Why Nations Fails book review

The authors further argue that not every nation benefited from the industrial revolution of the1688 for different reasons. Acemoglu et al (2012), argue, some groups have intentionally kept their people in poverty to ensure that their grip on power remains unshaken, i.e., improving the lives of others might mean distributing their political power, or even losing their political and economic privileges that absolutism grants them. Examples of these case include the Communist Party of North Korea, and sugar planters of the colonial Barbados (Acemoglu et al, 2012). Others, such as the Soviet Union, established extractive institutions to further their political agenda of the Cold War—the Soviet Union was able to attain sustainable economic growth in 1960’s and 70’s by transitioning from agriculture to industry, but the result was short-lived because a few elites controlled the economy, and they were using the gain to intensify their completion with the West. At the same time, England’s industrial revolution played a significant role in shaping the economies of those countries who were ready to adopt and follow the path of industrialization—North America, Western Europe, as well as Australia and New Zealand. But during the same period, absolutism that resembles the one that exists in Eastern Europe and Africa, was hindering industrialization in many parts of Asia. According to these authors, China and India were unable to make use of commercial and industrial opportunities while Western Europe was accelerating economic growth. The reason, for instance, in China, was the unchallenged absolute rule of the emperors that did not allow any other institutional path to development unlike the Tokugawa rule in Japan who had only weak control over the influential feudal domains, and thus remained vulnerable to change.
Nevertheless, one should note that in today’s China, though absolute monarchy is no more the case, the country is known for its over-sized state monopolies, but