Why Nations Fail discussion

Due to all the technicalities of this book I was wondering if there is any place on this website to discuss the several concepts that are present in this book? if this is the only place than thats fine, I'll post my thoughts here. Thanks

Hey I, just recently started this book in on the 4th chapter

Yea I kind of slouched on this book. I have switched to some other books at the moment but I plan on returning soon, not sure why it is feeling like a chore to read this book. Going to have to force myself and keep a journal for it as I continue to read.

This book kept going around the same point, but just with more examples of nations in which the writers' point of view were shown.

Nevertheless, I truly think that this book does present a means to explain why many nations fail, but you cannot rely only on whats given here. There is much more to having a successful nation than just the opportunity for fair representation and equal distribution of power coupled with a centralized ruling system, especially in this modern world.

Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
For me, the value of this book is in the examples, really abridged (readers digest) case studies. So wide ranging were the examples that I wondered at the ability of the authors to have consumed so much information, the rich history of peoples over decades, centuries, millennia, distilled it, drawn individual country-by-country conclusions, finally to be used in a grand distillation, an overall world-view. Even so, I very much liked the content and breath of the book. However, it was a chore to read, as I find all books to be, when the final conclusion, is given away at the onset and that signature mystery is laid waste. The conclusion is repeated throughout the book, which is tiresome, a technique of propaganda. Still, even with "the sad deficiency", the book is worth the time to read and consider. The conclusion is compelling.

Naiya wrote: "John wrote: "The conclusion is repeated throughout the book, which is tiresome, a technique of propaganda ..."

Well, to be fair, it wasn't supposed to be a mystery novel. The purpose of the book w..."

I was cognizant of having invited complaints, by use of the word "mystery", . Your point is correct. But my intent was not the point you commented on, please forgive me. Even if the basic premise had not been stated at the outset, quick discovery awaits the reader, and for me that made for a difficult read. Still, the content is worthy and compelling, as I had written.

I too felt like the book failed a bit in regards to explaining what can be done about weak and failing states. The whole book basically makes it feel like states are doomed to be stuck in the "vicious circle," then in one of the last chapters it says something to the effect of, "But, actually, states can get out of the pattern of extractive institutions." However, it really doesn't seem to explain what can get save these states.

Overall, I was left feeling like all states are inevitably going to fail, and that everyone will end up being in some sort of 1984 future.

I listened to this book on tape and found the 'politics' hypothesis to be generally convincing and an important rebuttal to the geography and culture hypotheses briefly discussed in the beginning of the book. The geography and culture hypotheses do lend themselves to implied accusations of racial and cultural inferiority and such a focus detracts from what truly seems to be the real situation, namely that poor countries (mostly in the Global South) have extractive political institutions, most of which were birthed in the inherently exploitative colonial governments that previously ruled them. Not surprising. After all, the great period of decolonization only occurred approximately 50 years ago and that's only been enough time for an indigenous elite to fill in the 'white man's shoes', as it were.

The situation now is even more complex, with a global elite shrouded in corporate secrecy.

The current world order, if you want to call it that, is overwhelming and intimidating. For me, the real questions are now: 1. How can you work such essential knowledge of the world political and economic structure into public education? and 2. How then shall I live? I know it's quite a philosophical and existential leap from the book to practical application but that's where my interest lay.

I would love to know if there are projects and discussions about this book and its hypothesis.

My comment is prompted by Nicole’s posting.
This is not a practical book – by intention. High level discussions of national economic and political systems can only really be done through a rear view mirror, since governments are averse to sharing their policy deliberations (or much else) in advance. Unless you are an insider, a consultant, or a development banker, you are stuck trying to make sense out of what has been done.

While I enjoyed the book, I share many of the concerns raised in other posts regarding the repetitious arguments and the overreliance on case examples. What I found valuable about the book was its focus on examples. These ideas have been around for a while, but are all too often expressed in terms of highly abstract economic discussions – sometimes combined with proofs. The attempt to translate these ideas into a more accessible treatment through examples is a worthwhile effort.

The basic issues in the book are not that controversial. In particular is the question of whether a nation needs both an open economy and an open political system or only needs an open economy. This is the question of how to understand the economic success of authoritarian regimes that spur national businesses to compete in the world economy. On the current world scene, the comparison of China and the US comes easily to mind.

It may be helpful to look at “Why Nations Fail” in terms of a larger herd of books with similar agendas. For a long time there has been a small publishing business around the question of why some nations are so successful/cool/productive/etc. and why most of the rest of the nations are not. There was a wave around the turn of the millennium, with a good example being David Landes’ history book “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations” (1999). There was another wave in the middle of the decade, before the 2008 crashes, that is typified by Jared Diamond’s anthropological treatment in “Guns, Germs, and Steel” (2005). The most recent spurt of books has been influenced by the economic downturn and includes “Why Nations Fail”. Ian Morris’ “Why the West Rules – for now” (2011) is a similar recent book. Most of these books come across as a little triumphalist, but there are exceptions. Michael Spence’s book – “The Next Convergence” (2011) is a really thoughtful book by a Nobel prize winning economist. John Darwin’s 2008 book “After Tamerlane” is a really thoughtful historical treatment of economic and governance issues that tries to avoid an overly western bias to discuss similar issues of governance as discussed in “Why Nations Fail”.

The very broad perspective of all these works is perhaps one of the reasons why they are not practical. They are some works that may provide a more focused perspective that you might find useful. For example, the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics went to Oliver Williamson and Elinor Ostrom (since deceased). Williamson’s ideas have been picked up in efforts to incorporate governance issues into business organizations. Ostrom worked more with public institutions and her 1990 book “Governing the Commons” is filled with lots of specific applications. You can check it out on Google books to see.

Regarding your thought about putting these ideas in public education, I agree with the suggestion. The only problem I see is that it is hard enough to defend current funding levels for history and public affairs, not to mention those that get wrapped up in political issues. Too many people would have trouble locating Spain on a map and knowing much of its history to think that incorporating discussions such as in “Why Nations Fail” into public education is going to come about any time soon.

Marks54 wrote: "My comment is prompted by Nicole’s posting.
This is not a practical book – by intention. High level discussions of national economic and political systems can only really be done through a rear vi..."

Many thanks for the very detailed and thoughtful post. I've added your suggestions to the reading list and I'm looking forward to future discussions.

I read this book at the end of 2012, and while well-written, I thought the authors were a bit remiss in not considering the many other root causes of economic disparity. Having read widely in this field, I found that the authors used some evidence that was tenuous at best, or interpreted some evidence in ways I disagreed with.

I think that all books that try to get to the root of economic, political, or quality of life disparity are bound to be imperfect. The actual reasons can vary severely on a case-by-case basis, so these books are left to support the biggest or most obvious causes we can find.

Here is my original feedback when I finished the book in December 2012:

The theory presented here is a great one that makes a lot of sense. But I feel like the authors tried to overreach in provided examples for their theory. Their explanation of the collapse of the Maya state was the most unacceptable to me because there is no one reason that the Mayan city-states collapsed.

I do think that the last chapters didn't live up to the rest of the book. It's true that this theory does not lend itself to being predictive about a given nation's chances of success. However, I wish they had spent less time on circular explanations of why their theory was right and talked more about how a society can reasonably begin to push away from extractive institutions towards inclusive ones.

Even though I wasn't a fan of the book itself, I am a fan of the theory the authors put forth within it. If you're interested in international economics, I think it is a must read, even if I don't consider it the most enjoyable read I've undertaken recently.

I've heard a lot of criticism about the book being repetitive in terms of the examples, but I think that is a point in its favor rather than a point against. The real meat of the book lies in delineating the concept of inclusive and exclusive political and economic institutions. The authors' point is to reveal how these exclusive economic institutions and the political institutions that arise to maintain them have failed and self-destructed throughout history, while inclusive institutions have sustained progress and prosperity.

Naiya wrote: "The back-to-back case studies he's presenting began to feel repetitive within a few chapters. They were all great and have a point, so I get that, in a way, I'm complaining about a history/politics..."

What were the takeaways you hoped to come away with when you finished reading the book?
I read it a few weeks ago btw.

Tyler wrote: "Yea I kind of slouched on this book. I have switched to some other books at the moment but I plan on returning soon, not sure why it is feeling like a chore to read this book. Going to have to forc..."

What were the takeaways you hoped to come away with when you finished reading the book?
You can put the book down if it's really not helping you.
I read it a few weeks ago btw.

Marks54 wrote: "My comment is prompted by Nicole’s posting.
This is not a practical book – by intention. High level discussions of national economic and political systems can only really be done through a rear vi..."
I was going to put down my thought about this book, until reading your post. It mirrors my thought almost perfectly, but is expressed much better than I could.

The issue I had with it is that it is meant to be a serious book, but the way they deal with the examples is very one sided - as in, they present examples that they believe to support their arguments, whereas on closer examination they wouldn't. It has been a while since I read, but for example they used the city state of Venice as an example. I studied it at university, and no serious historian would pin the city-state's decline on the factors that these authors set out, and they didn't even hint at the possibility of their being other reasons