to region, the most highly urbanized societies in the world are those of western and northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, temperate South America, and North America; in all of these the fraction of the population living in urban areas exceeds 75 percent, and it has reached 85 percent in West Germany. An intermediate stage of urbanization exists in the countries making up much of tropical Latin America, where 50 to 65 percent of the population lives in cities. Finally, in many of the developing countries of Asia and Africa the urbanization process has only recently begun, and it is not uncommon to find less than one-third of the population living in urban areas.
The rapidity of urbanization in some countries is quite astonishing. The population of Mexico City in 1960 was around 5,000,000; it was estimated to be about 17,000,000 in 1985 and was projected to reach 26,000,000 to 31,000,000 by 2000. A rule of thumb for much of the developing world is that the rate of growth of urban areas is twice that of the population as a whole. Thus in a population growing 3 percent annually (doubling in about 23.1 years), it is likely that the urban growth rate is at least 6 percent annually (doubling in about 11.6 years).
Population size and change play such a fundamental role in human societies that they have been the subject of theorizing for millennia. Most religious traditions have had something to say on these matters, as did many of the leading figures of the ancient world.
In modern times the subject of demographic change has played a central role in the development of the politico-economic theory of mercantilism; the classical economics of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and others; the cornucopian images of utopians such as the Marquis de Condorcet; the contrasting views of Malthus as to the natural limits imposed on human population; the sociopolitical theories of Marx, Engels, and their followers; the scientific revolutions engendered by Darwin and his followers; and so on through the pantheon of human thought. Most of these theoretical viewpoints have incorporated demographic components as elements of far grander schemes. Only in a few cases have demographic concepts played a central role, as in the case of the theory of the demographic transition that evolved during the 1930s as a counter to biological explanations of fertility declines that were then current.
Population theories in antiquity
The survival of ancient human societies despite high and unpredictable mortality implies that all societies that persisted were successful in maintaining high fertility. They did so in part by stressing the duties of marriage and procreation and by stigmatizing persons who failed to produce children. Many of these pronatalist motives were incorporated into religious dogma and mythology, as in the biblical injunction to “be fruitful and multiply, and populate the earth,” the Hindu laws of Manu, and the writings of Zoroaster.
The ancient Greeks were interested in population size, and Plato’s Republic incorporated the concept of an optimal population size of 5,040 citizens, among whom fertility was restrained by conscious birth control. The leaders of imperial Rome, however, advocated maximizing population size in the interest of power, and explicitly pronatalist laws were adopted during the reign of Augustus to encourage marriage and fertility.
The traditions of Christianity on this topic are mixed. The pronatalism of the Old Testament and the Roman Empire was embraced with some ambivalence by a church that sanctified celibacy among the priesthood. Later, during the time of Thomas Aquinas, the church moved toward more forceful support of high fertility and opposition to birth control.
Islamic writings on fertility were equally mixed. The 14th-century Arab historian Ibn Khaldūn incorporated demographic factors into his grand theory of the rise and fall of empires. According to his analysis, the decline of an empire’s population necessitates the importation of foreign mercenaries to administer and defend its territories, resulting in rising taxes, political intrigue, and general decadence. The hold of the empire on its hinterland and on its own populace weakens, making it a tempting target for a vigorous challenger. Thus Ibn Khaldūn saw the growth of dense human populations as generally favourable to the maintenance and increase of imperial power.
On the other hand, contraception was acceptable practice in Islam from the days of the Prophet, and extensive attention was given to contraceptive methods by the great physicians of the Islamic world during the Middle Ages. Moreover, under Islamic law the fetus is not considered a human being until its form is distinctly human, and hence early abortion was not forbidden.
Mercantilism and the idea of progress
The wholesale mortality caused by the Black Death during the 14th century contributed in fundamental ways to the development of mercantilism, the school of thought that dominated Europe from the 16th through the 18th century. Mercantilists and the absolute rulers who dominated many states of Europe saw each nation’s population as a form of national wealth: the larger the population, the richer the nation. Large populations provided a larger labour supply, larger markets, and larger (and hence more powerful) armies for defense and for foreign expansion. Moreover, since growth in the number of wage earners tended to depress wages, the wealth of the monarch could be increased by capturing this surplus. In the words of Frederick II the Great of Prussia, “the number of the people makes the wealth of states.” Similar views were held by mercantilists in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. For the mercantilists, accelerating the growth of the population by encouraging fertility and discouraging emigration was consistent with increasing the power of the nation or the king. Most mercantilists, confident that any number of people would be able to produce their own subsistence, had no worries about harmful effects of population growth. (To this day similar optimism continues to be expressed by diverse schools of thought, from traditional Marxists on the left to “cornucopians” on the right.)
Physiocrats and the origins of demography
By the 18th century the Physiocrats were challenging the intensive state intervention that characterized the mercantilist system, urging instead the policy of laissez-faire. Their targets included the pronatalist strategies of governments; Physiocrats such as Fran?ois Quesnay argued that human multiplication should not be encouraged to a point beyond that sustainable without widespread poverty. For the Physiocrats, economic surplus was attributable to land, and population growth could therefore not increase wealth. In their analysis of this subject matter the Physiocrats drew upon the techniques developed in England by John Graunt, Edmond Halley, Sir William Petty, and Gregory King, which for the first time made possible the quantitative assessment of population size, the rate of growth, and rates of mortality.
The Physiocrats had broad and important effects upon the thinking of the classical economists such as Adam Smith, especially with respect to the role of free markets unregulated by the state. As a group, however, the classical economists expressed little interest in the issue of population growth, and when they did they tended to see it as an effect rather than as a cause of economic prosperity.
In another 18th-century development, the optimism of mercantilists was incorporated into a very different set of ideas, those of the so-called utopians. Their views, based upon the idea of human progress and perfectibility, led to the conclusion that once perfected, mankind would have no need of coercive institutions such as police, criminal law, property ownership, and the family. In a properly organized society, in their view, progress was consistent with any level of population, since population size was the principal factor determining the amount of resources. Such resources should be held in common by all persons, and if there were any limits on population growth, they would be established automatically by the normal functioning of the perfected human society. Principal proponents of such views included Condorcet, William Godwin, and Daniel Malthus, the father of the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus. Through his father the younger Malthus was introduced to such ideas relating human welfare to population dynamics, which stimulated him to undertake his own collection and analysis of data; these eventually made him the central figure in the population debates of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Malthus and his successors
In 1798 Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society, with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and Other Writers. This hastily written pamphlet had as its principal object the refutation of the views of the utopians. In Malthus’ view, the perfection of a human society free of coercive restraints was a mirage, because the capacity for the threat of population growth would always be present. In this, Malthus echoed the much earlier arguments of Robert Wallace in his Various Prospects of Mankind, Nature, and Providence (1761), which posited that the perfection of society carried with it the seeds of its own destruction, in the stimulation of population growth such that “the earth would at last be overstocked, and become unable to support its numerous inhabitants.”
Not many copies of Malthus’ essay, his first, were published, but it nonetheless became the subject of discussion and attack. The essay was cryptic and poorly supported by empirical evidence. Malthus’ arguments were easy to misrepresent, and his critics did so routinely.
The criticism had the salutary effect of stimulating Malthus to pursue the data and other evidence lacking in his first essay. He collected information on one country that had plentiful land (the United States) and estimated that its population was doubling in less than 25 years. He attributed the far lower rates of European population growth to “preventive checks,” giving special emphasis to the characteristic late marriage pattern of western Europe, which he called “moral restraint.” The other preventive checks to which he alluded were birth control, abortion, adultery, and homosexuality, all of which as an Anglican minister he considered immoral.
In one sense, Malthus reversed the arguments of the mercantilists that the number of people determined the nation’s resources, adopting the contrary argument of the Physiocrats that the resource base determined the numbers of people. From this he derived an entire theory of society and human history, leading inevitably to a set of provocative prescriptions for public policy. Those societies that ignored the imperative for moral restraint—delayed marriage and celibacy for adults until they were economically able to support their children—would suffer the deplorable “positive checks” of war, famine, and epidemic, the avoidance of which should be every society’s goal. From this humane concern about the sufferings from positive checks arose Malthus’ admonition that poor laws (i.e., legal measures that provided relief to the poor) and charity must not cause their beneficiaries to relax their moral restraint or increase their fertility, lest such humanitarian gestures become perversely counterproductive.
Having stated his position, Malthus was denounced as a reactionary, although he favoured free medical assistance for the poor, universal education at a time that this was a radical idea, and democratic institutions at a time of elitist alarms about the French Revolution. Malthus was accused of blasphemy by the conventionally religious. The strongest denunciations of all came from Marx and his followers (see below). Meanwhile, the ideas of Malthus had important effects upon public policy (such as reforms in the English Poor Laws) and upon the ideas of the classical and neoclassical economists, demographers, and evolutionary biologists, led by Charles Darwin. Moreover, the evidence and analyses produced by Malthus dominated scientific discussion of population during his lifetime; indeed, he was the invited author of the article “Population” for the supplement (1824) to the fourth, fifth, and sixth editions of the Encyclop?dia Britannica. Though many of Malthus’ gloomy predictions have proved to be misdirected, that article introduced analytical methods that clearly anticipated demographic techniques developed more than 100 years later.
The latter-day followers of Malthusian analysis deviated significantly from the prescriptions offered by Malthus. While these “neo-Malthusians” accepted Malthus’ core propositions regarding the links between unrestrained fertility and poverty, they rejected his advocacy of delayed marriage and his opposition to birth control. Moreover, leading neo-Malthusians such as Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant could hardly be described as reactionary defenders of the established church and social order. To the contrary, they were political and religious radicals who saw the extension of knowledge of birth control to the lower classes as an important instrument favouring social equality. Their efforts were opposed by the full force of the establishment, and both spent considerable time on trial and in jail for their efforts to publish materials—condemned as obscene—about contraception.
Marx, Lenin, and their followers
While both Karl Marx and Malthus accepted many of the views of the classical economists, Marx was harshly and implacably critical of Malthus and his ideas. The vehemence of the assault was remarkable. Marx reviled Malthus as a “miserable parson” guilty of spreading a “vile and infamous doctrine, this repulsive blasphemy against man and nature.” For Marx, only under capitalism does Malthus’ dilemma of resource limits arise. Though differing in many respects from the utopians who had provoked Malthus’ rejoinder, Marx shared with them the view that any number of people could be supported by a properly organized society. Under the socialism favoured by Marx, the surplus product of labour, previously appropriated by the capitalists, would be returned to its rightful owners, the workers, thereby eliminating the cause of poverty. Thus Malthus and Marx shared a strong concern about the plight of the poor, but they differed sharply as to how it should be improved. For Malthus the solution was individual responsibility as to marriage and childbearing; for Marx the solution was a revolutionary assault upon the organization of society, leading to a collective structure called socialism.
The strident nature of Marx’s attack upon Malthus’ ideas may have arisen from his realization that they constituted a potentially fatal critique of his own analysis. “If [Malthus’] theory of population is correct,” Marx wrote in 1875 in his Critique of the Gotha Programme (published by Engels in 1891), “then I cannot abolish this [iron law of wages] even if I abolish wage-labor a hundred times, because this law is not only paramount over the system of wage-labor but also over every social system.”
The anti-Malthusian views of Marx were continued and extended by Marxians who followed him. For example, although in 1920 Lenin legalized abortion in the revolutionary Soviet Union as the right of every woman “to control her own body,” he opposed the practice of contraception or abortion for purposes of regulating population growth. Lenin’s successor, Joseph Stalin, adopted a pronatalist argument verging on the mercantilist, in which population growth was seen as a stimulant to economic progress. As the threat of war intensified in Europe in the 1930s, Stalin promulgated coercive measures to increase Soviet population growth, including the banning of abortion despite its status as a woman’s basic right. Although contraception is now accepted and practiced widely in most Marxist-Leninist states, some traditional ideologists continue to characterize its encouragement in Third-World countries as shabby Malthusianism.
The Darwinian tradition
Charles Darwin, whose scientific insights revolutionized 19th-century biology, acknowledged an important intellectual debt to Malthus in the development of his theory of natural selection. Darwin himself was not much involved in debates about human populations, but many who followed in his name as “social Darwinists” and “eugenicists” expressed a passionate if narrowly defined interest in the subject.
In Darwinian theory the engine of evolution is differential reproduction of different genetic stocks. The concern of many social Darwinists and eugenicists was that fertility among those they considered the superior human stocks was far lower than among the poorer—and, in their view, biologically inferior—groups, resulting in a gradual but inexorable decline in the quality of the overall population. While some attributed this lower fertility to deliberate efforts of people who needed to be informed of the dysgenic effects of their behaviour, others saw the fertility decline itself as evidence of biological deterioration of the superior stocks. Such simplistic biological explanations attracted attention to the socioeconomic and cultural factors that might explain the phenomenon and contributed to the development of the theory of the demographic transition.
Theory of the demographic transition
The classic explanation of European fertility declines arose in the period following World War I and came to be known as demographic transition theory. (Formally, transition theory is a historical generalization and not truly a scientific theory offering predictive and testable hypotheses.) The theory arose in part as a reaction to crude biological explanations of fertility declines; it rationalized them in solely socioeconomic terms, as consequences of widespread desire for fewer children caused by industrialization, urbanization, increased literacy, and declining infant mortality.
The factory system and urbanization led to a diminution in the role of the family in industrial production and a reduction of the economic value of children. Meanwhile, the costs of raising children rose, especially in urban settings, and universal primary education postponed their entry into the work force. Finally, the lessening of infant mortality reduced the number of births needed to achieve a given family size. In some versions of transition theory, a fertility decline is triggered when one or more of these socioeconomic factors reach certain threshold values.
Until the 1970s transition theory was widely accepted as an explanation of European fertility declines, although conclusions based on it had never been tested empirically. More recently careful research on the European historical experience has forced reappraisal and refinement of demographic transition theory. In particular, distinctions based upon cultural attributes such as language and religion, coupled with the spread of ideas such as those of the nuclear family and the social acceptability of deliberate fertility control, appear to have played more important roles than were recognized by transition theorists.
Trends in world population
Before considering modern population trends separately for developing and industrialized countries, it is useful to present an overview of older trends. It is generally agreed that only 5,000,000–10,000,000 humans (i.e., one one-thousandth of the present world population) were supportable before the agricultural revolution of about 10,000 years ago. By the beginning of the Christian era, 8,000 years later, the human population approximated 300,000,000, and there was apparently little increase in the ensuing millennium up to the year 1000 CE. Subsequent population growth was slow and fitful, especially given the plague epidemics and other catastrophes of the Middle Ages. By 1750, conventionally the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, world population may have been as high as 800,000,000. This means that in the 750 years from 1000 to 1750, the annual population growth rate averaged only about one-tenth of 1 percent.
The reasons for such slow growth are well known. In the absence of what is now considered basic knowledge of sanitation and health (the role of bacteria in disease, for example, was unknown until the 19th century), mortality rates were very high, especially for infants and children. Only about half of newborn babies survived to the age of five years. Fertility was also very high, as it had to be to sustain the existence of any population under such conditions of mortality. Modest population growth might occur for a time in these circumstances, but recurring famines, epidemics, and wars kept long-term growth close to zero
From 1750 onward population growth accelerated. In some measure this was a consequence of rising standards of living, coupled with improved transport and communication, which mitigated the effects of localized crop failures that previously would have resulted in catastrophic mortality. Occasional famines did occur, however, and it was not until the 19th century that a sustained decline in mortality took place, stimulated by the improving economic conditions of the Industrial Revolution and the growing understanding of the need for sanitation and public health measures.
The world population, which did not reach its first 1,000,000,000 until about 1800, added another 1,000,000,000 persons by 1930. (To anticipate further discussion below, the third was added by 1960, the fourth by 1974, and the fifth before 1990.) The most rapid growth in the 19th century occurred in Europe and North America, which experienced gradual but eventually dramatic declines in mortality. Meanwhile, mortality and fertility remained high in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Beginning in the 1930s and accelerating rapidly after World War II, mortality went into decline in much of Asia and Latin America, giving rise to a new spurt of population growth that reached rates far higher than any previously experienced in Europe. The rapidity of this growth, which some described as the “population explosion,” was due to the sharpness in the falls in mortality that in turn were the result of improvements in public health, sanitation, and nutrition that were mostly imported from the developed countries. The external origins and the speed of the declines in mortality meant that there was little chance that they would be accompanied by the onset of a decline in fertility. In addition, the marriage patterns of Asia and Latin America were (and continue to be) quite different from those in Europe; marriage in Asia and Latin America is early and nearly universal, while that in Europe is usually late and significant percentages of people never marry.
These high growth rates occurred in populations already of very large size, meaning that global population growth became very rapid both in absolute and in relative terms. The peak rate of increase was reached in the early 1960s, when each year the world population grew by about 2 percent, or about 68,000,000 people. Since that time both mortality and fertility rates have decreased, and the annual growth rate has fallen moderately, to about 1.7 percent. But even this lower rate, because it applies to a larger population base, means that the number of people added each year has risen from about 68,000,000 to 80,000,000.
The developing countries since 1950
After World War II there was a rapid decline in mortality in much of the developing world. In part this resulted from wartime efforts to maintain the health of armed forces from industrialized countries fighting in tropical areas. Since all people and governments welcome proven techniques to reduce the incidence of disease and death, these efforts were readily accepted in much of the developing world, but they were not accompanied by the kinds of social and cultural changes that had occurred earlier and had led to fertility declines in industrialized countries.
The reduction in mortality, unaccompanied by a reduction in fertility, had a simple and predictable outcome: accelerating population growth. By 1960 many developing countries had rates of increase as high as 3 percent a year, exceeding by two- or threefold the highest rates ever experienced by European populations. Since a population increasing at this rate will double in only 23 years, the populations of such countries expanded dramatically. In the 25 years between 1950 and 1975, the population of Mexico increased from 27,000,000 to 60,000,000; Iran from 14,000,000 to 33,000,000; Brazil from 53,000,000 to 108,000,000; and China from 554,000,000 to 933,000,000.
The greatest population growth rates were reached in Latin America and in Asia during the mid- to late 1960s. Since then, these regions have experienced variable but sometimes substantial fertility declines along with continuing mortality declines, resulting in usually moderate and occasionally large declines in population growth. The most dramatic declines have been those of the People’s Republic of China, where the growth rate was estimated to have declined from well over 2 percent per year in the 1960s to about half that in the 1980s, following official adoption of a concerted policy to delay marriage and limit childbearing within marriage. The predominance of the Chinese population in East Asia means that this region has experienced the most dramatic declines in population growth of any of the developing regions.
Over the same period population growth rates have declined only modestly—and in some cases have actually risen—in other developing regions. In South Asia the rate has declined only from 2.4 to 2.0 percent; in Latin America, from about 2.7 to about 2.3 percent. Meanwhile, in Africa population growth has accelerated from 2.6 percent to more than 3 percent over the same period, following belated significant declines in mortality not accompanied by similar reductions in fertility.
The industrialized countries since 1950
For many industrialized countries, the period after World War II was marked by a “baby boom.” One group of four countries in particular—the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—experienced sustained and substantial rises in fertility from the depressed levels of the prewar period. In the United States, for example, fertility rose by two-thirds, reaching levels in the 1950s not seen since 1910.
A second group of industrialized countries, including most of western Europe and some eastern European countries (notably Czechoslovakia and East Germany), experienced what might be termed “baby boomlets.” For a few years after the war, fertility increased as a result of marriages and births deferred during wartime. These increases were modest and relatively short-lived, however, when compared with those of the true baby-boom countries mentioned above. In many of these European countries fertility had been very low in the 1930s; their postwar baby boomlets appeared as three- to four-year “spikes” in the graph of their fertility rates, followed by two full decades of stable fertility levels. Beginning in the mid-1960s, fertility levels in these countries began to move lower again and, in many cases, fell to levels comparable to or lower than those of the 1930s.
A third group of industrialized countries, consisting of most of eastern Europe along with Japan, showed quite different fertility patterns. Most did not register low fertility in the 1930s but underwent substantial declines in the 1950s after a short-lived baby boomlet. In many of these countries the decline persisted into the 1960s, but in some it was reversed in response to governmental incentives.
By the 1980s the fertility levels in most industrialized countries were very low, at or below those needed to maintain stable populations. There are two reasons for this phenomenon: the postponement of marriage and childbearing by many younger women who entered the labour force, and a reduction in the numbers of children born to married women.
Demographic change is inherently a long-term phenomenon. Unlike populations of insects, human populations have rarely been subject to “explosion” or “collapse” in numbers. Moreover, the powerful long-term momentum that is built into the human age structure means that the effects of fertility changes become apparent only in the far future. For these and other reasons, it is by now conventional practice to employ the technology of population projection as a means of better understanding the implications of trends.
Population projections represent simply the playing out into the future of a set of assumptions about future fertility, mortality, and migration rates. It cannot be stated too strongly that such projections are not predictions, though they are misinterpreted as such frequently enough. A projection is a “what-if” exercise based on explicit assumptions that may or may not themselves be correct. As long as the arithmetic of a projection is done correctly, its utility is determined by the plausibility of its central assumptions. If the assumptions embody plausible future trends, then the projection’s outputs may be plausible and useful. If the assumptions are implausible, then so is the projection. Because the course of demographic trends is hard to anticipate very far into the future, most demographers calculate a set of alternative projections that, taken together, are expected to define a range of plausible futures, rather than to predict or forecast any single future. Because demographic trends sometimes change in unexpected ways, it is important that all demographic projections be updated on a regular basis to incorporate new trends and newly developed data.
A standard set of projections for the world and for its constituent countries is prepared every two years by the Population Division of the United Nations. These projections include a low, medium, and high variant for each country and region.
Written by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Top image credit: ?blvdone/Shutterstock.com