<p>Yes, there can be economic growth without population growth.</p>

<p>As a reminder: gross domestic product (GDP) is the total value of all of the goods and services produced within an economy over a period of time (usually a year). GDP growth is simply the tendency for the GDP to increase over time.</p>

<p>Roughly speaking, there are two ways for GDP to increase. The first is for each worker to keep producing the same stuff, but to increase the number of workers (i.e. population growth). But the second is to keep the population the same and increase the amount produced by each worker. This increase in productivity might happen because</p>

<ul>
<li>workers become intrinsically more productive (i.e. through education)</li>
<li>workers have better tools to work with (e.g. through technological progress).</li>
</ul>

<p>If you live in a subsistence society in which people tend the fields by hand and produce 100 bushels of grain per year and then someone invents a combine harvester that allows them to produce 500 bushels per year then the output of the economy will increase even if the population stays the same.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-03T19:47:30.220Z
But if the population stays the same, no one would need 500 bushels, or the price per bushel will drop, hence no growth, no?
Sparkler
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-04T02:30:07.517Z
That means all the needed bushels are made with half the labor, letting people create, sell, and purchase other products.
Ask About Monica
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-04T13:16:12.220Z
@kbelder is right. If only 100 bushels are needed then we can satisfy the population with only 1/5th of the labour, freeing the other 4/5ths to build something else. Alternatively, we might decide that people just want to eat more grain than they were doing before (note that people in the west today eat far more than they did in the distant past). Also, note that GDP growth is often expressed in real terms, meaning changes in price do not affect GDP.
Ubiquitous
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-03T19:44:30.567Z
2017-01-03T19:44:30.567Z
Ubiquitous
<p>It is possible for a country to have economic growth without population growth.  Three sources of economic growth are:</p>

<ol>
<li>Accumulation of productive capital, enabling a labour force of the
same size and the same average skill level, using the same
technology, to produce more output;</li>
<li>Improved education to raise the average skill level of labour;</li>
<li>Improved technology.</li>
</ol>

<p>(These sources are not entirely independent, since the application of new technology often requires new types of capital equipment and new skills.)</p>

<p>The absence of population growth does not prevent any of the above, since it does not limit the proportion of current output a country chooses to devote to capital investment, education and technological innovation.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-03T19:51:34.157Z
I assume current output depends on consumption and vice versa, so without population growth, what would happen to the consumption of the said output?
Sparkler
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-03T20:10:15.223Z
A couple of points.  1) Current output does not depend only on consumption, which is only one component of aggregate demand, investment in capital being another.  2) Economic growth is likely to result in growth of consumption per capita, so consumption can grow even if population is stable.
Adam Bailey
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-03T19:47:54.167Z
2017-01-03T19:51:36.203Z
2017-01-03T19:51:36.203Z
Adam Bailey
<p>In short, the answer is yes.</p>
<p>I gave an answer to <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/13955/does-economic-growth-always-implies-investments-in-infrastructure/13963#13963">this question</a> that should explain the intuition behind such an answer. It primarily comes from understanding what the GDP equation is.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>In economics, we commonly use the formula for<a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp" rel="nofollow noreferrer"> GDP</a> as a Indicator of &quot;economic growth&quot;</strong></p>
<p>The GDP formula is: <strong>GDP=C+G+I+NX</strong></p>
<p>Where <strong>C</strong> is equal to all private consumption, or consumer spending, in a nation's economy, <strong>G</strong> is the sum of government spending, <strong>I</strong> is the sum of all the country's investment, including businesses capital expenditures and <strong>NX</strong> is the nation's total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports (<strong>NX = Exports - Imports</strong>)...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So if there is no population growth we can still see economic growth in terms of investment, goverment expenditure and a nations net exports.</p>
<p>Hope this helps.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-04T09:20:33.053Z
This answer would be improved by more prominent recognition of the importance for sustained economic growth of increasing productive capacity (you do mention capital accumulation and technology, but only towards the end of the answer you link to).
Adam Bailey
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-09T19:33:33.863Z
This answer if grossly misleading. The definition of GDP is an accounting decomposition, not a statement in which growth in one of the composites  causes growth of the total.
Tobias
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-12T17:54:53.300Z
@EnergyNumbers thank you for pointing this out. I edited the title of the question.
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-14T05:26:13.590Z
@KennyLJ, I appreciate that you argue with this point, everyone benefits from such critisim. If I understand you correctly, you are of the opinion that it is possible to have an increase in aggregate consumption $C$ while holding the same number of consumers fixed?
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-14T05:27:13.330Z
@KennyLJ I'm not sure how the answer misapprehends the nature of economic growth, can you elaborate?
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-16T13:36:38.493Z
@KennyLJ please explain why this is the case.
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-03T18:33:59.983Z
2018-01-12T17:52:34.077Z
2020-06-17T09:40:54.643Z
EconJohn
<p>I would rather say no. In an endogenous growth model (like Schumpeterian model), you can have a constant population with a sustained growth rate at long term. </p>

<p>An example : </p>

<p><a href="http://art-dev.cnrs.fr/membres/IMG/pdf/Ricci_ERE_2007.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://art-dev.cnrs.fr/membres/IMG/pdf/Ricci_ERE_2007.pdf</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-03T18:56:47.010Z
2017-01-03T18:56:47.010Z
optimal control
<p>Yes, I would say so. If there is a stable increase in technological progress and productivity over time, the efficiency of the work force would increase, leading to current goods being produced more efficiently. This opens up space for new, higher-quality goods and services to be introduced into the market, which would undoubtedly grow the economy and likely increase consumption per capita.</p>

<p>It seems unlikely to me, however, that such an economy would be able to maintain a fixed population in the long run. There would likely be an increase in the standard of living and life expectancy of the population.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-21T18:17:37.840Z
2018-01-21T18:28:16.457Z
2018-01-21T18:28:16.457Z
Kenneth Rios
<p>No it can not. 
Obviously in the short term an increase in productivity through technology or upskilling the workforce can fuel economic growth,as can other factors, but not indefinitely. Population growth is the key. For example: How could the world in the beginning of the 19th century with a population of just 1 Billion have developed into a world with a GDP of $126 Trillion by 2017 if the population had not grown (now over 6 Billion). I believe the answer is "it could not". Our modern day economy depends on production and consumption and no matter what equations you choose to use, at the end of the day you still need PEOPLE to produce and consume in increasing amounts for there to be sustained growth.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-12T11:29:46.323Z
You're answering with "global world population", whilst the question was, in my opinion, to a country's population. Given a country with a small population growth, exports and external population growth could ensure sustained growth via exports while the country's population is stable.
JoaoBotelho
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-12T12:40:24.643Z
Originally I actually meant global economy and population
Sparkler
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-14T18:58:13.133Z
(-1) So technological growth is limited but population growth is not?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-21T18:40:18.007Z
I think this answer ignores the real effect that technological progress can have on the efficiency of the marginal worker. Furthermore, as I argued in my answer, I think it's very unlikely that such a country would be able to maintain a fixed population in the long run. So you should also consider the reverse-causation effect that economic growth has had on population growth via the channel of technological progress.
Kenneth Rios
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-12T07:43:34.367Z
2018-01-12T07:43:34.367Z
D R Williams
<p>Assuming natural resources are not a limiting factor, can a country's economy keep growing if the country's population is not growing? What about the global population?</p>

<economic-growth><population-economics>
Can an economy grow without its population growing?
Sparkler
# Can an economy grow without its population growing?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-01-03)

Assuming natural resources are not a limiting factor, can a country's economy keep growing if the country's population is not growing? What about the global population?

**Tags:** economic-growth, population-economics


---

## 6 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-01-03. Score: 6

Yes, there can be economic growth without population growth.

As a reminder: gross domestic product (GDP) is the total value of all of the goods and services produced within an economy over a period of time (usually a year). GDP growth is simply the tendency for the GDP to increase over time.

Roughly speaking, there are two ways for GDP to increase. The first is for each worker to keep producing the same stuff, but to increase the number of workers (i.e. population growth). But the second is to keep the population the same and increase the amount produced by each worker. This increase in productivity might happen because

* workers become intrinsically more productive (i.e. through education)
* workers have better tools to work with (e.g. through technological progress).

If you live in a subsistence society in which people tend the fields by hand and produce 100 bushels of grain per year and then someone invents a combine harvester that allows them to produce 500 bushels per year then the output of the economy will increase even if the population stays the same.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: But if the population stays the same, no one would need 500 bushels, or the price per bushel will drop, hence no growth, no?  
> **username_2**: That means all the needed bushels are made with half the labor, letting people create, sell, and purchase other products.  
> **username_1**: @kbelder is right. If only 100 bushels are needed then we can satisfy the population with only 1/5th of the labour, freeing the other 4/5ths to build something else. Alternatively, we might decide that people just want to eat more grain than they were doing before (note that people in the west today eat far more than they did in the distant past). Also, note that GDP growth is often expressed in real terms, meaning changes in price do not affect GDP.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-01-03. Score: 3

It is possible for a country to have economic growth without population growth. Three sources of economic growth are:

1. Accumulation of productive capital, enabling a labour force of the
   same size and the same average skill level, using the same
   technology, to produce more output;
2. Improved education to raise the average skill level of labour;
3. Improved technology.

(These sources are not entirely independent, since the application of new technology often requires new types of capital equipment and new skills.)

The absence of population growth does not prevent any of the above, since it does not limit the proportion of current output a country chooses to devote to capital investment, education and technological innovation.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I assume current output depends on consumption and vice versa, so without population growth, what would happen to the consumption of the said output?  
> **username_3**: A couple of points.  1) Current output does not depend only on consumption, which is only one component of aggregate demand, investment in capital being another.  2) Economic growth is likely to result in growth of consumption per capita, so consumption can grow even if population is stable.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-01-03. Score: 3

In short, the answer is yes.

I gave an answer to [this question](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/13955/does-economic-growth-always-implies-investments-in-infrastructure/13963#13963) that should explain the intuition behind such an answer. It primarily comes from understanding what the GDP equation is.

> **In economics, we commonly use the formula for [GDP](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp) as a Indicator of "economic growth"**
>
> The GDP formula is: **GDP=C+G+I+NX**
>
> Where **C** is equal to all private consumption, or consumer spending, in a nation's economy, **G** is the sum of government spending, **I** is the sum of all the country's investment, including businesses capital expenditures and **NX** is the nation's total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports (**NX = Exports - Imports**)...

So if there is no population growth we can still see economic growth in terms of investment, goverment expenditure and a nations net exports.

Hope this helps.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: This answer would be improved by more prominent recognition of the importance for sustained economic growth of increasing productive capacity (you do mention capital accumulation and technology, but only towards the end of the answer you link to).  
> **username_5**: This answer if grossly misleading. The definition of GDP is an accounting decomposition, not a statement in which growth in one of the composites  causes growth of the total.  
> **username_4**: @EnergyNumbers thank you for pointing this out. I edited the title of the question.  
> **username_4**: @KennyLJ, I appreciate that you argue with this point, everyone benefits from such critisim. If I understand you correctly, you are of the opinion that it is possible to have an increase in aggregate consumption $C$ while holding the same number of consumers fixed?  
> **username_4**: @KennyLJ I'm not sure how the answer misapprehends the nature of economic growth, can you elaborate?  
> **username_4**: @KennyLJ please explain why this is the case.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2017-01-03. Score: 1

I would rather say no. In an endogenous growth model (like Schumpeterian model), you can have a constant population with a sustained growth rate at long term.

An example :

<http://art-dev.cnrs.fr/membres/IMG/pdf/Ricci_ERE_2007.pdf>


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2018-01-21. Score: 0

Yes, I would say so. If there is a stable increase in technological progress and productivity over time, the efficiency of the work force would increase, leading to current goods being produced more efficiently. This opens up space for new, higher-quality goods and services to be introduced into the market, which would undoubtedly grow the economy and likely increase consumption per capita.

It seems unlikely to me, however, that such an economy would be able to maintain a fixed population in the long run. There would likely be an increase in the standard of living and life expectancy of the population.


---

### Answer by username_8 on 2018-01-12. Score: -1

No it can not.
Obviously in the short term an increase in productivity through technology or upskilling the workforce can fuel economic growth,as can other factors, but not indefinitely. Population growth is the key. For example: How could the world in the beginning of the 19th century with a population of just 1 Billion have developed into a world with a GDP of $126 Trillion by 2017 if the population had not grown (now over 6 Billion). I believe the answer is "it could not". Our modern day economy depends on production and consumption and no matter what equations you choose to use, at the end of the day you still need PEOPLE to produce and consume in increasing amounts for there to be sustained growth.

> **Comments:**
> **username_9**: You're answering with "global world population", whilst the question was, in my opinion, to a country's population. Given a country with a small population growth, exports and external population growth could ensure sustained growth via exports while the country's population is stable.  
> **username_0**: Originally I actually meant global economy and population  
> **username_10**: (-1) So technological growth is limited but population growth is not?  
> **username_7**: I think this answer ignores the real effect that technological progress can have on the efficiency of the marginal worker. Furthermore, as I argued in my answer, I think it's very unlikely that such a country would be able to maintain a fixed population in the long run. So you should also consider the reverse-causation effect that economic growth has had on population growth via the channel of technological progress.  

---

