The book that I’ve read over the past few weeks is Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, the book is written by Daron Acemogulo, and James Robinson. Both authors are economist and focus on economic development around the world, however, Robinson focus the most on Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa. These two authors give an understanding of why nations fail, but also why nations succeed, and to support their arguments they give many different examples in different contexts. Even though they’ve examples from all over the world the main focus in this book is mostly about why Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America are failing to develop as much as Western Europe for example. Acemogulo, and Robinson have many examples
…show more content…
Nevertheless, there are some parts of the books that don’t seem as relevant as others. For example, the examples where Acemogulo, and Robinson discuss more current reasons such as the industrialization in England, and the difference between South, and North Korea are very interesting and easy to understand. However, in some parts of the book they discuss examples that are more than 1,000 years old. Even though some of the examples seem very relevant to understand why some nations haven’t developed as much as others, some of the examples seems to be a bit irrelevant. Therefore, I’d say that the book can get a bit boring sometimes because some of the examples seems to be a bit irrelevant, but the book is still a very interesting book and gives a great understanding to the current problems that has to be solved to let countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America develop. Through out the book Robinson, and Acemogulo stated that geography had nothing to do why some nations are behind in economic development. However, I’m not sure I agree. I’ve read “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by Jared Diamond where he mentions that geography is one reason to why some nations are behind in economic development, and the examples that he provides makes me believe that it is a part of why some nations are behind. Nevertheless, I don’t think we can blame it all on the geography
Nevertheless, there are some parts of the books that don’t seem as relevant as others. For example, the examples where Acemogulo, and Robinson discuss more current reasons such as the industrialization in England, and the difference between South, and North Korea are very interesting and easy to understand. However, in some parts of the book they discuss examples that are more than 1,000 years old. Even though some of the examples seem very relevant to understand why some nations haven’t developed as much as others, some of the examples seems to be a bit irrelevant. Therefore, I’d say that the book can get a bit boring sometimes because some of the examples seems to be a bit irrelevant, but the book is still a very interesting book and gives a great understanding to the current problems that has to be solved to let countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America develop. Through out the book Robinson, and Acemogulo stated that geography had nothing to do why some nations are behind in economic development. However, I’m not sure I agree. I’ve read “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by Jared Diamond where he mentions that geography is one reason to why some nations are behind in economic development, and the examples that he provides makes me believe that it is a part of why some nations are behind. Nevertheless, I don’t think we can blame it all on the geography