Five Theories of Economic Growth: Why Countries Adopt Different Models for National Policy
Purpose: This paper aims to identify and analyze the relationship between theoretical models of economic growth and the practical economic policies adopted by states through a comparative case study of five countries. The central research questions are: Which economic growth theories (or combinations thereof) do contemporary nations apply in their economic policies, and why? Do any countries adhere to a single, “pure” theoretical framework in practice? The central hypothesis is that the adoption of a specific economic growth model is shaped by a country’s level of development, political system, and distinctive historical and cultural characteristics. Design/Methodology/Approach: The study employs qualitative comparative analysis across five contrasting case studies selected according to level of development, political regime, and historical and cultural background. The analysis draws on academic literature and official economic statistics. Comparative tables serve as the primary analytical tool to visualize alignment between theoretical frameworks and national policies. The research was conducted in four sequential phases to ensure systematic and comprehensive analysis. Phase 1: Theoretical Framework Development. A comprehensive literature review identified, described, and systematized five major economic growth theories: Malthusian, Marxist, Keynesian (Harrod–Domar), Neoclassical (Solow), and Endogenous Growth (Uzawa–Lucas). Their core principles, historical context, and policy implications were examined to construct a theoretical framework for empirical analysis. Phase 2: Case Study Selection and Country Analysis. Five countries were selected as representative cases where the principles of specific growth theories are most visibly reflected in economic policy or outcomes: • DPRK — Malthusian framework • Cuba — Marxist framework • China — Keynesian framework • Germany — Neoclassical framework • Singapore — Endogenous growth framework Each case was analyzed in relation to development level, political regime, historical trajectory, and cultural characteristics. Phase 3: Data Collection and Visualization. Empirical validation was conducted using data on key economic indicators (e.g., GDP, R&D investment, infrastructure expenditure) obtained from international databases, including the World Bank, and official national statistics. These data were visualized through comparative graphs and charts to support the analytical findings. Phase 4: Synthesis and Comparative Analysis. The final phase integrated theoretical and empirical findings. Comparative tables were constructed to juxtapose theoretical models and their practical implementation across the five countries, enabling systematic comparison of how national contexts shape the application of growth theories. Findings: The study concludes that economic growth models are highly context-dependent and rarely implemented in pure form. Policy frameworks reflect hybridization shaped by institutional, political, and historical conditions. Future research may extend the analysis to additional countries or examine the evolution of policy paradigms over time. Practical Implications: The findings are synthesized into an analytical framework and comparative tables that function as an accessible educational resource for economics and social science instruction, offering a structured approach to understanding comparative political economy. Originality/Value: This study contributes to the literature by systematically linking growth theory selection to national socio-political and historical conditions, demonstrating that policy alignment with growth models is structured rather than arbitrary.