The Postulate of the Three Regimes of Economic Growth Contradicted by Data

TL;DR

This paper challenges the core assumptions of the Unified Growth Theory by analyzing global economic data, showing that the supposed three regimes of growth did not exist and that current growth is unsustainable.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence contradicting the existence of the three growth regimes and critiques the validity of the Unified Growth Theory.

Findings

Economic growth was hyperbolic, not stagnant.

No evidence of a transition from Malthusian to sustained growth.

Current growth is supported by ecological deficits, not stability.

Abstract

Economic growth in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, countries of the former USSR, Africa and Latin America were analysed. It is demonstrated that the fundamental postulate of the Unified Growth Theory about the existence of the three regimes of growth (Malthusian regime, post-Malthusian regime and sustained-growth regime) is contradicted by data. These regimes did not exist. In particular, there was no escape from the Malthusian trap because there was no trap. Economic growth in all these regions was not stagnant but hyperbolic. Unified Growth Theory is fundamentally incorrect. However, this theory is also dangerously misleading because it claims a transition from the endless epoch of stagnation to the new era of sustained economic growth, the interpretation creating the sense of security and a promise of prosperity. The data show that the opposite is true. Economic growth in the past was sustained and secure. Now, it is supported by the increasing ecological deficit. The long-term sustained and secure economic growth has yet to be created. It did not happen automatically, as suggested incorrectly by the Unified Growth Theory.