Why Nations Fail
Why are some nations rich and others poor, divided by wealth and poverty, health and sickness, food and famine? Is it culture, the weather, or geography that determines prosperity or poverty? As Why Nations Fail shows, none of these factors is either definitive or destiny. Drawing on fifteen years of original research, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson conclusively show that it is our man-made political and economic institutions that underlie economic success (or the lack of it). Korea, to take just one example, is a remarkably homogeneous nation, yet the people of North Korea are among the poorest on earth while their brothers and sisters in South Korea are among the richest. The differences between the Koreas is due to the politics that created those two different institutional trajectories. Acemoglu and Robinson marshal extraordinary historical evidence from the Roman Empire, the Mayan city-states, the Soviet Union, the United States, and Africa to build a new theory of political economy with great relevance for the big questions of today, among them: Will China's economy continue to grow at such a high speed and ultimately overwhelm the West? Are America's best days behind it? Are we creating a vicious cycle that enriches and empowers a small minority?
Stats for nerds
74recommend
146mentions
117people
2012–2026years
62% recommend35% neutral3% critical
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- FWIW I think Acemoglu writes very well & I loved his book "Why Nations Fail" for introducing lots of interesting ideas to me, while also helping me understand my own (non-failed) society better.
- It's all a racket to extract money from Italians, not enforcing IP rights.
Just like it's mentioned in Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu, some organizations are designed to extract resources from masses. Italian loves soccer and some big shots managed to get the TV rights for a per-pay service, and that's why they're pushing for so hard. Otherwise I don't think Italian courts would go after people selling pirated DVDs on the streets of Milan.
- Glad you asked. Check out the Nobel Prize winning work by Acemoglu in his book Why Nations Fail. He makes a compelling case that the encomienda system put in place by the conquistadors impoverished South America at the time and continued to impoverish its victims in the future as well.
So yes, extremely evil even by the standards of settler colonialism.
- From the excellent "Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson:
> An example of what could happen if you took your job too seriously, rather than successfully second-guessing what the Communist Party wanted, is provided by the Soviet census of 1937. As the returns came in, it became clear that they would show a population of about 162 million, far less than the 180 million Stalin had anticipated and indeed below the figure of 168 million that Stalin himself announced in 1934. The 1937 census was the first conducted since 1926, and therefore the first one that followed the mass famines and purges of the early 1930s. The accurate population numbers reflected this. Stalin's response was to have those who organized the census arrested and sent to Siberia or shot. He ordered another census, which took place in 1939. This time the organizers got it right; they found that the population was actually 171 million.
- I personally think we should resist the temptation to separate out values from the discussion. Like, even if it was the case that some extremely high-level of inequality turned out to be "optimal" in some GDP-maximizing way, the question still ought to hinge on some notion of fairness or justice (in my view).
(Although, I guess if your metric is "citizen satisfaction" maybe that's not as terrible).
In any case, there are lots of case studies showing what happens at the extreme inequality end of the spectrum. As I mentioned in another comment, my favorites come from Piketty "Capital in the 21st Century" and Acemoglu & Robinson "Why Nations Fail".
In the latter, the case study on the rise and fall of Venice is particularly fascinating - huge economic growth due to inclusive economic institutions that promoted social mobility, followed by a downturn once the aristocracy moved to entrench their own interests at society's expense. This seems to be the central thesis of the book, although I'm only a few chapters in.
The parallels with modern US politics are pretty hard to ignore though.
- Why Nations Fail was such a great book. I actually recommended it in another thread a few days ago.
I didn't know Acemoglu got the Nobel Economics Prize.
Related
The rise and fall of nations
2 recommend · 2
Global Economic History
1 recommend · 2
The Rise and Decline of Nations
6 recommend · 14
Disunited Nations
8 recommend · 17
The Wealth of Nations
92 recommend · 666
American nations
25 recommend · 49
Poor Economics
21 recommend · 47
