Why Nations Fail

I made it. I MADE IT! I never thought I'd make it.

Essentially a survey of world history, as interpreted through the lens of Acemoglu and Robinson's institutionalist theories, this was (a) a TOME that was a slog to read (like any good history book!), but (b) ultimately very rewarding, with numerous fascinating tidbits of information.

The basic thesis, which Acemoglu and Robinson repeat (perhaps over-repeat), is that the fate of nations rests on the relative extractive vs. inclusive institutional frameworks (both political and economic) which they create and are created by. So, for example, if your country has an extractive state that preys on its people, it's unlikely those people will have much incentive to invest or innovate (or even stick around, if they can help it). It's a relatively straightforward concept. I'm a microeconomist who every so often goes, “Oh yeeeeah - POLITICS can be a thing in economics too!”, and I've been sold on the institutionalist interpretation of development for a while (certainly as a better theory than a geographical determinist one, i.e. hot countries can't develop because it's just too damn hot and everyone gets malaria). So it was basically preaching to the choir.

What I was surprised by was the absence of Acemoglu and Robinson's work on using settler mortality rates as an instrument for whether colonies would adopt inclusive or extractive institutions. The colonial/settler story is there, but much more muted. And I find it quite interesting! (Especially from an empirical point of view, since finding good identification strategies for (1) macro (!?!), and (2) from the past (!!) seems a very thorny problem to me. But I digress!)