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

Ron W Nielsen

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.

Date: 2016-02, Revised 2016-03
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-his and nep-pke
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11)

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.05718 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:1602.05718

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().