Why Nations Fail: A Contrarian Take
Acemoglu and Robinson’s Why Nations Fail has been widely praised and extremely influential. But one of the most brilliant students I’ve ever taught, Nathan Smith, provides a contrarian perspective. According to Nathan, it’s…
…one of the most over-rated books I’ve ever read. It’s fatally unrigorous, equally destitute of formal theory and econometrics. A naïve view of the beneficence of democracy has long since been ripped apart by public choice economics, yet Acemoglu and Robinson revive it in the crudest form. People good, elites bad. The book is somewhat persuasive via selective anecdotes if you’re willing to swallow its bizarre terminology, e.g., “inclusive economic institutions” means protection of property rights, even though property rights consist precisely in the right to exclude others. All in all, I tend to think development economics peaked with the empirical work of Jeffery Sachs in the 1990s, and it’s been downhill from there. Daron Acemoglu, in particular, has been a disaster for the field. Honest empirical work on the democracy => growth causal link suggests that the effect is basically nil.
But Acemoglu and Robinson’s tendentiously fact-packed and conceptually confusing tome has given development economists a pretext for taking a more politically correct view.
I’ve yet to read Why Nations Fail. I’m not endorsing Smith’s view, just sharing it. I will say, however, that several prominent economists have told me the same thing off the record. If you’ve read the book, please share your thoughts.
The post appeared first on Econlib.