Arnold Kling  

Fukuyama on Acemoglu/Robinson

PRINT
Free for Now... My Tribute to Bill Niskanen...

He writes,


They are making almost the identical point to the one made in the 2009 book Violence and Social Orders by Douglass North, John Wallis, and Barry Weingast (NWW), who argue that most underdeveloped societies are what they term "limited access orders" in which a rent-seeking coalition limits access to both the political and economic system. Indeed, I see no real difference between the "extractive/inclusive" distinction in AR and the "limited/open" access distinction in NWW.

Not unlike my reaction to Fukuyama's own book.

I think that one could write an interesting article comparing and contrasting Origins of Political Order with Violence and Social Orders by North, Weingast, and Wallis. Some ideas overlap, but there are important differences, also.

Thanks to Tyler Cowen for the pointer.



COMMENTS (4 to date)
Jeremy H. writes:

Acemoglu admits this on EconTalk.

[At http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/03/acemoglu_on_why.html --Econlib Ed.]

david writes:

The perspective is similar (new-institutionalist) but the politics are different; here is Acemoglu on Robinson on the United States (PDF).

Observe that they regard outcome inequality as weakening the inclusiveness of political institutions.

david writes:

*Acemoglu and Robinson

Steve Sailer writes:

I've skimmed Acemoglu and Robinson's Why Nations Fail. I started out sympathetic to their main point about inclusiveness, but within a half hour had lost all patience with their Institutions Uber Alles dogmatism and their bullying, unfalsifiable style of argument. It's not a book for the intellectually mature, but Tom Friedman likes it, so I'm sure it won't hurt Acemoglu's fabulous career.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top