You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
692 reviews for:
Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
Daron Acemoğlu, James A. Robinson
3.83 AVERAGE
692 reviews for:
Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
Daron Acemoğlu, James A. Robinson
3.83 AVERAGE
informative
slow-paced
informative
slow-paced
A powerful thesis that marshals a lot of historical & economic evidence, but the writing can be a slog and the authors end up listing so many examples it starts to become ridiculous. Academics, bless them, were never ones for concision.
informative
slow-paced
informative
reflective
slow-paced
slow-paced
This book presents us with a fairly straightforward thesis, and proceeds to show its explanatory power over the growth and decline of multiple nations throughout history.
I do think the book could be organized better under clearer sections and subsections. It also teeters on the edge of being too verbose, sacrificing reader engagement for comprehensiveness.
Nevertheless, it remains a very important work at a time where authoritarianism (see China) is increasingly being considered as a viable path to sustainable economic development.
I do think the book could be organized better under clearer sections and subsections. It also teeters on the edge of being too verbose, sacrificing reader engagement for comprehensiveness.
Nevertheless, it remains a very important work at a time where authoritarianism (see China) is increasingly being considered as a viable path to sustainable economic development.
It took me quite a while to plod my way through this book - not because of its length (though this book is by no means short), but it really is repetitive. The dreadful b-word raises its head again and again...
The main point first: the central thesis of these very respected scholars is that nations rise or fail on the strength of their institutions, and more precisely on how inclusive political and economic institutions are. Societies in which opportunities are open to all thrive as they encourage enterprise, and generate a virtuous circle where inclusive political and economic institutions feed on one another. Societies in which political and economic institutions are extractive (i.e. a small elite pillages the resources of the many) do not provide the right incentives to innovate, enterprise is stifled by the fear of expropriation, and the high rents enjoyed by those at the top foster political instability, as in such winner take all society being on top is highly desirable. The book is devoted to the development of this idea, providing countless examples of extractive institutions, of pluralistic ones, of vicious circles, of virtuous circles, and here is where it probably fails for me - these "examples" are too short to be instructive for somebody who knows nothing about the situation being described, and too long for those who know about them. These examples are not informative, and they boil down to a collection of vignettes that are bound to leave most readers dissatisfied - at least, this was definitely the case for me.
As the book proposes a new theory of why nations fail, in opposition to existing ones, only a tiny proportion of the 500 odd pages is devoted to arguing against the existing explanations, with most of the work elaborating on examples of where the theory works, in some kind of "arguing by volume" - but what is not clear is how institutions come about. At some 'critical junctures' (e.g. the natural death of a dictator) an opportunity is created, and it can be seized - or some other dictator takes over. This is rather unsatisfactory, especially in the face of other authors who underline the role of culture, or study how societies come about ([a:Jared Diamond|256|Jared Diamond|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1355359393p2/256.jpg]'s [b:The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?|15766601|The World Until Yesterday What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?|Jared Diamond|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1350364833s/15766601.jpg|21471299] immediately springs to mind). For a theory that proposes itself as a unifying alternative to all others, this is not enough to be convincing. Does not geography shape opportunities and societies? Are the cultural traits completely irrelevant? Does the time scale not matter? For the success stories that we are presented, sometimes centuries are needed for "success" to become apparent - so in this very long transition period, can we deem such societies successful?
If you haven't read it yet, there are other "pop-economics" books that I'd read first...
The main point first: the central thesis of these very respected scholars is that nations rise or fail on the strength of their institutions, and more precisely on how inclusive political and economic institutions are. Societies in which opportunities are open to all thrive as they encourage enterprise, and generate a virtuous circle where inclusive political and economic institutions feed on one another. Societies in which political and economic institutions are extractive (i.e. a small elite pillages the resources of the many) do not provide the right incentives to innovate, enterprise is stifled by the fear of expropriation, and the high rents enjoyed by those at the top foster political instability, as in such winner take all society being on top is highly desirable. The book is devoted to the development of this idea, providing countless examples of extractive institutions, of pluralistic ones, of vicious circles, of virtuous circles, and here is where it probably fails for me - these "examples" are too short to be instructive for somebody who knows nothing about the situation being described, and too long for those who know about them. These examples are not informative, and they boil down to a collection of vignettes that are bound to leave most readers dissatisfied - at least, this was definitely the case for me.
As the book proposes a new theory of why nations fail, in opposition to existing ones, only a tiny proportion of the 500 odd pages is devoted to arguing against the existing explanations, with most of the work elaborating on examples of where the theory works, in some kind of "arguing by volume" - but what is not clear is how institutions come about. At some 'critical junctures' (e.g. the natural death of a dictator) an opportunity is created, and it can be seized - or some other dictator takes over. This is rather unsatisfactory, especially in the face of other authors who underline the role of culture, or study how societies come about ([a:Jared Diamond|256|Jared Diamond|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1355359393p2/256.jpg]'s [b:The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?|15766601|The World Until Yesterday What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?|Jared Diamond|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1350364833s/15766601.jpg|21471299] immediately springs to mind). For a theory that proposes itself as a unifying alternative to all others, this is not enough to be convincing. Does not geography shape opportunities and societies? Are the cultural traits completely irrelevant? Does the time scale not matter? For the success stories that we are presented, sometimes centuries are needed for "success" to become apparent - so in this very long transition period, can we deem such societies successful?
If you haven't read it yet, there are other "pop-economics" books that I'd read first...
informative
medium-paced