Hubbry Logo
Kondratiev waveKondratiev waveMain
Open search
Kondratiev wave
Community hub
Kondratiev wave
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Kondratiev wave
Kondratiev wave
Kondratiev wave
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A rough schematic drawing showing growth cycles in the world economy over time according to the Kondratiev theory
Proposed economic waves
Cycle/wave name Period (years)
Kitchin cycle (inventory, e.g. pork cycle) 3–5
Juglar cycle (fixed investment) 7–11
Kuznets swing (infrastructural investment) 15–25
Kondratiev wave (technological basis) 45–60
This box:

In economics, Kondratiev waves (also called supercycles, great surges, long waves, K-waves or the long economic cycle) are hypothesized cycle-like phenomena in the modern world economy.[1] The phenomenon is closely connected with the technology life cycle.[2]

It is stated that the period of a wave ranges from forty to sixty years, the cycles consist of alternating intervals of high sectoral growth and intervals of relatively slow growth.[3]

Long wave theory is not accepted by most academic economists.[4][better source needed] Among economists who accept it, there is a lack of agreement about both the cause of the waves and the start and end years of particular waves. Among critics of the theory, the consensus is that it involves recognizing patterns that may not exist (apophenia).

History of concept

[edit]

The Soviet economist Nikolai Kondratiev (also written Kondratieff or Kondratyev) was the first to bring these observations to international attention in his book The Long Waves in Economic Life (1926) alongside other works written in the same decade.[5][6] In 1939, Joseph Schumpeter suggested naming the cycles "Kondratieff waves" in his honor. The underlying idea is closely linked to organic composition of capital.[7]

Two Dutch economists, Jacob van Gelderen and Salomon de Wolff, had previously argued for the existence of 50- to 60-year cycles in 1913 and 1924, respectively.

Since the inception of the theory, various studies have expanded the range of possible cycles, finding longer or shorter cycles in the data. The Marxist scholar Ernest Mandel revived interest in long-wave theory with his 1964 essay predicting the end of the long boom after five years and in his Alfred Marshall lectures in 1979. However, in Mandel's theory long waves are the result of the normal business cycle and noneconomic factors, such as wars.[8]

In 1996, George Modelski and William R. Thompson published a book documenting K-Waves dating back to 930 AD in China.[9] Separately, Michael Snyder wrote: "economic cycle theories have enabled some analysts to correctly predict the timing of recessions, stock market peaks and stock market crashes over the past couple of decades".[10]

The historian Eric Hobsbawm also wrote of the theory: "That good predictions have proved possible on the basis of Kondratiev Long Waves—this is not very common in economics—has convinced many historians and even some economists that there is something in them, even if we don't know what".[11]

US economist Anwar Shaikh analyses the movement of the general price level - prices expressed in gold - in the US and the UK since 1890 and identifies three long cycles with troughs ca. in 1895, 1939 and 1982. With this model 2018 was another trough between the third and a possible future fourth cycle.[12]

Characteristics of the cycle

[edit]

Kondratiev identified three phases in the cycle, namely expansion, stagnation and recession. More common today is the division into four periods with a turning point (collapse) between expansion and stagnation.

Writing in the 1920s, Kondratiev proposed to apply the theory to the 19th century:

  • 1790–1849, with a turning point in 1815.
  • 1850–1896, with a turning point in 1873.
  • Kondratiev supposed that in 1896 a new cycle had started.

The long cycle supposedly affects all sectors of an economy. Kondratiev focused on prices and interest rates, seeing the ascendant phase as characterized by an increase in prices and low interest rates while the other phase consists of a decrease in prices and high interest rates. Subsequent analysis concentrated on output.

Explanations of the cycle

[edit]

Technological innovation theory

[edit]

According to the innovation theory, these waves arise from the bunching of basic innovations that launch technological revolutions that in turn create leading industrial or commercial sectors. Kondratiev's ideas were taken up by Joseph Schumpeter in the 1930s. The theory hypothesized the existence of very long-run macroeconomic and price cycles, originally estimated to last 50–54 years.

In recent decades there has been considerable progress in historical economics and the history of technology, and numerous investigations of the relationship between technological innovation and economic cycles. Some of the works involving long cycle research and technology include Mensch (1979), Tylecote (1991), the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) (Marchetti, Ayres), Freeman and Louçã (2001), Andrey Korotayev[13] and Carlota Perez.

Perez (2002) places the phases on a logistic or S curve, with the following labels: the beginning of a technological era as irruption, the ascent as frenzy, the rapid build out as synergy and the completion as maturity.[14]

Demographic theory

[edit]

Because people have fairly typical spending patterns through their life cycle, such as spending on schooling, marriage, first car purchase, first home purchase, upgrade home purchase, maximum earnings period, maximum retirement savings and retirement, demographic anomalies such as baby booms and busts exert a rather predictable influence on the economy over a long time period. The Easterlin hypothesis deals with the post-war baby-boom. Harry Dent has written extensively on demographics and economic cycles. Tylecote (1991) devoted a chapter to demographics and the long cycle.[15]

Land speculation

[edit]
Main article: Georgism

Georgists such as Mason Gaffney, Fred Foldvary and Fred Harrison argue that land speculation is the driving force behind the boom and bust cycle. Land is a finite resource which is necessary for all production and they claim that because exclusive usage rights are traded around, this creates speculative bubbles which can be exacerbated by overzealous borrowing and lending. As early as 1997, a number of Georgists predicted that a depression would occur in 2008.[16]

Debt deflation

[edit]
Main article: Debt deflation

Debt deflation is a theory of economic cycles which holds that recessions and depressions are due to the overall level of debt shrinking (deflating). Hence, the credit cycle is the cause of the economic cycle.

The theory was developed by Irving Fisher following the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression. Debt deflation was largely ignored in favor of the ideas of John Maynard Keynes in Keynesian economics, but it has enjoyed a resurgence of interest since the 1980s, both in mainstream economics and in the heterodox school of post-Keynesian economics and has subsequently been developed by such post-Keynesian economists as Hyman Minsky[17] and Steve Keen.[18]

Modern modifications of Kondratiev theory

[edit]

There are several modern timing versions of the cycle although most are based on either of two causes: one on technology and the other on the credit cycle.

Additionally, there are several versions of the technological cycles and they are best interpreted using diffusion curves of leading industries. For example, railways only started in the 1830s, with steady growth for the next 45 years. It was after Bessemer steel was introduced that railroads had their highest growth rates. However, this period is usually labeled the age of steel. Measured by value added, the leading industry in the U.S. from 1880 to 1920 was machinery, followed by iron and steel.[19]

Any influence of technology during the cycle that began in the Industrial Revolution pertains mainly to England. The U.S. was a commodity producer and was more influenced by agricultural commodity prices. There was a commodity price cycle based on increasing consumption causing tight supplies and rising prices. That allowed new land to the west to be purchased and after four or five years to be cleared and be in production, driving down prices and causing a depression as in 1819 and 1839.[20] By the 1850s, the U.S. was becoming industrialized.[21]

The technological cycles can be labeled as follows:

  • Industrial Revolution (1771)
  • Age of Steam and Railways (1829)
  • Age of Steel and Heavy Engineering (1875)
  • Age of Oil, Electricity, the Automobile and Mass Production (1908)
  • Age of Information and Telecommunications (1971)

Some argue that this logic can be extended. The custom of classifying periods of human development by its dominating general purpose technology has surely been borrowed from historians, starting with the Stone Age. Including those, authors distinguish three different long-term metaparadigms, each with different long waves. The first focused on the transformation of material, including stone, bronze, and iron. The second, often referred to as the Industrial Revolution and Second Industrial Revolution, was dedicated to the transformation of energy, including water, steam, electric, and combustion power. Finally, the most recent metaparadigm aims at transforming information. It started out with the proliferation of communication and stored data and has now entered the age of algorithms, which aims at creating automated processes to convert the existing information into actionable knowledge.[22]

Several papers on the relationship between technology and the economy were written by researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). A concise version of Kondratiev cycles can be found in the work of Robert Ayres (1989) in which he gives a historical overview of the relationships of the most significant technologies.[23] Cesare Marchetti published on Kondretiev waves and on the diffusion of innovations.[24][25] Arnulf Grübler's book (1990) gives a detailed account of the diffusion of infrastructures including canals, railroads, highways and airlines, with findings that the principal infrastructures have midpoints spaced in time corresponding to 55-year K wavelengths, with railroads and highways taking almost a century to complete. Grübler devotes a chapter to the long economic wave.[26] In 1996, Giancarlo Pallavicini published the ratio between the long Kondratiev wave and information technology and communication.[27]

Korotayev et al. recently employed spectral analysis and claimed that it confirmed the presence of Kondratiev waves in the world GDP dynamics at an acceptable level of statistical significance.[3][28] Korotayev et al. also detected shorter business cycles, dating the Kuznets to about 17 years and calling it the third harmonic of the Kondratiev, meaning that there are three Kuznets cycles per Kondratiev.

Leo A. Nefiodow shows that the fifth Kondratieff ended with the global economic crisis of 2000–2003 while the new, sixth Kondratieff started simultaneously.[29] According to Leo A. Nefiodow, the carrier of this new long cycle will be health in a holistic sense—including its physical, psychological, mental, social, ecological and spiritual aspects; the basic innovations of the sixth Kondratieff are "psychosocial health" and "biotechnology".[30]

More recently, the physicist and systems scientist Tessaleno Devezas advanced a causal model for the long wave phenomenon based on a generation-learning model[31] and a nonlinear dynamic behaviour of information systems.[32] In both works, a complete theory is presented containing not only the explanation for the existence of K-Waves, but also and for the first time an explanation for the timing of a K-Wave (≈60 years = two generations).

A specific modification of the theory of Kondratieff cycles was developed by Daniel Šmihula. Šmihula identified six long-waves within modern society and the capitalist economy, each of which was initiated by a specific technological revolution:[33]

  1. Wave of the Financial-agricultural revolution (1600–1780)
  2. Wave of the Industrial revolution (1780–1880)
  3. Wave of the Technical revolution (1880–1940)
  4. Wave of the Scientific-technical revolution (1940–1985)
  5. Wave of the Information and telecommunications revolution (1985–2015)
  6. Hypothetical wave of the post-informational technological revolution (Internet of things/renewable energy transition?) (2015–2035?)

Unlike Kondratieff and Schumpeter, Šmihula believed that each new cycle is shorter than its predecessor. His main stress is put on technological progress and new technologies as decisive factors of any long-time economic development. Each of these waves has its innovation phase which is described as a technological revolution and an application phase in which the number of revolutionary innovations falls and attention focuses on exploiting and extending existing innovations. As soon as an innovation or a series of innovations becomes available, it becomes more efficient to invest in its adoption, extension and use than in creating new innovations. Each wave of technological innovations can be characterized by the area in which the most revolutionary changes took place ("leading sectors").

Every wave of innovations lasts approximately until the profits from the new innovation or sector fall to the level of other, older, more traditional sectors. It is a situation when the new technology, which originally increased a capacity to utilize new sources from nature, reached its limits and it is not possible to overcome this limit without an application of another new technology.

At the end of an application phase of any wave there is typically an economic crisis and economic stagnation. The 2008 financial crisis is a result of the coming end of the "wave of the Information and telecommunications technological revolution". Some authors have started to predict what the sixth wave might be, such as James Bradfield Moody and Bianca Nogrady who forecast that it will be driven by resource efficiency and clean technology.[34] On the other hand, Šmihula himself considers the waves of technological innovations during the modern age (after 1600 AD) only as a part of a much longer "chain" of technological revolutions going back to the pre-modern era.[35] It means he believes that we can find long economic cycles (analogical to Kondratiev cycles in modern economy) dependent on technological revolutions even in the Middle Ages and the Ancient era.

Criticism of Kondratiev theory

[edit]
Kondratiev waves associated with gains in IT and health with phase shift and overlap, Andreas J. W. Goldschmidt, 2004

Long wave theory is not accepted by many academic economists. However, it is important for innovation-based, development and evolutionary economics. Yet, among economists who accept it, there has been no formal universal agreement about the standards that should be used universally to place the start and end years for each wave. Agreement of start and end years can be +1 to 3 years for each 40- to 65-year cycle.

Health economist and biostatistician Andreas J. W. Goldschmidt searched for patterns and proposed that there is a phase shift and overlap of the so-called Kondratiev cycles of IT and health (shown in the figure). He argued that historical growth phases in combination with key technologies do not necessarily imply the existence of regular cycles in general. Goldschmidt is of the opinion that different fundamental innovations and their economic stimuli do not exclude each other as they mostly vary in length and their benefit is not applicable to all participants in a market.[36]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Kondratiev wave

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Kondratiev wave, also known as the Kondratieff cycle, refers to hypothesized long-term economic cycles lasting 40 to 60 years, involving alternating phases of expansion with rising prices and contraction with stagnation, as identified by Soviet economist through empirical analysis of historical price, production, and interest rate data from major Western economies between 1790 and 1920. Kondratiev employed statistical techniques, such as nine-year moving averages and detrending, to detect these regular fluctuations in variables like wholesale prices and industrial output, attributing them to underlying dynamics including technological shifts and rather than short-term business cycles. Subsequent theorists, notably , linked the waves to clusters of innovations—such as steam power in the first wave or in the fifth—driving prosperity phases followed by saturation and depression. Empirical support for the cycles derives from and analyses of GDP and commodity prices, revealing statistically significant periodicities around 50 years, though causation remains unclear and distortions from world wars complicate verification. Critics argue that apparent long waves may reflect or artifacts of smoothing random data, lacking robust predictive power or a consensus causal mechanism, with evidence described as mixed and verification challenging due to the infrequency of complete cycles.

Historical Origins

Nikolai Kondratiev's Formulation

, a Russian economist, developed his theory of long economic waves through statistical analysis of historical data spanning the 18th to early 20th centuries, focusing on patterns in commodity prices, wages, interest rates, and industrial production indicators such as , , and lead output. His examination drew primarily from records in , , the , and , revealing recurring fluctuations of approximately 48 to 60 years in duration, distinct from shorter business cycles. Kondratiev first outlined these findings in studies published in 1922, with his seminal work "The Long Waves in Economic Life" appearing in 1925, later translated into English in 1935. Kondratiev identified at least two complete long waves in the data: the first commencing around , peaking circa , and reaching a trough by 1849; the second starting about 1849 and extending toward 1896. Each wave consisted of an upswing phase characterized by rising prices, expanding production, and economic expansion, followed by a downswing involving stagnation, declines, and slower growth. These patterns persisted across the analyzed economies despite variations in national conditions, suggesting an endogenous feature of capitalist development rather than mere responses to isolated external events like wars or policy changes. Kondratiev attributed the waves to internal processes within , such as and the diffusion of fundamental innovations, which progressively alter production structures over decades. He emphasized that the empirical regularities in indices and output series—smoothed to filter out shorter fluctuations—demonstrated these cycles' consistency, with wholesale prices exhibiting sharper movements than wages or production volumes. This data-driven approach contrasted with prevailing views tying economic instability solely to exogenous shocks, positing instead that long waves arise from the systemic dynamics of , technological adoption, and market saturation inherent to industrial .

Early Reception and Political Context

In the , Nikolai Kondratiev's theory of long economic cycles faced sharp ideological opposition during the late , as it was denounced by Marxist economists for implying inherent stability and recurrence in capitalist development, contradicting the doctrine of inevitable collapse under socialism's superiority. Critics, including figures at the Agricultural Academy, argued that the cycles lacked empirical rigor in their monetary and real economic foundations, labeling them a form of "vulgar bourgeois" analysis that rationalized crises without addressing class struggle. This rejection culminated in Kondratiev's arrest in July 1930 on orders from , followed by an eight-year sentence to a prison camp near ; he continued some scholarly work until his on September 17, 1938, amid the . The theory gained a more favorable academic reception in the West, where translations of Kondratiev's 1920s works facilitated its integration into broader economic discourse during . Austrian economist prominently endorsed and extended the concept in his 1939 book Business Cycles, proposing the term "Kondratieff waves" to honor the Russian scholar and linking the cycles to clusters of innovations driving "." Schumpeter's framework treated the waves as superposed atop shorter business cycles, with empirical support drawn from historical price indices and production data spanning the 18th to early 20th centuries. Debates in Western economics during the 1930s and 1940s initially focused on validating the cycles through statistical analysis of wholesale prices and commodity outputs, with some scholars confirming periodicities of 40–60 years in European and American data. However, post-World War II skepticism emerged, as linear growth models and Keynesian interventions gained prominence, casting doubt on the deterministic nature of long waves amid rapid postwar recovery and institutional changes. This shift underscored tensions between empirical and ideological preferences for non-cyclical narratives of progress.

Core Characteristics

Cycle Phases and Duration

The Kondratiev wave, as formulated by , encompasses cycles lasting approximately 40 to 60 years in economic variables such as wholesale prices and industrial production. Kondratiev identified these cycles as comprising two primary phases: an upward phase of ascent, involving sustained , and a downward phase of descent, featuring contraction and stagnation. Subsequent frameworks, building on his work, have elaborated this structure into four sub-phases likened to seasons: spring (recovery and initial upswing), summer (peak prosperity and acceleration), autumn (recession and plateau), and winter (depression and decline). During ascent phases (spring and summer), economic activity exhibits alternating periods of high growth in sectors like and , often accompanied by inflationary pressures on prices. In descent phases (autumn and winter), growth decelerates into slowdowns, recessions, and depressions, typically with deflationary trends in prices. These long waves are distinguished from shorter cycles, such as the 7- to 11-year Juglar cycles, by their emphasis on structural economic transformations rather than transient monetary or inventory fluctuations. They also differ from intermediate Kuznets cycles, which span 15 to 25 years and are driven by fluctuations in real estate, construction, infrastructure investments, and population migration, often exhibiting a national or regional scope. In contrast, Kondratiev waves encompass global macroeconomic mega-trends propelled by major technological revolutions. One Kondratiev wave typically contains multiple Kuznets cycles, reflecting their nested structure within broader economic dynamics. Investment implications vary accordingly, with Kondratiev cycles associated with long-term rotations across asset classes such as stocks and commodities, whereas Kuznets cycles relate more closely to real estate and infrastructure-related sectors.

Empirical Identification of Past Waves

The Kondratiev wave theory has been extended by subsequent economists to identify five historically recognized cycles, each linked to major technological clusters, building on Kondratiev's original analysis of cycles up to the early 20th century: 1. 1780s–1840s: steam engine, textiles (First Industrial Revolution); 2. 1840s–1890s: railways, steel; 3. 1890s–1940s: electricity, automobiles; 4. 1940s–1980s: oil, chemicals; 5. 1980s/1990s–present: information technology, internet. The first Kondratiev wave is empirically identified in long-term wholesale price data from approximately 1789 to 1849, encompassing an upswing phase until around 1815 followed by a downswing, coinciding with the onset of the in Britain and , including mechanized production and early power applications that drove sustained increases in prices such as and iron. This period aligns with accelerating GDP growth in leading economies, reflecting infrastructure investments and factory expansions. The second wave, spanning roughly 1848 to 1897 with a prosperity phase from 1848–1873 driven by the global railway boom and post-US Civil War recovery followed by a depression phase from 1873–1897 known as the Long Depression triggered by the 1873 Vienna stock market crash that initiated a global crisis featuring high unemployment in Europe and the US and frequent colonial expansion wars due to imperialist rivalries, is linked to railway expansion, steel production via the , mechanical manufacturing, and nascent electrical technologies, as evidenced by rising metal and coal price indices during the expansion phase and subsequent declines amid overinvestment corrections. Empirical traces appear in transport-related commodity swings and GDP accelerations in the and , where rail mileage grew from under 20,000 km in to over 300,000 km by 1890. A third wave from about 1896 to the 1940s featured upswings in the early 20th century tied to automobiles, chemical industries, and Fordist mass production, with verifiable indicators including peaking wholesale prices pre-World War I and sharp declines during the 1929–1933 Great Depression, when global GDP contracted by up to 15% annually in affected nations. Metal commodity prices, such as copper and zinc, exhibited long-cycle alignments with these phases from 1900 onward, showing upward trends until 1914 and prolonged downswings thereafter. The proposed fourth wave, dated from the 1940s to the late 1980s, corresponds to petrochemicals, mass automobiles, electronics, appliances, and the post-World War II economic boom, featuring a prosperity phase from approximately 1948 to 1973 marked by the post-war golden age with GDP growth averaging 4–5% annually in Western economies, followed by a recession/depression phase from 1973 to around 1991 characterized by the 1973 oil crisis and 1970s stagflation with high inflation and unemployment leading to stagnation. Commodity indices for oil and base metals reflected this, with price surges in the 1970s aligning with the late-cycle peak before declines. The fifth wave, identified from the late 1980s or early onward, is associated with , the , and , evidenced by accelerated GDP growth in tech-driven sectors—such as productivity rising 2.5% annually in the —and commodity price upswings in electronics-related metals like until the early peak. Spectral decomposition of world GDP series confirms cycle lengths of 52–53 years persisting through this era, with downswing indicators emerging post-2008 .

Supporting Evidence

Statistical and Price Data Analyses

Empirical analyses of prices have identified long cycles aligning with Kondratiev phases. A study examining real prices of base metals, , and from 1900 to 2016 applied and bandpass filtering methods, detecting cycles of 48 to 60 years that correspond to the upswings and downswings observed in Kondratiev wave chronologies. These price fluctuations showed coherence across metals, with peaks during expansion phases (e.g., post-1945 upswing) and troughs in contraction periods (e.g., 1970s-1980s), supporting the presence of long-term oscillations without implying underlying drivers. Spectral analysis of world GDP data has similarly revealed periodicities consistent with Kondratiev waves. Applying Fourier-based spectral methods to global GDP increments from 1870 to 2013 detected a dominant cycle of approximately 52-53 years, statistically significant at levels exceeding thresholds via correlation tests and Fisher transforms. This periodicity manifested in alternating acceleration and deceleration phases, with the analysis filtering out shorter business cycles (e.g., Juglar, Kitchin) to isolate the long-wave component, evidenced by power spectra peaks around 0.019 cycles per year. Reexaminations of pre-1940 economic and financial further corroborate 50-year cycles. A 2023 replicating Kondratieff's original models on wholesale prices, interest rates, and production indices from the onward, using smoothed residuals and periodicity tests, confirmed long waves of about 50 years in U.S. and European datasets, including returns and metrics. Multi-variable regressions controlling for shorter cycles showed these long periodicities persisting across indicators, with phase alignments (e.g., troughs around 1890-1896 and 1930-1932) matching historical GDP slowdowns. In world-systems frameworks, statistical correlations between Kondratiev phases and global inequality metrics exhibit power-law distributions. Regressions on GDP disparities across core-periphery divides from 1790 to 2010 indicate inequality surges during downswings, with cycle amplitudes fitting exponential decay models in convergence rates, validated through robustness checks against . These findings, derived from across nations, highlight synchronized long-term swings in production and trade volumes without conflating correlation with causation.

Correlations with Technological and Economic Indicators

Empirical analyses reveal correlations between Kondratiev wave upswings and clusters of technological innovations, as evidenced by peaks in global activity aligning with proposed cycle phases from 1900 to 2008. Spectral decomposition of world GDP data similarly detects long cycles of approximately 52-53 years, consistent with Kondratieff wave durations and reflecting alternating periods of high sectoral growth. These patterns persist across , including surges and fluctuations tied to innovation-driven expansions. The fifth Kondratiev wave, spanning roughly the late to early , aligns with the revolution, particularly the 1990s-2000s boom in , infrastructure, and , which fueled productivity gains and GDP acceleration in advanced economies. Schumpeterian extensions of the theory emphasize how such technological clusters underpin upswing prosperity, with empirical data showing heightened patent filings and R&D investment during these intervals. Demographic indicators also synchronize with wave dynamics; for example, accelerating population aging in developed nations during the fifth wave's downswing phase has correlated with subdued consumption growth and rising dependency ratios, constraining overall economic momentum. Urbanization rates, meanwhile, have tracked upswings, as industrial clustering and migration patterns amplify during innovation-led expansions. Variations between global and national trajectories highlight contextual influences, with a 2023 study documenting how Western economic expansions within Kondratiev upswings prompted political reforms in since 1800, while stagnation phases enabled consolidation of autocratic structures. This relative deprivation framework underscores how peripheral economies respond to core innovations, manifesting in policy shifts rather than uniform GDP synchronization.

Explanatory Theories

Technological Innovation Hypothesis

The technological innovation hypothesis attributes Kondratiev waves primarily to clusters of radical innovations that propagate through economies, initiating prolonged upswings via enhanced production efficiencies and subsequent downswings upon saturation. , in his 1939 treatise Business Cycles, formalized this linkage by positing that such waves stem from "," wherein entrepreneurial innovations supplant obsolete technologies, spurring investment booms and structural transformations until diminishing marginal returns precipitate stagnation. Specific historical clusters exemplify this dynamic: the first wave (circa 1780–1840) centered on the and mechanized textiles, which slashed transportation and costs, enabling industrial takeoff in Britain and ; the second (1840–1890) featured railways and Bessemer production, expanding and freight capacity across continents; the third (1890–1940) involved , internal combustion engines, and chemicals, revolutionizing energy distribution and mobility. Later waves included automobiles and in the fourth (1940–1980) and microelectronics with digital computing in the fifth (1980–present), each yielding verifiable leaps in —such as a 2–3% annual U.S. multifactor gain during the diffusion era from 1919–1929. Empirical correlations bolster the hypothesis, with global patent grants per million population displaying pronounced Kondratiev-like oscillations from 1900–2008, peaking during upswing onsets as invention clusters accelerate—evident in surges tied to patents in the 1840s and information technology filings post-1980. These innovations causally amplify output by integrating complementary technologies (e.g., steam engines boosting textile machinery adoption), generating virtuous cycles of and market expansion until infrastructural maturity curbs further gains, shifting resources toward financial speculation amid excess capacity.

Alternative Causal Factors

Some economists attribute the downswing and winter phases of Kondratiev waves to debt dynamics, where expansions fueled by expansion and malinvestments culminate in crises and deflationary spirals. In this view, accumulated private burdens become unsustainable as productivity growth slows, triggering forced asset sales, falling s, and widespread bankruptcies, as exemplified by the of the 1930s, which aligned with the trough of the third wave. Empirical analyses of historical and support correlations between high leverage periods and subsequent contractions, though causation remains debated, with Austrian school perspectives emphasizing credit-induced distortions over exogenous shocks. Demographic theories propose that long-term cycles arise from influencing labor supply, savings rates, and consumption patterns, independent of or amplifying technological shifts. For instance, rapid , such as the post-World War II from 1946 to 1964, expanded working-age cohorts, boosting demand and investment during the upswing of the fourth wave, while subsequent aging populations correlate with stagnation via reduced labor participation and higher dependency ratios. from countries (1970–2010) reveal statistically significant links between age structure shifts and macroeconomic trends like GDP growth and savings, with younger demographics associated with higher growth rates, though these effects explain medium-term variations more robustly than precise 50-year periodicity. Land and constraints have been suggested as amplifying mechanisms, particularly by Georgist economists, who argue that unearned land value increments drive speculative booms, inflating asset until corrections enforce , as seen in recurring cycles overlapping wave phases. limits, such as scarcities, may constrain expansions by raising input costs, with historical showing super-cycles aligning loosely with wave turns, but empirical tests indicate weaker causal links compared to innovation-driven explanations, as shocks often prove transient rather than structural.

Criticisms and Skepticism

Methodological and Statistical Objections

Critics of the Kondratiev wave theory argue that its identification often involves , the erroneous perception of meaningful patterns in random or noisy , particularly when analysts selectively fit long cycles to historical price or output series without rigorous pre-hoc criteria. This risk is heightened by the theory's reliance on of smoothed rather than formal statistical tests for cyclicity, leading to subjective interpretations that may reflect researcher more than inherent economic rhythms. A core methodological flaw lies in the inconsistent dating of wave phases across studies, with proponents unable to agree on universal start and end points that can be verified independently before . For example, dated three waves roughly from the 1780s to the 1920s based on British and French price indices, whereas subsequent interpreters like shifted timelines by decades to align with technological clusters, and others extend cycles backward to the or forward with arbitrary adjustments. This variability precludes falsifiable hypotheses, as wave boundaries are often redrawn post-hoc to accommodate discrepant evidence, rendering the framework more descriptive than predictive. Statistically, the theory falters on the absence of fixed periodicity, with purported wave lengths fluctuating between 40 and 60 years without a stable recurrence interval detectable via spectral or analysis of long-run economic series. Post-World War II data exacerbates this issue, exhibiting prolonged expansions without the anticipated downturns of prior cycles, deviations attributable to sustained fiscal and monetary interventions that disrupt any underlying long-term oscillation. Formal econometric examinations, such as those surveying Kondratiev's original indices, reveal that apparent long swings lack the and regularity required to distinguish them from random walks or shorter overlays, further eroding claims of statistical robustness.

Failures in Prediction and Falsifiability

Proponents of Kondratiev waves have extended the original theory to forecast downturns in subsequent cycles, such as a predicted peak around 1974 followed by in the fourth wave's decline phase, but persistent through 1984 contradicted this expectation. Such discrepancies have led critics to argue that the theory lacks reliable , as adjustments like invoking "plateaus" or "masked " are introduced post hoc to reconcile data with the model rather than deriving from falsifiable mechanisms. The theory's non-falsifiable structure further undermines its utility, permitting flexible phase shifts and cycle durations—typically claimed at 40-60 years but variably adjusted—to retroactively accommodate historical events without enabling forward tests. For instance, while some analysts aligned the with the supposed downturn of a fifth wave, the absence of consensus on precise timing or triggers prior to the event highlights the model's vagueness, as no standardized methodology yields consistent prognostications across proponents. This adaptability, while allowing pattern-fitting to past data, evades empirical disconfirmation, contrasting sharply with shorter business cycles (e.g., 7-11 year Juglar cycles), which permit controlled statistical testing against observable recessions and recoveries. With only about three to four historical instances purportedly observable, the scarcity of data precludes robust cycle validation, rendering claims of regularity more akin to statistical artifacts from detrended price series than causal economic laws. Critics emphasize that without mechanisms for precise, testable forecasts—such as delineating thresholds or interventions that could alter trajectories—the offers descriptive heuristics at best, but no causal predictive framework for or investment.

Contemporary Relevance

Modifications and Extensions

In the world-systems perspective, extensions of Kondratieff waves integrate them with cycles of hegemonic competition and global power shifts, positing that upswings enable core states to consolidate dominance while downswings precipitate transitions. For instance, the fourth wave (circa 1940s–1980s), driven by , automobiles, and petrochemicals, aligned with the ' postwar , facilitating its economic and military preeminence amid and reconstruction. This framework, advanced by and others, adapts the original theory to emphasize interstate rivalry and in a globalized periphery-core structure, rather than isolated national economies. Neo-Schumpeterian modifications update the innovation-driven core of Kondratieff cycles by incorporating successive technological paradigms, with proposals for a sixth wave (post-2000) centered on , , bioelectronics, and cybernetic systems. These elements are viewed as self-regulating production revolutions that extend waves into knowledge-intensive, convergent technologies, addressing globalization's across borders. Studies from 2015–2021 highlight 's role in phased (e.g., 2001–2010 for incremental applications, 2011–2020 for disruptive industries), potentially shortening diffusion lags in interconnected supply chains. Quantitative refinements, drawn from 20th-century GDP, price, and trade data, adjust cycle durations to 45–55 years to align with observed macroeconomic patterns, accounting for accelerations from technologies and integration. Post-1950 analyses reveal phase compressions—e.g., ascending phases shortening to 15–24 years due to ICT-driven innovations and competition from and —extending the model to forecast hybrid cycles in multipolar global dynamics. Such adaptations incorporate self-regulating cybernetic feedbacks, like algorithmic in supply chains, to better model volatility in deglobalizing or reconfiguring world economies.

Implications for Current Economic Cycles

The global economy since the has exhibited characteristics aligned with the hypothesized winter phase of the fifth Kondratiev wave, marked by prolonged stagnation, rising public and private debt levels exceeding 350% of global GDP by 2023, and widening income inequality as measured by Gini coefficients averaging 0.38 across nations. Proponents argue this phase reflects the maturation and saturation of innovations from the late , leading to diminished productivity growth rates hovering around 1.2% annually in advanced economies during the . However, empirical tests of wave timing show inconsistencies, with some analyses placing the fifth wave's peak as late as 2026 rather than a strict post-2008 downturn, underscoring the theory's flexibility in retrospective fitting over predictive power. Emerging technologies such as and are posited as potential catalysts for a sixth Kondratiev wave upswing beginning in the , with AI investments surpassing $200 billion globally in 2023 and quantum prototypes demonstrating error-corrected computations by 2024. Analysts like those at Decimal Point Analytics link these to a "cybernetic " phase, forecasting accelerated adoption in self-regulating systems by the 2030s, potentially mirroring historical transitions from steam to . Yet, remains largely experimental, with no scalable advantage over classical systems as of 2024, tempering claims of imminent breakthroughs amid hype-driven valuations in tech sectors. Forecasts of an economic upswing in the 2020s-2030s hinge on these innovations overcoming demographic headwinds like global , where the old-age is projected to reach 25% in major economies by 2030, constraining labor supply and consumer demand. In a multipolar , divergent national strategies—such as China's state-led AI and quantum pursuits versus decentralized Western markets—could fragment wave propagation, with U.S. GDP growth forecasts at 2.1% for 2025 reflecting uneven recovery rather than synchronized global surge. Skeptics, including OMFIF analysts in 2022, caution against deterministic plunge narratives, noting that while and slowing growth signal downturn risks, historical wave predictions have overstated crises without accounting for policy adaptations or exogenous shocks like pandemics. Policy responses emphasizing fiscal stimuli, which expanded central bank balance sheets by over $20 trillion post-2008, risk prolonging maladjustments by suppressing creative destruction, whereas unhindered market innovations in AI and biotechnology offer more reliable paths to productivity revival. The theory implies that interventions distorting price signals may delay the natural purging of inefficiencies, as evidenced by persistent zombie firms comprising 10-20% of corporate balance sheets in Japan and Europe by 2023, yet it provides no falsifiable mechanism to validate such outcomes amid confounding factors like geopolitical tensions. Overall, while Kondratiev frameworks highlight innovation's role in long-term cycles, their application to 2020s-2040s dynamics warrants empirical scrutiny over speculative endorsement.

References

  1. https://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/articles/long-wave_economic/
  2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01434-8
  3. https://www.cannonfinancial.com/uploads/main/Long-Waves-in-Economic-Life.pdf
  4. https://barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Hecht%2520Jason%2520Are%2520Long%2520Waves%252050%2520Years.pdf
  5. https://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/articles/n-_d-_kondratieff-s_legacy_and_the_role_of_his_views_in_analyzing_modern_economic_problems_and_trend/
  6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1927337
  7. https://www.hetwebsite.net/het/profiles/kondratiev.htm
  8. https://www.executedtoday.com/2008/09/17/1938-nikolai-kondratiev-purged-economist/
  9. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/kondratieff-wave/
  10. https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Kondratiev_Cycles
  11. https://www.financialsense.com/contributors/geir-solem/the-kondratieff-cycle
  12. https://www.tradingview.com/script/2cEMPbsw-Kondratieff-Wave-Benner-Business-Cycles/
  13. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/kondratieff-wave.asp
  14. https://www.goldmoney.com/research/economic-theory-and-long-wave-cycles
  15. https://newleftreview.org/issues/i99/articles/richard-b-day-the-theory-of-long-waves-kondratiev-trotsky-mandel
  16. https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/document/58921/1/ssoar-2014-grinin_et_al-Kondratieff_Waves_Juglar__Kuznets.pdf
  17. https://newleftreview.org/issues/i99/articles/richard-b-day-the-theory-of-long-waves-kondratiev-trotsky-mandel.pdf
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286197963_A_spectral_analysis_of_world_GDP_dynamics_Kondratieff_waves_Kuznets_swings
  19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.01.008
  20. https://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/articles/the_paradigm_shift_cycle_as_the_cause_of_the_kond-_ratieff_wave/
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301420718304616
  22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333535139_Kondratiev_long_cycles_in_metal_commodity_prices
  23. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9jv108xp
  24. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09538259.2023.2280803
  25. https://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/articles/kondratieff_k_waves_in_the_modern_world_system/
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310492520_Kondratieff_Waves_in_the_World_System_Perspective
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162511000503
  28. https://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/articles/kondratieff_waves-_technological_modes-_and_the_theory_of_production_revolutions/
  29. https://ebooks.iospress.nl/volumearticle/8335
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309448110_Kondratieff_Waves_and_Technological_Revolutions
  31. https://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/articles/global_population_ageing-_the_sixth_kondratieff_wave-_and_the_global_financial_system_/
  32. https://www.sociostudies.org/journal/articles/2679221/
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9887578/
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367637845_Global_Kondratiev_waves_and_political_transformations_in_Russia_since_1800_a_relative_deprivation_approach
  35. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/47592/economiclongwave00ster.pdf
  36. https://academic.oup.com/book/41022/chapter/349302736
  37. https://www.professorfekete.com/articles/AEFCausesAndConsequencesKondratievs.pdf
  38. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/demographic-cycles-and-economic-growth-the-long-swing-reconsidered/602372B2B2AE060C1CC7F36D1223861B
  39. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170114
  40. https://cooperative-individualism.org/kavanagh-bryan_coming-kondratieff-crash-2001-autumn.pdf
  41. https://cooperative-individualism.org/foldvary-fred_business-cycle-a-geo-austrian-synthesis-1997-oct.pdf
  42. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/02601079X8600100307
  43. https://www.goldrepublic.com/news/Kondratiev-Waves
  44. http://spatialcomplexity.blogweb.casa.ucl.ac.uk/files/2015/05/Kondratieff-Review.pdf
  45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2600380
  46. https://www.rothbard.it/articles/kondratieff-cycle.pdf
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344639936_The_Fourth_Kondratiev_Wave_The_Great_Depression_and_the_Age_of_Oil_Automobiles_Motorization_and_Mass_Production
  48. https://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/articles/on_global_social_mobility-_or_how_kondratieff_waves_change_the_structure_of_the_capitalist_world_sys/
  49. http://jeds.thebrpi.org/journals/jeds/Vol_3_No_1_March_2015/5.pdf
  50. https://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/articles/the_sixth_kondratieff_wave/
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8142871/
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327772338_THE_THEORY_OF_LONG_WAVES_AND_INSTITUTIONAL_SHANGES_THE_MEMORY_OF_GENERATIONS_HYPOTHESIS
  53. https://www.birow.com/hidden-rhythms-economy
  54. https://rayislam.medium.com/k-waves-and-stock-market-cycles-ead11a717686
  55. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fifth-wave-how-k-waves-shape-real-estate-markets-logan-d-freeman-vxtze
  56. https://decimalpointanalytics.com/who-we-are/newsroom/the-long-wave-ahead-re-examining-kondratieffs-theory-in-a-multipolar-world
  57. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-sixth-kondratiev-cycle-holger-braun-boo6f
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162516303213
  59. https://www.technewsworld.com/story/quantum-computing-remains-experimental-despite-2024-advances-forrester-179514.html
  60. https://www.omfif.org/2022/09/predictions-of-k-wave-plunge-excessive-but-theory-teaches-important-lessons/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.