Scan barcode
A review by millennial_dandy
Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Daron Acemoğlu, James A. Robinson
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.5
'Why Nations Fail' is the first book I've DNF'd in a very long time. And it's not because I think it's twaddle with nothing to say, but in large part because the authors prattle on in an incredibly repetitive way to the tune of over 400 pages when with a better editor, fully half of that page count would have sufficed. I made it through 210/460 plus I skimmed some of their 'conclusion' and 'summing up' at the end, so I swear I gave it the good college try
'Oppressive governments that allow oppressive economic systems' is the answer they propose to the question in the title. This is revealed pretty much right up front, and so the vast, vast majority of the book is devoted to first disproving that failed nations stem fundamentally from any other factors (e.g. geography or culture) and then citing dozens of examples of economies that have risen and fallen as they ride waves of oppression and market capitalism.
Fine, cool. And they have won a Nobel prize in economics, so to claim they have nothing of value to add would be a bit silly, but even their contemporaries -- other experts in the field-- have raised criticisms that mirror some of the issues I had with the book too.
A big critique was of the 'source: trust me, bro' approach to questions of why China's economy is doing so well despite being, even by their own definition, extractive and oppressive. Another is the fact that they glaze over big swathes of history in a way that feels dishonest. They discuss how the monarchies in South American empires fell after hundreds of years of endurance as though to say: 'see: it wasn't sustainable.' But then, even in the skimming of the final chapters of the book I did, they don't appear to hold modern countries they deem economic successes up to the same scrutiny. Like, why are they so confident that after 700+ years a 'healthy' capitalistic nation wouldn't fall? Again: 'source: trust me, bro.'
Their unwillingness to engage in any meaningful criticism of countries like the United States, to me, made their argument much weaker. How much more interesting it would have been to shine the lights of their own hypothesis on the cracks within a system that by all accounts should be the peak of what they say the best type of system is.
Also, because their focus is on broad strokes, they ignore the contrast that exists in a country like the United States between macro level economic success and individual quality of life. Like, the United States is the richest country on the planet, but in some ways <i>because</i> of how it captures wealth, huge swathes of the people living their lead lives no better than people in the 'failed' nations the authors describe.
To which I pose the question: 'then, so what is the point of their thesis – to suggest that the health of a nation’s economy ought to be privileged over the quality of life of its average citizen because at least under unfettered capitalism a select few have the motivation to invent new gadgets that will then allow even more wealth to be accrued at the top? And… something something trickle down economics?’
Really and truly though, it was the never-ending stream of example after example propping up an honestly fairly simple to grasp idea that made me give up on it. Had it been 250 pages I would have finished it despite my skepticism.
Just saying.
'Oppressive governments that allow oppressive economic systems' is the answer they propose to the question in the title. This is revealed pretty much right up front, and so the vast, vast majority of the book is devoted to first disproving that failed nations stem fundamentally from any other factors (e.g. geography or culture) and then citing dozens of examples of economies that have risen and fallen as they ride waves of oppression and market capitalism.
Fine, cool. And they have won a Nobel prize in economics, so to claim they have nothing of value to add would be a bit silly, but even their contemporaries -- other experts in the field-- have raised criticisms that mirror some of the issues I had with the book too.
A big critique was of the 'source: trust me, bro' approach to questions of why China's economy is doing so well despite being, even by their own definition, extractive and oppressive. Another is the fact that they glaze over big swathes of history in a way that feels dishonest. They discuss how the monarchies in South American empires fell after hundreds of years of endurance as though to say: 'see: it wasn't sustainable.' But then, even in the skimming of the final chapters of the book I did, they don't appear to hold modern countries they deem economic successes up to the same scrutiny. Like, why are they so confident that after 700+ years a 'healthy' capitalistic nation wouldn't fall? Again: 'source: trust me, bro.'
Their unwillingness to engage in any meaningful criticism of countries like the United States, to me, made their argument much weaker. How much more interesting it would have been to shine the lights of their own hypothesis on the cracks within a system that by all accounts should be the peak of what they say the best type of system is.
Also, because their focus is on broad strokes, they ignore the contrast that exists in a country like the United States between macro level economic success and individual quality of life. Like, the United States is the richest country on the planet, but in some ways <i>because</i> of how it captures wealth, huge swathes of the people living their lead lives no better than people in the 'failed' nations the authors describe.
To which I pose the question: 'then, so what is the point of their thesis – to suggest that the health of a nation’s economy ought to be privileged over the quality of life of its average citizen because at least under unfettered capitalism a select few have the motivation to invent new gadgets that will then allow even more wealth to be accrued at the top? And… something something trickle down economics?’
Really and truly though, it was the never-ending stream of example after example propping up an honestly fairly simple to grasp idea that made me give up on it. Had it been 250 pages I would have finished it despite my skepticism.
Just saying.