Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the GDP/cap Data

TL;DR

This paper challenges the Unified Growth Theory by analyzing GDP per capita data, showing that the supposed distinct growth regimes are mathematical artifacts, and advocating for a single, continuous growth mechanism explanation.

Contribution

It demonstrates that the three growth regimes proposed by the theory do not exist in the data and that a single growth process explains historical GDP per capita trends.

Findings

No evidence of distinct growth regimes in GDP/cap data

GDP/cap growth is a continuous, uniform process

Misinterpretation of mathematical properties led to flawed theory

Abstract

Mathematical properties of the historical GDP/cap distributions are discussed and explained. These distributions are frequently incorrectly interpreted and the Unified Growth Theory is an outstanding example of such common misconceptions. It is shown here that the fundamental postulates of this theory are contradicted by the data used in its formulation. The postulated three regimes of growth did not exist and there was no takeoff at any time. It is demonstrated that features interpreted as three regimes of growth represent just mathematical properties of a single, monotonically-increasing distribution, indicating that a single mechanism should be used to explain the historical economic growth. It is shown that using different socio-economic conditions for different perceived parts of the historical GDP/cap data is irrelevant and scientifically unjustified. The GDP/cap growth was indeed increasing slowly over a long time and fast over a short time but these features represent a single, uniform and uninterrupted growth process, which should be interpreted as whole using a single mechanism of growth.