Mathematical analysis of historical income per capita distributions

Ron W. Nielsen
{"title":"Mathematical analysis of historical income per capita distributions","authors":"Ron W. Nielsen","doi":"10.1453/TER.V3I2.766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Data describing historical growth of income per capita [Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP/cap)] for the world economic growth and for the growth in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, former USSR, Africa and Latin America are analysed. They follow closely the linearly-modulated hyperbolic distributions represented by the ratios of hyperbolic distributions obtained by fitting the GDP and population data. Results of this analysis demonstrate that income per capita was increasing monotonically. There was no stagnation and there were no transitions from stagnation to growth. The usually postulated dramatic escapes from the Malthusian trap never happened because there was no trap. Unified Growth Theory is fundamentally incorrect because its central postulates are contradicted repeatedly by data, which were used but never analysed during the formulation of this theory. The large body of readily-available data opens new avenues for the economic and demographic research. They show that certain fundamental postulates revolving around the concept of Malthusian stagnation need to be replaced by the evidence-based interpretations. Within the range of analysable data, which for the growth of population extends down to 10,000 BC, growth of human population and economic growth were hyperbolic. There was no Malthusian stagnation and there were no transitions to distinctly faster trajectories. Industrial Revolution had no impact on changing growth trajectories.","PeriodicalId":401502,"journal":{"name":"arXiv: Economics","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv: Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1453/TER.V3I2.766","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Data describing historical growth of income per capita [Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP/cap)] for the world economic growth and for the growth in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, former USSR, Africa and Latin America are analysed. They follow closely the linearly-modulated hyperbolic distributions represented by the ratios of hyperbolic distributions obtained by fitting the GDP and population data. Results of this analysis demonstrate that income per capita was increasing monotonically. There was no stagnation and there were no transitions from stagnation to growth. The usually postulated dramatic escapes from the Malthusian trap never happened because there was no trap. Unified Growth Theory is fundamentally incorrect because its central postulates are contradicted repeatedly by data, which were used but never analysed during the formulation of this theory. The large body of readily-available data opens new avenues for the economic and demographic research. They show that certain fundamental postulates revolving around the concept of Malthusian stagnation need to be replaced by the evidence-based interpretations. Within the range of analysable data, which for the growth of population extends down to 10,000 BC, growth of human population and economic growth were hyperbolic. There was no Malthusian stagnation and there were no transitions to distinctly faster trajectories. Industrial Revolution had no impact on changing growth trajectories.
历史人均收入分配的数学分析
本文分析了世界经济增长以及西欧、东欧、亚洲、前苏联、非洲和拉丁美洲的人均收入[人均国内生产总值(GDP/上限)]的历史增长数据。它们密切遵循线性调制的双曲分布,由GDP和人口数据拟合得到的双曲分布的比率所表示。分析结果表明,人均收入呈单调增长趋势。没有停滞,也没有从停滞到增长的过渡。通常假设的戏剧性逃离马尔萨斯陷阱从未发生过,因为根本没有陷阱。统一增长理论从根本上是错误的,因为它的中心假设一再与数据相矛盾,这些数据在该理论的形成过程中被使用但从未被分析过。大量现成的数据为经济和人口研究开辟了新的途径。他们表明,围绕马尔萨斯停滞概念的某些基本假设需要被基于证据的解释所取代。在可分析的数据范围内,人口增长延伸到公元前10,000年,人口增长和经济增长是双曲线的。没有马尔萨斯停滞,也没有向明显更快的轨迹过渡。工业革命对改变增长轨迹没有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信