Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the Economic Growth in the Former USSR

TL;DR

This paper challenges Unified Growth Theory by analyzing USSR economic data, showing it contradicts the theory's claims and that the theory lacks a reliable explanation of actual growth mechanisms.

Contribution

It provides an empirical critique of Unified Growth Theory using USSR data, highlighting discrepancies and calling for its revision or replacement.

Findings

USSR economic growth was hyperbolic, not stagnant

Industrial Revolution did not significantly impact USSR growth

Unified Growth Theory's explanations are unsupported by data

Abstract

Historical economic growth in countries of the former USSR 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. Unified Growth Theory is full of stories but it is hard to decide which of them are reliable because they are based on unprofessional examination of data. The data show that the economic growth in the former USSR was never stagnant but hyperbolic. Industrial Revolution did not boost the economic growth in the former USSR. Unified Growth Theory needs to be revised or replaced by a reliable theory to reconcile it with data and to avoid creating the unwarranted sense of security about the current economic growth.