This paper critically assesses Acemoglu and Robinson’s framework for examining economic development. The framework is applied to cases taken from a period of more than two thousand years, yet it—and consequently its implementation—suffer from serious methodological flaws. First, the authors fail to define their basic concepts and terms precisely. Their choice of critical junctures generating breakthroughs is similarly limited to those that produced changes but ignores others that did not. Furthermore, their major claim that institutions are the only determinant of prosperity does not withstand scrutiny. Other factors, including the much-criticized ones of culture and geography, may be shown to be more critical under some circumstances. Last but not least, their failure to establish links between their framework and the literature on democracy and capitalism is rather striking. Juxtaposing their analysis and this literature could generate new insights. Nevertheless, this is not to suggest that their framework is ‘old wine in new bottles’. To the contrary, their analysis will undoubtedly stimulate further research into the complexity of relations between political and economic institutions and their impact on social and economic development.
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.
