Daron Acemoglu on Why Nations Fail
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2024
- MIT News - March 23, 2012
It is among the grandest topics in scholarship: Why do some nations, such as the United States, become wealthy and powerful, while others remain stuck in poverty? And why do some of those powers, from ancient Rome to the modern Soviet Union, expand and then collapse?
From Adam Smith and Max Weber to the current day, scores of writers have grappled with these questions. Some scholars, like Weber, have argued that religious or cultural differences create vastly different economic outcomes among countries. Others have asserted that a lack of natural resources or technical expertise has prevented poor countries from creating self-sustaining economic growth.
Economists Daron Acemoglu of MIT and James Robinson of Harvard University have another answer: Politics makes the difference. Countries that have what they call "inclusive" political governments - those extending political and property rights as broadly as possible, while enforcing laws and providing some public infrastructure - experience the greatest growth over the long run. By contrast, Acemoglu and Robinson assert, countries with "extractive" political systems - in which power is wielded by a small elite - either fail to grow broadly or wither away after short bursts of economic expansion.
Read more at: web.mit.edu/new...
Wow, he really gave away so much information and insight in a mere 4 mins and 55 seconds. Would love to hear more from this guy.
You should consider putting some of his words into practice too, Kim
Mind how he compared your country with your southern neighbor, Mr. Kim.
No-one since Joseph Stiglitz has produced so much.
Read his book it’s great
Why nations fail is one of the best books I’ve ever read! He is extremely prolific writer. Lots of stuff with his name on it.
Think that Daron Acemoglu was writing a journal paper while giving this interview ;)
finished the book. the amount of research and pragmaticism this book contains is astoundingly and exceptionally enlightening. reading about to finish The Narrow Corridor and will read againt Why Nations Fail. greatly recommended.
Great book .
Nations, especially the developing ones, fail because of ethnic and religious diversity that is governed with centralized politics. Example - Africa and Asia. Nations that are the world's least peaceful are also the world's most demographically diverse. Centralized government makes political governance a jackpot - all ethnicities want to be "the leading" and pursue that prize with any item they can lay their hands on. If democratic intellect of voting fails, the ethnicities and religions turn to weaponry. Conflicts on the other hand are less tense in nations that work on federalism. The government type gives proportionate voice to each diversity therefore no diversity group feels overly dominated. Example, Ethiopia, a highly diverse country, is relatively stable because it gives all its ethnicities localized government.
This morning I listened to Professor Acemoglu's 2011 lecture at the University of Scranton, during which he expands extensively on the analysis presented in the book "Why Nations Fall." He alludes to but does not specifically identify the one powerful common characteristic of socio-political arrangements and institutions shared by all societal groups that settle and no longer migrate from place to place. This is the need to establish rules for access and control over the resources provided by nature. While societal norms start off to achieve a rough equality of opportunity, hierarchical social and political structures eventually appear. What becomes the norm is rentier privilege. Today, the concentrated control over land, over natural resources, and over land-like assets (e.g., frequencies of the broadcast spectrum) differ by degree only. As Joseph Stiglitz has observed, rent-seeking is in many countries is a greater source of individual income and wealth than the production of goods or performance of services.
Interestingly, Professor Acemoglu briefly mentioned both Henry George and Adam Smith in his 2011 lecture. As a contemporary of Turgot and Quesnay, Smith embraced the physiocratic call for the elimination of rentier privilege. Henry George made this his life's objective. It may be useful for him to take some time to re-read Henry George's analysis of case.
Thank you sir, you comment made me day as I got what I was searching for.
@@sadjan4220 Glad you found my comment useful.
Love this! Such a brilliant 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
you prolly dont care but does anyone know a trick to get back into an instagram account?
I somehow forgot the login password. I love any tricks you can give me!
@Marcellus Aaron Instablaster =)
@Maddox Landyn thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site through google and im waiting for the hacking stuff now.
Takes a while so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Maddox Landyn It worked and I actually got access to my account again. I am so happy!
Thank you so much, you really help me out :D
@Marcellus Aaron You are welcome :)
I read the book, it is quite good. But there is a problem. The reason why Aztec and Inca's regions were more density populated than North America has everything to do with geography, as thoroughly discussed in Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.
It seems complementary rather than problematic, he talks about the design of institutions and their impact on prosperity and poverty of nations, and he is highlighting a big explanatory factor. Surely Jared Diamond contributed to explaining the same thing. I strongly believe theirs is a stronger factor, simply because it applies to nearly all examples. He uses the example of South America being better developed and having a geographic advantage, but still ending up with more poverty. As such he states, North America is not more prosperous than South because of some English culture or leadership, nor due geography, but due to inclusive institutions, they were forced to create when settling, because the elite couldn't instate the same extractive systems as South America, not enough people.
True, but the reason why North american institutions are more inclusive than Latin American ones has to do with the form of colonisation, which, in turn, has to do with geography. But I agree the theories are complementary.
love this. very insightful, i must read the book.
This is a very nice read. I really enjoyed.
It is on the list. I am going to read it in last quarter of this year.
Hello world! If you want to get a clear and detailed summary of "Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoğlu & James A. Robinson + the critics of the book, I just made this animated video that may be of help for you : czcams.com/video/rNSna19Iwcg/video.html
the US government might not have been set up to be extractive, but capitalism has done a good job of filling that exploitative void.
I think North is much more reasonable.
Good book to read......
what about slavery in North America????
I think that is a valid question worth exploring. There was slavery in South America and the Caribbean, and Brazil was the last nation to abolish it. The difference is that South American and Caribbean slavery funded their respective mother lands: France, Spain, England, while in North America, slavery brought more domestic economic growth.
Read the book, he acknowledges it
The Turkish Pride 😂. He is great.
other than him being Armenian you are right lmao
Dude.
Everyone has its own, different perception of the "communism".
Communism is -- "community", common. Ortak, cemaat, umma.
Communism -- relationships within society.
Communism -- is not crazy Judeo-Masonic satanist Lenin with crazy Bolsheviks murdering & destroying Churches with aristocrats.
Communism -- is not dictatorship of proletariat.
Soviet Union was perverted communism, where crazy atheistic Bolsheviks took place of burjuva class, and there were no "only one class", there were still 2 classes -- yöneten (crazy Bolsheviks)/ yönetilen (plebsler).
True Communism is -- society system, with only 1 True Class -- Working Class of Faithful, Religious, not lazy labor loving Workers, where Means of Production -- Tools & Equipment are Common, shared with everyone.
This is -- True Communism.
First of all sorry for my English but The Spanish lenguage is my mother tongue. so If i didn't undernstand well, Anglosaxon countries are rich because the old English people who went to North America had good institutions, but the South America countries are third world countries because The old Spanish conquistadores are barbarians. Strange kind of barbarians these last ones, than let Indian tribes live in South America to nowdays, in opposition with the situation of the american indians in USA and Canada.
You can read anywhere (even wikipedia) about the demographic impact of spanish colonization in South America. For example, it led the population of the Native Amerindian population in Mexico to decline by an estimated 90%. Anyway, that's not what he was saying. Please read his papers- in short it depended of the intent of the coloniser. In areas with a lot of resources and/or adverse geographical/climatic conditions, it led the colonisers to establish extractive institutions that were not designed for development. In other areas with no resources and/or with good living conditions, coloniser considered developing settlements over there, which required designing better institutions. My explaination is very rough I'm sorry, but it's difficult to summarize such a rich theory in a few lines.
No, you didn't get it at all. And that makes you look like an asshole, who enjoys to be insulted and upset by anything and everything like an Islamic fundie, who struggles by sensation of ones own inferiority, while thriving on Nazi-like sense of superiority over others. And I also have to apologise for my English, it's not perfect, which might have made my insults not cut deep enough.
Now I've stopping fooling around. Please, get that book in Spanish, it's quite dry, actually, yet exciting.
@@MaelEMS because of smallpox mainly. They didn't straight up kill 90% of the population.
There's a giant cockroach inside of him. Watch men in black.
The answer to this question is simple:
" Belief in GOD Almighty and the freedom he gives to all men. "
stfu
Moses Holguin I like ur point.
Amen
His book was one of the worst bad jokes about social science ever made.
then introduce the best one? manifesto of communism?
@@mahdietemadi3954 yes
Daron, being full blood Armenian and having opportunity to change your surname to original Armenian one you still have Turkish....weird...
He knows best for him.
What is the original Last name?
FULL BLOOD BEING ARMENIAAANNN.. Fascists OUT! Please.. He has Anatolian Culture.. This is why Acemoglu. We are not all ' Full Blood Turks' like you said, in Turkey. We have many different backgrounds coming from the Ottoman Empire. AND COULD YOU ANSWER Please how you know he has full blood of Armenian..? His grand grandfathers and mothers are coming from the middle of Armenia?? hahaha
You are full dumb beauty. This is his original surname.
@@ErkanAkaltun ok listen man. I’m not hating on Turks. And I agree he can do whatever he wants. But you are completely lying if you actually think this is his real surname lol. Acem is an Armenian name and from the amount of Turkish I know. Oğlu means son of. The same way Ian or yan means belonging to. So his last name was changed from ajemian to acemoğlu. Not to mention his fucking first name is Daron which is a well known Armenian name 😂. Also he might be proud of his nationality(his country turkey) which is fine. But as an ethnicity he even himself identifies as Armenian. Or as you turks like to say Ermeni. I know I’m either not gonna get a response. Or I’m gonna get a ton of racist responses towards Armenians. So I’ll leave it here.