You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
seclement 's review for:
Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
by Daron Acemoğlu, James A. Robinson
This book presents many fairly well-accepted and often banal ideas as a radical theory of global economic disparity. The overarching theory they lay out, illustrated by an exhausting series of historical examples, is meant to explain why some nations fail and others do not. The theory hinges on two things: 1) the concept of inclusive and extractive political and economic institutions, and 2) how historical events interact to make institutions either more inclusive or more extractive. This book is very much in the vein of Niall Ferguson - but with much less devotion to the superiority of the West - so if you like his work you will either enjoy this or get frustrated because you think they are ripping him off.
Often the authors simply attach new terms to old ideas. This is a fairly standard tactic in academia, so I don't really have an issue with that. Their terms are ripe with metaphors, conjuring up images of evolution (institutional drift) and crossroads (critical junctures, which are really just turning points). But the two terms that I had the most issues with were inclusive and extractive institutions.
I particularly take issue with their selection of the term "inclusive". They define these as "those that allow and encourage participation by the great mass of people in economic activities that make best use of their talents and skills and that enable individuals to make the choices they wish" (p. 74). They emphasise in particular the role of these institutions in allowing for innovation and creative destruction, and enforcing property rights. That's all well and good, but I think "inclusive" conjures up an image of something very different than what we see in the US and many other Western nations today. Pluralistic? Fine. Democratic? Yeah, pretty much. But to argue that there is 'a level playing field' (as they do) is to ignore the massive disparity within even successful, wealthy nations. Other than discussing prior disparity between north and south, they essentially ignore the many ways in which economic and political institutions are not inclusive in their own country. I realise that their theory is meant to explain global disparity, not national, but the book repeatedly raised questions for me about the degree to which institutions really have to be inclusive to succeed. They constantly talk about the 'contingent nature of history', but I would have really liked an exploration of the contingent nature of "inclusive" institutions.
This book has a lot of fascinating historical information, but I found it exhausting to read. They aren't especially good story tellers, and I often felt as though I was trying to read an entire history book in one go. I think this is a feature of trying to tackle so much and provide a very large body of evidence to support their theory. In many cases, most of the details are superfluous and they could have supported their ideas with much less text. I know that this is the culmination of several decades of research for the authors, and I commend their ability to translate so many small details into a very small number of parallels. But that's just it: this is a 450 page book that make a relatively small number of points. I would have enjoyed this book much more if they had managed to make those same points without cataloguing so much detail.
Often the authors simply attach new terms to old ideas. This is a fairly standard tactic in academia, so I don't really have an issue with that. Their terms are ripe with metaphors, conjuring up images of evolution (institutional drift) and crossroads (critical junctures, which are really just turning points). But the two terms that I had the most issues with were inclusive and extractive institutions.
I particularly take issue with their selection of the term "inclusive". They define these as "those that allow and encourage participation by the great mass of people in economic activities that make best use of their talents and skills and that enable individuals to make the choices they wish" (p. 74). They emphasise in particular the role of these institutions in allowing for innovation and creative destruction, and enforcing property rights. That's all well and good, but I think "inclusive" conjures up an image of something very different than what we see in the US and many other Western nations today. Pluralistic? Fine. Democratic? Yeah, pretty much. But to argue that there is 'a level playing field' (as they do) is to ignore the massive disparity within even successful, wealthy nations. Other than discussing prior disparity between north and south, they essentially ignore the many ways in which economic and political institutions are not inclusive in their own country. I realise that their theory is meant to explain global disparity, not national, but the book repeatedly raised questions for me about the degree to which institutions really have to be inclusive to succeed. They constantly talk about the 'contingent nature of history', but I would have really liked an exploration of the contingent nature of "inclusive" institutions.
This book has a lot of fascinating historical information, but I found it exhausting to read. They aren't especially good story tellers, and I often felt as though I was trying to read an entire history book in one go. I think this is a feature of trying to tackle so much and provide a very large body of evidence to support their theory. In many cases, most of the details are superfluous and they could have supported their ideas with much less text. I know that this is the culmination of several decades of research for the authors, and I commend their ability to translate so many small details into a very small number of parallels. But that's just it: this is a 450 page book that make a relatively small number of points. I would have enjoyed this book much more if they had managed to make those same points without cataloguing so much detail.