Why Nations Fail is a well penned book, which wrestles with a large question that many ponder everyday- why are some nations rich, while others are poor, divided by wealth and poverty, health and sickness, and food and famine? The authors, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, explain that the answer to this question is that modern day political and economic institutions determine economic success. Political institutions can be split into two groups- inclusive and exclusive. Inclusive political institutions, which are key to success, include a broad distribution of political power. This power is limited, by means such as elections and constitutions. Inclusive economic institutions encourage property rights and contracts, as well as promote starting …show more content…
Acemoglu shares that he worries that America’s increasing gap in economic inequality will eventually disrupt the equality of America’s institutions as well. He states, “The real problem is that economic inequality, when it becomes this large, translates into political inequality.” If a single person or group can fund an entire campaign, it can be expected that the elected official will be reluctant to listen to and work with those who have conflicting opinions. Since elected officials play a large part in determining economic policy, it is crucial that they are elected fairly, and that they will represent the views of the nation as a whole, and not just a certain interest group that happens to fund their campaign. It was also interesting reading how America got where it is today, as far as the political system. The authors explain, “Countries such as Great Britain and the United States became rich because their citizens overthrew the elites who controlled power and created a society where political rights were much more broadly distributed, where the government was accountable and responsive to citizens, and where the great mass of people could take advantage of economic opportunities”. It makes me wonder what caused the USA to go from being a very equal country politically, to potentially being very biased
I felt like the author could clearly show the true contributing factors of the civil war. As an admirer of history, I could use utilize his book for references later on in my academic studies. The book is 127 pages chronicling the events that led to the civil war. Holt gives novices history readers a wonder firsthand look into the world of young America pre-civil war. His book brought out new ways to approach the study of pre-civil war events. The question whether the Civil War was inevitable or could have been derailed was answered in The Fate of Their Country. Holt places the spotlight on the behaviors Politicians and the many congressional compromises that unintendedly involved the actions of the residents of American. These factors at hand placed the Civil war as inevitable. Most of the politician’s views in The Fate of Their Country were egotistical and shortsighted which left gaps in American’s social future. To consider the subject of why, first we need to understand the contributing causes, America’s great expansion project, the Manifest Destiny the driving factor behind the loss of virtue and political discord.
At one point in time poverty was the general fact of the world. Man was always expected to live on the line of poverty, majority of the economic thinkers couldn’t see the world moving away from this standard but we did and have gained great affluence. As society has grown from this poverty stricken state it once was in, into an affluent one, the ideas used to run it have yet to change in some ways. In The Affluent Society, John Kenneth Galbraith explains how with great economic growth there should be growth in economic ideas as well.
Since the resurgence of unregulated capitalism in the late 20th century, social inequalities have grown significantly, with one percent of the most powerful countries attaining more wealth than half the world (Dunklin 2). Canada’s income gap has also risen, exacerbating morbidity and mortality (Bryant 47). However, the extent that government should reduce social inequities is controversial in a liberal democracy, which prioritizes economic freedom. That being said, social inequalities may lead to wealthier individuals gaining an advantage in policy making (Bryant 54; Rein 63), undermining the liberal democratic value of political equality. Moreover, the ideal of economic freedom is shrinking in today’s global economy, which exhibits massive enterprises stifling competition and creating economic instability (Foster 2). In light of these issues, the aim of this essay is to detail how unregulated capitalism detracts from a liberal democracy by undermining political equality and economic freedom.
New Yorker author Malcolm Gladwell claims that there were two types of failure: choking and panicking. He explains all of this in his article, “The Art of Failure,” focusing on real-life examples and their experiences of choking and panicking. Gladwell uses many examples of the two and argues how similar yet different they were.
According to this concept despite the end of colonialism, the underlying economic relations of the modern world system had not changed. The economic system of developed countries is still structured to extract resources from less developed countries .Theorists believe that poor countries are not poor because of some fundamental structural flaw ( such as inadequate natural resources) , but because participation in the global economy which left them under
The richest people who seem to keep getting richer have been walking into their wealth since the day they have been born. It has been proven by how the companies have been popping up around the world, how the companies are being bribed by governors trying to make their state seem more economically powerful. “Philips, Sony, and Toyota factories are popping up all over—to the self congratulatory applause of the nation’s governors and mayors, who have lured them with promises of tax abatements and new sewers, among other amenities.” (Paragraph 17) People are born into their jobs, and are doomed for their economic boats. IN other countries such as China, it has been proven that the families with the moneys are the ones with the money, are the ones with the economic power. “Many wealthy Chinese and western residents moved their money abroad and some actually left the colony. By 1971, the Cultural Revolution in China had ended in failure and conditions in Hong Kong calmed,” (Lannom) such as Gloria Lannom states, yet it took a while for Hong Kong to rebuild its economic standings because of this
To analyze income inequality to its full extent, it is important to compare and contrast the noticeable differences in the 20th century to now between domestic and international inequalities. The different paths that income inequality and corruption take reveal that income inequality is not a result of capitalist or socialist economic policies, but from corruption.The U.S. and most of Eastern Europe at the current moment are some of the most unequal income wise and corruption. They both took very different paths to becoming industrialized countries. As industrialism was on the rise in the late 1700s in Western Europe, so did the opportunity to make money through a new- fashioned way. No more medieval feudalism and being born into the power and riches-it was a time of opportunity. For the most industrialized nations of that time period, the quality and standard of living rose, for new efficient inventions were being made and education was becoming cheaper and socialized.
Throughout history the world has experienced several types of socio-economies, from Mussolini’s fascism to Mao’s communism. All of those economies have its weaknesses and strengths and most have countries that can validate its effectiveness. However, to decide which economy is truly better for society, there has to be criteria on which to judge the economy’s effectiveness. So what is a society? In essence, it is a network of bonds we as human beings forged under the assumption, that working together we can all be happier than if we were only looking out for ourselves. With society, everyone is able to concentrate on what they do best, reap the benefits from the skills of others, and avoid the conflict that would arise otherwise. Thus, it follows that the ultimate goal of society is the happiness of everyone. And currently, there is only one economy that has staved off the test of time and reached that goal. Capitalism, with its merit system, flexible cost adjustments, and by having no other economic contenders is able to achieve a better society than any other socio-economic system can.
The economy of a nation is a major indication of its success. One aspect of a nation's economic success or failure is the system of government. Whether a nation is socialistic, communistic, ruled by absolute sovereignty, or based on capitalistic principles can be a key factor in a country's economic success or failure. Government is the foundation of an economy but it is not what determines its success. Issues that determine a nation’s economic success include growth strategies, improved or increased resources, investment and savings, government policies, trade, foreign direct investment, income distribution, labor allocation, innovations in technology, and several other economic issues. I feel that economic growth is the main indicator of economic success. Additionally, innovations in technology, improving human capital, and improving foreign direct investment (FDI) are three issues that can lead to economic growth.
In Failure Is a Good Thing, author Jon Carroll refers to failure as a learning experience. Carroll explains that failure is needed for growth, that failure may keep a person “on their toes” so that they may never get too comfortable with what they are doing. He also goes on to state that failure is something that we should all strive for, ironically, in order to feel a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment. Carroll refers to his family, his friends, and his own experiences with failure and how they solidify his beliefs. Jon talks about his job as a columnist and how every week someone’s column has to be the lesser column.
We look in particular to the case of the United States. The US is the world’s leading power and hegemon, who also has the world’s highest GDP and GDP per capita. However, in recent years the gap between the rich and the poor has been growing at a fast pace. This prevalence of income inequality in a free market society like the US indicates that inequality is a direct result of a market or government failure. In a free market it is believed that individuals possess an equal opportunity to be successfully, but because of misallocation of resources in a market economy this is not possible.
War has been a consistent piece of mankind 's history. It has significantly influenced the lives of individuals around the globe. The impacts are amazingly adverse. In the novel, “The Wars,” by Timothy Findley, Soldiers must shoulder compelling weight on the warzone. Such weight is both family and the country weight. Many individuals look at soldiers for hop and therefore, adding load to them. Those that cannot rationally beat these difficulties may create Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Tragically, some resort to suicide to get away from their insecurities. Troops, notwithstanding, are not by any means the only ones influenced by wars; relatives likewise encounter mental hardships when their friends and family are sent to war. Timothy Findley
Firstly, there is a need to understand what is meant by development. It is defined as “the continuous and positive change in the economic, social, political and cultural dimensions of the human condition, guided by the principle of freedom of choice and the limited capacity of the environment to sustain such change.” (Sharpley, 2003: 8-7). Sharpley (2000) explains how theories of development have progressed; Firstly the ‘Modernisation Theory’ (1950s- 1960s), in which societies are seen to switch from traditional to modern only through economic growth. Next is the ‘Dependency Theory’ (late 1960s), this takes into account the historical and economic structures of developing countries, distribution of benefits, social players such as local elites, state interests and private companies, and situations in which an economy and development of a country can be conditioned by a more dominant country (Santos, 1970). The ‘Neo Classical Counter Revolution theory’ (1980s) was made to fit in with global events such as the economic depression, and development policies that build upon dependence on free market. Finally, ‘Sustainable development’ (late 1980s) is the theory that creates the encouragement for development of many developing countries. This theory aided by government policies of backings, tax breaks, and incentives. These theories have developed through growing knowledge of evolving processes, and dismissal of past theories (Sharpley, 2000).
Making decisions is a routine in our daily lives, these actions contribute to how we operate in our society. “Why did history take such different evolutionary courses for people of different continents?” was the question that fascinated Diamond to reveal the patterns of human history. According to the professor of Geography at the University of California Los Angeles, Jared Diamond, in his article “Why do some societies make disastrous decisions?” he describes the factors in failures we commit that have led to societal collapses by breaking it down as a road map. The author makes a strong suggest that “First a group may fail to anticipate a problem before the problem actually arrives. Secondly, when the problem arrives, the group may fail to perceive the problem. Then, after they perceive the problem, they may fail even to try to solve the problem.
Robert D. Kaplan’s article “The Coming Anarchy," is best summarized by the following quote, which identifies the different factors that he evaluates throughout his article, “To understand the events of the next fifty years, then, one must understand environmental scarcity, cultural and racial clash, geographic destiny, and the transformation of war.” (Kaplan, 1994) This is the framework that he uses to make his supporting arguments and thus this summary will be broken down into these four main parts.