“Exponential” Does NOT Mean “Fast”!

by Carl Haub, senior demographer, Population Reference Bureau

I’ve seen many occasions where writers have stated that a particular population is growing “exponentially.” That term seems to have evolved to mean “fast.”  The exponential rate—as opposed to percentage increase—is the one usually used to measure population growth. So let’s take a look at what it really means and, honestly, I’m definitely not being picky here. Exponential growth simply means that something, be it money in the bank or the population of Egypt, grows continuously. Compounding continuously is another way of saying it.

But it doesn’t mean fast. The confusion probably comes from many articles written decades ago that developing country populations were increasing at a fast pace and exponential growth was often used to describe it. What writers probably had in mind was doubling. They pointed out that, should a country with 20 million population double in, say, 25 years to 40 million, the next time it doubles it will obviously grow by 40 million, not 20 million. Here again we see the process of compounding. In reality, all population growth—fast or slow, or even decline—is exponential since that’s how population change is usually expressed.

For example, Nigeria’s population is growing at about 2.6 percent per year. If maintained, that rate would cause the country’s population to double in size every 27 years. The population of Russia is growing at 0.1 percent per year. At that rate, Russia’s population would take 693 years to double. Hungary’s population is declining by -0.3 percent per year. All three of those rates are exponential.

3 thoughts on ““Exponential” Does NOT Mean “Fast”!

    • Dear Prof. Denisov,

      Very nice to hear from you! You are certainly right that Russia is not growing as far as natural increase of births minus deaths is concerned. It did seem for a time, however, that births might outnumber deaths by a very, very slim margin in 2012 for the first time since the 1990s. But deaths did outnumber births by a small amount, 2,500, in that year when December figures were released by GOSKOMSTAT. However, Russia has been experiencing considerable net immigration once again and that has caused population growth in 2012.

      Incidentally, I have always presumed that the sharp, and continuing, rise in births from 2007 was due to the rather large cash payments the government began to offer in that year for the second and higher order births. Is that, do you think, a sound assumption?

      Regards,
      Carl Haub

      • Dear Carl,
        Sorry for a delay, (1) the rise in births had started well before 2007, and has more profound basis than money to pay, that is rise of number of young women, which is already finished, and we will see if money will hold the level of births.
        (2) migration concern. Migrants into Russia have about no human rights at all, they are not considered as a permanent population, although formally they are — thus this growth is not natural in both senses ;(
        best
        BD

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s