Great piece. The framing of institutions as uncertainty-reducing arrangements rather than a binary of inclusive vs. extractive is a much more useful starting point. It also implicitly challenges the institutional Darwinism embedded in Why Nations Fail, where "good" institutions are treated as a natural endpoint of historical selection rather than as contested political constructions. The Brazilian political theorist Roberto Mangabeira Unger captures this well when he describes institutions as "frozen politics" — the outcome of interrupted struggles, not natural laws. That framing matters because it opens space for institutional innovation rather than mere institutional imitation. The practical implication is exactly what you suggest: instead of asking "which institutional template should we copy?", the right question is "which specific arrangements reduce uncertainty in this particular context, through which mechanisms, and under what conditions?" That shift in framing changes both the research agenda and the policy toolkit considerably.
Probably the most important institutions for capitalism are competition and private property. Acemoglu’s analysis is simply ignorant. Competition and private property are by definition exclusionary. Think of your favorite sport or game. The goal is to exclude your opponent from your goal and dominate the field. Market competition is no different. In addition, large corporations are extraction machines which drive inequality and concentration. The whole edifice of capitalism is extractive because of its institutional design. Just as the organization and institutional structure of the planation and feudal system were extractive, the organization and institutional structure of capitalism is extractive to benefit Wall Street.
The Varieties of Capitalism research and comparative economic systems research are a neglected fields by the “New Institutionalism.”
If you are interested in institutional design and organization and governance of Neoliberalism, Social Democracy, State Capitalism, and a blueprint for Socialism I will be publishing articles on those starting next month.
Can you explain what this means to your followers: (your quote)
“Cuba is an oppressive slave plantation that needs regime change. Its the same with Iran. Taking sides just mean you support one oppressor over the other. The only justifiable regime is a socialist regime.”
Wow that was a tour de force. Great summary and analysis, and pretty balanced too — which is not typical of many other write ups about AJR since their (in?)famous central bank gong.
PS: ‘Private Sector in Public Office: Selective Property Rights in China’ is by Yue Hou, not Prof. Ang.
Great piece. The framing of institutions as uncertainty-reducing arrangements rather than a binary of inclusive vs. extractive is a much more useful starting point. It also implicitly challenges the institutional Darwinism embedded in Why Nations Fail, where "good" institutions are treated as a natural endpoint of historical selection rather than as contested political constructions. The Brazilian political theorist Roberto Mangabeira Unger captures this well when he describes institutions as "frozen politics" — the outcome of interrupted struggles, not natural laws. That framing matters because it opens space for institutional innovation rather than mere institutional imitation. The practical implication is exactly what you suggest: instead of asking "which institutional template should we copy?", the right question is "which specific arrangements reduce uncertainty in this particular context, through which mechanisms, and under what conditions?" That shift in framing changes both the research agenda and the policy toolkit considerably.
Good Article.
Probably the most important institutions for capitalism are competition and private property. Acemoglu’s analysis is simply ignorant. Competition and private property are by definition exclusionary. Think of your favorite sport or game. The goal is to exclude your opponent from your goal and dominate the field. Market competition is no different. In addition, large corporations are extraction machines which drive inequality and concentration. The whole edifice of capitalism is extractive because of its institutional design. Just as the organization and institutional structure of the planation and feudal system were extractive, the organization and institutional structure of capitalism is extractive to benefit Wall Street.
The Varieties of Capitalism research and comparative economic systems research are a neglected fields by the “New Institutionalism.”
If you are interested in institutional design and organization and governance of Neoliberalism, Social Democracy, State Capitalism, and a blueprint for Socialism I will be publishing articles on those starting next month.
Can you explain what this means to your followers: (your quote)
“Cuba is an oppressive slave plantation that needs regime change. Its the same with Iran. Taking sides just mean you support one oppressor over the other. The only justifiable regime is a socialist regime.”
Wow that was a tour de force. Great summary and analysis, and pretty balanced too — which is not typical of many other write ups about AJR since their (in?)famous central bank gong.
PS: ‘Private Sector in Public Office: Selective Property Rights in China’ is by Yue Hou, not Prof. Ang.
Thank you, and good catch, I have corrected the citation and clarified the reference