But I don't agree with their idealized portrayal of institutions in Western development
It is historically inaccurate, if not ideologized
Thus, not only do they struggle to explain China, they also can't explain why Western economies like the US prospered despite being as corrupt as China is today
When America was a developing country, did it prosper - primarily or only - because colonists imported "the European form of good institutions"?
When America was a developing country, it was massively corrupt and engaged in risky public financing schemes - much like China today
Hence term "US Gilded Age"
Gilded ≠ Golden 🤑
Did America prosper - primarily or only - because of “inclusive institutions”?
From US National Archives Museum
For generations, USA “wrestled with the conflict between promise of freedom and realities of slavery and racism”
Admitting fraught histories does not diminish US democracy - on the contrary, it demonstrates honesty & enables true progress. The National Archives does the right thing to educate public.
So why do we celebrate mythologized narratives in the canons of political economy?
We should thank AJR & 2024 Nobel committee for sparking debates. They haven't solved the material inequality puzzle, but few have done more to raise awareness about *ideational* inequality & decolonizing. If you're reading AJR, pair it with a rich list in this 🧵
"The Nobel committee is supporting NIE’s legitimisation of property/wealth inequality and unequal development. Rewarding AJR also seeks to re-legitimise the neoliberal project at a time when it is being rejected more widely than ever before." ~ Jomo Kwame Sundaram (co-editor of "Is Good Governance Good for Development?", a thought-provoking book)
Two 📚 on indigenous knowledge & institutions you should read in contrast with AJR "Why Nations Fail."
Conventional notions of "good ins" are all premised on modern societies, defined by an industrial-colonial logic that scorns indigenous as "backward."
Push back. Ask where ideas come from. 🧐
A reminder from “Braiding Sweetgrass”
Private property rights is the Holy Grail of conventional political economy
Where did they come from? After white settlers force natives off their communal land and made them accept “private property” (infertile land that kept them poor)
Kimmerer's insight echoes Polanyi, who observed that pre-modern societies were organized around the principle of reciprocity, not private gain. Adam Smith's claim that humans are naturally capitalist is wrong, he says. For most of history, humans were communal.
AJR's Nobel helps spark 🎇 conversations about development thinking. There is a big gap in our knowledge of ADAPTIVE political economy: how societies learn, adapt & use what they have. This involves decolonizing: giving agency back to the Global Majority 🌐
Refreshing & thanking @TheEconomist for including my work in this list of 5⃣ 📚
Much of world assumes anything about China is exceptional & exotic, while anything about the West is universal
Thus in "Adaptive Political Economy" (open access at @World_Pol) I took China out of the cover and rearticulated the same ideas on adaptive & experimental development in my book
@World_Pol Mainstream economics & political science has astonishingly little knowledge of, and little interest to know, how non-linear processes of development works
1) Economic & political freedoms (AJR) 🌟 2) Colonial-imperial extraction 3) State capacity, industrial policy, trade protectionism 4) Access money among elites while curbing predation
Only 1 wins Nobel & the rest do not. Learn about them all.
The term "rise" must be qualified
Both the rise of the West & China are Gilded, not Golden; their growth comes with costs
But mainstream economists do not qualify "rise"
The classic question - Why are some countries poor and others rich? - is most misleading
Colonial-imperial powers cannot be grouped together with former colonies, as if the two have the same starting points.
Is it not obvious that colonial extraction contributed massively to wealth in the parts of the world that still write history and political economy? What happened the "rigorous" concerns about omitted variables?