9 ms·

Why nations fail

175 points by entangld 15y ago

mynameishere 15y ago
Nations fail due to low average intelligence and high average psychopathic tendencies. The reasons for those things are multitudinous, of course, but the ruling class is a result more often than a cause.
moldbug 15y ago
Once again Occam's butterknife is spotted in the wild. Richard Lynn, call your office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
- hristov 15y ago
  Wow, this thread just became some kind of magnet for racists, didn't it. Since you are apparently very proud of your IQ, perhaps you can read the actual article and try to comment on something related to the article's substance, and not just give us a knee jerk reaction based on the title.
  - moldbug 15y ago
    The implicit comment is that the article's substance is of no conceivable relevance, because it fails to mention the most obvious possible cause - human genetic diversity - for the pattern it purports to analyze. It's one thing to refute or qualify the null hypothesis. It's another to ignore it. Why shouldn't it be the null hypothesis that genetic diversity is the cause of global inequality? Human beings have been thinking about this subject for a lot more than the last 50 years, you know. All I think is what more or less everyone used to think - since when Jesus was a little boy. If that's not a null hypothesis, what is? So, from my perspective, the OP is like a long, vague explanation of how stress causes ulcers or marsh miasmas cause malaria. It's impossible for any such analysis to be any more cogent than any other - all are equally wrong.
    - hristov 15y ago
      This is the most obvious cause only if you are a racist. Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race. Furthermore, it is very doubtful that you can find any statistically significant genetic differences between some of the countries mentioned in the article (e.g., England and Spain).
      - moldbug 15y ago
        Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race. In case you're posting from a different dimension, these "minor" differences can change the color of our skin, the shape of our bones, and even (gasp) the size of our brains. If these are minor organs, what are major ones? In case you're posting from the same dimension, your fallacy has a name: https://www.google.com/?q=Lewontins%20fallacy https://www.google.com/?q=Lewontins%20fallacy Furthermore, it is very doubtful that you can find any statistically significant genetic differences between some of the countries mentioned in the article (e.g., England and Spain). You've been keeping up with the latest genomic research, I see! Ha. I jest, of course. Again, your own eyes are a great start - they really never lie. Have you been to England? Spain? Would you be confident in saying: "Englishmen look just like Spaniards?" Or if there's a difference... what's the cause? The weather, perhaps? Personally - call me crazy, I know - I feel I can tell an Englishman from a German with much better than random accuracy. If I note that English weather is pretty similar to German weather, does that make me... oh, noes... a racist?
        hristov 15y ago
        Thank you for the Google link. There I learned that Lewontin's fallacy is a fallacy because "Richard Lewontin is a Marxist Jew who has dedicated his career to attacking genetics as an explanation for human variation." That explains so much. It is really cute how you think you can tell an Englishman from a German. Do you know, by the way, the genetic make up of the Englishman? Do you know where the word "England" came from? Here is a clue -- it came from the Anglo-Saxons a group of GERMAN tribes that conquered England after the Romans left and later became the people you now call English. So your ability to tell apart the English and Germans based on their look is most likely a figment of your imagination. Anyways lets not get carried away and stick to the topic at hand. Here is another example from the article -- the economic difference between the southern US and the rest of the US. Could you explain that one. Please tell me how the southerners developed a statistically different genetic make up than northerners in the 400 year period since colonization. I would love to hear about the split between the grits and pizza genes.
  - dudeguy999 15y ago
    Do you have any evidence I can read to refute Moldbug, or are we stopping at name-calling?
    - Confusion 15y ago
      Evidence to refute which assertion and to refute which arguments offered in favor of that assertion?
      - pleasebehonest 15y ago
        Dudeguy9999 is almost certainly referring to the assertion that a nation's average IQ is an excellent indicator of its wealth. It was petty to call moldbug a racist without addressing anything.
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  It surely doesn't explain differences between similarly coloured countries. In Europe Italy seems to be the bluest and yet things are not good. Ireland is very pale yet it fared pretty well before the recession. I would argue that in many cases wealth causes IQ and poverty takes it away. E.g. ex-ussr is rather blue for its sorry state, and I guess it would be much bluer if measured 25 years ago. Argentina is pretty blue but yet it fails to monetize that. Mongolia is very blue and it's effectively a placeholder.
- colonel_panic 15y ago
  I purchased your fancy new razor but the blade snapped off when I tried to slice Korea in two. I want a refund.
  - moldbug 15y ago
    Best comment of the thread. Alas, an infinitely thin razor isn't much use...
- nhebb 15y ago
  The graph on the Wikipedia page looks like it would correlate well with climate. (I've always had a pet theory about climate and the history of academic and economic development.)
  - wazoox 15y ago
    I've read several years ago a study from MIT IIRC that actually correlated economic development with climate. Truth is that this is a complex matter with many important and simultaneous factors...
- davidw 15y ago
  This is why some of us point out that articles like this are "Not Hacker News". They inevitably lead to wildly off-topic, and unproductive discussions.
  - Jach 15y ago
    Well, I've learned a lot from the various links that have been thrown around (and expect to learn more when I get around to reading more of them than I have), so I don't think it's entirely unproductive. I agree these posts are "Not Hacker News", but not for their content, or for their "unproductive discussions", but for bringing out the side of HN members for whom disagreement ==> downvote, and disagreement-from-majority-view ==> downvote-to-oblivion. It's unpleasant to witness and I have enough outlets for my unpleasant-reality-seeking desires; HN is nice because it's still not overall unpleasant like for instance Reddit.
- olavk 15y ago
  Doesn't really explain anything. IQ correlates with nutrition and education level, both correlates with prosperity. So it's just circular reasoning.
fragsworth 15y ago
I can't get past how needlessly wordy this article is. It's as if someone is trying to flaunt their language skills and it distracts me from the actual content; I must admit that I read the whole thing and did not catch wind of the author's point. Sentences like these just read as nonsense to me: "The intuition behind the theory is nonetheless compelling, which makes the scarcity of policy prescriptions frustrating."
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ender7 15y ago
  "The authors do a convincing job of explaining why things are they way they are, but fail to explain how we might go about changing them."
  - east2west 15y ago
    I don't understand. This kind of sentences is routine in New York Times. If anything, I find the conversational tone inappropriate for such a weighty subject. I do agree that the author tried too hard to write to a broader audience on a complicated subject. The result is too much ink for too little info.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    That doesn't express the same thoughts at all though. I guess what it comes down to is that some people perhaps see it as pompous to place the precise expression of one's thoughts above the simple and efficient conveyance of information. To these people, I say: read more poetry. To find true opacity-for-its-own-sake one must look to the french postmodern "philosophers" of the 1960s: We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously. Utterly unforgivable.
rickyconnolly 15y ago
I am always wary of these grand theories people come up with about why great civilisations fall. People tend to project their own values onto history. Conservatives invariably argue that societies fall because they become decadent and valueless, while liberals contend that societies became too stagnant and inflexible to survive. Observer bias is a big problem in the study of history.
zipdog 15y ago
The author's key argument is that extractive institutions lead to state failure. Like most theories of state failure, there's some good examples but enough weak or counter examples to discredit it as 'the' answer. At best, I'd argue that extractive institutions are a block to success: countries with them have one fewer barrier to overcome. I recently researched the thorny issue of what consititutes art, and the leading idea in that field is a cluster theory: a set of ten ideas which commonly associated with things accepted as art. Some objects don't have all ten, but together they provide a powerful guide. My point in mentioning this is that state failure seems to follow the same pattern. Geography (ie Jared Diamond's theory) is a factor in state success and failure. Culture is another factor. Economic system and the nature of institutions (extractive or inclusive) are two more factors. (And there's bound to be a few more). A state can succeed with only a couple of these. Lacking them all is a sure sign of failure. Having them all likely comes as close to guaranteeing success as possible. But thinking there's some single indicator that determines state failure is a doomed project.
- rmk2 15y ago
  There is a general dislike for monolithic theories in the social sciences and humanities for a reason: they tend to be reductionist, and this theory seems to be no exception. And in regards to parameters (a "cluster" of factors) that can be indicative of a failed state: Looking at the submission's chosen title here, I would at least have expected some sort of connection to the actual idea of failed states[1], which are yearly ranked by a combination of multiple influences, where institutional organisation is a factor alongside others. [1]: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/failedstates http://www.foreignpolicy.com/failedstates
- derleth 15y ago
  Realistically, art is whatever the art community considers art, either at the time or after the fact. That's why John Cage can be an artist for being quiet whereas I'm just being quiet.
  - maaku 15y ago
    That's simply avoiding the question. For what reasons does the art community consider some things art and others not?
hugooconnor 15y ago
States are engineered to fail by foreign entities who wish to pillage their resources.
lnmx 15y ago
The EconTalk podcast recently featured an interview with Acemoglu on this topic: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/03/acemoglu_on_why.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/03/acemoglu_on_why.htm...
_delirium 15y ago
Earlier discussion (57 comments) from another summary (though a shorter one) of the same book: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3765492 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3765492
Fando 15y ago
"Amid weak and accommodating institutions, there is little to discourage a leader from looting. Such environments channel society’s output towards a parasitic elite, discouraging investment and innovation"
entangld 15y ago
The author's main point seems to be that corrupt governments allow too much money in too few hands. Maybe this isn't the grand theory to support them all, but it reminds me a lot of why cancer is so destructive. One part of a large community using far too many resources. There could be a cluster theory to support the causes of cancer as well, but cluster theories are very hard to find solutions for. We don't just need to casually understand the problem. We need to prevent it if possible. At least this theory gives us a reasonable means of experimenting with and analyzing future failures. Edit:removed my opinion of others' opinions.
- cynicalkane 15y ago
  No it isn't. The author's main point is that corrupt governments siphon wealth into privileged hands at the expense of the public good. This isn't same as "allowing" wealth inequality. You can try to elide these things into being the same, but now you're misrepresenting things to make a politically charged point.
  - entangld 15y ago
    Geez. I'm not on a soapbox here. Don't accuse me. If you're going to say I'm wrong, at least point out how I'm wrong. There isn't a big difference between what I said and: >>corrupt governments siphon wealth into privileged hands at the expense of the public good.<< The effect is the same. Too much money in too few hands. Countries don't only need the rule of law to protect us from violence. We also need it to protect us from semi-legal forms of theft. Monarchs gathered wealth and provided protection, and they've been going out of business for quite a while now. Mexico has the richest person in the world along with a lot of corruption and lots of very poor people. How can a place be viable enough to support multibillionaires, and still have people living in shacks? I'm trying to understand the truth.
    - nirvana 15y ago
      The difference, near as I can tell (since I'm talking about what two other people are saying and thus quite likely could be misreading either or both of you) is the method by which this wealth concentration occurs. To use extreme examples, in one case, the concentration comes from enslaving a populace, while in the other case the concentration could come from a pure free market where only contracts are enforced (and thus some people become extraordinarily wealthy by benefiting large numbers of people, as Steve Jobs & Bill Gates have.)
rmm 15y ago
The authors have a blog over at http://whynationsfail.com/ http://whynationsfail.com/ Pretty good reading.
mmaunder 15y ago
Hour long chat on econtalk with Acemoglu: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/03/acemoglu_on_why.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/03/acemoglu_on_why.htm...
nirvana 15y ago
There is fundamentally sound economics behind the authors theory, but there's also really easy to understand logic: IF you have a strong state that controls the economy, then everything that is done must be authorized by the state. This is necessary if the purpose of the state is to extract the nations wealth to profit an elite few. If you have a weak state, then experiments can be tried, and while many experiments will be failures (such as most companies can fail) the ones that are successful really have a lasting and long term positive impact across the whole society. DEC, Apollo and many others failed, but IBM, Apple and Microsoft succeeded. The other reason this works is that businesses have to accommodate the needs and desires of their customers, their shareholders and their employees. Businesses need all three in order to thrive. Governments don't need to accommodate anyone's desires or needs, short of that which would cause a revolution that overthrows the government... government imposes its edicts using violence while businesses can only attempt to pursuade or entice people. Naturally this means that government is less interested in accepting economic reality, while businesses have to react very quickly... and if they don't, the entire economy of businesses overall will react quickly (e.g.: your business will get supplanted by one that accommodates the new reality.) The lesson here for those who wish to enslave a populace and extract wealth from them is rather than have an overarching government with extreme control, allow a great deal of liberty and then impose a %10 tax on it. %10 is better than %50 when its %10 of an economy 1,000 times bigger. Unfortunately, all states I'm aware of historically, no matter how rooted in liberty, eventually become parasitical and over the years start to extract more and more of the wealth to profit politicians and more and more controlling to make protect that extractive policy.
- Retric 15y ago
  There are several problem with your theory. Most importantly those in power don't know how long they will stay in power. Dictators don't last that long on average and if you assume there is a 50/50 shot your going to last 10 years investing in the economy may not actually benefit you. Secondly taxes are just one of many ways that the connected extract resources from society, often favors or bribes are an easier target for those with some but not total power. Finally, the state's real power has little to do with direct force. Functional society's run on softer forms of coercion. Such as propaganda, tribal allegiance, religion, or even entertainment. Consider, over 10 million people live and work in america without permission from the government to do so. And even those with citizenship the largest crop in many states is marijuana and such income rarely makes in on the old tax forms.
bdunbar 15y ago
Reading this review - and others - I was reminded of Ralph Peters essay 'Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States' http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/98spring/peters.htm http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/98spr... Which doesn't really explain 'why' but does set out in concise form 'what failure looks like'.
- MaysonL 15y ago
  Reading those "failure factors" reminded me of much of the current Republican party.
- roguecoder 15y ago
  It seems like "discouraging or prohibiting work" is the common theme, among both these and extractive institutions. Which may be too tautological to be useful: in cases where work isn't worth doing or is outright prohibited, less work/science/innovation gets done.
  - bdunbar 15y ago
    Which may be too tautological to be useful Depends on what you need it to be useful for. Understanding the root problems in a philosophical sense? Maybe not. A rough guide for where to put a factory, do business with, startup ideas? Useful.
nl 15y ago
Note that this is a review by the (economically conservative) Economist. I haven't read Why Nations Fail, but I do read their blog[1] and my interpretation of their theories is much less absolute than the Economist's is - or rather, I think the emphasis is more on the problems of Extractive institutions (which may well be state institutions, but also could be private institutions or hybrids or the two). For example, even in the review the Economist highlights the example of Botswana which is a good example of state power as a good. Another example: the (book) authors are very positive about the potential impact of Jim Yong Kim on the World Bank: http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/3/27/mr-kim-vs-the-world-bank.html http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/3/27/mr-kim-vs-the-world... [1] http://whynationsfail.com/ http://whynationsfail.com/
- eru 15y ago
  > Note that this is a review by the (economically conservative) Economist. I thought they were one of the most liberal papers in existence. (In the classical European sense.)
  - eli_gottlieb 15y ago
    Economically conservative in the American sense and economically liberal (or at least, neoliberal) in the European sense are the same thing.
  - nl 15y ago
    They believe in smaller rather than larger government. Choose your label..
    - eru 15y ago
      They actually believe in a certain size of government. For example for some developing countries they often suggest increasing tax revenues to build a bigger state.
nico 15y ago
This sounds like game theory, the best solution in this case seems to be when everybody is better off (inclusive), instead of just trying to achieve individual gain (extractive).
narrator 15y ago
Joseph A. Tainter's The Collapse Of Complex Societies is a bit academic but very good study of civilizational collapse. It has a lot of data, studies many different civilizations and examines all popular theories of civilizational collapse. It points to diminshing marginal returns on increasing complexity in civilizations as the mechanism of collapse. It's far better than the trendy Jared Diamond writing. IMHO, Jared Diamond's collapse is a book written from end to beginning, much like Guns, Germs and Steel to simply reconfirm existing left of center ideas by torturing and cherry picking the data to ignore anything that doesn't reconfirm accepted and popular political narratives.
- zasz 15y ago
  Really? I found _Collapse_ to be much more boring than I expected. One of the major reasons he claims that a society collapses is a lack of trading partners. Not very sexy at all, and not leftist.
  - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
    I'd like to add honourary mentions for Jane Jacobs' last book, Dark Age Ahead and Thomas Homer-Dixon's book The Ingenuity Gap. http://raisethehammer.org/blog/455/ http://raisethehammer.org/blog/455/
  - eru 15y ago
    > Not very sexy at all, and not leftist. I can't make out whether that's meant as a compliment or a complaint. Would you elaborate on that description, please?
    - zasz 15y ago
      It's neither. The parent comment implied that Diamond's book was a leftist polemic on how the environment is important. I didn't think it was very leftist or very alarmist. That's all I meant. I was actually disappointed when Diamond mentioned neighboring nations as a reason for collapse...how utterly unsurprising and dull. He spent a lot of time talking about it, too.
- 15y ago
philip1209 15y ago
I appreciate that The Economist clearly states their thesis as the subtitle - i.e., it's not a hook - it's an outline for the article.
el_presidente 15y ago
Nations fail because their leaders are greedy, selfish and ignorant of history This is the kind of thinking that got the US stuck in Iraq for a decade. "We'll change the country by killing this one guy". If a nation's leader is a failure it's because the nation itself is a big pile of fail, not the other way around.
ajays 15y ago
A good read is the book "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando DeSoto. It doesn't address failed states, but talks about why capitalism succeeds in some countries and not in others.

175 points by entangld 15y ago

Nations fail due to low average intelligence and high average psychopathic tendencies. The reasons for those things are multitudinous, of course, but the ruling class is a result more often than a cause.

moldbug 15y ago

Once again Occam's butterknife is spotted in the wild. Richard Lynn, call your office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

hristov 15y ago
Wow, this thread just became some kind of magnet for racists, didn't it. Since you are apparently very proud of your IQ, perhaps you can read the actual article and try to comment on something related to the article's substance, and not just give us a knee jerk reaction based on the title.
- moldbug 15y ago
  The implicit comment is that the article's substance is of no conceivable relevance, because it fails to mention the most obvious possible cause - human genetic diversity - for the pattern it purports to analyze. It's one thing to refute or qualify the null hypothesis. It's another to ignore it. Why shouldn't it be the null hypothesis that genetic diversity is the cause of global inequality? Human beings have been thinking about this subject for a lot more than the last 50 years, you know. All I think is what more or less everyone used to think - since when Jesus was a little boy. If that's not a null hypothesis, what is? So, from my perspective, the OP is like a long, vague explanation of how stress causes ulcers or marsh miasmas cause malaria. It's impossible for any such analysis to be any more cogent than any other - all are equally wrong.
  - hristov 15y ago
    This is the most obvious cause only if you are a racist. Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race. Furthermore, it is very doubtful that you can find any statistically significant genetic differences between some of the countries mentioned in the article (e.g., England and Spain).
    - moldbug 15y ago
      Genetic differences between races are very minor as compared to the genetic differences between individuals within a race. In case you're posting from a different dimension, these "minor" differences can change the color of our skin, the shape of our bones, and even (gasp) the size of our brains. If these are minor organs, what are major ones? In case you're posting from the same dimension, your fallacy has a name: https://www.google.com/?q=Lewontins%20fallacy https://www.google.com/?q=Lewontins%20fallacy Furthermore, it is very doubtful that you can find any statistically significant genetic differences between some of the countries mentioned in the article (e.g., England and Spain). You've been keeping up with the latest genomic research, I see! Ha. I jest, of course. Again, your own eyes are a great start - they really never lie. Have you been to England? Spain? Would you be confident in saying: "Englishmen look just like Spaniards?" Or if there's a difference... what's the cause? The weather, perhaps? Personally - call me crazy, I know - I feel I can tell an Englishman from a German with much better than random accuracy. If I note that English weather is pretty similar to German weather, does that make me... oh, noes... a racist?
      - hristov 15y ago
        Thank you for the Google link. There I learned that Lewontin's fallacy is a fallacy because "Richard Lewontin is a Marxist Jew who has dedicated his career to attacking genetics as an explanation for human variation." That explains so much. It is really cute how you think you can tell an Englishman from a German. Do you know, by the way, the genetic make up of the Englishman? Do you know where the word "England" came from? Here is a clue -- it came from the Anglo-Saxons a group of GERMAN tribes that conquered England after the Romans left and later became the people you now call English. So your ability to tell apart the English and Germans based on their look is most likely a figment of your imagination. Anyways lets not get carried away and stick to the topic at hand. Here is another example from the article -- the economic difference between the southern US and the rest of the US. Could you explain that one. Please tell me how the southerners developed a statistically different genetic make up than northerners in the 400 year period since colonization. I would love to hear about the split between the grits and pizza genes.
- dudeguy999 15y ago
  Do you have any evidence I can read to refute Moldbug, or are we stopping at name-calling?
  - Confusion 15y ago
    Evidence to refute which assertion and to refute which arguments offered in favor of that assertion?
    - pleasebehonest 15y ago
      Dudeguy9999 is almost certainly referring to the assertion that a nation's average IQ is an excellent indicator of its wealth. It was petty to call moldbug a racist without addressing anything.
guard-of-terra 15y ago
It surely doesn't explain differences between similarly coloured countries. In Europe Italy seems to be the bluest and yet things are not good. Ireland is very pale yet it fared pretty well before the recession. I would argue that in many cases wealth causes IQ and poverty takes it away. E.g. ex-ussr is rather blue for its sorry state, and I guess it would be much bluer if measured 25 years ago. Argentina is pretty blue but yet it fails to monetize that. Mongolia is very blue and it's effectively a placeholder.
colonel_panic 15y ago
I purchased your fancy new razor but the blade snapped off when I tried to slice Korea in two. I want a refund.
- moldbug 15y ago
  Best comment of the thread. Alas, an infinitely thin razor isn't much use...
nhebb 15y ago
The graph on the Wikipedia page looks like it would correlate well with climate. (I've always had a pet theory about climate and the history of academic and economic development.)
- wazoox 15y ago
  I've read several years ago a study from MIT IIRC that actually correlated economic development with climate. Truth is that this is a complex matter with many important and simultaneous factors...
davidw 15y ago
This is why some of us point out that articles like this are "Not Hacker News". They inevitably lead to wildly off-topic, and unproductive discussions.
- Jach 15y ago
  Well, I've learned a lot from the various links that have been thrown around (and expect to learn more when I get around to reading more of them than I have), so I don't think it's entirely unproductive. I agree these posts are "Not Hacker News", but not for their content, or for their "unproductive discussions", but for bringing out the side of HN members for whom disagreement ==> downvote, and disagreement-from-majority-view ==> downvote-to-oblivion. It's unpleasant to witness and I have enough outlets for my unpleasant-reality-seeking desires; HN is nice because it's still not overall unpleasant like for instance Reddit.
olavk 15y ago
Doesn't really explain anything. IQ correlates with nutrition and education level, both correlates with prosperity. So it's just circular reasoning.

fragsworth 15y ago

I can't get past how needlessly wordy this article is. It's as if someone is trying to flaunt their language skills and it distracts me from the actual content; I must admit that I read the whole thing and did not catch wind of the author's point. Sentences like these just read as nonsense to me: "The intuition behind the theory is nonetheless compelling, which makes the scarcity of policy prescriptions frustrating."

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ender7 15y ago
"The authors do a convincing job of explaining why things are they way they are, but fail to explain how we might go about changing them."
- east2west 15y ago
  I don't understand. This kind of sentences is routine in New York Times. If anything, I find the conversational tone inappropriate for such a weighty subject. I do agree that the author tried too hard to write to a broader audience on a complicated subject. The result is too much ink for too little info.
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  That doesn't express the same thoughts at all though. I guess what it comes down to is that some people perhaps see it as pompous to place the precise expression of one's thoughts above the simple and efficient conveyance of information. To these people, I say: read more poetry. To find true opacity-for-its-own-sake one must look to the french postmodern "philosophers" of the 1960s: We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously. Utterly unforgivable.

rickyconnolly 15y ago

I am always wary of these grand theories people come up with about why great civilisations fall. People tend to project their own values onto history. Conservatives invariably argue that societies fall because they become decadent and valueless, while liberals contend that societies became too stagnant and inflexible to survive. Observer bias is a big problem in the study of history.

zipdog 15y ago

The author's key argument is that extractive institutions lead to state failure. Like most theories of state failure, there's some good examples but enough weak or counter examples to discredit it as 'the' answer. At best, I'd argue that extractive institutions are a block to success: countries with them have one fewer barrier to overcome. I recently researched the thorny issue of what consititutes art, and the leading idea in that field is a cluster theory: a set of ten ideas which commonly associated with things accepted as art. Some objects don't have all ten, but together they provide a powerful guide. My point in mentioning this is that state failure seems to follow the same pattern. Geography (ie Jared Diamond's theory) is a factor in state success and failure. Culture is another factor. Economic system and the nature of institutions (extractive or inclusive) are two more factors. (And there's bound to be a few more). A state can succeed with only a couple of these. Lacking them all is a sure sign of failure. Having them all likely comes as close to guaranteeing success as possible. But thinking there's some single indicator that determines state failure is a doomed project.

rmk2 15y ago
There is a general dislike for monolithic theories in the social sciences and humanities for a reason: they tend to be reductionist, and this theory seems to be no exception. And in regards to parameters (a "cluster" of factors) that can be indicative of a failed state: Looking at the submission's chosen title here, I would at least have expected some sort of connection to the actual idea of failed states[1], which are yearly ranked by a combination of multiple influences, where institutional organisation is a factor alongside others. [1]: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/failedstates http://www.foreignpolicy.com/failedstates
derleth 15y ago
Realistically, art is whatever the art community considers art, either at the time or after the fact. That's why John Cage can be an artist for being quiet whereas I'm just being quiet.
- maaku 15y ago
  That's simply avoiding the question. For what reasons does the art community consider some things art and others not?

hugooconnor 15y ago

States are engineered to fail by foreign entities who wish to pillage their resources.

lnmx 15y ago

The EconTalk podcast recently featured an interview with Acemoglu on this topic: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/03/acemoglu_on_why.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/03/acemoglu_on_why.htm...

_delirium 15y ago

Earlier discussion (57 comments) from another summary (though a shorter one) of the same book: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3765492 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3765492

Fando 15y ago

"Amid weak and accommodating institutions, there is little to discourage a leader from looting. Such environments channel society’s output towards a parasitic elite, discouraging investment and innovation"

entangld 15y ago

The author's main point seems to be that corrupt governments allow too much money in too few hands. Maybe this isn't the grand theory to support them all, but it reminds me a lot of why cancer is so destructive. One part of a large community using far too many resources. There could be a cluster theory to support the causes of cancer as well, but cluster theories are very hard to find solutions for. We don't just need to casually understand the problem. We need to prevent it if possible. At least this theory gives us a reasonable means of experimenting with and analyzing future failures. Edit:removed my opinion of others' opinions.

cynicalkane 15y ago
No it isn't. The author's main point is that corrupt governments siphon wealth into privileged hands at the expense of the public good. This isn't same as "allowing" wealth inequality. You can try to elide these things into being the same, but now you're misrepresenting things to make a politically charged point.
- entangld 15y ago
  Geez. I'm not on a soapbox here. Don't accuse me. If you're going to say I'm wrong, at least point out how I'm wrong. There isn't a big difference between what I said and: >>corrupt governments siphon wealth into privileged hands at the expense of the public good.<< The effect is the same. Too much money in too few hands. Countries don't only need the rule of law to protect us from violence. We also need it to protect us from semi-legal forms of theft. Monarchs gathered wealth and provided protection, and they've been going out of business for quite a while now. Mexico has the richest person in the world along with a lot of corruption and lots of very poor people. How can a place be viable enough to support multibillionaires, and still have people living in shacks? I'm trying to understand the truth.
  - nirvana 15y ago
    The difference, near as I can tell (since I'm talking about what two other people are saying and thus quite likely could be misreading either or both of you) is the method by which this wealth concentration occurs. To use extreme examples, in one case, the concentration comes from enslaving a populace, while in the other case the concentration could come from a pure free market where only contracts are enforced (and thus some people become extraordinarily wealthy by benefiting large numbers of people, as Steve Jobs & Bill Gates have.)

rmm 15y ago

The authors have a blog over at http://whynationsfail.com/ http://whynationsfail.com/ Pretty good reading.

mmaunder 15y ago

Hour long chat on econtalk with Acemoglu: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/03/acemoglu_on_why.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/03/acemoglu_on_why.htm...

nirvana 15y ago

There is fundamentally sound economics behind the authors theory, but there's also really easy to understand logic: IF you have a strong state that controls the economy, then everything that is done must be authorized by the state. This is necessary if the purpose of the state is to extract the nations wealth to profit an elite few. If you have a weak state, then experiments can be tried, and while many experiments will be failures (such as most companies can fail) the ones that are successful really have a lasting and long term positive impact across the whole society. DEC, Apollo and many others failed, but IBM, Apple and Microsoft succeeded. The other reason this works is that businesses have to accommodate the needs and desires of their customers, their shareholders and their employees. Businesses need all three in order to thrive. Governments don't need to accommodate anyone's desires or needs, short of that which would cause a revolution that overthrows the government... government imposes its edicts using violence while businesses can only attempt to pursuade or entice people. Naturally this means that government is less interested in accepting economic reality, while businesses have to react very quickly... and if they don't, the entire economy of businesses overall will react quickly (e.g.: your business will get supplanted by one that accommodates the new reality.) The lesson here for those who wish to enslave a populace and extract wealth from them is rather than have an overarching government with extreme control, allow a great deal of liberty and then impose a %10 tax on it. %10 is better than %50 when its %10 of an economy 1,000 times bigger. Unfortunately, all states I'm aware of historically, no matter how rooted in liberty, eventually become parasitical and over the years start to extract more and more of the wealth to profit politicians and more and more controlling to make protect that extractive policy.

Retric 15y ago
There are several problem with your theory. Most importantly those in power don't know how long they will stay in power. Dictators don't last that long on average and if you assume there is a 50/50 shot your going to last 10 years investing in the economy may not actually benefit you. Secondly taxes are just one of many ways that the connected extract resources from society, often favors or bribes are an easier target for those with some but not total power. Finally, the state's real power has little to do with direct force. Functional society's run on softer forms of coercion. Such as propaganda, tribal allegiance, religion, or even entertainment. Consider, over 10 million people live and work in america without permission from the government to do so. And even those with citizenship the largest crop in many states is marijuana and such income rarely makes in on the old tax forms.

bdunbar 15y ago

Reading this review - and others - I was reminded of Ralph Peters essay 'Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States' http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/98spring/peters.htm http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/98spr... Which doesn't really explain 'why' but does set out in concise form 'what failure looks like'.

MaysonL 15y ago
Reading those "failure factors" reminded me of much of the current Republican party.
roguecoder 15y ago
It seems like "discouraging or prohibiting work" is the common theme, among both these and extractive institutions. Which may be too tautological to be useful: in cases where work isn't worth doing or is outright prohibited, less work/science/innovation gets done.
- bdunbar 15y ago
  Which may be too tautological to be useful Depends on what you need it to be useful for. Understanding the root problems in a philosophical sense? Maybe not. A rough guide for where to put a factory, do business with, startup ideas? Useful.

nl 15y ago

Note that this is a review by the (economically conservative) Economist. I haven't read Why Nations Fail, but I do read their blog[1] and my interpretation of their theories is much less absolute than the Economist's is - or rather, I think the emphasis is more on the problems of Extractive institutions (which may well be state institutions, but also could be private institutions or hybrids or the two). For example, even in the review the Economist highlights the example of Botswana which is a good example of state power as a good. Another example: the (book) authors are very positive about the potential impact of Jim Yong Kim on the World Bank: http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/3/27/mr-kim-vs-the-world-bank.html http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/3/27/mr-kim-vs-the-world... [1] http://whynationsfail.com/ http://whynationsfail.com/

eru 15y ago
> Note that this is a review by the (economically conservative) Economist. I thought they were one of the most liberal papers in existence. (In the classical European sense.)
- eli_gottlieb 15y ago
  Economically conservative in the American sense and economically liberal (or at least, neoliberal) in the European sense are the same thing.
- nl 15y ago
  They believe in smaller rather than larger government. Choose your label..
  - eru 15y ago
    They actually believe in a certain size of government. For example for some developing countries they often suggest increasing tax revenues to build a bigger state.

nico 15y ago

This sounds like game theory, the best solution in this case seems to be when everybody is better off (inclusive), instead of just trying to achieve individual gain (extractive).

narrator 15y ago

Joseph A. Tainter's The Collapse Of Complex Societies is a bit academic but very good study of civilizational collapse. It has a lot of data, studies many different civilizations and examines all popular theories of civilizational collapse. It points to diminshing marginal returns on increasing complexity in civilizations as the mechanism of collapse. It's far better than the trendy Jared Diamond writing. IMHO, Jared Diamond's collapse is a book written from end to beginning, much like Guns, Germs and Steel to simply reconfirm existing left of center ideas by torturing and cherry picking the data to ignore anything that doesn't reconfirm accepted and popular political narratives.

zasz 15y ago
Really? I found _Collapse_ to be much more boring than I expected. One of the major reasons he claims that a society collapses is a lack of trading partners. Not very sexy at all, and not leftist.
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  I'd like to add honourary mentions for Jane Jacobs' last book, Dark Age Ahead and Thomas Homer-Dixon's book The Ingenuity Gap. http://raisethehammer.org/blog/455/ http://raisethehammer.org/blog/455/
- eru 15y ago
  > Not very sexy at all, and not leftist. I can't make out whether that's meant as a compliment or a complaint. Would you elaborate on that description, please?
  - zasz 15y ago
    It's neither. The parent comment implied that Diamond's book was a leftist polemic on how the environment is important. I didn't think it was very leftist or very alarmist. That's all I meant. I was actually disappointed when Diamond mentioned neighboring nations as a reason for collapse...how utterly unsurprising and dull. He spent a lot of time talking about it, too.
15y ago

philip1209 15y ago

I appreciate that The Economist clearly states their thesis as the subtitle - i.e., it's not a hook - it's an outline for the article.

el_presidente 15y ago

Nations fail because their leaders are greedy, selfish and ignorant of history This is the kind of thinking that got the US stuck in Iraq for a decade. "We'll change the country by killing this one guy". If a nation's leader is a failure it's because the nation itself is a big pile of fail, not the other way around.

ajays 15y ago

A good read is the book "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando DeSoto. It doesn't address failed states, but talks about why capitalism succeeds in some countries and not in others.