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

by Daron Acemoğlu

Attempts at restoring the Stuart monarchy continued throughout much of the eighteenth century.

The Whig political party, which as we saw (this page–this page) was founded in the 1670s to represent the new mercantile and economic interests, was the main organization behind the Glorious Revolution, and the Whigs dominated Parliament from 1714 to 1760.

particularly the Tory Party which had formed to oppose the Whigs, and by the very institutions that they had fought to introduce to strengthen Parliament and to prevent the emergence of a new absolutism and the return of the Stuarts.

“blacking” was precisely a response by the common people to perceptions that the Whigs were exploiting their position.

Yet this property was consolidated by encroaching on the rights of those around the estate.

In May 1723, Parliament passed the Black Act, which created an extraordinary fifty new offenses that were punishable by hanging.

the law in fact stayed on the statute books until it was repealed in 1824. Yet Huntridge’s victory is remarkable.

Now the Whigs also had to abide by the rule of law, the principle that laws should not be applied selectively or arbitrarily and that nobody is above the law.

Notably, the rule of law is not the same as rule by law.

It is a creation of pluralist political institutions and of the broad coalitions that support such pluralism.

The answer reveals much about the nature of the Glorious Revolution—why it didn’t just replace an old absolutism with a new version—the link between pluralism and the rule of law, and the dynamics of virtuous circles.

Thus the notion that there were limits and restraints on rulers, the essence of the rule of law, was part of the logic of pluralism engendered by the broad coalition that made up the opposition to Stuart absolutism.

Once in place, the notion of the rule of law not only kept absolutism at bay but also created a type of virtuous circle: if the laws applied equally to everybody, then no individual or group, not even Cadogan or Walpole, could rise above the law, and common people accused of encroaching on private property still had the right to a fair trial.

a powerful process of positive feedback that preserves these institutions in the face of attempts at undermining them and, in fact, sets in motion forces that lead to greater inclusiveness.

are based on constraints on the exercise of power and on a pluralistic distribution of political power in society, enshrined in the rule of law.

but also because inclusive political institutions tend to support inclusive economic institutions.

Pluralism also creates a more open system and allows independent media to flourish,

It is highly significant that the English state stopped censoring the media after 1688.

institutional development in the United States,

it is neither inevitable nor irreversible.

British political elites thought of using repression to avoid having to further open the political system, but they pulled back from the brink. Similarly, inclusive economic and political institutions in the United States faced serious challenges, which could have conceivably succeeded, but didn’t.

It is due to not only the virtuous circle but also to the realization of the contingent path of history that British and U.S. inclusive institutions survived and became substantially stronger over time.

The response to the Black Act showed ordinary British people that they had more rights than they previously realized.

But this pluralism had not yet delivered effective democracy.

It was only a matter of time until more and more of the population demanded the right to participate in the political process. And in the years leading up to 1831, they did.

The first three decades of the nineteenth century witnessed increasing social unrest in Britain,

The Luddite Riots of 1811–1816,

Spa Fields Riots of 1816

Peterloo Massacre of 1819

Swing Riots o...

in Paris, the July Revolution of 1830 exploded.

the only way to defuse social unrest, and turn back a revolution, was by meeting the demands of the masses and undertaking parliamentary reform.

1831 election was mostly about a single issue: political reform.

The Whigs won the election, and their leader, Earl Grey, became the prime minister. Earl Grey was no radical—far

It was largely taken by the masses, who were empowered by the political processes that had been ongoing in England and the rest of Britain for the last several centuries.

Reforms were granted because the elite thought that reform was the only way to secure the continuation of their rule,

Chartist movement, which led the campaign for universal suffrage after 1838,

universal suffrage was the most durable way of empowering the British masses further and guaranteeing a coat, a hat, a roof, and a good dinner for the working man.

First Reform Act

The 1832 reforms were modest, only doubling the voting franchise from 8 percent to about 16 percent of the adult male population

independent representation to the new industrializing cities

Why did they have to put up with the lesser of the two evils, reform or revolution, rather than maintaining their power without any reform?

The economic

and political changes that had already taken place in Britain made using force to repress these demands both unattractive for the elite and increasingly infeasible.

the same forces that made the British elite not wish to tear down the edifice of the rule of law during the Black Act also made them shun repression and rule by force, which would again risk the stability of the entire system.

Inclusive economic institutions led to the development of inclusive markets, inducing a more efficient allocation of resources, greater encouragement to acquire education and skills, and further innovations in technology.

and the elites opposing greater democratization and greater inclusiveness might find themselves among those losing their fortunes from this destruction.

controlling power became less central.

Clinging to power was thus much less valuable for the British elite.

As such, they empower the citizens at large and thus create a more level playing field, even when it comes to the fight for power.