The Optimum Theory of population is regarded superior to Malthusian Theory on the following grounds:
- Wider Coverage
The Optimum Theory is wider in its coverage than Malthusian Theory. Because, the Malthusian Theory studies population only in relation to food production. On the other hand, the Optimum Theory takes into consideration all the natural and capital resources of a country while determining the optimum size of population.
- Possibility of Increasing Returns
Malthus opined that the law of diminishing returns operates in agriculture. This brings imbalance between population growth and growth of food production. Malthus never imagined the possibility of operation of law of increasing returns up to a point. The Optimum Theory recognizes that law of increasing returns may operate even in agriculture up to a point.
- Population Increase not Always Harmful
The Malthusian Theory gives the impression that every increase in population is harmful. But the Optimum Theory does not consider this. If a country is under-populated, the increase in population is beneficial since it raises output per capita. The increase in population becomes harmful only when the population crosses the optimum point.
- Wide Application
The Malthusian Theory is applicable only in the underdeveloped countries.” But the Optimum Theory applicable in both over and under-populated countries”.