Why Nations Fail By Daron Acemoglu And James A. Robinson

977 Words4 Pages
Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson explains the different and unique origins of power, prosperity, and poverty for certain nations. The preface of Why Nations Fail foreshadows what is next to come by explaining that key historical events in life can make or break a country’s success and future. Next, each chapter dives into these key historical events, known as case studies, and analyses that chapter’s nation(s) and why the nation is either poverty-stricken or prosperous. This is known as the book’s methodology. The authors give examples such as with inclusive and extractive institutions to argue against theories that suggest why nations are poor that are not correct such as the geography hypothesis, culture hypothesis, and ignorance hypothesis. This book argues that nations have and will continue to fail politically and economically if they implement extractive institutions instead of inclusive institutions. The gap in literature between the authors of Why Nations Fail and other authors of works of non-fiction that describe why nations fail is the nature of specific institutions. These institutions are inclusive economic institutions, inclusive political institutions, extractive economic institutions, and extractive political institutions. These different institutions are the main focus of the book. The authors go on in detail as to why these institutions are so key to understanding how a nation became to poverty-stricken or rich. The authors of Why Nations Fail particularly dislike and articulate why hypothesis such as the geography, ignorance and culture hypothesis are not sufficient evidence for why a nation was and still continue to be poor to this day. These hypotheses can be known as the “fallacious hypotheses.” The first fallacious hypothesis is the geography hypothesis. The geography hypothesis states that the differences between countries and their economic success is due their geography and where they are located. For example, the French philosopher Montesquieu believed that tropical climates were less prosperous than temperate climates because the soil is not the most productive and the tropical climate made the inhabitants lazy, and therefore making them work less and
Get Access