Demographies

Introduction

The contemporary study that constitutes demographies is an interdisciplinary research field defined by its quest to understand, explain and predict population change. Like many areas of research, its boundaries are not strictly drawn and its potential scope is therefore extensive. Academics working in the field include demographers, economists, sociologists and social statisticians, as well as geographers, who publish their research in a wide range of population and disciplinary-specific journals. Many would question, perhaps even reject, the use of the term ‘demographies’ (in the plural) as a label for the knowledge they produce, considering it resonant of an epistemic pluralism they do not embrace. For others, concerned with the situatedness of knowledge production and circulation, ‘demographies’ will be preferred over singular labels that hint at hegemonic discourses denying the social embeddedness of research. This tension, as we shall see, is evident in the different approaches taken to the study of population change.

Understanding population change is a central task for the social sciences because the ways in which populations grow or decline [Page 650]are influenced by a multitude of societal and environmental factors and, in turn, shape those same factors at a variety of scales. The size and structure of particular populations also impacts on the provision of public services and is therefore of great relevance to policymakers in local and national government. This is well illustrated by current concerns over the sustainability of pensions systems and health service provision in the face of the ageing of European populations, an example which points to the reach of population research into sectors outside academia, such as the insurance and marketing industries. In short, the study of population change is vital because it underpins understandings of society and economy, and, some would argue, influences international relations among nation states.

The volume of academic and grey English language literature concerned with population issues is too vast to review in one short chapter. The discussion that follows therefore adopts a particular theme and has a more specific purpose. The aim of this chapter is to engage with debates about theory and methodology in understandings of population change in order to answer the question, ‘What difference does geography make to the study of population change – to demographies?’ The three opening quotes highlight different dimensions of debate. The first (Riley and McCarthy, 2003) draws attention to the power of demography as ‘useful’ knowledge and prompts questions about relationships between the state and the production of knowledge on populations. The second (Zelinsky, 1966) outlines a traditional view of modern population geography that both circumscribes its subject matter and emphasises the locational and spatial concerns of the geographer. While important new analytical methods have been developed since the 1960s, this chapter will demonstrate that the kernel of Zelinsky’s view remains influential. In contrast, the third quote (Tyner, 2009) is indicative of a more critical, Foucauldian reading of population geography that seeks to retheorise the research field and place key ideas such as the role of the state in disciplining and regulating its population at its heart. This promises – or some might say threatens – to take population geography in a direction that (further) loosens its ties to demography. We will return to these ideas later in the chapter.

...