Colonialism and slavery do matter for Acemoglu and Robinson but not to the extent and the ways in which it matters in the accounts of Immanuel Wallerstein, Kenneth Pomeranz, Amiya Bagchi, Joseph Inikori, William Darity and others. Their analysis of the impact of the slave trade on Africa and the nature and motives of apartheid are so far superior to what was once taught in standard comparative politics classes I just don't see why so-called Marxists would not be jumping for joy.
They are very sympathetic to Marxist accounts of the importance of property rights; they should have drawn more carefully from Brenner who does in fact outdo them in terms of institutional analysis. I don't think they have dealt Jeffrey Sachs' a knockout blow in terms of the importance of geographical factors in the creation of poverty (malarial load, landlocked countries, lack of navigable rivers). As a historical example of the importance of ecology not just institutions: I don't think the great Mohenjo Daro civilization broke down due to extractive institutions but due to ecological factors. On other issues:I am not sure Europe had all the small institutional advantages in the 16th century--secularism was farther along in India. Nor do I think the caste system as it existed in the early modern period was the same obstacle to modern economic growth that it later became under the pressures of colonialism (see Susan Bayly). I don't think the Chinese ban on trade was as effective as they (and Landes) claim. I don't see why they call English institutions inclusive after the Glorious Revolution when they excluded the interests of English consumers who wanted foreign cloth and English workers who remained in quasi-slavery; gave rights to slave traders to challenge the monopoly of the royal African company; and prevented India from pursuing industrialization. There was creative destruction alright. English industry was created; Africa was depopulated and India de-industrialized; and English children played a huge role in the Industrial Revolution, though this stunted them (I'll see whether child labor appears by the end of the book as I am only 2/3rds the way through). At any rate, all this does not seem to be the work of inclusive institutions. What this book could also bring out of critical minded people is a latent Heideggerianism. After paean after paean about creative destruction, one begins to wonder whether the imminent victory of the retina screen over all other screens or the increasing capabilities of smart phones is really all that the progress and wealth of nations come to.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
