Take a photo of a barcode or cover
694 reviews for:
Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
Daron Acemoğlu, James A. Robinson
3.83 AVERAGE
694 reviews for:
Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
Daron Acemoğlu, James A. Robinson
3.83 AVERAGE
informative
fast-paced
Extractive institutions prevent creative destruction and stop sustained economic growth.
Let me repeat that.
Extractive institutions prevent creative destruction and stop sustained economic growth.
Got that? Let me tell you again.
Extractive institutions prevent creative destruction and stop sustained economic growth.
Just to make sure you understood:
Extractive institutions prevent creative destruction and stop sustained economic growth.
And so goes this book. In 544 pages, it felt like Acemoglu & Robinson repeated that about 644 times. I felt like I needed something extractive – to remove this mantra from my brain. If I had a dollar for each time they had repeated it, I would be richer than a country with inclusive institutions.
This book could have been half as long without detracting from its core message.
In fairness, though, it is a brilliant theory and deservedly holds a central place in the development debate. A positive and optimistic theory, it sees human ingenuity as the ultimate and most important means of growth, and political and economic freedom the means to unleashing it.
In this book, Acemoglu and Robinson cover the span of history in investigating the causes for successes and failures in economic growth, which makes for some interesting history lessons and some good insight on those causes. But they are the same insight each and every time, with no further development of the theory. Furthermore, they interpret history liberally to suit their own theory and have a rather a low standard of proof, particularly for the ancient periods. And in some cases, they gloss over the fact that history contradicts their theory (why Eastern serfdom intensified after the black death, for example).
Add to this that there is no clear structure, as the focus shifts back and forth through time and across the world with no development of a theory, just a repetition of the same central tenets. The writing style tends towards careless and amateurish, peppered throughout with syntactic nightmares.
Worse than the lack of any stylistic credibility, however, is that Acemoglu & Robinson suffer from some common conceits of mainstream academic economists. Firstly, they abstract greatly from reality to construct a theory, then assume that the simplistic dynamics of the theory explain everything. Any richness of historical detail is swept over. The sectarian aspects of England’s glorious revolution don’t warrant so much as a by your leave in their all-encompassing borg like theoretical singularity. And it’s not like they didn’t have the word-count to cover these things.
Secondly, and linked to the first: imperialism. They don’t play well with others and have to take over the entire theoretical space themselves (much like the elite beneficiaries of extractive institutions that they discuss). Rather than modestly offering a theory of one among many explanatory factors of economic development, theirs has to be the ONLY one. “Agricultural revolution?”
“Yeah, institutions, that.”
“Geography? Guns Germs and Steel?”
“All nonsense, mate. Institutions is where it’s at.”
This is frustrating. Whether fully deterministic, entirely surmountable, or something in between, geography so very obviously plays an important role in development. Doubtless, strong institutions are also crucial, but they can go so much further with rich farmland and abundant fish stocks that people with solid property rights can utilise. An acre in the arctic is not prime grazing land no matter how many time you repeat “inclusive institutions”. This is why their summary dismissal of (the far superior) Guns, Germs and Steel in an early chapter was frustrating, especially as one of their criticisms of it seems to be that it is not effective at answering every development question. This in fact is a strength, as it makes the theory focused and tight: an effective finding of piece of the puzzle. Rather than a messy attempt to make all of history fit a narrow theory. Their dismissal of GGS was therefore wholly unnecessary for the credibility of their own theory. Wholly unnecessary, that is, unless you happen to be an academic economist, whose abstract theory has to be the central dynamic or else it’s just one of the ‘other things equal’. And who wants to be one of those?
All in all, a superb theory, brilliantly researched and with ambitious scope, but undermined by the ego, repetitiveness and clumsy style with which it is presented.
Let me repeat that.
Extractive institutions prevent creative destruction and stop sustained economic growth.
Got that? Let me tell you again.
Extractive institutions prevent creative destruction and stop sustained economic growth.
Just to make sure you understood:
Extractive institutions prevent creative destruction and stop sustained economic growth.
And so goes this book. In 544 pages, it felt like Acemoglu & Robinson repeated that about 644 times. I felt like I needed something extractive – to remove this mantra from my brain. If I had a dollar for each time they had repeated it, I would be richer than a country with inclusive institutions.
This book could have been half as long without detracting from its core message.
In fairness, though, it is a brilliant theory and deservedly holds a central place in the development debate. A positive and optimistic theory, it sees human ingenuity as the ultimate and most important means of growth, and political and economic freedom the means to unleashing it.
In this book, Acemoglu and Robinson cover the span of history in investigating the causes for successes and failures in economic growth, which makes for some interesting history lessons and some good insight on those causes. But they are the same insight each and every time, with no further development of the theory. Furthermore, they interpret history liberally to suit their own theory and have a rather a low standard of proof, particularly for the ancient periods. And in some cases, they gloss over the fact that history contradicts their theory (why Eastern serfdom intensified after the black death, for example).
Add to this that there is no clear structure, as the focus shifts back and forth through time and across the world with no development of a theory, just a repetition of the same central tenets. The writing style tends towards careless and amateurish, peppered throughout with syntactic nightmares.
Worse than the lack of any stylistic credibility, however, is that Acemoglu & Robinson suffer from some common conceits of mainstream academic economists. Firstly, they abstract greatly from reality to construct a theory, then assume that the simplistic dynamics of the theory explain everything. Any richness of historical detail is swept over. The sectarian aspects of England’s glorious revolution don’t warrant so much as a by your leave in their all-encompassing borg like theoretical singularity. And it’s not like they didn’t have the word-count to cover these things.
Secondly, and linked to the first: imperialism. They don’t play well with others and have to take over the entire theoretical space themselves (much like the elite beneficiaries of extractive institutions that they discuss). Rather than modestly offering a theory of one among many explanatory factors of economic development, theirs has to be the ONLY one. “Agricultural revolution?”
“Yeah, institutions, that.”
“Geography? Guns Germs and Steel?”
“All nonsense, mate. Institutions is where it’s at.”
This is frustrating. Whether fully deterministic, entirely surmountable, or something in between, geography so very obviously plays an important role in development. Doubtless, strong institutions are also crucial, but they can go so much further with rich farmland and abundant fish stocks that people with solid property rights can utilise. An acre in the arctic is not prime grazing land no matter how many time you repeat “inclusive institutions”. This is why their summary dismissal of (the far superior) Guns, Germs and Steel in an early chapter was frustrating, especially as one of their criticisms of it seems to be that it is not effective at answering every development question. This in fact is a strength, as it makes the theory focused and tight: an effective finding of piece of the puzzle. Rather than a messy attempt to make all of history fit a narrow theory. Their dismissal of GGS was therefore wholly unnecessary for the credibility of their own theory. Wholly unnecessary, that is, unless you happen to be an academic economist, whose abstract theory has to be the central dynamic or else it’s just one of the ‘other things equal’. And who wants to be one of those?
All in all, a superb theory, brilliantly researched and with ambitious scope, but undermined by the ego, repetitiveness and clumsy style with which it is presented.
I read enough chunks of this book for grad school to get the gist. Good overview, but too simplistic to be super relevant. Acemoglu publishes papers all the time so go there if you want to know what he’s currently thinking.
Why Nations Fail
Daron Acemoglu
I desperately want to love this book, but it is officially my final DNF (did not finish) of the year.
The audiobook narrator has a fantastic book, and great cadence, and I fall asleep *every single time* I listen to it.
I’m going to have to get a physical copy and try again!
Not rating it because that’s not fair!
Daron Acemoglu
I desperately want to love this book, but it is officially my final DNF (did not finish) of the year.
The audiobook narrator has a fantastic book, and great cadence, and I fall asleep *every single time* I listen to it.
I’m going to have to get a physical copy and try again!
Not rating it because that’s not fair!
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Interesting concept, but a bit bloated. Finds the nail of “extractive economic policies are responsible for continuous poverty” and hammers it so extensively that it comes through to the other side of the wood block. What about a look at WHY those extractive tendencies emerge? Or some counter-evidence? Not bad, but not quite what I was hoping for.
First economic book I've ever read and I'm so glad it was this one! Very interesting, very well structured. Honestly would recommend to anyone.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
The theory that forms the basis of this book is too generic to be interesting. Furthermore it is too simple to warrant reading 500 pages. I could rewrite this book in 1 page. That said the remaining 499 pages offer quite some interesting summaries out of history books that serve as examples to support the theory. One last remark: the author does not seem hesitant to quote his own previous work.