Discourse Analysis on Malthusian Population Theory

我们研究了Backwood杂志、Edinburgh Review、威斯敏斯特Review、New Monthly Magazine.1中关于马尔萨斯人口理论的文章。黑木杂志中的文章批评了马尔萨斯人口理论，发展了一个短期宏观模型，我们可以称之为保守党宏观经济学，而不是凯恩斯经济学。他们认为粮食供应超过人口增长，强调人口引起的粮食供应。他们反对工资基金理论，支持济贫法，因为济贫法使人们对食物和更多就业的需求增加。但爱丁堡学者建立了一些包含制造业的人口模型，并假设工资基金包括制成品。他们强调制造业通过人口增长产生的需求创造效应。爱丁堡的评论家们提倡马尔萨斯的人口理论，但他们对马尔萨斯的人口模型进行了心照不宣的修正。其他文章则强调土地改良，主张以人口的迅速增长作为对过度积累的补救。在《谷物法》争论之前，他们并没有明确批评马尔萨斯。《新月刊》杂志在我们的公认观点中同情托利党。但它对马尔萨斯的立场模棱两可。《杂志》上的一些文章从短期的角度肯定了马尔萨斯的人口理论，特别是把食物供给引起的人口增长规律作为一种趋势规律。虽然他们赞扬马尔萨斯，但他们也认识到长期来看激情的可变性。它们代表了对马尔萨斯的一种接受方式，《威斯敏斯特评论》后来也发展了这种模式。

We examined articles on Malthusian population theory in the Backwood's Magazine, the Edinburgh Review, the Westminster Review, New Monthly Magazine.1 Articles in the Blackwood's Magazine criticized Malthusian population theory, developing a short term macro model, which we can call Tory Macro Economics ahead of Keynesian economics. They supposed that food supply outstripped population growth and emphasized food supply caused by population. They rejected wage fund theory and supported Poor Law since the law made the demand for food and more employment.2 The population growth model originally made by Malthus was a single sector model. But Edinburgh reviewers set up some population models with manufacture sector and they supposed that wage fund included manufactured goods. And they emphasized demand creation effect of manufacture through population growth. Edinburgh reviewers advocated population theory of Malthus but they revised his model tacitly Some articles implied the balanced growth between agriculture and manufacture ahead of Malthus in the 1810's. Other articles weighed land improvement and advocated rapid increase of population as a remedy for over accumulation. They didnt criticize Malthus definitely before the Corn Law controversy.3 New Monthly Magazine sympathized Tory in our received view. But it had an ambiguous position about Malthus. Some articles in the Magazine approved the Malthusian population theory from the short term view, especially on the law ofpopulation growth caused by food supply, as a tendency law. Though they praised Malthus, they recognized variability of passion in the long term. They represented one way of a reception for Malthus, the pattern of which Westminster Review developed afterwards.