The Population Debate in Historical Perspective: Revisionism Revisited
There appeared to be a dramatic shift of thinking from an alarmist and pessimistic assessment of the consequences of population growth prevalent before 1985, to a more balanced and eclectic assessment thereafter. It is argued that this shift, sometimes denoted as "revisionist thinking," is due less to a shift amongst economic demographers, and more to the elevation of economists' views vis-a-vis those of demographers, biologists, and others. The impact of the 1986 National Academy Report was profound, causing a careful consideration of the 1971 NAS report, discovered to be badly flawed in its presentation. Revisionism is re-defined to emphasize less the bottom-line results and more the methodology of evaluation, where a long-run perspective is espoused and (positive) feedbacks of initial adverse impacts of population growth are highlighted.
|Date of creation:||1999|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Forthcoming in POPULATION DOES MATTER: DEMOGRAPHY, GROWTH AND POVERTY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD, Nancy Birdsall, Allen C. Kelley and Steven Sinding, editors, Oxford University Press, 2001.|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Department of Economics Duke University 213 Social Sciences Building Box 90097 Durham, NC 27708-0097|
Phone: (919) 660-1800
Fax: (919) 684-8974
Web page: http://econ.duke.edu/
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:duk:dukeec:99-09. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Department of Economics Webmaster)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.