Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty

About this book

Why are some nations rich and others poor, divided by wealth and poverty, health and sickness, food and famine? Is it culture, the weather, or geography that determines prosperity or poverty? As *Why Nations Fail* shows, none of these factors is either definitive or destiny. Drawing on fifteen years of original research, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson conclusively show that it is our man-made political and economic institutions that underlie economic success (or the lack of it). Korea, to take just one example, is a remarkably homogeneous nation, yet the people of North Korea are among the poorest on earth while their brothers and sisters in South Korea are among the richest. The differences between the Koreas is due to the politics that created those two different institutional trajectories. Acemoglu and Robinson marshal extraordinary historical evidence from the Roman Empire, the Mayan city-states, the Soviet Union, the United States, and Africa to build a new theory of political economy with great relevance for the big questions of today, among them: Will China's economy continue to grow at such a high speed and ultimately overwhelm the West? Are America's best days behind it? Are we creating a vicious cycle that enriches and empowers a small minority?

You might also like

Each one checked against a book catalogue before it was listed here.

• Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond
• The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor by David S. Landes
• The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph A. Tainter
• The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler
• The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire by Kyle Harper
• The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 by Paul Kennedy

What readers said

Not yet rated. We show what readers thought once at least 3 of them have said something, because a verdict from one or two is not a verdict.