Why Nations Fail The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty

i n s t i t u t i o n s

Intriguing and insightful. Acemoglu and Robinson explores why some nations fail to develop, while other nations thrived. I learned a lot from this book. Not a practical thing, of course, but it helps me to understand how the world works, and also to slightly assess how our government's work to improve this nation as a whole. The magical things that you get by learning history is that you will began to notice the pattern. There is a pattern on why some conditions existed, and that provide us to do some foresight. That was what Acemoglu and Robinson did. They read history, analyse it, then came up with a pattern. They concluded that it's the nature of the institutions that make a nation thrive or fall. Basically, they divided an institution by its nature to two categories: Extractive and Inclusive. Just as its name, Extractive Institution works as a tool to dig resources and put them to the pockets of the elites, or to personal gain of a ruler. It designs to enhances the power capabilities of a ruler, or a group of elites. It is vulnerable to corruption and tends to attracts in-fighting between groups as power and wealth is concentrated. Inclusive Institution, on the other hands, works as a tool to develop the well-being of groups and society as a whole. It comes from and attracts pluralism and as a result, tends to distribute power to many groups and developed a system of check and balance to counter one another. This makes absolute power less possible and less attractive. Thus, since it accommodates many needs, wants, and perspectives of any groups, it tends to pick and do better to facilitate them. However, being in a democratic nation doesn't mean that its institution can become automatically inclusive. As in many cases in Asia and Latin America, it still needs to be developed and empowered. And thus, it is up to us to lead it that way.

All Filipino politicians should read this....that is, if they know how to read.

Surprisingly short for the ground that is covered - detailing the most important moments of political and economic history throughout the entire world (some notable mentions: Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe, Peru and Columbia, and Britain and China), and spinning together a compelling thesis on why some nations are successful and others are not - spoiler alert, it’s all about the institutions. My only complaint - it’s quite repetitive, especially near the end of the book.

just got schooled

A tour de force of political history. All based on simple, yet compelling, ideas of how societies have evolved. The basic premise is that prosperity of a nation can be linked with the inclusiveness of its political institutions, and vice-versa the relative poverty of nations is often linked with a past characterized by extractive institutions. Through lots of examples, the authors demonstrate how the latter often persisted (or morphed into similar situation) even when there is a marked shift in power, e.g. end of colonial times in Africa or South America. It was a good read, although I do feel the same points could have been made just as clear in a more condensed (shorter) book.

The goal of this book is to make a case why differences in wealth across nations are not because of: genetics, geography, climate or otherwise, but because of the 'inclusive' institutions that are built up over the centuries, which allow entrepreneurship to flourish and the broader population to be well-off. It's a great read, though I think it could've been shorter, some of the examples were a bit superfluous. It does not inspire a lot of confidence that many countries could 'pull a Botswana' however, the present day is very much contingent on way history unfolded and once a dictator or family has captured a country's politics it's not a given that it will find its way out of that successfully.

An incredibly complete look at what makes nations succeed or fail. It would be a 5 stars book if not for the repetition of the same content and concepts time and time again.

Why Nations Fail? Answering this question, should lead us to the Nation Prosperity. - Make inclusive political and economical system. - Accept changes evolving by the advance of technology, and deal with its creative destructive. Points above were the most common points I absorbed from the too much informative chapters of the book about the history of Nation raise and fail.

Acemoglu and Robinison have certainly done their homework with this book, putting forward an expansive hypothesis concerning why some nations successfully develop and others don't. Their answer is that those with more liberal reforms tend to develop more successfully, while those that don't undergo this sort of institutional reform fail to grow. Unfortunately, most of their argument relies on anecdotal case studies from various countries instead of broader trends in data. This wouldn't be a problem if clear examples of countries without liberal institutions experiencing massive growth (China and India) while some countries that have them are beginning to collapse (most of southern Europe). Still, a well-argued and deeply researched book is still worthwhile, even if one disagrees with its conclusions.

Basically this book offers two things to the reader the first as his title suggests. It presents the authors theory about what makes a country/nation fail and stay behind. The second is the methodology that the authors followed to make their point. I personally was captivated by the arguments advanced, analysis, history and projections. In the first chapters they try to explain what is the meaning of not failing as a nation, what does it mean to succeed and how can it be measured? And then take you back in time to track how these institutions that facilitated inclusive/exclusive growth came to be... At the same time as they're refuting many theories on growth and prosperity like the geographical theory for instance that claims that because take any country in Africa is in Africa that it should fail because of the climate. It's a comprehensive benchmark: history and geography wise with many lessons on land rights and governance.

One of those books that open a new window of perspective. It changes how you see and understand the world. The elegant theory explained is so simple that it's easy to apply to world affairs. Yet so profound it gives you insights to how those affairs came to existence. In some chapters, discussion seems to be excessive. But I guess it's necessary for a theory that spans millenia. All in all, I recommend this book to everyone interested in a better comprehension on how our world was shaped.

A very interesting read. The main thesis is that inclusive institutions (e.g. democracy, aristocracy for a few people) succeed, while all top-down systems fail over time. There are lots of supporting examples from ancient tribes to our modern states. I noticed similarities to Nassim Taleb's "antifragility" idea - more people participating in a system means more good unpredictable things happen. So this book is doubly interesting if you already read "Antifragile"!

This is not a revolutionary book because of the ideas collected in it. Most of them have been around for tens or even hundred of years. It is however revolutionary in the compilation of these ideas and as such it can serve as a textbook or a practical reader to leading a nation on the path of development. I recommend it highly.

Sums up the reason for why many nations are not doing so well, and why the US is in the downfall path if they continue going where they are currently going.