- Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years – by Jared Diamond
- Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty – Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson
I particularly enjoyed Diamond’s discussion of “idiosyncrasies” such as Adolf Hitler, Alexander the Great, Buddha, and so forth in the way that they “throw wild cards into the course of history” (Diamond 420).
In attempting to solve such a difficult, and multivariable equation, an obvious and expected criticism is that the arguments will be rather strained from time to time. This is exactly the case in evaluating both the contrasting views presented by competing theories.
It is also apparent that both authors fail to consider the potential fates of the future states of societies they have deemed “successful.” Certainly, in the present they exhibit success, but both arguments do not wholly acknowledge the potential transformative effects in what determines success and prosperity. Diamond’s epilogue does relay notions of change over time when he states “circumstances change, and past primacy is no guarantee of future primacy,” however this is the extent of his acknowledgment.
Criticisms of Diamond’s argument:
- Not to discount Diamond’s effort in tackling such a complex issue, however, it is understandable that Diamond’s breadth contained fundamental flaws.
- Particularly in the case of Diamond’s argument, it is quite interesting that Diamond entirely neglects climate change and its future impact on world development. For someone who entirely relies on (italics) fixed factors, what will the continuously changing aspects of environment have on future growth.
- Massive lack of empirical data, rather broad assumptions are drawn across massive divisions in culture, land, and life. While Diamond does mention his sources in the Further Reading chapter at the end of his book, the immense lack of legitimate and convincing statistics weakens his argument.
- There is a large lack of randomness that leaves Diamond’s argument traditionally tattered. The world is a complicated and nuanced place full of unpredictable incidents and occurrences that have changed the world. This is an aspect that Acemoglu and Robinson highlight with realism, and one where Diamond fails to acknowledge in the durability of his dominantly fixed factors. Acemoglu and Robinson’s realistic view of the world’s unpredictable nature ultimately allows it to trump Diamond’s theory of a static and predetermined world
Criticism of Acemoglu and Robinson’s argument:
The definition of “inclusive” and “extractive” works in the context of Acemoglu and Robinson’s specific argument, but is this due to optimal selectivity and selection bias? Nonetheless, while this task can be quite complex, the authors fail to present a sound, durable definition of what is and can be deemed “inclusive” or “extractive.” Thus they fail present a “one size fits all” solution to economic and societal development and prosperity.
Particularly relating to Acemoglu and Robinson’s “photographic proof” of the importance of institutions drawn from their Korea example, it is essential to understand this is not the entire picture — no pun intended. Acemoglu and Robinson over-emphasize the importance of political institutions in the large scheme of things. Again, in the context of their argument, the examples provided (Nogales, North and South Korea, etc) add up, but according to (FIND a REVIEWER WHO ANALYSES SITUATION IN NORTH AND SOUTH ITALY, ZIMBABWE, INDIA OR SOMETHING ELSE that suggests that in many cases where institutions are identical, there are still large disparities.
I do agree however with notions of success relayed by the synchrony of inclusive institutions and intelligent, well-planned economic policy. While inclusive institutions often lead to sound economies, it is important to realize this is not always the case. Again, there is no one size fits all solution.
Acemoglu and Robinson’s comparison of extractive to inclusive is also innately one sided in it’s presentation. Acemoglu and Robinson do not give credit where credit is due to both the Germans and Russians. They do however correctly prescribe the nature of historical change in regards to government upheaval and it’s result in transforming institutions. The labeling of this change, in the Acemoglu and Robinson case is biased as the authors determine positive results to always coincide with extractive institutions — history in many cases tells a different story.
Also Diamond emphasizes that “competition between the food producing and the hunting-gathering lifestyles” had an immense effect on transforming the world, whereas Acemoglu and Robinson
Quotes on competition:
Thus, food production, and competition and diffusion led to the proximate agents of conquest: germs, writing, technology, and centralized (Diamond 292).
If one factor remains true, it is that with or without direct effect, history constantly reminds, instructs, and guides so a certain extent; ” The hand of history’s course at 8000 B.C. lies heavily on us” (Diamond 417).