What's your take on countries which have huge population? Do you think having a big population is good for the economy? Explain your answer with an example.

Economic development can mean a lot of different things. It can just refer to any growth in the value of an economy as a whole. But more generally, economic development is the continued, active efforts of the public and private sectors of a country that promote the standard of living and economic health of the country. The economic health of a country relates to the economic growth of the country (the dollar value growth I already mentioned) and the general freedom and competitiveness of the market in the country. Generally, as a country becomes more economically developed, the well-being of its citizens improves in a lot of ways: their health, education, security, freedom, and self-sufficiency. Population is the first and most important factor affects economic development 

Population size and economic development 

The effect of population growth can be positive or negative depending on the circumstances. A large population has the potential to be great for economic development: after all, the more people you have, the more work is done, and the more work is done, the more value (or, in other words, money) is created. So, surely this can be nothing but good. There's a reason that farmers often have a lot of kids - more kids means more workers. But, unfortunately, it isn't that simple. In a country with abundant resources and money - a rich country - perhaps more people is a good thing. But that isn't always the case in countries with limited resources. Limited resources and a larger population puts pressures on the resources that do exist. More people means more mouths to feed, more health care and education services to provide, and so forth. So, population can be a mixed bag.

Historical background 

First, a quick clearing of that myth. Some people assume that India has had a runaway population disaster in the past century. The truth is that India's current share of world population is far less than historic levels and that India's population has been growing at less than the global average in the past two centuries. You can see the population of different countries over the human history. 

The Economic History of the Last 2000 Years: Part III

Although India & China occupy "only" a tenth of Earth's land surface, their share of earth's hospitable land is close to a quarter. Vast chunks of earth are not really hospitable - Siberia, Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, Sahara desert, most of Canada, Arabian desert and rain forests of Amazon and central Africa. The inland water resources of Mongolia, northern Mexico, central Australia, Central Asian Republics are too few. This rules out a sizable chunk of earth's land for dense human settlement.

From my own belief, I appreciate that increased population does not necessarily spell more trouble, or the hindrance of development . My concern is how quickly the gap of "realistic" education and the adoption of regenerative health, as a lifestyle, in China and India countries can be closed. In other words, capable civil servants to ensure that dying systemsof governance are revived to cope with a larger population of older adults. 

Thanks for the nice question. If you can utilize the big population for productive purposes, then population is an asset otherwise the big population is liability.

 When good governance, education, skill enhancement training, R&D support, good health system is ensured by the Govt. for its population, the population becomes a productive human resources and it really helps the govt. to move ahead with economic development. Example: Japan, China.

yes like China they use a population to growth and use it in manufactures

This is because the political and economic situation experienced by the State

And the extent of scientific and educational advancement of the people of this state

It is supposed to be the reason for the population increase in the growth and development of the state economy

We could see rising real incomes as slower population growth leads to slower growth in consumer prices, but that's obviously not inflationary.

The point concerning government spending is simply bizarre. Projected growth in federal spending is largely due to rising spending on entitlements, especially Medicare and Medicaid. Slower population growth isn't going to limit this spending growth; it will just increase the dependency ratio and the expected per capita burden of taxation. This is likely to slow growth, exacerbating the process of government deleveraging. It may also lead to greater financial security and increased savings, and a nation of savers is likely to demand a tighter monetary policy.

Indeed, all of the above is precisely what has been observed in Japan, where population growth slowed, halted, and eventually reversed. Per capita incomes have risen only very slowly, government debt is enormous, households are heavy savers, and deflation is endemic. Population growth isn't a cure-all, but in the present economic situation it's likely to make the resolution of a range of problems much easier.

Thanks for the invitation. I agree with Ms. Ghada and Mr. Vinod's answers.

Thanks

Fully agree with the answers given by Mr. Fazlur and Mrs. Ghada

I will give you a great example of when having a large population is actually devastating to the economy: Qatar. Qatar was a humble country well into the 90's. You could drive through the heart of the city with minimal traffic. It is now a hub for business and tourism, and while tourism is good for the country, the 2.2 million people that live on the soil of that small country are overwhelmingly taking over the economy in the worst way. Money has gone towards building a rail system, $60 billion USD to be exact, and is failing to serve the purpose it was intended to serve. So much money has gone toward building up the country that most of the residential properties are going unoccupied, which means that now the housing market will drop significantly...if not completely crash within the next 6 months to a year. What people fail to realize is that with so many people, so few jobs, and less money being invested in the country's nationals (most of the money going toward expats), the money cannot recycle and go back into the internal investments. Expats mostly send their money outside, they invest in homes outside of the country, and they make sure that whatever stocks are invested in are invested into in their home country. So now you have Nationals who are underpaid, living below the level of living standard for the country, and they aren't able to invest in stocks and local businesses because now they are worried about paying off loans for their car(s), paying for their child's (or children's) education, and paying for any other emergency situations (health related or otherwise). It's sad, really, and it's all due to over population.

Mere increase in population does not make a country prosperous.It is the art of exploring growth avenues and resources and optimum utilization of resources in order to contribute to better per capita income which in turn reflects on GDP of the state.

Yes China is a great example of a model where a substantial percentage of population help augment the states economy through cottage Industry.

 I agree with Mrs. Ghada ,Mr. Md. Fazlur Rahman and Mr. Vinod's answers......Thank you  for the invitation.

A lot has already been said. Remember quality is always better than quantity if you want to look at the quality life of people in a country. More population with higher percentage of educated/skilled persons would definitely be good for the economy as it thrives on consumerism. With education comes higher disposable incomes & higher spending. However we need to make sure there is proper Govt accountability with proper checks & balance.