Given a narrow conception of right, Daron Acemoglu does not sound like Pashukanis, Foucault or even Amartya Sen who is not just focused on rights for emergent bourgeois but on the actual capabilities of the vast majority; and then there's the underestimation of the role of the state in technological progress for which inclusive institutions (read: formal universal rights in property) gets almost all the credit (forget any questioning of the ways in which 'inclusive institutions" bias tech progress--say towards ED medicine as opposed to anti-malarial drugs).
At any rate, here's Acemoglu stating his and Robinson's big idea: Technological progress takes place and spreads most naturally under a specific type of economic institution, which we have called inclusive: institutions that provide incentives and opportunities for innovation and economic activity for a broad cross-section of society. These incentives are based on secure property rights for innovators, businesses, and workers, while opportunities are undergirded by a level playing field, in the form of a lack of entry barriers into businesses and occupations, and basic public services and infrastructure that enable a large portion of the population to participate in economic activity. Inclusive economic institutions are supported by inclusive political institutions, which are defined by two characteristics: first, a pluralistic, broad-based distribution of political power, so that no single individual or group can exercise power and rule without constraints and in an arbitrary fashion; and second, sufficient state centralization, so that there is a sort of monopoly of violence in the hands of the state — rather than warlords, strongmen, or bandits — upon which order and security over the territories making up a nation can be grounded. Standing in direct contrast to inclusive institutions are extractive institutions. Extractive economic institutions are characterized by insecure property rights for the majority, coercion, and lack of freedom directed at extracting resources from the majority for the benefit of a narrow elite; a playing field tilted to favor the elite often thanks to entry barriers into businesses and occupations; and a general lack of opportunities and public services for most. These economic institutions are kept in place by extractive political institutions, concentrating power in the hands of narrow interests or groups without any meaningful checks or constraints on the exercise of this power. In some cases, extractive political institutions emerge from a lack of state centralization; the lawlessness and insecurity endemic in places such as Somalia allow extractive practices to exist even in the absence of a well-defined national elite. Technological change, and hence growth, is much more likely to take place under inclusive institutions because they provide opportunities and incentives for a larger segment of the population. In fact, extractive institutions often explicitly block technological innovation because it is regarded as destabilizing for the regime in charge, or because it runs against the interests of the narrow elite controlling power. Though they do not foster an environment conducive to economic growth, extractive institutions have been the norm throughout history because they benefit rulers and elites who enrich themselves and reap the benefits of monopolizing political power, even at the cost of impoverishing and oppressing the rest of society. These people will also steadfastly oppose many political reforms because, like many technological changes, such reforms will often erode their power. Though the political and economic power of the elite can explain the emergence and persistence of extractive institutions, it is not the only significant factor ensuring their durability. Extractive institutions, just like other forms of organizations, have a social basis. They create a whole hierarchy of social organizations, with their own internalized norms. For extractive institutions, these norms often are based on various forms of authoritarian ideas and rigid hierarchies — not only in national politics, but within villages, neighborhoods, families, and firms. So even within communities or families that bear the brunt of their state’s poverty and repression, extractive institutions will be supported by these norms; individuals will oppose change towards more inclusive institutions not only because their positions within the social hierarchy are threatened, but also because they have been socialized within these institutions and internalized their authoritarian values. But even if their internal logic militates against change, the world under extractive institutions is not a static one. Precisely because extractive institutions involve the enrichment of a small group at the expense of the rest, the rest will sometimes rise up. This inherent conflict in society sometimes rips apart the fabric of extractive institutions, allowing more inclusive ones to be stitched together. This we have witnessed with such landmark events as the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 in England and the French Revolution of 1789, when absolutist monarchies were toppled by social movements vying to share power. In England, this led to the end of Stuart rule and the emergence of a constitutional monarchy, ultimately ushering in an era of inclusive political institutions. In France, the revolution opened the way to the republic — even if the consolidation of this new form of government took another 90 years. We are witnessing similar social movements with similar grievances and demands rise up against extractive regimes in the Middle East and North Africa in the context of the Arab Spring. It is in this light that the first trend, the rights revolution, should be assessed. Though moves away from extractive towards inclusive institutions had taken place for centuries, ours has been the period in which such moves gathered speed and force. It is important that this revolution wasn't just one of change in political regimes and constitutions on parchment paper. Many extractive institutions have made empty gestures toward voting rights and political representation. But it is only where inclusive institutions have taken hold most strongly that a broad set of civil and political rights for most groups — including equality before the law, freedom of expression, and property rights — has been implemented, and there has been a broad emancipation of individuals from the authoritarian social norms of communities and families that have reinforced the extractive order. In fact, inclusive institutions are unlikely to be durable if they are superimposed on the social hierarchy and the socialization created by extractive institutions. This is the reason why a democracy that does not fully respect individual liberties will never be a lasting, inclusive regime. And clearly not all revolutions, or revolutionary movements, inevitably lead to more inclusive institutions. Some merely lead to changes in government without altering the nature of the state, and others, such as the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, replace one tyranny with another, more murderous one. The crucial institutional transformations link together changes in the form of government with an extension of rights running throughout society. That the second trend — the sweep of technology — follows from the rights revolution is a centerpiece of my interpretative framework. Indeed, the technological breakthroughs we have witnessed over the last century would not have been possible in a world dominated by extractive institutions. The incentives, freedoms, opportunities, and the level playing field provided by the inclusive institutions taking hold in many parts of the world were the foundations of these technological changes — in the same way that the initial, more-inclusive institutions that followed the Glorious Revolution in England were a sine qua non of the Industrial Revolution. The rights revolution may have also contributed to these technological breakthroughs in another way: greater individual freedoms in all likelihood have facilitated and encouraged a greater degree of boldness and risk-taking in innovation and business. A 20-year-old founding a company that would become one of the largest in the world in seven years seems unthinkable in a patriarchal society with rigid hierarchies, but, steeped as we are in the rights revolution, today we take it for granted.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
