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

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

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

3.9 of 5 stars 3.90 · rating details · 1,647 ratings · 239 reviews

Why are some nations rich and others poor, divided by wealth and poverty, health and sickness, food and famine? Is it culture, the weather, geography? Perhaps ignorance of what the right policies are? Simply, no. None of these factors is either definitive or destiny. Otherwise, how to explain why Botswana has become one of the fastest growing countries in the world, while...more Why are some nations rich and others poor, divided by wealth and poverty, health and sickness, food and famine? Is it culture, the weather, geography? Perhaps ignorance of what the right policies are? Simply, no. None of these factors is either definitive or destiny. Otherwise, how to explain why Botswana has become one of the fastest growing countries in the world, while other African nations, such as Zimbabwe, the Congo, and Sierra Leone, are mired in poverty and violence?

Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson conclusively show that it is man-made political and economic institutions that underlie economic success (or lack of it). Korea, to take just one of their fascinating examples, 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 south forged a society that created incentives, rewarded innovation, and allowed everyone to participate in economic opportunities. The economic success thus spurred was sustained because the government became accountable and responsive to citizens and the great mass of people. Sadly, the people of the north have endured decades of famine, political repression, and very different economic institutions—with no end in sight. The differences between the Koreas is due to the politics that created these completely different institutional trajectories.

Based on fifteen years of original research Acemoglu and Robinson marshall extraordinary historical evidence from the Roman Empire, the Mayan city-states, medieval Venice, the Soviet Union, Latin America, England, Europe, the United States, and Africa to build a new theory of political economy with great relevance for the big questions of today, including:

- China has built an authoritarian growth machine. Will it continue to grow at such high speed and overwhelm the West?

- Are America’s best days behind it? Are we moving from a virtuous circle in which efforts by elites to aggrandize power are resisted to a vicious one that enriches and empowers a small minority?

- What is the most effective way to help move billions of people from the rut of poverty to prosperity? More
philanthropy from the wealthy nations of the West? Or learning the hard-won lessons of Acemoglu and Robinson’s breakthrough ideas on the interplay between inclusive political and economic institutions?(less)

Hardcover, 544 pages

Published March 20th 2012 by Crown Business (first published March 1st 2012)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Bourgeois Dignity by Deirdre N. McCloskey

Econs For Change

1st out of 22 books — 5 voters

Books For Life

14th out of 19 books — 4 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Jan 20, 2013 Randal Samstag rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics

The book Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson comes with book-jacket praise from the usual suspects: Steven Levitt of Freakonomics fame, Jared Diamond of Collapse fame, Nobel Prize “laureate” George Akerlof, and Niall Ferguson, champion of imperialism. Thomas Freidman dashed off a quick review in his New York Times column for April 1, 2012. Freidman, the giddy fan of globalization, was ecstatic, although he admitted that he was “reading” the book, but not that he had “read” i...more

39 likes · like · see review

May 20, 2012 Hadrian rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics-finance-business, globalization, society-and-culture, nonfiction

Their main thesis is very interesting - that there is a strong link between political/social institutions and the economic success or failure of a nation.

Compare Botswana, which has achieved remarkable growth despite the AIDS epidemic, and Zimbabwe. Compare South Korea, which was poor, and is now a regional power, to North Korea, where the huddled skeletal masses pluck corn kernels from feces to survive while the Kim clan gorged on cognac.

The main reason states are successful, say Acemoglu and R...more Their main thesis is very interesting - that there is a strong link between political/social institutions and the economic success or failure of a nation.

Compare Botswana, which has achieved remarkable growth despite the AIDS epidemic, and Zimbabwe. Compare South Korea, which was poor, and is now a regional power, to North Korea, where the huddled skeletal masses pluck corn kernels from feces to survive while the Kim clan gorged on cognac.

The main reason states are successful, say Acemoglu and Robinson, is that they have a strong supportive centralized set of institutions, which they call 'inclusive'. These include property safety, a free market, technological growth, and so forth.

Nations Fail because of 'extractive' institutions - those which prevent the products of economic work from directly benefiting the economy as a whole, or unequally distributing it. Colonial regimes serve as an example, as well as aristocratic, dictatorial, or otherwise authoritarian regimes. A few benefit, but the society as a whole suffers. You can send as much aid as you like, but it will all be siphoned up or lost.

They also refer to Schumpeter's phrase 'creative destruction'. This is when a new economic or technological phenomenon threatens to unseat or unravel an established economic order in order to create a new one. If those who stand to lose from this new order are also in positions of influence and power in society, then naturally they will try to prevent it. Consider the reluctance of the Habsburgs or the Russians to allow factory building or railroads, or the Ottomans to allow printed books entirely.

After these interesting concepts, the rest of the book is devoted to examples, from Ancient Rome to Axum to Uzbekistan. The reading list in back is interesting enough, and I'd like to investigate this in much further detail.

I'd have liked a discussion of the Scandinavian states (welfare, engineering, oil), Canada (former colony, resources, political engineering), Singapore (political engineering, no resources to speak of, formerly colonial), and other cases of where prosperity had sprung up from nothing, in contrast to the series of catastrophes and famines and horror that we have seen already. And what about India, with its own long and varied history? The authors have reasonably cast doubt on China, with its state capitalism. And those even further to the left might make a case for a present oligarchical-corporatist structure as an extractive institution. No doubt the authors will address these concerns in a new writing/edition.

A very thought provoking book on the causes of poverty and wealth among nations. (less)

9 likes · like · see review

Jan 20, 2013 Jeff Kelleher rated it 5 of 5 stars

The core theme here is not new: sustained prosperity arises where there is pluralistic government under the rule of law. To the extent a society approaches this structure, which the authors call "inclusive," it develops inclusive--ie, open-- economic institutions, where no elite can obstruct progress. This is contrasted with "extractive" economies, stultified by political elites who repress the "creative destruction" that drives growth but threatens their power.

The authors mostly avoid such term...more The core theme here is not new: sustained prosperity arises where there is pluralistic government under the rule of law. To the extent a society approaches this structure, which the authors call "inclusive," it develops inclusive--ie, open-- economic institutions, where no elite can obstruct progress. This is contrasted with "extractive" economies, stultified by political elites who repress the "creative destruction" that drives growth but threatens their power.

The authors mostly avoid such terms as "democracy," "free markets," and "capitalism" because their chronicle covers thousands of years and those are modern concepts. But at bottom, those are the ideals the authors are aiming at.

So this is the latest in a long line of works by the likes of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Ludwig Von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Milton Friedman, Mancur Olsen, and Francis Fukuyama. Does it add anything? Yes it does, quite a lot.

The contribution here is to chronicle the historical correlation between "inclusiveness" and prosperity; and conversely between "extraction" and decline. It is a feast of historical anecdotes proving the correlation.

For example, those who argue that riches or poverty are determined by culture, or religion, or natural resource endowment, or geography, need only look at two borders: those between Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Senora; and North Korea and South Korea. It is politics, not any of those other things, that is decisive.

The authors' theory is deterministic in the sense that ONCE inclusive political and economic institutions are in place, progress is assured; and conversely, as long as a society remains extractive, decline is assured.

But on the question of HOW societies BECOME inclusive, the theory is not deterministic at all. On the contrary, such developments are episodic and contingent, the result of "critical junctures" such as the Black Death (which shifted power from the landlords to the laborers) or the opening of Atlantic trade routes (which undercut chartered monopolies) or the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (which cemented the supremacy of Parliament and the rule of law); or specific personalities (such as the enlightened tribal chiefs of Botswana at independence in 1966 or Deng Xiaoping in Red China in the late 70s); and luck.

How do they fit their theory to Communist China, a politically extractive but economically partially-inclusive society that is experiencing dramatic growth? It won't last, they say, unless there is vast political change.

China has prospered because "there was a lot of catching up to do." It could exploit existing technology and foreign investment by loosening the economy just enough. But there is no creative destruction in China. The Party still holds its fist over every important enterprise, and every entrepreneur still needs party permission and support to succeed. And the surest way to become rich is to be a high party official. This makes the authoritarian system a spoils game, and will incite upheaval and instability as factions contend for power. We'll see, but I'm convinced.

My only criticism is that the writing style is more pedestrian than inspired. It needs a sharp-penciled editor. But other Great Works are much more obscurely written--Marx's "Capital" and Keynes's "General Theory" are lead examples. This is a model of clarity by comparison.

Anyone who writes a book that Explains Everything sets himself up like an elk in a wolfpack. A lot of people will be threatened by this book and they will nibble and nitpick at it in the way creationists attack evolution. The rejoinder is straightforward: if you disagree, produce your own historical chronicle impeaching this one. We will wait a long time. (less)

2 likes · like · see review

Jan 06, 2013 Yalman Onaran rated it 2 of 5 stars

This could be written in one chapter or a long magazine piece. Has an interesting theory, but it just goes on for too long and not worth spending the time.

10 likes · like · see review

Jul 07, 2012 Siew-Lee rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

Such an insightful and shocking book! The examples are very well-explained, and I truly enjoyed thinking and discussing the points raised in this book. Only if more people would read this book and understand that it is not for the lack of aid to poor countries, but the very political and economical structure of the country that makes it poor.

The whole inclusive and extractive political-economical standpoint is very interesting.

The only nitpick I would comment on: the book suffers from excessiv...more

9 likes · like · see review

May 19, 2013 Richard rated it 5 of 5 stars

I was impressed by this book on a number of fronts. First is that it contains a great deal of historical information to reinforce its central theory a lot of which is interesting in its own right.

Second the central idea of success depending on inclusive political institutions and non extractive economic ones which seems deceptively simple when first discussed is carefully shown to be a difficult and rare cycle to enter and while the cycle is self reinforcing it is not inevitable that it continu...more

like · see review

May 07, 2013 Shahid Raja rated it 4 of 5 stars

Why Nations Fail is a remarkable book by Darren Acemoglu and James Robinson on the nature and causes of state failure, a topic which has been getting increasing attention by the students of social sciences particularly of political economy and international relations. Their main thesis is that the states do not fall apart overnight; the seeds of their destruction are sown deep within their political institutions. Their failure is by design as they are ruled by elites who benefit by destroying i...more Why Nations Fail is a remarkable book by Darren Acemoglu and James Robinson on the nature and causes of state failure, a topic which has been getting increasing attention by the students of social sciences particularly of political economy and international relations. Their main thesis is that the states do not fall apart overnight; the seeds of their destruction are sown deep within their political institutions. Their failure is by design as they are ruled by elites who benefit by destroying incentives, discouraging innovations, sapping the talent by creating a tilted playing field and robbing them of opportunities through the help of extractive economic institutions ably supported by the political institutions. Recently, in an article in the Foreign Policy the authors gave a gist of their findings in the form of set of ten reasons why certain countries fail or fall apart blaming the deeply flawed political institutions and equally flawed "extractive" economic institutions, both captured by a predatory elite which is bent upon squeezing the resources of the country for their own benefit. In their words, "these institutions are not in place by mistake but on purpose. They're there for the benefit of elites who gain much from the extraction—whether in the form of valuable minerals, forced labor, or protected monopolies—at the expense of society."
In their above article Acemoglu and Robinson have illustrated their arguments with the help of examples from current and past performance of the different states and have enumerated the following ten reasons for the failure of a nation state to take full benefit of its potential and ultimately fall apart;
1. Lack of Property Rights which serves as a disincentive for wealth accumulation and hard work in North Korea.
2. Forced Labour, particularly of students used for cotton plantations in Uzbekistan
3. Tilted Playing Grounds of South Africa whereby black population gets preferential treatment in the job market and state bounties
4. Big Men Get Greedy like they did in Egypt where they virtually controlled all the sources of wealth creation
5. Elites Block New Technology, a very telling example of Austria of 1850s which refused laying of railway lines fearing that it would create conditions like French Revolution. On the other hand UK introduced railways at the same time not only at home but also in her colonies and reaped the benefits
6. Law and Order, absence of which as witnessed in Somalia results in civil war and deterioration in living standards
7. Weak Central Government which is unable to control non state actors who create difficulties in provision of civic amenities and promulgation of property legislation-case of Columbia
8. Bad Public Services witnessed in the Peruvian provinces
9. Political Exploitation by the Iron law of oligarchy which is in operation in Bolivia
10. Fighting over Spoils-Sierra Leone, constant struggle for power for getting the spoils

Interestingly while the authors have given examples of ten cities to illustrate their theory of state failure due to the interplay of extractive institutions and predatory elites, they stress for an effective centralized state to have a prosperous economy which is dependent upon law and order, an effective legal framework, a fair disputes resolution mechanism and provision of basic public goods. It is indeed a book worth keeping at your bedside table for frequent reading
(less)

like · see review

May 01, 2013 Chessmen rated it 4 of 5 stars

Very provocative book with the million dollar question: Why are some countries poor? It asks all the big questions in geography. Why is Africa poor? Are countries poor because they are too hot? Is geography destiny?

I found the section on foreign aid very useful for my final in geography of economic development. It argues the idea that foreign aid can help develop poor nations is based on a fundamentally incorrect view of what causes poverty. Even though billions in dollars of foreign aid poured...more

like · see review

Mar 15, 2013 Bill Leach rated it 2 of 5 stars

Actually, I didn't really like WNF. I believe there is real value in the concept of extractive institutions, but the book did a poor job of presenting it. In general, they spent too much time on historical illustrations (probably 80% of the book). It is very hard to extract their conclusions which are hidden away among the historical examples. Also, I felt they spent too much time branding this as extractive and that as inclusive without detailing why it is so.

Any good theory should be predictiv...more Actually, I didn't really like WNF. I believe there is real value in the concept of extractive institutions, but the book did a poor job of presenting it. In general, they spent too much time on historical illustrations (probably 80% of the book). It is very hard to extract their conclusions which are hidden away among the historical examples. Also, I felt they spent too much time branding this as extractive and that as inclusive without detailing why it is so.

Any good theory should be predictive, but there is very little forward looking content. Of the 11 references to China's extractive institutions in the index, only about half refer to the future and these are short passages only.

For example, I am interested in China's growth. On page 93-94, China's institutions are classed as extractive based on the state doing central planning. On page 436, they state that China's growth will run out of steam (no further detail). On page 439, they decide that Chinese economic institutions are more inclusive now than 3 decades ago. Also, "Despite the recent emphasis ... on innovation and technology, Chinese growth is based upon the adoption of existing technologies" (!). Statements around labor mobility and property rights get my interest up, but they are not substantiated. On page 442, two good paragraphs are presented. On page 462, they state that Chinese authorities' control of the media has become "frighteningly sophisticated". Altogether, this does not form a convincing argument. Jim Rogers has much more to say in his book.

I think this is important as it seems that the problems of democratic systems are starting to show in Europe and NA. Many observers, including Plato suggested that democracy eventually fails. This concept would be at odds with the WNF theories. We need a WDF component to this theory.

Another big issue is the move to more extractive institutions in the U.S. However, the index has almost a full page on the U.S. - mostly historical, so I cant tell whether the authors have anything to say on the subject. I doubt it as there is no entry in the index for extractive institutions.

I'm a bit confused as what constitutes an extractive institution. On page 81 (second para), they seem to be defined as those that concentrate power. But then they add that they are "often" structured to extract resources from the rest of society. The problems with the latter are clear, but not so the former.

(less)

1 like · like · see review

Feb 08, 2013 Alex rated it 3 of 5 stars

I could have given this book 4-stars, but I felt 3 were more appropriate in the end. I really think this book's title is a misnomer: it should be "How Nations Fail." I agree the extractive/inclusive dichotomy of political institutions is a useful and explanatory model of a country's economic success and failure. I think it explains much of how a nation/political organization fails. I also like how they point out that failure can take time, and things may look good for a time before they start go...more I could have given this book 4-stars, but I felt 3 were more appropriate in the end. I really think this book's title is a misnomer: it should be "How Nations Fail." I agree the extractive/inclusive dichotomy of political institutions is a useful and explanatory model of a country's economic success and failure. I think it explains much of how a nation/political organization fails. I also like how they point out that failure can take time, and things may look good for a time before they start going downhill. I cannot, however, agree that only the extractive/inclusive dichotomy (along with creative destruction/innovation) are the only explanation for failure. The dismissive attitude towards geographic, disease, and technological factors is astounding. We may see these extractive/inclusive institutions as the medium through which nations can fail and can succeed, but I did not feel they adequately addressed how such institutions come about in the first place. Would the Spaniards and other European powers have been able to put in place the extractive institutions without most of the indigenous population of the Americas being destroyed by disease? I highly doubt it. The few thousand Spanish that conquered Latin America could hardly have done that without the advantage of disease and immunity. I also felt that many of the examples they gave were anecdotal (which I suppose is the nature of these types of books) and perhaps even extreme situations that exemplified their theory. They completely ignore the threat of Mongol invasions of Eastern Europe in the 13th century, the influence of the crusades, the occurrence of the Renaissance, and hardly mention the Scientific Revolution/Enlightenment. Could inclusive institutions have been created without such events? It seems they would lay the occurrence of all those events at the feet of inclusivity. I would argue that the Glorious Revolution could not have occurred without the scientific and philosophical progress that was occurring and accumulating at the time.

Overall, it is a book that is worth reading to those interested in these grand, sweeping books of theory that attempt to explain civilization (like Guns, Germs, & Steel), though the style of jumping from example to example is a little jarring. It was not as enjoyable as some of the other books like it because of that style. On one page you are reading about one country and on the next another country centuries later. They do provide many interesting examples, so if you are also into history this book would appeal to you. If you are a person that likes the evidence presented rather than a narrative this book will likely annoy you (as it did me). I know they are trying to appeal to a wide audience, but there was nary a chart or graph in this book. A few maps, a set of images and that was it. The narrative text did not even provide much in the way of empirical evidence to back up their claims. The authors essentially ask you to believe and go along with the story they are weaving. (less)

4 likes · like · see review

Feb 03, 2013 Dino Go rated it 5 of 5 stars

What the authors have written in their book, "Why Nations Fail", is really nothing new. By making the North and South Korea examples as to why nations always fail provides a well-founded evidence that countries who are isolated and do have not provide an environment where its leaders are passionate about the welfare of their own people are always bound to fail. A nation or any organization where the people are given opportunities to take care of themselves and control their own destiny, with the...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jan 12, 2013 Kirsti rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics, greed, history, nonfiction, politics

Okay, so this government professor at Harvard (James A. Robinson) and this economics professor at MIT (Daron Acemoglu) are besties, and they wrote a book together about why some societies are democratic, egalitarian, and innovative while others are repressive and unequal. According to them, the answer doesn't lie in climate, natural resources, culture, education level, traditions, availability of accurate information, or governing skills. It has to do with economic and political institutions and...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jan 09, 2013 Margaret Sankey rated it 4 of 5 stars

Are people in developing countries stupid, or lazy, or do the tropics just instill lassitude? In my experience, drinking palm liquor with Nigerian pirates with English lit degrees, when you live with extractive industries that carry money away and are unable to gain any kind of traction (property rights, jobs in the infrastructure, small scale banking), being a bandit or pirate or political rebel to conserve something for your immediate family is actually the smart move, and one most of us would...more

2 likes · like · see review

Dec 18, 2012 Zhifei Ge rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics, history

Generally, I find the book interesting and insightful to read, and above all impressive writing. The main taken-away from the book is political institutions are closely related with the prosperity of the commonwealth. The authors, Acemoglu and Robinson, list so many examples that every reader should have some knowledge to at least some of them.

Some defects about the book. Although the book is written by economists, it looks much more a history book to me. The authors seem to have concluded fuzz...more

2 likes · like · see review

Dec 18, 2012 Samantha rated it 5 of 5 stars

I thought this book was great. The authors' argument, namely, that the successes and failures of nations are based not on their geography or their "culture" but on their political and economic institutions, might be too apparently simple to be true, but it makes quite a bit of intuitive sense. Institutions here are broadly grouped into "extractive"--designed to funnel wealth from the majority to a minority--or "inclusive"--that is, formed with the intention of benefiting everybody. Examples abou...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 18, 2012 Miki rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: economics, all-non-fiction

I found this book very interesting. I found the book very satisfying in ways that "Guns, Germs and Steel" was not; countries are not poor because of initial resource conditions or ignorance on how to become more prosperous. More often, those in power create political and economic structures to secure power while sacrificing the long-term welfare of the rest of the nation, crippling a country's ability to adapt to changing conditions or use labor and resources efficiently. The book stresses the i...more

2 likes · like · see review

Nov 28, 2012 Breakingviews rated it 3 of 5 stars

Review by Pierre Briançon

The book begins in Nogales, a city divided by a fence along the border of Arizona and Mexico, and ends 450 pages later in China, with the story of a young entrepreneur arrested in 2004 for having started a large steel plant competing with the state-owned companies. In between “Why Nations Fail” is a highly readable narrative of a breathtaking trip: from the Neolithic Revolution to 16th century England, from Spain’s Philip II to Stalin, from the Mayan city-states to the P...more Review by Pierre Briançon

The book begins in Nogales, a city divided by a fence along the border of Arizona and Mexico, and ends 450 pages later in China, with the story of a young entrepreneur arrested in 2004 for having started a large steel plant competing with the state-owned companies. In between “Why Nations Fail” is a highly readable narrative of a breathtaking trip: from the Neolithic Revolution to 16th century England, from Spain’s Philip II to Stalin, from the Mayan city-states to the Portuguese colonisation of the Moluccan archipelago.

Daron Acemoglu, a professor of economics at MIT, and James Robinson, who teaches government at Harvard University, have looked far and wide for an explanation to account for the vast differences in income and wealth between rich and poor countries. They think they have found one. It’s the politics, stupid - or rather, the institutions.

The impressively deep and broad research leads to the conclusion that countries, communities and civilisations ruled by what the authors call “inclusive” institutions end up prosperous. Inclusive institutions are pluralistic and support strong and rigorously enforced property rights. They provide the confidence needed to encourage the many to invest in the future. “Extractive” systems, on the other hand, are ruled by the few, who hijack the resources and wealth. Without good politics, there can be no good economy. Democracy is not a nice addendum to wealth: it is a pre-condition.

The ambitious quest for a unifying cause is the book’s greatest strength. Acemoglu and Robinson never make their simple truth a simplistic one. Nuances abound, as well as answers to the objections that their case might raise. Nor do they shy away from exploring the impact of other factors - major disease, weather, agricultural potential or natural resources. And they are fair when explaining why they think that rival all-encompassing theories - of geography, culture or other factors - “don’t work”.

The single-mindedness is also a weakness. Reality sometimes has to be stuffed into conceptual boxes. The repeated opposition of inclusive and extractive is irritating, if only because the former suggests an excessively rosy, let’s-love-each-other vision of the world. More substantially, the polarity doesn’t leave much room for the cases where the reality is not so black and white.

Nor do these categories allow the authors to escape the chicken-and-egg conundrum: as they amply demonstrate, good institutions certainly foster prosperity, but why are the institutions good in the first place? The cultural and economic preconditions - and the role of chance - warrant some deeper analysis.

The case for inclusive institutions is appealing, but a closer examination of the cases that may not fit would have helped. The 20th century, after all, gave us some examples of not-that-inclusive regimes that managed somewhat prosperous countries. Singapore comes to mind, but is barely mentioned. Similarly, it would have been interesting to have some analysis of why countries with roughly similar “inclusive” institutions end up with different levels of wealth; it’s simply not enough to discard as “extractive” the traits that don’t fit with the theory.

The authors owe much to the works of economic historians, who are duly credited, although the pioneering work of Fernand Braudel on the history of capitalism is bizarrely not mentioned. But as it is, Acemoglu and Robinson have written a book that will remain for quite some time the most provocative attempt at explaining, not only why nations fail, but why people count.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Nov 26, 2012 Daniel Middelburg rated it 5 of 5 stars

This book is exactly what the jacket promises--a completely groundbreaking book that may someday be the equivalent of Wealth of Nations and other bibles of political economy. Furthermore there is something for everyone on both sides of the political spectrum to take away as confirmation (and why, in my mind, the truth is always somewhere in the middle). I'm a centrist and I tend to favor books that I believe promise to be non-partisan or at least tell it straight down the middle, and that is tru...more This book is exactly what the jacket promises--a completely groundbreaking book that may someday be the equivalent of Wealth of Nations and other bibles of political economy. Furthermore there is something for everyone on both sides of the political spectrum to take away as confirmation (and why, in my mind, the truth is always somewhere in the middle). I'm a centrist and I tend to favor books that I believe promise to be non-partisan or at least tell it straight down the middle, and that is true of Why Nations Fail. The authors have done a superb job of laying out their theory, and it is so powerful and simple an argument it is hard to see how the world could be the way it is by anything but their argument.

For the left, it is the fact that nations only succeed when the people have the power--a LOT of people with a LOT of power, not just one class, race, or religious group. When one party becomes dominant the outcome is easy to predict: a move to extractive and oppressive regimes who will ultimately force the rest of the population to do their bidding. It also confirms the left's insistence that inequality is a danger to any nation--wealth concentrated in the hands of the few is dangerous for the rest of society. History proves this and the book is filled with page after page of examples, almost to the point it becomes tedious! Unions, cooperatives, civil rights, progressive taxes, all help keep inequality in check and, despite the claims of the powerful and elite, help ensure the broader prosperity.

For the right there is the assurance that free markets are the best solution, and firmly puts to rest the idea that a society organized around socialism, communism, totalitarianism, aristocracy, or any of its other non-free trading variants will ultimately make people worse off. The only true way to have an economy that works for all and not just for the few at the top is to secure property rights, especially the right to sell your labor as you wish and for the price you can get (ie, not slavery or feudalism). Law and order must reign supreme as an economy cannot function fairly without them. Judges must be honest and uncorrupt, willing to uphold the law and not fearful of the consequences. People must have the assurance that their efforts and labor will not be in vain and this is what the right has been telling us all along (admittedly buried deep in their refusal to learn any of the other lessons found in this book!) and which the left usually denies. An oppressive tax system functions the same way as an extractive institution (What? Never heard the term "extractive institution"? It is repeated at least ten times on every page!), depending on who and what and in what amounts are taxed, and the right is rightly concerned about over-taxation.

I was a little disappointed that the authors didn't wade into our current situation, which I see as a gradual slide toward more wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, here in the States. To me the lessons are obvious--power concentrated in too few hands means ultimately your labor will no longer belong to you--you will be serving in some sort of slavery at some point, whether it be from the mildest form of "wage slave" to outright chattel slavery. Wealth equals power, access, control, and it should always be kept in check, without regret. Let us never begrudge the person who builds wealth through his ingenuity and hard work, but let us never give that person an inch toward more control than even the lowest among us. Perhaps current events and their relationship to the authors' theories will be a subject for another book, perhaps in collaboration with Simon Johnson and James Kwak, whose excellent books 13 Bankers and White House Burning present a similar argument, and who the authors cite as collaborators. That's a book I would definitely read.

To me this book and more importantly the theories presented very neatly wrap up the whole of history and guide us to our future--political power belongs in the hands of the people--ALL the people, not just some, and a free market with reasonable limitations is the only true way to build wealth and make our own world better for all of us. So many times while reading this book I was caused to think of the genius of the US Constitution and how it enshrined these very lessons. I think about how fortunate I am to NOT be one of the people in this book. For dictators and serfs alike there is only a bitter unpleasant end and in my country I am relieved of having to worry about a dictator staging a coup. But as the book points out there are no guarantees, and we must be ever vigilant of the eroding of our inclusive institutions.

I dare say this book will change the way you read the newspaper, understand the world, argue with your friends, alter or confirm your philosophy. Congratulations to the authors for making a brilliant and simple argument.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Nov 03, 2012 Clay rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Rich nations are rich because the developed inclusive economic and political institutions before others did. These institutions have lasted through a process of virtuous circles. They start by being inclusive for only the narrow top end of the elite. Catalyst is empowerment of a coalition that can stand up against absolutism. Then the next band of elites wants to be included, and the former group says, let them in to stop the conflict; if we don't, we may lose the privileges we already have. Thu...more

1 like · like · see review

Nov 03, 2012 Susan Larson rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: history buffs, republicans

Recommended to Susan by: NPR

This book states an important thesis: that nations prosper when economic and political power are shared (Australia, Britain, France), and when government is centralized. They call these nations "inclusive." Nations fail when the political and economic power rests with a few alites (Congo, Russia, Latin America), or where there is no central authority at all (Somalia, Afghanistan). They call these nations "extractive."

Unfortunately, they state things over and over again. These very smart people (...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 23, 2012 Greg Stoll rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book attempts to explain why there is such a huge difference in income and standards of living between countries. Its thesis is there are two kinds of economic institutions in a country: extractive, which extract incomes and wealth from one subset of society to another, and inclusive, which encourage participation for everyone and lets people make choices. There are also extractive and inclusive political systems, which correspond roughly to how democratic the system is. Extractive politica...more This book attempts to explain why there is such a huge difference in income and standards of living between countries. Its thesis is there are two kinds of economic institutions in a country: extractive, which extract incomes and wealth from one subset of society to another, and inclusive, which encourage participation for everyone and lets people make choices. There are also extractive and inclusive political systems, which correspond roughly to how democratic the system is. Extractive political systems are highly correlated with extractive economic systems, and these are the poorer countries.

A lot of the book examines particular countries and how they got the way they are. For example, because there were existing native civilizations in Mexico and Latin America when the conquistadors arrived, they were easily able to make an extractive society by taking almost all of the existing wealth and income, and even today most of these countries are still fairly extractive. In the US, there were no societies for the English to enslave (although that was roughly their plan!) so instead the settlers had to start their own development, and they weren't willing to be enslaved. (I'm grossly oversimplifying here - the book goes into more detail)

Some interesting notes:

- One of the big reasons extractive economies don't do as well is that they don't allow the creative destruction of new technologies, since the rulers are getting rich off of the existing technologies.

- But, economies can still grow under extractive political systems, such as the Soviet Union from 1930-1960 (or China now). A centralized government can still allocate resources more efficiently than they were before, but not as efficiently as a free-market system. However, this can't last, and the author predicts China's growth will slow down unless their political system changes.

- There is both a virtuous cycle where inclusive economies/political systems tend to stay that way, and a vicious cycle where extractive economies/political systems do too. Even when extractive governments are overthrown, the framework is still there for whoever runs the country to make a lot of money and have a lot of power - this is known as the "iron law of oligarchy", and it's a good reason to worry about the countries that underwent the Arab Spring. Of course it's not guaranteed to happen - Japan is a good example that broke the cycle.

- There's an interesting contrast between Bill Gates and Carlos Slim. (the Mexican billionaire, currently the richest person in the world) Even at the height of Gates's power, Microsoft was sued by the Department of Justice and lost, even if the penalties weren't extremely damaging. Slim made his money by buying Telmex when it was privatized, and using its monopoly. Telmex has been found in court to have a monopoly, but Mexican law has the idea of "recurso de amparo" ("appeal for protection"), which is a petition saying the law doesn't apply to you(!). Slim has used this effectively. An anecdote - Slim bought CompUSA in 1999 and promptly violated a contract. The other company sued and won a big judgment against him in the US.

- Random: Convicts sent to Australia were sent to Botany Bay - the name of the starship Khan was exiled on! Why did I not know this?

- There's a section about how the US South was somewhat extractive during segregation. Alabama's constitution has a section requiring schools to be segregated (obviously not enforced anymore), but in 2004 it survived a vote in the state legislature! Sheesh.

- Control over the media is essential for an extractive system to survive. When Fujimori ruled over Peru in the 90's, he would bribe Supreme Court judges and politicians on the order of $5-10K per month, but he paid TV stations and newspapers millions of dollars!

Anyway, the book is quite good and I would have given it 5 stars, but it's a bit long. (which is great if you're trying to prove your thesis to political scientists (there are lots of case studies!) but less good for casual observers like me) If you're at all interested in the topic I'd recommend reading at least the first 3 or 4 chapters.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Sep 05, 2012 Daan rated it 3 of 5 stars

The hypothesis is clear very early on; what follows is an evidence-loaded journey that keeps hammering the intriguing and simple message home: that extractive, exclusive institutions wreck a country while profiting the elite who holds the power to change the institutions ; and inclusive institutions provide a country with economical growth, while on the long run providing mechanisms through which inclusive institutions are kept.

As many other reviewers have noted, they are however simplistic in p...more

6 likes · like · see review

Aug 30, 2012 Ryan rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfic-economics, nonfic-history, nonfic-issues

Acemoglu and Robinson’s central thesis isn’t hard to understand: countries with inclusive, equitable political and economic institutions tend to prosper, while those with extractive, exclusive institutions geared towards the interests of a small elite tend to languish. The authors minimize geography and culture as significant factors in the equation, pointing to nations where those realities are similar but political systems vary.

The dynamic exists, the authors maintain, because the interests of...more Acemoglu and Robinson’s central thesis isn’t hard to understand: countries with inclusive, equitable political and economic institutions tend to prosper, while those with extractive, exclusive institutions geared towards the interests of a small elite tend to languish. The authors minimize geography and culture as significant factors in the equation, pointing to nations where those realities are similar but political systems vary.

The dynamic exists, the authors maintain, because the interests of an exploitative elite and those of regular citizens are usually in conflict, so the elite must actively block democratic movements, workers rights, unions, property rights, innovation, etc. in order to maintain a hold on power. In more inclusive systems, meanwhile, there is a virtuous circle effect, in which opportunity breeds motivation and meaningful choice, while making it hard for anyone to consolidate too much power over others.

It’s a strikingly simple hypothesis -- a little too simple, I think -- but the authors back it up with a wide set of historical cases, ranging from post-Renaissance Europe, to the colonial Americas (noting the different approaches taken by English and Spanish settlers in controlling their territories), to post 17th century Britain, to the United States (monopolies and trusts are discussed), to the Arab world, to the Soviet Union, to modern Africa, to North versus South Korea. Even if you more or less accept the book’s ideas, the details are still informative. If you’re not familiar with the political differences between imperial Spain and England, they cast quite a bit of light on the separate paths taken by the two former world powers -- and their former colonial possessions. Similarly, you don’t appreciate what apartheid meant for South Africa until you’ve contemplated just how the system was structured to impede blacks from becoming more than cheap sources of labor. As was a problem in the US, too.

The examinations seemed politically balanced. Communist governments taking a drubbing, and the authors argue that China’s rapid growth as orchestrated by Bejiing is unlikely to be sustainable unless the Party relinquishes more of its grip. But Acemoglu and Robinson also pay attention to how capitalist monopolies undermine democratic ideals, as do weak or corrupt central governments that lack the power to enforce laws and protect individual rights.

The book has its blind spots, though. I simply don’t agree with the authors that geography doesn’t matter. Most wealthy countries, it seems to me, have inclusive systems, but were also blessed in resources, either obtained locally, or extracted from some other region. It’s easy, for example, to see a country like the Netherlands as owing its prosperity to a liberal democracy that overcame a lack of natural gifts, but that’s not the whole story. The Netherlands got started on a path to prosperity because it set up exploitative trading companies during the colonial era and eventually reallocated the wealth into new ventures. Being “inclusive” at home or among upper classes doesn’t mean the same was true abroad or among lower classes. I also think that geopolitics is underrepresented as a factor in Why Nations Fail. South Korea and Israel might be successful countries in spite of tough landscapes, but both enjoyed massive military and economic support from the United States, enabling technological economies to flourish. It’s not that a country like Zimbabwe has no chance of becoming a technology center, but it would have to find a way to produce skilled workers who can compete in the global economy, without being tempted to emigrate. Creating an educated population has significant start-up costs, even with the best of intentions.

All in all, the ideas that Acemoglu and Robinson promote are important foundational ones, but should be considered with their blind spots taken into account. Readers interested in history for its own sake might enjoy the case studies; if not, the themes are pretty repetitive.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 05, 2012 Jerry rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: history, economics

This book explains why there has become such a wide disparity in wealth of nations over the past two hundred years. The reason can be explained by understanding why some nations more easily and quickly adopted the industrial revolution. The cause is to be found in extractive versus inclusive political and economic institutions. The book describes how various nations came to have the institutions they have.

“Inclusive economic institutions are those that allow and encourage participation by the g...more This book explains why there has become such a wide disparity in wealth of nations over the past two hundred years. The reason can be explained by understanding why some nations more easily and quickly adopted the industrial revolution. The cause is to be found in extractive versus inclusive political and economic institutions. The book describes how various nations came to have the institutions they have.

“Inclusive economic institutions are those that allow and encourage participation by the great mass of people in economic activities that best use their talents and skills and that enable individuals to make the choices they wish. To be inclusive, economic institutions must feature secure property rights, an unbiased system of law, and a provision of public services that provides a level playing field in which people can exchange and contract; it also must permit the entry of new businesses and allow people to choose their careers... To function well, society also needs other public services: roads and transport network so the goods can be transported; a public infrastructure so that economic activity can flourish; and some type of basic regulation to prevent fraud and malfeasance.”

“Extractive economic institutions... are designed to extract incomes and wealth from one subset of society to benefit a different subset.”

“We will refer to political institutions that are sufficiently centralized and pluralistic as inclusive political institutions. When either of these conditions fails, we will refer to the institutions as extractive political institutions. Extractive political institutions concentrate power in the hands of a narrow elite and place few constraints on the exercise of this power. Economic institutions are then often structured by this elite to extract resources from the rest of the society.”

“When both political and economic institutions are extractive, the incentives will not be there for creative destruction and technological change.” Progress and its accompanying creative destruction creates winners and losers, and often among the losers are the current elites. Despite the low growth of most extractive systems relative to inclusive systems “those controlling political power will eventually find it more beneficial to use their power to limit competition, to increase their share of the pie, or even to steal and loot others rather than support economic progress.”

Growth generated by extractive institutions is not sustainable because it does not foster creative destruction and technological progress. Furthermore, “as these institutions create significant gains for the elite, there will be strong incentives for others to fight to replace the current elite. Infighting and instability are thus inherent features of extractive institutions, and they not only create further inefficiencies but also often reverse any political centralization, sometimes even leading to the total breakdown of law and order and decent into chaos...”

Why did pluralistic institutions develop in England? Nowhere did the Roman Empire collapse so quickly and completely as in Britain. Perhaps this is a reason the English monarchs were weaker than those on the continent. The English kings were much less able to monopolize profits of American trade than the kings of France, Spain, and Portugal. “Expanding trade opportunities presented by the Americas, the mass entry of English merchants into this trade and economic development of the colonies, and the fortunes they made in the process, tipped the balance of power in the struggle between the monarchy and those opposed to absolutism.” “Perhaps most critically, the emergence and empowerment of the diverse interests – ranging from the gentry, a class of commercial farmers that emerged in the Tudor period, to different types of manufacturers to Atlantic traders – meant that the coalition against Stuart absolutism was not only strong but broad... A broad coalition meant that there would be greater demands for the creation of pluralistic political institutions. Without some sort of pluralism, there would be a danger that one of the diverse interests would usurp power at the expense of the rest... Thus this broad coalition was essential in the lead-up to a strong parliament after 1688, but it also meant that there were checks within parliament against any single group becoming too powerful and abusing its power. It was the critical factor in the emergence of pluralistic political institutions.”

“Extractive political institutions create few constraints on the exercise of power, so there are essentially no institutions to restrain the use and abuse of power by those overthrowing previous dictators and assuming control of the state, and extractive economic institutions imply that there are great profits and wealth to be made merely by controlling power, expropriating the assets of others, and setting up monopolies.” “Nations fail today because their extractive economic institutions do not create the incentives needed for people to save, invest, and innovate.”

“What is common among political revolutions that successfully paved the way for more inclusive institutions are that they succeeded in empowering a fairly broad cross-section of society. Pluralism, the cornerstone of inclusive political institutions, requires political power to be widely held in society.”
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jun 23, 2012 Max rated it 3 of 5 stars

I think the premise of this book is fantastic, and the first 50 pages were terrific. Beyond that, I was pretty disappointed by the execution.

The book is built upon the theory that it is not economic policies, but rather "institutions" (such as good governance, social norms and a strong legal system) that play the fundamental role in economic growth and development. I find this to be a compelling theory and I think it is an extremely useful framework from which to view economic and political dev...more

6 likes · like · see review

May 21, 2012 Joe Arencibia rated it 4 of 5 stars

Acemoglu leaves you with no doubt about his point: the forces of political decentralization, political disenfranchisement and economic disenfranchisement inevitably and predictably lead to a failed state. He beats this from every angle, every combination and every counterargument.

I think he was a little overzealous and accordingly missed the point of previous theories by Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel), in which Diamond argues that geographic factors play a large part in determining outco...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 28, 2012 Fred R rated it 2 of 5 stars

To Acemoglu and Robinson, the economic prosperity of a nation is a direct function of its political institutions, which in turn are dependent only on historical contingencies. "Extractive" political structures create an economy only to benefit the small ruling class (and therefore are extremely hostile to the wealth-creation of creative destruction, which can only harm the interests of this ruling class. "Inclusive" political institutions, on the other hand, create incentives for large-scale pro...more

3 likes · like · see review

Apr 15, 2012 Jason rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction, economic_history

A monumental economic history that touches on everything from the transformation from neolithic times, the divergence of world economies in the last five centuries, and the recent economic history. At times polemical, it effectively and convincingly presents the theory that institutions (specifically inclusive political and economic institutions) are necessary and sufficient for growth. And it effectively rebuts what it sets out as the three alternative hypotheses about the determinants of growt...more A monumental economic history that touches on everything from the transformation from neolithic times, the divergence of world economies in the last five centuries, and the recent economic history. At times polemical, it effectively and convincingly presents the theory that institutions (specifically inclusive political and economic institutions) are necessary and sufficient for growth. And it effectively rebuts what it sets out as the three alternative hypotheses about the determinants of growth: climate/ecology, culture, and economic policies.

The most interesting prediction in the book is that China will not sustain its economic growth because, the book argues, it does not have inclusive political institutions. According to Acemoglu and Robinson, this is compatible with short (i.e., decades long) spurts of growth like Argentina a hundred years ago or the Soviet Union, but it is ultimately not sustainable. Acemoglu and Robinson argue that China is the wrong model for other countries.

I have three quibbles with the book. The first is that much of it is based on and justified by a series of more technical economic papers, but barely a hint of that shows through in a book that is narrative history, often at a basic level, with not even a single table. The second is that the book provides no hope or model whatsoever for economic policy or foreign aid, although it blames colonialism for the situation that many African countries face, now that they are where they are Acemoglu and Robinson and hard pressed to muster much enthusiasm for doing anything about them. Finally, and related, to some degree the theses the book demolishes are straw men. Maybe economic policy does not explain the difference between the Congo and the United States. But surely inclusive/extractive are not a useful way to understand differences in growth between most European and North American countries. At which point, holding institutions roughly constant, economic policy starts to matter again.(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Apr 02, 2012 Richard marked it as to-read

Recommended to Richard by: The Interwubs

Shelves: economics, non-fiction

Your cutting-edge jargon lesson for the day is "extractive institutions" versus "inclusive institutions" .

This, from another book that looks like a must-read. Are they coming out more frequently these days?

Tidbits about it from around the web...

The authors have an extensive website at whynationsfail.com, including a bibliographic essay. You may not think so, but to me that's incredibly cool. I love trolling through annotated bibliographies, and the few and far between ones that actually discuss...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 07, 2012 Marks54 rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book examines why some nations are more prosperous than others - why some nations fail while others succeed. The basic approach is to argue that open and inclusive political and economic institutions are needed if nations are to really prosper. If both are missing, then the nation will perform poorly and possibly fail. If open and inclusive economic institutions are present but political institutions are authoritarian and "extractive" then while there may be growth over some period, eventua...more This book examines why some nations are more prosperous than others - why some nations fail while others succeed. The basic approach is to argue that open and inclusive political and economic institutions are needed if nations are to really prosper. If both are missing, then the nation will perform poorly and possibly fail. If open and inclusive economic institutions are present but political institutions are authoritarian and "extractive" then while there may be growth over some period, eventually growth will stagnate due to a lack of innovation, which would be repressed by political authorities that fear the effects of its "creative destruction". So keep up the good work, USA but make institutions even more innovative! Don't worry about China, since it will eventually run out of steam due to its maintenance of extractive political controls!

What did I like about the book?
1) The linking political and economic institutions is arguably the major contribution of the book and it seems like a reasonable argument to make and one that the authors support effectively.
2) The reliance on case/examples rather than statistical tables for data and support is also useful and largely effective. Nations are hugely complex and statistical analyses will oversimplify that complexity even while running out of degrees of freedom, due to the limited number of nations.
3) The use of multiple factors, dynamic processes, and contingent results at "critical junctures" is also laudable. The world is complex and the authors do not oversimplify. As these efforts go, this is a fairly effective argument.

What did I not like about the book?
1) Too much detail in the examples and too many reiterations of the argument! The examples range in time from 9000 BC to the present. For each, the book presents background and context to help in making the key point of the example. The problem is that if one stops to summarize what are whole areas of sophisticated research, the result comes across as trivializing what happened. One could spend years reading about many of the areas covered in the book, but too much detail is presented as background that dilutes the overall effect of the argument. The authors sense this so they feel the need to summarize and resummarize their argument frequently.
2) The theory is not really predictive - and the authors acknowledge this in some spots. What is really going on is that the authors are making sense of what has already happened according to their framework. They are fitting their examples into their framework. This is OK to do, but it is not intellectually as interesting or challenging as making a predictive theory. The authors are not being deceptive here but it could be seen as a form of oversimplified history to make a point. As such, the book sometimes comes across as a series of lectures presented in a class on "economic and political institutions". This is OK for readers who like this sort of treatment but I found myself wishing for more subtler treatments of some of the examples.
3) As with many policy books, this one is a chapter or two too long. The final chapters are good when they summarize the theory but weaker when prescriptions are offered. Identifying the problem of development and prosperity as one of faulty political and economic institutions does not provide the insights necessary for fixing the problems associated with poor institutions. Talking about empowerment is fine but is not really that informative. It comes across more as redefining the problem in the form of a solution.

My initial thought was to rate the book three stars rather than four, due to these problems, but I realized that the book really was very thought provoking and that the authors were making some really good points. So if I have over-rated it, that is why. (less)

1 like · like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
anyone else reading this book right now	9	29	Apr 13, 2013 05:37pm
Bill Gates didn't like the book	2	18	Mar 28, 2013 07:56pm

combine
Other Editions (14)

More editions...

Genres

Economics

133 users

Non Fiction

120 users

History

88 users

Politics

71 users

Politics > Political Science

14 users

Social Science

5 users

Science

5 users

Business

4 users

Culture > Society

4 users

History > World History

4 users

See top shelves...

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Why Nations Fail:...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
avg rating	preview: Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty Goodreads rating: 3.90 (1647 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12158480-why-nations-fail?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348987396l/12158480.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12158480-why-nations-fail?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Daron Acemoğlu[/url]

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

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (14)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Daron Acemoğlu

Books by Daron Acemoğlu

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Why Nations Fail:...