You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
lasciadir 's review for:
Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
by Daron Acemoğlu, James A. Robinson
A worthy addition to the literature à la "Guns, Germs, and Steel" which explores why some nations develop to be wealthier than others. Acemoglu & Robinson reject determinism as an explanation for these differences, whether it be because of geography, culture, or ignorance in policy-making. They propose that the single most important factor in determining a nation’s prolonged success is the development of inclusive political and economic institutions. The tendency in all societies at all times is for the social elites to act out of self-preservation and develop extractive institutions, and therefore limit the success of the society.
It’s important to remember while reading that this book proposes a theory of development, and therefore uses models of national institutions that will lack details in particular contexts. The division into “extractive” and “inclusive” institutions seems bare at first glance. Nonetheless, they are a useful guide in framing the dynamics of development in different regional contexts.
The entire book is supported by (at times too many) historical case studies, but there are two strong examples that are central to the thesis. These examples are the Nogales communities in the US and Mexico, and the Industrial Revolution in England.
These examples pose important questions. Two Nogales communities are separated only by a national border between Arizona and Sonora, but share much in terms of culture, language, and geography. Yet one community is significantly wealthier than the other. Why is this? As for the Industrial Revolution, why did it occur first in England rather than another European nation or anywhere else in the world? The answer to both questions are differences in the institutional context, which are deeply rooted in particular historical contexts.
It is quite a "realist" perspective on history. Creating dynamic societies requires changing the dynamics of power. It must be wrestled away from elites, who will only do so if they think for some reason it is in their interests. It is not sufficient just to challenge elites, though. A more likely outcome of a successful challenge to power is that the institutions stay the same, but the elites change.
The authors use biological evolution as a framework for understanding their theory, which I think is an effective way to quickly grasp it. If societies are compared to organisms, they are characterized as having deeply ingrained into them the tendency to develop and maintain extractive institutions. Thus, they follow a life cycle of rise and decline. This life cycle is only altered by random mutations, which in the right circumstances can evolve to a different organism (society with inclusive institutions).
A great strength of this book is its vast scope, with a variety of case studies in non-Western contexts. The histories of ex-colonial countries are explored in-depth are interwoven into the theory. The authors explain that the current institutions of ex-colonial countries are carried over from extractive colonial institutions, the theory goes, even after many of them gained independence. At the same time, there are non-Western examples of societies that developed inclusive institutions, such as Batswana.
With this being said, the book itself suffers from a messy structure which gives way to a lot of repetition. It sometimes jumps around clumsily from one historical context to another, and therefore the supporting history feels at times shallow.
I feel it could have greatly benefited from a three-part structure with subsections, and perhaps fewer but deeper case studies that are grouped to support each particular pillar of the theory.
A better structure would have looked something like this:
Part 1: Institutional development from the Neolithic revolution to the Industrial
(explaining and supporting the theory and assumptions)
Part 2: Historical case-studies
theme areas like Colonialism with in-depth case studies, which are used as an anchor for each pillar of the theory
Part 3: Institutional development to today
modern contexts and analysis, and projections of the future
Instead, the book is structured into a messy 15 chapters, with at times unclear links between one chapter and the next (and of course deafening repetition). It’s unfair to say that there is no depth to the case studies that are presented, and I wouldn’t rate the book well if there wasn’t. My main qualm is a lack of depth with certain cases combined with an unclear organization overall.
This criticism comes from a reader, of course. I don’t discount that this sort of project is an immense and intimidating task. It would require a synthesis of research into perhaps hundreds of societies – each with a complex social order and history. Although I criticize the way in which certain histories and contexts are brushed over, it’s also understandable. If you’re trying to develop a broad-based, cross-cultural argument like this, it is important not to get bogged down in too many details.
Thus, I commend anyone for attempting this monstrous task, and I’m also biased in that I enjoy the effort. Despite a messy structure, I still feel that the arguments and evidence given were very compelling. Therefore, I give it 4 stars.
It’s important to remember while reading that this book proposes a theory of development, and therefore uses models of national institutions that will lack details in particular contexts. The division into “extractive” and “inclusive” institutions seems bare at first glance. Nonetheless, they are a useful guide in framing the dynamics of development in different regional contexts.
The entire book is supported by (at times too many) historical case studies, but there are two strong examples that are central to the thesis. These examples are the Nogales communities in the US and Mexico, and the Industrial Revolution in England.
These examples pose important questions. Two Nogales communities are separated only by a national border between Arizona and Sonora, but share much in terms of culture, language, and geography. Yet one community is significantly wealthier than the other. Why is this? As for the Industrial Revolution, why did it occur first in England rather than another European nation or anywhere else in the world? The answer to both questions are differences in the institutional context, which are deeply rooted in particular historical contexts.
It is quite a "realist" perspective on history. Creating dynamic societies requires changing the dynamics of power. It must be wrestled away from elites, who will only do so if they think for some reason it is in their interests. It is not sufficient just to challenge elites, though. A more likely outcome of a successful challenge to power is that the institutions stay the same, but the elites change.
The authors use biological evolution as a framework for understanding their theory, which I think is an effective way to quickly grasp it. If societies are compared to organisms, they are characterized as having deeply ingrained into them the tendency to develop and maintain extractive institutions. Thus, they follow a life cycle of rise and decline. This life cycle is only altered by random mutations, which in the right circumstances can evolve to a different organism (society with inclusive institutions).
A great strength of this book is its vast scope, with a variety of case studies in non-Western contexts. The histories of ex-colonial countries are explored in-depth are interwoven into the theory. The authors explain that the current institutions of ex-colonial countries are carried over from extractive colonial institutions, the theory goes, even after many of them gained independence. At the same time, there are non-Western examples of societies that developed inclusive institutions, such as Batswana.
With this being said, the book itself suffers from a messy structure which gives way to a lot of repetition. It sometimes jumps around clumsily from one historical context to another, and therefore the supporting history feels at times shallow.
I feel it could have greatly benefited from a three-part structure with subsections, and perhaps fewer but deeper case studies that are grouped to support each particular pillar of the theory.
A better structure would have looked something like this:
Part 1: Institutional development from the Neolithic revolution to the Industrial
(explaining and supporting the theory and assumptions)
Part 2: Historical case-studies
theme areas like Colonialism with in-depth case studies, which are used as an anchor for each pillar of the theory
Part 3: Institutional development to today
modern contexts and analysis, and projections of the future
Instead, the book is structured into a messy 15 chapters, with at times unclear links between one chapter and the next (and of course deafening repetition). It’s unfair to say that there is no depth to the case studies that are presented, and I wouldn’t rate the book well if there wasn’t. My main qualm is a lack of depth with certain cases combined with an unclear organization overall.
This criticism comes from a reader, of course. I don’t discount that this sort of project is an immense and intimidating task. It would require a synthesis of research into perhaps hundreds of societies – each with a complex social order and history. Although I criticize the way in which certain histories and contexts are brushed over, it’s also understandable. If you’re trying to develop a broad-based, cross-cultural argument like this, it is important not to get bogged down in too many details.
Thus, I commend anyone for attempting this monstrous task, and I’m also biased in that I enjoy the effort. Despite a messy structure, I still feel that the arguments and evidence given were very compelling. Therefore, I give it 4 stars.