Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the Economic Growth in Asia

TL;DR

This paper critically examines the applicability of Unified Growth Theory to Asian economic history, revealing that the theory's assumptions about stagnation and transition are contradicted by data showing continuous hyperbolic growth.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence against Unified Growth Theory by analyzing Asian economic data, challenging its explanations of stagnation and transition mechanisms.

Findings

Asian economic growth was hyperbolic, not stagnant.

No evidence of a dramatic takeoff around 1900.

The current epoch is characterized by insecure, fast-increasing growth.

Abstract

Historical economic growth in Asia (excluding Japan) is analysed. It is shown that Unified Growth Theory is contradicted by the data, which were used (but not analysed) during the formulation of this theory. Unified Growth Theory does not explain the mechanism of economic growth. It explains the mechanism of Malthusian stagnation, which did not exist and it explains the mechanism of the transition from stagnation to growth that did not happen. The data show that the economic growth in Asia was never stagnant but hyperbolic. The alleged dramatic takeoff around 1900 or around any other time did not happen. However, the theory contains also a dangerous and strongly-misleading concept that after a long epoch of stagnation we have now entered the epoch of sustained economic growth, the concept creating the sense of security. The opposite is true. After the epoch of sustained and secure economic growth we have now entered the epoch of a fast-increasing and insecure economic growth.