PRAISE FOR Why Nations Fail

“Acemoglu and Robinson have made an importantcontribution to the debate as to why similar-looking nationsdiffer so greatly in their economic and politicaldevelopment. Through a broad multiplicity of historicalexamples, they show how institutional developments,sometimes based on very accidental circumstances, havehad enormous consequences. The openness of a society,its willingness to permit creative destruction, and the rule oflaw appear to be decisive for economic development.”

—Kenneth J. Arrow, Nobel laureate in economics,1972

“The authors convincingly show that countries escapepoverty only when they have appropriate economicinstitutions, especially private property and competition.More originally, they argue countries are more likely todevelop the right institutions when they have an openpluralistic political system with competition for politicaloffice, a widespread electorate, and openness to newpolitical leaders. This intimate connection between politicaland economic institutions is the heart of their majorcontribution, and has resulted in a study of great vitality onone of the crucial questions in economics and politicaleconomy.”

—Gary S. Becker, Nobel laureate in economics,1992

“This important and insightful book, packed with historicalexamples, makes the case that inclusive politicalinstitutions in support of inclusive economic institutions iskey to sustained prosperity. The book reviews how somegood regimes got launched and then had a virtuous spiral,while bad regimes remain in a vicious spiral. This isimportant analysis not to be missed.”

—Peter Diamond, Nobel laureate in economics,2010

“For those who think that a nation’s economic fate isdetermined by geography or culture, Daron Acemoglu andJim Robinson have bad news. It’s manmade institutions,not the lay of the land or the faith of our forefathers, thatdetermine whether a country is rich or poor. Synthesizingbrilliantly the work of theorists from Adam Smith toDouglass North with more recent empirical research byeconomic historians, Acemoglu and Robinson haveproduced a compelling and highly readable book.”

—Niall Ferguson, author of The Ascent of Money

“Acemoglu and Robinson—two of the world’s leadingexperts on development—reveal why it is not geography,disease, or culture that explain why some nations are richand some poor, but rather a matter of institutions andpolitics. This highly accessible book provides welcomeinsight to specialists and general readers alike.”

—Francis Fukuyama, author of The End ofHistory and the Last Man and The Origins of

Political Order

“A brilliant and uplifting book—yet also a deeply disturbingwake-up call. Acemoglu and Robinson lay out a convincingtheory of almost everything to do with economicdevelopment. Countries rise when they put in place the rightpro-growth political institutions and they fail—oftenspectacularly—when those institutions ossify or fail toadapt. Powerful people always and everywhere seek tograb complete control over government, underminingbroader social progress for their own greed. Keep thosepeople in check with effective democracy or watch yournation fail.”

—Simon Johnson, coauthor of 13 Bankers andprofessor at MIT Sloan

“Two of the world’s best and most erudite economists turnto the hardest issue of all: why are some nations poor andothers rich? Written with a deep knowledge of economics

and political history, this is perhaps the most powerfulstatement made to date that ‘institutions matter.’ Aprovocative, instructive, yet thoroughly enthralling book.”

—Joel Mokyr, Robert H. Strotz Professor of Artsand Sciences and Professor of Economics and

History, Northwestern University

“In this delightfully readable romp through four hundredyears of history, two of the giants of contemporary socialscience bring us an inspiring and important message: it isfreedom that makes the world rich. Let tyrants everywheretremble!”

—Ian Morris, Stanford University, author of Whythe West Rules—for Now

“Imagine sitting around a table listening to Jared Diamond,Joseph Schumpeter, and James Madison reflect on morethan two thousand years of political and economic history.Imagine that they weave their ideas into a coherenttheoretical framework based on limiting extraction,promoting creative destruction, and creating strong politicalinstitutions that share power, and you begin to see thecontribution of this brilliant and engagingly written book.”

—Scott E. Page, University of Michigan and SantaFe Institute

“In this stunningly wide-ranging book, Acemoglu andRobinson ask a simple but vital question, why do somenations become rich and others remain poor? Their answeris also simple—because some polities develop moreinclusive political institutions. What is remarkable about thebook is the crispness and clarity of the writing, theelegance of the argument, and the remarkable richness ofhistorical detail. This book is a must-read at a momentwhen governments across the Western world must comeup with the political will to deal with a debt crisis of unusualproportions.”

—Steven Pincus, Bradford Durfee Professor ofHistory and International and Area Studies, Yale

University

“It’s the politics, stupid! That is Acemoglu and Robinson’ssimple yet compelling explanation for why so manycountries fail to develop. From the absolutism of the Stuartsto the antebellum South, from Sierra Leone to Colombia,this magisterial work shows how powerful elites rig therules to benefit themselves at the expense of the many.Charting a careful course between the pessimists andoptimists, the authors demonstrate history and geographyneed not be destiny. But they also document how sensibleeconomic ideas and policies often achieve little in theabsence of fundamental political change.”

—Dani Rodrik, Kennedy School of Government,Harvard University

“This is not only a fascinating and interesting book: it is areally important one. The highly original research thatProfessors Acemoglu and Robinson have done, andcontinue to do, on how economic forces, politics, and policychoices evolve together and constrain each other, and howinstitutions affect that evolution, is essential tounderstanding the successes and failures of societies andnations. And here, in this book, these insights come in ahighly accessible, indeed riveting form. Those who pick thisbook up and start reading will have trouble putting it down.”

—Michael Spence, Nobel laureate in economics,2001

“This fascinating and readable book centers on thecomplex joint evolution of political and economicinstitutions, in good directions and bad. It strikes a delicatebalance between the logic of political and economicbehavior and the shifts in direction created by contingenthistorical events, large and small, at ‘critical junctures.’Acemoglu and Robinson provide an enormous range ofhistorical examples to show how such shifts can tilt towardfavorable institutions, progressive innovation, andeconomic success or toward repressive institutions and

eventual decay or stagnation. Somehow they can generateboth excitement and reflection.”

—Robert Solow, Nobel laureate in economics,1987

Copyright © 2012 by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson

All rights reserved.

Published in the United States by Crown Publishers, an imprint of theCrown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc., New York.

www.crownpublishing.com

CROWN and the CROWN colophon are registered trademarks ofRandom House, Inc.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataAcemoglu, Daron.

Why nations fail : the origins of power, prosperity, and poverty / DaronAcemoglu, James A. Robinson.—1st ed.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references.

1. Economics—Political aspects. 2. Economic history—Politicalaspects. 3. Poverty—Developing countries. 4. Economic development

—Developing countries.5. Revolutions—Economic aspects. 6. Developing countries—

Economic policy.7. Developing countries—Social policy. I. Robinson, James A., 1960–.

II. Title.HB74.P65A28 2012

330—dc232011023538

eISBN: 978-0-307-71923-2

Maps by Melissa DellJacket design by David Tran

Jacket photograph by Kirk Mastin/Getty Images

v3.1

For Arda and Asu—DA

Para María Angélica, mi vida y mi alma—JR

CONTENTS

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

Dedication

PREFACEWhy Egyptians filled Tahrir Square to bring down HosniMubarak and what it means for our understanding of the

causes of prosperity and poverty

1.SO CLOSE AND YET SO DIFFERENT

Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora, have the samepeople, culture, and geography. Why is one rich and one

poor?

2.THEORIES THAT DON’T WORK

Poor countries are poor not because of their geographiesor cultures, or because their leaders do not know which

policies will enrich their citizens

3.THE MAKING OF PROSPERITY AND POVERTY

How prosperity and poverty are determined by theincentives created by institutions, and how politics

determines what institutions a nation has

4.SMALL DIFFERENCES AND CRITICAL JUNCTURES: THE WEIGHT

OF HISTORYHow institutions change through political conflict and how

the past shapes the present

5.“I’VE SEEN THE FUTURE, AND IT WORKS”: GROWTH UNDER

“I’VE SEEN THE FUTURE, AND IT WORKS”: GROWTH UNDEREXTRACTIVE INSTITUTIONS

What Stalin, King Shyaam, the Neolithic Revolution, andthe Maya city-states all had in common and how this

explains why China’s current economic growth cannot last

6.DRIFTING APART

How institutions evolve over time, often slowly driftingapart

7.THE TURNING POINT

How a political revolution in 1688 changed institutions inEngland and led to the Industrial Revolution

8.NOT ON OUR TURF: BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT

Why the politically powerful in many nations opposed theIndustrial Revolution

Photo Inserts

9.REVERSING DEVELOPMENT

How European colonialism impoverished large parts ofthe world

10.THE DIFFUSION OF PROSPERITY

How some parts of the world took different paths toprosperity from that of Britain

11.THE VIRTUOUS CIRCLE

How institutions that encourage prosperity create positivefeedback loops that prevent the efforts by elites to

undermine them

12.THE VICIOUS CIRCLE

How institutions that create poverty generate negativefeedback loops and endure

13.WHY NATIONS FAIL TODAY

Institutions, institutions, institutions

14.BREAKING THE MOLD

How a few countries changed their economic trajectory bychanging their institutions

15.UNDERSTANDING PROSPERITY AND POVERTY

How the world could have been different and howunderstanding this can explain why most attempts to

combat poverty have failedACKNOWLEDGMENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY AND SOURCES

REFERENCES

PREFACE

THIS BOOK IS about the huge differences in incomes andstandards of living that separate the rich countries of theworld, such as the United States, Great Britain, andGermany, from the poor, such as those in sub-SaharanAfrica, Central America, and South Asia.

As we write this preface, North Africa and the MiddleEast have been shaken by the “Arab Spring” started by theso-called Jasmine Revolution, which was initially ignited bypublic outrage over the self-immolation of a street vendor,Mohamed Bouazizi, on December 17, 2010. By January14, 2011, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who had ruledTunisia since 1987, had stepped down, but far fromabating, the revolutionary fervor against the rule ofprivileged elites in Tunisia was getting stronger and hadalready spread to the rest of the Middle East. HosniMubarak, who had ruled Egypt with a tight grip for almostthirty years, was ousted on February 11, 2011. The fates ofthe regimes in Bahrain, Libya, Syria, and Yemen areunknown as we complete this preface.

The roots of discontent in these countries lie in theirpoverty. The average Egyptian has an income level ofaround 12 percent of the average citizen of the UnitedStates and can expect to live ten fewer years; 20 percent ofthe population is in dire poverty. Though these differencesare significant, they are actually quite small compared withthose between the United States and the poorest countriesin the world, such as North Korea, Sierra Leone, andZimbabwe, where well over half the population lives inpoverty.

Why is Egypt so much poorer than the United States?What are the constraints that keep Egyptians frombecoming more prosperous? Is the poverty of Egyptimmutable, or can it be eradicated? A natural way to startthinking about this is to look at what the Egyptiansthemselves are saying about the problems they face andwhy they rose up against the Mubarak regime. Noha

Hamed, twenty-four, a worker at an advertising agency inCairo, made her views clear as she demonstrated in TahrirSquare: “We are suffering from corruption, oppression andbad education. We are living amid a corrupt system whichhas to change.” Another in the square, Mosaab El Shami,twenty, a pharmacy student, concurred: “I hope that by theend of this year we will have an elected government andthat universal freedoms are applied and that we put an endto the corruption that has taken over this country.” Theprotestors in Tahrir Square spoke with one voice about thecorruption of the government, its inability to deliver publicservices, and the lack of equality of opportunity in theircountry. They particularly complained about repression andthe absence of political rights. As Mohamed ElBaradei,former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency,wrote on Twitter on January 13, 2011, “Tunisia: repression+ absence of social justice + denial of channels forpeaceful change = a ticking bomb.” Egyptians andTunisians both saw their economic problems as beingfundamentally caused by their lack of political rights. Whenthe protestors started to formulate their demands moresystematically, the first twelve immediate demands postedby Wael Khalil, the software engineer and blogger whoemerged as one of the leaders of the Egyptian protestmovement, were all focused on political change. Issuessuch as raising the minimum wage appeared only amongthe transitional demands that were to be implemented later.

To Egyptians, the things that have held them backinclude an ineffective and corrupt state and a society wherethey cannot use their talent, ambition, ingenuity, and whateducation they can get. But they also recognize that theroots of these problems are political. All the economicimpediments they face stem from the way political power inEgypt is exercised and monopolized by a narrow elite.This, they understand, is the first thing that has to change.

Yet, in believing this, the protestors of Tahrir Square havesharply diverged from the conventional wisdom on thistopic. When they reason about why a country such as Egyptis poor, most academics and commentators emphasizecompletely different factors. Some stress that Egypt’spoverty is determined primarily by its geography, by the factthat the country is mostly a desert and lacks adequate

rainfall, and that its soils and climate do not allowproductive agriculture. Others instead point to culturalattributes of Egyptians that are supposedly inimical toeconomic development and prosperity. Egyptians, theyargue, lack the same sort of work ethic and cultural traitsthat have allowed others to prosper, and instead haveaccepted Islamic beliefs that are inconsistent witheconomic success. A third approach, the one dominantamong economists and policy pundits, is based on thenotion that the rulers of Egypt simply don’t know what isneeded to make their country prosperous, and havefollowed incorrect policies and strategies in the past. Ifthese rulers would only get the right advice from the rightadvisers, the thinking goes, prosperity would follow. Tothese academics and pundits, the fact that Egypt has beenruled by narrow elites feathering their nests at the expenseof society seems irrelevant to understanding the country’seconomic problems.

In this book we’ll argue that the Egyptians in TahrirSquare, not most academics and commentators, have theright idea. In fact, Egypt is poor precisely because it hasbeen ruled by a narrow elite that have organized society fortheir own benefit at the expense of the vast mass of people.Political power has been narrowly concentrated, and hasbeen used to create great wealth for those who possess it,such as the $70 billion fortune apparently accumulated byex-president Mubarak. The losers have been the Egyptianpeople, as they only too well understand.

We’ll show that this interpretation of Egyptian poverty, thepeople’s interpretation, turns out to provide a generalexplanation for why poor countries are poor. Whether it isNorth Korea, Sierra Leone, or Zimbabwe, we’ll show thatpoor countries are poor for the same reason that Egypt ispoor. Countries such as Great Britain and the UnitedStates became rich because their citizens overthrew theelites who controlled power and created a society wherepolitical rights were much more broadly distributed, wherethe government was accountable and responsive tocitizens, and where the great mass of people could takeadvantage of economic opportunities. We’ll show that tounderstand why there is such inequality in the world todaywe have to delve into the past and study the historical

dynamics of societies. We’ll see that the reason that Britainis richer than Egypt is because in 1688, Britain (orEngland, to be exact) had a revolution that transformed thepolitics and thus the economics of the nation. People foughtfor and won more political rights, and they used them toexpand their economic opportunities. The result was afundamentally different political and economic trajectory,culminating in the Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution and the technologies itunleashed didn’t spread to Egypt, as that country wasunder the control of the Ottoman Empire, which treatedEgypt in rather the same way as the Mubarak family laterdid. Ottoman rule in Egypt was overthrown by NapoleonBonaparte in 1798, but the country then fell under thecontrol of British colonialism, which had as little interest asthe Ottomans in promoting Egypt’s prosperity. Though theEgyptians shook off the Ottoman and British empires and,in 1952, overthrew their monarchy, these were notrevolutions like that of 1688 in England, and rather thanfundamentally transforming politics in Egypt, they brought topower another elite as disinterested in achieving prosperityfor ordinary Egyptians as the Ottoman and British hadbeen. In consequence, the basic structure of society did notchange, and Egypt stayed poor.

In this book we’ll study how these patterns reproducethemselves over time and why sometimes they are altered,as they were in England in 1688 and in France with therevolution of 1789. This will help us to understand if thesituation in Egypt has changed today and whether therevolution that overthrew Mubarak will lead to a new set ofinstitutions capable of bringing prosperity to ordinaryEgyptians. Egypt has had revolutions in the past that didnot change things, because those who mounted therevolutions simply took over the reins from those they’ddeposed and re-created a similar system. It is indeeddifficult for ordinary citizens to acquire real political powerand change the way their society works. But it is possible,and we’ll see how this happened in England, France, andthe United States, and also in Japan, Botswana, and Brazil.Fundamentally it is a political transformation of this sort thatis required for a poor society to become rich. There isevidence that this may be happening in Egypt. Reda

Metwaly, another protestor in Tahrir Square, argued, “Nowyou see Muslims and Christians together, now you see oldand young together, all wanting the same thing.” We’ll seethat such a broad movement in society was a key part ofwhat happened in these other political transformations. Ifwe understand when and why such transitions occur, we willbe in a better position to evaluate when we expect suchmovements to fail as they have often done in the past andwhen we may hope that they will succeed and improve thelives of millions.

1.

SO CLOSE AND YET SO DIFFERENT

THE ECONOMICS OF THE RIO GRANDE

THE CITY OF NOGALES is cut in half by a fence. If you standby it and look north, you’ll see Nogales, Arizona, located inSanta Cruz County. The income of the average householdthere is about $30,000 a year. Most teenagers are inschool, and the majority of the adults are high schoolgraduates. Despite all the arguments people make abouthow deficient the U.S. health care system is, the populationis relatively healthy, with high life expectancy by globalstandards. Many of the residents are above age sixty-fiveand have access to Medicare. It’s just one of the manyservices the government provides that most take forgranted, such as electricity, telephones, a sewage system,public health, a road network linking them to other cities inthe area and to the rest of the United States, and, last butnot least, law and order. The people of Nogales, Arizona,can go about their daily activities without fear for life orsafety and not constantly afraid of theft, expropriation, orother things that might jeopardize their investments in theirbusinesses and houses. Equally important, the residents ofNogales, Arizona, take it for granted that, with all itsinefficiency and occasional corruption, the government istheir agent. They can vote to replace their mayor,congressmen, and senators; they vote in the presidentialelections that determine who will lead their country.Democracy is second nature to them.

Life south of the fence, just a few feet away, is ratherdifferent. While the residents of Nogales, Sonora, live in arelatively prosperous part of Mexico, the income of theaverage household there is about one-third that in Nogales,Arizona. Most adults in Nogales, Sonora, do not have ahigh school degree, and many teenagers are not in school.Mothers have to worry about high rates of infant mortality.

Poor public health conditions mean it’s no surprise that theresidents of Nogales, Sonora, do not live as long as theirnorthern neighbors. They also don’t have access to manypublic amenities. Roads are in bad condition south of thefence. Law and order is in worse condition. Crime is high,and opening a business is a risky activity. Not only do yourisk robbery, but getting all the permissions and greasingall the palms just to open is no easy endeavor. Residents ofNogales, Sonora, live with politicians’ corruption andineptitude every day.

In contrast to their northern neighbors, democracy is avery recent experience for them. Until the political reformsof 2000, Nogales, Sonora, just like the rest of Mexico, wasunder the corrupt control of the Institutional RevolutionaryParty, or Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI).

How could the two halves of what is essentially the samecity be so different? There is no difference in geography,climate, or the types of diseases prevalent in the area,since germs do not face any restrictions crossing back andforth between the United States and Mexico. Of course,health conditions are very different, but this has nothing todo with the disease environment; it is because the peoplesouth of the border live with inferior sanitary conditions andlack decent health care.

But perhaps the residents are very different. Could it bethat the residents of Nogales, Arizona, are grandchildren ofmigrants from Europe, while those in the south aredescendants of Aztecs? Not so. The backgrounds ofpeople on both sides of the border are quite similar. AfterMexico became independent from Spain in 1821, the areaaround “Los dos Nogales” was part of the Mexican state ofVieja California and remained so even after the Mexican-American War of 1846–1848. Indeed, it was only after theGadsden Purchase of 1853 that the U.S. border wasextended into this area. It was Lieutenant N. Michler who,while surveying the border, noted the presence of the“pretty little valley of Los Nogales.” Here, on either side ofthe border, the two cities rose up. The inhabitants ofNogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora, share ancestors,enjoy the same food and the same music, and, we wouldhazard to say, have the same “culture.”

Of course, there is a very simple and obvious explanation

for the differences between the two halves of Nogales thatyou’ve probably long since guessed: the very border thatdefines the two halves. Nogales, Arizona, is in the UnitedStates. Its inhabitants have access to the economicinstitutions of the United States, which enable them tochoose their occupations freely, acquire schooling andskills, and encourage their employers to invest in the besttechnology, which leads to higher wages for them. Theyalso have access to political institutions that allow them totake part in the democratic process, to elect theirrepresentatives, and replace them if they misbehave. Inconsequence, politicians provide the basic services(ranging from public health to roads to law and order) thatthe citizens demand. Those of Nogales, Sonora, are not solucky. They live in a different world shaped by differentinstitutions. These different institutions create verydisparate incentives for the inhabitants of the twoNogaleses and for the entrepreneurs and businesseswilling to invest there. These incentives created by thedifferent institutions of the Nogaleses and the countries inwhich they are situated are the main reason for thedifferences in economic prosperity on the two sides of theborder.

Why are the institutions of the United States so muchmore conducive to economic success than those of Mexicoor, for that matter, the rest of Latin America? The answer tothis question lies in the way the different societies formedduring the early colonial period. An institutional divergencetook place then, with implications lasting into the presentday. To understand this divergence we must begin right atthe foundation of the colonies in North and Latin America.

THE FOUNDING OF BUENOS AIRES

Early in 1516 the Spanish navigator Juan Díaz de Solíssailed into a wide estuary on the Eastern Seaboard ofSouth America. Wading ashore, de Solís claimed the landfor Spain, naming the river the Río de la Plata, “River ofSilver,” since the local people possessed silver. Theindigenous peoples on either side of the estuary—theCharrúas in what is now Uruguay, and the Querandí on theplains that were to be known as the Pampas in modern

Argentina—regarded the newcomers with hostility. Theselocals were hunter-gatherers who lived in small groupswithout strong centralized political authorities. Indeed it wassuch a band of Charrúas who clubbed de Solís to death ashe explored the new domains he had attemped to occupyfor Spain.

In 1534 the Spanish, still optimistic, sent out a firstmission of settlers from Spain under the leadership ofPedro de Mendoza. They founded a town on the site ofBuenos Aires in the same year. It should have been anideal place for Europeans. Buenos Aires, literally meaning“good airs,” had a hospitable, temperate climate. Yet thefirst stay of the Spaniards there was short lived. They werenot after good airs, but resources to extract and labor tocoerce. The Charrúas and the Querandí were not obliging,however. They refused to provide food to the Spaniards,and refused to work when caught. They attacked the newsettlement with their bows and arrows. The Spaniards grewhungry, since they had not anticipated having to providefood for themselves. Buenos Aires was not what they haddreamed of. The local people could not be forced intoproviding labor. The area had no silver or gold to exploit,and the silver that de Solís found had actually come all theway from the Inca state in the Andes, far to the west.

The Spaniards, while trying to survive, started sendingout expeditions to find a new place that would offer greaterriches and populations easier to coerce. In 1537 one ofthese expeditions, under the leadership of Juan de Ayolas,penetrated up the Paraná River, searching for a route to theIncas. On its way, it made contact with the Guaraní, asedentary people with an agricultural economy based onmaize and cassava. De Ayolas immediately realized thatthe Guaraní were a completely different proposition fromthe Charrúas and the Querandí. After a brief conflict, theSpanish overcame Guaraní resistance and founded a town,Nuestra Señora de Santa María de la Asunción, whichremains the capital of Paraguay today. The conquistadorsmarried the Guaraní princesses and quickly set themselvesup as a new aristocracy. They adapted the existingsystems of forced labor and tribute of the Guaraní, withthemselves at the helm. This was the kind of colony theywanted to set up, and within four years Buenos Aires was

abandoned as all the Spaniards who’d settled there movedto the new town.

Buenos Aires, the “Paris of South America,” a city ofwide European-style boulevards based on the greatagricultural wealth of the Pampas, was not resettled until1580. The abandonment of Buenos Aires and the conquestof the Guaraní reveals the logic of European colonization ofthe Americas. Early Spanish and, as we will see, Englishcolonists were not interested in tilling the soil themselves;they wanted others to do it for them, and they wantedriches, gold and silver, to plunder.

FROM CAJAMARCA …

The expeditions of de Solís, de Mendoza, and de Ayolascame in the wake of more famous ones that followedChristopher Columbus’s sighting of one of the islands ofthe Bahamas on October 12, 1492. Spanish expansionand colonization of the Americas began in earnest with theinvasion of Mexico by Hernán Cortés in 1519, theexpedition of Francisco Pizarro to Peru a decade and ahalf later, and the expedition of Pedro de Mendoza to theRío de la Plata just two years after that. Over the nextcentury, Spain conquered and colonized most of central,western, and southern South America, while Portugalclaimed Brazil to the east.

The Spanish strategy of colonization was highly effective.First perfected by Cortés in Mexico, it was based on theobservation that the best way for the Spanish to subdueopposition was to capture the indigenous leader. Thisstrategy enabled the Spanish to claim the accumulatedwealth of the leader and coerce the indigenous peoples togive tribute and food. The next step was setting themselvesup as the new elite of the indigenous society and takingcontrol of the existing methods of taxation, tribute, and,particularly, forced labor.

When Cortés and his men arrived at the great Azteccapital of Tenochtitlan on November 8, 1519, they werewelcomed by Moctezuma, the Aztec emperor, who haddecided, in the face of much advice from his counselors, towelcome the Spaniards peacefully. What happened next iswell described by the account compiled after 1545 by the

Franciscan priest Bernardino de Sahagún in his famousFlorentine Codices.

[At] once they [the Spanish] firmly seizedMoctezuma … then each of the guns shotoff … Fear prevailed. It was as if everyonehad swallowed his heart. Even before it hadgrown dark, there was terror, there wasastonishment, there was apprehension, therewas a stunning of the people.

And when it dawned thereupon wereproclaimed all the things which [theSpaniards] required: white tortillas, roastedturkey hens, eggs, fresh water, wood,firewood, charcoal … This had Moctezumaindeed commanded.

And when the Spaniards were well settled,they thereupon inquired of Moctezuma as toall the city’s treasure … with great zeal theysought gold. And Moctezuma thereupon wentleading the Spaniards. They wentsurrounding him … each holding him, eachgrasping him.

And when they reached the storehouse, aplace called Teocalco, thereupon theybrought forth all the brilliant things; the quetzalfeather head fan, the devices, the shields, thegolden discs … the golden nose crescents,the golden leg bands, the golden arm bands,the golden forehead bands.

Thereupon was detached the gold … atonce they ignited, set fire to … all theprecious things. They all burned. And the goldthe Spaniards formed into separatebars … And the Spanish walkedeverywhere … They took all, all that they sawwhich they saw to be good.

Thereupon they went to Moctezuma’s ownstorehouse … at the place calledTotocalco … they brought forth[Moctezuma’s] own property … preciousthings all; the necklaces with pendants, the

arm bands with tufts of quetzal feathers, thegolden arm bands, the bracelets, the goldenbands with shells … and the turquoisediadem, the attribute of the ruler. They took itall.

The military conquest of the Aztecs was completed by1521. Cortés, as governor of the province of New Spain,then began dividing up the most valuable resource, theindigenous population, through the institution of theencomienda. The encomienda had first appeared infifteenth-century Spain as part of the reconquest of thesouth of the country from the Moors, Arabs who had settledduring and after the eighth century. In the New World, it tookon a much more pernicious form: it was a grant ofindigenous peoples to a Spaniard, known as theencomendero. The indigenous peoples had to give theencomendero tribute and labor services, in exchange forwhich the encomendero was charged with converting themto Christianity.

A vivid early account of the workings of the encomiendahas come down to us from Bartolomé de las Casas, aDominican priest who formulated the earliest and one ofthe most devastating critiques of the Spanish colonialsystem. De las Casas arrived on the Spanish island ofHispaniola in 1502 with a fleet of ships led by the newgovernor, Nicolás de Ovando. He became increasinglydisillusioned and disturbed by the cruel and exploitativetreatment of the indigenous peoples he witnessed everyday. In 1513 he took part as a chaplain in the Spanishconquest of Cuba, even being granted an encomienda forhis service. However, he renounced the grant and began along campaign to reform Spanish colonial institutions. Hisefforts culminated in his book A Short Account of theDestruction of the Indies, written in 1542, a witheringattack on the barbarity of Spanish rule. On the encomiendahe has this to say in the case of Nicaragua:

Each of the settlers took up residence in thetown allotted to him (or encommended tohim, as the legal phrase has it), put theinhabitants to work for him, stole their already

scarce foodstuffs for himself and took overthe lands owned and worked by the nativesand on which they traditionally grew their ownproduce. The settler would treat the whole ofthe native population—dignitaries, old men,women and children—as members of hishousehold and, as such, make them labornight and day in his own interests, without anyrest whatsoever.

For the conquest of New Granada, modern Colombia, delas Casas reports the whole Spanish strategy in action:

To realize their long-term purpose of seizingall the available gold, the Spaniardsemployed their usual strategy of apportioningamong themselves (or en-commending, asthey have it) the towns and theirinhabitants … and then, as ever, treatingthem as common slaves. The man in overallcommand of the expedition seized the Kingof the whole territory for himself and held himprisoner for six or seven months, quite illicitlydemanding more and more gold andemeralds from him. This King, one Bogotá,was so terrified that, in his anxiety to freehimself from the clutches of his tormentors,he consented to the demand that he fill anentire house with gold and hand it over; tothis end he sent his people off in search ofgold, and bit by bit they brought it along withmany precious stones. But still the house wasnot filled and the Spaniards eventuallydeclared that they would put him to death forbreaking his promise. The commandersuggested they should bring the case beforehim, as a representative of the law, and whenthey did so, entering formal accusationsagainst the King, he sentenced him to tortureshould he persist in not honoring the bargain.They tortured him with the strappado, putburning tallow on his belly, pinned both his

legs to poles with iron hoops and his neckwith another and then, with two men holdinghis hands, proceeded to burn the soles of hisfeet. From time to time, the commanderwould look in and repeat that they wouldtorture him to death slowly unless heproduced more gold, and this is what theydid, the King eventually succumbing to theagonies they inflicted on him.

The strategy and institutions of conquest perfected inMexico were eagerly adopted elsewhere in the SpanishEmpire. Nowhere was this done more effectively than inPizarro’s conquest of Peru. As de las Casas begins hisaccount:

In 1531 another great villain journeyed with anumber of men to the kingdom of Peru. Heset out with every intention of imitating thestrategy and tactics of his fellow adventurersin other parts of the New World.

Pizarro began on the coast near the Peruvian town ofTumbes and marched south. On November 15, 1532, hereached the mountain town of Cajamarca, where the Incaemperor Atahualpa was encamped with his army. The nextday, Atahualpa, who had just vanquished his brotherHuáscar in a contest over who would succeed theirdeceased father, Huayna Capac, came with his retinue towhere the Spanish were camped. Atahualpa was irritatedbecause news of atrocities that the Spanish had alreadycommitted, such as violating a temple of the Sun God Inti,had reached him. What transpired next is well known. TheSpanish laid a trap and sprang it. They killed Atahualpa’sguards and retainers, possibly as many as two thousandpeople, and captured the king. To gain his freedom,Atahualpa had to promise to fill one room with gold and twomore of the same size with silver. He did this, but theSpanish, reneging on their promises, strangled him in July1533. That November, the Spanish captured the Incacapital of Cusco, where the Incan aristocracy received thesame treatment as Atahualpa, being imprisoned until theyproduced gold and silver. When they did not satisfy

Spanish demands, they were burned alive. The greatartistic treasures of Cusco, such as the Temple of the Sun,had their gold stripped from them and melted down intoingots.

At this point the Spanish focused on the people of theInca Empire. As in Mexico, citizens were divided intoencomiendas, with one going to each of the conquistadorswho had accompanied Pizarro. The encomienda was themain institution used for the control and organization oflabor in the early colonial period, but it soon faced avigorous contender. In 1545 a local named Diego Gualpawas searching for an indigenous shrine high in the Andes inwhat is today Bolivia. He was thrown to the ground by asudden gust of wind and in front of him appeared a cacheof silver ore. This was part of a vast mountain of silver,which the Spanish baptized El Cerro Rico, “The Rich Hill.”Around it grew the city of Potosí, which at its height in 1650had a population of 160,000 people, larger than Lisbon orVenice in this period.

To exploit the silver, the Spanish needed miners—a lot ofminers. They sent a new viceroy, the chief Spanish colonialofficial, Francisco de Toledo, whose main mission was tosolve the labor problem. De Toledo, arriving in Peru in1569, first spent five years traveling around andinvestigating his new charge. He also commissioned amassive survey of the entire adult population. To find thelabor he needed, de Toledo first moved almost the entireindigenous population, concentrating them in new townsca lled reducciones—literally “reductions”—which wouldfacilitate the exploitation of labor by the Spanish Crown.Then he revived and adapted an Inca labor institutionknown as the mita, which, in the Incas’ language, Quechua,means “a turn.” Under their mita system, the Incas had usedforced labor to run plantations designed to provide food fortemples, the aristocracy, and the army. In return, the Incaelite provided famine relief and security. In de Toledo’shands the mita, especially the Potosí mita, was to becomethe largest and most onerous scheme of labor exploitationin the Spanish colonial period. De Toledo defined a hugecatchment area, running from the middle of modern-dayPeru and encompassing most of modern Bolivia. It coveredabout two hundred thousand square miles. In this area,

one-seventh of the male inhabitants, newly arrived in theirreducciones, were required to work in the mines at Potosí.The Potosí mita endured throughout the entire colonialperiod and was abolished only in 1825. Map 1 shows thecatchment area of the mita superimposed on the extent ofthe Inca empire at the time of the Spanish conquest. Itillustrates the extent to which the mita overlapped with theheartland of the empire, encompassing the capital Cusco.

Remarkably, you still see the legacy of the mita in Perutoday. Take the differences between the provinces of Calca

and nearby Acomayo. There appears to be few differencesamong these provinces. Both are high in the mountains,and each is inhabited by the Quechua-speakingdescendants of the Incas. Yet Acomayo is much poorer,with its inhabitants consuming about one-third less thanthose in Calca. The people know this. In Acomayo they askintrepid foreigners, “Don’t you know that the people hereare poorer than the people over there in Calca? Why wouldyou ever want to come here?” Intrepid because it is muchharder to get to Acomayo from the regional capital ofCusco, ancient center of the Inca Empire, than it is to get toCalca. The road to Calca is surfaced, the one to Acomayois in a terrible state of disrepair. To get beyond Acomayo,you need a horse or a mule. In Calca and Acomayo, peoplegrow the same crops, but in Calca they sell them on themarket for money. In Acomayo they grow food for their ownsubsistence. These inequalities, apparent to the eye and tothe people who live there, can be understood in terms ofthe institutional differences between these departments—institutional differences with historical roots going back tode Toledo and his plan for effective exploitation ofindigenous labor. The major historical difference betweenAcomayo and Calca is that Acomayo was in the catchmentarea of the Potosí mita. Calca was not.

In addition to the concentration of labor and the mita, deToledo consolidated the encomienda into a head tax, afixed sum payable by each adult male every year in silver.This was another scheme designed to force people into thelabor market and reduce wages for Spanish landowners.Another institution, the repartimiento de mercancias, alsobecame widespread during de Toledo’s tenure. Derivedfrom the Spanish verb repartir, to distribute, thisrepartimiento, literally “the distribution of goods,” involvedthe forced sale of goods to locals at prices determined bySpaniards. Finally, de Toledo introduced the trajin—meaning, literally, “the burden”—which used the indigenouspeople to carry heavy loads of goods, such as wine or cocaleaves or textiles, as a substitute for pack animals, for thebusiness ventures of the Spanish elite.

Throughout the Spanish colonial world in the Americas,similar institutions and social structures emerged. After aninitial phase of looting, and gold and silver lust, the Spanish

created a web of institutions designed to exploit theindigenous peoples. The full gamut of encomienda, mita,repartimiento, and trajin was designed to force indigenouspeople’s living standards down to a subsistence level andthus extract all income in excess of this for Spaniards. Thiswas achieved by expropriating their land, forcing them towork, offering low wages for labor services, imposing hightaxes, and charging high prices for goods that were noteven voluntarily bought. Though these institutions generateda lot of wealth for the Spanish Crown and made theconquistadors and their descendants very rich, they alsoturned Latin America into the most unequal continent in theworld and sapped much of its economic potential.

… TO JAMESTOWN

As the Spanish began their conquest of the Americas in the1490s, England was a minor European power recoveringfrom the devastating effects of a civil war, the Wars of theRoses. She was in no state to take advantage of thescramble for loot and gold and the opportunity to exploit theindigenous peoples of the Americas. Nearly one hundredyears later, in 1588, the lucky rout of the Spanish Armada,an attempt by King Philip II of Spain to invade England,sent political shockwaves around Europe. Fortunate thoughEngland’s victory was, it was also a sign of growing Englishassertiveness on the seas that would enable them to finallytake part in the quest for colonial empire.

It is thus no coincidence that the English began theircolonization of North America at exactly the same time. Butthey were already latecomers. They chose North Americanot because it was attractive, but because it was all thatwas available. The “desirable” parts of the Americas,where the indigenous population to exploit was plentiful andwhere the gold and silver mines were located, had alreadybeen occupied. The English got the leftovers. When theeighteenth-century English writer and agriculturalist ArthurYoung discussed where profitable “staple products,” bywhich he meant exportable agricultural goods, wereproduced, he noted:

It appears upon the whole, that the staple

productions of our colonies decrease in valuein proportion to their distance from the sun. Inthe West Indies, which are the hottest of all,they make to the amount of 8l. 12s. 1d. perhead. In the southern continental ones, to theamount of 5l. 10s. In the central ones, to theamount of 9s. 6 1/2d. In the northernsettlements, to that of 2s. 6d. This scalesurely suggests a most important lesson—toavoid colonizing in northern latitudes.

The first English attempt to plant a colony, at Roanoke, inNorth Carolina, between 1585 and 1587, was a completefailure. In 1607 they tried again. Shortly before the end of1606, three vessels, Susan Constant, Godspeed, andDiscovery, under the command of Captain ChristopherNewport, set off for Virginia. The colonists, under theauspices of the Virginia Company, sailed into ChesapeakeBay and up a river they named the James, after the rulingEnglish monarch, James I. On May 14, 1607, they foundedthe settlement of Jamestown.

Though the settlers on board the ships owned by theVirginia Company were English, they had a model ofcolonization heavily influenced by the template set up byCortés, Pizarro, and de Toledo. Their first plan was tocapture the local chief and use him as a way to getprovisions and to coerce the population into producing foodand wealth for them.

When they first landed in Jamestown, the Englishcolonists did not know that they were within the territoryclaimed by the Powhatan Confederacy, a coalition of somethirty polities owing allegiance to a king calledWahunsunacock. Wahunsunacock’s capital was at the townof Werowocomoco, a mere twenty miles from Jamestown.The plan of the colonists was to learn more about the lay ofthe land. If the locals could not be induced to provide foodand labor, the colonists might at least be able to trade withthem. The notion that the settlers themselves would workand grow their own food seems not to have crossed theirminds. That is not what conquerors of the New World did.

Wahunsunacock quickly became aware of the colonists’presence and viewed their intentions with great suspicion.

He was in charge of what for North America was quite alarge empire. But he had many enemies and lacked theoverwhelming centralized political control of the Incas.Wahunsunacock decided to see what the intentions of theEnglish were, initially sending messengers saying that hedesired friendly relations with them.

As the winter of 1607 closed in, the settlers inJamestown began to run low on food, and the appointedleader of the colony’s ruling council, Edward MarieWingfield, dithered indecisively. The situation was rescuedby Captain John Smith. Smith, whose writings provide oneof our main sources of information about the earlydevelopment of the colony, was a larger-than-life character.Born in England, in rural Lincolnshire, he disregarded hisfather’s desires for him to go into business and insteadbecame a soldier of fortune. He first fought with Englisharmies in the Netherlands, after which he joined Austrianforces serving in Hungary fighting against the armies of theOttoman Empire. Captured in Romania, he was sold as aslave and put to work as a field hand. He managed one dayto overcome his master and, stealing his clothes and hishorse, escape back into Austrian territory. Smith had gothimself into trouble on the voyage to Virginia and wasimprisoned on the Susan Constant for mutiny after defyingthe orders of Wingfield. When the ships reached the NewWorld, the plan was to put him on trial. To the immensehorror of Wingfield, Newport, and other elite colonists,however, when they opened their sealed orders, theydiscovered that the Virginia Company had nominatedSmith to be a member of the ruling council that was togovern Jamestown.

With Newport sailing back to England for supplies andmore colonists, and Wingfield uncertain about what to do, itwas Smith who saved the colony. He initiated a series oftrading missions that secured vital food supplies. On one ofthese he was captured by Opechancanough, one ofWahunsunacock’s younger brothers, and was broughtbefore the king at Werowocomoco. He was the firstEnglishman to meet Wahunsunacock, and it was at thisinitial meeting that according to some accounts Smith’s lifewas saved only at the intervention of Wahunsunacock’syoung daughter Pocahontas. Freed on January 2, 1608,

Smith returned to Jamestown, which was still perilously lowon food, until the timely return of Newport from England lateron the same day.

The colonists of Jamestown learned little from this initialexperience. As 1608 proceeded, they continued their questfor gold and precious metals. They still did not seem tounderstand that to survive, they could not rely on the localsto feed them through either coercion or trade. It was Smithwho was the first to realize that the model of colonizationthat had worked so well for Cortés and Pizarro simplywould not work in North America. The underlyingcircumstances were just too different. Smith noted that,unlike the Aztecs and Incas, the peoples of Virginia did nothave gold. Indeed, he noted in his diary, “Victuals you mustknow is all their wealth.” Anas Todkill, one of the earlysettlers who left an extensive diary, expressed well thefrustrations of Smith and the few others on which thisrecognition dawned:

“There was no talke, no hope, no worke, butdig gold, refine gold, load gold.”

When Newport sailed for England in April 1608 he took acargo of pyrite, fool’s gold. He returned at the end ofSeptember with orders from the Virginia Company to takefirmer control over the locals. Their plan was to crownWahunsunacock, hoping this would render him subservientto the English king James I. They invited him to Jamestown,but Wahunsunacock, still deeply suspicious of the colonists,had no intention of risking capture. John Smith recordedWahunsunacock’s reply: “If your King have sent mepresents, I also am a King, and this is my land … Yourfather is to come to me, not I to him, nor yet to your fort,neither will I bite at such a bait.”

If Wahunsunacock would not “bite at such a bait,”Newport and Smith would have to go to Werowocomoco toundertake the coronation. The whole event appears to havebeen a complete fiasco, with the only thing coming out of ita resolve on the part of Wahunsunacock that it was time toget rid of the colony. He imposed a trade embargo.Jamestown could no longer trade for supplies.Wahunsunacock would starve them out.

Newport set sail once more for England, in December1608. He took with him a letter written by Smith pleadingwith the directors of the Virginia Company to change theway they thought about the colony. There was no possibilityof a get-rich-quick exploitation of Virginia along the lines ofMexico and Peru. There were no gold or precious metals,and the indigenous people could not be forced to work orprovide food. Smith realized that if there were going to be aviable colony, it was the colonists who would have to work.He therefore pleaded with the directors to send the rightsort of people: “When you send againe I entreat you ratherto send some thirty carpenters, husbandmen, gardeners,fishermen, blacksmiths, masons, and diggers up of trees,roots, well provided, then a thousand of such as we have.”

Smith did not want any more useless goldsmiths. Oncemore Jamestown survived only because of hisresourcefulness. He managed to cajole and bully localindigenous groups to trade with him, and when theywouldn’t, he took what he could. Back in the settlement,Smith was completely in charge and imposed the rule that“he that will not worke shall not eat.” Jamestown survived asecond winter.

The Virginia Company was intended to be amoneymaking enterprise, and after two disastrous years,there was no whiff of profit. The directors of the companydecided that they needed a new model of governance,replacing the ruling council with a single governor. The firstman appointed to this position was Sir Thomas Gates.Heeding some aspects of Smith’s warning, the companyrealized that they had to try something new. This realizationwas driven home by the events of the winter of 1609/1610—the so-called “starving time.” The new mode ofgovernance left no room for Smith, who, disgruntled,returned to England in the autumn of 1609. Without hisresourcefulness, and with Wahunsunacock throttling thefood supply, the colonists in Jamestown perished. Of thefive hundred who entered the winter, only sixty were alive byMarch. The situation was so desperate that they resorted tocannibalism.

The “something new” that was imposed on the colony byGates and his deputy, Sir Thomas Dale, was a workregime of draconian severity for English settlers—though

not of course for the elite running the colony. It was Dalewho propagated the “Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall.”This included the clauses

No man or woman shall run away from the colony to theIndians, upon pain of death.Anyone who robs a garden, public or private, or avineyard, or who steals ears of corn shall be punishedwith death.No member of the colony will sell or give anycommodity of this country to a captain, mariner, masteror sailor to transport out of the colony, for his ownprivate uses, upon pain of death.

If the indigenous peoples could not be exploited,reasoned the Virginia Company, perhaps the colonistscould. The new model of colonial development entailed theVirginia Company owning all the land. Men were housed inbarracks, and given company-determined rations. Workgangs were chosen, each one overseen by an agent of thecompany. It was close to martial law, with execution as thepunishment of first resort. As part of the new institutions for

the colony, the first clause just given is significant. Thecompany threatened with death those who ran away. Giventhe new work regime, running away to live with the localsbecame more and more of an attractive option for thecolonists who had to do the work. Also available, given thelow density of even indigenous populations in Virginia atthat time, was the prospect of going it alone on the frontierbeyond the control of the Virginia Company. The power ofthe company in the face of these options was limited. Itcould not coerce the English settlers into hard work atsubsistence rations.

Map 2 shows an estimate of the population density ofdifferent regions of the Americas at the time on the Spanishconquest. The population density of the United States,outside of a few pockets, was at most three-quarters of aperson per square mile. In central Mexico or Andean Peru,the population density was as high as four hundred peopleper square mile, more than five hundred times higher. Whatwas possible in Mexico or Peru was not feasible inVirginia.

It took the Virginia Company some time to recognize thatits initial model of colonization did not work in Virginia, andit took a while, too, for the failure of the “Lawes Divine,Morall and Martiall” to sink in. Starting in 1618, adramatically new strategy was adopted. Since it waspossible to coerce neither the locals nor the settlers, theonly alternative was to give the settlers incentives. In 1618the company began the “headright system,” which gaveeach male settler fifty acres of land and fifty more acres foreach member of his family and for all servants that a familycould bring to Virginia. Settlers were given their housesand freed from their contracts, and in 1619 a GeneralAssembly was introduced that effectively gave all adult mena say in the laws and institutions governing the colony. Itwas the start of democracy in the United States.

It took the Virginia Company twelve years to learn its firstlesson that what had worked for the Spanish in Mexico andin Central and South America would not work in the north.The rest of the seventeenth century saw a long series ofstruggles over the second lesson: that the only option for aneconomically viable colony was to create institutions thatgave the colonists incentives to invest and to work hard.

As North America developed, English elites tried timeand time again to set up institutions that would heavilyrestrict the economic and political rights for all but aprivileged few of the inhabitants of the colony, just as theSpanish did. Yet in each case this model broke down, as ithad in Virginia.

One of the most ambitious attempts began soon after thechange in strategy of the Virginia Company. In 1632 tenmillion acres of land on the upper Chesapeake Bay weregranted by the English king Charles I to Cecilius Calvert,Lord Baltimore. The Charter of Maryland gave LordBaltimore complete freedom to create a government alongany lines he wished, with clause VII noting that Baltimorehad “for the good and happy Government of the saidProvince, free, full, and absolute Power, by the Tenor ofthese Presents, to Ordain, Make, and Enact Laws, of whatKind soever.”

Baltimore drew up a detailed plan for creating a manorialsociety, a North American variant of an idealized version ofseventeenth-century rural England. It entailed dividing theland into plots of thousands of acres, which would be run bylords. The lords would recruit tenants, who would work thelands and pay rents to the privileged elite controlling theland. Another similar attempt was made later in 1663, withthe founding of Carolina by eight proprietors, including SirAnthony Ashley-Cooper. Ashley-Cooper, along with hissecretary, the great English philosopher John Locke,formulated the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. Thisdocument, like the Charter of Maryland before it, provided ablueprint for an elitist, hierarchical society based on controlby a landed elite. The preamble noted that “the governmentof this province may be made most agreeable to themonarchy under which we live and of which this province isa part; and that we may avoid erecting a numerousdemocracy.”

The clauses of the Fundamental Constitutions laid out arigid social structure. At the bottom were the “leet-men,”with clause 23 noting, “All the children of leet-men shall beleet-men, and so to all generations.” Above the leet-men,who had no political power, were the landgraves andcaziques, who were to form the aristocracy. Landgraveswere to be allocated forty-eight thousand acres of land

each, and caziques twenty-four thousand acres. There wasto be a parliament, in which landgraves and caziques wererepresented, but it would be permitted to debate only thosemeasures that had previously been approved by the eightproprietors.

Just as the attempt to impose draconian rule in Virginiafailed, so did the plans for the same type of institutions inMaryland and Carolina. The reasons were similar. In allcases it proved to be impossible to force settlers into arigid hierarchical society, because there were simply toomany options open to them in the New World. Instead, theyhad to be provided with incentives for them to want to work.And soon they were demanding more economic freedomand further political rights. In Maryland, too, settlers insistedon getting their own land, and they forced Lord Baltimoreinto creating an assembly. In 1691 the assembly inducedthe king to declare Maryland a Crown colony, thus removingthe political privileges of Baltimore and his great lords. Asimilar protracted struggle took place in the Carolinas,again with the proprietors losing. South Carolina became aroyal colony in 1729.

By the 1720s, all the thirteen colonies of what was tobecome the United States had similar structures ofgovernment. In all cases there was a governor, and anassembly based on a franchise of male property holders.They were not democracies; women, slaves, and thepropertyless could not vote. But political rights were verybroad compared with contemporary societies elsewhere. Itwas these assemblies and their leaders that coalesced toform the First Continental Congress in 1774, the prelude tothe independence of the United States. The assembliesbelieved they had the right to determine both their ownmembership and the right to taxation. This, as we know,created problems for the English colonial government.

A TALE OF TWO CONSTITUTIONS

It should now be apparent that it is not a coincidence thatthe United States, and not Mexico, adopted and enforced aconstitution that espoused democratic principles, createdlimitations on the use of political power, and distributed thatpower broadly in society. The document that the delegates

sat down to write in Philadelphia in May 1787 was theoutcome of a long process initiated by the formation of theGeneral Assembly in Jamestown in 1619.

The contrast between the constitutional process that tookplace at the time of the independence of the United Statesand the one that took place a little afterward in Mexico isstark. In February 1808, Napoleon Bonaparte’s Frencharmies invaded Spain. By May they had taken Madrid, theSpanish capital. By September the Spanish kingFerdinand had been captured and had abdicated. Anational junta, the Junta Central, took his place, taking thetorch in the fight against the French. The Junta met first atAranjuez, but retreated south in the face of the Frencharmies. Finally it reached the port of Cádiz, which, thoughbesieged by Napoleonic forces, held out. Here the Juntaformed a parliament, called the Cortes. In 1812 the Cortesproduced what became known as the Cádiz Constitution,which called for the introduction of a constitutionalmonarchy based on notions of popular sovereignty. It alsocalled for the end of special privileges and the introductionof equality before the law. These demands were allanathema to the elites of South America, who were stillruling an institutional environment shaped by theencomienda, forced labor, and absolute power vested inthem and the colonial state.

The collapse of the Spanish state with the Napoleonicinvasion created a constitutional crisis throughout colonialLatin America. There was much dispute about whether torecognize the authority of the Junta Central, and inresponse, many Latin Americans began to form their ownjuntas. It was only a matter of time before they began tosense the possibility of becoming truly independent fromSpain. The first declaration of independence took place inLa Paz, Bolivia, in 1809, though it was quickly crushed bySpanish troops sent from Peru. In Mexico the politicalattitudes of the elite had been shaped by the 1810 HidalgoRevolt, led by a priest, Father Miguel Hidalgo. WhenHidalgo’s army sacked Guanajuato on September 23, theykilled the intendant, the senior colonial official, and thenstarted indiscriminately to kill white people. It was more likeclass or even ethnic warfare than an independencemovement, and it united all the elites in opposition. If

independence allowed popular participation in politics, thelocal elites, not just Spaniards, were against it.Consequentially, Mexican elites viewed the CádizConstitution, which opened the way to popularparticipation, with extreme skepticism; they would neverrecognize its legitimacy.

In 1815, as Napoleon’s European empire collapsed,King Ferdinand VII returned to power and the CádizConstitution was abrogated. As the Spanish Crown begantrying to reclaim its American colonies, it did not face aproblem with loyalist Mexico. Yet, in 1820, a Spanish armythat had assembled in Cádiz to sail to the Americas to helprestore Spanish authority mutinied against Ferdinand VII.They were soon joined by army units throughout the country,and Ferdinand was forced to restore the Cádiz Constitutionand recall the Cortes. This Cortes was even more radicalthan the one that had written the Cádiz Constitution, and itproposed abolishing all forms of labor coercion. It alsoattacked special privileges—for example, the right of themilitary to be tried for crimes in their own courts. Facedfinally with the imposition of this document in Mexico, theelites there decided that it was better to go it alone anddeclare independence.

This independence movement was led by Augustín deIturbide, who had been an officer in the Spanish army. OnFebruary 24, 1821, he published the Plan de Iguala, hisvision for an independent Mexico. The plan featured aconstitutional monarchy with a Mexican emperor, andremoved the provisions of the Cádiz Constitution thatMexican elites found so threatening to their status andprivileges. It received instantaneous support, and Spainquickly realized that it could not stop the inevitable. ButIturbide did not just organize Mexican secession.Recognizing the power vacuum, he quickly took advantageof his military backing to have himself declared emperor, aposition that the great leader of South Americanindependence Simón Bolivar described as “by the grace ofGod and of bayonets.” Iturbide was not constrained by thesame political institutions that constrained presidents of theUnited States; he quickly made himself a dictator, and byOctober 1822 he had dismissed the constitutionallysanctioned congress and replaced it with a junta of his

choosing. Though Iturbide did not last long, this pattern ofevents was to be repeated time and time again innineteenth-century Mexico.

The Constitution of the United States did not create ademocracy by modern standards. Who could vote inelections was left up to the individual states to determine.While northern states quickly conceded the vote to all whitemen irrespective of how much income they earned orproperty they owned, southern states did so only gradually.No state enfranchised women or slaves, and as propertyand wealth restrictions were lifted on white men, racialfranchises explicitly disenfranchising black men wereintroduced. Slavery, of course, was deemed constitutionalwhen the Constitution of the United States was written inPhiladelphia, and the most sordid negotiation concernedthe division of the seats in the House of Representativesamong the states. These were to be allocated on the basisof a state’s population, but the congressionalrepresentatives of southern states then demanded that theslaves be counted. Northerners objected. The compromisewas that in apportioning seats to the House ofRepresentatives, a slave would count as three-fifths of afree person. The conflicts between the North and South ofthe United States were repressed during the constitutionalprocess as the three-fifths rule and other compromiseswere worked out. New fixes were added over time—forexample, the Missouri Compromise, an arrangementwhere one proslavery and one antislavery state werealways added to the union together, to keep the balance inthe Senate between those for and those against slavery.These fudges kept the political institutions of the UnitedStates working peacefully until the Civil War finally resolvedthe conflicts in favor of the North.

The Civil War was bloody and destructive. But bothbefore and after it there were ample economicopportunities for a large fraction of the population,especially in the northern and western United States. Thesituation in Mexico was very different. If the United Statesexperienced five years of political instability between 1860and 1865, Mexico experienced almost nonstop instabilityfor the first fifty years of independence. This is bestillustrated via the career of Antonio López de Santa Ana.

Santa Ana, son of a colonial official in Veracruz, came toprominence as a soldier fighting for the Spanish in theindependence wars. In 1821 he switched sides withIturbide and never looked back. He became president ofMexico for the first time in May of 1833, though heexercised power for less than a month, preferring to letValentín Gómez Farías act as president. Gómez Farías’spresidency lasted fifteen days, after which Santa Anaretook power. This was as brief as his first spell, however,and he was again replaced by Gómez Farías, in early July.Santa Ana and Gómez Farías continued this dance until themiddle of 1835, when Santa Ana was replaced by MiguelBarragán. But Santa Ana was not a quitter. He was backas president in 1839, 1841, 1844, 1847, and, finally,between 1853 and 1855. In all, he was president eleventimes, during which he presided over the loss of the Alamoand Texas and the disastrous Mexican-American War,which led to the loss of what became New Mexico andArizona. Between 1824 and 1867 there were fifty-twopresidents in Mexico, few of whom assumed poweraccording to any constitutionally sanctioned procedure.

The consequence of this unprecedented politicalinstability for economic institutions and incentives shouldbe obvious. Such instability led to highly insecure propertyrights. It also led to a severe weakening of the Mexicanstate, which now had little authority and little ability to raisetaxes or provide public services. Indeed, even thoughSanta Ana was president in Mexico, large parts of thecountry were not under his control, which enabled theannexation of Texas by the United States. In addition, aswe just saw, the motivation behind the Mexican declarationof independence was to protect the set of economicinstitutions developed during the colonial period, which hadmade Mexico, in the words of the great German explorerand geographer of Latin America Alexander von Humbolt,“the country of inequality.” These institutions, by basing thesociety on the exploitation of indigenous people and thecreation of monopolies, blocked the economic incentivesand initiatives of the great mass of the population. As theUnited States began to experience the Industrial Revolutionin the first half of the nineteenth century, Mexico got poorer.

HAVING AN IDEA, STARTING A FIRM, AND GETTING A LOAN

The Industrial Revolution started in England. Its firstsuccess was to revolutionize the production of cotton clothusing new machines powered by water wheels and later bysteam engines. Mechanization of cotton productionmassively increased the productivity of workers in, first,textiles and, subsequently, other industries. The engine oftechnological breakthroughs throughout the economy wasinnovation, spearheaded by new entrepreneurs andbusinessmen eager to apply their new ideas. This initialflowering soon spread across the North Atlantic to theUnited States. People saw the great economicopportunities available in adopting the new technologiesdeveloped in England. They were also inspired to developtheir own inventions.

We can try to understand the nature of these inventionsby looking at who was granted patents. The patent system,which protects property rights in ideas, was systematized inthe Statute of Monopolies legislated by the EnglishParliament in 1623, partially as an attempt to stop the kingfrom arbitrarily granting “letters patent” to whomever hewanted—effectively granting exclusive rights to undertakecertain activities or businesses. The striking thing about theevidence on patenting in the United States is that peoplewho were granted patents came from all sorts ofbackgrounds and all walks of life, not just the rich and theelite. Many made fortunes based on their patents. TakeThomas Edison, the inventor of the phonogram and thelightbulb and the founder of General Electric, still one of theworld’s largest companies. Edison was the last of sevenchildren. His father, Samuel Edison, followed manyoccupations, from splitting shingles for roofs to tailoring tokeeping a tavern. Thomas had little formal schooling butwas homeschooled by his mother.

Between 1820 and 1845, only 19 percent of patentees inthe United States had parents who were professionals orwere from recognizable major landowning families. Duringthe same period, 40 percent of those who took out patentshad only primary schooling or less, just like Edison.Moreover, they often exploited their patent by starting afirm, again like Edison. Just as the United States in the

nineteenth century was more democratic politically thanalmost any other nation in the world at the time, it was alsomore democratic than others when it came to innovation.This was critical to its path to becoming the mosteconomically innovative nation in the world.

If you were poor with a good idea, it was one thing totake out a patent, which was not so expensive, after all. Itwas another thing entirely to use that patent to makemoney. One way, of course, was to sell the patent tosomeone else. This is what Edison did early on, to raisesome capital, when he sold his Quadruplex telegraph toWestern Union for $10,000. But selling patents was a goodidea only for someone like Edison, who had ideas fasterthan he could put them to practice. (He had a world-record1,093 patents issued to him in the United States and 1,500worldwide.) The real way to make money from a patent wasto start your own business. But to start a business, youneed capital, and you need banks to lend the capital to you.

Inventors in the United States were once again fortunate.During the nineteenth century there was a rapid expansionof financial intermediation and banking that was a crucialfacilitator of the rapid growth and industrialization that theeconomy experienced. While in 1818 there were 338banks in operation in the United States, with total assets of$160 million, by 1914 there were 27,864 banks, with totalassets of $27.3 billion. Potential inventors in the UnitedStates had ready access to capital to start theirbusinesses. Moreover, the intense competition amongbanks and financial institutions in the United States meantthat this capital was available at fairly low interest rates.

The same was not true in Mexico. In fact, in 1910, theyear in which the Mexican Revolution started, there wereonly forty-two banks in Mexico, and two of these controlled60 percent of total banking assets. Unlike in the UnitedStates, where competition was fierce, there was practicallyno competition among Mexican banks. This lack ofcompetition meant that the banks were able to charge theircustomers very high interest rates, and typically confinedlending to the privileged and the already wealthy, whowould then use their access to credit to increase their gripover the various sectors of the economy.

The form that the Mexican banking industry took in the

nineteenth and twentieth centuries was a direct result of thepostindependence political institutions of the country. Thechaos of the Santa Ana era was followed by an abortiveattempt by the French government of Emperor Napoleon IIto create a colonial regime in Mexico under EmperorMaximilian between 1864 and 1867. The French wereexpelled, and a new constitution was written. But thegovernment formed first by Benito Juárez and, after hisdeath, by Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada was soon challengedby a young military man named Porfirio Díaz. Díaz hadbeen a victorious general in the war against the French andhad developed aspirations of power. He formed a rebelarmy and, in November of 1876, defeated the army of thegovernment at the Battle of Tecoac. In May of the next year,he had himself elected president. He went on to ruleMexico in a more or less unbroken and increasinglyauthoritarian fashion until his overthrow at the outbreak ofthe revolution thirty-four years later.

Like Iturbide and Santa Ana before him, Díaz started lifeas a military commander. Such a career path into politicswas certainly known in the United States. The first presidentof the United States, George Washington, was also asuccessful general in the War of Independence. Ulysses S.Grant, one of the victorious Union generals of the Civil War,became president in 1869, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, thesupreme commander of the Allied Forces in Europe duringthe Second World War, was president of the United Statesbetween 1953 and 1961. Unlike Iturbide, Santa Ana, andDíaz, however, none of these military men used force to getinto power. Nor did they use force to avoid having torelinquish power. They abided by the Constitution. ThoughMexico had constitutions in the nineteenth century, they putfew constraints on what Iturbide, Santa Ana, and Díaz coulddo. These men could be removed from power only thesame way they had attained it: by the use of force.

Díaz violated people’s property rights, facilitating theexpropriation of vast amounts of land, and he grantedmonopolies and favors to his supporters in all lines ofbusiness, including banking. There was nothing new aboutthis behavior. This is exactly what Spanish conquistadorshad done, and what Santa Ana did in their footsteps.

The reason that the United States had a banking industry

that was radically better for the economic prosperity of thecountry had nothing to do with differences in the motivationof those who owned the banks. Indeed, the profit motive,which underpinned the monopolistic nature of the bankingindustry in Mexico, was present in the United States, too.But this profit motive was channeled differently because ofthe radically different U.S. institutions. The bankers faceddifferent economic institutions, institutions that subjectedthem to much greater competition. And this was largelybecause the politicians who wrote the rules for the bankersfaced very different incentives themselves, forged bydifferent political institutions. Indeed, in the late eighteenthcentury, shortly after the Constitution of the United Statescame into operation, a banking system looking similar tothat which subsequently dominated Mexico began toemerge. Politicians tried to set up state bankingmonopolies, which they could give to their friends andpartners in exchange for part of the monopoly profits. Thebanks also quickly got into the business of lending moneyto the politicians who regulated them, just as in Mexico. Butthis situation was not sustainable in the United States,because the politicians who attempted to create thesebanking monopolies, unlike their Mexican counterparts,were subject to election and reelection. Creating bankingmonopolies and giving loans to politicians is goodbusiness for politicians, if they can get away with it. It is notparticularly good for the citizens, however. Unlike in Mexico,in the United States the citizens could keep politicians incheck and get rid of ones who would use their offices toenrich themselves or create monopolies for their cronies. Inconsequence, the banking monopolies crumbled. Thebroad distribution of political rights in the United States,especially when compared to Mexico, guaranteed equalaccess to finance and loans. This in turn ensured that thosewith ideas and inventions could benefit from them.

PATH-DEPENDENT CHANGE

The world was changing in the 1870s and ’80s. LatinAmerica was no exception. The institutions that PorfirioDíaz established were not identical to those of Santa Anaor the Spanish colonial state. The world economy boomed

in the second half of the nineteenth century, and innovationsin transportation such as the steamship and the railway ledto a huge expansion of international trade. This wave ofglobalization meant that resource-rich countries such asMexico—or, more appropriately, the elites in such countries—could enrich themselves by exporting raw materials andnatural resources to industrializing North America orWestern Europe. Díaz and his cronies thus foundthemselves in a different and rapidly evolving world. Theyrealized that Mexico had to change, too. But this didn’tmean uprooting the colonial institutions and replacing themwith institutions similar to those in the United States.Instead, theirs was “path-dependent” change leading onlyto the next stage of the institutions that had already mademuch of Latin America poor and unequal.

Globalization made the large open spaces of theAmericas, its “open frontiers,” valuable. Often thesefrontiers were only mythically open, since they wereinhabited by indigenous peoples who were brutallydispossessed. All the same, the scramble for this newlyvaluable resource was one of the defining processes of theAmericas in the second half of the nineteenth century. Thesudden opening of this valuable frontier led not to parallelprocesses in the United States and Latin America, but to afurther divergence, shaped by the existing institutionaldifferences, especially those concerning who had accessto the land. In the United States a long series of legislativeacts, ranging from the Land Ordinance of 1785 to theHomestead Act of 1862, gave broad access to frontierlands. Though indigenous peoples had been sidelined, thiscreated an egalitarian and economically dynamic frontier. Inmost Latin American countries, however, the politicalinstitutions there created a very different outcome. Frontierlands were allocated to the politically powerful and thosewith wealth and contacts, making such people even morepowerful.

Díaz also started to dismantle many of the specificcolonial institutional legacies preventing international trade,which he anticipated could greatly enrich him and hissupporters. His model, however, continued to be not thetype of economic development he saw north of the RioGrande but that of Cortés, Pizarro, and de Toledo, where

the elite would make huge fortunes while the rest wereexcluded. When the elite invested, the economy would growa little, but such economic growth was always going to bedisappointing. It also came at the expense of those lackingrights in this new order, such as the Yaqui people ofSonora, in the hinterland of Nogales. Between 1900 and1910, possibly thirty thousand Yaqui were deported,essentially enslaved, and sent to work in the henequenplantations of Yucatán. (The fibers of the henequen plantwere a valuable export, since they could be used to makerope and twine.)

The persistence into the twentieth century of a specificinstitutional pattern inimical to growth in Mexico and LatinAmerica is well illustrated by the fact that, just as in thenineteenth century, the pattern generated economicstagnation and political instability, civil wars and coups, asgroups struggled for the benefits of power. Díaz finally lostpower to revolutionary forces in 1910. The MexicanRevolution was followed by others in Bolivia in 1952, Cubain 1959, and Nicaragua in 1979. Meanwhile, sustained civilwars raged in Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, andPeru. Expropriation or the threat of expropriation of assetscontinued apace, with mass agrarian reforms (or attemptedreforms) in Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala,Peru, and Venezuela. Revolutions, expropriations, andpolitical instability came along with military governmentsand various types of dictatorships. Though there was also agradual drift toward greater political rights, it was only in the1990s that most Latin American countries becamedemocracies, and even then they remain mired ininstability.

This instability was accompanied by mass repressionand murder. The 1991 National Commission for Truth andReconciliation Report in Chile determined that 2,279persons were killed for political reasons during thePinochet dictatorship between 1973 and 1990. Possibly50,000 were imprisoned and tortured, and hundreds ofthousands of people were fired from their jobs. TheGuatemalan Commission for Historical Clarification Reportin 1999 identified a total of 42,275 named victims, thoughothers have claimed that as many as 200,000 weremurdered in Guatemala between 1962 and 1996, 70,000

during the regime of General Efrain Ríos Montt, who wasable to commit these crimes with such impunity that hecould run for president in 2003; fortunately he did not win.The National Commission on the Disappearance ofPersons in Argentina put the number of people murderedby the military there at 9,000 persons from 1976 to 1983,although it noted that the actual number could be higher.(Estimates by human rights organizations usually place it at30,000.)

MAKING A BILLION OR TWO

The enduring implications of the organization of colonialsociety and those societies’ institutional legacies shape themodern differences between the United States and Mexico,and thus the two parts of Nogales. The contrast betweenhow Bill Gates and Carlos Slim became the two richestmen in the world—Warren Buffett is also a contender—illustrates the forces at work. The rise of Gates andMicrosoft is well known, but Gates’s status as the world’srichest person and the founder of one of the mosttechnologically innovative companies did not stop the U.S.Department of Justice from filing civil actions against theMicrosoft Corporation on May 8, 1998, claiming thatMicrosoft had abused monopoly power. Particularly atissue was the way that Microsoft had tied its Web browser,Internet Explorer, to its Windows operating system. Thegovernment had been keeping an eye on Gates for quitesome time, and as early as 1991, the Federal TradeCommission had launched an inquiry into whetherMicrosoft was abusing its monopoly on PC operatingsystems. In November 2001, Microsoft reached a deal withthe Justice Department. It had its wings clipped, even if thepenalties were less than many demanded.

In Mexico, Carlos Slim did not make his money byinnovation. Initially he excelled in stock market deals, and inbuying and revamping unprofitable firms. His major coupwas the acquisition of Telmex, the Mexicantelecommunications monopoly that was privatized byPresident Carlos Salinas in 1990. The governmentannounced its intention to sell 51 percent of the voting stock(20.4 percent of total stock) in the company in September

1989 and received bids in November 1990. Even thoughSlim did not put in the highest bid, a consortium led by hisGrupo Corso won the auction. Instead of paying for theshares right away, Slim managed to delay payment, usingthe dividends of Telmex itself to pay for the stock. Whatwas once a public monopoly now became Slim’smonopoly, and it was hugely profitable.

The economic institutions that made Carlos Slim who heis are very different from those in the United States. If you’rea Mexican entrepreneur, entry barriers will play a crucialrole at every stage of your career. These barriers includeexpensive licenses you have to obtain, red tape you have tocut through, politicians and incumbents who will stand inyour way, and the difficulty of getting funding from afinancial sector often in cahoots with the incumbents you’retrying to compete against. These barriers can be eitherinsurmountable, keeping you out of lucrative areas, or yourgreatest friend, keeping your competitors at bay. Thedifference between the two scenarios is of course whomyou know and whom you can influence—and yes, whom youcan bribe. Carlos Slim, a talented, ambitious man from arelatively modest background of Lebanese immigrants, hasbeen a master at obtaining exclusive contracts; hemanaged to monopolize the lucrative telecommunicationsmarket in Mexico, and then to extend his reach to the rest ofLatin America.

There have been challenges to Slim’s Telmex monopoly.But they have not been successful. In 1996 Avantel, a long-distance phone provider, petitioned the MexicanCompetition Commission to check whether Telmex had adominant position in the telecommunications market. In1997 the commission declared that Telmex had substantialmonopoly power with respect to local telephony, nationallong-distance calls, and international long-distance calls,among other things. But attempts by the regulatoryauthorities in Mexico to limit these monopolies have cometo nothing. One reason is that Slim and Telmex can usewhat is known as a recurso de amparo, literally an “appealfor protection.” An amparo is in effect a petition to arguethat a particular law does not apply to you. The idea of theamparo dates back to the Mexican constitution of 1857and was originally intended as a safeguard of individual

rights and freedoms. In the hands of Telmex and otherMexican monopolies, however, it has become a formidabletool for cementing monopoly power. Rather than protectingpeople’s rights, the amparo provides a loophole in equalitybefore the law.

Slim has made his money in the Mexican economy inlarge part thanks to his political connections. When he hasventured into the United States, he has not beensuccessful. In 1999 his Grupo Curso bought the computerretailer CompUSA. At the time, CompUSA had given afranchise to a firm called COC Services to sell itsmerchandise in Mexico. Slim immediately violated thiscontract with the intention of setting up his own chain ofstores, without any competition from COC. But COC suedCompUSA in a Dallas court. There are no amparos inDallas, so Slim lost, and was fined $454 million. The lawyerfor COC, Mark Werner, noted afterward that “the messageof this verdict is that in this global economy, firms have torespect the rules of the United States if they want to comehere.” When Slim was subject to the institutions of theUnited States, his usual tactics for making money didn’twork.

TOWARD A THEORY OF WORLD INEQUALITY

We live in an unequal world. The differences among nationsare similar to those between the two parts of Nogales, juston a larger scale. In rich countries, individuals are healthier,live longer, and are much better educated. They also haveaccess to a range of amenities and options in life, fromvacations to career paths, that people in poor countries canonly dream of. People in rich countries also drive on roadswithout potholes, and enjoy toilets, electricity, and runningwater in their houses. They also typically have governmentsthat do not arbitrarily arrest or harass them; on the contrary,the governments provide services, including education,health care, roads, and law and order. Notable, too, is thefact that the citizens vote in elections and have some voicein the political direction their countries take.

The great differences in world inequality are evident toeveryone, even to those in poor countries, though many

lack access to television or the Internet. It is the perceptionand reality of these differences that drive people to crossthe Rio Grande or the Mediterranean Sea illegally to havethe chance to experience rich-country living standards andopportunities. This inequality doesn’t just haveconsequences for the lives of individual people in poorcountries; it also causes grievances and resentment, withhuge political consequences in the United States andelsewhere. Understanding why these differences exist andwhat causes them is our focus in this book. Developingsuch an understanding is not just an end in itself, but also afirst step toward generating better ideas about how toimprove the lives of billions who still live in poverty.

The disparities on the two sides of the fence in Nogalesare just the tip of the iceberg. As in the rest of northernMexico, which benefits from trade with the United States,even if not all of it is legal, the residents of Nogales aremore prosperous than other Mexicans, whose averageannual household income is around $5,000. This greaterrelative prosperity of Nogales, Sonora, comes frommaquiladora manufacturing plants centered in industrialparks, the first of which was started by Richard Campbell,Jr., a California basket manufacturer. The first tenant wasCoin-Art, a musical instrument company owned by RichardBosse, owner of the Artley flute and saxophone company inNogales, Arizona. Coin-Art was followed by Memorex(computer wiring); Avent (hospital clothing); Grant(sunglasses); Chamberlain (a manufacturer of garage dooropeners for Sears); and Samsonite (suitcases).Significantly, all are U.S.-based businesses andbusinessmen, using U.S. capital and know-how. Thegreater prosperity of Nogales, Sonora, relative to the rest ofMexico, therefore, comes from outside.

The differences between the United States and Mexicoare in turn small compared with those across the entireglobe. The average citizen of the United States is seventimes as prosperous as the average Mexican and morethan ten times as the resident of Peru or Central America.She is about twenty times as prosperous as the averageinhabitant of sub-Saharan Africa, and almost forty times asthose living in the poorest African countries such as Mali,Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone. And it’s not just the United

States. There is a small but growing group of rich countries—mostly in Europe and North America, joined by Australia,Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan—whose citizens enjoy very different lives from those of theinhabitants of the rest of the globe.

The reason that Nogales, Arizona, is much richer thanNogales, Sonora, is simple; it is because of the verydifferent institutions on the two sides of the border, whichcreate very different incentives for the inhabitants ofNogales, Arizona, versus Nogales, Sonora. The UnitedStates is also far richer today than either Mexico or Perubecause of the way its institutions, both economic andpolitical, shape the incentives of businesses, individuals,and politicians. Each society functions with a set ofeconomic and political rules created and enforced by thestate and the citizens collectively. Economic institutionsshape economic incentives: the incentives to becomeeducated, to save and invest, to innovate and adopt newtechnologies, and so on. It is the political process thatdetermines what economic institutions people live under,and it is the political institutions that determine how thisprocess works. For example, it is the political institutions ofa nation that determine the ability of citizens to controlpoliticians and influence how they behave. This in turndetermines whether politicians are agents of the citizens,albeit imperfect, or are able to abuse the power entrustedto them, or that they have usurped, to amass their ownfortunes and to pursue their own agendas, ones detrimentalto those of the citizens. Political institutions include but arenot limited to written constitutions and to whether thesociety is a democracy. They include the power andcapacity of the state to regulate and govern society. It isalso necessary to consider more broadly the factors thatdetermine how political power is distributed in society,particularly the ability of different groups to act collectivelyto pursue their objectives or to stop other people frompursuing theirs.

As institutions influence behavior and incentives in reallife, they forge the success or failure of nations. Individualtalent matters at every level of society, but even that needsan institutional framework to transform it into a positiveforce. Bill Gates, like other legendary figures in the

information technology industry (such as Paul Allen, SteveBallmer, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and JeffBezos), had immense talent and ambition. But he ultimatelyresponded to incentives. The schooling system in theUnited States enabled Gates and others like him to acquirea unique set of skills to complement their talents. Theeconomic institutions in the United States enabled thesemen to start companies with ease, without facinginsurmountable barriers. Those institutions also made thefinancing of their projects feasible. The U.S. labor marketsenabled them to hire qualified personnel, and the relativelycompetitive market environment enabled them to expandtheir companies and market their products. Theseentrepreneurs were confident from the beginning that theirdream projects could be implemented: they trusted theinstitutions and the rule of law that these generated andthey did not worry about the security of their property rights.Finally, the political institutions ensured stability andcontinuity. For one thing, they made sure that there was norisk of a dictator taking power and changing the rules of thegame, expropriating their wealth, imprisoning them, orthreatening their lives and livelihoods. They also made surethat no particular interest in society could warp thegovernment in an economically disastrous direction,because political power was both limited and distributedsufficiently broadly that a set of economic institutions thatcreated the incentives for prosperity could emerge.

This book will show that while economic institutions arecritical for determining whether a country is poor orprosperous, it is politics and political institutions thatdetermine what economic institutions a country has.Ultimately the good economic institutions of the UnitedStates resulted from the political institutions that graduallyemerged after 1619. Our theory for world inequality showshow political and economic institutions interact in causingpoverty or prosperity, and how different parts of the worldended up with such different sets of institutions. Our briefreview of the history of the Americas begins to give asense of the forces that shape political and economicinstitutions. Different patterns of institutions today aredeeply rooted in the past because once society getsorganized in a particular way, this tends to persist. We’ll

show that this fact comes from the way that political andeconomic institutions interact.

This persistence and the forces that create it also explainwhy it is so difficult to remove world inequality and to makepoor countries prosperous. Though institutions are the keyto the differences between the two Nogaleses and betweenMexico and the United States, that doesn’t mean there willbe a consensus in Mexico to change institutions. There isno necessity for a society to develop or adopt theinstitutions that are best for economic growth or the welfareof its citizens, because other institutions may be evenbetter for those who control politics and political institutions.The powerful and the rest of society will often disagreeabout which set of institutions should remain in place andwhich ones should be changed. Carlos Slim would not havebeen happy to see his political connections disappear andthe entry barriers protecting his businesses fizzle—nomatter that the entry of new businesses would enrichmillions of Mexicans. Because there is no such consensus,what rules society ends up with is determined by politics:who has power and how this power can be exercised.Carlos Slim has the power to get what he wants. BillGates’s power is far more limited. That’s why our theory isabout not just economics but also politics. It is about theeffects of institutions on the success and failure of nations—thus the economics of poverty and prosperity; it is alsoabout how institutions are determined and change overtime, and how they fail to change even when they createpoverty and misery for millions—thus the politics of povertyand prosperity.

2.

THEORIES THAT DON’T WORK

THE LAY OF THE LAND

THE FOCUS OF our book is on explaining world inequalityand also some of the easily visible broad patterns that nestwithin it. The first country to experience sustained economicgrowth was England—or Great Britain, usually just Britain,as the union of England, Wales, and Scotland after 1707 isknown. Growth emerged slowly in the second half of theeighteenth century as the Industrial Revolution, based onmajor technological breakthroughs and their application inindustry, took root. Industrialization in England was soonfollowed by industrialization in most of Western Europe andthe United States. English prosperity also spread rapidly toBritain’s “settler colonies” of Canada, Australia, and NewZealand. A list of the thirty richest countries today wouldinclude them, plus Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.The prosperity of these latter three is in turn part of abroader pattern in which many East Asian nations,including Taiwan and subsequently China, haveexperienced recent rapid growth.

The bottom of the world income distribution paints assharp and as distinctive a picture as the top. If you insteadmake a list of the poorest thirty countries in the world today,you will find almost all of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Theyare joined by countries such as Afghanistan, Haiti, andNepal, which, though not in Africa, all share somethingcritical with African nations, as we’ll explain. If you wentback fifty years, the countries in the top and bottom thirtywouldn’t be greatly different. Singapore and South Koreawould not be among the richest countries, and there wouldbe several different countries in the bottom thirty, but theoverall picture that emerged would be remarkablyconsistent with what we see today. Go back one hundredyears, or a hundred and fifty, and you’d find nearly the same

countries in the same groups.Map 3 shows the lay of the land in 2008. The countries

shaded in the darkest color are the poorest in the world,those where average per-capita incomes (called byeconomists GDP, gross domestic product) are less than$2,000 annually. Most of Africa is in this color, as areAfghanistan, Haiti, and parts of Southeast Asia (forexample, Cambodia and Laos). North Korea is also amongthis group of countries. The countries in white are therichest, those with annual income per-capita of $20,000 ormore. Here we find the usual suspects: North America,western Europe, Australasia, and Japan.

Another interesting pattern can be discerned in theAmericas. Make a list of the nations in the Americas fromrichest to poorest. You will find that at the top are the UnitedStates and Canada, followed by Chile, Argentina, Brazil,Mexico, and Uruguay, and maybe also Venezuela,depending on the price of oil. After that you have Colombia,the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Peru. At the bottomthere is another distinct, much poorer group, comprisingBolivia, Guatemala, and Paraguay. Go back fifty years, andyou’ll find an identical ranking. One hundred years: samething. One hundred and fifty years: again the same. So it isnot just that the United States and Canada are richer thanLatin America; there is also a definite and persistent dividebetween the rich and poor nations within Latin America.

A final interesting pattern is in the Middle East. There wefind oil-rich nations such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait,which have income levels close to those of our top thirty.Yet if the oil price fell, they would quickly fall back down thetable. Middle Eastern countries with little or no oil, such asEgypt, Jordan, and Syria, all cluster around a level ofincome similar to that of Guatemala or Peru. Without oil,Middle Eastern countries are also all poor, though, likethose in Central America and the Andes, not so poor asthose in sub-Saharan Africa.

While there is a lot of persistence in the patterns ofprosperity we see around us today, these patterns are notunchanging or immutable. First, as we have alreadyemphasized, most of current world inequality emergedsince the late eighteenth century, following on the tails of theIndustrial Revolution. Not only were gaps in prosperity much

smaller as late as the middle of the eighteenth century, butthe rankings which have been so stable since then are notthe same when we go further back in history. In theAmericas, for example, the ranking we see for the lasthundred and fifty years was completely different fivehundred years ago. Second, many nations haveexperienced several decades of rapid growth, such asmuch of East Asia since the Second World War and, morerecently, China. Many of these subsequently saw thatgrowth go into reverse. Argentina, for example, grewrapidly for five decades up until 1920, becoming one of therichest countries in the world, but then started a long slide.The Soviet Union is an even more noteworthy example,growing rapidly between 1930 and 1970, but subsequentlyexperiencing a rapid collapse.

What explains these major differences in poverty andprosperity and the patterns of growth? Why did WesternEuropean nations and their colonial offshoots filled with

European settlers start growing in the nineteenth century,scarcely looking back? What explains the persistentranking of inequality within the Americas? Why have sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern nations failed toachieve the type of economic growth seen in WesternEurope, while much of East Asia has experiencedbreakneck rates of economic growth?

One might think that the fact that world inequality is sohuge and consequential and has such sharply drawnpatterns would mean that it would have a well-acceptedexplanation. Not so. Most hypotheses that social scientistshave proposed for the origins of poverty and prosperity justdon’t work and fail to convincingly explain the lay of theland.

THE GEOGRAPHY HYPOTHESIS

One widely accepted theory of the causes of worldinequality is the geography hypothesis, which claims thatthe great divide between rich and poor countries is createdby geographical differences. Many poor countries, such asthose of Africa, Central America, and South Asia, arebetween the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. Rich nations,in contrast, tend to be in temperate latitudes. Thisgeographic concentration of poverty and prosperity gives asuperficial appeal to the geography hypothesis, which isthe starting point of the theories and views of many socialscientists and pundits alike. But this doesn’t make it anyless wrong.

As early as the late eighteenth century, the great Frenchpolitical philosopher Montesquieu noted the geographicconcentration of prosperity and poverty, and proposed anexplanation for it. He argued that people in tropical climatestended to be lazy and to lack inquisitiveness. As aconsequence, they didn’t work hard and were notinnovative, and this was the reason why they were poor.Montesquieu also speculated that lazy people tended to beruled by despots, suggesting that a tropical location couldexplain not just poverty but also some of the politicalphenomena associated with economic failure, such asdictatorship.

The theory that hot countries are intrinsically poor, though

contradicted by the recent rapid economic advance ofcountries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Botswana, isstill forcefully advocated by some, such as the economistJeffrey Sachs. The modern version of this view emphasizesnot the direct effects of climate on work effort or thoughtprocesses, but two additional arguments: first, that tropicaldiseases, particularly malaria, have very adverseconsequences for health and therefore labor productivity;and second, that tropical soils do not allow for productiveagriculture. The conclusion, though, is the same: temperateclimates have a relative advantage over tropical andsemitropical areas.

World inequality, however, cannot be explained byclimate or diseases, or any version of the geographyhypothesis. Just think of Nogales. What separates the twoparts is not climate, geography, or disease environment,but the U.S.-Mexico border.

If the geography hypothesis cannot explain differencesbetween the north and south of Nogales, or North andSouth Korea, or those between East and West Germanybefore the fall of the Berlin Wall, could it still be a usefultheory for explaining differences between North and SouthAmerica? Between Europe and Africa? Simply, no.

History illustrates that there is no simple or enduringconnection between climate or geography and economicsuccess. For instance, it is not true that the tropics havealways been poorer than temperate latitudes. As we saw inthe last chapter, at the time of the conquest of the Americasby Columbus, the areas south of the Tropic of Cancer andnorth of the Tropic of Capricorn, which today includeMexico, Central America, Peru, and Bolivia, held the greatAztec and Inca civilizations. These empires were politicallycentralized and complex, built roads, and provided faminerelief. The Aztecs had both money and writing, and theIncas, even though they lacked both these two keytechnologies, recorded vast amounts of information onknotted ropes called quipus. In sharp contrast, at the time ofthe Aztecs and Incas, the north and south of the areainhabited by the Aztecs and Incas, which today includes theUnited States, Canada, Argentina, and Chile, were mostlyinhabited by Stone Age civilizations lacking thesetechnologies. The tropics in the Americas were thus much

richer than the temperate zones, suggesting that the“obvious fact” of tropical poverty is neither obvious nor afact. Instead, the greater riches in the United States andCanada represent a stark reversal of fortune relative towhat was there when the Europeans arrived.

This reversal clearly had nothing to do with geographyand, as we have already seen, something to do with theway these areas were colonized. This reversal was notconfined to the Americas. People in South Asia, especiallythe Indian subcontinent, and in China were moreprosperous than those in many other parts of Asia andcertainly more than the peoples inhabiting Australia andNew Zealand. This, too, was reversed, with South Korea,Singapore, and Japan emerging as the richest nations inAsia, and Australia and New Zealand surpassing almost allof Asia in terms of prosperity. Even within sub-SaharanAfrica there was a similar reversal. More recently, beforethe start of intense European contact with Africa, thesouthern Africa region was the most sparsely settled andthe farthest from having developed states with any kind ofcontrol over their territories. Yet South Africa is now one ofthe most prosperous nations in sub-Saharan Africa. Furtherback in history we again see much prosperity in the tropics;some of the great premodern civilizations, such as Angkorin modern Cambodia, Vijayanagara in southern India, andAksum in Ethiopia, flourished in the tropics, as did thegreat Indus Valley civilizations of Mohenjo Daro andHarappa in modern Pakistan. History thus leaves littledoubt that there is no simple connection between a tropicallocation and economic success.

Tropical diseases obviously cause much suffering andhigh rates of infant mortality in Africa, but they are not thereason Africa is poor. Disease is largely a consequence ofpoverty and of governments being unable or unwilling toundertake the public health measures necessary toeradicate them. England in the nineteenth century was alsoa very unhealthy place, but the government graduallyinvested in clean water, in the proper treatment of sewageand effluent, and, eventually, in an effective health service.Improved health and life expectancy were not the cause ofEngland’s economic success but one of the fruits of itsprevious political and economic changes. The same is true

for Nogales, Arizona.The other part of the geography hypothesis is that the

tropics are poor because tropical agriculture is intrinsicallyunproductive. Tropical soils are thin and unable to maintainnutrients, the argument goes, and emphasizes how quicklythese soils are eroded by torrential rains. There certainly issome merit in this argument, but as we’ll show, the primedeterminant of why agricultural productivity—agriculturaloutput per acre—is so low in many poor countries,particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, has little to do with soilquality. Rather, it is a consequence of the ownershipstructure of the land and the incentives that are created forfarmers by the governments and institutions under whichthey live. We will also show that world inequality cannot beexplained by differences in agricultural productivity. Thegreat inequality of the modern world that emerged in thenineteenth century was caused by the unevendissemination of industrial technologies and manufacturingproduction. It was not caused by divergence in agriculturalperformance.

Another influential version of the geography hypothesis isadvanced by the ecologist and evolutionary biologist JaredDiamond. He argues that the origins of intercontinentalinequality at the start of the modern period, five hundredyears ago, rested in different historical endowments ofplant and animal species, which subsequently influencedagricultural productivity. In some places, such as the FertileCrescent in the modern Middle East, there were a largenumber of species that could be domesticated by humans.Elsewhere, such as the Americas, there were not. Havingmany species capable of being domesticated made it veryattractive for societies to make the transition from a hunter-gatherer to a farming lifestyle. As a consequence, farmingdeveloped earlier in the Fertile Crescent than in theAmericas. Population density grew, allowing specializationof labor, trade, urbanization, and political development.Crucially, in places where farming dominated, technologicalinnovation took place much more rapidly than in other partsof the world. Thus, according to Diamond, the differentialavailability of animal and plant species created differentialintensities of farming, which led to different paths oftechnological change and prosperity across different

continents.Though Diamond’s thesis is a powerful approach to the

puzzle on which he focuses, it cannot be extended toexplain modern world inequality. For example, Diamondargues that the Spanish were able to dominate thecivilizations of the Americas because of their longer historyof farming and consequent superior technology. But wenow need to explain why the Mexicans and Peruviansinhabiting the former lands of the Aztecs and Incas arepoor. While having access to wheat, barley, and horsesmight have made the Spanish richer than the Incas, the gapin incomes between the two was not very large. Theaverage income of a Spaniard was probably less thandouble that of a citizen of the Inca Empire. Diamond’sthesis implies that once the Incas had been exposed to allthe species and resulting technologies that they had notbeen able to develop themselves, they ought quickly tohave attained the living standards of the Spanish. Yetnothing of the sort happened. On the contrary, in thenineteenth and twentieth centuries, a much larger gap inincomes between Spain and Peru emerged. Today theaverage Spaniard is more than six times richer than theaverage Peruvian. This gap in incomes is closelyconnected to the uneven dissemination of modern industrialtechnologies, but this has little to do either with the potentialfor animal and plant domestication or with intrinsicagricultural productivity differences between Spain andPeru.

While Spain, albeit with a lag, adopted the technologiesof steam power, railroads, electricity, mechanization, andfactory production, Peru did not, or at best did so veryslowly and imperfectly. This technological gap persiststoday and reproduces itself on a bigger scale as newtechnologies, in particular those related to informationtechnology, fuel further growth in many developed andsome rapidly developing nations. Diamond’s thesis doesnot tell us why these crucial technologies are not diffusingand equalizing incomes across the world and does notexplain why the northern half of Nogales is so much richerthan its twin just to the south of the fence, even though bothwere part of the same civilization five hundred years ago.

The story of Nogales highlights another major problem in

adapting Diamond’s thesis: as we have already seen,whatever the drawbacks of the Inca and Aztec empireswere in 1532, Peru and Mexico were undoubtedly moreprosperous than those parts of the Americas that went onto become the United States and Canada. North Americabecame more prosperous precisely because itenthusiastically adopted the technologies and advances ofthe Industrial Revolution. The population became educatedand railways spread out across the Great Plains in starkcontrast to what happened in South America. This cannotbe explained by pointing to differential geographicendowments of North and South America, which, ifanything, favored South America.

Inequality in the modern world largely results from theuneven dissemination and adoption of technologies, andDiamond’s thesis does include important arguments aboutthis. For instance, he argues, following the historian WilliamMcNeill, that the east–west orientation of Eurasia enabledcrops, animals, and innovations to spread from the FertileCrescent into Western Europe, while the north–southorientation of the Americas accounts for why writingsystems, which were created in Mexico, did not spread tothe Andes or North America. Yet the orientation ofcontinents cannot provide an explanation for today’s worldinequality. Consider Africa. Though the Sahara Desert didpresent a significant barrier to the movement of goods andideas from the north to sub-Saharan Africa, this was notinsurmountable. The Portuguese, and then otherEuropeans, sailed around the coast and eliminateddifferences in knowledge at a time when gaps in incomeswere very small compared with what they are today. Sincethen, Africa has not caught up with Europe; on the contrary,there is now a much larger income gap between mostAfrican and European countries.

It should also be clear that Diamond’s argument, which isabout continental inequality, is not well equipped to explainvariation within continents—an essential part of modernworld inequality. For example, while the orientation of theEurasian landmass might explain how England managed tobenefit from the innovations of the Middle East withouthaving to reinvent them, it doesn’t explain why the IndustrialRevolution happened in England rather than, say, Moldova.

In addition, as Diamond himself points out, China and Indiabenefited greatly from very rich suites of animals andplants, and from the orientation of Eurasia. But most of thepoor people of the world today are in those two countries.

In fact, the best way to see the scope of Diamond’sthesis is in terms of his own explanatory variables. Map 4shows data on the distribution of Sus scrofa, the ancestorof the modern pig, and the aurochs, ancestor of the moderncow. Both species were widely distributed throughoutEurasia and even North Africa. Map 5 (this page) showsthe distribution of some of the wild ancestors of moderndomesticated crops, such as Oryza sativa, the ancestor ofAsian cultivated rice, and the ancestors of modern wheatand barley. It demonstrates that the wild ancestor of ricewas distributed widely across south and southeast Asia,while the ancestors of barley and wheat were distributedalong a long arc from the Levant, reaching through Iran andinto Afghanistan and the cluster of “stans” (Turkmenistan,Tajikistan, and Krgyzistan). These ancestral species arepresent in much of Eurasia. But their wide distributionsuggests that inequality within Eurasia cannot be explainedby a theory based on the incidence of the species.

The geography hypothesis is not only unhelpful forexplaining the origins of prosperity throughout history, andmostly incorrect in its emphasis, but also unable to accountfor the lay of the land we started this chapter with. Onemight argue that any persistent pattern, such as thehierarchy of incomes within the Americas or the sharp andlong-ranging differences between Europe and the MiddleEast, can be explained by unchanging geography. But thisis not so. We have already seen that the patterns within theAmericas are highly unlikely to have been driven bygeographical factors. Before 1492 it was the civilizations inthe central valley of Mexico, Central America, and theAndes that had superior technology and living standards toNorth America or places such as Argentina and Chile.While the geography stayed the same, the institutionsimposed by European colonists created a “reversal offortune.” Geography is also unlikely to explain the poverty ofthe Middle East for similar reasons. After all, the MiddleEast led the world in the Neolithic Revolution, and the firsttowns developed in modern Iraq. Iron was first smelted in

Turkey, and as late as the Middle Ages the Middle Eastwas technologically dynamic. It was not the geography ofthe Middle East that made the Neolithic Revolution flourishin that part of the world, as we will see in chapter 5, and itwas, again, not geography that made the Middle East poor.Instead, it was the expansion and consolidation of theOttoman Empire, and it is the institutional legacy of thisempire that keeps the Middle East poor today.

Finally, geographic factors are unhelpful for explainingnot only the differences we see across various parts of theworld today but also why many nations such as Japan orChina stagnate for long periods and then start a rapidgrowth process. We need another, better theory.

THE CULTURE HYPOTHESIS

The second widely accepted theory, the culture hypothesis,relates prosperity to culture. The culture hypothesis, just likethe geography hypothesis, has a distinguished lineage,going back at least to the great German sociologist MaxWeber, who argued that the Protestant Reformation andthe Protestant ethic it spurred played a key role infacilitating the rise of modern industrial society in WesternEurope. The culture hypothesis no longer relies solely onreligion, but stresses other types of beliefs, values, and

ethics as well.Though it is not politically correct to articulate in public,

many people still maintain that Africans are poor becausethey lack a good work ethic, still believe in witchcraft andmagic, or resist new Western technologies. Many alsobelieve that Latin America will never be rich because itspeople are intrinsically profligate and impecunious, andbecause they suffer from some “Iberian” or “mañana”culture. Of course, many once believed that the Chineseculture and Confucian values were inimical to economicgrowth, though now the importance of the Chinese workethic as the engine of growth in China, Hong Kong, andSingapore is trumpeted.

Is the culture hypothesis useful for understanding worldinequality? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that social norms,which are related to culture, matter and can be hard tochange, and they also sometimes support institutionaldifferences, this book’s explanation for world inequality. Butmostly no, because those aspects of culture oftenemphasized—religion, national ethics, African or Latinvalues—are just not important for understanding how wegot here and why the inequalities in the world persist. Otheraspects, such as the extent to which people trust each otheror are able to cooperate, are important but they are mostlyan outcome of institutions, not an independent cause.

Let us go back to Nogales. As we noted earlier, manyaspects of culture are the same north and south of thefence. Nevertheless, there may be some markeddifferences in practices, norms, and values, though theseare not causes but outcomes of the two places’ divergentdevelopment paths. For example, in surveys Mexicanstypically say they trust other people less than the citizens ofthe United States say they trust others. But it is not asurprise that Mexicans lack trust when their governmentcannot eliminate drug cartels or provide a functioningunbiased legal system. The same is true with North andSouth Korea, as we discuss in the next chapter. The Southis one of the richest countries in the world, while the Northgrapples with periodic famine and abject poverty. While“culture” is very different between the South and the Northtoday, it played no role in causing the diverging economicfortunes of these two half nations. The Korean peninsula

has a long period of common history. Before the KoreanWar and the division at the 38th parallel, it had anunprecedented homogeneity in terms of language,ethnicity, and culture. Just as in Nogales, what matters isthe border. To the north is a different regime, imposingdifferent institutions, creating different incentives. Anydifference in culture between south and north of the bordercutting through the two parts of Nogales or the two parts ofKorea is thus not a cause of the differences in prosperitybut, rather, a consequence.

What about Africa and African culture? Historically, sub-Saharan Africa was poorer than most other parts of theworld, and its ancient civilizations did not develop thewheel, writing (with the exception of Ethiopia and Somalia),or the plow. Though these technologies were not widelyused until the advent of formal European colonization in thelate nineteenth and early twentieth century, Africansocieties knew about them much earlier. Europeans begansailing around the west coast in the late fifteenth century,and Asians were continually sailing to East Africa frommuch earlier times.

We can understand why these technologies were notadopted from the history of the Kingdom of Kongo at themouth of the Congo River, which has given its name to themodern Democratic Republic of Congo. Map 6 showswhere the Kongo was along with another important centralAfrican state, the Kuba Kingdom, which we discuss later inthe book.

Kongo came into intense contact with the Portugueseafter it was first visited by the mariner Diogo Cão in 1483.At the time, Kongo was a highly centralized polity by Africanstandards, whose capital, Mbanza, had a population ofsixty thousand, which made it about the same size as thePortuguese capital of Lisbon and larger than London, whichhad a population of about fifty thousand in 1500. The kingof Kongo, Nzinga a Nkuwu, converted to Catholicism andchanged his name to João I. Later Mbanza’s name waschanged to São Salvador. Thanks to the Portuguese, theKongolese learned about the wheel and the plow, and thePortuguese even encouraged their adoption withagricultural missions in 1491 and 1512. But all theseinitiatives failed. Still, the Kongolese were far from averse

to modern technologies in general. They were very quick toadopt one venerable Western innovation: the gun. Theyused this new and powerful tool to respond to marketincentives: to capture and export slaves. There is no signhere that African values or culture prevented the adoption ofnew technologies and practices. As their contacts withEuropeans deepened, the Kongolese adopted otherWestern practices: literacy, dress styles, and housedesigns. In the nineteenth century, many African societiesalso took advantage of the rising economic opportunitiescreated by the Industrial Revolution by changing theirproduction patterns. In West Africa there was rapideconomic development based on the export of palm oil andground nuts; throughout southern Africa, Africansdeveloped exports to the rapidly expanding industrial andmining areas of the Rand in South Africa. Yet thesepromising economic experiments were obliterated not byAfrican culture or the inability of ordinary Africans to act intheir own self-interest, but first by European colonialism andthen by postindependence African governments.

The real reason that the Kongolese did not adoptsuperior technology was because they lacked anyincentives to do so. They faced a high risk of all their outputbeing expropriated and taxed by the all-powerful king,whether or not he had converted to Catholicism. In fact, itwasn’t only their property that was insecure. Their continuedexistence was held by a thread. Many of them werecaptured and sold as slaves—hardly the environment toencourage investment to increase long-term productivity.Neither did the king have incentives to adopt the plow on alarge scale or to make increasing agricultural productivityhis main priority; exporting slaves was so much moreprofitable.

It might be true today that Africans trust each other lessthan people in other parts of the world. But this is anoutcome of a long history of institutions which haveundermined human and property rights in Africa. Thepotential to be captured and sold as a slave no doubt

influenced the extent to which Africans trusted othershistorically.

What about Max Weber’s Protestant ethic? Though itmay be true that predominantly Protestant countries, suchas the Netherlands and England, were the first economicsuccesses of the modern era, there is little relationshipbetween religion and economic success. France, apredominantly Catholic country, quickly mimicked theeconomic performance of the Dutch and English in thenineteenth century, and Italy is as prosperous as any ofthese nations today. Looking farther east, you’ll see thatnone of the economic successes of East Asia haveanything to do with any form of Christian religion, so there isnot much support for a special relationship betweenProtestantism and economic success there, either.

Let’s turn to a favorite area for the enthusiasts of theculture hypothesis: the Middle East. Middle Easterncountries are primarily Islamic, and the non–oil producersamong them are very poor, as we have already noted. Oilproducers are richer, but this windfall of wealth has donelittle to create diversified modern economies in SaudiArabia or Kuwait. Don’t these facts show convincingly thatreligion matters? Though plausible, this argument is notright, either. Yes, countries such as Syria and Egypt arepoor, and their populations are primarily Muslim. But thesecountries also systemically differ in other ways that are farmore important for prosperity. For one, they were allprovinces of the Ottoman Empire, which heavily, andadversely, shaped the way they developed. After Ottomanrule collapsed, the Middle East was absorbed into theEnglish and French colonial empires, which, again, stuntedtheir possibilities. After independence, they followed muchof the former colonial world by developing hierarchical,authoritarian political regimes with few of the political andeconomic institutions that, we will argue, are crucial forgenerating economic success. This development path wasforged largely by the history of Ottoman and European rule.The relationship between the Islamic religion and poverty inthe Middle East is largely spurious.

The role of these historical events, rather than culturalfactors, in shaping the Middle East’s economic trajectory isalso seen in the fact that the parts of the Middle East that

temporarily broke away from the hold of the OttomanEmpire and the European powers, such as Egypt between1805 and 1848 under Muhammad Ali, could embark on apath of rapid economic change. Muhammad Ali usurpedpower following the withdrawal of the French forces thathad occupied Egypt under Napoleon Bonaparte. Exploitingthe weakness of the Ottoman hold over the Egyptianterritory at the time, he was able to found his own dynasty,which would, in one form or another, rule until the EgyptianRevolution under Nasser in 1952. Muhammad Ali’sreforms, though coercive, did bring growth to Egypt as thestate bureaucracy, the army, and the tax system weremodernized and there was growth in agriculture andindustry. Nevertheless, this process of modernization andgrowth came to an end after Ali’s death, as Egypt fell underEuropean influence.

But perhaps this is the wrong way to think about culture.Maybe the cultural factors that matter are not tied to religionbut rather to particular “national cultures.” Perhaps it is theinfluence of English culture that is important and explainswhy countries such as the United States, Canada, andAustralia are so prosperous? Though this idea soundsinitially appealing, it doesn’t work, either. Yes, Canada andthe United States were English colonies, but so wereSierra Leone and Nigeria. The variation in prosperity withinformer English colonies is as great as that in the entireworld. The English legacy is not the reason for the successof North America.

There is yet one more version of the culture hypothesis:perhaps it is not English versus non-English that mattersbut, rather, European versus non-European. Could it be thatEuropeans are superior somehow because of their workethic, outlook on life, Judeo-Christian values, or Romanheritage? It is true that Western Europe and North America,filled primarily by people of European descent, are themost prosperous parts of the world. Perhaps it is thesuperior European cultural legacy that is at the root ofprosperity—and the last refuge of the culture hypothesis.Alas, this version of the culture hypothesis has as littleexplanatory potential as the others. A greater proportion ofthe population of Argentina and Uruguay, compared withthe population of Canada and the United States, is of

European descent, but Argentina’s and Uruguay’seconomic performance leaves much to be desired. Japanand Singapore never had more than a sprinkling ofinhabitants of European descent, yet they are asprosperous as many parts of Western Europe.

China, despite many imperfections in its economic andpolitical system, has been the most rapidly growing nationof the past three decades. Chinese poverty until MaoZedong’s death had nothing to do with Chinese culture; itwas due to the disastrous way Mao organized the economyand conducted politics. In the 1950s, he promoted theGreat Leap Forward, a drastic industrialization policy thatled to mass starvation and famine. In the 1960s, hepropagated the Cultural Revolution, which led to the masspersecution of intellectuals and educated people—anyonewhose party loyalty might be doubted. This again led toterror and a huge waste of the society’s talent andresources. In the same way, current Chinese growth hasnothing to do with Chinese values or changes in Chineseculture; it results from a process of economictransformation unleashed by the reforms implemented byDeng Xiaoping and his allies, who, after Mao Zedong’sdeath, gradually abandoned socialist economic policiesand institutions, first in agriculture and then in industry.

Just like the geography hypothesis, the culturehypothesis is also unhelpful for explaining other aspects ofthe lay of the land around us today. There are of coursedifferences in beliefs, cultural attitudes, and values betweenthe United States and Latin America, but just like those thatexist between Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora, orthose between South and North Korea, these differencesare a consequence of the two places’ different institutionsand institutional histories. Cultural factors that emphasizehow “Hispanic” or “Latin” culture molded the SpanishEmpire can’t explain the differences within Latin America—for example, why Argentina and Chile are more prosperousthan Peru and Bolivia. Other types of cultural arguments—for instance, those that stress contemporary indigenousculture—fare equally badly. Argentina and Chile have fewindigenous people compared with Peru and Bolivia.Though this is true, indigenous culture as an explanationdoes not work, either. Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru have

similar income levels, but Colombia has very fewindigenous people today, while Ecuador and Peru havemany. Finally, cultural attitudes, which are in general slow tochange, are unlikely to account by themselves for thegrowth miracles in East Asia and China. Though institutionsare persistent, too, in certain circumstances they dochange rapidly, as we’ll see.

THE IGNORANCE HYPOTHESIS

The final popular theory for why some nations are poor andsome are rich is the ignorance hypothesis, which assertsthat world inequality exists because we or our rulers do notknow how to make poor countries rich. This idea is the oneheld by most economists, who take their cue from thefamous definition proposed by the English economistLionel Robbins in 1935 that “economics is a science whichstudies human behavior as a relationship between endsand scarce means which have alternative uses.”

It is then a small step to conclude that the science ofeconomics should focus on the best use of scarce meansto satisfy social ends. Indeed, the most famous theoreticalresult in economics, the so-called First Welfare Theorem,identifies the circumstances under which the allocation ofresources in a “market economy” is socially desirable froman economic point of view. A market economy is anabstraction that is meant to capture a situation in which allindividuals and firms can freely produce, buy, and sell anyproducts or services that they wish. When thesecircumstances are not present there is a “market failure.”Such failures provide the basis for a theory of worldinequality, since the more that market failures gounaddressed, the poorer a country is likely to be. Theignorance hypothesis maintains that poor countries arepoor because they have a lot of market failures andbecause economists and policymakers do not know how toget rid of them and have heeded the wrong advice in thepast. Rich countries are rich because they have figured outbetter policies and have successfully eliminated thesefailures.

Could the ignorance hypothesis explain world inequality?Could it be that African countries are poorer than the rest of

the world because their leaders tend to have the samemistaken views of how to run their countries, leading to thepoverty there, while Western European leaders are betterinformed or better advised, which explains their relativesuccess? While there are famous examples of leadersadopting disastrous policies because they were mistakenabout those policies’ consequences, ignorance can explainat best a small part of world inequality.

On the face of it, the sustained economic decline thatsoon set in in Ghana after independence from Britain wascaused by ignorance. The British economist Tony Killick,then working as an adviser for the government of KwameNkrumah, recorded many of the problems in great detail.Nkrumah’s policies focused on developing state industry,which turned out to be very inefficient. Killick recalled:

The footwear factory … that would havelinked the meat factory in the North throughtransportation of the hides to the South (for adistance of over 500 miles) to a tannery (nowabandoned); the leather was to have beenbackhauled to the footwear factory inKumasi, in the center of the country andabout 200 miles north of the tannery. Sincethe major footwear market is in the Accrametropolitan area, the shoes would then haveto be transported an additional 200 milesback to the South.

Killick somewhat understatedly remarks that this was anenterprise “whose viability was undermined by poor siting.”The footwear factory was one of many such projects, joinedby the mango canning plant situated in a part of Ghanawhich did not grow mangos and whose output was to bemore than the entire world demand for the product. Thisendless stream of economically irrational developmentswas not caused by the fact that Nkrumah or his adviserswere badly informed or ignorant of the right economicpolicies. They had people like Killick and had even beenadvised by Nobel laureate Sir Arthur Lewis, who knew thepolicies were not good. What drove the form the economicpolicies took was the fact that Nkrumah needed to use

them to buy political support and sustain his undemocraticregime.

Neither Ghana’s disappointing performance afterindependence nor the countless other cases of apparenteconomic mismanagement can simply be blamed onignorance. After all, if ignorance were the problem, well-meaning leaders would quickly learn what types of policiesincreased their citizens’ incomes and welfare, and wouldgravitate toward those policies.

Consider the divergent paths of the United States andMexico. Blaming this disparity on the ignorance of theleaders of the two nations is, at best, highly implausible. Itwasn’t differences in knowledge or intentions between JohnSmith and Cortés that laid the seeds of divergence duringthe colonial period, and it wasn’t differences in knowledgebetween later U.S. presidents, such as Teddy Roosevelt orWoodrow Wilson, and Porfirio Díaz that made Mexicochoose economic institutions that enriched elites at theexpense of the rest of society at the end of the nineteenthand beginning of the twentieth centuries while Rooseveltand Wilson did the opposite. Rather, it was the differencesin the institutional constraints the countries’ presidents andelites were facing. Similarly, leaders of African nations thathave languished over the last half century under insecureproperty rights and economic institutions, impoverishingmuch of their populations, did not allow this to happenbecause they thought it was good economics; they did sobecause they could get away with it and enrich themselvesat the expense of the rest, or because they thought it wasgood politics, a way of keeping themselves in power bybuying the support of crucial groups or elites.

The experience of Ghana’s prime minister in 1971, KofiBusia, illustrates how misleading the ignorance hypothesiscan be. Busia faced a dangerous economic crisis. Aftercoming to power in 1969, he, like Nkrumah before him,pursued unsustainable expansionary economic policiesand maintained various price controls through marketingboards and an overvalued exchange rate. Though Busiahad been an opponent of Nkrumah, and led a democraticgovernment, he faced many of the same politicalconstraints. As with Nkrumah, his economic policies wereadopted not because he was “ignorant” and believed that

these policies were good economics or an ideal way todevelop the country. The policies were chosen becausethey were good politics, enabling Busia to transferresources to politically powerful groups, for example inurban areas, who needed to be kept contented. Pricecontrols squeezed agriculture, delivering cheap food to theurban constituencies and generating revenues to financegovernment spending. But these controls wereunsustainable. Ghana was soon suffering from a series ofbalance-of-payment crises and foreign exchangeshortages. Faced with these dilemmas, on December 27,1971, Busia signed an agreement with the InternationalMonetary Fund that included a massive devaluation of thecurrency.

The IMF, the World Bank, and the entire internationalcommunity put pressure on Busia to implement the reformscontained in the agreement. Though the internationalinstitutions were blissfully unaware, Busia knew he wastaking a huge political gamble. The immediateconsequence of the currency’s devaluation was rioting anddiscontent in Accra, Ghana’s capital, that mounteduncontrollably until Busia was overthrown by the military, ledby Lieutenant Colonel Acheampong, who immediatelyreversed the devaluation.

The ignorance hypothesis differs from the geography andculture hypotheses in that it comes readily with asuggestion about how to “solve” the problem of poverty: ifignorance got us here, enlightened and informed rulers andpolicymakers can get us out and we should be able to“engineer” prosperity around the world by providing theright advice and by convincing politicians of what is goodeconomics. Yet Busia’s experience underscores the factthat the main obstacle to the adoption of policies that wouldreduce market failures and encourage economic growth isnot the ignorance of politicians but the incentives andconstraints they face from the political and economicinstitutions in their societies.

Although the ignorance hypothesis still rules supremeamong most economists and in Western policymakingcircles—which, almost to the exclusion of anything else,focus on how to engineer prosperity—it is just anotherhypothesis that doesn’t work. It explains neither the origins

of prosperity around the world nor the lay of the land aroundus—for example, why some nations, such as Mexico andPeru, but not the United States or England, adoptedinstitutions and policies that would impoverish the majorityof their citizens, or why almost all sub-Saharan Africa andmost of Central America are so much poorer than WesternEurope or East Asia.

When nations break out of institutional patternscondemning them to poverty and manage to embark on apath to economic growth, this is not because their ignorantleaders suddenly have become better informed or less self-interested or because they’ve received advice from bettereconomists. China, for example, is one of the countries thatmade the switch from economic policies that causedpoverty and the starvation of millions to those encouragingeconomic growth. But, as we will discuss in greater detaillater, this did not happen because the Chinese CommunistParty finally understood that the collective ownership ofagricultural land and industry created terrible economicincentives. Instead, Deng Xiaoping and his allies, who wereno less self-interested than their rivals but who had differentinterests and political objectives, defeated their powerfulopponents in the Communist Party and masterminded apolitical revolution of sorts, radically changing theleadership and direction of the party. Their economicreforms, which created market incentives in agriculture andthen subsequently in industry, followed from this politicalrevolution. It was politics that determined the switch fromcommunism and toward market incentives in China, notbetter advice or a better understanding of how the economyworked.

WE WILL ARGUE that to understand world inequality we haveto understand why some societies are organized in veryinefficient and socially undesirable ways. Nationssometimes do manage to adopt efficient institutions andachieve prosperity, but alas, these are the rare cases. Mosteconomists and policymakers have focused on “getting itright,” while what is really needed is an explanation for whypoor nations “get it wrong.” Getting it wrong is mostly notabout ignorance or culture. As we will show, poor countries

are poor because those who have power make choicesthat create poverty. They get it wrong not by mistake orignorance but on purpose. To understand this, you have togo beyond economics and expert advice on the best thingto do and, instead, study how decisions actually get made,who gets to make them, and why those people decide todo what they do. This is the study of politics and politicalprocesses. Traditionally economics has ignored politics,but understanding politics is crucial for explaining worldinequality. As the economist Abba Lerner noted in the1970s, “Economics has gained the title Queen of theSocial Sciences by choosing solved political problems asits domain.”

We will argue that achieving prosperity depends onsolving some basic political problems. It is preciselybecause economics has assumed that political problemsare solved that it has not been able to come up with aconvincing explanation for world inequality. Explainingworld inequality still needs economics to understand howdifferent types of policies and social arrangements affecteconomic incentives and behavior. But it also needspolitics.

3.

THE MAKING OF PROSPERITY AND POVERTY

THE ECONOMICS OF THE 38TH PARALLEL

IN THE SUMMER OF 1945, as the Second World War wasdrawing to a close, the Japanese colony in Korea began tocollapse. Within a month of Japan’s August 15unconditional surrender, Korea was divided at the 38thparallel into two spheres of influence. The South wasadministered by the United States. The North, by Russia.The uneasy peace of the cold war was shattered in June1950 when the North Korean army invaded the South.Though initially the North Koreans made large inroads,capturing the capital city, Seoul, by the autumn, they were infull retreat. It was then that Hwang Pyŏng-Wŏn and hisbrother were separated. Hwang Pyŏng-Wŏn managed tohide and avoid being drafted into the North Korean army.He stayed in the South and worked as a pharmacist. Hisbrother, a doctor working in Seoul treating woundedsoldiers from the South Korean army, was taken north asthe North Korean army retreated. Dragged apart in 1950,they met again in 2000 in Seoul for the first time in fiftyyears, after the two governments finally agreed to initiate alimited program of family reunification.

As a doctor, Hwang Pyŏng-Wŏn’s brother had ended upworking for the air force, a good job in a militarydictatorship. But even those with privileges in North Koreadon’t do that well. When the brothers met, Hwang Pyŏng-Wŏn asked about how life was north of the 38th parallel. Hehad a car, but his brother didn’t. “Do you have atelephone?” he asked his brother. “No,” said his brother.“My daughter, who works at the Foreign Ministry, has aphone, but if you don’t know the code you can’t call.” HwangPyŏng-Wŏn recalled how all the people from the North atthe reunion were asking for money, so he offered some tohis brother. But his brother said, “If I go back with money the

government will say, ‘Give that money to us,’ so keep it.”Hwang Pyŏng-Wŏn noticed his brother’s coat wasthreadbare: “Take off that coat and leave it, and when yougo back wear this one,” he suggested. “I can’t do that,” hisbrother replied. “This is just borrowed from the governmentto come here.” Hwang Pyŏng-Wŏn recalled how when theyparted, his brother was ill at ease and always nervous asthough someone were listening. He was poorer thanHwang Pyŏng-Wŏn imagined. His brother said he livedwell, but Hwang Pyŏng-Wŏn thought he looked awful andwas thin as a rake.

The people of South Korea have living standards similarto those of Portugal and Spain. To the north, in the so-called Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or NorthKorea, living standards are akin to those of a sub-SaharanAfrican country, about one-tenth of average living standardsin South Korea. The health of North Koreans is in an evenworse state; the average North Korean can expect to liveten years less than his cousins south of the 38th parallel.Map 7 illustrates in a dramatic way the economic gapbetween the Koreas. It plots data on the intensity of light atnight from satellite images. North Korea is almostcompletely dark due to lack of electricity; South Korea isblazing with light.

These striking differences are not ancient. In fact, theydid not exist prior to the end of the Second World War. Butafter 1945, the different governments in the North and theSouth adopted very different ways of organizing theireconomies. South Korea was led, and its early economicand political institutions were shaped, by the Harvard- andPrinceton-educated, staunchly anticommunist SyngmanRhee, with significant support from the United States. Rheewas elected president in 1948. Forged in the midst of theKorean War and against the threat of communismspreading to the south of the 38th parallel, South Koreawas no democracy. Both Rhee and his equally famoussuccessor, General Park Chung-Hee, secured their placesin history as authoritarian presidents. But both governed amarket economy where private property was recognized,and after 1961, Park effectively threw the weight of thestate behind rapid economic growth, channeling credit andsubsidies to firms that were successful.

The situation north of the 38th parallel was different. KimIl-Sung, a leader of anti-Japanese communist partisansduring the Second World War, established himself asdictator by 1947 and, with the help of the Soviet Union,introduced a rigid form of centrally planned economy aspart of the so-called Juche system. Private property wasoutlawed, and markets were banned. Freedoms werecurtailed not only in the marketplace, but in every sphere of

North Koreans’ lives—except for those who happened tobe part of the very small ruling elite around Kim Il-Sung and,later, his son and successor Kim Jong-Il.

It should not surprise us that the economic fortunes ofSouth and North Korea diverged sharply. Kim Il-Sung’scommand economy and the Juche system soon proved tobe a disaster. Detailed statistics are not available fromNorth Korea, which is a secretive state, to say the least.Nonetheless, available evidence confirms what we knowfrom the all-too-often recurring famines: not only didindustrial production fail to take off, but North Korea in factexperienced a collapse in agricultural productivity. Lack ofprivate property meant that few people had incentives toinvest or to exert effort to increase or even maintainproductivity. The stifling, repressive regime was inimical toinnovation and the adoption of new technologies. But KimIl-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, and their cronies had no intention ofreforming the system, or introducing private property,markets, private contracts, or changing economic andpolitical institutions. North Korea continues to stagnateeconomically.

Meanwhile, in the South, economic institutionsencouraged investment and trade. South Korean politiciansinvested in education, achieving high rates of literacy andschooling. South Korean companies were quick to takeadvantage of the relatively educated population, thepolicies encouraging investment and industrialization,exports, and the transfer of technology. South Korea quicklybecame one of East Asia’s “Miracle Economies,” one ofthe most rapidly growing nations in the world.

By the late 1990s, in just about half a century, SouthKorean growth and North Korean stagnation led to a tenfoldgap between the two halves of this once-united country—imagine what a difference a couple of centuries couldmake. The economic disaster of North Korea, which led tothe starvation of millions, when placed against the SouthKorean economic success, is striking: neither culture norgeography nor ignorance can explain the divergent paths ofNorth and South Korea. We have to look at institutions foran answer.

EXTRACTIVE AND INCLUSIVE ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS

Countries differ in their economic success because of theirdifferent institutions, the rules influencing how the economyworks, and the incentives that motivate people. Imagineteenagers in North and South Korea and what they expectfrom life. Those in the North grow up in poverty, withoutentrepreneurial initiative, creativity, or adequate educationto prepare them for skilled work. Much of the education theyreceive at school is pure propaganda, meant to shore upthe legitimacy of the regime; there are few books, let alonecomputers. After finishing school, everyone has to go intothe army for ten years. These teenagers know that they willnot be able to own property, start a business, or becomemore prosperous even if many people engage illegally inprivate economic activities to make a living. They alsoknow that they will not have legal access to markets wherethey can use their skills or their earnings to purchase thegoods they need and desire. They are even unsure aboutwhat kind of human rights they will have.

Those in the South obtain a good education, and faceincentives that encourage them to exert effort and excel intheir chosen vocation. South Korea is a market economy,built on private property. South Korean teenagers knowthat, if successful as entrepreneurs or workers, they canone day enjoy the fruits of their investments and efforts; theycan improve their standard of living and buy cars, houses,and health care.

In the South the state supports economic activity. So it ispossible for entrepreneurs to borrow money from banksand financial markets, for foreign companies to enter intopartnerships with South Korean firms, for individuals to takeup mortgages to buy houses. In the South, by and large, youare free to open any business you like. In the North, you arenot. In the South, you can hire workers, sell your products orservices, and spend your money in the marketplace inwhichever way you want. In the North, there are only blackmarkets. These different rules are the institutions underwhich North and South Koreans live.

Inclusive economic institutions, such as those in SouthKorea or in the United States, are those that allow andencourage participation by the great mass of people in

economic activities that make best use of their talents andskills and that enable individuals to make the choices theywish. To be inclusive, economic institutions must featuresecure private property, an unbiased system of law, and aprovision of public services that provides a level playingfield in which people can exchange and contract; it alsomust permit the entry of new businesses and allow peopleto choose their careers.

THE CONTRAST OF South and North Korea, and of the UnitedStates and Latin America, illustrates a general principle.Inclusive economic institutions foster economic activity,productivity growth, and economic prosperity. Secureprivate property rights are central, since only those withsuch rights will be willing to invest and increase productivity.A businessman who expects his output to be stolen,expropriated, or entirely taxed away will have little incentiveto work, let alone any incentive to undertake investmentsand innovations. But such rights must exist for the majorityof people in society.

In 1680 the English government conducted a census ofthe population of its West Indian colony of Barbados. Thecensus revealed that of the total population on the island ofaround 60,000, almost 39,000 were African slaves whowere the property of the remaining one-third of thepopulation. Indeed, they were mostly the property of thelargest 175 sugar planters, who also owned most of theland. These large planters had secure and well-enforcedproperty rights over their land and even over their slaves. Ifone planter wanted to sell slaves to another, he could do soand expect a court to enforce such a sale or any othercontract he wrote. Why? Of the forty judges and justices ofthe peace on the island, twenty-nine of them were largeplanters. Also, the eight most senior military officials wereall large planters. Despite well-defined, secure, andenforced property rights and contracts for the island’s elite,Barbados did not have inclusive economic institutions,since two-thirds of the population were slaves with noaccess to education or economic opportunities, and noability or incentive to use their talents or skills. Inclusiveeconomic institutions require secure property rights and

economic opportunities not just for the elite but for a broadcross-section of society.

Secure property rights, the law, public services, and thefreedom to contract and exchange all rely on the state, theinstitution with the coercive capacity to impose order,prevent theft and fraud, and enforce contracts betweenprivate parties. To function well, society also needs otherpublic services: roads and a transport network so thatgoods can be transported; a public infrastructure so thateconomic activity can flourish; and some type of basicregulation to prevent fraud and malfeasance. Though manyof these public services can be provided by markets andprivate citizens, the degree of coordination necessary to doso on a large scale often eludes all but a central authority.The state is thus inexorably intertwined with economicinstitutions, as the enforcer of law and order, privateproperty, and contracts, and often as a key provider ofpublic services. Inclusive economic institutions need anduse the state.

The economic institutions of North Korea or of colonialLatin America—the mita, encomienda, or repartimientodescribed earlier—do not have these properties. Privateproperty is nonexistent in North Korea. In colonial LatinAmerica there was private property for Spaniards, but theproperty of the indigenous peoples was highly insecure. Inneither type of society was the vast mass of people able tomake the economic decisions they wanted to; they weresubject to mass coercion. In neither type of society was thepower of the state used to provide key public services thatpromoted prosperity. In North Korea, the state built aneducation system to inculcate propaganda, but was unableto prevent famine. In colonial Latin America, the statefocused on coercing indigenous peoples. In neither type ofsociety was there a level playing field or an unbiased legalsystem. In North Korea, the legal system is an arm of theruling Communist Party, and in Latin America it was a toolof discrimination against the mass of people. We call suchinstitutions, which have opposite properties to those we callinclusive, extractive economic institutions—extractivebecause such institutions are designed to extract incomesand wealth from one subset of society to benefit a differentsubset.

ENGINES OF PROSPERITY

Inclusive economic institutions create inclusive markets,which not only give people freedom to pursue the vocationsin life that best suit their talents but also provide a levelplaying field that gives them the opportunity to do so. Thosewho have good ideas will be able to start businesses,workers will tend to go to activities where their productivityis greater, and less efficient firms can be replaced by moreefficient ones. Contrast how people choose theiroccupations under inclusive markets to colonial Peru andBolivia, where under the mita, many were forced to work insilver and mercury mines, regardless of their skills orwhether they wanted to. Inclusive markets are not just freemarkets. Barbados in the seventeenth century also hadmarkets. But in the same way that it lacked property rightsfor all but the narrow planter elite, its markets were far frominclusive; markets in slaves were in fact one part of theeconomic institutions systematically coercing the majorityof the population and robbing them of the ability to choosetheir occupations and how they should utilize their talents.

Inclusive economic institutions also pave the way for twoother engines of prosperity: technology and education.Sustained economic growth is almost always accompaniedby technological improvements that enable people (labor),land, and existing capital (buildings, existing machines, andso on) to become more productive. Think of our great-great-grandparents, just over a century ago, who did nothave access to planes or automobiles or most of the drugsand health care we now take for granted, not to mentionindoor plumbing, air-conditioning, shopping malls, radio, ormotion pictures; let alone information technology, robotics,or computer-controlled machinery. And going back a fewmore generations, the technological know-how and livingstandards were even more backward, so much so that wewould find it hard to imagine how most people struggledthrough life. These improvements follow from science andfrom entrepreneurs such as Thomas Edison, who appliedscience to create profitable businesses. This process ofinnovation is made possible by economic institutions thatencourage private property, uphold contracts, create a level

playing field, and encourage and allow the entry of newbusinesses that can bring new technologies to life. It shouldtherefore be no surprise that it was U.S. society, not Mexicoor Peru, that produced Thomas Edison, and that it wasSouth Korea, not North Korea, that today producestechnologically innovative companies such as Samsungand Hyundai.

Intimately linked to technology are the education, skills,competencies, and know-how of the workforce, acquired inschools, at home, and on the job. We are so much moreproductive than a century ago not just because of bettertechnology embodied in machines but also because of thegreater know-how that workers possess. All the technologyin the world would be of little use without workers who knewhow to operate it. But there is more to skills andcompetencies than just the ability to run machines. It is theeducation and skills of the workforce that generate thescientific knowledge upon which our progress is built andthat enable the adaptation and adoption of thesetechnologies in diverse lines of business. Though we sawi n chapter 1 that many of the innovators of the IndustrialRevolution and afterward, like Thomas Edison, were nothighly educated, these innovations were much simpler thanmodern technology. Today technological change requireseducation both for the innovator and the worker. And herewe see the importance of economic institutions that createa level playing field. The United States could produce, orattract from foreign lands, the likes of Bill Gates, SteveJobs, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Jeff Bezos, and thehundreds of scientists who made fundamental discoveriesin information technology, nuclear power, biotech, and otherfields upon which these entrepreneurs built theirbusinesses. The supply of talent was there to be harnessedbecause most teenagers in the United States have accessto as much schooling as they wish or are capable ofattaining. Now imagine a different society, for example theCongo or Haiti, where a large fraction of the population hasno means of attending school, or where, if they manage togo to school, the quality of teaching is lamentable, whereteachers do not show up for work, and even if they do, theremay not be any books.

The low education level of poor countries is caused by

economic institutions that fail to create incentives forparents to educate their children and by political institutionsthat fail to induce the government to build, finance, andsupport schools and the wishes of parents and children.The price these nations pay for low education of theirpopulation and lack of inclusive markets is high. They fail tomobilize their nascent talent. They have many potential BillGateses and perhaps one or two Albert Einsteins who arenow working as poor, uneducated farmers, being coercedto do what they don’t want to do or being drafted into thearmy, because they never had the opportunity to realizetheir vocation in life.

The ability of economic institutions to harness thepotential of inclusive markets, encourage technologicalinnovation, invest in people, and mobilize the talents andskills of a large number of individuals is critical foreconomic growth. Explaining why so many economicinstitutions fail to meet these simple objectives is thecentral theme of this book.

EXTRACTIVE AND INCLUSIVE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS

All economic institutions are created by society. Those ofNorth Korea, for example, were forced on its citizens by thecommunists who took over the country in the 1940s, whilethose of colonial Latin America were imposed by Spanishconquistadors. South Korea ended up with very differenteconomic institutions than the North because differentpeople with different interests and objectives made thedecisions about how to structure society. In other words,South Korea had different politics.

Politics is the process by which a society chooses therules that will govern it. Politics surrounds institutions for thesimple reason that while inclusive institutions may be goodfor the economic prosperity of a nation, some people orgroups, such as the elite of the Communist Party of NorthKorea or the sugar planters of colonial Barbados, will bemuch better off by setting up institutions that are extractive.When there is conflict over institutions, what happensdepends on which people or group wins out in the game ofpolitics—who can get more support, obtain additionalresources, and form more effective alliances. In short, who

wins depends on the distribution of political power insociety.

The political institutions of a society are a keydeterminant of the outcome of this game. They are the rulesthat govern incentives in politics. They determine how thegovernment is chosen and which part of the governmenthas the right to do what. Political institutions determine whohas power in society and to what ends that power can beused. If the distribution of power is narrow andunconstrained, then the political institutions are absolutist,as exemplified by the absolutist monarchies reigningthroughout the world during much of history. Underabsolutist political institutions such as those in North Koreaand colonial Latin America, those who can wield this powerwill be able to set up economic institutions to enrichthemselves and augment their power at the expense ofsociety. In contrast, political institutions that distributepower broadly in society and subject it to constraints arepluralistic. Instead of being vested in a single individual or anarrow group, political power rests with a broad coalition ora plurality of groups.

There is obviously a close connection between pluralismand inclusive economic institutions. But the key tounderstanding why South Korea and the United Stateshave inclusive economic institutions is not just theirpluralistic political institutions but also their sufficientlycentralized and powerful states. A telling contrast is with theEast African nation of Somalia. As we will see later in thebook, political power in Somalia has long been widelydistributed—almost pluralistic. Indeed there is no realauthority that can control or sanction what anyone does.Society is divided into deeply antagonistic clans thatcannot dominate one another. The power of one clan isconstrained only by the guns of another. This distribution ofpower leads not to inclusive institutions but to chaos, and atthe root of it is the Somali state’s lack of any kind ofpolitical centralization, or state centralization, and itsinability to enforce even the minimal amount of law andorder to support economic activity, trade, or even the basicsecurity of its citizens.

Max Weber, who we met in the previous chapter,provided the most famous and widely accepted definition

of the state, identifying it with the “monopoly of legitimateviolence” in society. Without such a monopoly and thedegree of centralization that it entails, the state cannot playits role as enforcer of law and order, let alone providepublic services and encourage and regulate economicactivity. When the state fails to achieve almost any politicalcentralization, society sooner or later descends into chaos,as did Somalia.

We will refer to political institutions that are sufficientlycentralized and pluralistic as inclusive political institutions.When either of these conditions fails, we will refer to theinstitutions as extractive political institutions.

There is strong synergy between economic and politicalinstitutions. Extractive political institutions concentratepower in the hands of a narrow elite and place fewconstraints on the exercise of this power. Economicinstitutions are then often structured by this elite to extractresources from the rest of the society. Extractive economicinstitutions thus naturally accompany extractive politicalinstitutions. In fact, they must inherently depend onextractive political institutions for their survival. Inclusivepolitical institutions, vesting power broadly, would tend touproot economic institutions that expropriate the resourcesof the many, erect entry barriers, and suppress thefunctioning of markets so that only a few benefit.

In Barbados, for example, the plantation system basedon the exploitation of slaves could not have survived withoutpolitical institutions that suppressed and completelyexcluded the slaves from the political process. Theeconomic system impoverishing millions for the benefit of anarrow communist elite in North Korea would also beunthinkable without the total political domination of theCommunist Party.

This synergistic relationship between extractiveeconomic and political institutions introduces a strongfeedback loop: political institutions enable the elitescontrolling political power to choose economic institutionswith few constraints or opposing forces. They also enablethe elites to structure future political institutions and theirevolution. Extractive economic institutions, in turn, enrichthe same elites, and their economic wealth and power helpconsolidate their political dominance. In Barbados or in

Latin America, for example, the colonists were able to usetheir political power to impose a set of economicinstitutions that made them huge fortunes at the expense ofthe rest of the population. The resources these economicinstitutions generated enabled these elites to build armiesand security forces to defend their absolutist monopoly ofpolitical power. The implication of course is that extractivepolitical and economic institutions support each other andtend to persist.

There is in fact more to the synergy between extractiveeconomic and political institutions. When existing elites arechallenged under extractive political institutions and thenewcomers break through, the newcomers are likewisesubject to only a few constraints. They thus have incentivesto maintain these political institutions and create a similarset of economic institutions, as Porfirio Díaz and the elitesurrounding him did at the end of the nineteenth century inMexico.

Inclusive economic institutions, in turn, are forged onfoundations laid by inclusive political institutions, whichmake power broadly distributed in society and constrain itsarbitrary exercise. Such political institutions also make itharder for others to usurp power and undermine thefoundations of inclusive institutions. Those controllingpolitical power cannot easily use it to set up extractiveeconomic institutions for their own benefit. Inclusiveeconomic institutions, in turn, create a more equitabledistribution of resources, facilitating the persistence ofinclusive political institutions.

It was not a coincidence that when, in 1618, the VirginiaCompany gave land, and freedom from their draconiancontracts, to the colonists it had previously tried to coerce,the General Assembly in the following year allowed thecolonists to begin governing themselves. Economic rightswithout political rights would not have been trusted by thecolonists, who had seen the persistent efforts of theVirginia Company to coerce them. Neither would theseeconomies have been stable and durable. In fact,combinations of extractive and inclusive institutions aregenerally unstable. Extractive economic institutions underinclusive political institutions are unlikely to survive for long,as our discussion of Barbados suggests.

Similarly, inclusive economic institutions will neithersupport nor be supported by extractive political ones. Eitherthey will be transformed into extractive economicinstitutions to the benefit of the narrow interests that holdpower, or the economic dynamism they create willdestabilize the extractive political institutions, opening theway for the emergence of inclusive political institutions.Inclusive economic institutions also tend to reduce thebenefits the elites can enjoy by ruling over extractivepolitical institutions, since those institutions facecompetition in the marketplace and are constrained by thecontracts and property rights of the rest of society.

WHY NOT ALWAYS CHOOSE PROSPERITY?

Political and economic institutions, which are ultimately thechoice of society, can be inclusive and encourageeconomic growth. Or they can be extractive and becomeimpediments to economic growth. Nations fail when theyhave extractive economic institutions, supported byextractive political institutions that impede and even blockeconomic growth. But this means that the choice ofinstitutions—that is, the politics of institutions—is central toour quest for understanding the reasons for the successand failure of nations. We have to understand why thepolitics of some societies lead to inclusive institutions thatfoster economic growth, while the politics of the vastmajority of societies throughout history has led, and stillleads today, to extractive institutions that hamper economicgrowth.

It might seem obvious that everyone should have aninterest in creating the type of economic institutions that willbring prosperity. Wouldn’t every citizen, every politician,and even a predatory dictator want to make his country aswealthy as possible?

Let’s return to the Kingdom of Kongo we discussedearlier. Though this kingdom collapsed in the seventeenthcentury, it provided the name for the modern country thatbecame independent from Belgian colonial rule in 1960. Asan independent polity, Congo experienced almostunbroken economic decline and mounting poverty underthe rule of Joseph Mobutu between 1965 and 1997. This

decline continued after Mobutu was overthrown by LaurentKabila. Mobutu created a highly extractive set of economicinstitutions. The citizens were impoverished, but Mobutuand the elite surrounding him, known as Les GrossesLegumes (the Big Vegetables), became fabulously wealthy.Mobutu built himself a palace at his birthplace, Gbadolite,in the north of the country, with an airport large enough toland a supersonic Concord jet, a plane he frequently rentedfrom Air France for travel to Europe. In Europe he boughtcastles and owned large tracts of the Belgian capital ofBrussels.

Wouldn’t it have been better for Mobutu to set upeconomic institutions that increased the wealth of theCongolese rather than deepening their poverty? If Mobutuhad managed to increase the prosperity of his nation,would he not have been able to appropriate even moremoney, buy a Concord instead of renting one, have morecastles and mansions, possibly a bigger and morepowerful army? Unfortunately for the citizens of manycountries in the world, the answer is no. Economicinstitutions that create incentives for economic progressmay simultaneously redistribute income and power in sucha way that a predatory dictator and others with politicalpower may become worse off.

The fundamental problem is that there will necessarily bedisputes and conflict over economic institutions. Differentinstitutions have different consequences for the prosperityof a nation, how that prosperity is distributed, and who haspower. The economic growth which can be induced byinstitutions creates both winners and losers. This was clearduring the Industrial Revolution in England, which laid thefoundations of the prosperity we see in the rich countries ofthe world today. It centered on a series of pathbreakingtechnological changes in steam power, transportation, andtextile production. Even though mechanization led toenormous increases in total incomes and ultimatelybecame the foundation of modern industrial society, it wasbitterly opposed by many. Not because of ignorance orshortsightedness; quite the opposite. Rather, suchopposition to economic growth has its own, unfortunatelycoherent, logic. Economic growth and technologicalchange are accompanied by what the great economist

Joseph Schumpeter called creative destruction. Theyreplace the old with the new. New sectors attract resourcesaway from old ones. New firms take business away fromestablished ones. New technologies make existing skillsand machines obsolete. The process of economic growthand the inclusive institutions upon which it is based createlosers as well as winners in the political arena and in theeconomic marketplace. Fear of creative destruction isoften at the root of the opposition to inclusive economic andpolitical institutions.

European history provides a vivid example of theconsequences of creative destruction. On the eve of theIndustrial Revolution in the eighteenth century, thegovernments of most European countries were controlledby aristocracies and traditional elites, whose major sourceof income was from landholdings or from trading privilegesthey enjoyed thanks to monopolies granted and entrybarriers imposed by monarchs. Consistent with the idea ofcreative destruction, the spread of industries, factories, andtowns took resources away from the land, reduced landrents, and increased the wages that landowners had to paytheir workers. These elites also saw the emergence of newbusinessmen and merchants eroding their tradingprivileges. All in all, they were the clear economic losersfrom industrialization. Urbanization and the emergence of asocially conscious middle and working class alsochallenged the political monopoly of landed aristocracies.So with the spread of the Industrial Revolution thearistocracies weren’t just the economic losers; they alsorisked becoming political losers, losing their hold onpolitical power. With their economic and political powerunder threat, these elites often formed a formidableopposition against industrialization.

The aristocracy was not the only loser fromindustrialization. Artisans whose manual skills were beingreplaced by mechanization likewise opposed the spread ofindustry. Many organized against it, rioting and destroyingthe machines they saw as responsible for the decline oftheir livelihood. They were the Luddites, a word that hastoday become synonymous with resistance to technologicalchange. John Kay, English inventor of the “flying shuttle” in1733, one of the first significant improvements in the

mechanization of weaving, had his house burned down byLuddites in 1753. James Hargreaves, inventor of the“spinning jenny,” a complementary revolutionaryimprovement in spinning, got similar treatment.

In reality, the artisans were much less effective than thelandowners and elites in opposing industrialization. TheLuddites did not possess the political power—the ability toaffect political outcomes against the wishes of other groups—of the landed aristocracy. In England, industrializationmarched on, despite the Luddites’ opposition, becausearistocratic opposition, though real, was muted. In theAustro-Hungarian and the Russian empires, where theabsolutist monarchs and aristocrats had far more to lose,industrialization was blocked. In consequence, theeconomies of Austria-Hungary and Russia stalled. They fellbehind other European nations, where economic growthtook off during the nineteenth century.

The success and failure of specific groupsnotwithstanding, one lesson is clear: powerful groups oftenstand against economic progress and against the enginesof prosperity. Economic growth is not just a process ofmore and better machines, and more and better educatedpeople, but also a transformative and destabilizing processassociated with widespread creative destruction. Growththus moves forward only if not blocked by the economiclosers who anticipate that their economic privileges will belost and by the political losers who fear that their politicalpower will be eroded.

Conflict over scarce resources, income and power,translates into conflict over the rules of the game, theeconomic institutions, which will determine the economicactivities and who will benefit from them. When there is aconflict, the wishes of all parties cannot be simultaneouslymet. Some will be defeated and frustrated, while others willsucceed in securing outcomes they like. Who the winnersof this conflict are has fundamental implications for anation’s economic trajectory. If the groups standing againstgrowth are the winners, they can successfully blockeconomic growth, and the economy will stagnate.

The logic of why the powerful would not necessarily wantto set up the economic institutions that promote economicsuccess extends easily to the choice of political institutions.

In an absolutist regime, some elites can wield power to setup economic institutions they prefer. Would they beinterested in changing political institutions to make themmore pluralistic? In general not, since this would only dilutetheir political power, making it more difficult, maybeimpossible, for them to structure economic institutions tofurther their own interests. Here again we see a readysource of conflict. The people who suffer from the extractiveeconomic institutions cannot hope for absolutist rulers tovoluntarily change political institutions and redistributepower in society. The only way to change these politicalinstitutions is to force the elite to create more pluralisticinstitutions.

In the same way that there is no reason why politicalinstitutions should automatically become pluralistic, there isno natural tendency toward political centralization. Therewould certainly be incentives to create more centralizedstate institutions in any society, particularly in those with nosuch centralization whatsoever. For example, in Somalia, ifone clan created a centralized state capable of imposingorder on the country, this could lead to economic benefitsand make this clan richer. What stops this? The mainbarrier to political centralization is again a form of fear fromchange: any clan, group, or politician attempting tocentralize power in the state will also be centralizing powerin their own hands, and this is likely to meet the ire of otherclans, groups, and individuals, who would be the politicallosers of this process. Lack of political centralizationmeans not only lack of law and order in much of a territorybut also there being many actors with sufficient powers toblock or disrupt things, and the fear of their opposition andviolent reaction will often deter many would-be centralizers.Political centralization is likely only when one group ofpeople is sufficiently more powerful than others to build astate. In Somalia, power is evenly balanced, and no oneclan can impose its will on any other. Therefore, the lack ofpolitical centralization persists.

THE LONG AGONY OF THE CONGO

There are few better, or more depressing, examples of theforces that explain the logic of why economic prosperity is

so persistently rare under extractive institutions or thatillustrate the synergy between extractive economic andpolitical institutions than the Congo. Portuguese and Dutchvisitors to Kongo in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuriesremarked on the “miserable poverty” there. Technology wasrudimentary by European standards, with the Kongolesehaving neither writing, the wheel, nor the plow. The reasonfor this poverty, and the reluctance of Kongolese farmers toadopt better technologies when they learned of them, isclear from existing historical accounts. It was due to theextractive nature of the country’s economic institutions.

As we have seen, the Kingdom of Kongo was governedby the king in Mbanza, subsequently São Salvador. Areasaway from the capital were ruled by an elite who played theroles of governors of different parts of the kingdom. Thewealth of this elite was based on slave plantations aroundSão Salvador and the extraction of taxes from the rest ofthe country. Slavery was central to the economy, used bythe elite to supply their own plantations and by Europeanson the coast. Taxes were arbitrary; one tax was evencollected every time the king’s beret fell off. To becomemore prosperous, the Kongolese people would have had tosave and invest—for example, by buying plows. But it wouldnot have been worthwhile, since any extra output that theyproduced using better technology would have been subjectto expropriation by the king and his elite. Instead ofinvesting to increase their productivity and selling theirproducts in markets, the Kongolese moved their villagesaway from the market; they were trying to be as far awayfrom the roads as possible, in order to reduce theincidence of plunder and to escape the reach of slavetraders.

The poverty of the Kongo was therefore the result ofextractive economic institutions that blocked all the enginesof prosperity or even made them work in reverse. TheKongo’s government provided very few public services toits citizens, not even basic ones, such as secure propertyrights or law and order. On the contrary, the governmentwas itself the biggest threat to its subjects’ property andhuman rights. The institution of slavery meant that the mostfundamental market of all, an inclusive labor market wherepeople can choose their occupation or jobs in ways that are

so crucial for a prosperous economy, did not exist.Moreover, long-distance trade and mercantile activitieswere controlled by the king and were open only to thoseassociated with him. Though the elite quickly becameliterate after the Portuguese introduced writing, the kingmade no attempt to spread literacy to the great mass of thepopulation.

Nevertheless, though “miserable poverty” waswidespread, the Kongolese extractive institutions had theirown impeccable logic: they made a few people, those withpolitical power, very rich. In the sixteenth century, the king ofKongo and the aristocracy were able to import Europeanluxury goods and were surrounded by servants and slaves.

The roots of the economic institutions of Kongolesesociety flowed from the distribution of political power insociety and thus from the nature of political institutions.There was nothing to stop the king from taking people’spossessions or bodies, other than the threat of revolt.Though this threat was real, it was not enough to makepeople or their wealth secure. The political institutions ofKongo were truly absolutist, making the king and the elitesubject to essentially no constraints, and it gave no say tothe citizens in the way their society was organized.

Of course, it is not difficult to see that the politicalinstitutions of Kongo contrast sharply with inclusive politicalinstitutions where power is constrained and broadlydistributed. The absolutist institutions of Kongo were keptin place by the army. The king had a standing army of fivethousand troops in the mid-seventeenth century, with a coreof five hundred musketeers—a formidable force for its time.Why the king and the aristocracy so eagerly adoptedEuropean firearms is thus easy to understand.

There was no chance of sustained economic growthunder this set of economic institutions and even incentivesfor generating temporary growth were highly limited.Reforming economic institutions to improve individualproperty rights would have made the Kongolese society atlarge more prosperous. But it is unlikely that the elite wouldhave benefited from this wider prosperity. First, suchreforms would have made the elite economic losers, byundermining the wealth that the slave trade and slaveplantations brought them. Second, such reforms would

have been possible only if the political power of the kingand the elite were curtailed. For instance, if the kingcontinued to command his five hundred musketeers, whowould have believed an announcement that slavery hadbeen abolished? What would have stopped the king fromchanging his mind later on? The only real guarantee wouldhave been a change in political institutions so that citizensgained some countervailing political power, giving themsome say over taxation or what the musketeers did. But inthis case it is dubious that sustaining the consumption andlifestyle of the king and the elite would have been high ontheir list of priorities. In this scenario, changes that wouldhave created better economic institutions in society wouldhave made the king and aristocracy political as well aseconomic losers.

The interaction of economic and political institutions fivehundred years ago is still relevant for understanding why themodern state of Congo is still miserably poor today. Theadvent of European rule in this area, and deeper into thebasin of the River Congo at the time of the “scramble forAfrica” in the late nineteenth century, led to an insecurity ofhuman and property rights even more egregious than thatwhich characterized the precolonial Kongo. In addition, itreproduced the pattern of extractive institutions and politicalabsolutism that empowered and enriched a few at theexpense of the masses, though the few now were Belgiancolonialists, most notably King Leopold II.

When Congo became independent in 1960, the samepattern of economic institutions, incentives, andperformance reproduced itself. These Congoleseextractive economic institutions were again supported byhighly extractive political institutions. The situation wasworsened because European colonialism created a polity,Congo, made up of many different precolonial states andsocieties that the national state, run from Kinshasa, hadlittle control over. Though President Mobutu used the stateto enrich himself and his cronies—for example, through theZairianization program of 1973, which involved the massexpropriation of foreign economic interests—he presidedover a noncentralized state with little authority over much ofthe country, and had to appeal to foreign assistance to stopthe provinces of Katanga and Kasai from seceding in the

1960s. This lack of political centralization, almost to thepoint of total collapse of the state, is a feature that Congoshares with much of sub-Saharan Africa.

The modern Democratic Republic of Congo remainspoor because its citizens still lack the economic institutionsthat create the basic incentives that make a societyprosperous. It is not geography, culture, or the ignorance ofits citizens or politicians that keep the Congo poor, but itsextractive economic institutions. These are still in placeafter all these centuries because political power continuesto be narrowly concentrated in the hands of an elite whohave little incentive to enforce secure property rights for thepeople, to provide the basic public services that wouldimprove the quality of life, or to encourage economicprogress. Rather, their interests are to extract income andsustain their power. They have not used this power to builda centralized state, for to do so would create the sameproblems of opposition and political challenges thatpromoting economic growth would. Moreover, as in muchof the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, infighting triggered byrival groups attempting to take control of extractiveinstitutions destroyed any tendency for state centralizationthat might have existed.

The history of the Kingdom of Kongo, and the morerecent history of the Congo, vividly illustrates how politicalinstitutions determine economic institutions and, throughthese, the economic incentives and the scope for economicgrowth. It also illustrates the symbiotic relationship betweenpolitical absolutism and economic institutions thatempower and enrich a few at the expense of many.

GROWTH UNDER EXTRACTIVE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS

Congo today is an extreme example, with lawlessness andhighly insecure property rights. However, in most casessuch extremism would not serve the interest of the elite,since it would destroy all economic incentives and generatefew resources to be extracted. The central thesis of thisbook is that economic growth and prosperity areassociated with inclusive economic and politicalinstitutions, while extractive institutions typically lead tostagnation and poverty. But this implies neither that

extractive institutions can never generate growth nor that allextractive institutions are created equal.

There are two distinct but complementary ways in whichgrowth under extractive political institutions can emerge.First, even if economic institutions are extractive, growth ispossible when elites can directly allocate resources to high-productivity activities that they themselves control. Aprominent example of this type of growth under extractiveinstitutions was the Caribbean Islands between thesixteenth and eighteenth centuries. Most people wereslaves, working under gruesome conditions in plantations,living barely above subsistence level. Many died frommalnutrition and exhaustion. In Barbados, Cuba, Haiti, andJamaica in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, asmall minority, the planter elite, controlled all political powerand owned all the assets, including all the slaves. While themajority had no rights, the planter elite’s property andassets were well protected. Despite the extractiveeconomic institutions that savagely exploited the majority ofthe population, these islands were among the richestplaces in the world, because they could produce sugar andsell it in world markets. The economy of the islandsstagnated only when there was a need to shift to neweconomic activities, which threatened both the incomesand the political power of the planter elite.

Another example is the economic growth andindustrialization of the Soviet Union from the first Five-YearPlan in 1928 until the 1970s. Political and economicinstitutions were highly extractive, and markets were heavilyconstrained. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union was able toachieve rapid economic growth because it could use thepower of the state to move resources from agriculture,where they were very inefficiently used, into industry.

The second type of growth under extractive politicalinstitutions arises when the institutions permit thedevelopment of somewhat, even if not completely, inclusiveeconomic institutions. Many societies with extractivepolitical institutions will shy away from inclusive economicinstitutions because of fear of creative destruction. But thedegree to which the elite manage to monopolize powervaries across societies. In some, the position of the elitecould be sufficiently secure that they may permit some

moves toward inclusive economic institutions when they arefairly certain that this will not threaten their political power.Alternatively, the historical situation could be such as toendow an extractive political regime with rather inclusiveeconomic institutions, which they decide not to block.These provide the second way in which growth can takeplace under extractive political institutions.

The rapid industrialization of South Korea under GeneralPark is an example. Park came to power via a militarycoup in 1961, but he did so in a society heavily supportedby the United States and with an economy where economicinstitutions were essentially inclusive. Though Park’sregime was authoritarian, it felt secure enough to promoteeconomic growth, and in fact did so very actively—perhapspartly because the regime was not directly supported byextractive economic institutions. Differently from the SovietUnion and most other cases of growth under extractiveinstitutions, South Korea transitioned from extractivepolitical institutions toward inclusive political institutions inthe 1980s. This successful transition was due to aconfluence of factors.

By the 1970s, economic institutions in South Korea hadbecome sufficiently inclusive that they reduced one of thestrong rationales for extractive political institutions—theeconomic elite had little to gain from their own or themilitary’s dominance of politics. The relative equality ofincome in South Korea also meant that the elite had less tofear from pluralism and democracy. The key influence of theUnited States, particularly given the threat from NorthKorea, also meant that the strong democracy movementthat challenged the military dictatorship could not berepressed for long. Though General Park’s assassinationin 1979 was followed by another military coup, led by ChunDoo-hwan, Chun’s chosen successor, Roh Tae-woo,initiated a process of political reforms that led to theconsolidation of a pluralistic democracy after 1992. Ofcourse, no transition of this sort took place in the SovietUnion. In consequence, Soviet growth ran out of steam, andthe economy began to collapse in the 1980s and thentotally fell apart in the 1990s.

Chinese economic growth today also has severalcommonalities with both the Soviet and South Korean

experiences. While the early stages of Chinese growthwere spearheaded by radical market reforms in theagricultural sector, reforms in the industrial sector havebeen more muted. Even today, the state and theCommunist Party play a central role in deciding whichsectors and which companies will receive additional capitaland will expand—in the process, making and breakingfortunes. As in the Soviet Union in its heyday, China isgrowing rapidly, but this is still growth under extractiveinstitutions, under the control of the state, with little sign of atransition to inclusive political institutions. The fact thatChinese economic institutions are still far from fullyinclusive also suggests that a South Korean–style transitionis less likely, though of course not impossible.

It is worth noting that political centralization is key to bothways in which growth under extractive political institutionscan occur. Without some degree of political centralization,the planter elite in Barbados, Cuba, Haiti, and Jamaicawould not have been able to keep law and order anddefend their own assets and property. Without significantpolitical centralization and a firm grip on political power,neither the South Korean military elites nor the ChineseCommunist Party would have felt secure enough tomanufacture significant economic reforms and still manageto cling to power. And without such centralization, the statein the Soviet Union or China could not have been able tocoordinate economic activity to channel resources towardhigh productivity areas. A major dividing line betweenextractive political institutions is therefore their degree ofpolitical centralization. Those without it, such as many insub-Saharan Africa, will find it difficult to achieve evenlimited growth.

Even though extractive institutions can generate somegrowth, they will usually not generate sustained economicgrowth, and certainly not the type of growth that isaccompanied by creative destruction. When both politicaland economic institutions are extractive, the incentives willnot be there for creative destruction and technologicalchange. For a while the state may be able to create rapideconomic growth by allocating resources and people byfiat, but this process is intrinsically limited. When the limitsare hit, growth stops, as it did in the Soviet Union in the

1970s. Even when the Soviets achieved rapid economicgrowth, there was little technological change in most of theeconomy, though by pouring massive resources into themilitary they were able to develop military technologies andeven pull ahead of the United States in the space andnuclear race for a short while. But this growth withoutcreative destruction and without broad-based technologicalinnovation was not sustainable and came to an abrupt end.

In addition, the arrangements that support economicgrowth under extractive political institutions are, by theirnature, fragile—they can collapse or can be easilydestroyed by the infighting that the extractive institutionsthemselves generate. In fact, extractive political andeconomic institutions create a general tendency forinfighting, because they lead to the concentration of wealthand power in the hands of a narrow elite. If another groupcan overwhelm and outmaneuver this elite and take controlof the state, they will be the ones enjoying this wealth andpower. Consequently, as our discussion of the collapse ofthe later Roman Empire and the Maya cities will illustrate(this page and this page), fighting to control the all-powerfulstate is always latent, and it will periodically intensify andbring the undoing of these regimes, as it turns into civil warand sometimes into total breakdown and collapse of thestate. One implication of this is that even if a society underextractive institutions initially achieves some degree ofstate centralization, it will not last. In fact, the infighting totake control of extractive institutions often leads to civil warsand widespread lawlessness, enshrining a persistentabsence of state centralization as in many nations in sub-Saharan Africa and some in Latin America and South Asia.

Finally, when growth comes under extractive politicalinstitutions but where economic institutions have inclusiveaspects, as they did in South Korea, there is always thedanger that economic institutions become more extractiveand growth stops. Those controlling political power willeventually find it more beneficial to use their power to limitcompetition, to increase their share of the pie, or even tosteal and loot from others rather than support economicprogress. The distribution and ability to exercise power willultimately undermine the very foundations of economicprosperity, unless political institutions are transformed from

extractive to inclusive.

4.

SMALL DIFFERENCES AND CRITICAL JUNCTURES:THE WEIGHT OF HISTORY

THE WORLD THE PLAGUE CREATED

IN 1346 THE BUBONIC plague, the Black Death, reached theport city of Tana at the mouth of the River Don on the BlackSea. Transmitted by fleas living on rats, the plague wasbrought from China by traders traveling along the SilkRoad, the great trans-Asian commercial artery. Thanks toGenoese traders, the rats were soon spreading the fleasand the plague from Tana to the entire Mediterranean. Byearly 1347, the plague had reached Constantinople. In thespring of 1348, it was spreading through France and NorthAfrica and up the boot of Italy. The plague wiped out abouthalf of the population of any area it hit. Its arrival in theItalian city of Florence was witnessed firsthand by the Italianwriter Giovanni Boccaccio. He later recalled:

In the face of its onrush, all the wisdom andingenuity of man were unavailing … theplague began, in a terrifying andextraordinary manner, to make its disastrouseffects apparent. It did not take the form ithad assumed in the East, where if anyonebled from the nose it was an obvious portentof certain death. On the contrary, its earliestsymptom was the appearance of certainswellings in the groin or armpit, some ofwhich were egg-shaped whilst others wereroughly the size of a common apple … Lateron the symptoms of the disease changed,and many people began to find dark blotchesand bruises on their arms, thighs and otherparts of their bodies … Against thesemaladies … All the advice of physicians and

all the power of medicine were profitless andunavailing … And in most cases deathoccurred within three days from theappearance of the symptoms we havedescribed.

People in England knew the plague was coming theirway and were well aware of impending doom. In mid-August 1348, King Edward III asked the Archbishop ofCanterbury to organize prayers, and many bishops wroteletters for priests to read out in church to help people copewith what was about to hit them. Ralph of Shrewsbury,Bishop of Bath, wrote to his priests:

Almighty God uses thunder, lightening [sic],and other blows which issue from his throneto scourge the sons whom he wishes toredeem. Accordingly, since a catastrophicpestilence from the East has arrived in aneighboring kingdom, it is to be very muchfeared that, unless we pray devoutly andincessantly, a similar pestilence will stretchits poisonous branches into this realm, andstrike down and consume the inhabitants.Therefore we must all come before thepresence of the Lord in confession, recitingpsalms.

It didn’t do any good. The plague hit and quickly wipedout about half the English population. Such catastrophescan have a huge effect on the institutions of society.Perhaps understandably, scores of people went mad.Boccaccio noted that “some maintained that an infallibleway of warding off this appalling evil was to drink heavily,enjoy life to the full, go round singing and merrymaking,gratify all one’s cravings whenever the opportunity offered,and shrug the thing off as an enormous joke … and thisexplains why those women who recovered were possiblyless chaste in the period that followed.” Yet the plague alsohad a socially, economically, and politically transformativeimpact on medieval European societies.

At the turn of the fourteenth century, Europe had a feudalorder, an organization of society that first emerged in

Western Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Itwas based on a hierarchical relationship between the kingand the lords beneath him, with the peasants at the bottom.The king owned the land and he granted it to the lords inexchange for military services. The lords then allocatedland to peasants, in exchange for which peasants had toperform extensive unpaid labor and were subject to manyfines and taxes. Peasants, who because of their “servile”status were thus called serfs, were tied to the land, unableto move elsewhere without the permission of their lord, whowas not just the landlord, but also the judge, jury, and policeforce. It was a highly extractive system, with wealth flowingupward from the many peasants to the few lords.

The massive scarcity of labor created by the plagueshook the foundations of the feudal order. It encouragedpeasants to demand that things change. At EynshamAbbey, for example, the peasants demanded that many ofthe fines and unpaid labor be reduced. They got what theywanted, and their new contract began with the assertion “Atthe time of the mortality or pestilence, which occurred in1349, scarcely two tenants remained in the manor, and theyexpressed their intention of leaving unless Brother Nicholasof Upton, then abbot and lord of the manor, made a newagreement with them.” He did.

What happened at Eynsham happened everywhere.Peasants started to free themselves from compulsory laborservices and many obligations to their lords. Wages startedto rise. The government tried to put a stop to this and, in1351, passed the Statute of Laborers, which commenced:

Because a great part of the people andespecially of the workmen and servants hasnow died in that pestilence, some, seeing thestraights of the masters and the scarcity ofservants, are not willing to serve unless theyreceive excessive wages … We, consideringthe grave inconveniences which might comefrom the lack especially of ploughmen andsuch labourers, have … seen fit to ordain:that every man and woman of our kingdom ofEngland … shall be bound to serve him whohas seen fit so to seek after him; and he shall

take only the wages liveries, meed or salarywhich, in the places where he sought toserve, were accustomed to be paid in thetwentieth year of our reign of England [KingEdward III came to the throne on January 25,1327, so the reference here is to 1347] or thefive or six common years next preceding.

The statute in effect tried to fix wages at the levels paidbefore the Black Death. Particularly concerning for theEnglish elite was “enticement,” the attempt by one lord toattract the scarce peasants of another. The solution was tomake prison the punishment for leaving employmentwithout permission of the employer:

And if a reaper or mower, or other workmanor servant, of whatever standing or conditionhe be, who is retained in the service of anyone, do depart from the said service beforethe end of the term agreed, withoutpermission or reasonable cause, he shallundergo the penalty of imprisonment, and letno one … moreover, pay or permit to be paidto any one more wages, livery, meed orsalary than was customary as has been said.

The attempt by the English state to stop the changes ofinstitutions and wages that came in the wake of the BlackDeath didn’t work. In 1381 the Peasants’ Revolt broke out,and the rebels, under the leadership of Wat Tyler, evencaptured most of London. Though they were ultimatelydefeated, and Tyler was executed, there were no moreattempts to enforce the Statute of Laborers. Feudal laborservices dwindled away, an inclusive labor market began toemerge in England, and wages rose.

The plague seems to have hit most of the world, andeverywhere a similar fraction of the population perished.Thus the demographic impact in Eastern Europe was thesame as in England and Western Europe. The social andeconomic forces at play were also the same. Labor wasscarce and people demanded greater freedoms. But in theEast, a more powerful contradictory logic was at work.Fewer people meant higher wages in an inclusive labor

market. But this gave lords a greater incentive to keep thelabor market extractive and the peasants servile. InEngland this motivation had been in play, too, as reflectedin the Statute of Laborers. But workers had sufficient powerthat they got their way. Not so in Eastern Europe. After theplague, Eastern landlords started to take over large tractsof land and expand their holdings, which were alreadylarger than those in Western Europe. Towns were weakerand less populous, and rather than becoming freer, workersbegan to see their already existing freedoms encroachedon.

The effects became especially clear after 1500, whenWestern Europe began to demand the agricultural goods,such as wheat, rye, and livestock, produced in the East.Eighty percent of the imports of rye into Amsterdam camefrom the Elbe, Vistula, and Oder river valleys. Soon half ofthe Netherlands’ booming trade was with Eastern Europe.As Western demand expanded, Eastern landlordsratcheted up their control over the labor force to expandtheir supply. It was to be called the Second Serfdom,distinct and more intense than its original form of the earlyMiddle Ages. Lords increased the taxes they levied on theirtenants’ own plots and took half of the gross output. InKorczyn, Poland, all work for the lord in 1533 was paid. Butby 1600 nearly half was unpaid forced labor. In 1500,workers in Mecklenberg, in eastern Germany, owed only afew days’ unpaid labor services a year. By 1550 it was oneday a week, and by 1600, three days per week. Workers’children had to work for the lord for free for several years. InHungary, landlords took complete control of the land in1514, legislating one day a week of unpaid labor servicesfor each worker. In 1550 this was raised to two days perweek. By the end of the century, it was three days. Serfssubject to these rules made up 90 percent of the ruralpopulation by this time.

Though in 1346 there were few differences betweenWestern and Eastern Europe in terms of political andeconomic institutions, by 1600 they were worlds apart. Inthe West, workers were free of feudal dues, fines, andregulations and were becoming a key part of a boomingmarket economy. In the East, they were also involved insuch an economy, but as coerced serfs growing the food

and agricultural goods demanded in the West. It was amarket economy, but not an inclusive one. This institutionaldivergence was the result of a situation where thedifferences between these areas initially seemed verysmall: in the East, lords were a little better organized; theyhad slightly more rights and more consolidatedlandholdings. Towns were weaker and smaller, peasantsless organized. In the grand scheme of history, these weresmall differences. Yet these small differences between theEast and the West became very consequential for the livesof their populations and for the future path of institutionaldevelopment when the feudal order was shaken up by theBlack Death.

The Black Death is a vivid example of a critical juncture,a major event or confluence of factors disrupting theexisting economic or political balance in society. A criticaljuncture is a double-edged sword that can cause a sharpturn in the trajectory of a nation. On the one hand it canopen the way for breaking the cycle of extractive institutionsand enable more inclusive ones to emerge, as in England.Or it can intensify the emergence of extractive institutions,as was the case with the Second Serfdom in EasternEurope.

Understanding how history and critical junctures shapethe path of economic and political institutions enables us tohave a more complete theory of the origins of differences inpoverty and prosperity. In addition, it enables us to accountfor the lay of the land today and why some nations make thetransition to inclusive economic and political institutionswhile others do not.

THE MAKING OF INCLUSIVE INSTITUTIONS

England was unique among nations when it made thebreakthrough to sustained economic growth in theseventeenth century. Major economic changes werepreceded by a political revolution that brought a distinct setof economic and political institutions, much more inclusivethan those of any previous society. These institutions wouldhave profound implications not only for economic incentivesand prosperity, but also for who would reap the benefits ofprosperity. They were based not on consensus but, rather,

were the result of intense conflict as different groupscompeted for power, contesting the authority of others andattempting to structure institutions in their own favor. Theculmination of the institutional struggles of the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries were two landmark events: theEnglish Civil War between 1642 and 1651, and particularlythe Glorious Revolution of 1688.

The Glorious Revolution limited the power of the king andthe executive, and relocated to Parliament the power todetermine economic institutions. At the same time, itopened up the political system to a broad cross section ofsociety, who were able to exert considerable influence overthe way the state functioned. The Glorious Revolution wasthe foundation for creating a pluralistic society, and it builton and accelerated a process of political centralization. Itcreated the world’s first set of inclusive political institutions.

As a consequence, economic institutions also startedbecoming more inclusive. Neither slavery nor the severeeconomic restrictions of the feudal medieval period, suchas serfdom, existed in England at the beginning of theseventeenth century. Nevertheless, there were manyrestrictions on economic activities people could engage in.Both the domestic and international economy were chokedby monopolies. The state engaged in arbitrary taxation andmanipulated the legal system. Most land was caught inarchaic forms of property rights that made it impossible tosell and risky to invest in.

This changed after the Glorious Revolution. Thegovernment adopted a set of economic institutions thatprovided incentives for investment, trade, and innovation. Itsteadfastly enforced property rights, including patentsgranting property rights for ideas, thereby providing a majorstimulus to innovation. It protected law and order.Historically unprecedented was the application of Englishlaw to all citizens. Arbitrary taxation ceased, andmonopolies were abolished almost completely. The Englishstate aggressively promoted mercantile activities andworked to promote domestic industry, not only by removingbarriers to the expansion of industrial activity but also bylending the full power of the English navy to defendmercantile interests. By rationalizing property rights, itfacilitated the construction of infrastructure, particularly

roads, canals, and later railways, that would prove to becrucial for industrial growth.

These foundations decisively changed incentives forpeople and impelled the engines of prosperity, paving theway for the Industrial Revolution. First and foremost, theIndustrial Revolution depended on major technologicaladvances exploiting the knowledge base that hadaccumulated in Europe during the past centuries. It was aradical break from the past, made possible by scientificinquiry and the talents of a number of unique individuals.The full force of this revolution came from the market thatcreated profitable opportunities for technologies to bedeveloped and applied. It was the inclusive nature ofmarkets that allowed people to allocate their talents to theright lines of business. It also relied on education and skills,for it was the relatively high levels of education, at least bythe standards of the time, that enabled the emergence ofentrepreneurs with the vision to employ new technologiesfor their businesses and to find workers with the skills touse them.

It is not a coincidence that the Industrial Revolutionstarted in England a few decades following the GloriousRevolution. The great inventors such as James Watt(perfecter of the steam engine), Richard Trevithick (thebuilder of the first steam locomotive), Richard Arkwright(the inventor of the spinning frame), and Isambard KingdomBrunel (the creator of several revolutionary steamships)were able to take up the economic opportunities generatedby their ideas, were confident that their property rightswould be respected, and had access to markets wheretheir innovations could be profitably sold and used. In 1775,just after he had the patent renewed on his steam engine,which he called his “Fire engine,” James Watt wrote to hisfather:

Dear Father,After a series of various and violentOppositions I have at last got an Act ofParliament vesting the property of my newFire engines in me and my Assigns,throughout Great Britain & the plantations fortwenty five years to come, which I hope will

be very beneficial to me, as there is alreadyconsiderable demand for them.

This letter reveals two things. First, Watt was motivatedby the market opportunities he anticipated, by the“considerable demand” in Great Britain and its plantations,the English overseas colonies. Second, it shows how hewas able to influence Parliament to get what he wantedsince it was responsive to the appeals of individuals andinnovators.

The technological advances, the drive of businesses toexpand and invest, and the efficient use of skills and talentwere all made possible by the inclusive economicinstitutions that England developed. These in turn werefounded on her inclusive political institutions.

England developed these inclusive political institutionsbecause of two factors. First were political institutions,including a centralized state, that enabled her to take thenext radical—in fact, unprecedented—step toward inclusiveinstitutions with the onset of the Glorious Revolution. Whilethis factor distinguished England from much of the world, itdid not significantly differentiate it from Western Europeancountries such as France and Spain. More important wasthe second factor. The events leading up to the GloriousRevolution forged a broad and powerful coalition able toplace durable constraints on the power of the monarchyand the executive, which were forced to be open to thedemands of this coalition. This laid the foundations forpluralistic political institutions, which then enabled thedevelopment of economic institutions that would underpinthe first Industrial Revolution.

SMALL DIFFERENCES THAT MATTER

World inequality dramatically increased with the British, orEnglish, Industrial Revolution because only some parts ofthe world adopted the innovations and new technologiesthat men such as Arkwright and Watt, and the many whofollowed, developed. The response of different nations tothis wave of technologies, which determined whether theywould languish in poverty or achieve sustained economicgrowth, was largely shaped by the different historical paths

of their institutions. By the middle of the eighteenth century,there were already notable differences in political andeconomic institutions around the world. But where did thesedifferences come from?

English political institutions were on their way to muchgreater pluralism by 1688, compared with those in Franceand Spain, but if we go back in time one hundred years, to1588, the differences shrink to almost nothing. All threecountries were ruled by relatively absolutist monarchs:Elizabeth I in England, Philip II in Spain, and Henry II inFrance. All were battling with assemblies of citizens—suchas the Parliament in England, the Cortes in Spain, and theEstates-General in France—that were demanding morerights and control over the monarchy. These assemblies allhad somewhat different powers and scopes. For instance,the English Parliament and the Spanish Cortes had powerover taxation, while the Estates-General did not. In Spainthis mattered little, because after 1492 the Spanish Crownhad a vast American empire and benefited massively fromthe gold and silver found there. In England the situation wasdifferent. Elizabeth I was far less financially independent, soshe had to beg Parliament for more taxes. In exchange,Parliament demanded concessions, in particularrestrictions on the right of Elizabeth to create monopolies. Itwas a conflict Parliament gradually won. In Spain theCortes lost a similar conflict. Trade wasn’t justmonopolized; it was monopolized by the Spanishmonarchy.

These distinctions, which initially appeared small, startedto matter a great deal in the seventeenth century. Thoughthe Americas had been discovered by 1492 and Vasco daGama had reached India by rounding the Cape of GoodHope, at the southern tip of Africa, in 1498, it was only after1600 that a huge expansion of world trade, particularly inthe Atlantic, started to take place. In 1585 the first Englishcolonization of North America began at Roanoke, in what isnow North Carolina. In 1600 the English East IndiaCompany was formed. In 1602 it was followed by the Dutchequivalent. In 1607 the colony of Jamestown was foundedby the Virginia Company. By the 1620s the Caribbean wasbeing colonized, with Barbados occupied in 1627. Francewas also expanding in the Atlantic, founding Quebec City in

1608 as the capital of New France in what is now Canada.The consequences of this economic expansion forinstitutions were very different for England than for Spainand France because of small initial differences.

Elizabeth I and her successors could not monopolize thetrade with the Americas. Other European monarchs could.So while in England, Atlantic trade and colonization startedcreating a large group of wealthy traders with few links tothe Crown, this was not the case in Spain or France. TheEnglish traders resented royal control and demandedchanges in political institutions and the restriction of royalprerogatives. They played a critical role in the English CivilWar and the Glorious Revolution. Similar conflicts tookplace everywhere. French kings, for example, faced theFronde Rebellion between 1648 and 1652. The differencewas that in England it was far more likely that theopponents to absolutism would prevail because they wererelatively wealthy and more numerous than the opponentsto absolutism in Spain and France.

The divergent paths of English, French, and Spanishsocieties in the seventeenth century illustrate theimportance of the interplay of small institutional differenceswith critical junctures. During critical junctures, a majorevent or confluence of factors disrupts the existing balanceof political or economic power in a nation. These can affectonly a single country, such as the death of Chairman MaoZedong in 1976, which at first created a critical junctureonly for Communist China. Often, however, critical juncturesaffect a whole set of societies, in the way that, for example,colonization and then decolonization affected most of theglobe.

Such critical junctures are important because there areformidable barriers against gradual improvements,resulting from the synergy between extractive political andeconomic institutions and the support they give each other.The persistence of this feedback loop creates a viciouscircle. Those who benefit from the status quo are wealthyand well organized, and can effectively fight major changesthat will take away their economic privileges and politicalpower.

Once a critical juncture happens, the small differencesthat matter are the initial institutional differences that put in

motion very different responses. This is the reason why therelatively small institutional differences in England, France,and Spain led to fundamentally different developmentpaths. The paths resulted from the critical juncture createdby the economic opportunities presented to Europeans byAtlantic trade.

Even if small institutional differences matter greatlyduring critical junctures, not all institutional differences aresmall, and naturally, larger institutional differences lead toeven more divergent patterns during such junctures. Whilethe institutional differences between England and Francewere small in 1588, the differences between Western andEastern Europe were much greater. In the West, strongcentralized states such as England, France, and Spain hadlatent constitutional institutions (Parliament, the Estates-General, and the Cortes). There were also underlyingsimilarities in economic institutions, such as the lack ofserfdom.

Eastern Europe was a different matter. The kingdom ofPoland-Lithuania, for example, was ruled by an elite classcalled the Szlachta, who were so powerful they had evenintroduced elections for kings. This was not absolute ruleas in France under Louis XIV, the Sun King, but absolutismof an elite, extractive political institutions all the same. TheSzlachta ruled over a mostly rural society dominated byserfs, who had no freedom of movement or economicopportunities. Farther east, the Russian emperor Peter theGreat was also consolidating an absolutism far moreintense and extractive than even Louis XIV could manage.Map 8 provides one simple way of seeing the extent of thedivergence between Western and Eastern Europe at thebeginning of the nineteenth century. It plots whether or not acountry still had serfdom in 1800. Countries that appeardark did; those that are light did not. Eastern Europe isdark; Western Europe is light.

Yet the institutions of Western Europe had not alwaysbeen so different from those in the East. They began, as wesaw earlier, to diverge in the fourteenth century when theBlack Death hit in 1346. There were small differencesbetween political and economic institutions in Western andEastern Europe. England and Hungary were even ruled bymembers of the same family, the Angevins. The more

important institutional differences that emerged after theBlack Death then created the background upon which themore significant divergence between the East and theWest would play out during the seventeenth, eighteenth,and nineteenth centuries.

But where do the small institutional differences that startthis process of divergence arise in the first place? Why didEastern Europe have different political and economicinstitutions than the West in the fourteenth century? Whywas the balance of power between Crown and Parliamentdifferent in England than in France and Spain? As we willsee in the next chapter, even societies that are far lesscomplex than our modern society create political andeconomic institutions that have powerful effects on the livesof their members. This is true even for hunter-gatherers, aswe know from surviving societies such as the San peopleof modern Botswana, who do not farm or even live inpermanent settlements.

No two societies create the same institutions; they willhave distinct customs, different systems of property rights,and different ways of dividing a killed animal or loot stolenfrom another group. Some will recognize the authority ofelders, others will not; some will achieve some degree ofpolitical centralization early on, but not others. Societies areconstantly subject to economic and political conflict that isresolved in different ways because of specific historicaldifferences, the role of individuals, or just random factors.

These differences are often small to start with, but theycumulate, creating a process of institutional drift. Just astwo isolated populations of organisms will drift apart slowlyin a process of genetic drift, because random geneticmutations cumulate, two otherwise similar societies willalso slowly drift apart institutionally. Though, just like geneticdrift, institutional drift has no predetermined path and doesnot even need to be cumulative; over centuries it can leadto perceptible, sometimes important differences. Thedifferences created by institutional drift become especiallyconsequential, because they influence how society reactsto changes in economic or political circumstances duringcritical junctures.

The richly divergent patterns of economic developmentaround the world hinge on the interplay of critical juncturesand institutional drift. Existing political and economicinstitutions—sometimes shaped by a long process ofinstitutional drift and sometimes resulting from divergentresponses to prior critical junctures—create the anvil uponwhich future change will be forged. The Black Death andthe expansion of world trade after 1600 were both majorcritical junctures for European powers and interacted withdifferent initial institutions to create a major divergence.Because in 1346 in Western Europe peasants had morepower and autonomy than they did in Eastern Europe, theBlack Death led to the dissolution of feudalism in the Westand the Second Serfdom in the East. Because Eastern andWestern Europe had started to diverge in the fourteenth

century, the new economic opportunities of theseventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries wouldalso have fundamentally different implications for thesedifferent parts of Europe. Because in 1600 the grip of theCrown was weaker in England than in France and Spain,Atlantic trade opened the way to the creation of newinstitutions with greater pluralism in England, whilestrengthening the French and Spanish monarchs.

THE CONTINGENT PATH OF HISTORY

The outcomes of the events during critical junctures areshaped by the weight of history, as existing economic andpolitical institutions shape the balance of power anddelineate what is politically feasible. The outcome,however, is not historically predetermined but contingent.The exact path of institutional development during theseperiods depends on which one of the opposing forces willsucceed, which groups will be able to form effectivecoalitions, and which leaders will be able to structureevents to their advantage.

The role of contingency can be illustrated by the originsof inclusive political institutions in England. Not only wasthere nothing preordained in the victory of the groups vyingfor limiting the power of the Crown and for more pluralisticinstitutions in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, but the entirepath leading up to this political revolution was at the mercyof contingent events. The victory of the winning groups wasinexorably linked to the critical juncture created by the riseof Atlantic trade that enriched and emboldened merchantsopposing the Crown. But a century earlier it was far fromobvious that England would have any ability to dominate theseas, colonize many parts of the Caribbean and NorthAmerica, or capture so much of the lucrative trade with theAmericas and the East. Neither Elizabeth I nor other Tudormonarchs before her had built a powerful, unified navy. TheEnglish navy relied on privateers and independentmerchant ships and was much less powerful than theSpanish fleet. The profits of the Atlantic nonethelessattracted these privateers, challenging the Spanishmonopoly of the ocean. In 1588 the Spanish decided to putan end to these challenges to their monopoly, as well as to

English meddling in the Spanish Netherlands, at the timefighting against Spain for independence.

The Spanish monarch Philip II sent a powerful fleet, theArmada, commanded by the Duke of Medina Sidonia. Itappeared a foregone conclusion to many that the Spanishwould conclusively defeat the English, solidify theirmonopoly of the Atlantic, and probably overthrow ElizabethI, perhaps ultimately gaining control of the British Isles. Yetsomething very different transpired. Bad weather andstrategic mistakes by Sidonia, who had been put in chargeat the last minute after a more experienced commanderdied, made the Spanish Armada lose their advantage.Against all odds, the English destroyed much of the fleet oftheir more powerful opponents. The Atlantic seas were nowopen to the English on more equal terms. Without thisunlikely victory for the English, the events that would createthe transformative critical juncture and spawn thedistinctively pluralistic political institutions of post-1688England would never have got moving. Map 9 shows thetrail of Spanish shipwrecks as the Armada was chasedright around the British Isles.

Of course, nobody in 1588 could foresee theconsequences of the fortunate English victory. Fewprobably understood at the time that this would create acritical juncture leading up to a major political revolution acentury later.

There should be no presumption that any critical juncturewill lead to a successful political revolution or to change forthe better. History is full of examples of revolutions andradical movements replacing one tyranny with another, in apattern that the German sociologist Robert Michels dubbedthe iron law of oligarchy, a particularly pernicious form ofthe vicious circle. The end of colonialism in the decadesfollowing the Second World War created critical juncturesfor many former colonies. However, in most cases in sub-Saharan Africa and many in Asia, the postindependencegovernments simply took a page out of Robert Michels’sbook and repeated and intensified the abuses of theirpredecessors, often severely narrowing the distribution ofpolitical power, dismantling constraints, and underminingthe already meager incentives that economic institutionsprovided for investment and economic progress. It was only

in a few cases, societies such as Botswana (see thispage), that critical junctures were used to launch a processof political and economic change that paved the way foreconomic growth.

Critical junctures can also result in major change towardrather than away from extractive institutions. Inclusive

institutions, even though they have their own feedback loop,the virtuous circle, can also reverse course and becomegradually more extractive because of challenges duringcritical junctures—and whether this happens is, again,contingent. The Venetian Republic, as we will see inchapter 6, made major strides toward inclusive political andeconomic institutions in the medieval period. But while suchinstitutions became gradually stronger in England after theGlorious Revolution of 1688, in Venice they ultimatelytransformed themselves into extractive institutions underthe control of a narrow elite that monopolized botheconomic opportunities and political power.

UNDERSTANDING THE LAY OF THE LAND

The emergence of a market economy based on inclusiveinstitutions and sustained economic growth in eighteenth-century England sent ripples all around the world, not leastbecause it allowed England to colonize a large part of it.But if the influence of English economic growth certainlyspread around the globe, the economic and politicalinstitutions that created it did not automatically do so. Thediffusion of the Industrial Revolution had different effects onthe world in the same way that the Black Death haddifferent effects on Western and Eastern Europe, and in thesame way that the expansion of Atlantic trade had differenteffects in England and Spain. It was the institutions in placein different parts of the world that determined the impact,and these institutions were indeed different—smalldifferences had been amplified over time by prior criticaljunctures. These institutional differences and theirimplications have tended to persist to the present due tothe vicious and virtuous circles, albeit imperfectly, and arethe key to understanding both how world inequalityemerged and the nature of the lay of the land around us.

Some parts of the world developed institutions that werevery close to those in England, though by a very differentroute. This was particularly true of some European “settlercolonies” such as Australia, Canada, and the UnitedStates, though their institutions were just forming as theIndustrial Revolution was getting under way. As we saw inchapter 1, a process starting with the foundation of the

Jamestown colony in 1607 and culminating in the War ofIndependence and the enactment of the U.S. Constitutionshares many of the same characteristics as the longstruggle in England of Parliament against the monarchy, forit also led to a centralized state with pluralistic politicalinstitutions. The Industrial Revolution then spread rapidly tosuch countries.

Western Europe, experiencing many of the samehistorical processes, had institutions similar to England atthe time of the Industrial Revolution. There were small butconsequential differences between England and the rest,which is why the Industrial Revolution happened in Englandand not France. This revolution then created an entirely newsituation and considerably different sets of challenges toEuropean regimes, which in turn spawned a new set ofconflicts culminating in the French Revolution. The FrenchRevolution was another critical juncture that led theinstitutions of Western Europe to converge with those ofEngland, while Eastern Europe diverged further.

The rest of the world followed different institutionaltrajectories. European colonization set the stage forinstitutional divergence in the Americas, where in contrastto the inclusive institutions developed in the United Statesand Canada extractive ones emerged in Latin America,which explains the patterns of inequality we see in theAmericas. The extractive political and economic institutionsof the Spanish conquistadors in Latin America haveendured, condemning much of the region to poverty.Argentina and Chile have, however, fared better than mostother countries in the region. They had few indigenouspeople or mineral riches and were “neglected” while theSpanish focused on the lands occupied by the Aztec,Maya, and Incan civilizations. Not coincidentally, thepoorest part of Argentina is the northwest, the only sectionof the country integrated into the Spanish colonial economy.Its persistent poverty, the legacy of extractive institutions, issimilar to that created by the Potosí mita in Bolivia andPeru (this page–this page).

Africa was the part of the world with the institutions leastable to take advantage of the opportunities made availableby the Industrial Revolution. For at least the last onethousand years, outside of small pockets and during limited

periods of time, Africa has lagged behind the rest of theworld in terms of technology, political development, andprosperity. It is the part of the world where centralizedstates formed very late and very tenuously. Where they didform, they were likely as highly absolutist as the Kongo andoften short lived, usually collapsing. Africa shares thistrajectory of lack of state centralization with countries suchas Afghanistan, Haiti, and Nepal, which have also failed toimpose order over their territories and create anythingresembling stability to achieve even a modicum ofeconomic progress. Though located in very different partsof the world, Afghanistan, Haiti, and Nepal have much incommon institutionally with most nations in sub-SaharanAfrica, and are thus some of the poorest countries in theworld today.

How African institutions evolved into their present-dayextractive form again illustrates the process of institutionaldrift punctuated by critical junctures, but this time often withhighly perverse outcomes, particularly during the expansionof the Atlantic slave trade. There were new economicopportunities for the Kingdom of Kongo when Europeantraders arrived. The long-distance trade that transformedEurope also transformed the Kingdom of Kongo, but again,initial institutional differences mattered. Kongoleseabsolutism transmogrified from completely dominatingsociety, with extractive economic institutions that merelycaptured all the agricultural output of its citizens, toenslaving people en masse and selling them to thePortuguese in exchange for guns and luxury goods for theKongolese elite.

The initial differences between England and Kongomeant that while new long-distance trade opportunitiescreated a critical juncture toward pluralistic politicalinstitutions in the former, they also extinguished any hope ofabsolutism being defeated in the Kongo. In much of Africathe substantial profits to be had from slaving led not only toits intensification and even more insecure property rightsfor the people but also to intense warfare and thedestruction of many existing institutions; within a fewcenturies, any process of state centralization was totallyreversed, and many of the African states had largelycollapsed. Though some new, and sometimes powerful,

states did form to exploit the slave trade, they were basedon warfare and plunder. The critical juncture of thediscovery of the Americas may have helped Englanddevelop inclusive institutions but it made institutions inAfrica even more extractive.

Though the slave trade mostly ended after 1807,subsequent European colonialism not only threw intoreverse nascent economic modernization in parts ofsouthern and western Africa but also cut off any possibilityof indigenous institutional reform. This meant that evenoutside of areas such as Congo, Madagascar, Namibia,and Tanzania, the areas where plunder, mass disruption,and even whole-scale murder were the rule, there was littlechance for Africa to change its institutional path.

Even worse, the structures of colonial rule left Africa witha more complex and pernicious institutional legacy in the1960s than at the start of the colonial period. Thedevelopment of the political and economic institutions inmany African colonies meant that rather than creating acritical juncture for improvements in their institutions,independence created an opening for unscrupulousleaders to take over and intensify the extraction thatEuropean colonialists presided over. The politicalincentives these structures created led to a style of politicsthat reproduced the historical patterns of insecure andinefficient property rights under states with strong absolutisttendencies but nonetheless lacking any centralizedauthority over their territories.

The Industrial Revolution has still not spread to Africabecause that continent has experienced a long viciouscircle of the persistence and re-creation of extractivepolitical and economic institutions. Botswana is theexception. As we will see (this page–this page), in thenineteenth century, King Khama, the grandfather ofBotswana’s first prime minister at independence, SeretseKhama, initiated institutional changes to modernize thepolitical and economic institutions of his tribe. Quiteuniquely, these changes were not destroyed in the colonialperiod, partly as a consequence of Khama’s and otherchiefs’ clever challenges to colonial authority. Theirinterplay with the critical juncture that independence fromcolonial rule created laid the foundations for Botswana’s

economic and political success. It was another case ofsmall historical differences mattering.

There is a tendency to see historical events as theinevitable consequences of deep-rooted forces. While weplace great emphasis on how the history of economic andpolitical institutions creates vicious and virtuous circles,contingency, as we have emphasized in the context of thedevelopment of English institutions, can always be a factor.Seretse Khama, studying in England in the 1940s, fell inlove with Ruth Williams, a white woman. As a result, theracist apartheid regime in South Africa persuaded theEnglish government to ban him from the protectorate, thencalled Bechuanaland (whose administration was under theHigh Commissioner of South Africa), and he resigned hiskingship. When he returned to lead the anticolonialstruggle, he did so with the intention not of entrenching thetraditional institutions but of adapting them to the modernworld. Khama was an extraordinary man, uninterested inpersonal wealth and dedicated to building his country. Mostother African countries have not been so fortunate. Boththings mattered, the historical development of institutions inBotswana and contingent factors that led these to be builton rather than overthrown or distorted as they wereelsewhere in Africa.

IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, absolutism not so different fromthat in Africa or Eastern Europe was blocking the path ofindustrialization in much of Asia. In China, the state wasstrongly absolutist, and independent cities, merchants, andindustrialists were either nonexistent or much weakerpolitically. China was a major naval power and heavilyinvolved in long-distance trade centuries before theEuropeans. But it had turned away from the oceans just atthe wrong time, when Ming emperors decided in the latefourteenth and early fifteenth centuries that increased long-distance trade and the creative destruction that it mightbring would be likely to threaten their rule.

In India, institutional drift worked differently and led to thedevelopment of a uniquely rigid hereditary caste systemthat limited the functioning of markets and the allocation oflabor across occupations much more severely than the

feudal order in medieval Europe. It also underpinnedanother strong form of absolutism under the Mughal rulers.Most European countries had similar systems in the MiddleAges. Modern Anglo-Saxon surnames such as Baker,Cooper, and Smith are direct descendants of hereditaryoccupational categories. Bakers baked, coopers madebarrels, and smiths forged metals. But these categorieswere never as rigid as Indian caste distinctions andgradually became meaningless as predictors of a person’soccupation. Though Indian merchants did trade throughoutthe Indian Ocean, and a major textile industry developed,the caste system and Mughal absolutism were seriousimpediments to the development of inclusive economicinstitutions in India. By the nineteenth century, things wereeven less hospitable for industrialization as India becamean extractive colony of the English. China was neverformally colonized by a European power, but after theEnglish successfully defeated the Chinese in the OpiumWars between 1839 and 1842, and then again between1856 and 1860, China had to sign a series of humiliatingtreaties and allow European exports to enter. As China,India, and others failed to take advantage of commercialand industrial opportunities, Asia, except for Japan, laggedbehind as Western Europe was forging ahead.

THE COURSE OF institutional development that Japan chartedin the nineteenth century again illustrates the interactionbetween critical junctures and small differences created byinstitutional drift. Japan, like China, was under absolutistrule. The Tokugawa family took over in 1600 and ruled overa feudal system that also banned international trade.Japan, too, faced a critical juncture created by Westernintervention as four U.S. warships, commanded by MatthewC. Perry, entered Edo Bay in July 1853, demanding tradeconcessions similar to those England obtained from theChinese in the Opium Wars. But this critical juncture playedout very differently in Japan. Despite their proximity andfrequent interactions, by the nineteenth century China andJapan had already drifted apart institutionally.

While Tokugawa rule in Japan was absolutist andextractive, it had only a tenuous hold on the leaders of the

other major feudal domains and was susceptible tochallenge. Even though there were peasant rebellions andcivil strife, absolutism in China was stronger, and theopposition less organized and autonomous. There were noequivalents of the leaders of the other domains in Chinawho could challenge the absolutist rule of the emperor andtrace an alternative institutional path. This institutionaldifference, in many ways small relative to the differencesseparating China and Japan from Western Europe, haddecisive consequences during the critical juncture createdby the forceful arrival of the English and Americans. Chinacontinued in its absolutist path after the Opium Wars, whilethe U.S. threat cemented the opposition to Tokugawa rulein Japan and led to a political revolution, the MeijiRestoration, as we will see in chapter 10. This Japanesepolitical revolution enabled more inclusive politicalinstitutions and much more inclusive economic institutionsto develop, and laid the foundations for subsequent rapidJapanese growth, while China languished underabsolutism.

How Japan reacted to the threat posed by U.S. warships,by starting a process of fundamental institutionaltransformation, helps us understand another aspect of thelay of the land around us: transitions from stagnation torapid growth. South Korea, Taiwan, and finally Chinaachieved breakneck rates of economic growth since theSecond World War through a path similar to the one thatJapan took. In each of these cases, growth was precededby historic changes in the countries’ economic institutions—though not always in their political institutions, as theChinese case highlights.

The logic of how episodes of rapid growth come to anabrupt end and are reversed is also related. In the sameway that decisive steps toward inclusive economicinstitutions can ignite rapid economic growth, a sharp turnaway from inclusive institutions can lead to economicstagnation. But more often, collapses of rapid growth, suchas in Argentina or the Soviet Union, are a consequence ofgrowth under extractive institutions coming to an end. Aswe have seen, this can happen either because of infightingover the spoils of extraction, leading to the collapse of theregime, or because the inherent lack of innovation and

creative destruction under extractive institutions puts a limiton sustained growth. How the Soviets ran hard into theselimits will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.

IF THE POLITICAL and economic institutions of Latin Americaover the past five hundred years were shaped by Spanishcolonialism, those of the Middle East were shaped byOttoman colonialism. In 1453 the Ottomans under SultanMehmet II captured Constantinople, making it their capital.During the rest of the century, the Ottomans conqueredlarge parts of the Balkans and most of the rest of Turkey. Inthe first half of the sixteenth century, Ottoman rule spreadthroughout the Middle East and North Africa. By 1566, atthe death of Sultan Süleyman I, known as the Magnificent,their empire stretched from Tunisia in the East, throughEgypt, all the way to Mecca in the Arabian Peninsula, andon to what is now modern Iraq. The Ottoman state wasabsolutist, with the sultan accountable to few and sharingpower with none. The economic institutions the Ottomansimposed were highly extractive. There was no privateproperty in land, which all formally belonged to the state.Taxation of land and agricultural output, together with lootfrom war, was the main source of government revenues.However, the Ottoman state did not dominate the MiddleEast in the same way that it could dominate its heartland inAnatolia or even to the extent that the Spanish statedominated Latin American society. The Ottoman state wascontinuously challenged by Bedouins and other tribalpowers in the Arabian Peninsula. It lacked not only theability to impose a stable order in much of the Middle Eastbut also the administrative capacity to collect taxes. So it“farmed” them out to individuals, selling off the right toothers to collect taxes in whatever way they could. Thesetax farmers became autonomous and powerful. Rates oftaxation in the Middle Eastern territories were very high,varying between one-half or two-thirds of what farmersproduced. Much of this revenue was kept by the taxfarmers. Because the Ottoman state failed to establish astable order in these areas, property rights were far fromsecure, and there was a great deal of lawlessness andbanditry as armed groups vied for local control. In

Palestine, for example, the situation was so dire thatstarting in the late sixteenth century, peasants left the mostfertile land and moved up to mountainous areas, whichgave them greater protection against banditry.

Extractive economic institutions in the urban areas of theOttoman Empire were no less stifling. Commerce wasunder state control, and occupations were strictly regulatedby guilds and monopolies. The consequence was that atthe time of the Industrial Revolution the economicinstitutions of the Middle East were extractive. The regionstagnated economically.

By the 1840s, the Ottomans were trying to reforminstitutions—for example, by reversing tax farming andgetting locally autonomous groups under control. Butabsolutism persisted until the First World War, and reformefforts were thwarted by the usual fear of creativedestruction and the anxiety among elite groups that theywould lose economically or politically. While Ottomanreformers talked of introducing private property rights toland in order to increase agricultural productivity, the statusquo persisted because of the desire for political control andtaxation. Ottoman colonization was followed by Europeancolonization after 1918. When European control ended, thesame dynamics we have seen in sub-Saharan Africa tookhold, with extractive colonial institutions taken over byindependent elites. In some cases, such as the monarchyof Jordan, these elites were direct creations of the colonialpowers, but this, too, happened frequently in Africa, as wewill see. Middle Eastern countries without oil today haveincome levels similar to poor Latin American nations. Theydid not suffer from such immiserizing forces as the slavetrade, and they benefited for a longer period from flows oftechnology from Europe. In the Middle Ages, the MiddleEast itself was also a relatively advanced part of the worldeconomically. So today it is not as poor as Africa, but themajority of its people still live in poverty.

WE HAVE SEEN that neither geographic- nor cultural- norignorance-based theories are helpful for explaining the layof the land around us. They do not provide a satisfactoryaccount for the prominent patterns of world inequality: the

fact that the process of economic divergence started withthe Industrial Revolution in England during the eighteenthand nineteenth centuries and then spread to WesternEurope and to European settler colonies; the persistentdivergence between different parts of the Americas; thepoverty of Africa or the Middle East; the divergencebetween Eastern and Western Europe; and the transitionsfrom stagnation to growth and the sometimes abrupt end togrowth spurts. Our institutional theory does.

In the remaining chapters, we will discuss in greaterdetail how this institutional theory works and illustrate thewide range of phenomena it can account for. These rangefrom the origins of the Neolithic Revolution to the collapseof several civilizations, either because of the intrinsic limitsto growth under extractive institutions or because of limitedsteps toward inclusiveness being reversed.

We will see how and why decisive steps toward inclusivepolitical institutions were taken during the GloriousRevolution in England. We will look more specifically at thefollowing:

• How inclusive institutions emerged from the interplayof the critical juncture created by Atlantic trade and thenature of preexisting English institutions.• How these institutions persisted and becamestrengthened to lay the foundations for the IndustrialRevolution, thanks in part to the virtuous circle and inpart to fortunate turns of contingency.• How many regimes reigning over absolutist andextractive institutions steadfastly resisted the spread ofnew technologies unleashed by the IndustrialRevolution.• How Europeans themselves stamped out thepossibility of economic growth in many parts of theworld that they conquered.• How the vicious circle and the iron law of oligarchyhave created a powerful tendency for extractiveinstitutions to persist, and thus the lands where theIndustrial Revolution originally did not spread remainrelatively poor.• Why the Industrial Revolution and other new

technologies have not spread and are unlikely tospread to places around the world today where aminimum degree of centralization of the state hasn’tbeen achieved.

Our discussion will also show that certain areas thatmanaged to transform institutions in a more inclusivedirection, such as France or Japan, or that prevented theestablishment of extractive institutions, such as the UnitedStates or Australia, were more receptive to the spread ofthe Industrial Revolution and pulled ahead of the rest. As inEngland, this was not always a smooth process, and alongthe way, many challenges to inclusive institutions wereovercome, sometimes because of the dynamics of thevirtuous circle, sometimes thanks to the contingent path ofhistory.

Finally, we will also discuss how the failure of nationstoday is heavily influenced by their institutional histories,how much policy advice is informed by incorrecthypotheses and is potentially misleading, and how nationsare still able to seize critical junctures and break the moldto reform their institutions and embark upon a path togreater prosperity.

5.

“I’VE SEEN THE FUTURE, AND IT WORKS”:GROWTH UNDER EXTRACTIVE INSTITUTIONS

I’VE SEEN THE FUTURE

INSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCES PLAY the critical role in explainingeconomic growth throughout the ages. But if most societiesin history are based on extractive political and economicinstitutions, does this imply that growth never takes place?Obviously not. Extractive institutions, by their very logic,must create wealth so that it can be extracted. A rulermonopolizing political power and in control of a centralizedstate can introduce some degree of law and order and asystem of rules, and stimulate economic activity.

But growth under extractive institutions differs in naturefrom growth brought forth by inclusive institutions. Mostimportant, it will be not sustained growth that requirestechnological change, but rather growth based on existingtechnologies. The economic trajectory of the Soviet Unionprovides a vivid illustration of how the authority andincentives provided by the state can spearhead rapideconomic growth under extractive institutions and how thistype of growth ultimately comes to an end and collapses.

THE FIRST WORLD WAR had ended and the victorious andthe vanquished powers met in the great palace ofVersailles, outside Paris, to decide on the parameters ofthe peace. Prominent among the attendees was WoodrowWilson, president of the United States. Noticeable by itsabsence was any representation from Russia. The oldtsarist regime had been overthrown by the Bolsheviks inOctober 1917. A civil war then raged between the Reds(the Bolsheviks) and the Whites. The English, French, andAmericans sent an expeditionary force to fight against theBolsheviks. A mission led by a young diplomat, William

Bullitt, and the veteran intellectual and journalist LincolnSteffens was sent to Moscow to meet with Lenin to try tounderstand the intentions of the Bolsheviks and how tocome to terms with them. Steffens had made his name asan iconoclast, a muckraker journalist who had persistentlydenounced the evils of capitalism in the United States. Hehad been in Russia at the time of the revolution. Hispresence was intended to make the mission look credibleand not too hostile. The mission returned with the outlinesof an offer from Lenin about what it would take for peacewith the newly created Soviet Union. Steffens was bowledover by what he saw as the great potential of the Sovietregime.

“Soviet Russia,” he recalled in his 1931 autobiography,“was a revolutionary government with an evolutionary plan.Their plan was not to end evils such as poverty and riches,graft, privilege, tyranny, and war by direct action, but toseek out and remove their causes. They had set up adictatorship, supported by a small, trained minority, tomake and maintain for a few generations a scientificrearrangement of economic forces which would result ineconomic democracy first and political democracy last.”

When Steffens returned from his diplomatic mission hewent to see his old friend the sculptor Jo Davidson andfound him making a portrait bust of the wealthy financierBernard Baruch. “So you’ve been over in Russia,” Baruchremarked. Steffens answered, “I have been over into thefuture, and it works.” He would perfect this adage into aform that went down in history: “I’ve seen the future, and itworks.”

Right up until the early 1980s, many Westerners were stillseeing the future in the Soviet Union, and they kept onbelieving that it was working. In a sense it was, or at least itdid for a time. Lenin had died in 1924, and by 1927 JosephStalin had consolidated his grip on the country. He purgedhis opponents and launched a drive to rapidly industrializethe country. He did it via energizing the State PlanningCommittee, Gosplan, which had been founded in 1921.Gosplan wrote the first Five-Year Plan, which ran between1928 and 1933. Economic growth Stalin style was simple:develop industry by government command and obtain thenecessary resources for this by taxing agriculture at very

high rates. The communist state did not have an effectivetax system, so instead Stalin “collectivized” agriculture. Thisprocess entailed the abolition of private property rights toland and the herding of all people in the countryside intogiant collective farms run by the Communist Party. Thismade it much easier for Stalin to grab agricultural outputand use it to feed all the people who were building andmanning the new factories. The consequences of this forthe rural folk were calamitous. The collective farmscompletely lacked incentives for people to work hard, soproduction fell sharply. So much of what was produced wasextracted that there was not enough to eat. People beganto starve to death. In the end, probably six million peopledied of famine, while hundreds of thousands of others weremurdered or banished to Siberia during the forciblecollectivization.

Neither the newly created industry nor the collectivizedfarms were economically efficient in the sense that theymade the best use of what resources the Soviet Unionpossessed. It sounds like a recipe for economic disasterand stagnation, if not outright collapse. But the Soviet Uniongrew rapidly. The reason for this is not difficult tounderstand. Allowing people to make their own decisionsvia markets is the best way for a society to efficiently use itsresources. When the state or a narrow elite controls allthese resources instead, neither the right incentives will becreated nor will there be an efficient allocation of the skillsand talents of people. But in some instances theproductivity of labor and capital may be so much higher inone sector or activity, such as heavy industry in the SovietUnion, that even a top-down process under extractiveinstitutions that allocates resources toward that sector cangenerate growth. As we saw in chapter 3, extractiveinstitutions in Caribbean islands such as Barbados, Cuba,Haiti, and Jamaica could generate relatively high levels ofi ncomes because they allocated resources to theproduction of sugar, a commodity coveted worldwide. Theproduction of sugar based on gangs of slaves was certainlynot “efficient,” and there was no technological change orcreative destruction in these societies, but this did notprevent them from achieving some amount of growth underextractive institutions. The situation was similar in the

Soviet Union, with industry playing the role of sugar in theCaribbean. Industrial growth in the Soviet Union was furtherfacilitated because its technology was so backward relativeto what was available in Europe and the United States, solarge gains could be reaped by reallocating resources tothe industrial sector, even if all this was done inefficientlyand by force.

Before 1928 most Russians lived in the countryside. Thetechnology used by peasants was primitive, and there werefew incentives to be productive. Indeed, the last vestiges ofRussian feudalism were eradicated only shortly before theFirst World War. There was thus huge unrealized economicpotential from reallocating this labor from agriculture toindustry. Stalinist industrialization was one brutal way ofunlocking this potential. By fiat, Stalin moved these verypoorly used resources into industry, where they could beemployed more productively, even if industry itself was veryinefficiently organized relative to what could have beenachieved. In fact, between 1928 and 1960 national incomegrew at 6 percent a year, probably the most rapid spurt ofeconomic growth in history up until then. This quickeconomic growth was not created by technological change,but by reallocating labor and by capital accumulationthrough the creation of new tools and factories.

Growth was so rapid that it took in generations ofWesterners, not just Lincoln Steffens. It took in the CentralIntelligence Agency of the United States. It even took in theSoviet Union’s own leaders, such as Nikita Khrushchev,who famously boasted in a speech to Western diplomats in1956 that “we will bury you [the West].” As late as 1977, aleading academic textbook by an English economistargued that Soviet-style economies were superior tocapitalist ones in terms of economic growth, providing fullemployment and price stability and even in producingpeople with altruistic motivation. Poor old Westerncapitalism did better only at providing political freedom.Indeed, the most widely used university textbook ineconomics, written by Nobel Prize–winner PaulSamuelson, repeatedly predicted the coming economicdominance of the Soviet Union. In the 1961 edition,Samuelson predicted that Soviet national income wouldovertake that of the United States possibly by 1984, but

probably by 1997. In the 1980 edition there was littlechange in the analysis, though the two dates were delayedto 2002 and 2012.

Though the policies of Stalin and subsequent Sovietleaders could produce rapid economic growth, they couldnot do so in a sustained way. By the 1970s, economicgrowth had all but stopped. The most important lesson isthat extractive institutions cannot generate sustainedtechnological change for two reasons: the lack of economicincentives and resistance by the elites. In addition, once allthe very inefficiently used resources had been reallocatedto industry, there were few economic gains to be had byfiat. Then the Soviet system hit a roadblock, with lack ofinnovation and poor economic incentives preventing anyfurther progress. The only area in which the Soviets didmanage to sustain some innovation was through enormousefforts in military and aerospace technology. As a resultthey managed to put the first dog, Leika, and the first man,Yuri Gagarin, in space. They also left the world the AK-47as one of their legacies.

Gosplan was the supposedly all-powerful planningagency in charge of the central planning of the Sovieteconomy. One of the benefits of the sequence of five-yearplans written and administered by Gosplan was supposedto have been the long time horizon necessary for rationalinvestment and innovation. In reality, what got implementedin Soviet industry had little to do with the five-year plans,which were frequently revised and rewritten or simplyignored. The development of industry took place on thebasis of commands by Stalin and the Politburo, whochanged their minds frequently and often completelyrevised their previous decisions. All plans were labeled“draft” or “preliminary.” Only one copy of a plan labeled“final”—that for light industry in 1939—has ever come tolight. Stalin himself said in 1937 that “only bureaucrats canthink that planning work ends with the creation of the plan.The creation of the plan is just the beginning. The realdirection of the plan develops only after the putting togetherof the plan.” Stalin wanted to maximize his discretion toreward people or groups who were politically loyal, andpunish those who were not. As for Gosplan, its main rolewas to provide Stalin with information so he could better

monitor his friends and enemies. It actually tried to avoidmaking decisions. If you made a decision that turned outbadly, you might get shot. Better to avoid all responsibility.

An example of what could happen if you took your job tooseriously, rather than successfully second-guessing whatthe Communist Party wanted, is provided by the Sovietcensus of 1937. As the returns came in, it became clearthat they would show a population of about 162 million, farless than the 180 million Stalin had anticipated and indeedbelow the figure of 168 million that Stalin himselfannounced in 1934. The 1937 census was the firstconducted since 1926, and therefore the first one thatfollowed the mass famines and purges of the early 1930s.The accurate population numbers reflected this. Stalin’sresponse was to have those who organized the censusarrested and sent to Siberia or shot. He ordered anothercensus, which took place in 1939. This time the organizersgot it right; they found that the population was actually 171million.

Stalin understood that in the Soviet economy, people hadfew incentives to work hard. A natural response would havebeen to introduce such incentives, and sometimes he did—for example, by directing food supplies to areas whereproductivity had fallen—to reward improvements.Moreover, as early as 1931 he gave up on the idea ofcreating “socialist men and women” who would workwithout monetary incentives. In a famous speech hecriticized “equality mongering,” and thereafter not only diddifferent jobs get paid different wages but also a bonussystem was introduced. It is instructive to understand howthis worked. Typically a firm under central planning had tomeet an output target set under the plan, though such planswere often renegotiated and changed. From the 1930s,workers were paid bonuses if the output levels wereattained. These could be quite high—for instance, as muchas 37 percent of the wage for management or seniorengineers. But paying such bonuses created all sorts ofdisincentives to technological change. For one thing,innovation, which took resources away from currentproduction, risked the output targets not being met and thebonuses not being paid. For another, output targets wereusually based on previous production levels. This created a

huge incentive never to expand output, since this onlymeant having to produce more in the future, since futuretargets would be “ratcheted up.” Underachievement wasalways the best way to meet targets and get the bonus. Thefact that bonuses were paid monthly also kept everyonefocused on the present, while innovation is about makingsacrifices today in order to have more tomorrow.

Even when bonuses and incentives were effective inchanging behavior, they often created other problems.Central planning was just not good at replacing what thegreat eighteenth-century economist Adam Smith called the“invisible hand” of the market. When the plan wasformulated in tons of steel sheet, the sheet was made tooheavy. When it was formulated in terms of area of steelsheet, the sheet was made too thin. When the plan forchandeliers was made in tons, they were so heavy, theycould hardly hang from ceilings.

By the 1940s, the leaders of the Soviet Union, even if nottheir admirers in the West, were well aware of theseperverse incentives. The Soviet leaders acted as if theywere due to technical problems, which could be fixed. Forexample, they moved away from paying bonuses based onoutput targets to allowing firms to set aside portions ofprofits to pay bonuses. But a “profit motive” was no moreencouraging to innovation than one based on outputtargets. The system of prices used to calculate profits wasalmost completely unconnected to the value of newinnovations or technology. Unlike in a market economy,prices in the Soviet Union were set by the government, andthus bore little relation to value. To more specifically createincentives for innovation, the Soviet Union introducedexplicit innovation bonuses in 1946. As early as 1918, theprinciple had been recognized that an innovator shouldreceive monetary rewards for his innovation, but therewards set were small and unrelated to the value of thenew technology. This changed only in 1956, when it wasstipulated that the bonus should be proportional to theproductivity of the innovation. However, since productivitywas calculated in terms of economic benefits measuredusing the existing system of prices, this was again notmuch of an incentive to innovate. One could fill many pageswith examples of the perverse incentives these schemes

generated. For example, because the size of the innovationbonus fund was limited by the wage bill of a firm, thisimmediately reduced the incentive to produce or adopt anyinnovation that might have economized on labor.

Focusing on the different rules and bonus schemes tendsto mask the inherent problems of the system. As long aspolitical authority and power rested with the CommunistParty, it was impossible to fundamentally change the basicincentives that people faced, bonuses or no bonuses.Since its inception, the Communist Party had used not justcarrots but also sticks, big sticks, to get its way.Productivity in the economy was no different. A whole set oflaws created criminal offenses for workers who wereperceived to be shirking. In June 1940, for example, a lawmade absenteeism, defined as any twenty minutesunauthorized absence or even idling on the job, a criminaloffense that could be punished by six months’ hard laborand a 25 percent cut in pay. All sorts of similar punishmentswere introduced, and were implemented with astonishingfrequency. Between 1940 and 1955, 36 million people,about one-third of the adult population, were found guilty ofsuch offenses. Of these, 15 million were sent to prison and250,000 were shot. In any year, there would be 1 millionadults in prison for labor violations; this is not to mention the2.5 million people Stalin exiled to the gulags of Siberia.Still, it didn’t work. Though you can move someone to afactory, you cannot force people to think and have goodideas by threatening to shoot them. Coercion like this mighthave generated a high output of sugar in Barbados orJamaica, but it could not compensate for the lack ofincentives in a modern industrial economy.

The fact that truly effective incentives could not beintroduced in the centrally planned economy was not due totechnical mistakes in the design of the bonus schemes. Itwas intrinsic to the whole method by which extractivegrowth had been achieved. It had been done bygovernment command, which could solve some basiceconomic problems. But stimulating sustained economicgrowth required that individuals use their talent and ideas,and this could never be done with a Soviet-style economicsystem. The rulers of the Soviet Union would have had toabandon extractive economic institutions, but such a move

would have jeopardized their political power. Indeed, whenMikhail Gorbachev started to move away from extractiveeconomic institutions after 1987, the power of theCommunist Party crumbled, and with it, the Soviet Union.

THE SOVIET UNION was able to generate rapid growth evenunder extractive institutions because the Bolsheviks built apowerful centralized state and used it to allocate resourcestoward industry. But as in all instances of growth underextractive institutions, this experience did not featuretechnological change and was not sustained. Growth firstslowed down and then totally collapsed. Though ephemeral,this type of growth still illustrates how extractive institutionscan stimulate economic activity.

Throughout history most societies have been ruled byextractive institutions, and those that have managed toimpose some extent of order over the countries have beenable to generate some limited growth—even if none ofthese extractive societies have managed to achievesustained growth. In fact, some of the major turning pointsin history are characterized by institutional innovations thatcemented extractive institutions and increased the authorityof one group to impose law and order and benefit fromextraction. In the rest of this chapter, we will first discuss thenature of institutional innovations that establish somedegree of state centralization and enable growth underextractive institutions. We shall then show how these ideashelp us understand the Neolithic Revolution, themomentous transition to agriculture, which underpins manyaspects of our current civilization. We will conclude byillustrating, with the example of the Maya city-states, howgrowth under extractive institutions is limited not onlybecause of lack of technological progress but alsobecause it will encourage infighting from rival groupswishing to take control of the state and the extraction itgenerates.

ON THE BANKS OF THE KASAI

One of the great tributaries of the River Congo is the Kasai.Rising in Angola, it heads north and merges with the Congo

northeast of Kinshasa, the capital of the modernDemocratic Republic of Congo. Though the DemocraticRepublic of Congo is poor compared with the rest of theworld, there have always been significant differences in theprosperity of various groups within Congo. The Kasai is theboundary between two of these. Soon after passing intoCongo along the western bank, you’ll find the Lele people;on the eastern bank are the Bushong (Map 6, this page).On the face of it there ought to be few differences betweenthese two groups with regard to their prosperity. They areseparated only by a river, which either can cross by boat.The two different tribes have a common origin and relatedlanguages. In addition, many of the things they build aresimilar in style, including their houses, clothes, and crafts.

Yet when the anthropologist Mary Douglas and thehistorian Jan Vansina studied these groups in the 1950s,they discovered some startling differences between them.As Douglas put it: “The Lele are poor, while the Bushongare rich … Everything that the Lele have or can do, theBushong have more and can do better.” Simpleexplanations for this inequality are easy to come by. Onedifference, reminiscent of that between places in Peru thatwere or were not subject to the Potosí mita, is that the Leleproduced for subsistence while the Bushong produced forexchange in the market. Douglas and Vansina also notedthat the Lele used inferior technology. For instance, they didnot use nets for hunting, even though these greatly improveproductivity. Douglas argued, “[T]he absence of nets isconsistent with a general Lele tendency not to invest timeand labor in long-term equipment.”

There were also important distinctions in agriculturaltechnologies and organization. The Bushong practiced asophisticated form of mixed farming where five crops wereplanted in succession in a two-year system of rotation. Theygrew yams, sweet potatoes, manioc (cassava), and beansand gathered two and sometimes three maize harvests ayear. The Lele had no such system and managed to reaponly one annual harvest of maize.

There were also striking differences in law and order.The Lele were dispersed into fortified villages, which wereconstantly in conflict. Anyone traveling between two or evenventuring into the forest to collect food was liable to be

attacked or kidnapped. In the Bushong country, this rarely, ifever, happened.

What lay behind these differences in the patterns ofproduction, agricultural technology, and prevalence oforder? Obviously it was not geography that induced theLele to use inferior hunting and agricultural technology. Itwas certainly not ignorance, because they knew about thetools used by the Bushong. An alternative explanation mightbe culture; could it be that the Lele had a culture that did notencourage them to invest in hunting nets and sturdier andbetter-built houses? But this does not seem to have beentrue, either. As with the people of Kongo, the Lele were veryinterested in purchasing guns, and Douglas even remarkedthat “their eager purchase of firearms … shows their culturedoes not restrict them to inferior techniques when these donot require long-term collaboration and effort.” So neither acultural aversion to technology nor ignorance norgeography does a good job of explaining the greaterprosperity of the Bushong relative to the Lele.

The reason for differences between these two peopleslies in the different political institutions that emerged in thelands of the Bushong and the Lele. We noted earlier thatthe Lele lived in fortified villages that were not part of aunified political structure. It was different on the other sideof the Kasai. Around 1620 a political revolution took placeled by a man called Shyaam, who forged the KubaKingdom, which we saw on Map 6, with the Bushong at itsheart and with himself as king. Prior to this period, therewere probably few differences between the Bushong andthe Lele; the differences emerged as a consequence of theway Shyaam reorganized society to the east of the river. Hebuilt a state and a pyramid of political institutions. Thesewere not just significantly more centralized than what camebefore but also involved highly elaborate structures.Shyaam and his successors created a bureaucracy toraise taxes and a legal system and police force toadminister the law. Leaders were checked by councils,which they had to consult with before making decisions.There was even trial by jury, an apparently unique event insub-Saharan Africa prior to European colonialism.Nevertheless, the centralized state that Shyaamconstructed was a tool of extraction and highly absolutist.

Nobody voted for him, and state policy was dictated fromthe top, not by popular participation.

This political revolution introducing state centralizationand law and order in the Kuba country in turn led to aneconomic revolution. Agriculture was reorganized and newtechnologies were adopted to increase productivity. Thecrops that had previously been the staples were replacedby new, higher-yield ones from the Americas (in particular,maize, cassava, and chili peppers). The intense mixed-farming cycle was introduced at this time, and the amountof food produced per capita doubled. To adopt these cropsand reorganize the agricultural cycle, more hands wereneeded in the fields. So the age of marriage was loweredto twenty, which brought men into the agricultural labor forceat a younger age. The contrast with the Lele is stark. Theirmen tended to marry at thirty-five and only then worked inthe fields. Until then, they dedicated their lives to fightingand raiding.

The connection between the political and economicrevolution was simple. King Shyaam and those whosupported him wanted to extract taxes and wealth from theKuba, who had to produce a surplus above what theyconsumed themselves. While Shyaam and his men did notintroduce inclusive institutions to the eastern bank of theKasai, some amount of economic prosperity is intrinsic toextractive institutions that achieve some degree of statecentralization and impose law and order. Encouragingeconomic activity was of course in the interest of Shyaamand his men, as otherwise there would have been nothingto extract. Just like Stalin, Shyaam created by command aset of institutions that would generate the wealth necessaryto support this system. Compared to the utter absence oflaw and order that reigned on the other bank of the Kasai,this generated significant economic prosperity—even ifmuch of it was likely extracted by Shyaam and his elites.But it was necessarily limited. Just as in the Soviet Union,there was no creative destruction in the Kuba Kingdom andno technological innovation after this initial change. Thissituation was more or less unaltered by the time thekingdom was first encountered by Belgian colonial officialsin the late nineteenth century.

KING SHYAAM’S ACHIEVEMENT illustrates how some limiteddegree of economic success can be achieved throughextractive institutions. Creating such growth requires acentralized state. To centralize the state, a politicalrevolution is often necessary. Once Shyaam created thisstate, he could use its power to reorganize the economyand boost agricultural productivity, which he could then tax.

Why was it that the Bushong, and not the Lele, had apolitical revolution? Couldn’t the Lele have had their ownKing Shyaam? What Shyaam accomplished was aninstitutional innovation not tied in any deterministic way togeography, culture, or ignorance. The Lele could have hadsuch a revolution and similarly transformed their institutions,but they didn’t. Perhaps this is for reasons that we do notunderstand, because of our limited knowledge of theirsociety today. Most likely it is because of the contingentnature of history. The same contingency was probably atwork when some of the societies in the Middle East twelvethousand years ago embarked upon an even more radicalset of institutional innovations leading to settled societiesand then to the domestication of plants and animals, as wediscuss next.

THE LONG SUMMER

About 15,000 BC, the Ice Age came to an end as theEarth’s climate warmed up. Evidence from the Greenlandice cores suggests that average temperatures rose by asmuch as fifteen degrees Celsius in a short span of time.This warming seems to have coincided with rapidincreases in human populations as the global warming ledto expanding animal populations and much greateravailability of wild plants and foods. This process was putinto rapid reverse at about 14,000 BC, by a period ofcooling known as the Younger Dryas, but after 9600 BC,global temperatures rose again, by seven degrees Celsiusin less than a decade, and have since stayed high.Archaeologist Brian Fagan calls it the Long Summer. Thewarming-up of the climate was a huge critical juncture thatformed the background to the Neolithic Revolution, wherehuman societies made the transition to sedentary life,

farming, and herding. This and the rest of subsequenthuman history have played out basking in this LongSummer.

There is a fundamental difference between farming andherding and hunting-gathering. The former is based on thedomestication of plant and animal species, with activeintervention in their life cycles to change genetics to makethose species more useful to humans. Domestication is atechnological change that enables humans to produce a lotmore food from the available plants and animals. Thedomestication of maize, for example, began when humansgathered teosinte, the wild crop that was maize’s ancestor.Teosinte cobs are very small, barely a few centimeterslong. They are dwarfed by a cob of modern maize. Yetgradually, by selecting the larger ears of teosinte, andplants whose ears did not break but stayed on the stalk tobe harvested, humans created modern maize, a crop thatprovides far more nourishment from the same piece ofland.

The earliest evidence of farming, herding, and thedomestication of plants and animals comes from theMiddle East, in particular from the area known as the HillyFlanks, which stretches from the south of modern-dayIsrael, up through Palestine and the west bank of the RiverJordan, via Syria and into southeastern Turkey, northernIraq, and western Iran. Around 9500 BC the first domesticplants, emmer and two-row barley, were found in Jericho onthe west bank of the River Jordan in Palestine; and emmer,peas, and lentils, at Tell Aswad, farther north in Syria. Bothwere sites of the so-called Natufian culture and bothsupported large villages; the village of Jericho had apopulation of possibly five hundred people by this time.

Why did the first farming villages happen here and notelsewhere? Why was it the Natufians, and not otherpeoples, who domesticated peas and lentils? Were theylucky and just happened to be living where there were manypotential candidates for domestication? While this is true,many other people were living among these species, butthey did not domesticate them. As we saw in chapter 2 inMaps 4 and 5, research by geneticists and archaeologiststo pin down the distribution of the wild ancestors of moderndomesticated animals and plants reveals that many of

these ancestors were spread over very large areas,millions of square kilometers. The wild ancestors ofdomesticated animal species were spread throughoutEurasia. Though the Hilly Flanks were particularly wellendowed in terms of wild crop species, even they were veryfar from unique. It was not that the Natufians lived in an areauniquely endowed with wild species that made themspecial. It was that they were sedentary before they starteddomesticating plants or animals. One piece of evidencecomes from gazelle teeth, which are composed ofcementum, a bony connective tissue that grows in layers.During the spring and summer, when cementum’s growth ismost rapid, the layers are a different color from the layersthat form in the winter. By taking a slice through a tooth youcan see the color of the last layer created before thegazelle died. Using this technique, you can determine if thegazelle was killed in summer or winter. At Natufian sites,one finds gazelles killed in all seasons, suggesting year-round residence. The village of Abu Hureyra, on the riverEuphrates, is one of the most intensively researchedNatufian settlements. For almost forty years archaeologistshave examined the layers of the village, which provides oneof the best documented examples of sedentary life beforeand after the transition to farming. The settlement probablybegan around 9500 BC, and the inhabitants continued theirhunter-gatherer lifestyle for another five hundred yearsbefore switching to agriculture. Archaeologists estimatethat the population of the village prior to farming wasbetween one hundred and three hundred.

You can think of all sorts of reasons why a society mightfind it advantageous to become sedentary. Moving about iscostly; children and old people have to be carried, and it isimpossible to store food for lean times when you are on themove. Moreover, tools such as grinding stones and sickleswere useful for processing wild foods, but are heavy tocarry. There is evidence that even mobile hunter-gatherersstored food in select locations such as caves. Oneattraction of maize is that it stores very well, and this is akey reason why it became so intensively cultivatedthroughout the Americas. The ability to deal moreeffectively with storage and accumulate food stocks musthave been a key incentive for adopting a sedentary way of

life.While it might be collectively desirable to become

sedentary, this doesn’t mean that it will necessarily happen.A mobile group of hunter-gatherers would have to agree todo this, or someone would have to force them. Somearchaeologists have suggested that increasing populationdensity and declining living standards were key factors inthe emergence of sedentary life, forcing mobile people tostay in one place. Yet the density of Natufian sites is nogreater than that of previous groups, so there does notappear to be evidence of increasing population density.Skeletal and dental evidence does not suggestdeteriorating health, either. For instance, food shortagetends to create thin lines in people’s tooth enamel, acondition called hypoplasia. These lines are in fact lessprevalent in Natufian people than in later farming people.

More important is that while sedentary life had pluses, italso had minuses. Conflict resolution was probably muchharder for sedentary groups, since disagreements could beresolved less easily by people or groups merely movingaway. Once people had built permanent buildings and hadmore assets than they could carry, moving away was amuch less attractive option. So villages needed moreeffective ways of resolving conflict and more elaboratenotions of property. Decisions would have to be madeabout who had access to which piece of land close to thevillage, or who got to pick fruit from which stand of treesand fish in which part of the stream. Rules had to bedeveloped, and the institutions that made and enforcedrules had to be elaborated.

In order for sedentary life to emerge, it therefore seemsplausible that hunter-gatherers would have had to be forcedto settle down, and this would have to have been precededby an institutional innovation concentrating power in thehands of a group that would become the political elite,enforce property rights, maintain order, and also benefitfrom their status by extracting resources from the rest ofsociety. In fact, a political revolution similar to that initiatedby King Shyaam, even if on a smaller scale, is likely to havebeen the breakthrough that led to sedentary life.

The archaeological evidence indeed suggests that theNatufians developed a complex society characterized by

hierarchy, order, and inequality—beginnings of what wewould recognize as extractive institutions—a long timebefore they became farmers. One compelling piece ofevidence for such hierarchy and inequality comes fromNatufian graves. Some people were buried with largeamounts of obsidian and dentalium shells, which camefrom the Mediterranean coast near Mount Carmel. Othertypes of ornamentation include necklaces, garters, andbracelets, which were made out of canine teeth and deerphalanges as well as shells. Other people were buriedwithout any of these things. Shells and also obsidian weretraded, and control of this trade was quite likely a source ofpower accumulation and inequality. Further evidence ofeconomic and political inequality comes from the Natufiansite of Ain Mallaha, just north of the Sea of Galilee. Amid agroup of about fifty round huts and many pits, clearly usedfor storage, there is a large, intensively plastered buildingclose to a cleared central place. This building was almostcertainly the house of a chief. Among the burials at the site,some are much more elaborate, and there is also evidenceof a skull cult, possibly indicating ancestor worship. Suchcults are widespread in Natufian sites, particularly Jericho.The preponderance of evidence from Natufian sitessuggests that these were probably already societies withelaborate institutions determining inheritance of elite status.They engaged in trade with distant places and had nascentforms of religion and political hierarchies.

The emergence of political elites most likely created thetransition first to sedentary life and then to farming. As theNatufian sites show, sedentary life did not necessarilymean farming and herding. People could settle down butstill make their living by hunting and gathering. After all, theLong Summer made wild crops more bountiful, and huntingand gathering was likely to have been more attractive. Mostpeople may have been quite satisfied with a subsistencelife based on hunting and gathering that did not require a lotof effort. Even technological innovation doesn’t necessarilylead to increased agricultural production. In fact, it is knownthat a major technological innovation, the introduction of thesteel axe among the group of Australian Aboriginal peoplesknown as Yir Yoront, led not to more intense production butto more sleeping, because it allowed subsistence

requirements to be met more easily, with little incentive towork for more.

The traditional, geography-based explanation for theNeolithic Revolution—the centerpiece of Jared Diamond’sargument, which we discussed in chapter 2—is that it wasdriven by the fortuitous availability of many plant and animalspecies that could easily be domesticated. This madefarming and herding attractive and induced sedentary life.After societies became sedentary and started farming, theybegan to develop political hierarchy, religion, andsignificantly more complex institutions. Though widelyaccepted, the evidence from the Natufians suggests thatthis traditional explanation puts the cart before the horse.Institutional changes occurred in societies quite a whilebefore they made the transition to farming and wereprobably the cause both of the move to sedentarism, whichreinforced the institutional changes, and subsequently ofthe Neolithic Revolution. This pattern is suggested not onlyby the evidence from the Hilly Flanks, which is the areamost intensively studied, but also by the preponderance ofevidence from the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, and EastAsia.

Certainly the transition to farming led to greateragricultural productivity and enabled a significantexpansion of population. For instance, in sites such asJericho and Abu Hureyra, one sees that the early farmingvillage was much larger than the prefarming one. In general,villages grew by between two and six times when thetransition took place. Moreover, many of the consequencesthat people have traditionally argued as having flowed fromthis transition undoubtedly happened. There was greateroccupational specialization and more rapid technologicalprogress, and probably the development of more complexand possibly less egalitarian political institutions. Butwhether this happened in a particular place was notdetermined by the availability of plant and animal species.Instead, it was a consequence of the society’s havingexperienced the types of institutional, social, and politicalinnovations that would have allowed sedentary life and thenfarming to emerge.

Though the Long Summer and the presence of crop andanimal species allowed this to happen, it did not determine

where or when exactly, after the climate had warmed up, itwould happen. Rather, this was determined by theinteraction of a critical juncture, the Long Summer, withsmall but important institutional differences that mattered.As the climate warmed up, some societies, such as theNatufians, developed elements of centralized institutionsand hierarchy, though these were on a very small scalerelative to those of modern nation-states. Like the Bushongunder Shyaam, societies reorganized to take advantage ofthe greater opportunities created by the glut of wild plantsand animals, and it was no doubt the political elites whowere the main beneficiaries of these new opportunities andof the political centralization process. Other places that hadonly slightly different institutions did not permit their politicalelites to take similar advantage of this juncture and laggedbehind the process of political centralization and thecreation of settled, agricultural, and more complexsocieties. This paved the way to a subsequent divergenceof exactly the type we have seen before. Once thesedifferences emerged, they spread to some places but notto others. For example, farming spread into Europe fromthe Middle East starting around 6500 BC, mostly as aconsequence of the migration of farmers. In Europe,institutions drifted away from parts of the world, such asAfrica, where initial institutions had been different andwhere the innovations set in motion by the Long Summer inthe Middle East happened only much later, and even then ina different form.

THE INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATIONS of the Natufians, though theydid most likely underpin the Neolithic Revolution, did notleave a simple legacy in world history and did not leadinexorably to the long-run prosperity of their homelands inmodern Israel, Palestine, and Syria. Syria and Palestineare relatively poor parts of the modern world, and theprosperity of Israel was largely imported by the settlementof Jewish people after the Second World War and theirhigh levels of education and easy access to advancedtechnologies. The early growth of the Natufians did notbecome sustained for the same reason that Soviet growthfizzled out. Though highly significant, even revolutionary for

its time, this was growth under extractive institutions. Forthe Natufian society it was also likely that this type of growthcreated deep conflicts over who would control institutionsand the extraction they enabled. For every elite benefitingfrom extraction there is a non-elite who would love toreplace him. Sometimes infighting simply replaces oneelite with another. Sometimes it destroys the wholeextractive society, unleashing a process of state andsocietal collapse, as the spectacular civilization that Mayacity-states built more than one thousand years agoexperienced.

THE UNSTABLE EXTRACTION

Farming emerged independently in several places aroundthe world. In what is now modern Mexico, societies formedthat established states and settlements, and transitioned toagriculture. As with the Natufians in the Middle East, theyalso achieved some degree of economic growth. The Mayacity-states in the area of southern Mexico, Belize,Guatemala, and Western Honduras in fact built a fairlysophisticated civilization under their own brand of extractiveinstitutions. The Maya experience illustrates not only thepossibility of growth under extractive institutions but alsoanother fundamental limit to this type of growth: the politicalinstability that emerges and ultimately leads to collapse ofboth society and state as different groups and people fightto become the extractors.

Maya cities first began to develop around 500 BC. Theseearly cities eventually failed, sometime in the first centuryAD. A new political model then emerged, creating thefoundation for the Classic Era, between AD 250 and 900.This period marked the full flowering of Maya culture andcivilization. But this more sophisticated civilization wouldalso collapse in the course of the next six hundred years. Bythe time the Spanish conquistadors arrived in the earlysixteenth century, the great temples and palaces of suchMaya sites as Tikal, Palenque, and Calakmul had recededinto the forest, not to be rediscovered until the nineteenthcentury.

The Maya cities never unified into an empire, thoughsome cities were subservient to others, and they often

appear to have cooperated, particularly in warfare. Themain connection between the region’s city-states, fifty ofwhich we can recognize by their own glyphs, is that theirpeople spoke around thirty-one different but closely relatedMayan languages. The Mayas developed a writing system,and there are at least fifteen thousand remaininginscriptions describing many aspects of elite life, culture,and religion. They also had a sophisticated calendar forrecording dates known as the Long Count. It was very muchlike our own calendar in that it counted the unfolding ofyears from a fixed date and was used by all Maya cities.The Long Count began in 3114 BC, though we do not knowwhat significance the Mayas attached to this date, whichlong precedes the emergence of anything resembling Mayasociety.

The Mayas were skilled builders who independentlyinvented cement. Their buildings and their inscriptionsprovide vital information on the trajectories of the Mayacities, as they often recorded events dated according to theLong Count. Looking across all the Maya cities,archaeologists can thus count how many buildings werefinished in particular years. Around AD 500 there are fewdated monuments. For example, the Long Count datecorresponding to AD 514 recorded just ten. There was thena steady increase, reaching twenty by AD 672 and forty bythe middle of the eighth century. After this the number ofdated monuments collapses. By the ninth century, it is downto ten per year, and by the tenth century, to zero. Thesedated inscriptions give us a clear picture of the expansionof Maya cities and their subsequent contraction from thelate eighth century.

This analysis of dates can be complemented byexamining the lists of kings the Mayas recorded. At theMaya city of Copán, now in western Honduras, there is afamous monument known as Altar Q. Altar Q records thenames of all the kings, starting from the founder of thedynasty K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’, or “King Green-Sun FirstQuetzal Macaw,” named after not just the sun but also twoof the exotic birds of the Central American forest whosefeathers were greatly valued by the Mayas. K’inich YaxK’uk’ Mo’ came to power in Copán in AD 426, which weknow from the Long Count date on Altar Q. He founded a

dynasty that would reign for four hundred years. Some ofK’inich Yax’s successors had equally graphic names. Thethirteenth ruler’s glyph translates as “18 Rabbit,” who wasfollowed by “Smoke Monkey” and then “Smoke Shell,” whodied in AD 763. The last name on the altar is King Yax PasajChan Yoaat, or “First Dawned Sky Lightening God,” whowas the sixteenth ruler of this line and assumed the throneat the death of Smoke Shell. After him we know of only onemore king, Ukit Took (“Patron of Flint”), from a fragment ofan altar. After Yax Pasaj, the buildings and inscriptionsstopped, and it seems that the dynasty was shortlyoverthrown. Ukit Took was probably not even the realclaimant to the throne but a pretender.

There is a final way of looking at this evidence at Copán,one developed by the archaeologists AnnCorinne Freter,Nancy Gonlin, and David Webster. These researchersmapped the rise and fall of Copán by examining the spreadof the settlement in the Copán Valley over a period of 850years, from AD 400 to AD 1250, using a technique calledobsidian hydration, which calculates the water content ofobsidian on the date it was mined. Once mined, the watercontent falls at a known rate, allowing archaeologists tocalculate the date a piece of obsidian was mined. Freter,Gonlin, and Webster were then able to map where piecesof dated obsidian were found in the Copán Valley and tracehow the city expanded and then contracted. Since it ispossible to make a reasonable guess about the number ofhouses and buildings in a particular area, the totalpopulation of the city can be estimated. In the period AD400–449, the population was negligible, estimated at aboutsix hundred people. It rose steadily to a peak of twenty-eight thousand in AD 750–799. Though this does notappear large by contemporary urban standards, it wasmassive for that period; these numbers imply that in thisperiod, Copán had a larger population than London orParis. Other Maya cities, such as Tikal and Calakmul, wereundoubtedly much larger. In line with the evidence from theLong Count dates, AD 800 was the population peak forCopán. After this it began to decline, and by AD 900 it hadfallen to around fifteen thousand people. From there the fallcontinued, and by AD 1200 the population had returned towhat it was eight hundred years previously.

The basis for the economic development of the MayaClassical Era was the same as that for the Bushong andthe Natufians: the creation of extractive institutions withsome degree of state centralization. These institutions hadseveral key elements. Around AD 100, in the city of Tikal inGuatemala, there emerged a new type of dynastickingdom. A ruling class based on the ajaw (lord or ruler)took root with a king called the k’uhul ajaw (divine lord) and,underneath him, a hierarchy of aristocrats. The divine lordorganized the society with the cooperation of these elitesand also communicated with the gods. As far as we know,this new set of political institutions did not allow for any sortof popular participation, but it did bring stability. The k’uhulajaw raised tribute from farmers and organized labor tobuild the great monuments, and the coalescence of theseinstitutions created the basis for an impressive economicexpansion. The Maya’s economy was based on extensiveoccupational specialization, with skilled potters, weavers,woodworkers, and tool and ornament makers. They alsotraded obsidian, jaguar pelts, marine shells, cacao, salt,and feathers among themselves and other polities overlong distances in Mexico. They probably had money, too,and like the Aztecs, used cacao beans for currency.

The way in which the Maya Classical Era was foundedon the creation of extractive political institutions was verysimilar to the situation among the Bushong, with Yax Ehb’Xook at Tikal playing a role similar to that of King Shyaam.The new political institutions led to a significant increase ineconomic prosperity, much of which was then extracted bythe new elite based around the k’uhul ajaw. Once thissystem had consolidated, by around AD 300, there was littlefurther technological change, however. Though there issome evidence of improved irrigation and watermanagement techniques, agricultural technology wasrudimentary and appears not to have changed. Buildingand artistic techniques became much more sophisticatedover time, but in total there was little innovation.

There was no creative destruction. But there were otherforms of destruction as the wealth that the extractiveinstitutions created for the k’uhul ajaw and the Maya eliteled to constant warfare, which worsened over time. Thesequence of conflicts is recorded in the Maya inscriptions,

with special glyphs indicating that a war took place at aparticular date in the Long Count. The planet Venus wasthe celestial patron of war, and the Mayas regarded somephases of the planet’s orbit as particularly auspicious forwaging war. The glyph that indicated warfare, known as“star wars” by archaeologists, shows a star showering theearth with a liquid that could be water or blood. Theinscriptions also reveal patterns of alliance andcompetition. There were long contests for power betweenthe larger states, such as Tikal, Calakmul, Copán, andPalenque, and these subjugated smaller states into avassal status. Evidence for this comes from glyphs markingroyal accessions. During this period, they start indicatingthat the smaller states were now being dominated byanother, outside ruler.

Map 10 (this page) shows the main Maya cities and thevarious patterns of contact between them as reconstructedby the archaeologists Nikolai Grube and Simon Martin.These patterns indicate that though the large cities such asCalakmul, Dos Pilas, Piedras Negras, and Yaxchilan hadextensive diplomatic contacts, some were often dominatedby others and they also fought each other.

The overwhelming fact about the Maya collapse is that itcoincides with the overthrow of the political model basedon the k’uhul ajaw. We saw in Copán that after Yax Pasaj’sdeath in AD 810 there were no more kings. At around thistime the royal palaces were abandoned. Twenty miles tothe north of Copán, in the city of Quiriguá, the last king,Jade Sky, ascended to the throne between AD 795 and800. The last dated monument is from AD 810 by the LongCount, the same year that Yax Pasaj died. The city wasabandoned soon after. Throughout the Maya area the storyis the same; the political institutions that had provided thecontext for the expansion of trade, agriculture, andpopulation vanished. Royal courts did not function,monuments and temples were not carved, and palaceswere emptied. As political and social institutions unraveled,reversing the process of state centralization, the economycontracted and the population fell.

In some cases the major centers collapsed fromwidespread violence. The Petexbatun region of Guatemala—where the great temples were subsequently pulled down

and the stone used to build extensive defensive walls—provides one vivid example. As we’ll see in the nextchapter, it was very similar to what happened in the laterRoman Empire. Later, even in places such as Copán,where there are fewer signs of violence at the time of thecollapse, many monuments were defaced or destroyed. Insome places the elite remained even after the initialoverthrow of the k’uhul ajaw. In Copán there is evidence ofthe elite continuing to erect new buildings for at leastanother two hundred years before they also disappeared.Elsewhere elites seem to have gone at the same time asthe divine lord.

Existing archaeological evidence does not allow us toreach a definitive conclusion about why the k’uhul ajaw andelites surrounding him were overthrown and the institutionsthat had created the Maya Classical Era collapsed. We

know this took place in the context of intensified inter-citywarfare, and it seems likely that opposition and rebellionwithin the cities, perhaps led by different factions of theelite, overthrew the institution.

Though the extractive institutions that the Mayas createdproduced sufficient wealth for the cities to flourish and theelite to become wealthy and generate great art andmonumental buildings, the system was not stable. Theextractive institutions upon which this narrow elite ruledcreated extensive inequality, and thus the potential forinfighting between those who could benefit from the wealthextracted from the people. This conflict ultimately led to theundoing of the Maya civilization.

WHAT GOES WRONG?

Extractive institutions are so common in history becausethey have a powerful logic: they can generate some limitedprosperity while at the same time distributing it into thehands of a small elite. For this growth to happen, there mustbe political centralization. Once this is in place, the state—or the elite controlling the state—typically has incentives toinvest and generate wealth, encourage others to invest sothat the state can extract resources from them, and evenmimic some of the processes that would normally be set inmotion by inclusive economic institutions and markets. Inthe Caribbean plantation economies, extractive institutionstook the form of the elite using coercion to force slaves toproduce sugar. In the Soviet Union, they took the form of theCommunist Party reallocating resources from agriculture toindustry and structuring some sort of incentives formanagers and workers. As we have seen, such incentiveswere undermined by the nature of the system.

The potential for creating extractive growth gives animpetus to political centralization and is the reason whyKing Shyaam wished to create the Kuba Kingdom, andlikely accounts for why the Natufians in the Middle East setup a primitive form of law and order, hierarchy, andextractive institutions that would ultimately lead to theNeolithic Revolution. Similar processes also likelyunderpinned the emergence of settled societies and thetransition to agriculture in the Americas, and can be seen in

the sophisticated civilization that the Mayas built onfoundations laid by highly extractive institutions coercingmany for the benefit of their narrow elites.

The growth generated by extractive institutions is verydifferent in nature from growth created under inclusiveinstitutions, however. Most important, it is not sustainable.By their very nature, extractive institutions do not fostercreative destruction and generate at best only a limitedamount of technological progress. The growth theyengender thus lasts for only so long. The Soviet experiencegives a vivid illustration of this limit. Soviet Russiagenerated rapid growth as it caught up rapidly with some ofthe advanced technologies in the world, and resourceswere allocated out of the highly inefficient agricultural sectorand into industry. But ultimately the incentives faced inevery sector, from agriculture to industry, could notstimulate technological progress. This took place in only afew pockets where resources were being poured andwhere innovation was strongly rewarded because of its rolein the competition with the West. Soviet growth, howeverrapid it was, was bound to be relatively short lived, and itwas already running out of steam by the 1970s.

Lack of creative destruction and innovation is not the onlyreason why there are severe limits to growth underextractive institutions. The history of the Maya city-statesillustrates a more ominous and, alas, more common end,again implied by the internal logic of extractive institutions.As these institutions create significant gains for the elite,there will be strong incentives for others to fight to replacethe current elite. Infighting and instability are thus inherentfeatures of extractive institutions, and they not only createfurther inefficiencies but also often reverse any politicalcentralization, sometimes even leading to the totalbreakdown of law and order and descent into chaos, as theMaya city-states experienced following their relativesuccess during their Classical Era.

Though inherently limited, growth under extractiveinstitutions may nonetheless appear spectacular when it’sin motion. Many in the Soviet Union and many more in theWestern world were awestruck by Soviet growth in the1920s, ’30s, ’40s, ’50s, ’60s, and even as late as the ’70s,in the same way that they are mesmerized by the

breakneck pace of economic growth in China today. But aswe will discuss in greater detail in chapter 15, China underthe rule of the Communist Party is another example ofsociety experiencing growth under extractive institutionsand is similarly unlikely to generate sustained growth unlessit undergoes a fundamental political transformation towardinclusive political institutions.

6.

DRIFTING APART

HOW VENICE BECAME A MUSEUM

THE GROUP OF ISLANDS that form Venice lie at the far northof the Adriatic Sea. In the Middle Ages, Venice waspossibly the richest place in the world, with the mostadvanced set of inclusive economic institutionsunderpinned by nascent political inclusiveness. It gained itsindependence in AD 810, at what turned out to be afortuitous time. The economy of Europe was recoveringfrom the decline it had suffered as the Roman Empirecollapsed, and kings such as Charlemagne werereconstituting strong central political power. This led tostability, greater security, and an expansion of trade, whichVenice was in a unique position to take advantage of. Itwas a nation of seafarers, placed right in the middle of theMediterranean. From the East came spices, Byzantine-manufactured goods, and slaves. Venice became rich. By1050, when Venice had already been expandingeconomically for at least a century, it had a population of45,000 people. This increased by more than 50 percent, to70,000, by 1200. By 1330 the population had againincreased by another 50 percent, to 110,000; Venice wasthen as big as Paris, and probably three times the size ofLondon.

One of the key bases for the economic expansion ofVenice was a series of contractual innovations makingeconomic institutions much more inclusive. The mostfamous was the commenda, a rudimentary type of jointstock company, which formed only for the duration of asingle trading mission. A commenda involved two partners,a “sedentary” one who stayed in Venice and one whotraveled. The sedentary partner put capital into the venture,while the traveling partner accompanied the cargo.Typically, the sedentary partner put in the lion’s share of the

capital. Young entrepreneurs who did not have wealththemselves could then get into the trading business bytraveling with the merchandise. It was a key channel ofupward social mobility. Any losses in the voyage wereshared according to the amount of capital the partners hadput in. If the voyage made money, profits were based ontwo types of commenda contracts. If the commenda wasunilateral, then the sedentary merchant provided 100percent of the capital and received 75 percent of theprofits. If it was bilateral, the sedentary merchant provided67 percent of the capital and received 50 percent of theprofits. Studying official documents, one sees how powerfula force the commenda was in fostering upward socialmobility: these documents are full of new names, peoplewho had previously not been among the Venetian elite. Ingovernment documents of AD 960, 971, and 982, thenumber of new names comprise 69 percent, 81 percent,and 65 percent, respectively, of those recorded.

This economic inclusiveness and the rise of new familiesthrough trade forced the political system to become evenmore open. The doge, who governed Venice, was selectedfor life by the General Assembly. Though a generalgathering of all citizens, in practice the General Assemblywas dominated by a core group of powerful families.Though the doge was very powerful, his power wasgradually reduced over time by changes in politicalinstitutions. After 1032 the doge was elected along with anewly created Ducal Council, whose job was also to ensurethat the doge did not acquire absolute power. The firstdoge hemmed in by this council, Domenico Flabianico,was a wealthy silk merchant from a family that had notpreviously held high office. This institutional change wasfollowed by a huge expansion of Venetian mercantile andnaval power. In 1082 Venice was granted extensive tradeprivileges in Constantinople, and a Venetian Quarter wascreated in that city. It soon housed ten thousand Venetians.Here we see inclusive economic and political institutionsbeginning to work in tandem.

The economic expansion of Venice, which created morepressure for political change, exploded after the changes inpolitical and economic institutions that followed the murderof the doge in 1171. The first important innovation was the

creation of a Great Council, which was to be the ultimatesource of political power in Venice from this point on. Thecouncil was made up of officeholders of the Venetian state,such as judges, and was dominated by aristocrats. Inaddition to these officeholders, each year a hundred newmembers were nominated to the council by a nominatingcommittee whose four members were chosen by lot fromthe existing council. The council also subsequently chosethe members for two subcouncils, the Senate and theCouncil of Forty, which had various legislative andexecutive tasks. The Great Council also chose the DucalCouncil, which was expanded from two to six members.The second innovation was the creation of yet anothercouncil, chosen by the Great Council by lot, to nominate thedoge. Though the choice had to be ratified by the GeneralAssembly, since they nominated only one person, thiseffectively gave the choice of doge to the council. The thirdinnovation was that a new doge had to swear an oath ofoffice that circumscribed ducal power. Over time theseconstraints were continually expanded so that subsequentdoges had to obey magistrates, then have all theirdecisions approved by the Ducal Council. The DucalCouncil also took on the role of ensuring that the dogeobeyed all decisions of the Great Council.

These political reforms led to a further series ofinstitutional innovations: in law, the creation of independentmagistrates, courts, a court of appeals, and new privatecontract and bankruptcy laws. These new Venetianeconomic institutions allowed the creation of new legalbusiness forms and new types of contracts. There wasrapid financial innovation, and we see the beginnings ofmodern banking around this time in Venice. The dynamicmoving Venice toward fully inclusive institutions lookedunstoppable.

But there was a tension in all this. Economic growthsupported by the inclusive Venetian institutions wasaccompanied by creative destruction. Each new wave ofenterprising young men who became rich via thecommenda or other similar economic institutions tended toreduce the profits and economic success of establishedelites. And they did not just reduce their profits; they alsochallenged their political power. Thus there was always a

temptation, if they could get away with it, for the existingelites sitting in the Great Council to close down the systemto these new people.

At the Great Council’s inception, membership wasdetermined each year. As we saw, at the end of the year,four electors were randomly chosen to nominate a hundredmembers for the next year, who were automaticallyselected. On October 3, 1286, a proposal was made to theGreat Council that the rules be amended so thatnominations had to be confirmed by a majority in theCouncil of Forty, which was tightly controlled by elitefamilies. This would have given this elite veto power overnew nominations to the council, something they previouslyhad not had. The proposal was defeated. On October 5,1286, another proposal was put forth; this time it passed.From then on there was to be automatic confirmation of aperson if his fathers and grandfathers had served on thecouncil. Otherwise, confirmation was required by the DucalCouncil. On October 17 another change in the rules waspassed stipulating that an appointment to the Great Councilmust be approved by the Council of Forty, the doge, andthe Ducal Council.

The debates and constitutional amendments of 1286presaged La Serrata (“The Closure”) of Venice. In February1297, it was decided that if you had been a member of theGreat Council in the previous four years, you receivedautomatic nomination and approval. New nominations nowhad to be approved by the Council of Forty, but with onlytwelve votes. After September 11, 1298, current membersand their families no longer needed confirmation. TheGreat Council was now effectively sealed to outsiders, andthe initial incumbents had become a hereditary aristocracy.The seal on this came in 1315, with the Libro d’Oro, or“Gold Book,” which was an official registry of the Venetiannobility.

Those outside this nascent nobility did not let theirpowers erode without a struggle. Political tensionsmounted steadily in Venice between 1297 and 1315. TheGreat Council partially responded by making itself bigger.In an attempt to co-opt its most vocal opponents, it grewfrom 450 to 1,500. This expansion was complemented byrepression. A police force was introduced for the first time

in 1310, and there was a steady growth in domesticcoercion, undoubtedly as a way of solidifying the newpolitical order.

Having implemented a political Serrata, the GreatCouncil then moved to adopt an economic Serrata. Theswitch toward extractive political institutions was now beingfollowed by a move toward extractive economic institutions.Most important, they banned the use of commendacontracts, one of the great institutional innovations that hadmade Venice rich. This shouldn’t be a surprise: thecommenda benefited new merchants, and now theestablished elite was trying to exclude them. This was justone step toward more extractive economic institutions.Another step came when, starting in 1314, the Venetianstate began to take over and nationalize trade. It organizedstate galleys to engage in trade and, from 1324 on, beganto charge individuals high levels of taxes if they wanted toengage in trade. Long-distance trade became the preserveof the nobility. This was the beginning of the end ofVenetian prosperity. With the main lines of businessmonopolized by the increasingly narrow elite, the declinewas under way. Venice appeared to have been on the brinkof becoming the world’s first inclusive society, but it fell to acoup. Political and economic institutions became moreextractive, and Venice began to experience economicdecline. By 1500 the population had shrunk to one hundredthousand. Between 1650 and 1800, when the population ofEurope rapidly expanded, that of Venice contracted.

Today the only economy Venice has, apart from a bit offishing, is tourism. Instead of pioneering trade routes andeconomic institutions, Venetians make pizza and icecream and blow colored glass for hordes of foreigners. Thetourists come to see the pre-Serrata wonders of Venice,such as the Doge’s Palace and the lions of St. Mark’sCathedral, which were looted from Byzantium when Veniceruled the Mediterranean. Venice went from economicpowerhouse to museum.

IN THIS CHAPTER we focus on the historical development ofinstitutions in different parts of the world and explain whythey evolved in different ways. We saw in chapter 4 how the

institutions of Western Europe diverged from those inEastern Europe and then how those of England divergedfrom those in the rest of Western Europe. This was aconsequence of small institutional differences, mostlyresulting from institutional drift interacting with criticaljunctures. It might then be tempting to think that theseinstitutional differences are the tip of a deep historicaliceberg where under the waterline we find English andEuropean institutions inexorably drifting away from thoseelsewhere, based on historical events dating backmillennia. The rest, as they say, is history.

Except that it isn’t, for two reasons. First, moves towardinclusive institutions, as our account of Venice shows, canbe reversed. Venice became prosperous. But its politicaland economic institutions were overthrown, and thatprosperity went into reverse. Today Venice is rich onlybecause people who make their income elsewhere chooseto spend it there admiring the glory of its past. The fact thatinclusive institutions can go into reverse shows that there isno simple cumulative process of institutional improvement.

Second, small institutional differences that play a crucialrole during critical junctures are by their nature ephemeral.Because they are small, they can be reversed, then canreemerge and be reversed again. We will see in thischapter that, in contrast with what one would expect fromthe geography or culture theories, England, where thedecisive step toward inclusive institutions would take placein the seventeenth century, was a backwater, not only in themillennia following the Neolithic Revolution in the MiddleEast but also at the beginning of the Middle Ages, followingthe fall of the Western Roman Empire. The British Isleswere marginal to the Roman Empire, certainly of lessimportance than continental Western Europe, North Africa,the Balkans, Constantinople, or the Middle East. When theWestern Roman Empire collapsed in the fifth century AD,Britain suffered the most complete decline. But the politicalrevolutions that would ultimately bring the IndustrialRevolution would take place not in Italy, Turkey, or evenwestern continental Europe, but in the British Isles.

In understanding the path to England’s IndustrialRevolution and the countries that followed it, Rome’s legacyis nonetheless important for several reasons. First, Rome,

like Venice, underwent major early institutional innovations.As in Venice, Rome’s initial economic success was basedon inclusive institutions—at least by the standards of theirtime. As in Venice, these institutions became decidedlymore extractive over time. With Rome, this was aconsequence of the change from the Republic (510 BC–49BC) to the Empire (49 BC–AD 476). Even though during theRepublican period Rome built an impressive empire, andlong-distance trade and transport flourished, much of theRoman economy was based on extraction. The transitionfrom republic to empire increased extraction and ultimatelyled to the kind of infighting, instability, and collapse that wesaw with the Maya city-states.

Second and more important, we will see that WesternEurope’s subsequent institutional development, though itwas not a direct inheritance of Rome, was a consequenceof critical junctures that were common across the region inthe wake of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.These critical junctures had little parallel in other parts of theworld, such as Africa, Asia, or the Americas, though we willalso show via the history of Ethiopia that when other placesdid experience similar critical junctures, they sometimesreacted in ways that were remarkably similar. Romandecline led to feudalism, which, as a by-product, causedslavery to wither away, brought into existence cities thatwere outside the sphere of influence of monarchs andaristocrats, and in the process created a set of institutionswhere the political powers of rulers were weakened. It wasupon this feudal foundation that the Black Death wouldcreate havoc and further strengthen independent cities andpeasants at the expense of monarchs, aristocrats, andlarge landowners. And it was on this canvas that theopportunities created by the Atlantic trade would play out.Many parts of the world did not undergo these changes,and in consequence drifted apart.

ROMAN VIRTUES …

Roman plebeian tribune Tiberius Gracchus was clubbed todeath in 133 BC by Roman senators and his body wasthrown unceremoniously into the Tiber. His murderers werearistocrats like Tiberius himself, and the assassination was

masterminded by his cousin Publius Cornelius ScipioNasica. Tiberius Gracchus had an impeccable aristocraticpedigree as a descendant of some of the more illustriousleaders of the Roman Republic, including Lucius AemiliusPaullus, hero of the Illyrian and Second Punic wars, andScipio Africanus, the general who defeated Hannibal in theSecond Punic War. Why had the powerful senators of hisday, even his cousin, turned against him?

The answer tells us much about the tensions in theRoman Republic and the causes of its subsequent decline.What pitted Tiberius against these powerful senators washis willingness to stand against them in a crucial questionof the day: the allocation of land and the rights of plebeians,common Roman citizens.

By the time of Tiberius Gracchus, Rome was a well-established republic. Its political institutions and the virtuesof Roman citizen-soldiers—as captured by Jacques-LouisDavid’s famous painting Oath of the Horatii, which showsthe sons swearing to their fathers that they will defend theRoman Republic to their death—are still seen by manyhistorians as the foundation of the republic’s success.Roman citizens created the republic by overthrowing theirking, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, known as Tarquin theProud, around 510 BC. The republic cleverly designedpolitical institutions with many inclusive elements. It wasgoverned by magistrates elected for a year. That the officeof magistrate was elected, annually, and held by multiplepeople at the same time reduced the ability of any oneperson to consolidate or exploit his power. The republic’sinstitutions contained a system of checks and balances thatdistributed power fairly widely. This was so even if not allcitizens had equal representation, as voting was indirect.There was also a large number of slaves crucial forproduction in much of Italy, making up perhaps one-third ofthe population. Slaves of course had no rights, let alonepolitical representation.

All the same, as in Venice, Roman political institutionshad pluralistic elements. The plebeians had their ownassembly, which could elect the plebeian tribune, who hadthe power to veto actions by the magistrates, call thePlebeian Assembly, and propose legislation. It was theplebeians who put Tiberius Gracchus in power in 133 BC.

Their power had been forged by “secession,” a form ofstrike by plebeians, particularly soldiers, who wouldwithdraw to a hill outside the city and refuse to cooperatewith the magistrates until their complaints were dealt with.This threat was of course particularly important during atime of war. It was supposedly during such a secession inthe fifth century BC that citizens gained the right to elect theirtribune and enact laws that would govern their community.Their political and legal protection, even if limited by ourcurrent standards, created economic opportunities forcitizens and some degree of inclusivity in economicinstitutions. As a result, trade throughout the Mediterraneanflourished under the Roman Republic. Archaeologicalevidence suggests that while the majority of both citizensand slaves lived not much above subsistence level, manyRomans, including some common citizens, achieved highincomes, with access to public services such as a citysewage system and street lighting.

Moreover, there is evidence that there was also someeconomic growth under the Roman Republic. We can trackthe economic fortunes of the Romans from shipwrecks. Theempire the Romans built was in a sense a web of portcities—from Athens, Antioch, and Alexandria in the east;via Rome, Carthage, and Cadiz; all the way to London inthe far west. As Roman territories expanded, so did tradeand shipping, which can be traced from shipwrecks foundby archaeologists on the floor of the Mediterranean. Thesewrecks can be dated in many ways. Often the ships carriedamphorae full of wine or olive oil, being transported fromItaly to Gaul, or Spanish olive oil to be sold or distributed forfree in Rome. Amphorae, sealed vessels made of clay,often contained information on who had made them andwhen. Just near the river Tiber in Rome is a small hill,Monte Testaccio, also known as Monte dei Cocci (“PotteryMountain”), made up of approximately fifty-three millionamphorae. When the amphorae were unloaded from ships,they were discarded, over the centuries creating a huge hill.

Other goods on the ships and the ship itself cansometimes be dated using radiocarbon dating, a powerfultechnique used by archaeologists to date the age oforganic remains. Plants create energy by photosynthesis,which uses the energy from the sun to convert carbon

dioxide into sugars. As they do this, plants incorporate aquantity of a naturally occurring radioisotope, carbon-14.After plants die, the carbon-14 deteriorates due toradioactive decay. When archaeologists find a shipwreck,they can date the ship’s wood by comparing the remainingcarbon-14 fraction in it to that expected from atmosphericcarbon-14. This gives an estimate of when the tree was cutdown. Only about 20 shipwrecks have been dated to aslong ago as 500 BC. These were probably not Romanships, and could well have been Carthaginian, for example.But then the number of Roman shipwrecks increasesrapidly. Around the time of the birth of Christ, they reacheda peak of 180.

Shipwrecks are a powerful way of tracing the economiccontours of the Roman Republic, and they do showevidence of some economic growth, but they have to bekept in perspective. Probably two-thirds of the contents ofthe ships were the property of the Roman state, taxes andtribute being brought back from the provinces to Rome, orgrain and olive oil from North Africa to be handed out freeto the citizens of the city. It is these fruits of extraction thatmostly constructed Monte Testaccio.

Another fascinating way to find evidence of economicgrowth is from the Greenland Ice Core Project. Assnowflakes fall, they pick up small quantities of pollution inthe atmosphere, particularly the metals lead, silver, andcopper. The snow freezes and piles up on top of the snowthat fell in previous years. This process has been going onfor millennia, and provides an unrivaled opportunity forscientists to understand the extent of atmospheric pollutionthousands of years ago. In 1990–1992 the Greenland IceCore Project drilled down through 3,030 meters of icecovering about 250,000 years of human history. One of themajor findings of this project, and others preceding it, wasthat there was a distinct increase in atmospheric pollutantsstarting around 500 BC. Atmospheric quantities of lead,silver, and copper then increased steadily, reaching a peakin the first century AD. Remarkably, this atmosphericquantity of lead is reached again only in the thirteenthcentury. These findings show how intense, compared withwhat came before and after, Roman mining was. Thisupsurge in mining clearly indicates economic expansion.

But Roman growth was unsustainable, occurring underinstitutions that were partially inclusive and partiallyextractive. Though Roman citizens had political andeconomic rights, slavery was widespread and veryextractive, and the elite, the senatorial class, dominatedboth the economy and politics. Despite the presence of thePlebeian Assembly and plebeian tribute, for example, realpower rested with the Senate, whose members came fromthe large landowners constituting the senatorial class.According to the Roman historian Livy, the Senate wascreated by Rome’s first king, Romulus, and consisted ofone hundred men. Their descendants made up thesenatorial class, though new blood was also added. Thedistribution of land was very unequal and most likelybecame more so by the second century BC. This was at theroot of the problems that Tiberius Gracchus brought to thefore as tribune.

As its expansion throughout the Mediterraneancontinued, Rome experienced an influx of great riches. Butthis bounty was captured mostly by a few wealthy familiesof senatorial rank, and inequality between rich and poorincreased. Senators owed their wealth not only to theircontrol of the lucrative provinces but also to their very largeestates throughout Italy. These estates were manned bygangs of slaves, often captured in the wars that Romefought. But where the land for these estates came from wasequally significant. Rome’s armies during the Republicconsisted of citizen-soldiers who were small landowners,first in Rome and later in other parts of Italy. Traditionallythey fought in the army when necessary and then returnedto their plots. As Rome expanded and the campaigns gotlonger, this model ceased to work. Soldiers were awayfrom their plots for years at a time, and many landholdingsfell into disuse. The soldiers’ families sometimes foundthemselves under mountains of debt and on the brink ofstarvation. Many of the plots were therefore graduallyabandoned, and absorbed by the estates of the senators.As the senatorial class got richer and richer, the large massof landless citizens gathered in Rome, often after beingdecommissioned from the army. With no land to return to,they sought work in Rome. By the late second century BC,the situation had reached a dangerous boiling point, both

because the gap between rich and poor had widened tounprecedented levels and because there were hordes ofdiscontented citizens in Rome ready to rebel in response tothese injustices and turn against the Roman aristocracy.But political power rested with the rich landowners of thesenatorial class, who were the beneficiaries of the changesthat had gone on over the last two centuries. Most had nointention of changing the system that had served them sowell.

According to the Roman historian Plutarch, TiberiusGracchus, when traveling through Etruria, a region in whatis now central Italy, became aware of the hardship thatfamilies of citizen-soldiers were suffering. Whetherbecause of this experience or because of other frictionswith the powerful senators of his time, he would soonembark upon a daring plan to change land allocation inItaly. He stood for plebeian tribune in 133 BC, then used hisoffice to propose land reform: a commission wouldinvestigate whether public lands were being illegallyoccupied and would redistribute land in excess of the legallimit of three hundred acres to landless Roman citizens.The three-hundred-acre limit was in fact part of an old law,though ignored and not implemented for centuries. TiberiusGracchus’s proposal sent shockwaves through thesenatorial class, who were able to block implementation ofhis reforms for a while. When Tiberius managed to use thepower of the mob supporting him to remove another tribunewho threatened to veto his land reform, his proposedcommission was finally founded. The Senate, though,prevented implementation by starving the commission offunds.

Things came to a head when Tiberius Gracchus claimedfor his land reform commission the funds left by the king ofthe Greek city Pergamum to the Roman people. He alsoattempted to stand for tribune a second time, partlybecause he was afraid of persecution by the Senate afterhe stepped down. This gave the senators the pretext tocharge that Tiberius was trying to declare himself king. Heand his supporters were attacked, and many were killed.Tiberius Gracchus himself was one of the first to fall, thoughhis death would not solve the problem, and others wouldattempt to reform the distribution of land and other aspects

of Roman economy and society. Many would meet a similarfate. Tiberius Gracchus’s brother Gaius, for example, wasalso murdered by landowners, after he took the mantle fromhis brother.

These tensions would surface again periodically duringthe next century—for example, leading to the “Social War”between 91 BC and 87 BC. The aggressive defender of thesenatorial interests, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, not onlyviciously suppressed the demands for change but alsoseverely curtailed the powers of the plebeian tribune. Thesame issues would also be a central factor in the supportthat Julius Caesar received from the people of Rome in hisfight against the Senate.

The political institutions forming the core of the RomanRepublic were overthrown by Julius Caesar in 49 BC whenhe moved his legion across the Rubicon, the riverseparating the Roman provinces of Cisalpine Gaul fromItaly. Rome fell to Caesar, and another civil war broke out.Though Caesar was victorious, he was murdered bydisgruntled senators, led by Brutus and Cassius, in 44 BC.The Roman Republic would never be re-created. A newcivil war broke out between Caesar’s supporters,particularly Mark Anthony and Octavian, and his foes. AfterAnthony and Octavian won, they fought each other, untilOctavian emerged triumphant in the battle of Actium in 31BC. By the following year, and for the next forty-five years,Octavian, known after 28 BC as Augustus Caesar, ruledRome alone. Augustus created the Roman Empire, thoughhe preferred the title princep, a sort of “first among equals,”and called the regime the Principate. Map 11 shows theRoman Empire at its greatest extent in 117 AD. It alsoincludes the river Rubicon, which Caesar so fatefullycrossed.

It was this transition from republic to principate, and laternaked empire, that laid the seeds of the decline of Rome.The partially inclusive political institutions, which hadformed the basis for the economic success, were graduallyundermined. Even if the Roman Republic created a tiltedplaying field in favor of the senatorial class and otherwealthy Romans, it was not an absolutist regime and hadnever before concentrated so much power in one position.The changes unleashed by Augustus, as with the Venetian

Serrata, were at first political but then would havesignificant economic consequences. As a result of thesechanges, by the fifth century AD the Western RomanEmpire, as the West was called after it split from the East,had declined economically and militarily, and was on thebrink of collapse.

… ROMAN VICES

Flavius Aetius was one of the larger-than-life characters ofthe late Roman Empire, hailed as “the last of the Romans”by Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of theRoman Empire. Between AD 433 and 454, until he wasmurdered by the emperor Valentinian III, Aetius, a general,was probably the most powerful person in the RomanEmpire. He shaped both domestic and foreign policy, andfought a series of crucial battles against the barbarians,and also other Romans in civil wars. He was unique amongpowerful generals fighting in civil wars in not seeking theemperorship himself. Since the end of the second century,civil war had become a fact of life in the Roman Empire.Between the death of Marcus Aurelius in AD 180 until thecollapse of the Western Roman Empire in AD 476, therewas hardly a decade that did not see a civil war or a palacecoup against an emperor. Few emperors died of naturalcauses or in battle. Most were murdered by usurpers ortheir own troops.

Aetius’s career illustrates the changes from RomanRepublic and early Empire to the late Roman Empire. Notonly did his involvement in incessant civil wars and hispower in every aspect of the empire’s business contrastwith the much more limited power of generals and senatorsduring earlier periods, but it also highlights how the fortunesof Romans changed radically in the intervening centuries inother ways.

By the late Roman Empire, the so-called barbarians whowere initially dominated and incorporated into Romanarmies or used as slaves now dominated many parts of theempire. As a young man, Aetius had been held hostage bybarbarians, first by the Goths under Alaric and then by theHuns. Roman relations with these barbarians are indicativeof how things had changed since the Republic. Alaric wasboth a ferocious enemy and an ally, so much so that in 405he was appointed one of the senior-most generals of theRoman army. The arrangement was temporary, however.By 408, Alaric was fighting against the Romans, invadingItaly and sacking Rome.

The Huns were also both powerful foes and frequentallies of the Romans. Though they, too, held Aetiushostage, they later fought alongside him in a civil war. But

the Huns did not stay long on one side, and under Attilathey fought a major battle against the Romans in 451, justacross the Rhine. This time defending the Romans werethe Goths, under Theodoric.

All of this did not stop Roman elites from trying toappease barbarian commanders, often not to protectRoman territories but to gain the upper hand in internalpower struggles. For example, the Vandals, under theirking, Geiseric, ravaged large parts of the Iberian Peninsulaand then conquered the Roman bread baskets in NorthAfrica from 429 onward. The Roman response to this wasto offer Geiseric the emperor Valentinian III’s child daughteras a bride. Geiseric was at the time married to thedaughter of one of the leaders of the Goths, but this doesnot seem to have stopped him. He annulled his marriageunder the pretext that his wife was trying to murder him andsent her back to her family after mutilating her by cutting offboth her ears and her nose. Fortunately for the bride-to-be,because of her young age she was kept in Italy and neverconsummated her marriage to Geiseric. Later she wouldmarry another powerful general, Petronius Maximus, themastermind of the murder of Aetius by the emperorValentinian III, who would himself shortly be murdered in aplot hatched by Maximus. Maximus later declared himselfemperor, but his reign would be very short, ended by hisdeath during the major offensive by the Vandals underGeiseric against Italy, which saw Rome fall and savagelyplundered.

BY THE EARLY fifth century, the barbarians were literally at thegate. Some historians argue that it was a consequence ofthe more formidable opponents the Romans faced duringthe late Empire. But the success of the Goths, Huns, andVandals against Rome was a symptom, not the cause, ofRome’s decline. During the Republic, Rome had dealt withmuch more organized and threatening opponents, such asthe Carthaginians. The decline of Rome had causes verysimilar to those of the Maya city-states. Rome’sincreasingly extractive political and economic institutionsgenerated its demise because they caused infighting andcivil war.

The origins of the decline go back at least to Augustus’sseizure of power, which set in motion changes that madepolitical institutions much more extractive. These includedchanges in the structure of the army, which madesecession impossible, thus removing a crucial element thatensured political representation for common Romans. Theemperor Tiberius, who followed Augustus in AD 14,abolished the Plebeian Assembly and transferred itspowers to the Senate. Instead of a political voice, Romancitizens now had free handouts of wheat and, subsequently,olive oil, wine, and pork, and were kept entertained bycircuses and gladiatorial contests. With Augustus’sreforms, emperors began to rely not so much on the armymade up of citizen-soldiers, but on the Praetorian Guard,the elite group of professional soldiers created byAugustus. The Guard itself would soon become animportant independent broker of who would becomeemperor, often through not peaceful means but civil warsand intrigue. Augustus also strengthened the aristocracyagainst common Roman citizens, and the growinginequality that had underpinned the conflict betweenTiberius Gracchus and the aristocrats continued, perhapseven strengthened.

The accumulation of power at the center made theproperty rights of common Romans less secure. Statelands also expanded with the empire as a consequence ofconfiscation, and grew to as much as half of the land inmany parts of the empire. Property rights becameparticularly unstable because of the concentration of powerin the hands of the emperor and his entourage. In a patternnot too different from what happened in the Maya city-states, infighting to take control of this powerful positionincreased. Civil wars became a regular occurrence, evenbefore the chaotic fifth century, when the barbarians ruledsupreme. For example, Septimius Severus seized powerfrom Didius Julianus, who had made himself emperor afterthe murder of Pertinax in AD 193. Severus, the thirdemperor in the so-called Year of the Five Emperors, thenwaged war against his rival claimants, the generalsPescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus, who were finallydefeated i n AD 194 and 197, respectively. Severusconfiscated all the property of his losing opponents in the

ensuing civil war. Though able rulers, such as Trajan (AD 98to 117), Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius in the next century,could stanch decline, they could not, or did not want to,address the fundamental institutional problems. None ofthese men proposed abandoning the empire or re-creatingeffective political institutions along the lines of the RomanRepublic. Marcus Aurelius, for all his successes, wasfollowed by his son Commodus, who was more likeCaligula or Nero than his father.

The rising instability was evident from the layout andlocation of towns and cities in the empire. By the thirdcentury AD every sizeable city in the empire had a defensivewall. In many cases monuments were plundered for stone,which was used in fortifications. In Gaul before the Romanshad arrived in 125 BC, it was usual to build settlements onhilltops, since these were more easily defended. With theinitial arrival of Rome, settlements moved down to theplains. In the third century, this trend was reversed.

Along with mounting political instability came changes insociety that moved economic institutions toward greaterextraction. Though citizenship was expanded to the extentthat by AD 212 nearly all the inhabitants of the empire werecitizens, this change went along with changes in statusbetween citizens. Any sense that there might have been ofequality before the law deteriorated. For example, by thereign of Hadrian (AD 117 to 138), there were cleardifferences in the types of laws applied to differentcategories of Roman citizen. Just as important, the role ofcitizens was completely different from how it had been inthe days of the Roman Republic, when they were able toexercise some power over political and economicdecisions through the assemblies in Rome.

Slavery remained a constant throughout Rome, thoughthere is some controversy over whether the fraction ofslaves in the population actually declined over thecenturies. Equally important, as the empire developed,more and more agricultural workers were reduced to semi-servile status and tied to the land. The status of theseservile “coloni” is extensively discussed in legal documentssuch as the Codex Theodosianus and Codex Justinianus,and probably originated during the reign of Diocletian (AD284 to 305). The rights of landlords over the coloni were

progressively increased. The emperor Constantine in 332allowed landlords to chain a colonus whom they suspectedwas trying to escape, and from AD 365, coloni were notallowed to sell their own property without their landlord’spermission.

Just as we can use shipwrecks and the Greenland icecores to track the economic expansion of Rome duringearlier periods, we can use them also to trace its decline.B y AD 500 the peak of 180 ships was reduced to 20. AsRome declined, Mediterranean trade collapsed, and somescholars have even argued that it did not return to itsRoman height until the nineteenth century. The Greenlandice tells a similar story. The Romans used silver for coins,and lead had many uses, including for pipes and tableware.After peaking in the first century AD, the deposits of lead,silver, and copper in the ice cores declined.

The experience of economic growth during the RomanRepublic was impressive, as were other examples ofgrowth under extractive institutions, such as the SovietUnion. But that growth was limited and was not sustained,even when it is taken into account that it occurred underpartially inclusive institutions. Growth was based onrelatively high agricultural productivity, significant tributefrom the provinces, and long-distance trade, but it was notunderpinned by technological progress or creativedestruction. The Romans inherited some basictechnologies, iron tools and weapons, literacy, plowagriculture, and building techniques. Early on in theRepublic, they created others: cement masonry, pumps,and the water wheel. But thereafter, technology wasstagnant throughout the period of the Roman Empire. Inshipping, for instance, there was little change in ship designor rigging, and the Romans never developed the sternrudder, instead steering ships with oars. Water wheelsspread very slowly, so that water power neverrevolutionized the Roman economy. Even such greatachievements as aqueducts and city sewers used existingtechnology, though the Romans perfected it. There could besome economic growth without innovation, relying onexisting technology, but it was growth without creativedestruction. And it did not last. As property rights becamemore insecure and the economic rights of citizens followed

the decline of their political rights, economic growthlikewise declined.

A remarkable thing about new technologies in theRoman period is that their creation and spread seem tohave been driven by the state. This is good news, until thegovernment decides that it is not interested in technologicaldevelopment—an all-too-common occurrence due to thefear of creative destruction. The great Roman writer Plinythe Elder relates the following story. During the reign of theemperor Tiberius, a man invented unbreakable glass andwent to the emperor anticipating that he would get a greatreward. He demonstrated his invention, and Tiberius askedhim if he had told anyone else about it. When the manreplied no, Tiberius had the man dragged away and killed,“lest gold be reduced to the value of mud.” There are twointeresting things about this story. First, the man went toTiberius in the first place for a reward, rather than settinghimself up in business and making a profit by selling theglass. This shows the role of the Roman government incontrolling technology. Second, Tiberius was happy todestroy the innovation because of the adverse economiceffects it would have had. This is the fear of the economiceffects of creative destruction.

There is also direct evidence from the period of theEmpire of the fear of the political consequences of creativedestruction. Suetonius tells how the emperor Vespasian,who ruled between AD 69 and 79, was approached by aman who had invented a device for transporting columns tothe Capitol, the citadel of Rome, at a relatively small cost.Columns were large, heavy, and very difficult to transport.Moving them to Rome from the mines where they weremade involved the labor of thousands of people, at greatexpense to the government. Vespasian did not kill the man,but he also refused to use the innovation, declaring, “Howwill it be possible for me to feed the populace?” Again aninventor came to the government. Perhaps this was morenatural than with the unbreakable glass, as the Romangovernment was most heavily involved with column miningand transportation. Again the innovation was turned downbecause of the threat of creative destruction, not so muchbecause of its economic impact, but because of fear ofpolitical creative destruction. Vespasian was concerned

that unless he kept the people happy and under control itwould be politically destabilizing. The Roman plebeianshad to be kept busy and pliant, so it was good to have jobsto give them, such as moving columns about. Thiscomplemented the bread and circuses, which were alsodispensed for free to keep the population content. It isperhaps telling that both of these examples came soonafter the collapse of the Republic. The Roman emperorshad far more power to block change than the Roman rulersduring the Republic.

Another important reason for the lack of technologicalinnovation was the prevalence of slavery. As the territoriesRomans controlled expanded, vast numbers wereenslaved, often being brought back to Italy to work on largeestates. Many citizens in Rome did not need to work: theylived off the handouts from the government. Where wasinnovation to come from? We have argued that innovationcomes from new people with new ideas, developing newsolutions to old problems. In Rome the people doing theproducing were slaves and, later, semi-servile coloni withfew incentives to innovate, since it was their masters, notthey, who stood to benefit from any innovation. As we willsee many times in this book, economies based on therepression of labor and systems such as slavery andserfdom are notoriously noninnovative. This is true from theancient world to the modern era. In the United States, forexample, the northern states took part in the IndustrialRevolution, not the South. Of course slavery and serfdomcreated huge wealth for those who owned the slaves andcontrolled the serfs, but it did not create technologicalinnovation or prosperity for society.

NO ONE WRITES FROM VINDOLANDA

B y AD 43 the Roman emperor Claudius had conqueredEngland, but not Scotland. A last, futile attempt was madeby the Roman governor Agricola, who gave up and, in AD85, built a series of forts to protect England’s northernborder. One of the biggest of these was at Vindolanda,thirty-five miles west of Newcastle and depicted on Map 11at the far northwest of the Roman Empire. Later,Vindolanda was incorporated into the eighty-five-mile

Vindolanda was incorporated into the eighty-five-miledefensive wall that the emperor Hadrian constructed, but inAD 103, when a Roman centurion, Candidus, was stationedthere, it was an isolated fort. Candidus was engaged withhis friend Octavius in supplying the Roman garrison andreceived a reply from Octavius to a letter he had sent:

Octavius to his brother Candidus, greetings.I have several times written to you that I havebought about five thousand modii of ears ofgrain, on account of which I need cash.Unless you send me some cash, at least fivehundred denarii, the result will be that I shalllose what I have laid out as a deposit, aboutthree hundred denarii, and I shall beembarrassed. So, I ask you, send me somecash as soon as possible. The hides whichyou write are at Cataractonium—write thatthey be given to me and the wagon aboutwhich you write. I would have already been tocollect them except that I did not care to injurethe animals while the roads are bad. Seewith Tertius about the 8½ denarii which hereceived from Fatalis. He has not creditedthem to my account. Make sure that you sendme cash so that I may have ears of grain onthe threshing-floor. Greet Spectatus andFirmus. Farewell.

The correspondence between Candidus and Octaviusillustrates some significant facets of the economicprosperity of Roman England: It reveals an advancedmonetary economy with financial services. It reveals thepresence of constructed roads, even if sometimes in badcondition. It reveals the presence of a fiscal system thatraised taxes to pay Candidus’s wages. Most obviously itreveals that both men were literate and were able to takeadvantage of a postal service of sorts. Roman Englandalso benefited from the mass manufacture of high-qualitypottery, particularly in Oxfordshire; urban centers with bathsand public buildings; and house construction techniquesusing mortar and tiles for roofs.

By the fourth century, all were in decline, and after AD 411

the Roman Empire gave up on England. Troops werewithdrawn; those left were not paid, and as the Romanstate crumbled, administrators were expelled by the localpopulation. By AD 450 all these trappings of economicprosperity were gone. Money vanished from circulation.Urban areas were abandoned, and buildings stripped ofstone. The roads were overgrown with weeds. The onlytype of pottery fabricated was crude and handmade, notmanufactured. People forgot how to use mortar, andliteracy declined substantially. Roofs were made ofbranches, not tiles. Nobody wrote from Vindolandaanymore.

A f te r AD 411, England experienced an economiccollapse and became a poor backwater—and not for thefirst time. In the previous chapter we saw how the NeolithicRevolution started in the Middle East around 9500 BC.While the inhabitants of Jericho and Abu Hureyra wereliving in small towns and farming, the inhabitants of Englandwere still hunting and gathering, and would do so for atleast another 5,500 years. Even then the English didn’tinvent farming or herding; these were brought from theoutside by migrants who had been spreading acrossEurope from the Middle East for thousands of years. As theinhabitants of England caught up with these majorinnovations, those in the Middle East were inventing cities,writing, and pottery. By 3500 BC, large cities such as Urukand Ur emerged in Mesopotamia, modern Iraq. Uruk mayhave had a population of fourteen thousand in 3500 BC, andforty thousand soon afterward. The potter’s wheel wasinvented in Mesopotamia at about the same time as waswheeled transportation. The Egyptian capital of Memphisemerged as a large city soon thereafter. Writing appearedindependently in both regions. While the Egyptians werebuilding the great pyramids of Giza around 2500 BC, theEnglish constructed their most famous ancient monument,the stone circle at Stonehenge. Not bad by Englishstandards, but not even large enough to have housed oneof the ceremonial boats buried at the foot of King Khufu’spyramid. England continued to lag behind and to borrowfrom the Middle East and the rest of Europe up to andincluding the Roman period.

Despite such an inauspicious history, it was in England

that the first truly inclusive society emerged and where theIndustrial Revolution got under way. We argued earlier (thispage–this page) that this was the result of a series ofinteractions between small institutional differences andcritical junctures—for example, the Black Death and thediscovery of the Americas. English divergence hadhistorical roots, but the view from Vindolanda suggests thatthese roots were not that deep and certainly not historicallypredetermined. They were not planted in the NeolithicRevolution, or even during the centuries of Romanhegemony. By AD 450, at the start of what historians used tocall the Dark Ages, England had slipped back into povertyand political chaos. There would be no effective centralizedstate in England for hundreds of years.

DIVERGING PATHS

The rise of inclusive institutions and the subsequentindustrial growth in England did not follow as a directlegacy of Roman (or earlier) institutions. This does notmean that nothing significant happened with the fall of theWestern Roman Empire, a major event affecting most ofEurope. Since different parts of Europe shared the samecritical junctures, their institutions would drift in a similarfashion, perhaps in a distinctively European way. The fall ofthe Roman Empire was a crucial part of these commoncritical junctures. This European path contrasts with pathsin other parts of the world, including sub-Saharan Africa,Asia, and the Americas, which developed differently partlybecause they did not face the same critical junctures.

Roman England collapsed with a bang. This was lesstrue in Italy, or Roman Gaul (modern France), or even NorthAfrica, where many of the old institutions lived on in someform. Yet there is no doubt that the change from thedominance of a single Roman state to a plethora of statesrun by Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, andBurgundians was significant. The power of these stateswas far weaker, and they were buffeted by a long series ofincursions from their peripheries. From the north came theVikings and Danes in their longboats. From the east camethe Hunnic horsemen. Finally, the emergence of Islam as areligion and political force in the century after the death of

Mohammed in AD 632 led to the creation of new Islamicstates in most of the Byzantine Empire, North Africa, andSpain. These common processes rocked Europe, and intheir wake a particular type of society, commonly referredto as feudal, emerged. Feudal society was decentralizedbecause strong central states had atrophied, even if somerulers such as Charlemagne attempted to reconstruct them.

Feudal institutions, which relied on unfree, coerced labor(the serfs), were obviously extractive, and they formed thebasis for a long period of extractive and slow growth inEurope during the Middle Ages. But they also wereconsequential for later developments. For instance, duringthe reduction of the rural population to the status of serfs,slavery disappeared from Europe. At a time when it waspossible for elites to reduce the entire rural population toserfdom, it did not seem necessary to have a separateclass of slaves as every previous society had had.Feudalism also created a power vacuum in whichindependent cities specializing in production and tradecould flourish. But when the balance of power changed afterthe Black Death, and serfdom began to crumble in WesternEurope, the stage was set for a much more pluralisticsociety without the presence of any slaves.

The critical junctures that gave rise to feudal society weredistinct, but they were not completely restricted to Europe.A relevant comparison is with the modern African country ofEthiopia, which developed from the Kingdom of Aksum,founded in the north of the country around 400 BC. Aksumwas a relatively developed kingdom for its time andengaged in international trade with India, Arabia, Greece,and the Roman Empire. It was in many ways comparable tothe Eastern Roman Empire in this period. It used money,built monumental public buildings and roads, and had verysimilar technology, for example, in agriculture and shipping.There are also interesting ideological parallels betweenAksum and Rome. In AD 312, the Roman emperorConstantine converted to Christianity, as did King Ezana ofAksum about the same time. Map 12 shows the location ofthe historical state of Aksum in modern-day Ethiopia andEritrea, with outposts across the Red Sea in Saudi Arabiaand Yemen.

Just as Rome declined, so did Aksum, and its historical

decline followed a pattern close to that of the WesternRoman Empire. The role played by the Huns and Vandalsin the decline of Rome was taken by the Arabs, who, in theseventh century, expanded into the Red Sea and down theArabian Peninsula. Aksum lost its colonies in Arabia andits trade routes. This precipitated economic decline: moneystopped being coined, the urban population fell, and therewas a refocusing of the state into the interior of the countryand up into the highlands of modern Ethiopia.

In Europe, feudal institutions emerged following thecollapse of central state authority. The same thinghappened in Ethiopia, based on a system called gult,

which involved a grant of land by the emperor. Theinstitution is mentioned in thirteenth-century manuscripts,though it may have originated much earlier. The term gult isderived from an Amharic word meaning “he assigned afief.” It signified that in exchange for the land, the gult holderhad to provide services to the emperor, particularly militaryones. In turn, the gult holder had the right to extract tributefrom those who farmed the land. A variety of historicalsources suggest that gult holders extracted between one-half and three-quarters of the agricultural output ofpeasants. This system was an independent developmentwith notable similarities to European feudalism, butprobably even more extractive. At the height of feudalism inEngland, serfs faced less onerous extraction and lost abouthalf of their output to their lords in one form or another.

But Ethiopia was not representative of Africa. Elsewhere,slavery was not replaced by serfdom; African slavery andthe institutions that supported it were to continue for manymore centuries. Even Ethiopia’s ultimate path would bevery different. After the seventh century, Ethiopia remainedisolated in the mountains of East Africa from the processesthat subsequently influenced the institutional path ofEurope, such as the emergence of independent cities, thenascent constraints on monarchs and the expansion ofAtlantic trade after the discovery of the Americas. Inconsequence, its version of absolutist institutions remainedlargely unchallenged. The African continent would laterinteract in a very different capacity with Europe and Asia.East Africa became a major supplier of slaves to the Arabworld, and West and Central Africa would be drawn into theworld economy during the European expansion associatedwith the Atlantic trade as suppliers of slaves. How theAtlantic trade led to sharply divergent paths betweenWestern Europe and Africa is yet another example ofinstitutional divergence resulting from the interactionbetween critical junctures and existing institutionaldifferences. While in England the profits of the slave tradehelped to enrich those who opposed absolutism, in Africathey helped to create and strengthen absolutism.

Farther away from Europe, the processes of institutionaldrift were obviously even freer to go their own way. In theAmericas, for example, which had been cut off from Europe

around 15,000 BC by the melting of the ice that linkedAlaska to Russia, there were similar institutionalinnovations as those of the Natufians, leading to sedentarylife, hierarchy, and inequality—in short, extractiveinstitutions. These took place first in Mexico and in AndeanPeru and Bolivia, and led to the American NeolithicRevolution, with the domestication of maize. It was in theseplaces that early forms of extractive growth took place, aswe have seen in the Maya city-states. But in the same waythat big breakthroughs toward inclusive institutions andindustrial growth in Europe did not come in places wherethe Roman world had the strongest hold, inclusiveinstitutions in the Americas did not develop in the lands ofthese early civilizations. In fact, as we saw in chapter 1,these densely settled civilizations interacted in a perverseway with European colonialism to create a “reversal offortune,” making the places that were previously relativelywealthy in the Americas relatively poor. Today it is theUnited States and Canada, which were then far behind thecomplex civilizations in Mexico, Peru, and Bolivia, that aremuch richer than the rest of the Americas.

CONSEQUENCES OF EARLY GROWTH

The long period between the Neolithic Revolution, whichstarted in 9500 BC, and the British Industrial Revolution ofthe late eighteenth century is littered with spurts ofeconomic growth. These spurts were triggered byinstitutional innovations that ultimately faltered. In AncientRome the institutions of the Republic, which created somedegree of economic vitality and allowed for the constructionof a massive empire, unraveled after the coup of JuliusCaesar and the construction of the empire under Augustus.It took centuries for the Roman Empire finally to vanish, andthe decline was drawn out; but once the relatively inclusiverepublican institutions gave way to the more extractiveinstitutions of the empire, economic regress became all butinevitable.

The Venetian dynamics were similar. The economicprosperity of Venice was forged by institutions that hadimportant inclusive elements, but these were underminedwhen the existing elite closed the system to new entrants

and even banned the economic institutions that hadcreated the prosperity of the republic.

However notable the experience of Rome, it was notRome’s inheritance that led directly to the rise of inclusiveinstitutions in England and to the British IndustrialRevolution. Historical factors shape how institutionsdevelop, but this is not a simple, predetermined, cumulativeprocess. Rome and Venice illustrate how early stepstoward inclusivity were reversed. The economic andinstitutional landscape that Rome created throughoutEurope and the Middle East did not inexorably lead to themore firmly rooted inclusive institutions of later centuries. Infact, these would emerge first and most strongly in England,where the Roman hold was weakest and where itdisappeared most decisively, almost without a trace, duringthe fifth century AD. Instead, as we discussed in chapter 4,history plays a major role through institutional drift thatcreates institutional differences, albeit sometimes small,which then get amplified when they interact with criticaljunctures. It is because these differences are often smallthat they can be reversed easily and are not necessarily theconsequence of a simple cumulative process.

Of course, Rome had long-lasting effects on Europe.Roman law and institutions influenced the laws andinstitutions that the kingdoms of the barbarians set up afterthe collapse of the Western Roman Empire. It was alsoRome’s fall that created the decentralized politicallandscape that developed into the feudal order. Thedisappearance of slavery and the emergence ofindependent cities were long, drawn out (and, of course,historically contingent) by-products of this process. Thesewould become particularly consequential when the BlackDeath shook feudal society deeply. Out of the ashes of theBlack Death emerged stronger towns and cities, and apeasantry no longer tied to the land and newly free of feudalobligations. It was precisely these critical juncturesunleashed by the fall of the Roman Empire that led to astrong institutional drift affecting all of Europe in a way thathas no parallel in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, or theAmericas.

By the sixteenth century, Europe was institutionally verydistinct from sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas. Though

not much richer than the most spectacular Asiancivilizations in India or China, Europe differed from thesepolities in some key ways. For example, it had developedrepresentative institutions of a sort unseen there. Thesewere to play a critical role in the development of inclusiveinstitutions. As we will see in the next two chapters, smallinstitutional differences would be the ones that would reallymatter within Europe; and these favored England, becauseit was there that the feudal order had made way mostcomprehensively for commercially minded farmers andindependent urban centers where merchants andindustrialists could flourish. These groups were alreadydemanding more secure property rights, different economicinstitutions, and political voice from their monarchs. Thiswhole process would come to a head in the seventeenthcentury.

7.

THE TURNING POINT

TROUBLE WITH STOCKINGS

IN 1583 WILLIAM LEE returned from his studies at theUniversity of Cambridge to become the local priest inCalverton, England. Elizabeth I (1558–1603) had recentlyissued a ruling that her people should always wear a knittedcap. Lee recorded that “knitters were the only means ofproducing such garments but it took so long to finish thearticle. I began to think. I watched my mother and my sisterssitting in the evening twilight plying their needles. Ifgarments were made by two needles and one line ofthread, why not several needles to take up the thread.”

This momentous thought was the beginning of themechanization of textile production. Lee became obsessedwith making a machine that would free people from endlesshand-knitting. He recalled, “My duties to Church and family Ibegan to neglect. The idea of my machine and the creatingof it ate into my heart and brain.”

Finally, in 1589, his “stocking frame” knitting machinewas ready. He traveled to London with excitement to seekan interview with Elizabeth I to show her how useful themachine would be and to ask her for a patent that wouldstop other people from copying the design. He rented abuilding to set the machine up and, with the help of his localmember of Parliament Richard Parkyns, met Henry Carey,Lord Hundson, a member of the Queen’s Privy Council.Carey arranged for Queen Elizabeth to come see themachine, but her reaction was devastating. She refused togrant Lee a patent, instead observing, “Thou aimest high,Master Lee. Consider thou what the invention could do tomy poor subjects. It would assuredly bring to them ruin bydepriving them of employment, thus making them beggars.”Crushed, Lee moved to France to try his luck there; whenhe failed there, too, he returned to England, where he

asked James I (1603–1625), Elizabeth’s successor, for apatent. James I also refused, on the same grounds asElizabeth. Both feared that the mechanization of stockingproduction would be politically destabilizing. It would throwpeople out of work, create unemployment and politicalinstability, and threaten royal power. The stocking framewas an innovation that promised huge productivityincreases, but it also promised creative destruction.

THE REACTION TO LEE’S brilliant invention illustrates a keyidea of this book. The fear of creative destruction is themain reason why there was no sustained increase in livingstandards between the Neolithic and Industrial revolutions.Technological innovation makes human societiesprosperous, but also involves the replacement of the oldwith the new, and the destruction of the economic privilegesand political power of certain people. For sustainedeconomic growth we need new technologies, new ways ofdoing things, and more often than not they will come fromnewcomers such as Lee. It may make society prosperous,but the process of creative destruction that it initiatesthreatens the livelihood of those who work with oldtechnologies, such as the hand-knitters who would havefound themselves unemployed by Lee’s technology. Moreimportant, major innovations such as Lee’s stocking framemachine also threaten to reshape political power.Ultimately it was not concern about the fate of those whomight become unemployed as a result of Lee’s machinethat led Elizabeth I and James I to oppose his patent; it wastheir fear that they would become political losers—theirconcern that those displaced by the invention would createpolitical instability and threaten their own power. As we sawwith the Luddites (this page–this page), it is often possibleto bypass the resistance of workers such as hand-knitters.But the elite, especially when their political power isthreatened, form a more formidable barrier to innovation.The fact that they have much to lose from creativedestruction means not only that they will not be the onesintroducing new innovations but also that they will oftenresist and try to stop such innovations. Thus society needsnewcomers to introduce the most radical innovations, and

these newcomers and the creative destruction they wreakmust often overcome several sources of resistance,including that from powerful rulers and elites.

Prior to seventeenth-century England, extractiveinstitutions were the norm throughout history. They have attimes been able to generate economic growth, as shown inthe last two chapters, especially when they’ve containedinclusive elements, as in Venice and Rome. But they didnot permit creative destruction. The growth they generatedwas not sustained, and came to an end because of theabsence of new innovations, because of political infightinggenerated by the desire to benefit from extraction, orbecause the nascent inclusive elements were conclusivelyreversed, as in Venice.

The life expectancy of a resident of the Natufian village ofAbu Hureyra was probably not that much different from thatof a citizen of Ancient Rome. The life expectancy of atypical Roman was fairly similar to that of an averageinhabitant of England in the seventeenth century. In terms ofincomes, in 301 AD the Roman emperor Diocletian issuedthe Edict on Maximum Prices, which set out a schedule ofwages that various types of workers would be paid. Wedon’t know exactly how well Diocletian’s wages and priceswere enforced, but when the economic historian RobertAllen used his edict to calculate the living standards of atypical unskilled worker, he found them to be almost exactlythe same as those of an unskilled worker in seventeenth-century Italy. Farther north, in England, wages were higherand increasing, and things were changing. How this cameto be is the topic of this chapter.

EVER-PRESENT POLITICAL CONFLICT

Conflict over institutions and the distribution of resourceshas been pervasive throughout history. We saw, forexample, how political conflict shaped the evolution ofAncient Rome and Venice, where it was ultimately resolvedin favor of the elites, who were able to increase their holdon power.

English history is also full of conflict between themonarchy and its subjects, between different factionsfighting for power, and between elites and citizens. The

outcome, though, has not always been to strengthen thepower of those who held it. In 1215 the barons, the layer ofthe elite beneath the king, stood up to King John and madehim sign the Magna Carta (“the Great Charter”) atRunnymede (see Map 9, this page). This documentenacted some basic principles that were significantchallenges to the authority of the king. Most important, itestablished that the king had to consult with the barons inorder to raise taxes. The most contentious clause wasnumber 61, which stated that “the barons shall choose anytwenty-five barons of the realm they wish, who with all theirmight are to observe, maintain and cause to be observedthe peace and liberties which we have granted andconfirmed to them by this our present charter.” In essence,the barons created a council to make sure that the kingimplemented the charter, and if he didn’t, these twenty-fivebarons had the right to seize castles, lands, andpossessions “… until, in their judgement, amends havebeen made.” King John didn’t like the Magna Carta, and assoon as the barons dispersed, he got the pope to annul it.But both the political power of the barons and the influenceof the Magna Carta remained. England had taken its firsthesitant step toward pluralism.

Conflict over political institutions continued, and thepower of the monarchy was further constrained by the firstelected Parliament in 1265. Unlike the Plebeian Assemblyin Rome or the elected legislatures of today, its membershad originally been feudal nobles, and subsequently wereknights and the wealthiest aristocrats of the nation. Despiteconsisting of elites, the English Parliament developed twodistinguishing characteristics. First, it represented not onlyelites closely allied to the king but also a broad set ofinterests, including minor aristocrats involved in differentwalks of life, such as commerce and industry, and later the“gentry,” a new class of commercial and upwardly mobilefarmers. Thus the Parliament empowered a quite broadsection of society—especially by the standards of the time.Second, and largely as a result of the first characteristic,many members of Parliament were consistently opposed tothe monarchy’s attempts to increase its power and wouldbecome the mainstay of those fighting against themonarchy in the English Civil War and then in the Glorious

Revolution.The Magna Carta and the first elected Parliament

notwithstanding, political conflict continued over the powersof the monarchy and who was to be king. This intra-eliteconflict ended with the War of the Roses, a long duelbetween the Houses of Lancaster and York, two familieswith contenders to be king. The winners were theLancastrians, whose candidate for king, Henry Tudor,became Henry VII in 1485.

Two other interrelated processes took place. The firstwas increasing political centralization, put into motion bythe Tudors. After 1485 Henry VII disarmed the aristocracy,in effect demilitarizing them and thereby massivelyexpanding the power of the central state. His son, HenryVIII, then implemented through his chief minister, ThomasCromwell, a revolution in government. In the 1530s,Cromwell introduced a nascent bureaucratic state. Insteadof the government being just the private household of theking, it could become a separate set of enduringinstitutions. This was complemented by Henry VIII’s breakwith the Roman Catholic Church and the “Dissolution of theMonasteries,” in which Henry expropriated all the Churchlands. The removal of the power of the Church was part ofmaking the state more centralized. This centralization ofstate institutions meant that for the first time, inclusivepolitical institutions became possible. This processinitiated by Henry VII and Henry VIII not only centralizedstate institutions but also increased the demand forbroader-based political representation. The process ofpolitical centralization can actually lead to a form ofabsolutism, as the king and his associates can crush otherpowerful groups in society. This is indeed one of thereasons why there will be opposition against statecentralization, as we saw in chapter 3. However, inopposition to this force, the centralization of stateinstitutions can also mobilize demand for a nascent form ofpluralism, as it did in Tudor England. When the barons andlocal elites recognize that political power will beincreasingly more centralized and that this process is hardto stop, they will make demands to have a say in how thiscentralized power is used. In England during the latefifteenth and sixteenth centuries, this meant greater efforts

by these groups to have Parliament as a counterweightagainst the Crown and to partially control the way the statefunctioned. Thus the Tudor project not only initiated politicalcentralization, one pillar of inclusive institutions, but alsoindirectly contributed to pluralism, the other pillar ofinclusive institutions.

These developments in political institutions took place inthe context of other major changes in the nature of society.Particularly significant was the widening of political conflictwhich was broadening the set of groups with the ability tomake demands on the monarchy and the political elites.The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 (this page) was pivotal, afterwhich the English elite were rocked by a long sequence ofpopular insurrections. Political power was beingredistributed not simply from the king to the lords, but alsofrom the elite to the people. These changes, together withthe increasing constraints on the king’s power, made theemergence of a broad coalition opposed to absolutismpossible and thus laid the foundations for pluralistic politicalinstitutions.

Though contested, the political and economic institutionsthe Tudors inherited and sustained were clearly extractive.In 1603 Elizabeth I, Henry VIII’s daughter who had accededto the throne of England in 1553, died without children, andthe Tudors were replaced by the Stuart dynasty. The firstStuart king, James I, inherited not only the institutions butthe conflicts over them. He desired to be an absolutist ruler.Though the state had become more centralized and socialchange was redistributing power in society, politicalinstitutions were not yet pluralistic. In the economy,extractive institutions manifested themselves not just in theopposition to Lee’s invention, but in the form ofmonopolies, monopolies, and more monopolies. In 1601 alist of these was read out in Parliament, with one memberironically asking, “Is not bread there?” By 1621 there wereseven hundred of them. As the English historianChristopher Hill put it, a man lived

in a house built with monopoly bricks, withwindows … of monopoly glass; heated bymonopoly coal (in Ireland monopoly timber),burning in a grate made of monopoly

iron … He washed himself in monopoly soap,his clothes in monopoly starch. He dressed inmonopoly lace, monopoly linen, monopolyleather, monopoly gold thread … His clotheswere held up by monopoly belts, monopolybuttons, monopoly pins. They were dyed withmonopoly dyes. He ate monopoly butter,monopoly currants, monopoly red herrings,monopoly salmon, and monopoly lobsters.His food was seasoned with monopoly salt,monopoly pepper, monopoly vinegar … Hewrote with monopoly pens, on monopolywriting paper; read (through monopolyspectacles, by the light of monopoly candles)monopoly printed books.

These monopolies, and many more, gave individuals orgroups the sole right to control the production of manygoods. They impeded the type of allocation of talent, whichis so crucial to economic prosperity.

Both James I and his son and successor Charles Iaspired to strengthen the monarchy, reduce the influence ofParliament, and establish absolutist institutions similar tothose being constructed in Spain and France to further theirand the elite’s control of the economy, making institutionsmore extractive. The conflict between James I andParliament came to a head in the 1620s. Central in thisconflict was the control of trade both overseas and withinthe British Isles. The Crown’s ability to grant monopolieswas a key source of revenue for the state, and was usedfrequently as a way of granting exclusive rights tosupporters of the king. Not surprisingly, this extractiveinstitution blocking entry and inhibiting the functioning of themarket was also highly damaging to economic activity andto the interests of many members of Parliament. In 1623Parliament scored a notable victory by managing to passthe Statute of Monopolies, which prohibited James I fromcreating new domestic monopolies. He would still be ableto grant monopolies on international trade, however, sincethe authority of Parliament did not extend to internationalaffairs. Existing monopolies, international or otherwise,stood untouched.

Parliament did not sit regularly and had to be called intosession by the king. The convention that emerged after theMagna Carta was that the king was required to conveneParliament to get assent for new taxes. Charles I came tothe throne in 1625, declined to call Parliament after 1629,and intensified James I’s efforts to build a more solidlyabsolutist regime. He induced forced loans, meaning thatpeople had to “lend” him money, and he unilaterallychanged the terms of loans and refused to repay his debts.He created and sold monopolies in the one dimension thatthe Statute of Monopolies had left to him: overseas tradingventures. He also undermined the independence of thejudiciary and attempted to intervene to influence theoutcome of legal cases. He levied many fines and charges,the most contentious of which was “ship money”—in 1634taxing the coastal counties to pay for the support of theRoyal Navy and, in 1635, extending the levy to the inlandcounties. Ship money was levied each year until 1640.

Charles’s increasingly absolutist behavior and extractivepolicies created resentment and resistance throughout thecountry. In 1640 he faced conflict with Scotland and, withoutenough money to put a proper army into the field, wasforced to call Parliament to ask for more taxes. The so-called Short Parliament sat for only three weeks. Theparliamentarians who came to London refused to talk abouttaxes, but aired many grievances, until Charles dismissedthem. The Scots realized that Charles did not have thesupport of the nation and invaded England, occupying thecity of Newcastle. Charles opened negotiations, and theScots demanded that Parliament be involved. This inducedCharles to call what then became known as the LongParliament, because it continued to sit until 1648, refusingto dissolve even when Charles demanded it do so.

In 1642 the Civil War broke out between Charles andParliament, even though there were many in Parliamentwho sided with the Crown. The pattern of conflicts reflectedthe struggle over economic and political institutions.Parliament wanted an end to absolutist political institutions;the king wanted them strengthened. These conflicts wererooted in economics. Many supported the Crown becausethey had been granted lucrative monopolies. For example,the local monopolies controlled by the rich and powerful

merchants of Shrewsbury and Oswestry were protected bythe Crown from competition by London merchants. Thesemerchants sided with Charles I. On the other side, themetallurgical industry had flourished around Birminghambecause monopolies were weak there and newcomers tothe industry did not have to serve a seven-yearapprenticeship, as they did in other parts of the country.During the Civil War, they made swords and producedvolunteers for the parliamentary side. Similarly, the lack ofguild regulation in the county of Lancashire allowed for thedevelopment before 1640 of the “New Draperies,” a newstyle of lighter cloth. The area where the production of thesecloths was concentrated was the only part of Lancashire tosupport Parliament.

Under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell, theParliamentarians—known as the Roundheads after thestyle in which their hair was cropped—defeated theroyalists, known as Cavaliers. Charles was tried andexecuted in 1649. His defeat and the abolition of themonarchy did not, however, result in inclusive institutions.Instead, monarchy was replaced by the dictatorship ofOliver Cromwell. Following Cromwell’s death, the monarchywas restored in 1660 and clawed back many of theprivileges that had been stripped from it in 1649. Charles’sson, Charles II, then set about the same program ofcreating absolutism in England. These attempts were onlyintensified by his brother James II, who ascended to thethrone after Charles’s death in 1685. In 1688 James’sattempt to reestablish absolutism created another crisisand another civil war. Parliament this time was more unitedand organized. They invited the Dutch Statholder, Williamof Orange, and his wife, Mary, James’s Protestantdaughter, to replace James. William would bring an armyand claim the throne, to rule not as an absolutist monarchbut under a constitutional monarchy forged by Parliament.Two months after William’s landing in the British Isles atBrixham in Devon (see Map 9, this page), James’s armydisintegrated and he fled to France.

THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION

After victory in the Glorious Revolution, Parliament and

After victory in the Glorious Revolution, Parliament andWilliam negotiated a new constitution. The changes wereforeshadowed by William’s “Declaration,” made shortlyprior to his invasion. They were further enshrined in theDeclaration of Rights, produced by Parliament in February1689. The Declaration was read out to William at the samesession where he was offered the crown. In many ways theDeclaration, which would be called the Bill of Rights after itssigning into law, was vague. Crucially, however, it didestablish some central constitutional principles. Itdetermined the succession to the throne, and did so in away that departed significantly from the then-receivedhereditary principles. If Parliament could remove a monarchand replace him with one more to their liking once, then whynot again? The Declaration of Rights also asserted that themonarch could not suspend or dispense with laws, and itreiterated the illegality of taxation without parliamentaryconsent. In addition, it stated that there could be nostanding army in England without parliamentary consent.Vagueness entered into such clauses as number 8, whichstated, “The election of members of Parliament ought to befree,” but did not specify how “free” was to be determined.Even vaguer was clause 13, whose main point was thatParliaments ought to be held frequently. Since when andwhether Parliament would be held had been such acontentious issue for the entire century, one might haveexpected much more specificity in this clause.Nevertheless, the reason for this vague wording is clear.Clauses have to be enforced. During the reign of Charles II,a Triennial Act had been in place that asserted thatParliaments had to be called at least once every threeyears. But Charles ignored it, and nothing happened,because there was no method of enforcing it. After 1688,Parliament could have tried to introduce a method forenforcing this clause, as the barons had done with theircouncil after King John signed the Magna Carta. They didnot do so because they did not need to. This was becauseauthority and decision-making power switched toParliament after 1688. Even without specific constitutionalrules or laws, William simply gave up on many of thepractices of previous kings. He stopped interfering in legaldecisions and gave up previous “rights,” such as getting thecustoms revenues for life. Taken together, these changes in

political institutions represented the triumph of Parliamentover the king, and thus the end of absolutism in Englandand subsequently Great Britain—as England and Scotlandwere united by the Act of Union in 1707. From then onParliament was firmly in control of state policy. This made ahuge difference, because the interests of Parliament werevery different from those of the Stuart kings. Since many ofthose in Parliament had important investments in trade andindustry, they had a strong stake in enforcing propertyrights. The Stuarts had frequently infringed on propertyrights; now they would be upheld. Moreover, when theStuarts controlled how the government spent money,Parliament opposed greater taxes and balked atstrengthening the power of the state. Now that Parliamentitself controlled spending, it was happy to raise taxes andspend the money on activities that it deemed valuable.Chief among them was the strengthening of the navy, whichwould protect the overseas mercantile interests of many ofthe members of Parliament.

Even more important than the interest ofparliamentarians was the emerging pluralistic nature ofpolitical institutions. The English people now had access toParliament, and the policy and economic institutions madein Parliament, in a way they never had when policy wasdriven by the king. This was partially, of course, becausemembers of Parliament were elected. But since Englandwas far from being a democracy in this period, this accessprovided only a modest amount of responsiveness. Amongits many inequities was that less than 2 percent of thepopulation could vote in the eighteenth century, and thesehad to be men. The cities where the Industrial Revolutiontook place, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, and Sheffield,had no independent representation in Parliament. Instead,rural areas were overrepresented. Just as bad, the right tovote in the rural areas, the “counties,” was based onownership of land, and many urban areas, the “boroughs,”were controlled by a small elite who did not allow the newindustrialists to vote or run for office. In the borough ofBuckingham, for instance, thirteen burgesses had theexclusive right to vote. On top of this there were the “rottenboroughs,” which had historically had the right to vote buthad “rotted away,” either because their population had

moved over time or, in the case on Dunwich on the eastcoast of England, had actually fallen into the ocean as aresult of coastal erosion. In each of these rotten boroughs,a small number of voters elected two members ofParliament. Old Sarum had seven voters, Dunwich thirty-two, and each elected two members of Parliament.

But there were other ways to influence Parliament andthus economic institutions. The most important was viapetitioning, and this was much more significant than thelimited extent of democracy for the emergence of pluralismafter the Glorious Revolution. Anybody could petitionParliament, and petition they did. Significantly, whenpeople petitioned, Parliament listened. It is this more thananything that reflects the defeat of absolutism, theempowerment of a fairly broad segment of society, and therise of pluralism in England after 1688. The franticpetitioning activity shows that it was indeed such a broadgroup in society, far beyond those sitting or even beingrepresented in Parliament, that had the power to influencethe way the state worked. And they used it.

The case of monopolies best illustrates this. We sawabove how monopolies were at the heart of extractiveeconomic institutions in the seventeenth century. Theycame under attack in 1623 with the Statute of Monopolies,and were a serious bone of contention during the EnglishCivil War. The Long Parliament abolished all the domesticmonopolies that so impinged on people’s lives. ThoughCharles II and James II could not bring these back, theymanaged to maintain the ability to grant overseasmonopolies. One was the Royal African Company, whosemonopoly charter was issued by Charles II in 1660. Thiscompany held a monopoly on the lucrative African slavetrade, and its governor and major shareholder wasCharles’s brother James, soon to become James II. After1688 the Company lost not just its governor, but its mainsupporter. James had assiduously protected the monopolyof the company against “interlopers,” the independenttraders who tried to buy slaves in West Africa and sell themin the Americas. This was a very profitable trade, and theRoyal African Company faced a lot of challenges, since allother English trade in the Atlantic was free. In 1689 theCompany seized the cargo of an interloper, one

Nightingale. Nightingale sued the Company for illegalseizure of goods, and Chief Justice Holt ruled that theCompany’s seizure was unlawful because it was exercisinga monopoly right created by royal prerogative. Holtreasoned that monopoly privileges could be created only bystatute, and this had to be done by Parliament. So Holtpushed all future monopolies, not just of the Royal AfricaCompany, into the hands of Parliament. Before 1688James II would quickly have removed any judge who madesuch a ruling. After 1688 things were different.

Parliament now had to decide what to do with themonopoly, and the petitions began to fly. One hundred andthirty-five came from interlopers demanding free access totrade in the Atlantic. Though the Royal African Companyresponded in kind, it could not hope to match the number orscope of the petitions demanding its demise. Theinterlopers succeeded in framing their opposition in termsnot just of narrow self-interest, but of national interest, whichindeed it was. As a result, only 5 of the 135 petitions weresigned by the interlopers themselves, and 73 of theinterlopers’ petitions came from the provinces outsideLondon, as against 8 for the Company. From the colonies,where petitioning was also allowed, the interlopersgathered 27 petitions, the Company 11. The interlopersalso gathered far more signatures for their petitions, in total8,000, as opposed to 2,500 for the Company. The strugglecontinued until 1698, when the Royal African Companymonopoly was abolished.

Along with this new locus for the determination ofeconomic institutions and the new responsiveness after1688, parliamentarians started making a series of keychanges in economic institutions and government policythat would ultimately pave the way for the IndustrialRevolution. Property rights eroded under the Stuarts werestrengthened. Parliament began a process of reform ineconomic institutions to promote manufacturing, rather thantaxing and impeding it. The “hearth tax”—an annual tax foreach fireplace or stove, which fell most heavily onmanufacturers, who were bitterly opposed to it—wasabolished in 1689, soon after William and Mary ascendedthe throne. Instead of taxing hearths, Parliament moved tostart taxing land.

Redistributing the tax burden was not the only pro-manufacturing policy that Parliament supported. A wholeseries of acts and legislations that would expand themarket and the profitability of woolen textiles was passed.This all made political sense, since many of theparliamentarians who opposed James were heavilyinvested in these nascent manufacturing enterprises.Parliament also passed legislation that allowed for acomplete reorganization of property rights in land,permitting the consolidation and elimination of manyarchaic forms of property and user rights.

Another priority of Parliament was reforming finance.Though there had been an expansion of banking andfinance in the period leading up to the Glorious Revolution,this process was further cemented by the creation of theBank of England in 1694, as a source of funds for industry.It was another direct consequence of the GloriousRevolution. The foundation of the Bank of England pavedthe way for a much more extensive “financial revolution,”which led to a great expansion of financial markets andbanking. By the early eighteenth century, loans would beavailable to everyone who could put up the necessarycollateral. The records of a relatively small bank, C. Hoare’s& Co. in London, which have survived intact from the period1702–1724, illustrate this point. Though the bank did lendmoney to aristocrats and lords, fully two-thirds of thebiggest borrowers from Hoare’s over this period were notfrom the privileged social classes. Instead they weremerchants and businessmen, including one John Smith, aman with the name of the eponymous average Englishman,who was loaned £2,600 by the bank during the period1715–1719.

So far we have emphasized how the Glorious Revolutiontransformed English political institutions, making themmore pluralistic, and also started laying the foundations forinclusive economic institutions. There is one moresignificant change in institutions that emerged from theGlorious Revolution: Parliament continued the process ofpolitical centralization that was initiated by the Tudors. Itwas not just that constraints increased, or that the stateregulated the economy in a different way, or that the Englishstate spent money on different things; but also the

capability and capacity of the state increased in alldirections. This again illustrates the linkages betweenpolitical centralization and pluralism: Parliament hadopposed making the state more effective and betterresourced prior to 1688 because it could not control it. After1688 it was a different story.

The state started expanding, with expenditures soonreaching around 10 percent of national income. This wasunderpinned by an expansion of the tax base, particularlywith respect to the excise tax, which was levied on theproduction of a long list of domestically producedcommodities. This was a very large state budget for theperiod, and is in fact larger than what we see today in manyparts of the world. The state budgets in Colombia, forexample, reached this relative size only in the 1980s. Inmany parts of sub-Saharan Africa—for example, in SierraLeone—the state budget even today would be far smallerrelative to the size of the economy without the large inflowsof foreign aid.

But the expansion of the size of the state is only part ofthe process of political centralization. More important thanthis was the qualitative way the state functioned and theway those who controlled it and those who worked in itbehaved. The construction of state institutions in Englandreached back into the Middle Ages, but as we’ve seen (thispage), steps toward political centralization and thedevelopment of modern administration were decisivelytaken by Henry VII and Henry VIII. Yet the state was still farfrom the modern form that would emerge after 1688. Forexample, many appointees were made on politicalgrounds, not because of merit or talent, and the state stillhad a very limited capacity to raise taxes.

After 1688 Parliament began to improve the ability toraise revenue through taxation, a development wellillustrated by the excise tax bureaucracy, which expandedrapidly from 1,211 people in 1690 to 4,800 by 1780.Excise tax inspectors were stationed throughout thecountry, supervised by collectors who engaged in tours ofinspection to measure and check the amount of bread,beer, and other goods subject to the excise tax. The extentof this operation is illustrated by the reconstruction of theexcise rounds of Supervisor George Cowperthwaite by the

historian John Brewer. Between June 12 and July 5, 1710,Supervisor Cowperthwaite traveled 290 miles in theRichmond district of Yorkshire. During this period he visited263 victualers, 71 maltsters, 20 chandlers, and onecommon brewer. In all, he took 81 different measurementsof production and checked the work of 9 differentexcisemen who worked for him. Eight years later we findhim working just as hard, but now in the Wakefield district,in a different part of Yorkshire. In Wakefield, he traveledmore than nineteen miles a day on average and worked sixdays a week, normally inspecting four or five premises. Onhis day off, Sunday, he made up his books, so we have acomplete record of his activities. Indeed, the excise taxsystem had very elaborate record keeping. Officers keptthree different types of records, all of which were supposedto match one another, and any tampering with theserecords was a serious offense. This remarkable level ofstate supervision of society exceeds what the governmentsof most poor countries can achieve today, and this in 1710.Also significantly, after 1688 the state began to rely moreon talent and less on political appointees, and developed apowerful infrastructure to run the country.

THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

The Industrial Revolution was manifested in every aspect ofthe English economy. There were major improvements intransportation, metallurgy, and steam power. But the mostsignificant area of innovation was the mechanization oftextile production and the development of factories toproduce these manufactured textiles. This dynamic processwas unleashed by the institutional changes that flowed fromthe Glorious Revolution. This was not just about theabolition of domestic monopolies, which had beenachieved by 1640, or about different taxes or access tofinance. It was about a fundamental reorganization ofeconomic institutions in favor of innovators andentrepreneurs, based on the emergence of more secureand efficient property rights.

Improvements in the security and efficiency of propertyrights, for example, played a central role in the“transportation revolution,” paving the way for the Industrial

Revolution. Investment in canals and roads, the so-calledturnpikes, massively increased after 1688. Theseinvestments, by reducing the costs of transportation, helpedto create an important prerequisite for the IndustrialRevolution. Prior to 1688, investment in such infrastructurehad been impeded by arbitrary acts by the Stuart kings.The change in the situation after 1688 is vividly illustratedby the case of the river Salwerpe, in Worcestershire,England. In 1662 Parliament passed an act to encourageinvestment to make the Salwerpe navigable, and theBaldwyn family invested £6,000 to this end. In return theygot the right to charge people for navigation on the river. In1693 a bill was introduced to Parliament to transfer therights to charge for navigation to the Earl of Shrewsburyand Lord Coventry. This act was challenged by Sir TimothyBaldwyn, who immediately submitted a petition toParliament claiming that the proposed bill was essentiallyexpropriating his father, who had already heavily invested inthe river in anticipation of the charges he could then levy.Baldwyn argued that “the new act tends to make void thesaid act, and to take away all the works and materials donein pursuance thereof.” Reallocation of rights such as thiswas exactly the sort of thing done by Stuart monarchs.Baldwyn noted, “[I]t is of dangerous consequence to takeaway any person’s right, purchased under an act ofParliament, without their consent.” In the event, the new actfailed, and Baldwyn’s rights were upheld. Property rightswere much more secure after 1688, partly becausesecuring them was consistent with the interests ofParliament and partly because pluralistic institutions couldbe influenced by petitioning. We see here that after 1688the political system became significantly more pluralisticand created a relatively level playing field within England.

Underlying the transportation revolution and, moregenerally, the reorganization of land that took place in theeighteenth century were parliamentary acts that changedthe nature of property ownership. Until 1688 there was eventhe legal fiction that all the land in England was ultimatelyowned by the Crown, a direct legacy from the feudalorganization of society. Many pieces of land wereencumbered by numerous archaic forms of property rightsand many cross-cutting claims. Much land was held in so-

called equitable estates, which meant that the landownercould not mortgage, lease, or sell the land. Common landcould often be used only for traditional uses. There wereenormous impediments to using land in ways that would beeconomically desirable. Parliament began to change this,allowing groups of people to petition Parliament to simplifyand reorganize property rights, alterations that weresubsequently embodied into hundreds of acts ofParliament.

This reorganization of economic institutions alsomanifested itself in the emergence of an agenda to protectdomestic textile production against foreign imports. Notsurprisingly, parliamentarians and their constituents werenot opposed to all entry barriers and monopolies. Thosethat would increase their own market and profits would bewelcome. However, crucially, the pluralistic politicalinstitutions—the fact that Parliament represented,empowered, and listened to a broad segment of society—meant that these entry barriers would not choke otherindustrialists or completely shut out newcomers, as theSerrata did in Venice (this page–this page). The powerfulwoolen manufacturers soon made this discovery.

In 1688 some of the most significant imports intoEngland were textiles from India, calicoes and muslins,which comprised about one-quarter of all textile imports.Also important were silks from China. Calicoes and silkswere imported by the East India Company, which prior to1688 enjoyed a government-sanctioned monopoly over thetrade with Asia. But the monopoly and the political power ofthe East India Company was sustained through heavybribes to James II. After 1688 the company was in avulnerable position and soon under attack. This took theform of an intense war of petitions with traders hoping totrade in the Far East and India demanding that Parliamentsanction competition for the East India Company, while thecompany responded with counterpetitions and offers tolend Parliament money. The company lost, and a new EastIndia Company to compete with it was founded. But textileproducers did not just want more competition in the trade toIndia. They wanted imports of cheap Indian textiles(calicoes) taxed or even banned. These producers facedstrong competition from these cheap Indian imports. At this

point the most important domestic manufacturers producedwoolen textiles, but the producers of cotton cloths werebecoming both more important economically and morepowerful politically.

The wool industry mounted attempts to protect itself asearly as the 1660s. It promoted the “Sumptuary Laws,”which, among other things, prohibited the wearing of lightercloth. It also lobbied Parliament to pass legislation in 1666and 1678 that would make it illegal for someone to beburied in anything other than a woolen shroud. Bothmeasures protected the market for woolen goods andreduced the competition that English manufacturers facedfrom Asia. Nevertheless, in this period the East IndiaCompany was too strong to restrict imports of Asiantextiles. The tide changed after 1688. Between 1696 and1698, woolen manufacturers from East Anglia and theWest Country allied with silk weavers from London,Canterbury, and the Levant Company to restrict imports.The silk importers from the Levant, even if they had recentlylost their monopoly, wished to exclude Asian silks to createa niche for silks from the Ottoman Empire. This coalitionstarted to present bills to Parliament to place restrictions onthe wearing of Asian cottons and silks, and also restrictionson the dyeing and printing of Asian textiles in England. Inresponse, in 1701, Parliament finally passed “an Act for themore effectual imploying the poor, by incouraging themanufactures of this kingdom.” From September 1701, itdecreed: “All wrought silks, bengals and stuffs, mixed withsilk of herba, of the manufacture of Persia, China, or East-India, all Calicoes painted, dyed, printed, or stained there,which are or shall be imported into this kingdom, shall notbe worn.”

It was now illegal to wear Asian silks and calicoes inEngland. But it was still possible to import them for reexportto Europe or elsewhere, in particular to the Americancolonies. Moreover, plain calicoes could be imported andfinished in England, and muslins were exempt from the ban.After a long struggle, these loopholes, as the domesticwoolen textile manufacturers viewed them, were closed bythe Calicoe Act of 1721: “After December 25, 1722, it shallnot be lawful for any person or persons whatsoever to useor wear in Great Britain, in any garment or apparel

whatsoever, any printed, painted, stained or dyed Calicoe.”Though this act removed competition from Asia for Englishwoolens, it still left an active domestic cotton and linenindustry competing against the woolens: cotton and linenwere mixed to produce a popular cloth called fustian.Having excluded Asian competition, the wool industry nowturned to clamp down on linen. Linen was primarily made inScotland and Ireland, which gave some scope to anEnglish coalition to demand those countries’ exclusion fromEnglish markets. However, there were limits to the power ofthe woolen manufacturers. Their new attempts encounteredstrong opposition from fustian producers in the burgeoningindustrial centers of Manchester, Lancaster, and Liverpool.The pluralistic political institutions implied that all thesedifferent groups now had access to the policy process inParliament via voting and, more important, petitioning.Though the petitions flew from the pens of both sides,amassing signatures for and against, the outcome of thisconflict was a victory for the new interests against those ofthe wool industry. The Manchester Act of 1736 agreed that“great quantities of stuffs made from linen yarn and cottonwool have for several years past been manufactured, andhave been printed and painted within this kingdom of GreatBritain.” It then went on to assert that “nothing in the saidrecited Act [of 1721] shall extend or be construed toprohibit the wearing or using in apparel, household stuff,furniture or otherwise, any sort of stuff made out of linenyarn and cotton wool, manufactured and printed or paintedwith any colour or colours within the kingdom of GreatBritain.”

The Manchester Act was a significant victory for thenascent cotton manufacturers. But its historical andeconomic significance was in fact much greater. First, itdemonstrated the limits of entry barriers that the pluralisticpolitical institutions of parliamentary England would permit.Second, over the next half century, technologicalinnovations in the manufacture of cotton cloth would play acentral role in the Industrial Revolution and fundamentallytransform society by introducing the factory system.

After 1688, though domestically a level playing fieldemerged, internationally Parliament strove to tilt it. This wasevident not only from the Calicoe Acts but also from the

Navigation Acts, the first of which was passed in 1651, andthey remained in force with alternations for the next twohundred years. The aim of these acts was to facilitateEngland’s monopolization of international trade—thoughcrucially this was monopolization not by the state but by theprivate sector. The basic principle was that English tradeshould be carried in English ships. The acts made it illegalfor foreign ships to transport goods from outside Europe toEngland or its colonies, and it was similarly illegal for third-party countries’ ships to ship goods from a countryelsewhere in Europe to England. This advantage forEnglish traders and manufacturers naturally increased theirprofits and may have further encouraged innovation inthese new and highly profitable activities.

By 1760 the combination of all these factors—improvedand new property rights, improved infrastructure, a changedfiscal regime, greater access to finance, and aggressiveprotection of traders and manufacturers—was beginning tohave an effect. After this date, there was a jump in thenumber of patented inventions, and the great flowering oftechnological change that was to be at the heart of theIndustrial Revolution began to be evident. Innovations tookplace on many fronts, reflecting the improved institutionalenvironment. One crucial area was power, most famouslythe transformations in the use of the steam engine thatwere a result of James Watt’s ideas in the 1760s.

Watt’s initial breakthrough was to introduce a separatecondensing chamber for the steam so that the cylinder thathoused the piston could be kept continually hot, instead ofhaving to be warmed up and cooled down. Hesubsequently developed many other ideas, including muchmore efficient methods of converting the motion of thesteam engine into useful power, notably his “sun andplanets” gear system. In all these areas technologicalinnovations built on earlier work by others. In the context ofthe steam engine, this included early work by Englishinventor Thomas Newcomen and also by Dionysius Papin,a French physicist and inventor.

The story of Papin’s invention is another example of how,under extractive institutions, the threat of creativedestruction impeded technological change. Papindeveloped a design for a “steam digester” in 1679, and in

1690 he extended this into a piston engine. In 1705 heused this rudimentary engine to build the world’s firststeamboat. Papin was by this time a professor ofmathematics at the University of Marburg, in the Germanstate of Kassel. He decided to steam the boat down theriver Fulda to the river Weser. Any boat making this tripwas forced to stop at the city of Münden. At that time, rivertraffic on the Fulda and Weser was the monopoly of a guildof boatmen. Papin must have sensed that there might betrouble. His friend and mentor, the famous Germanphysicist Gottfried Leibniz, wrote to the Elector of Kassel,the head of state, petitioning that Papin should be allowedto “… pass unmolested …” through Kassel. Yet Leibniz’spetition was rebuffed and he received the curt answer that“the Electoral Councillors have found serious obstacles inthe way of granting the above petition, and, without givingtheir reasons, have directed me to inform you of theirdecision, and that in consequence the request is notgranted by his Electoral Highness.” Undeterred, Papindecided to make the journey anyway. When his steamerarrived at Münden, the boatmen’s guild first tried to get alocal judge to impound the ship, but was unsuccessful. Theboatmen then set upon Papin’s boat and smashed it andthe steam engine to pieces. Papin died a pauper and wasburied in an unmarked grave. In Tudor or Stuart England,Papin might have received similar hostile treatment, butthis all changed after 1688. Indeed, Papin was intending tosail his boat to London before it was destroyed.

In metallurgy, key contributions were made in the 1780sby Henry Cort, who introduced new techniques for dealingwith impurities in iron, allowing for a much better qualitywrought iron to be produced. This was critical for themanufacture of machine parts, nails, and tools. Theproduction of vast quantities of wrought iron using Cort’stechniques was facilitated by the innovations of AbrahamDarby and his sons, who pioneered the use of coal to smeltiron beginning in 1709. This process was enhanced in1762 by the adaptation, by John Smeaton, of water powerto operate blowing cylinders in making coke. After this,charcoal vanished from the production of iron, to bereplaced by coal, which was much cheaper and morereadily available.

Even though innovation is obviously cumulative, therewas a distinct acceleration in the middle of the eighteenthcentury. In no place was this more visible than in textileproduction. The most basic operation in the production oftextiles is spinning, which involves taking plant or animalfibers, such as cotton or wool, and twisting them together toform yarn. This yarn is then woven to make up textiles. Oneof the great technological innovations of the medievalperiod was the spinning wheel, which replaced handspinning. This invention appeared around 1280 in Europe,probably disseminating from the Middle East. The methodsof spinning did not change until the eighteenth century.Significant innovations began in 1738, when Lewis Paulpatented a new method of spinning using rollers to replacehuman hands to draw out the fibers being spun. Themachine did not work well, however, and it was theinnovations of Richard Arkwright and James Hargreavesthat truly revolutionized spinning.

In 1769 Arkwright, one of the dominant figures of theIndustrial Revolution, patented his “water frame,” which wasa huge improvement over Lewis’s machine. He formed apartnership with Jedediah Strutt and Samuel Need, whowere hosiery manufacturers. In 1771 they built one of theworld’s first factories, at Cromford. The new machines werepowered by water, but Arkwright later made the crucialtransition to steam power. By 1774 his firm employed sixhundred workers, and he expanded aggressively,eventually setting up factories in Manchester, Matlock,Bath, and New Lanark in Scotland. Arkwright’s innovationswere complemented by Hargreaves’s invention in 1764 ofthe spinning jenny, which was further developed by SamuelCrompton in 1779 into the “mule,” and later by RichardRoberts into the “self-acting mule.” The effects of theseinnovations were truly revolutionary: earlier in the century, ittook 50,000 hours for hand spinners to spin one hundredpounds of cotton. Arkwright’s water frame could do it in 300hours, and the self-acting mule in 135.

Along with the mechanization of spinning came themechanization of weaving. An important first step was theinvention of the flying shuttle by John Kay in 1733. Though itinitially simply increased the productivity of hand weavers,its most enduring impact would be in opening the way to

mechanized weaving. Building on the flying shuttle, EdmundCartwright introduced the power loom in 1785, a first stepin a series of innovations that would lead to machinesreplacing manual skills in weaving as they were also doingin spinning.

The English textile industry not only was the driving forcebehind the Industrial Revolution but also revolutionized theworld economy. English exports, led by cotton textiles,doubled between 1780 and 1800. It was the growth in thissector that pulled ahead the whole economy. Thecombination of technological and organizational innovationprovides the model for economic progress that transformedthe economies of the world that became rich.

New people with new ideas were crucial to thistransformation. Consider innovation in transportation. InEngland there were several waves of such innovations: firstcanals, then roads, and finally railways. In each of thesewaves the innovators were new men. Canals started todevelop in England after 1770, and by 1810 they had linkedup many of the most important manufacturing areas. As theIndustrial Revolution unfolded, canals played an importantrole in reducing transportation costs for moving around thebulky new finished industrial goods, such as cotton textiles,and the inputs that went into them, particularly raw cottonand coal for the steam engines. Early innovators in buildingcanals were men such as James Brindley, who wasemployed by the Duke of Bridgewater to build theBridgewater Canal, which ended up linking the keyindustrial city of Manchester to the port of Liverpool. Born inrural Derbyshire, Brindley was a millwright by profession.His reputation for finding creative solutions to engineeringproblems came to the attention of the duke. He had noprevious experience with transportation problems, whichalso was true of other great canal engineers such asThomas Telford, who started life as a stonemason, or JohnSmeaton, an instrument maker and engineer.

Just as the great canal engineers had no previousconnection to transportation, neither did the great road andrailway engineers. John McAdam, who invented tarmacaround 1816, was the second son of a minor aristocrat.The first steam train was built by Richard Trevithick in 1804.Trevithick’s father was involved in mining in Cornwall, and

Richard entered the same business at an early age,becoming fascinated by steam engines used for pumpingout the mines. More significant were the innovations ofGeorge Stephenson, the son of illiterate parents and theinventor of the famous train “The Rocket,” who began workas an engineman at a coal mine.

New men also drove the critical cotton textile industry.Some of the pioneers of this new industry were people whohad previously been heavily involved in the production andtrade of woolen cloths. John Foster, for example, employedseven hundred handloom weavers in the woolen industry atthe time he switched to cotton and opened Black DykeMills in 1835. But men such as Foster were a minority. Onlyabout one-fifth of the leading industrialists at this time hadpreviously been involved in anything like manufacturingactivities. This is not surprising. For one, the cotton industrydeveloped in new towns in the north of England. Factorieswere a completely new way of organizing production. Thewoolen industry had been organized in a very different way,by “putting out” materials to individuals in their homes, whospun and wove on their own. Most of those in the woolenindustry were therefore ill equipped to switch to cotton, asFoster did. Newcomers were needed to develop and usethe new technologies. The rapid expansion of cottondecimated the wool industry—creative destruction inaction.

Creative destruction redistributes not simply income andwealth, but also political power, as William Lee learnedwhen he found the authorities so unreceptive to hisinvention because they feared its political consequences.As the industrial economy expanded in Manchester andBirmingham, the new factory owners and middle-classgroups that emerged around them began to protest theirdisenfranchisement and the government policies opposedto their interests. Their prime candidate was the CornLaws, which banned the import of “corn”—all grains andcereals, but principally wheat—if the price got too low, thusensuring that the profits of large landowners were kept high.This policy was very good for big landowners whoproduced wheat, but bad for manufacturers, because theyhad to pay higher wages to compensate for the high priceof bread.

With workers concentrated into new factories andindustrial centers, it became easier to organize and riot. Bythe 1820s, the political exclusion of the new manufacturersand manufacturing centers was becoming untenable. OnAugust 16, 1819, a meeting to protest the political systemand the policies of the government was planned to be heldin St. Peter’s Fields, Manchester. The organizer wasJoseph Johnson, a local brush manufacturer and one of thefounders of the radical newspaper the ManchesterObserver. Other organizers included John Knight, a cottonmanufacturer and reformer, and John Thacker Saxton,editor of the Manchester Observer. Sixty thousandprotestors gathered, many holding banners such as “NoCorn Laws,” “Universal Suffrage,” and “Vote by Ballot”(meaning voting should take place secretly, not openly, as itdid in 1819). The authorities were very nervous about themeeting, and a force of six hundred cavalry of the FifteenthHussars had been assembled. As the speeches began, alocal magistrate decided to issue a warrant for the arrest ofthe speakers. As police tried to enforce the warrant, theymet with the opposition of the crowd, and fighting broke out.At this point the Hussars charged the crowd. Within a fewchaotic minutes, eleven people were dead and probably sixhundred wounded. The Manchester Observer called it thePeterloo Massacre.

But given the changes that had already taken place ineconomic and political institutions, long-run repression wasnot a solution in England. The Peterloo Massacre wouldremain an isolated incident. Following the riot, the politicalinstitutions in England gave way to the pressure, and thedestabilizing threat of much wider social unrest, particularlyafter the 1830 revolution in France against Charles X, whohad tried to restore the absolutism destroyed by the FrenchRevolution of 1789. In 1832 the government passed theFirst Reform Act. It enfranchised Birmingham, Leeds,Manchester, and Sheffield, and broadened the base ofvoting so that manufacturers could be represented inParliament. The consequent shift in political power movedpolicy in the direction favored by these newly representedinterests; in 1846 they managed to get the hated CornLaws repealed, demonstrating again that creativedestruction meant a redistribution not just of income, but

also of political power. And naturally, changes in thedistribution of political power in time would lead to a furtherredistribution of income.

It was the inclusive nature of English institutions thatallowed this process to take place. Those who sufferedfrom and feared creative destruction were no longer able tostop it.

WHY IN ENGLAND?

The Industrial Revolution started and made its biggeststrides in England because of her uniquely inclusiveeconomic institutions. These in turn were built onfoundations laid by the inclusive political institutions broughtabout by the Glorious Revolution. It was the GloriousRevolution that strengthened and rationalized propertyrights, improved financial markets, undermined state-sanctioned monopolies in foreign trade, and removed thebarriers to the expansion of industry. It was the GloriousRevolution that made the political system open andresponsive to the economic needs and aspirations ofsociety. These inclusive economic institutions gave men oftalent and vision such as James Watt the opportunity andincentive to develop their skills and ideas and influence thesystem in ways that benefited them and the nation. Naturallythese men, once they had become successful, had thesame urges as any other person. They wanted to blockothers from entering their businesses and competingagainst them and feared the process of creativedestruction that might put them out of business, as they hadpreviously bankrupted others. But after 1688 this becameharder to accomplish. In 1775 Richard Arkwright took outan encompassing patent that he hoped would give him amonopoly on the rapidly expanding cotton spinning industryin the future. He could not get the courts to enforce it.

Why did this unique process start in England and why inthe seventeenth century? Why did England developpluralistic political institutions and break away fromextractive institutions? As we have seen, the politicaldevelopments leading up to the Glorious Revolution wereshaped by several interlinked processes. Central was thepolitical conflict between absolutism and its opponents. The

outcome of this conflict not only put a stop to the attempts tocreate a renewed and stronger absolutism in England, butalso empowered those wishing to fundamentally changethe institutions of society. The opponents of absolutism didnot simply attempt to build a different type of absolutism.This was not simply the House of Lancaster defeating theHouse of York in the War of the Roses. Instead, theGlorious Revolution involved the emergence of a newregime based on constitutional rule and pluralism.

This outcome was a consequence of the drift in Englishinstitutions and the way they interacted with criticaljunctures. We saw in the previous chapter how feudalinstitutions were created in Western Europe after thecollapse of the Western Roman Empire. Feudalism spreadthroughout most of Europe, West and East. But as chapter4 showed, Western and Eastern Europe began to divergeradically after the Black Death. Small differences in politicaland economic institutions meant that in the West thebalance of power led to institutional improvement; in theEast, to institutional deterioration. But this was not a paththat would necessarily and inexorably lead to inclusiveinstitutions. Many more crucial turns would have to be takenon the way. Though the Magna Carta had attempted toestablish some basic institutional foundations forconstitutional rule, many other parts of Europe, evenEastern Europe, saw similar struggles with similardocuments. Yet, after the Black Death, Western Europesignificantly drifted away from the East. Documents such asthe Magna Carta started to have more bite in the West. Inthe East, they came to mean little. In England, even beforethe conflicts of the seventeenth century, the norm wasestablished that the king could not raise new taxes withoutthe consent of Parliament. No less important was the slow,incremental drift of power away from elites to citizens moregenerally, as exemplified by the political mobilization ofrural communities, seen in England with such moments asthe Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.

This drift of institutions now interacted with anothercritical juncture caused by the massive expansion of tradeinto the Atlantic. As we saw in chapter 4, one crucial way inwhich this influenced future institutional dynamicsdepended on whether or not the Crown was able to

monopolize this trade. In England the somewhat greaterpower of Parliament meant that the Tudor and Stuartmonarchs could not do so. This created a new class ofmerchants and businessmen, who aggressively opposedthe plan to create absolutism in England. By 1686 inLondon, for example, there were 702 merchants exportingto the Caribbean and 1,283 importing. North America had691 exporting and 626 importing merchants. Theyemployed warehousemen, sailors, captains, dockworkers,clerks—all of whom broadly shared their interests. Othervibrant ports, such as Bristol, Liverpool, and Portsmouth,were similarly full of such merchants. These new menwanted and demanded different economic institutions, andas they got wealthier through trade, they became morepowerful. The same forces were at work in France, Spain,and Portugal. But there the kings were much more able tocontrol trade and its profits. The type of new group that wasto transform England did emerge in those countries, butwas considerably smaller and weaker.

When the Long Parliament sat and the Civil War brokeout in 1642, these merchants primarily sided with theparliamentary cause. In the 1670s they were heavilyinvolved in the formation of the Whig Party, to opposeStuart absolutism, and in 1688 they would be pivotal indeposing James II. So the expanding trade opportunitiespresented by the Americas, the mass entry of Englishmerchants into this trade and the economic development ofthe colonies, and the fortunes they made in the process,tipped the balance of power in the struggle between themonarchy and those opposed to absolutism.

Perhaps most critically, the emergence andempowerment of diverse interests—ranging from thegentry, a class of commercial farmers that had emerged inthe Tudor period, to different types of manufacturers toAtlantic traders—meant that the coalition against Stuartabsolutism was not only strong but also broad. Thiscoalition was strengthened even more by the formation ofthe Whig Party in the 1670s, which provided anorganization to further its interests. Its empowerment waswhat underpinned pluralism following the GloriousRevolution. If all those fighting against the Stuarts had thesame interests and the same background, the overthrow of

the Stuart monarchy would have been much more likely tobe a replay of the House of Lancaster versus the House ofYork, pitting one group against another narrow set ofinterests, and ultimately replacing and re-creating the sameor a different form of extractive institutions. A broadcoalition meant that there would be greater demands forthe creation of pluralist political institutions. Without somesort of pluralism, there would be a danger that one of thediverse interests would usurp power at the expense of therest. The fact that Parliament after 1688 represented sucha broad coalition was a crucial factor in making membersof Parliament listen to petitions, even when they came frompeople outside of Parliament and even from those without avote. This was a crucial factor in preventing attempts byone group to create a monopoly at the expense of the rest,as wool interests tried to do before the Manchester Act.

The Glorious Revolution was a momentous eventprecisely because it was led by an emboldened broadcoalition and further empowered this coalition, whichmanaged to forge a constitutional regime with constraintson the power of both the executive and, equally crucially,any one of its members. It was, for example, theseconstraints that prevented the wool manufacturers frombeing able to crush the potential competition from thecotton and fustian manufacturers. Thus this broad coalitionwas essential in the lead-up to a strong Parliament after1688, but it also meant that there were checks withinParliament against any single group becoming too powerfuland abusing its power. It was the critical factor in theemergence of pluralistic political institutions. Theempowerment of such a broad coalition also played animportant role in the persistence and strengthening of theseinclusive economic and political institutions, as we will seein chapter 11.

Still none of this made a truly pluralistic regime inevitable,and its emergence was in part a consequence of thecontingent path of history. A coalition that was not toodifferent was able to emerge victorious from the EnglishCivil War against the Stuarts, but this only led to OliverCromwell’s dictatorship. The strength of this coalition wasalso no guarantee that absolutism would be defeated.James II could have defeated William of Orange. The path

of major institutional change was, as usual, no lesscontingent than the outcome of other political conflicts. Thiswas so even if the specific path of institutional drift thatcreated the broad coalition opposed to absolutism and thecritical juncture of Atlantic trading opportunities stacked thecards against the Stuarts. In this instance, therefore,contingency and a broad coalition were deciding factorsunderpinning the emergence of pluralism and inclusiveinstitutions.

8.

NOT ON OUR TURF: BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT

NO PRINTING ALLOWED

IN 1445 IN THE GERMAN city of Mainz, Johannes Gutenbergunveiled an innovation with profound consequences forsubsequent economic history: a printing press based onmovable type. Until then, books either had to be hand-copied by scribes, a very slow and laborious process, orthey were block-printed with specific pieces of wood cut forprinting each page. Books were few and far between, andvery expensive. After Gutenberg’s invention, things beganto change. Books were printed and became more readilyavailable. Without this innovation, mass literacy andeducation would have been impossible.

In Western Europe, the importance of the printing presswas quickly recognized. In 1460 there was already aprinting press across the border, in Strasbourg, France. Bythe late 1460s the technology had spread throughout Italy,with presses in Rome and Venice, soon followed byFlorence, Milan, and Turin. By 1476 William Caxton had setup a printing press in London, and two years later therewas one in Oxford. During the same period, printing spreadthroughout the Low Countries, into Spain, and even intoEastern Europe, with a press opening in Budapest in 1473and in Cracow a year later.

Not everyone saw printing as a desirable innovation. Asearly as 1485 the Ottoman sultan Bayezid II issued an edictthat Muslims were expressly forbidden from printing inArabic. This rule was further reinforced by Sultan Selim I in1515. It was not until 1727 that the first printing press wasallowed in the Ottoman lands. Then Sultan Ahmed III issueda decree granting İbrahim Müteferrika permission to set upa press. Even this belated step was hedged with restraints.Though the decree noted “the fortunate day this Westerntechnique will be unveiled like a bride and will not again be

hidden,” Müteferrika’s printing was going to be closelymonitored. The decree stated:

so that the printed books will be free fromprinting mistakes, the wise, respected andmeritorious religious scholars specializing inIslamic Law, the excellent Kadi of Istanbul,Mevlana İshak, and Selaniki’s Kadi, MevlanaSahib, and Galata’s Kadi, Mevlana Asad,may their merits be increased, and from theillustrious religious orders, the pillar of therighteous religious scholars, the Sheykh ofthe Kasim Paşa Mevlevihane, MevlanaMusa, may his wisdom and knowledgeincrease, will oversee the proofreading.

Müteferrika was allowed to set up a printing press, butwhatever he printed had to be vetted by a panel of threereligious and legal scholars, the Kadis. Maybe the wisdomand knowledge of the Kadis, like everybody else’s, wouldhave increased much faster had the printing press beenmore readily available. But that was not to be, even afterMüteferrika was given permission to set up his press.

Not surprisingly Müteferrika printed few books in the end,only seventeen between 1729, when the press began tooperate, and 1743, when he stopped working. His familytried to continue the tradition, but they managed to print onlyanother seven books by the time they finally gave up in1797. Outside of the core of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey,printing lagged even further behind. In Egypt, for instance,the first printing press was set up only in 1798, byFrenchmen who were part of the abortive attempt byNapoleon Bonaparte to capture the country. Until well intothe second half of the nineteenth century, book productionin the Ottoman Empire was still primarily undertaken byscribes hand-copying existing books. In the earlyeighteenth century, there were reputed to be eightythousand such scribes active in Istanbul.

This opposition to the printing press had the obviousconsequences for literacy, education, and economicsuccess. In 1800 probably only 2 to 3 percent of the citizensof the Ottoman Empire were literate, compared with 60

percent of adult males and 40 percent of adult females inEngland. In the Netherlands and Germany, literacy rateswere even higher. The Ottoman lands lagged far behind theEuropean countries with the lowest educational attainmentin this period, such as Portugal, where probably onlyaround 20 percent of adults could read and write.

Given the highly absolutist and extractive Ottomaninstitutions, the sultan’s hostility to the printing press is easyto understand. Books spread ideas and make thepopulation much harder to control. Some of these ideasmay be valuable new ways to increase economic growth,but others may be subversive and challenge the existingpolitical and social status quo. Books also undermine thepower of those who control oral knowledge, since theymake that knowledge readily available to anyone who canmaster literacy. This threatened to undermine the existingstatus quo, where knowledge was controlled by elites. TheOttoman sultans and religious establishment feared thecreative destruction that would result. Their solution was toforbid printing.

THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION created a critical juncture thataffected almost every country. Some nations, such asEngland, not only allowed, but actively encouraged,commerce, industrialization, and entrepreneurship, andgrew rapidly. Many, such as the Ottoman Empire, China,and other absolutist regimes, lagged behind as theyblocked or at the very least did nothing to encourage thespread of industry. Political and economic institutionsshaped the response to technological innovation, creatingonce again the familiar pattern of interaction betweenexisting institutions and critical junctures leading todivergence in institutions and economic outcomes.

The Ottoman Empire remained absolutist until itcollapsed at the end of the First World War, and was thusable to successfully oppose or impede innovations such asthe printing press and the creative destruction that wouldhave resulted. The reason that the economic changes thattook place in England did not happen in the OttomanEmpire is the natural connection between extractive,absolutist political institutions and extractive economic

institutions. Absolutism is rule unconstrained by law or thewishes of others, though in reality absolutists rule with thesupport of some small group or elite. In nineteenth-centuryRussia, for example, the tsars were absolutist rulerssupported by a nobility that represented about 1 percent ofthe total population. This narrow group organized politicalinstitutions to perpetuate their power. There was noParliament or political representation of other groups inRussian society until 1905, when the tsar created theDuma, though he quickly undermined what few powers hehad given to it. Unsurprisingly, economic institutions wereextractive, organized to make the tsar and nobility aswealthy as possible. The basis of this, as of manyextractive economic systems, was a mass system of laborcoercion and control, in the particularly pernicious form ofRussian serfdom.

Absolutism was not the only type of political institutionpreventing industrialization. Though absolutist regimeswere not pluralistic and feared creative destruction, manyhad centralized states, or at least states that werecentralized enough to impose bans on innovations such asthe printing press. Even today, countries such asAfghanistan, Haiti, and Nepal have national states that lackpolitical centralization. In sub-Saharan Africa the situation iseven worse. As we argued earlier, without a centralizedstate to provide order and enforce rules and property rights,inclusive institutions could not emerge. We will see in thischapter that in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa (forexample, Somalia and southern Sudan) a major barrier toindustrialization was the lack of any form of politicalcentralization. Without these natural prerequisites,industrialization had no chance of getting off the ground.

Absolutism and a lack of, or weak, political centralizationare two different barriers to the spread of industry. But theyare also connected; both are kept in place by fear ofcreative destruction and because the process of politicalcentralization often creates a tendency toward absolutism.Resistance to political centralization is motivated byreasons similar to resistance to inclusive politicalinstitutions: fear of losing political power, this time to thenewly centralizing state and those who control it. We saw inthe previous chapter how the process of political

centralization under the Tudor monarchy in Englandincreased demands for voice and representation bydifferent local elites in national political institutions as a wayof staving off this loss of political power. A strongerParliament was created, ultimately enabling the emergenceof inclusive political institutions.

But in many other cases, just the opposite takes place,and the process of political centralization also ushers in anera of greater absolutism. This is illustrated by the originsof Russian absolutism, which was forged by Peter theGreat between 1682 and his death in 1725. Peter built anew capital at Saint Petersburg, stripping away power fromthe old aristocracy, the Boyars, in order to create a modernbureaucratic state and modern army. He even abolishedthe Boyar Duma that had made him tsar. Peter introducedthe Table of Ranks, a completely new social hierarchywhose essence was service to the tsar. He also tookcontrol over the Church, just as Henry VIII did whencentralizing the state in England. With this process ofpolitical centralization, Peter was taking power away fromothers and redirecting it toward himself. His military reformsled the traditional royal guards, the Streltsy, to rebel. Theirrevolt was followed by others, such as the Bashkirs inCentral Asia and the Bulavin Rebellion. None succeeded.

Though Peter the Great’s project of politicalcentralization was a success and the opposition wasovercome, the type of forces that opposed statecentralization, such as the Streltsy, who saw their powerbeing challenged, won out in many parts of the world, andthe resulting lack of state centralization meant thepersistence of a different type of extractive politicalinstitutions.

In this chapter, we will see how during the critical juncturecreated by the Industrial Revolution, many nations missedthe boat and failed to take advantage of the spread ofindustry. Either they had absolutist political and extractiveeconomic institutions, as in the Ottoman Empire, or theylacked political centralization, as in Somalia.

A SMALL DIFFERENCE THAT MATTERED

Absolutism crumbled in England during the seventeenth

century but got stronger in Spain. The Spanish equivalent ofthe English Parliament, the Cortes, existed in name only.Spain was forged in 1492 with the merger of the kingdomsof Castile and Aragon via the marriage of Queen Isabellaand King Ferdinand. That date coincided with the end ofthe Reconquest, the long process of ousting the Arabs whohad occupied the south of Spain, and built the great citiesof Granada, Cordova, and Seville, since the eighth century.The last Arab state on the Iberian Peninsula, Granada, fellto Spain at the same time Christopher Columbus arrived inthe Americas and started claiming lands for Queen Isabellaand King Ferdinand, who had funded his voyage.

The merger of the crowns of Castile and Aragon andsubsequent dynastic marriages and inheritances created aEuropean superstate. Isabella died in 1504, and herdaughter Joanna was crowned queen of Castile. Joannawas married to Philip of the House of Habsburg, the son ofthe emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Maximilian I. In1516 Charles, Joanna and Philip’s son, was crownedCharles I of Castile and Aragon. When his father died,Charles inherited the Netherlands and Franche-Comté,which he added to his territories in Iberia and theAmericas. In 1519, when Maximilian I died, Charles alsoinherited the Habsburg territories in Germany and becameEmperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire. What hadbeen a merger of two Spanish kingdoms in 1492 becamea multicontinental empire, and Charles continued theproject of strengthening the absolutist state that Isabellaand Ferdinand had begun.

The effort to build and consolidate absolutism in Spainwas massively aided by the discovery of precious metals inthe Americas. Silver had already been discovered in largequantities in Guanajuato, in Mexico, by the 1520s, andsoon thereafter in Zacatecas, Mexico. The conquest ofPeru after 1532 created even more wealth for themonarchy. This came in the form of a share, the “royal fifth,”in any loot from conquest and also from mines. As we sawin chapter 1, a mountain of silver was discovered in Potosíby the 1540s, pouring more wealth into the coffers of theSpanish king.

At the time of the merger of Castile and Aragon, Spainwas among the most economically successful parts of

Europe. After its absolutist political system solidified, itwent into relative and then, after 1600, absolute economicdecline. Almost the first acts of Isabella and Ferdinand afterthe Reconquest was the expropriation of the Jews. Theapproximately two hundred thousand Jews in Spain weregiven four months to leave. They had to sell off all their landand assets at very low prices and were not allowed to takeany gold or silver out of the country. A similar humantragedy was played out just over one hundred years later.Between 1609 and 1614, Philip III expelled the Moriscos,the descendants of the citizens of the former Arab states inthe south of Spain. Just as with the Jews, the Moriscos hadto leave with only what they could carry and were notallowed to take with them any gold, silver, or other preciousmetals.

Property rights were insecure in other dimensions underHabsburg rule in Spain. Philip II, who succeeded his father,Charles V, in 1556, defaulted on his debts in 1557 andagain in 1560, ruining the Fugger and Welser bankingfamilies. The role of the German banking families was thenassumed by Genoese banking families, who were in turnruined by subsequent Spanish defaults during the reign ofthe Habsburgs in 1575, 1596, 1607, 1627, 1647, 1652,1660, and 1662.

Just as crucial as the instability of property rights inabsolutist Spain was the impact of absolutism on theeconomic institutions of trade and the development of theSpanish colonial empire. As we saw in the previouschapter, the economic success of England was based onrapid mercantile expansion. Though, compared with Spainand Portugal, England was a latecomer to Atlantic trade,she allowed for relatively broad-based participation intrading and colonial opportunities. What filled the Crown’scoffers in Spain enriched the newly emerging merchantclass in England. It was this merchant class that would formthe basis of early England economic dynamism andbecome the bulwark of the anti-absolutist political coalition.

In Spain these processes that led to economic progressand institutional change did not take place. After theAmericas had been discovered, Isabella and Ferdinandorganized trade between their new colonies and Spain viaa guild of merchants in Seville. These merchants controlled

all trade and made sure that the monarchy got its share ofthe wealth of the Americas. There was no free trade withany of the colonies, and each year a large flotilla of shipswould return from the Americas bringing precious metalsand valuable goods to Seville. The narrow, monopolizedbase of this trade meant that no broad class of merchantscould emerge via trading opportunities with the colonies.Even trade within the Americas was heavily regulated. Forexample, a merchant in a colony such as New Spain,roughly modern Mexico, could not trade directly with anyonein New Granada, modern Colombia. These restrictions ontrade within the Spanish Empire reduced its economicprosperity and also, indirectly, the potential benefits thatSpain could have gained by trading with another, moreprosperous empire. Nevertheless, they were attractivebecause they guaranteed that the silver and gold wouldkeep flowing to Spain.

The extractive economic institutions of Spain were adirect result of the construction of absolutism and thedifferent path, compared with England, taken by politicalinstitutions. Both the Kingdom of Castile and the Kingdomof Aragon had their Cortes, a parliament representing thedifferent groups, or “estates,” of the kingdom. As with theEnglish Parliament, the Castilian Cortes needed to besummoned to assent to new taxes. Nevertheless, theCortes in Castile and Aragon primarily represented themajor cities, rather than both the urban and rural areas, asthe English Parliament did. By the fifteenth century, itrepresented only eighteen cities, each of whom sent twodeputies. In consequence, the Cortes did not represent asbroad a set of groups as the English Parliament did, and itnever developed as a nexus of diverse interests vying toplace constraints on absolutism. It could not legislate, andeven the scope of its powers with respect to taxation waslimited. This all made it easier for the Spanish monarchy tosideline the Cortes in the process of consolidating its ownabsolutism. Even with silver coming from the Americas,Charles V and Philip II required ever-increasing taxrevenues to finance a series of expensive wars. In 1520Charles V decided to present the Cortes with demands forincreased taxation. Urban elites used the moment to call formuch wider change in the Cortes and its powers. This

opposition turned violent and quickly became known as theComunero Rebellion. Charles was able to crush therebellion with loyal troops. Throughout the rest of thesixteenth century, though, there was a continuous battle asthe Crown tried to wrest away from the Cortes what rightsto levy new taxes and increase old ones that it had. Thoughthis battle ebbed and flowed, it was ultimately won by themonarchy. After 1664 the Cortes did not meet again until itwould be reconstructed during the Napoleonic invasionsalmost 150 years later.

In England the defeat of absolutism in 1688 led not onlyto pluralistic political institutions but also to the furtherdevelopment of a much more effective centralized state. InSpain the opposite happened as absolutism triumphed.Though the monarchy emasculated the Cortes andremoved any potential constraints on its behavior, itbecame increasingly difficult to raise taxes, even whenattempted by direct negotiations with individual cities.While the English state was creating a modern, efficient taxbureaucracy, the Spanish state was again moving in theopposite direction. The monarchy was not only failing tocreate secure property rights for entrepreneurs andmonopolizing trade, but it was also selling offices, oftenmaking them hereditary, indulging in tax farming, and evenselling immunity from justice.

The consequences of these extractive political andeconomic institutions in Spain were predictable. During theseventeenth century, while England was moving towardcommercial growth and then rapid industrialization, Spainwas tailspinning toward widespread economic decline. Atthe start of the century, one in five people in Spain wasliving in urban areas. By the end, this figure had halved toone in ten, in a process that corresponded to increasingimpoverishment of the Spanish population. Spanishincomes fell, while England grew rich.

The persistence and the strengthening of absolutism inSpain, while it was being uprooted in England, is anotherexample of small differences mattering during criticaljunctures. The small differences were in the strengths andnature of representative institutions; the critical juncture wasthe discovery of the Americas. The interaction of these sentSpain off on a very different institutional path from England.

The relatively inclusive economic institutions that resulted inEngland created unprecedented economic dynamism,culminating in the Industrial Revolution, whileindustrialization did not stand a chance in Spain. By thetime industrial technology was spreading in many parts ofthe world, the Spanish economy had declined so much thatthere was not even a need for the Crown or the land-owningelites in Spain to block industrialization.

FEAR OF INDUSTRY

Without the changes in political institutions and politicalpower similar to those that emerged in England after 1688,there was little chance for absolutist countries to benefitfrom the innovations and new technologies of the IndustrialRevolution. In Spain, for example, the lack of secureproperty rights and the widespread economic declinemeant that people simply did not have the incentive tomake the necessary investments and sacrifices. In Russiaand Austria-Hungary, it wasn’t simply the neglect andmismanagement of the elites and the insidious economicslide under extractive institutions that preventedindustrialization; instead, the rulers actively blocked anyattempt to introduce these technologies and basicinvestments in infrastructure such as railroads that couldhave acted as their conduits.

At the time of the Industrial Revolution, in the eighteenthand early nineteenth centuries, the political map of Europewas quite different from how it is today. The Holy RomanEmpire, a patchwork quilt of more than four hundredpolities, most of which would eventually coalesce intoGermany, occupied most of Central Europe. The House ofHabsburg was still a major political force, and its empire,known as the Habsburg or Austro-Hungarian Empire,spread over a vast area of around 250,000 square miles,even if it no longer included Spain, after the Bourbons hadtaken over the Spanish throne in 1700. In terms ofpopulation, it was the third-largest state in Europe andcomprised one-seventh of the population of Europe. In thelate eighteenth century the Habsburg lands included, in thewest, what is today Belgium, then known as the AustrianNetherlands. The largest part, however, was the contiguous

block of lands based around Austria and Hungary, includingthe Czech Republic and Slovakia to the north, andSlovenia, Croatia, and large parts of Italy and Serbia to thesouth. To the east it also incorporated much of what istoday Romania and Poland.

Merchants in the Habsburg domains were much lessimportant than in England, and serfdom prevailed in thelands in Eastern Europe. As we saw in chapter 4, Hungaryand Poland were at the heart of the Second Serfdom ofEastern Europe. The Habsburgs, unlike the Stuarts, weresuccessful in sustaining strongly absolutist rule. Francis I,who ruled as the last emperor of the Holy Roman Empire,between 1792 and 1806, and then emperor of Austria-Hungary until his death in 1835, was a consummateabsolutist. He did not recognize any limitations on hispower and, above all, he wished to preserve the politicalstatus quo. His basic strategy was opposing change, anysort of change. In 1821 he made this clear in a speech,characteristic of Habsburg rulers, he gave to the teachersat a school in Laibach, asserting, “I do not need savants,but good, honest citizens. Your task is to bring young menup to be this. He who serves me must teach what I orderhim. If anyone can’t do this, or comes with new ideas, hecan go, or I will remove him.”

The empress Maria Theresa, who reigned between 1740and 1780, frequently responded to suggestions about howto improve or change institutions by remarking. “Leaveeverything as it is.” Nevertheless, she and her son JosephII, who was emperor between 1780 and 1790, wereresponsible for an attempt to construct a more powerfulcentral state and more effective administrative system. Yetthey did this in the context of a political system with no realconstraints on their actions and with few elements ofpluralism. There was no national parliament that wouldexert even a modicum of control on the monarch, only asystem of regional estates and diets, which historically hadsome powers with respect to taxation and militaryrecruitment. There were even fewer controls on what theAustro-Hungarian Habsburgs could do than there were onSpanish monarchs, and political power was narrowlyconcentrated.

As Habsburg absolutism strengthened in the eighteenth

century, the power of all non-monarchical institutionsweakened further. When a deputation of citizens from theAustrian province of the Tyrol petitioned Francis for aconstitution, he responded, “So, you want aconstitution! … Now look, I don’t care for it, I will give you aconstitution but you must know that the soldiers obey me,and I will not ask you twice if I need money … In any case Iadvise you to be careful what you are going to say.” Giventhis response, the Tyrolese leaders replied, “If thou thinkestthus, it is better to have no constitution,” to which Francisanswered, “That is also my opinion.”

Francis dissolved the State Council that Maria Theresahad used as a forum for consultation with her ministers.From then on there would be no consultation or publicdiscussion of the Crown’s decisions. Francis created apolice state and ruthlessly censored anything that could beregarded as mildly radical. His philosophy of rule wascharacterized by Count Hartig, a long-standing aide, as the“unabated maintenance of the sovereign’s authority, and adenial of all claims on the part of the people to aparticipation in that authority.” He was helped in all this byPrince von Metternich, appointed as his foreign minister in1809. Metternich’s power and influence actually outlastedthat of Francis, and he remained foreign minister for almostforty years.

At the center of Habsburg economic institutions stoodthe feudal order and serfdom. As one moved east withinthe empire, feudalism became more intense, a reflection ofthe more general gradient in economic institutions we sawi n chapter 4, as one moved from Western to EasternEurope. Labor mobility was highly circumscribed, andemigration was illegal. When the English philanthropistRobert Owen tried to convince the Austrian government toadopt some social reforms in order to ameliorate theconditions of poor people, one of Metternich’s assistants,Friedrich von Gentz, replied, “We do not desire at all thatthe great masses shall become well off andindependent … How could we otherwise rule over them?”

In addition to serfdom, which completely blocked theemergence of a labor market and removed the economicincentives or initiative from the mass of the rural population,Habsburg absolutism thrived on monopolies and other

restrictions on trade. The urban economy was dominatedby guilds, which restricted entry into professions. Until 1775there were internal tariffs within Austria itself and in Hungaryuntil 1784. There were very high tariffs on imported goods,with many explicit prohibitions on the import and export ofgoods.

The suppression of markets and the creation ofextractive economic institutions are of course quitecharacteristic of absolutism, but Francis went further. It wasnot simply that extractive economic institutions removed theincentive for individuals to innovate or adopt newtechnology. We saw in chapter 2 how in the Kingdom ofKongo attempts to promote the use of plows wereunsuccessful because people lacked any incentive, giventhe extractive nature of the economic institutions. The kingof Kongo realized that if he could induce people to useplows, agricultural productivity would be higher, generatingmore wealth, which he could benefit from. This is a potentialincentive for all governments, even absolutist ones. Theproblem in Kongo was that people understood thatwhatever they produced could be confiscated by anabsolutist monarch, and therefore they had no incentive toinvest or use better technology. In the Habsburg lands,Francis did not encourage his citizens to adopt bettertechnology; on the contrary, he actually opposed it, andblocked the dissemination of technologies that peoplewould have been otherwise willing to adopt with the existingeconomic institutions.

Opposition to innovation was manifested in two ways.First, Francis I was opposed to the development ofindustry. Industry led to factories, and factories wouldconcentrate poor workers in cities, particularly in the capitalcity of Vienna. Those workers might then becomesupporters for opponents of absolutism. His policies wereaimed at locking into place the traditional elites and thepolitical and economic status quo. He wanted to keepsociety primarily agrarian. The best way to do this, Francisbelieved, was to stop the factories being built in the firstplace. This he did directly—for instance, in 1802, banningthe creation of new factories in Vienna. Instead ofencouraging the importation and adoption of newmachinery, the basis of industrialization, he banned it until

1811.Second, he opposed the construction of railways, one of

the key new technologies that came with the IndustrialRevolution. When a plan to build a northern railway was putbefore Francis I, he replied, “No, no, I will have nothing todo with it, lest the revolution might come into the country.”

Since the government would not grant a concession tobuild a steam railway, the first railway built in the empirehad to use horse-drawn carriages. The line, which ranbetween the city of Linz, on the Danube, to the Bohemiancity of Budweis, on the Moldau River, was built withgradients and corners, which meant that it was impossiblesubsequently to convert it to steam engines. So it continuedwith horse power until the 1860s. The economic potentialfor railway development in the empire had been sensedearly by the banker Salomon Rothschild, the representativein Vienna of the great banking family. Salomon’s brotherNathan, who was based in England, was very impressed byGeorge Stephenson’s engine “The Rocket” and thepotential for steam locomotion. He contacted his brother toencourage him to look for opportunities to develop railwaysin Austria, since he believed that the family could makelarge profits by financing railway development. Nathanagreed, but the scheme went nowhere because EmperorFrancis again simply said no.

The opposition to industry and steam railways stemmedfrom Francis’s concern about the creative destruction thataccompanied the development of a modern economy. Hismain priorities were ensuring the stability of the extractiveinstitutions over which he ruled and protecting theadvantages of the traditional elites who supported him. Notonly was there little to gain from industrialization, whichwould undermine the feudal order by attracting labor fromthe countryside to the cities, but Francis also recognizedthe threat that major economic changes would pose to hispolitical power. As a consequence, he blocked industry andeconomic progress, locking in economic backwardness,which manifested itself in many ways. For instance, as lateas 1883, when 90 percent of world iron output wasproduced using coal, more than half of the output in theHabsburg territories still used much less efficient charcoal.Similarly, right up to the First World War, when the empire

collapsed, textile weaving was never fully mechanized butstill undertaken by hand.

Austria-Hungary was not alone in fearing industry.Farther east, Russia had an equally absolutist set ofpolitical institutions, forged by Peter the Great, as we sawearlier in this chapter. Like Austria-Hungary, Russia’seconomic institutions were highly extractive, based onserfdom, keeping at least half of the population tied to theland. Serfs had to work for nothing three days a week onthe lands of their lords. They could not move, they lackedfreedom of occupation, and they could be sold at will bytheir lord to another lord. The radical philosopher PeterKropotkin, one of the founders of modern anarchism, left avivid depiction of the way serfdom worked during the reignof Tsar Nicholas I, who ruled Russia from 1825 until 1855.He recalled from his childhood

stories of men and women torn from theirfamilies and their villages and sold, lost ingambling, or exchanged for a couple ofhunting dogs, and transported to someremote part of Russia … of children takenfrom their parents and sold to cruel ordissolute masters; of flogging “in the stables,”which occurred every day with unheard ofcruelty; of a girl who found her only salvationin drowning herself; of an old man who hadgrown grey-haired in his master’s serviceand at last hanged himself under his master’swindow; and of revolts of serfs, which weresuppressed by Nicholas I’s generals byflogging to death each tenth or fifth man takenout of the ranks, and by laying waste thevillage … As to the poverty which I saw duringour journeys in certain villages, especially inthose which belonged to the imperial family,no words would be adequate to describe themisery to readers who have not seen it.

Exactly as in Austria-Hungary, absolutism didn’t justcreate a set of economic institutions that impeded theprosperity of the society. There was a similar fear of

creative destruction and a fear of industry and the railways.At the heart of this during the reign of Nicholas I was CountEgor Kankrin, who served as finance minister between1823 and 1844 and played a key role in opposing thechanges in society necessary for promoting economicprosperity.

Kankrin’s policies were aimed at strengthening thetraditional political pillars of the regime, particularly thelanded aristocracy, and keeping the society rural andagrarian. Upon becoming minister of finance, Kankrinquickly opposed and reversed a proposal by the previousfinance minister, Gurev, to develop a government-ownedCommercial Bank to lend to industry. Instead, Kankrinreopened the State Loan Bank, which had been closedduring the Napoleonic Wars. This bank was originallycreated to lend to large landowners at subsidized rates, apolicy Kankrin approved of. The loans required theapplicants to put up serfs as “security,” or collateral, so thatonly feudal landowners could get such loans. To finance theState Loan Bank, Kankrin transferred assets from theCommercial Bank, killing two birds with one stone: therewould now be little money left for industry.

Kankrin’s attitudes were presciently shaped by the fearthat economic change would bring political change, and sowere those of Tsar Nicholas. Nicholas’s assumption ofpower in December 1825 had been almost aborted by anattempted coup by military officers, the so-calledDecembrists, who had a radical program of social change.Nicholas wrote to Grand Duke Mikhail: “Revolution is onRussia’s doorstep, but I swear that it will not penetrate thecountry while there is breath in my body.”

Nicholas feared the social changes that creating amodern economy would bring. As he put it in a speech hemade to a meeting of manufacturers at an industrial exhibitin Moscow:

both the state and manufacturers must turntheir attention to a subject, without which thevery factories would become an evil ratherthan a blessing; this is the care of theworkers who increase in number annually.They need energetic and paternal

supervision of their morals; without it thismass of people will gradually be corruptedand eventually turn into a class as miserableas they are dangerous for their masters.

Just as with Francis I, Nicholas feared that the creativedestruction unleashed by a modern industrial economywould undermine the political status quo in Russia. Urgedon by Nicholas, Kankrin took specific steps to slow thepotential for industry. He banned several industrialexhibitions, which had previously been held periodically toshowcase new technology and facilitate technologyadoption.

In 1848 Europe was rocked by a series of revolutionaryoutbursts. In response, A. A. Zakrevskii, the militarygovernor of Moscow, who was in charge of maintainingpublic order, wrote to Nicholas: “For the preservation ofcalm and prosperity, which at present time only Russiaenjoys, the government must not permit the gathering ofhomeless and dissolute people, who will easily join everymovement, destroying social or private peace.” His advicewas brought before Nicholas’s ministers, and in 1849 anew law was enacted that put severe limits on the numberof factories that could be opened in any part of Moscow. Itspecifically forbade the opening of any new cotton orwoolen spinning mills and iron foundries. Other industries,such as weaving and dyeing, had to petition the militarygovernor if they wanted to open new factories. Eventuallycotton spinning was explicitly banned. The law wasintended to stop any further concentration of potentiallyrebellious workers in the city.

Opposition to railways accompanied opposition toindustry, exactly as in Austria-Hungary. Before 1842 therewas only one railway in Russia. This was the Tsarskoe SeloRailway, which ran seventeen miles from Saint Petersburgto the imperial residencies of Tsarskoe Selo and Pavlovsk.Just as Kankrin opposed industry, he saw no reason topromote railways, which he argued would bring a sociallydangerous mobility, noting that “railways do not alwaysresult from natural necessity, but are more an object ofartificial need or luxury. They encourage unnecessary travelfrom place to place, which is entirely typical of our time.”

Kankrin turned down numerous bids to build railways,and it was only in 1851 that a line was built linking Moscowand Saint Petersburg. Kankrin’s policy was continued byCount Kleinmichel, who was made head of the mainadministration of Transport and Public Buildings. Thisinstitution became the main arbiter of railway construction,and Kleinmichel used it as a platform to discourage theirconstruction. After 1849 he even used his power to censordiscussion in the newspapers of railway development.

Map 13 (opposite) shows the consequences of this logic.While Britain and most of northwest Europe wascrisscrossed with railways in 1870, very few penetrated thevast territory of Russia. The policy against railways wasonly reversed after Russia’s conclusive defeat by British,French, and Ottoman forces in the Crimean War, 1853–1856, when the backwardness of its transportation networkwas understood to be a serious liability for Russian

security. There was also little railway development inAustria-Hungary outside of Austria and the western parts ofthe empire, though the 1848 Revolutions had broughtchange to these territories, particularly the abolition ofserfdom.

NO SHIPPING ALLOWED

Absolutism reigned not just in much of Europe but also inAsia, and similarly prevented industrialization during thecritical juncture created by the Industrial Revolution. TheMing and Qing dynasties of China and the absolutism ofthe Ottoman Empire illustrate this pattern. Under the Songdynasty, between 960 and 1279, China led the world inmany technological innovations. The Chinese inventedclocks, the compass, gunpowder, paper and paper money,porcelain, and blast furnaces to make cast iron beforeEurope did. They independently developed spinningwheels and waterpower at more or less the same time thatthese emerged at the other end of Eurasia. Inconsequence, in 1500 standards of living were probably atleast as high in China as they were in Europe. Forcenturies China also had a centralized state with ameritocratically recruited civil service.

Yet China was absolutist, and the growth under the Songdynasty was under extractive institutions. There was nopolitical representation for groups other than the monarchyin society, nothing resembling a Parliament or a Cortes.Merchants always had a precarious status in China, andthe great inventions of the Song were not spurred bymarket incentives but were brought into existence under theauspices, or even the orders, of the government. Little ofthis was commercialized. The grip of the state tightenedduring the Ming and Qing dynasties that followed the Song.At the root of all this was the usual logic of extractiveinstitutions. As most rulers presiding over extractiveinstitutions, the absolutist emperors of China opposedchange, sought stability, and in essence feared creativedestruction.

This is best illustrated by the history of international trade.As we have seen, the discovery of the Americas and theway international trade was organized played a key role in

the political conflicts and institutional changes of earlymodern Europe. In China, while private merchants werecommonly involved in trade within the country, the statemonopolized overseas trade. When the Ming dynasty cameto power in 1368, it was Emperor Hongwu who first ruled,for thirty years. Hongwu was concerned that overseas tradewould be politically and socially destabilizing and heallowed international trade to take place only if it wereorganized by the government and only if it involved tributegiving, and not commercial activity. Hongwu even executedhundreds of people accused of trying to turn tributemissions into commercial ventures. Between 1377 and1397, no oceangoing tribute missions were allowed. Hebanned private individuals from trading with foreigners andwould not allow Chinese to sail overseas.

In 1402 Emperor Yongle came to the throne and initiatedone of the most famous periods of Chinese history byrestarting government-sponsored foreign trade on a bigscale. Yongle sponsored Admiral Zheng He to undertakesix huge missions to Southeast and South Asia, Arabia,and Africa. The Chinese knew about these places from along history of trading relations, but nothing had everhappened on this scale before. The first fleet included27,800 men and 62 large treasure ships, accompanied by190 smaller ships, including ones specifically for carryingfreshwater, others for supplies, and others for troops. YetEmperor Yongle put a temporary stop on the missions afterthe sixth one in 1422. This was made permanent by hissuccessor, Hongxi, who ruled from 1424 to 1425. Hongxi’spremature death brought to the throne Emperor Xuande,who at first allowed Zheng He a final mission, in 1433. Butafter this, all overseas trade was banned. By 1436 theconstruction of seagoing ships was even made illegal. Theban on overseas trade was not lifted until 1567.

These events, though only the tip of the extractive icebergthat prevented many economic activities deemed to bepotentially destabilizing, were to have a fundamental impacton Chinese economic development. Just at the time wheninternational trade and the discovery of the Americas werefundamentally transforming the institutions of England,China was cutting itself off from this critical juncture andturning inward. This inward turn did not end in 1567. The

Ming dynasty was overrun in 1644 by the Jurchen people,the Manchus of inner Asia, who created the Qing dynasty. Aperiod of intense political instability then ensued. The Qingsengaged in mass expropriation of property and assets. Inthe 1690s, T’ang Chen, a retired Chinese scholar andfailed merchant, wrote:

More than fifty years have passed since thefounding of the Ch’ing [Qing] dynasty, and theempire grows poorer each day. Farmers aredestitute, artisans are destitute, merchantsare destitute, and officials too are destitute.Grain is cheap, yet it is hard to eat one’s fill.Cloth is cheap, yet it is hard to cover one’sskin. Boatloads of goods travel from onemarketplace to another, but the cargoes mustbe sold at a loss. Officials upon leaving theirposts discover they have no wherewithal tosupport their households. Indeed the fouroccupations are all impoverished.

In 1661 the emperor Kangxi ordered that all people livingalong the coast from Vietnam to Chekiang—essentially theentire southern coast, once the most commercially activepart of China—should move seventeen miles inland. Thecoast was patrolled by troops to enforce the measure, anduntil 1693 there was a ban on shipping everywhere on thecoast. This ban was periodically reimposed in theeighteenth century, effectively stunting the emergence ofChinese overseas trade. Though some did develop, fewwere willing to invest when the emperor could suddenlychange his mind and ban trade, making investments inships, equipment, and trading relations worthless or evenworse.

The reasoning of the Ming and Qing states for opposinginternational trade is by now familiar: the fear of creativedestruction. The leaders’ primary aim was political stability.International trade was potentially destabilizing asmerchants were enriched and emboldened, as they were inEngland during the era of Atlantic expansion. This was notjust what the rulers believed during the Ming and Qingdynasties, but also the attitude of the rulers of the Song

dynasty, even if they were willing to sponsor technologicalinnovations and permit greater commercial freedom,provided that this was under their control. Things got worseunder the Ming and Qing dynasties as the control of thestate on economic activity tightened and overseas tradewas banned. There were certainly markets and trade inMing and Qing China, and the government taxed thedomestic economy quite lightly. However, it did little tosupport innovation, and it exchanged the development ofmercantile or industrial prosperity for political stability. Theconsequence of all this absolutist control of the economywas predictable: the Chinese economy was stagnantthroughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centurieswhile other economies were industrializing. By the timeMao set up his communist regime in 1949, China hadbecome one of the poorest countries in the world.

THE ABSOLUTISM OF PRESTER JOHN

Absolutism as a set of political institutions and theeconomic consequences that flowed from it were notrestricted to Europe and Asia. It was present in Africa, forexample, with the Kingdom of Kongo, as we saw in chapter2. An even more durable example of African absolutism isEthiopia, or Abyssinia, whose roots we came across inchapter 6, when we discussed the emergence of feudalismafter the decline of Aksum. Abyssinian absolutism waseven more long-lived than its European counterparts,because it was faced with very different challenges andcritical junctures.

After the conversion of the Aksumite king Ezana toChristianity, the Ethiopians remained Christian, and by thefourteenth century they had become the focus of the myth ofKing Prester John. Prester John was a Christian king whohad been cut off from Europe by the rise of Islam in theMiddle East. Initially his kingdom was thought to be locatedin India. However, as European knowledge of Indiaincreased, people realized that this was not true. The kingof Ethiopia, since he was a Christian, then became anatural target for the myth. Ethiopian kings in fact tried hardto forge alliances with European monarchs against Arabinvasions, sending diplomatic missions to Europe from at

least 1300 onward, even persuading the Portuguese kingto send soldiers.

These soldiers, along with diplomats, Jesuits, andtravelers wishing to meet Prester John, left many accountsof Ethiopia. Some of the most interesting from aneconomic point of view are by Francisco Álvares, achaplain accompanying a Portuguese diplomatic mission,who was in Ethiopia from 1520 to 1527. In addition, thereare accounts by Jesuit Manoel de Almeida, who lived inEthiopia from 1624, and by John Bruce, a traveler who wasin the country between 1768 and 1773. The writings ofthese people give a rich account of political and economicinstitutions at the time in Ethiopia and leave no doubt thatEthiopia was a perfect specimen of absolutism. Therewere no pluralistic institutions of any kind, nor any checksand constraints on the power of the emperor, who claimedthe right to rule on the basis of supposed descent from thelegendary King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.

The consequence of absolutism was great insecurity ofproperty rights driven by the political strategy of theemperor. Bruce, for example, noted that

all the land is the king’s; he gives it to whomhe pleases during pleasure, and resumes itwhen it is his will. As soon as he dies thewhole land in the kingdom is at the disposalof the Crown; and not only so, but, by death ofthe present owner, his possessions howeverlong enjoyed, revert to the king, and do notfall to the eldest son.

Álvares claimed there would be much more “fruit andtillage if the great men did not ill-treat the people.”Alameida’s account of how the society worked is veryconsistent. He observed:

It is so usual for the emperor to exchange,alter and take away the lands each manholds every two or three years, sometimesevery year and even many times in thecourse of a year, that it causes no surprise.Often one man plows the soil, another sows itand another reaps. Hence it arises that there

and another reaps. Hence it arises that thereis no one who takes care of the land heenjoys; there is not even anyone to plant atree because he knows that he who plants itvery rarely gathers the fruit. For the king,however, it is useful that they should be sodependent upon him.

These descriptions suggest major similarities betweenthe political and economic structures of Ethiopia and thoseof European absolutism, though they also make it clear thatabsolutism was more intense in Ethiopia, and economicinstitutions even more extractive. Moreover, as weemphasized in chapter 6, Ethiopia was not subject to thesame critical junctures that helped undermine the absolutistregime in England. It was cut off from many of theprocesses that shaped the modern world. Even if this hadnot been the case, the intensity of its absolutism wouldprobably have led the absolutism to strengthen even more.For example, as in Spain, international trade in Ethiopia,including the lucrative slave trade, was controlled by themonarch. Ethiopia was not completely isolated: Europeansdid search for Prester John, and it did have to fight warsagainst surrounding Islamic polities. Nevertheless, thehistorian Edward Gibbon noted with some accuracy that“encompassed on all sides by the enemies of their religion,the Aethiopians slept near a thousand years, forgetful of theworld by whom they were forgotten.”

As the European colonization of Africa began in thenineteenth century, Ethiopia was an independent kingdomunder Ras (Duke) Kassa, who was crowned EmperorTewodros II in 1855. Tewodros embarked on amodernization of the state, creating a more centralizedbureaucracy and judiciary, and a military capable ofcontrolling the country and possibly fighting the Europeans.He placed military governors, responsible for collectingtaxes and remitting them to him, in charge of all theprovinces. His negotiations with European powers weredifficult, and in exasperation he imprisoned the Englishconsul. In 1868 the English sent an expeditionary force,which sacked his capital. Tewodros committed suicide.

All the same, Tewodros’s reconstructed government didmanage to pull off one of the great anticolonial triumphs of

the nineteenth century, against the Italians. In 1889 thethrone went to Menelik II, who was immediately faced withthe interest of Italy in establishing a colony there. In 1885the German chancellor Bismarck had convened aconference in Berlin where the European powers hatchedthe “Scramble for Africa”—that is, they decided how todivide up Africa into different spheres of interest. At theconference, Italy secured its rights to colonies in Eritrea,along the coast of Ethiopia, and Somalia. Ethiopia, thoughnot represented at the conference, somehow managed tosurvive intact. But the Italians still kept designs, and in 1896they marched an army south from Eritrea. Menelik’sresponse was similar to that of a European medieval king;he formed an army by getting the nobility to call up theirarmed men. This approach could not put an army in thefield for long, but it could put a huge one together for a shorttime. This short time was just enough to defeat the Italians,whose fifteen thousand men were overwhelmed byMenelik’s one hundred thousand in the Battle of Adowa in1896. It was the most serious military defeat a precolonialAfrican country was able to inflict on a European power,and secured Ethiopia’s independence for another fortyyears.

The last emperor of Ethiopia, Ras Tafari, was crownedHaile Selassie in 1930. Haile Selassie ruled until he wasoverthrown by a second Italian invasion, which began in1935, but he returned from exile with the help of the Englishin 1941. He then ruled until he was overthrown in a 1974coup by the Derg, “the Committee,” a group of Marxist armyofficers, who then proceeded to further impoverish andravage the country. The basic extractive economicinstitutions of the absolutist Ethiopian empire, such as gult(this page), and the feudalism created after the decline ofAksum, lasted until they were abolished after the 1974revolution.

Today Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in theworld. The income of an average Ethiopian is about one-fortieth that of an average citizen of England. Most peoplelive in rural areas and practice subsistence agriculture.They lack clean water, electricity, and access to properschools or health care. Life expectancy is about fifty-fiveyears and only one-third of adults are literate. A

comparison between England and Ethiopia spans worldinequality. The reason Ethiopia is where it is today is that,unlike in England, in Ethiopia absolutism persisted until therecent past. With absolutism came extractive economicinstitutions and poverty for the mass of Ethiopians, thoughof course the emperors and nobility benefited hugely. Butthe most enduring implication of the absolutism was thatEthiopian society failed to take advantage ofindustrialization opportunities during the nineteenth andearly twentieth centuries, underpinning the abject poverty ofits citizens today.

THE CHILDREN OF SAMAALE

Absolutist political institutions around the world impededindustrialization either indirectly, in the way they organizedthe economy, or directly, as we have seen in Austria-Hungary and Russia. But absolutism was not the onlybarrier to the emergence of inclusive economic institutions.At the dawn of the nineteenth century, many parts of theworld, especially in Africa, lacked a state that could provideeven a minimal degree of law and order, which is aprerequisite for having a modern economy. There was notthe equivalent of Peter the Great in Russia starting theprocess of political centralization and then forging Russianabsolutism, let alone that of the Tudors in Englandcentralizing the state without fully destroying—or, moreappropriately, without fully being able to destroy—theParliament and other constraints on their power. Withoutsome degree of political centralization, even if the elites ofthese African polities had wished to greet industrializationwith open arms, there wouldn’t have been much they couldhave done.

Somalia, situated in the Horn of Africa, illustrates thedevastating effects of lack of political centralization.Somalia has been dominated historically by peopleorganized into six clan families. The four largest of these,the Dir, Darod, Isaq, and Hawiye, all trace their ancestryback to a mythical ancestor, Samaale. These clan familiesoriginated in the north of Somalia and gradually spreadsouth and east, and are even today primarily pastoralpeople who migrate with their flocks of goats, sheep, and

camels. In the south, the Digil and the Rahanweyn,sedentary agriculturalists, make up the last two of the clanfamilies. The territories of these clans are depicted on Map12.

Somalis identify first with their clan family, but these arevery large and contain many subgroups. First among theseare clans that trace their descent back to one of the largerclan families. More significant are the groupings withinclans called diya-paying groups, which consist of closelyrelated kinspeople who pay and collect diya, or “bloodwealth,” compensation against the murder of one of theirmembers. Somali clans and diya-paying groups werehistorically locked in to almost continual conflict over thescarce resources at their disposal, particularly watersources and good grazing land for their animals. They alsoconstantly raided the herds of neighboring clans anddiya-paying groups. Though clans had leaders calledsultans, and also elders, these people had no real power.Political power was very widely dispersed, with everySomali adult man being able to have his say on decisionsthat might affect the clan or group. This was achievedthrough an informal council made up of all adult males.There was no written law, no police, and no legal system tospeak of, except that Sharia law was used as a frameworkwithin which informal laws were embedded. These informallaws for a diya-paying group would be encoded in whatwas called a heer, a body of explicitly formulatedobligations, rights, and duties the group demanded othersobey in their interactions with the group. With the advent ofcolonial rule, these heers began to be written down. Forexample, the Hassan Ugaas lineage formed a diya-payinggroup of about fifteen hundred men and was a subclan ofthe Dir clan family in British Somaliland. On March 8, 1950,t h e i r heer was recorded by the British districtcommissioner, the first three clauses of which read

1. When a man of the Hassan Ugaas is murdered byan external group twenty camels of his blood wealth(100) will be taken by his next of kin and the remainingeighty camels shared amongst all the Hassan Ugaas.2. If a man of the Hassan Ugaas is wounded by an

outsider and his injuries are valued at thirty-three-and-a-third camels, ten camels must be given to him andthe remained to his jiffo-group (a sub-group of the diyagroup).3. Homicide amongst members of the Hassan Ugaasis subject to compensation at the rate of thirty-three-and-a-third camels, payable only to the deceased’snext of kin. If the culprit is unable to pay all or part, hewill be assisted by his lineage.

The heavy focus of the heer on killing and woundingreflects the almost constant state of warfare between diya-paying groups and clans. Central to this was blood wealthand blood feuding. A crime against a particular person wasa crime against the whole diya-paying group, andnecessitated collective compensation, blood wealth. If suchblood wealth was not paid, the diya-paying group of theperson who had committed the crime faced the collectiveretribution of the victim. When modern transportationreached Somalia, blood wealth was extended to peoplewho were killed or injured in motor accidents. The HassanUgaas’s heer didn’t refer only to murder; clause 6 was “Ifone man of the Hassan Ugaas insults another at a HassanUgaas council he shall pay 150 shillings to the offendedparty.”

In early 1955, the flocks of two clans, the Habar Tol Ja’loand the Habar Yuunis, were grazing close to each other inthe region of Domberelly. A man from the Yuunis waswounded after a dispute with a member of the Tol Ja’loover camel herding. The Yuunis clan immediately retaliated,attacking the Tol Ja’lo clan and killing a man. This deathled, following the code of blood wealth, to the Yuunis clanoffering compensation to the Tol Ja’lo clan, which wasaccepted. The blood wealth was to be handed over inperson, as usual in the form of camels. At the handing-overceremony, one of the Tol Ja’lo killed a member of theYuunis, mistaking him for a member of the diya-payinggroup of the murderer. This led to all-out warfare, and withinthe next forty-eight hours thirteen Yuunis and twenty-six TolJa’lo had been killed. Warfare continued for another yearbefore elders from both clans, brought together by theEnglish colonial administration, managed to broker a deal

(the exchange of blood wealth) that satisfied both sides andwas paid over the next three years.

The paying of blood wealth took place in the shadow ofthe threat of force and feuding, and even when it was paid,it did not necessarily stop conflict. Usually conflict dieddown and then flared up again.

Political power was thus widely dispersed in Somalisociety, almost pluralistically. But without the authority of acentralized state to enforce order, let alone property rights,this led not to inclusive institutions. Nobody respected theauthority of another, and nobody, including the Britishcolonial state when it eventually arrived, was able toimpose order. The lack of political centralization made itimpossible for Somalia to benefit from the IndustrialRevolution. In such a climate it would have beenunimaginable to invest in or adopt the new technologiesemanating from Britain, or indeed to create the types oforganizations necessary to do so.

The complex politics of Somalia had even more subtleimplications for economic progress. We mentioned earliersome of the great technological puzzles of African history.Prior to the expansion of colonial rule in the late nineteenthcentury, African societies did not use wheeledtransportation or plow agriculture and few had writing.Ethiopia did, as we have seen. The Somalis also had awritten script, but unlike the Ethiopians, they did not use it.We have already seen instances of this in African history.African societies may not have used wheels or plows, butthey certainly knew about them. In the case of the Kingdomof Kongo, as we have seen, this was fundamentally due tothe fact that the economic institutions created no incentivesfor people to adopt these technologies. Could the sameissues arise with the adoption of writing?

We can get some sense of this from the Kingdom ofTaqali, situated to the northwest of Somalia, in the NubaHills of southern Sudan. The Kingdom of Taqali was formedin the late eighteenth century by a band of warriors led by aman called Isma’il, and it stayed independent untilamalgamated into the British Empire in 1884. The Taqalikings and people had access to writing in Arabic, but it wasnot used—except by the kings, for external communicationwith other polities and diplomatic correspondence. At first

this situation seems very puzzling. The traditional accountof the origin of writing in Mesopotamia is that it wasdeveloped by states in order to record information, controlpeople, and levy taxes. Wasn’t the Taqali state interested inthis?

These questions were investigated by the historian JanetEwald in the late 1970s as she tried to reconstruct thehistory of the Taqali state. Part of the story is that thecitizens resisted the use of writing because they feared thatit would be used to control resources, such as valuableland, by allowing the state to claim ownership. They alsofeared that it would lead to more systematic taxation. Thedynasty that Isma’il started did not gel into a powerful state.Even if it had wanted to, the state was not strong enough toimpose its will over the objections of the citizens. But therewere other, more subtle factors at work. Various elites alsoopposed political centralization, for example, preferring oralto written interaction with citizens, because this allowedthem maximum discretion. Written laws or orders could notbe taken back or denied and were harder to change; theyset benchmarks that governing elites might want to reverse.So neither the ruled nor the rulers of Taqali saw theintroduction of writing to be to their advantage. The ruledfeared how the rulers would use it, and the rulersthemselves saw the absence of writing as aiding their quiteprecarious grip on power. It was the politics of Taqali thatkept writing from being introduced. Though the Somalishad even less of a well-defined elite compared with theTaqali kingdom, it is quite plausible that the same forcesinhibited their use of writing and their adoption of otherbasic technologies.

The Somali case shows the consequences of the lack ofpolitical centralization for economic growth. The historicalliterature does not record instances of attempts to createsuch centralization in Somalia. However, it is clear why thiswould have been very difficult. To politically centralize wouldhave meant that some clans would have been subject to thecontrol of others. But they rejected any such dominance,and the surrender of their power that this would haveentailed; the balance of military power in the society wouldalso have made it difficult to create such centralizedinstitutions. In fact, it is likely that any group or clan

attempting to centralize power would not only have facedstiff resistance but would have lost its existing power andprivileges. As a consequence of this lack of politicalcentralization and the implied absence of even the mostbasic security of property rights, Somali society nevergenerated incentives to invest in productivity-enhancingtechnologies. As the process of industrialization was underway in other parts of the world in the nineteenth and earlytwentieth centuries, Somalis were feuding and fending fortheir lives, and their economic backwardness becamemore ingrained.

ENDURING BACKWARDNESS

The Industrial Revolution created a transformative criticaljuncture for the whole world during the nineteenth centuryand beyond: those societies that allowed and incentivizedtheir citizens to invest in new technologies could growrapidly. But many around the world failed to do so—orexplicitly chose not to do so. Nations under the grip ofextractive political and economic institutions did notgenerate such incentives. Spain and Ethiopia provideexamples where the absolutist control of politicalinstitutions and the implied extractive economic institutionschoked economic incentives long before the dawn of thenineteenth century. The outcome was similar in otherabsolutist regimes—for example, in Austria-Hungary,Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and China, though in thesecases the rulers, because of fear of creative destruction,not only neglected to encourage economic progress butalso took explicit steps to block the spread of industry andthe introduction of new technologies that would bringindustrialization.

Absolutism is not the only form of extractive politicalinstitutions and was not the only factor preventingindustrialization. Inclusive political and economicinstitutions necessitate some degree of politicalcentralization so that the state can enforce law and order,uphold property rights, and encourage economic activitywhen necessary by investing in public services. Yet eventoday, many nations, such as Afghanistan, Haiti, Nepal, andSomalia, have states that are unable to maintain the most

rudimentary order, and economic incentives are all butdestroyed. The case of Somalia illustrates how the processof industrialization also passed by such societies. Politicalcentralization is resisted for the same reason that absolutistregimes resist change: the often well-placed fear thatchange will reallocate political power from those thatdominate today to new individuals and groups. Thus, asabsolutism blocks moves toward pluralism and economicchange, so do the traditional elites and clans dominatingthe scene in societies without state centralization. As aconsequence, societies that still lacked such centralizationin the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were particularlydisadvantaged in the age of industry.

While the variety of extractive institutions ranging fromabsolutism to states with little centralization failed to takeadvantage of the spread of industry, the critical juncture ofthe Industrial Revolution had very different effects in otherparts of the world. As we will see in chapter 10, societiesthat had already taken steps toward inclusive political andeconomic institutions, such as the United States andAustralia, and those where absolutism was more seriouslychallenged, such as France and Japan, took advantage ofthese new economic opportunities and started a process ofrapid economic growth. As such, the usual pattern ofinteraction between a critical juncture and existinginstitutional differences leading to further institutional andeconomic divergence played out again in the nineteenthcentury, and this time with an even bigger bang and morefundamental effects on the prosperity and poverty ofnations.

North of the fence: Nogales, Arizona JimWest/imagebroker.net/Photolibrary

South of the fence: Nogales, Sonora Jim West/agefotostock/Photolibrary

Consequences of a level playing field: Thomas Edison’s

1880 patent for the lightbulb Records of the Patent andTrademark Office; Record Group 241; National Archives

Economic losers from creative destruction: machine-breaking Luddites in early-nineteenth-century Britain Mary

Evans Picture Library/Tom Morgan

Consequences of a complete lack of political centralizationin Somalia REUTERS/Mohamed Guled/Landov

Successive beneficiaries of extractive institutions in Congo:

King of Kongo © CORBIS King Leopold II The GrangerCollection, NY

Joseph-Désiré Mobutu © Richard Melloul/Sygma/CORBIS

Laurent Kabila © Reuters/CORBIS

The Glorious Revolution: William III of Orange is read theBill of Rights before being offered the crown of England by

parliament After Edgar Melville Ward/The Bridgeman ArtLibrary/Getty Images

The bubonic plague of the fourteenth century creates acritical juncture (The Triumph of Death painting of the Black

Death by Brueghel the Elder) The Granger Collection, NY

Beneficiary of institutional innovation: the King of Kuba EliotElisofon/Time & Life Pictures/Getty

The emergence of hierarchy and inequality before farming:the grave goods of the Natufian elite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Natufian-Burial-ElWad.jpg

Extractive growth: Soviet Gulag labor builds the White Seacanal SOVFOTO

Britain falls far behind: the ruins of the Roman empire atVindolanda Courtesy of the Vindolanda Trust and Adam

Stanford

Innovation, essence of inclusive economic growth: JamesWatt’s steam engine The Granger Collection, NY

Organizational change, a consequence of inclusiveinstitutions: the factory of Richard Arkwright at Cromford

The Granger Collection, NY

Fruits of unsustainable extractive growth: Zheng He’s shipalongside Columbus’s Santa Maria Gregory A.

Harlin/National Geographic Stock

Bird’s-eye view of the dual economy in South Africa:poverty in Transkei, prosperity in Natal Roger de la

Harpe/Africa Imagery

Consequences of the Industrial Revolution: the storming ofthe Bastille Bridgeman-Giraudon/Art Resource, NY

Challenges to inclusive institutions: the Standard OilCompany Library of Congress Prints and Photographs

Division Washington, D.C.

Noncreative destruction: abandoned Hasting railway stationon the way to Bo in Sierra Leone © Matt Stephenson:

www.itsayshere.org

Extractive institutions today: children working in an Uzbekcotton field Environmental Justice Foundation,

cotton field Environmental Justice Foundation,www.ejfoundation.org

Breaking a mold: three Tswana chiefs on their way toLondon Photograph by Willoughby, courtesy of Botswana

National Archives & Records Services

Breaking another mold: Rosa Parks challenges extractiveinstitutions in the U.S. south The Granger Collection, NY

Extractive institutions devour their children: the ChineseCultural Revolution vs. “degenerate intellectuals” Weng

Rulan, 1967, IISH Collection, International Institute of SocialHistory (Amsterdam)

9.

REVERSING DEVELOPMENT

SPICE AND GENOCIDE

THE MOLUCCAN ARCHIPELAGO in modern Indonesia ismade up of three groups of islands. In the early seventeenthcentury, the northern Moluccas housed the independentkingdoms of Tidore, Ternate, and Bacan. The middleMoluccas were home to the island kingdom of Ambon. Inthe south were the Banda Islands, a small archipelago thatwas not yet politically unified. Though they seem remote tous today, the Moluccas were then central to world trade asthe only producers of the valuable spices cloves, mace, andnutmeg. Of these, nutmeg and mace grew only in theBanda Islands. Inhabitants of these islands produced andexported these rare spices in exchange for food andmanufactured goods coming from the island of Java, fromthe entrepôt of Melaka on the Malaysian Peninsula, andfrom India, China, and Arabia.

The first contact the inhabitants had with Europeans wasin the sixteenth century, with Portuguese mariners whocame to buy spices. Before then spices had to be shippedthrough the Middle East, via trade routes controlled by theOttoman Empire. Europeans searched for a passagearound Africa or across the Atlantic to gain direct access tothe Spice Islands and the spice trade. The Cape of GoodHope was rounded by the Portuguese mariner BartolomeuDias in 1488, and India was reached via the same route byVasco da Gama in 1498. For the first time the Europeansnow had their own independent route to the Spice Islands.

The Portuguese immediately set about the task of tryingto control the trade in spices. They captured Melaka in1511. Strategically situated on the western side of theMalaysian Peninsula, merchants from all over SoutheastAsia came there to sell their spices to other merchants,Indian, Chinese, and Arabs, who then shipped them to the

West. As the Portuguese traveler Tomé Pires put it in1515: “The trade and commerce between the differentnations for a thousand leagues on every hand must come toMelaka … Whoever is lord of Melaka has his hands at thethroat of Venice.”

With Melaka in their hands, the Portuguesesystematically tried to gain a monopoly of the valuablespice trade. They failed.

The opponents they faced were not negligible. Betweenthe fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, there was a greatdeal of economic development in Southeast Asia based ontrade in spices. City-states such as Aceh, Banten, Melaka,Makassar, Pegu, and Brunei expanded rapidly, producingand exporting spices along with other products such ashardwoods.

These states had absolutist forms of government similarto those in Europe in the same period. The development of

political institutions was spurred by similar processes,including technological change in methods of warfare andinternational trade. State institutions became morecentralized, with a king at the center claiming absolutepower. Like absolutist rulers in Europe, Southeast Asiankings relied heavily on revenues from trade, both engagingin it themselves and granting monopolies to local andforeign elites. As in absolutist Europe, this generated someeconomic growth but was a far-from-ideal set of economicinstitutions for economic prosperity, with significant entrybarriers and insecure property rights for most. But theprocess of commercialization was under way even as thePortuguese were trying to establish their dominance in theIndian Ocean.

The presence of Europeans swelled and had a muchgreater impact with the arrival of the Dutch. The Dutchquickly realized that monopolizing the supply of the valuablespices of the Moluccas would be much more profitable thancompeting against local or other European traders. In 1600they persuaded the ruler of Ambon to sign an exclusiveagreement that gave them the monopoly on the clove tradein Ambon. With the founding of the Dutch East IndiaCompany in 1602, the Dutch attempts to capture the entirespice trade and eliminate their competitors, by hook or bycrook, took a turn for the better for the Dutch and for theworse for Southeast Asia. The Dutch East India Companywas the second European joint stock company, followingthe English East India Company, major landmarks in thedevelopment of the modern corporation, which wouldsubsequently play a major role in European industrialgrowth. It was also the second company that had its ownarmy and the power to wage war and colonize foreignlands. With the military power of the company now broughtto bear, the Dutch proceeded to eliminate all potentialinterlopers to enforce their treaty with the ruler of Ambon.They captured a key fort held by the Portuguese in 1605and forcibly removed all other traders. They then expandedto the northern Moluccas, forcing the rulers of Tidore,Ternate, and Bacan to agree that no cloves could be grownor traded in their territories. The treaty they imposed onTernate even allowed the Dutch to come and destroy anyclove trees they found there.

Ambon was ruled in a manner similar to much of Europeand the Americas during that time. The citizens of Ambonowed tribute to the ruler and were subject to forced labor.The Dutch took over and intensified these systems toextract more labor and more cloves from the island. Prior tothe arrival of the Dutch, extended families paid tribute incloves to the Ambonese elite. The Dutch now stipulatedthat each household was tied to the soil and shouldcultivate a certain number of clove trees. Households werealso obligated to deliver forced labor to the Dutch.

The Dutch also took control of the Banda Islands,intending this time to monopolize mace and nutmeg. Butthe Banda Islands were organized very differently fromAmbon. They were made up of many small autonomouscity-states, and there was no hierarchical social or politicalstructure. These small states, in reality no more than smalltowns, were run by village meetings of citizens. There wasno central authority whom the Dutch could coerce intosigning a monopoly treaty and no system of tribute that theycould take over to capture the entire supply of nutmeg andmace. At first this meant that the Dutch had to compete withEnglish, Portuguese, Indian, and Chinese merchants,losing the spices to their competitors when they did not payhigh prices. Their initial plans of setting up a monopoly ofmace and nutmeg dashed, the Dutch governor of Batavia,Jan Pieterszoon Coen, came up with an alternative plan.Coen founded Batavia, on the island of Java, as the DutchEast India Company’s new capital in 1618. In 1621 hesailed to Banda with a fleet and proceeded to massacrealmost the entire population of the islands, probably aboutfifteen thousand people. All their leaders were executedalong with the rest, and only a few were left alive, enough topreserve the know-how necessary for mace and nutmegproduction. After this genocide was complete, Coen thenproceeded to create the political and economic structurenecessary for his plan: a plantation society. The islandswere divided into sixty-eight parcels, which were given tosixty-eight Dutchmen, mostly former and current employeesof the Dutch East India Company. These new plantationowners were taught how to produce the spices by the fewsurviving Bandanese and could buy slaves from the EastIndia Company to populate the now-empty islands and to

produce spices, which would have to be sold at fixed pricesback to the company.

The extractive institutions created by the Dutch in theSpice Islands had the desired effects, though, in Banda thiswas at the cost of fifteen thousand innocent lives and theestablishment of a set of economic and political institutionsthat would condemn the islands to underdevelopment. Bythe end of the seventeenth century, the Dutch had reducedthe world supply of these spices by about 60 percent andthe price of nutmeg had doubled.

The Dutch spread the strategy they perfected in theMoluccas to the entire region, with profound implications forthe economic and political institutions of the rest ofSoutheast Asia. The long commercial expansion of severalstates in the area that had started in the fourteenth centurywent into reverse. Even the polities which were not directlycolonized and crushed by the Dutch East India Companyturned inward and abandoned trade. The nascenteconomic and political change in Southeast Asia washalted in its tracks.

To avoid the threat of the Dutch East India Company,several states abandoned producing crops for export andceased commercial activity. Autarky was safer than facingthe Dutch. In 1620 the state of Banten, on the island ofJava, cut down its pepper trees in the hope that this wouldinduce the Dutch to leave it in peace. When a Dutchmerchant visited Maguindanao, in the southern Philippines,in 1686, he was told, “Nutmeg and cloves can be grownhere, just as in Malaku. They are not there now because theold Raja had all of them ruined before his death. He wasafraid the Dutch Company would come to fight with themabout it.” What a trader heard about the ruler ofMaguindanao in 1699 was similar: “He had forbidden thecontinued planting of pepper so that he could not therebyget involved in war whether with the [Dutch] company orwith other potentates.” There was de-urbanization and evenpopulation decline. In 1635 the Burmese moved theircapital from Pegu, on the coast, to Ava, far inland up theIrrawaddy River.

We do not know what the path of economic and politicaldevelopment of Southeast Asian states would have beenwithout Dutch aggression. They may have developed their

own brand of absolutism, they may have remained in thesame state they were in at the end of the sixteenth century,or they may have continued their commercialization bygradually adopting more and more inclusive institutions. Butas in the Moluccas, Dutch colonialism fundamentallychanged their economic and political development. Thepeople in Southeast Asia stopped trading, turned inward,and became more absolutist. In the next two centuries, theywould be in no position to take advantage of theinnovations that would spring up in the Industrial Revolution.And ultimately their retreat from trade would not save themfrom Europeans; by the end of the eighteenth century,nearly all were part of European colonial empires.

WE SAW IN CHAPTER 7 how European expansion into theAtlantic fueled the rise of inclusive institutions in Britain. Butas illustrated by the experience of the Moluccas under theDutch, this expansion sowed the seeds ofunderdevelopment in many diverse corners of the world byimposing, or further strengthening existing, extractiveinstitutions. These either directly or indirectly destroyednascent commercial and industrial activity throughout theglobe or they perpetuated institutions that stoppedindustrialization. As a result, as industrialization wasspreading in some parts of the world, places that were partof European colonial empires stood no chance ofbenefiting from these new technologies.

THE ALL-TOO-USUAL INSTITUTION

In Southeast Asia the spread of European naval andcommercial power in the early modern period curtailed apromising period of economic expansion and institutionalchange. In the same period as the Dutch East IndiaCompany was expanding, a very different sort of trade wasintensifying in Africa: the slave trade.

In the United States, southern slavery was often referredto as the “peculiar institution.” But historically, as the greatclassical scholar Moses Finlay pointed out, slavery wasanything but peculiar, it was present in almost everysociety. It was, as we saw earlier, endemic in Ancient

Rome and in Africa, long a source of slaves for Europe,though not the only one.

In the Roman period slaves came from Slavic peoplesaround the Black Sea, from the Middle East, and also fromNorthern Europe. But by 1400, Europeans had stoppedenslaving each other. Africa, however, as we saw inchapter 6, did not undergo the transition from slavery toserfdom as did medieval Europe. Before the early modernperiod, there was a vibrant slave trade in East Africa, andlarge numbers of slaves were transported across theSahara to the Arabian Peninsula. Moreover, the largemedieval West African states of Mali, Ghana, and Songhaimade heavy use of slaves in the government, the army, andagriculture, adopting organizational models from theMuslim North African states with whom they traded.

It was the development of the sugar plantation colonies ofthe Caribbean beginning in the early seventeenth centurythat led to a dramatic escalation of the international slavetrade and to an unprecedented increase in the importanceof slavery within Africa itself. In the sixteenth century,probably about 300,000 slaves were traded in the Atlantic.They came mostly from Central Africa, with heavyinvolvement of Kongo and the Portuguese based farthersouth in Luanda, now the capital of Angola. During thistime, the trans-Saharan slave trade was still larger, withprobably about 550,000 Africans moving north as slaves. Inthe seventeenth century, the situation reversed. About1,350,000 Africans were sold as slaves in the Atlantictrade, the majority now being shipped to the Americas. Thenumbers involved in the Saharan trade were relativelyunchanged. The eighteenth century saw another dramaticincrease, with about 6,000,000 slaves being shippedacross the Atlantic and maybe 700,000 across the Sahara.Adding the figures up over periods and parts of Africa, wellover 10,000,000 Africans were shipped out of the continentas slaves.

Map 15 (this page) gives some sense of the scale of theslave trade. Using modern country boundaries, it depictsestimates of the cumulative extent of slavery between 1400and 1900 as a percent of population in 1400. Darker colorsshow more intense slavery. For example, in Angola, Benin,Ghana, and Togo, total cumulative slave exports amounted

to more than the entire population of the country in 1400.The sudden appearance of Europeans all around the

coast of Western and Central Africa eager to buy slavescould not but have a transformative impact on Africansocieties. Most slaves who were shipped to the Americaswere war captives subsequently transported to the coast.The increase in warfare was fueled by huge imports of gunsand ammunition, which the Europeans exchanged forslaves. By 1730 about 180,000 guns were being importedevery year just along the West African coast, and between1750 and the early nineteenth century, the British alone soldbetween 283,000 and 394,000 guns a year. Between 1750and 1807, the British sold an extraordinary 22,000 tons ofgunpowder, making an average of about 384,000kilograms annually, along with 91,000 kilograms of lead peryear. Farther to the south, the trade was just as vigorous.On the Loango coast, north of the Kingdom of Kongo,Europeans sold about 50,000 guns a year.

All this warfare and conflict not only caused major loss oflife and human suffering but also put in motion a particularpath of institutional development in Africa. Before the earlymodern era, African societies were less centralizedpolitically than those of Eurasia. Most polities were smallscale, with tribal chiefs and perhaps kings controlling landand resources. Many, as we showed with Somalia, had nostructure of hierarchical political authority at all. The slavetrade initiated two adverse political processes. First, manypolities initially became more absolutist, organized arounda single objective: to enslave and sell others to European

slavers. Second, as a consequence but, paradoxically, inopposition to the first process, warring and slavingultimately destroyed whatever order and legitimate stateauthority existed in sub-Saharan Africa. Apart from warfare,slaves were also kidnapped and captured by small-scaleraiding. The law also became a tool of enslavement. Nomatter what crime you committed, the penalty was slavery.The English merchant Francis Moore observed theconsequences of this along the Senegambia coast of WestAfrica in the 1730s:

Since this slave trade has been us’d, allpunishments are changed into slavery; therebeing an advantage on such condemnations,they strain for crimes very hard, in order toget the benefit of selling the criminal. Not onlymurder, theft and adultery, are punished byselling the criminal for slave, but every triflingcase is punished in the same manner.

Institutions, even religious ones, became perverted bythe desire to capture and sell slaves. One example is thefamous oracle at Arochukwa, in eastern Nigeria. The oraclewas widely believed to speak for a prominent deity in theregion respected by the major local ethnic groups, the Ijaw,the Ibibio, and the Igbo. The oracle was approached tosettle disputes and adjudicate on disagreements. Plaintiffswho traveled to Arochukwa to face the oracle had todescend from the town into a gorge of the Cross River,where the oracle was housed in a tall cave, the front ofwhich was lined with human skulls. The priests of theoracle, in league with the Aro slavers and merchants, woulddispense the decision of the oracle. Often this involvedpeople being “swallowed” by the oracle, which actuallymeant that once they had passed through the cave, theywere led away down the Cross River and to the waitingships of the Europeans. This process in which all laws andcustoms were distorted and broken to capture slaves andmore slaves had devastating effects on politicalcentralization, though in some places it did lead to the riseof powerful states whose main raison d’être was raidingand slaving. The Kingdom of Kongo itself was probably the

first African state to experience a metamorphosis into aslaving state, until it was destroyed by civil war. Otherslaving states arose most prominently in West Africa andincluded Oyo in Nigeria, Dahomey in Benin, andsubsequently Asante in Ghana.

The expansion of the state of Oyo in the middle of theseventeenth century, for example, is directly related to theincrease of slave exports on the coast. The state’s powerwas the result of a military revolution that involved theimport of horses from the north and the formation of apowerful cavalry that could decimate opposing armies. AsOyo expanded south toward the coast, it crushed theintervening polities and sold many of their inhabitants forslaves. In the period between 1690 and 1740, Oyoestablished its monopoly in the interior of what came to beknown as the Slave Coast. It is estimated that 80 to 90percent of the slaves sold on the coast were the result ofthese conquests. A similar dramatic connection betweenwarfare and slave supply came farther west in theeighteenth century, on the Gold Coast, the area that is nowGhana. After 1700 the state of Asante expanded from theinterior, in much the same way as Oyo had previously.During the first half of the eighteenth century, this expansiontriggered the so-called Akan Wars, as Asante defeatedone independent state after another. The last, Gyaman,was conquered in 1747. The preponderance of the375,000 slaves exported from the Gold Coast between1700 and 1750 were captives taken in these wars.

Probably the most obvious impact of this massiveextraction of human beings was demographic. It is difficultto know with any certitude what the population of Africa wasbefore the modern period, but scholars have made variousplausible estimates of the impact of the slave trade on thepopulation. The historian Patrick Manning estimates thatthe population of those areas of West and West-CentralAfrica that provided slaves for export was around twenty-two to twenty-five million in the early eighteenth century. Onthe conservative assumption that during the eighteenth andearly nineteenth centuries these areas would haveexperienced a rate of population growth of about half apercent a year without the slave trade, Manning estimatedthat the population of this region in 1850 ought to have

been at least forty-six to fifty-three million. In fact, it wasabout one-half of this.

This massive difference was not only due to about eightmillion people being exported as slaves from this regionbetween 1700 and 1850, but the millions likely killed bycontinual internal warfare aimed at capturing slaves.Slavery and the slave trade in Africa further disrupted familyand marriage structures and may also have reducedfertility.

Beginning in the late eighteenth century, a strongmovement to abolish the slave trade began to gainmomentum in Britain, led by the charismatic figure ofWilliam Wilberforce. After repeated failures, in 1807 theabolitionists persuaded the British Parliament to pass a billmaking the slave trade illegal. The United States followedwith a similar measure the next year. The Britishgovernment went further, though: it actively sought toimplement this measure by stationing naval squadrons inthe Atlantic to try to stamp out the slave trade. Though ittook some time for these measures to be truly effective,and it was not until 1834 that slavery itself was abolished inthe British Empire, the days of the Atlantic slave trade, byfar the largest part of the trade, were numbered.

Though the end of the slave trade after 1807 did reducethe external demand for slaves from Africa, this did notmean that slavery’s impact on African societies andinstitutions would magically melt away. Many African stateshad become organized around slaving, and the Britishputting an end to the trade did not change this reality.Moreover, slavery had become much more prevalent withinAfrica itself. These factors would ultimately shape the pathof development in Africa not only before but also after1807.

In the place of slavery came “legitimate commerce,” aphrase coined for the export from Africa of newcommodities not tied to the slave trade. These goodsincluded palm oil and kernels, peanuts, ivory, rubber, andgum arabic. As European and North American incomesexpanded with the spread of the Industrial Revolution,demand for many of these tropical products rose sharply.Just as African societies took aggressive advantage of theeconomic opportunities presented by the slave trade, they

did the same with legitimate commerce. But they did so ina peculiar context, one in which slavery was a way of life butthe external demand for slaves had suddenly dried up.What were all these slaves to do now that they could not besold to Europeans? The answer was simple: they could beprofitably put to work, under coercion, in Africa, producingthe new items of legitimate commerce.

One of the best documented examples was in Asante, inmodern Ghana. Prior to 1807, the Asante Empire had beenheavily involved in the capturing and export of slaves,bringing them down to the coast to be sold at the greatslaving castles of Cape Coast and Elmina. After 1807, withthis option closed off, the Asante political elite reorganizedtheir economy. However, slaving and slavery did not end.Rather, slaves were settled on large plantations, initiallyaround the capital city of Kumase, but later spreadthroughout the empire (corresponding to most of the interiorof Ghana). They were employed in the production of goldand kola nuts for export, but also grew large quantities offood and were intensively used as porters, since Asantedid not use wheeled transportation. Farther east, similaradaptations took place. In Dahomey, for example, the kinghad large palm oil plantations near the coastal ports ofWhydah and Porto Novo, all based on slave labor.

So the abolition of the slave trade, rather than makingslavery in Africa wither away, simply led to a redeploymentof the slaves, who were now used within Africa rather thanin the Americas. Moreover, many of the political institutionsthe slave trade had wrought in the previous two centurieswere unaltered and patterns of behavior persisted. Forexample, in Nigeria in the 1820s and ’30s the once-greatOyo Kingdom collapsed. It was undermined by civil warsand the rise of the Yoruba city-states, such as Illorin andIbadan, that were directly involved in the slave trade, to itssouth. In the 1830s, the capital of Oyo was sacked, andafter that the Yoruba cities contested power with Dahomeyfor regional dominance. They fought an almost continuousseries of wars in the first half of the century, whichgenerated a massive supply of slaves. Along with this wentthe normal rounds of kidnapping and condemnation byoracles and smaller-scale raiding. Kidnapping was such aproblem in some parts of Nigeria that parents would not let

their children play outside for fear they would be taken andsold into slavery.

As a result slavery, rather than contracting, appears tohave expanded in Africa throughout the nineteenth century.Though accurate figures are hard to come by, a number ofexisting accounts written by travelers and merchants duringthis time suggest that in the West African kingdoms ofAsante and Dahomey and in the Yoruba city-states wellover half of the population were slaves. More accurate dataexist from early French colonial records for the westernSudan, a large swath of western Africa, stretching fromSenegal, via Mali and Burkina Faso, to Niger and Chad. Inthis region 30 percent of the population was enslaved in1900.

Just as with the emergence of legitimate commerce, theadvent of formal colonization after the Scramble for Africafailed to destroy slavery in Africa. Though much ofEuropean penetration into Africa was justified on thegrounds that slavery had to be combated and abolished,the reality was different. In most parts of colonial Africa,slavery continued well into the twentieth century. In SierraLeone, for example, it was only in 1928 that slavery wasfinally abolished, even though the capital city of Freetownwas originally established in the late eighteenth century asa haven for slaves repatriated from the Americas. It thenbecame an important base for the British antislaverysquadron and a new home for freed slaves rescued fromslave ships captured by the British navy. Even with thissymbolism slavery lingered in Sierra Leone for 130 years.Liberia, just south of Sierra Leone, was likewise foundedfor freed American slaves in the 1840s. Yet there, too,slavery lingered into the twentieth century; as late as the1960s, it was estimated that one-quarter of the labor forcewere coerced, living and working in conditions close toslavery. Given the extractive economic and politicalinstitutions based on the slave trade, industrialization didnot spread to sub-Saharan Africa, which stagnated or evenexperienced economic retardation as other parts of theworld were transforming their economies.

MAKING A DUAL ECONOMY

The “dual economy” paradigm, originally proposed in 1955by Sir Arthur Lewis, still shapes the way that most socialscientists think about the economic problems of less-developed countries. According to Lewis, many less-developed or underdeveloped economies have a dualstructure and are divided into a modern sector and atraditional sector. The modern sector, which corresponds tothe more developed part of the economy, is associatedwith urban life, modern industry, and the use of advancedtechnologies. The traditional sector is associated with rurallife, agriculture, and “backward” institutions andtechnologies. Backward agricultural institutions include thecommunal ownership of land, which implies the absence ofprivate property rights on land. Labor was used soinefficiently in the traditional sector, according to Lewis, thatit could be reallocated to the modern sector withoutreducing the amount the rural sector could produce. Forgenerations of development economists building onLewis’s insights, the “problem of development” has cometo mean moving people and resources out of the traditionalsector, agriculture and the countryside, and into the modernsector, industry and cities. In 1979 Lewis received theNobel Prize for his work on economic development.

Lewis and development economists building on his workwere certainly right in identifying dual economies. SouthAfrica was one of the clearest examples, split into atraditional sector that was backward and poor and amodern one that was vibrant and prosperous. Even todaythe dual economy Lewis identified is everywhere in SouthAfrica. One of the most dramatic ways to see this is bydriving across the border between the state of KwaZulu-Natal, formerly Natal, and the state of the Transkei. Theborder follows the Great Kei River. To the east of the riverin Natal, along the coast, are wealthy beachfront propertieson wide expanses of glorious sandy beaches. The interioris covered with lush green sugarcane plantations. Theroads are beautiful; the whole area reeks of prosperity.Across the river, it is as if it were a different time and adifferent country. The area is largely devastated. The land isnot green, but brown and heavily deforested. Instead ofaffluent modern houses with running water, toilets, and allthe modern conveniences, people live in makeshift huts

and cook on open fires. Life is certainly traditional, far fromthe modern existence to the east of the river. By now youwill not be surprised that these differences are linked withmajor differences in economic institutions between the twosides of the river.

To the east, in Natal, we have private property rights,functioning legal systems, markets, commercial agriculture,and industry. To the west, the Transkei had communalproperty in land and all-powerful traditional chiefs untilrecently. Looked at through the lens of Lewis’s theory ofdual economy, the contrast between the Transkei and Natalillustrates the problems of African development. In fact, wecan go further, and note that, historically, all of Africa waslike the Transkei, poor with premodern economicinstitutions, backward technology, and rule by chiefs.According to this perspective, then, economic developmentshould simply be about ensuring that the Transkeieventually turns into Natal.

This perspective has much truth to it but misses theentire logic of how the dual economy came into existenceand its relationship to the modern economy. Thebackwardness of the Transkei is not just a historic remnantof the natural backwardness of Africa. The dual economybetween the Transkei and Natal is in fact quite recent, andis anything but natural. It was created by the South Africanwhite elites in order to produce a reservoir of cheap laborfor their businesses and reduce competition from blackAfricans. The dual economy is another example ofunderdevelopment created, not of underdevelopment as itnaturally emerged and persisted over centuries.

South Africa and Botswana, as we will see later, didavoid most of the adverse effects of the slave trade and thewars it wrought. South Africans’ first major interaction withEuropeans came when the Dutch East India Companyfounded a base in Table Bay, now the harbor of CapeTown, in 1652. At this time the western part of South Africawas sparsely settled, mostly by hunter-gatherers called theKhoikhoi people. Farther east, in what is now the Ciskeiand Transkei, there were densely populated Africansocieties specializing in agriculture. They did not initiallyinteract heavily with the new colony of the Dutch, nor didthey become involved in slaving. The South African coast

was far removed from slave markets, and the inhabitants ofthe Ciskei and Transkei, known as the Xhosa, were just farenough inland not to attract anyone’s attention. As aconsequence, these societies did not feel the brunt of manyof the adverse currents that hit West and Central Africa.

The isolation of these places changed in the nineteenthcentury. For the Europeans there was something veryattractive about the climate and the disease environment ofSouth Africa. Unlike West Africa, for example, South Africahad a temperate climate that was free of the tropicaldiseases such as malaria and yellow fever that had turnedmuch of Africa into the “white man’s graveyard” andprevented Europeans from settling or even setting uppermanent outposts. South Africa was a much betterprospect for European settlement. European expansioninto the interior began soon after the British took over CapeTown from the Dutch during the Napoleonic Wars. Thisprecipitated a long series of Xhosa wars as the settlementfrontier expanded further inland. The penetration into theSouth African interior was intensified in 1835, when theremaining Europeans of Dutch descent, who wouldbecome known as Afrikaners or Boers, started theirfamous mass migration known as the Great Trek awayfrom the British control of the coast and the Cape Townarea. The Afrikaners subsequently founded twoindependent states in the interior of Africa, the OrangeFree State and the Transvaal.

The next stage in the development of South Africa camewith the discovery of vast diamond reserves in Kimberly in1867 and of rich gold mines in Johannesburg in 1886. Thishuge mineral wealth in the interior immediately convincedthe British to extend their control over all of South Africa.The resistance of the Orange Free State and the Transvaalled to the famous Boer Wars in 1880–1881 and 1899–1902. After initial unexpected defeat, the British managedto merge the Afrikaner states with the Cape Province andNatal, to found the Union of South Africa in 1910. Beyondthe fighting between Afrikaners and the British, thedevelopment of the mining economy and the expansion ofEuropean settlement had other implications for thedevelopment of the area. Most notably, they generateddemand for food and other agricultural products and

created new economic opportunities for native Africansboth in agriculture and trade.

The Xhosa, in the Ciskei and Transkei, reacted quickly tothese economic opportunities, as the historian Colin Bundydocumented. As early as 1832, even before the miningboom, a Moravian missionary in the Transkei observed thenew economic dynamism in these areas and noted thedemand from the Africans for the new consumer goods thatthe spread of Europeans had begun to reveal to them. Hewrote, “To obtain these objects, they look … to get moneyby the labour of their hands, and purchase clothes, spades,ploughs, wagons and other useful articles.”

The civil commissioner John Hemming’s description ofhis visit to Fingoland in the Ciskei in 1876 is equallyrevealing. He wrote that he was

struck with the very great advancement madeby the Fingoes in a few years … Wherever Iwent I found substantial huts and brick orstone tenements. In many cases, substantialbrick houses had been erected … and fruittrees had been planted; wherever a stream ofwater could be made available it had beenled out and the soil cultivated as far as itcould be irrigated; the slopes of the hills andeven the summits of the mountains werecultivated wherever a plough could beintroduced. The extent of the land turned oversurprised me; I have not seen such a largearea of cultivated land for years.

As in other parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the use of theplow was new in agriculture, but when given the opportunity,African farmers seemed to have been quite ready to adoptthe technology. They were also prepared to invest inwagons and irrigation works.

As the agricultural economy developed, the rigid tribalinstitutions started to give way. There is a great deal ofevidence that changes in property rights to land took place.In 1879 the magistrate in Umzimkulu of Griqualand East, inthe Transkei, noted “the growing desire of the part ofnatives to become proprietors of land—they have

purchased 38,000 acres.” Three years later he recordedthat around eight thousand African farmers in the districthad bought and started to work on ninety thousand acres ofland.

Africa was certainly not on the verge of an IndustrialRevolution, but real change was under way. Privateproperty in land had weakened the chiefs and enabled newmen to buy land and make their wealth, something that wasunthinkable just decades earlier. This also illustrates howquickly the weakening of extractive institutions andabsolutist control systems can lead to newfound economicdynamism. One of the success stories was StephenSonjica in the Ciskei, a self-made farmer from a poorbackground. In an address in 1911, Sonjica noted howwhen he first expressed to his father his desire to buy land,his father had responded: “Buy land? How can you want tobuy land? Don’t you know that all land is God’s, and hegave it to the chiefs only?” Sonjica’s father’s reaction wasunderstandable. But Sonjica was not deterred. He got a jobin King William’s Town and noted:

I cunningly opened a private bank accountinto which I diverted a portion of mysavings … This went only until I had savedeighty pounds … [I bought] a span of oxenwith yokes, gear, plough and the rest ofagricultural paraphernalia … I now purchaseda small farm … I cannot too stronglyrecommend [farming] as a profession to myfellow man … They should however adoptmodern methods of profit making.

An extraordinary piece of evidence supporting theeconomic dynamism and prosperity of African farmers inthis period is revealed in a letter sent in 1869 by aMethodist missionary, W. J. Davis. Writing to England, herecorded with pleasure that he had collected forty-sixpounds in cash “for the Lancashire Cotton Relief Fund.” Inthis period the prosperous African farmers were donatingmoney for relief of the poor English textile workers!

This new economic dynamism, not surprisingly, did notplease the traditional chiefs, who, in a pattern that is by now

familiar to us, saw this as eroding their wealth and power. In1879 Matthew Blyth, the chief magistrate of the Transkei,observed that there was opposition to surveying the land sothat it could be divided into private property. He recordedthat “some of the chiefs … objected, but most of the peoplewere pleased … the chiefs see that the granting ofindividual titles will destroy their influence among theheadmen.”

Chiefs also resisted improvements made on the lands,such as the digging of irrigation ditches or the building offences. They recognized that these improvements were justa prelude to individual property rights to the land, thebeginning of the end for them. European observers evennoted that chiefs and other traditional authorities, such aswitch doctors, attempted to prohibit all “European ways,”which included new crops, tools such as plows, and itemsof trade. But the integration of the Ciskei and the Transkeiinto the British colonial state weakened the power of thetraditional chiefs and authorities, and their resistance wouldnot be enough to stop the new economic dynamism inSouth Africa. In Fingoland in 1884, a European observernoted that the people had

transferred their allegiance to us. Their chiefshave been changed to a sort of titledlandowner … without political power. Nolonger afraid of the jealousy of the chief or ofthe deadly weapon … the witchdoctor, whichstrikes down the wealthy cattle owner, theable counsellor, the introduction of novelcustoms, the skilful agriculturalist, reducingthem all to the uniform level of mediocrity—nolonger apprehensive of this, the Fingoclansman … is a progressive man. Stillremaining a peasant farmer … he ownswagons and ploughs; he opens waterfurroughs for irrigation; he is the owner of aflock of sheep.

Even a modicum of inclusive institutions and the erosionof the powers of the chiefs and their restrictions weresufficient to start a vigorous African economic boom. Alas,

it would be short lived. Between 1890 and 1913 it wouldcome to an abrupt end and go into reverse. During thisperiod two forces worked to destroy the rural prosperityand dynamism that Africans had created in the previousfifty years. The first was antagonism by European farmerswho were competing with Africans. Successful Africanfarmers drove down the price of crops that Europeans alsoproduced. The response of Europeans was to drive theAfricans out of business. The second force was even moresinister. The Europeans wanted a cheap labor force toemploy in the burgeoning mining economy, and they couldensure this cheap supply only by impoverishing theAfricans. This they went about methodically over the nextseveral decades.

The 1897 testimony of George Albu, the chairman of theAssociation of Mines, given to a Commission of Inquirypithily describes the logic of impoverishing Africans so asto obtain cheap labor. He explained how he proposed tocheapen labor by “simply telling the boys that their wagesare reduced.” His testimony goes as follows:

Commission: Suppose the kaffirs [blackAfricans] retire back to their kraal [cattlepen]? Would you be in favor of asking theGovernment to enforce labour?Albu: Certainly … I would make itcompulsory … Why should a nigger beallowed to do nothing? I think a kaffir shouldbe compelled to work in order to earn hisliving.Commission: If a man can live without work,how can you force him to work?Albu: Tax him, then …Commission: Then you would not allow thekaffir to hold land in the country, but he mustwork for the white man to enrich him?Albu: He must do his part of the work ofhelping his neighbours.

Both of the goals of removing competition with whitefarmers and developing a large low-wage labor force weresimultaneously accomplished by the Natives Land Act of

1913. The act, anticipating Lewis’s notion of dual economy,divided South Africa into two parts, a modern prosperouspart and a traditional poor part. Except that the prosperityand poverty were actually being created by the act itself. Itstated that 87 percent of the land was to be given to theEuropeans, who represented about 20 percent of thepopulation. The remaining 13 percent was to go to theAfricans. The Land Act had many predecessors, of course,because gradually Europeans had been confining Africansonto smaller and smaller reserves. But it was the act of1913 that definitively institutionalized the situation and setthe stage for the formation of the South African Apartheidregime, with the white minority having both the political andeconomic rights and the black majority being excluded fromboth. The act specified that several land reserves, includingthe Transkei and the Ciskei, were to become the African“Homelands.” Later these would become known as theBantustans, another part of the rhetoric of the Apartheidregime in South Africa, since it claimed that the Africanpeoples of Southern Africa were not natives of the area butwere descended from the Bantu people who had migratedout of Eastern Nigeria about a thousand years before. Theythus had no more—and of course, in practice, less—entitlement to the land than the European settlers.

Map 16 (this page) shows the derisory amount of landallocated to Africans by the 1913 Land Act and itssuccessor in 1936. It also records information from 1970on the extent of a similar land allocation that took placeduring the construction of another dual economy inZimbabwe, which we discuss in chapter 13.

The 1913 legislation also included provisions intended tostop black sharecroppers and squatters from farming onwhite-owned land in any capacity other than as labortenants. As the secretary for native affairs explained, “Theeffect of the act was to put a stop, for the future, to alltransactions involving anything in the nature of partnershipbetween Europeans and natives in respect of land or thefruits of land. All new contracts with natives must becontracts of service. Provided there is a bona fide contractof this nature there is nothing to prevent an employer frompaying a native in kind, or by the privilege of cultivating adefined piece of ground … But the native cannot pay the

master anything for his right to occupy the land.”

To the development economists who visited South Africain the 1950s and ’60s, when the academic discipline wastaking shape and the ideas of Arthur Lewis werespreading, the contrast between these Homelands and theprosperous modern white European economy seemed tobe exactly what the dual economy theory was about. TheEuropean part of the economy was urban and educated,and used modern technology. The Homelands were poor,rural, and backward; labor there was very unproductive;people, uneducated. It seemed to be the essence oftimeless, backward Africa.

Except that the dual economy was not natural orinevitable. It had been created by European colonialism.Yes, the Homelands were poor and technologicallybackward, and the people were uneducated. But all this

was an outcome of government policy, which had forciblystamped out African economic growth and created thereservoir of cheap, uneducated African labor to beemployed in European-controlled mines and lands. After1913 vast numbers of Africans were evicted from theirlands, which were taken over by whites, and crowded intothe Homelands, which were too small for them to earn anindependent living from. As intended, therefore, they wouldbe forced to look for a living in the white economy,supplying their labor cheaply. As their economic incentivescollapsed, the advances that had taken place in thepreceding fifty years were all reversed. People gave uptheir plows and reverted to farming with hoes—that is, ifthey farmed at all. More often they were just available ascheap labor, which the Homelands had been structured toensure.

It was not only the economic incentives that weredestroyed. The political changes that had started to takeplace also went into reverse. The power of chiefs andtraditional rulers, which had previously been in decline, wasstrengthened, because part of the project of creating acheap labor force was to remove private property in land.So the chiefs’ control over land was reaffirmed. Thesemeasures reached their apogee in 1951, when thegovernment passed the Bantu Authorities Act. As early as1940, G. Findlay put his finger right on the issue:

Tribal tenure is a guarantee that the land willnever properly be worked and will never reallybelong to the natives. Cheap labour musthave a cheap breeding place, and so it isfurnished to the Africans at their ownexpense.

The dispossession of the African farmers led to theirmass impoverishment. It created not only the institutionalfoundations of a backward economy, but the poor people tostock it.

The available evidence demonstrates the reversal inliving standards in the Homelands after the Natives LandAct of 1913. The Transkei and the Ciskei went into aprolonged economic decline. The employment records

from the gold mining companies collected by the historianFrancis Wilson show that this decline was widespread inthe South African economy as a whole. Following theNatives Land Act and other legislation, miners’ wages fellby 30 percent between 1911 and 1921. In 1961, despiterelatively steady growth in the South African economy,these wages were still 12 percent lower than they had beenin 1911. No wonder that over this period South Africabecame the most unequal country in the world.

But even in these circumstances, couldn’t black Africanshave made their way in the European, modern economy,started a business, or have become educated and begun acareer? The government made sure these things could nothappen. No African was allowed to own property or start abusiness in the European part of the economy—the 87percent of the land. The Apartheid regime also realized thateducated Africans competed with whites rather thansupplying cheap labor to the mines and to white-ownedagriculture. As early as 1904 a system of job reservation forEuropeans was introduced in the mining economy. NoAfrican was allowed to be an amalgamator, an assayer, abanksman, a blacksmith, a boiler maker, a brass finisher, abrassmolder, a bricklayer … and the list went on and on, allthe way to woodworking machinist. At a stroke, Africanswere banned from occupying any skilled job in the miningsector. This was the first incarnation of the famous “colourbar,” one of the several racist inventions of South Africa’sregime. The colour bar was extended to the entire economyin 1926, and lasted until the 1980s. It is not surprising thatblack Africans were uneducated; the South African statenot only removed the possibility of Africans benefitingeconomically from an education but also refused to investin black schools and discouraged black education. Thispolicy reached its peak in the 1950s, when, under theleadership of Hendrik Verwoerd, one of the architects ofthe Apartheid regime that would last until 1994, thegovernment passed the Bantu Education Act. Thephilosophy behind this act was bluntly spelled out byVerwoerd himself in a speech in 1954:

The Bantu must be guided to serve his owncommunity in all respects. There is no place

for him in the European community above thelevel of certain forms of labour … For thatreason it is to no avail to him to receive atraining which has as its aim absorption inthe European community while he cannot andwill not be absorbed there.

Naturally, the type of dual economy articulated inVerwoerd’s speech is rather different from Lewis’s dualeconomy theory. In South Africa the dual economy was notan inevitable outcome of the process of development. Itwas created by the state. In South Africa there was to be noseamless movement of poor people from the backward tothe modern sector as the economy developed. On thecontrary, the success of the modern sector relied on theexistence of the backward sector, which enabled whiteemployers to make huge profits by paying very low wagesto black unskilled workers. In South Africa there would notbe a process of the unskilled workers from the traditionalsector gradually becoming educated and skilled, asLewis’s approach envisaged. In fact, the black workerswere purposefully kept unskilled and were barred fromhigh-skill occupations so that skilled white workers wouldnot face competition and could enjoy high wages. In SouthAfrica black Africans were indeed “trapped” in thetraditional economy, in the Homelands. But this was not theproblem of development that growth would make good. TheHomelands were what enabled the development of thewhite economy.

It should also be no surprise that the type of economicdevelopment that white South Africa was achieving wasultimately limited, being based on extractive institutions thewhites had built to exploit the blacks. South African whiteshad property rights, they invested in education, and theywere able to extract gold and diamonds and sell themprofitably in the world market. But over 80 percent of theSouth African population was marginalized and excludedfrom the great majority of desirable economic activities.Blacks could not use their talents; they could not becomeskilled workers, businessmen, entrepreneurs, engineers, orscientists. Economic institutions were extractive; whitesbecame rich by extracting from blacks. Indeed, white South

Africans shared the living standards of people of WesternEuropean countries, while black South Africans werescarcely richer than those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa.This economic growth without creative destruction, fromwhich only the whites benefited, continued as long asrevenues from gold and diamonds increased. By the1970s, however, the economy had stopped growing.

And it will again be no surprise that this set of extractiveeconomic institutions was built on foundations laid by a setof highly extractive political institutions. Before its overthrowin 1994, the South African political system vested all powerin whites, who were the only ones allowed to vote and runfor office. Whites dominated the police force, the military,and all political institutions. These institutions werestructured under the military domination of white settlers. Atthe time of the foundation of the Union of South Africa in1910, the Afrikaner polities of the Orange Free State andthe Transvaal had explicit racial franchises, barring blackscompletely from political participation. Natal and the CapeColony allowed blacks to vote if they had sufficient property,which typically they did not. The status quo of Natal and theCape Colony was kept in 1910, but by the 1930s, blackshad been explicitly disenfranchised everywhere in SouthAfrica.

The dual economy of South Africa did come to an end in1994. But not because of the reasons that Sir Arthur Lewistheorized about. It was not the natural course of economicdevelopment that ended the color bar and the Homelands.Black South Africans protested and rose up against theregime that did not recognize their basic rights and did notshare the gains of economic growth with them. After theSoweto uprising of 1976, the protests became moreorganized and stronger, ultimately bringing down theApartheid state. It was the empowerment of blacks whomanaged to organize and rise up that ultimately endedSouth Africa’s dual economy in the same way that SouthAfrican whites’ political force had created it in the firstplace.

DEVELOPMENT REVERSED

World inequality today exists because during the nineteenth

and twentieth centuries some nations were able to takeadvantage of the Industrial Revolution and the technologiesand methods of organization that it brought while otherswere unable to do so. Technological change is only one ofthe engines of prosperity, but it is perhaps the most criticalone. The countries that did not take advantage of newtechnologies did not benefit from the other engines ofprosperity, either. As we have shown in this and theprevious chapter, this failure was due to their extractiveinstitutions, either a consequence of the persistence of theirabsolutist regimes or because they lacked centralizedstates. But this chapter has also shown that in severalinstances the extractive institutions that underpinned thepoverty of these nations were imposed, or at the very leastfurther strengthened, by the very same process that fueledEuropean growth: European commercial and colonialexpansion. In fact, the profitability of European colonialempires was often built on the destruction of independentpolities and indigenous economies around the world, or onthe creation of extractive institutions essentially from theground up, as in the Caribbean islands, where, followingthe almost total collapse of the native populations,Europeans imported African slaves and set up plantationsystems.

We will never know what the trajectories of independentcity-states such as those in the Banda Islands, in Aceh, orin Burma (Myanmar) would have been without theEuropean intervention. They may have had their ownindigenous Glorious Revolution or slowly moved towardmore inclusive political and economic institutions based ongrowing trade in spices and other valuable commodities.But this possibility was removed by the expansion of theDutch East India Company. The company stamped out anyhope of indigenous development in the Banda Islands bycarrying out its genocide. Its threat also made the city-states in many other parts of Southeast Asia pull back fromcommerce.

The story of one of the oldest civilizations in Asia, India,is similar, though the reversing of development was donenot by the Dutch but by the British. India was the largestproducer and exporter of textiles in the world in theeighteenth century. Indian calicoes and muslins flooded the

European markets and were traded throughout Asia andeven eastern Africa. The main agent that carried them tothe British Isles was the English East India Company.Founded in 1600, two years before its Dutch version, theEnglish East India Company spent the seventeenth centurytrying to establish a monopoly on the valuable exports fromIndia. It had to compete with the Portuguese, who hadbases in Goa, Chittagong, and Bombay, and the Frenchwith bases at Pondicherry, Chandernagore, Yanam, andKaraikal. Worse still for the East India Company was theGlorious Revolution, as we saw in chapter 7. The monopolyof the East India Company had been granted by the Stuartkings and was immediately challenged after 1688, andeven abolished for over a decade. The loss of power wassignificant, as we saw earlier (this page–this page),because British textile producers were able to induceParliament to ban the import of calicoes, the East IndiaCompany’s most profitable item of trade. In the eighteenthcentury, under the leadership of Robert Clive, the East IndiaCompany switched strategies and began to develop acontinental empire. At the time, India was split into manycompeting polities, though many were still nominally underthe control of the Mughal emperor in Delhi. The East IndiaCompany first expanded in Bengal in the east, vanquishingthe local powers at the battles of Plassey in 1757 andBuxar in 1764. The East India Company looted local wealthand took over, and perhaps even intensified, the extractivetaxation institutions of the Mughal rulers of India. Thisexpansion coincided with the massive contraction of theIndian textile industry, since, after all, there was no longer amarket for these goods in Britain. The contraction wentalong with de-urbanization and increased poverty. Itinitiated a long period of reversed development in India.Soon, instead of producing textiles, Indians were buyingthem from Britain and growing opium for the East IndiaCompany to sell in China.

The Atlantic slave trade repeated the same pattern inAfrica, even if starting from less developed conditions thanin Southeast Asia and India. Many African states wereturned into war machines intent on capturing and sellingslaves to Europeans. As conflict between different politiesand states grew into continuous warfare, state institutions,

which in many cases had not yet achieved much politicalcentralization in any case, crumbled in large parts of Africa,paving the way for persistent extractive institutions and thefailed states of today that we will study later. In a few partsof Africa that escaped the slave trade, such as SouthAfrica, Europeans imposed a different set of institutions,this time designed to create a reservoir of cheap labor fortheir mines and farms. The South African state created adual economy, preventing 80 percent of the population fromtaking part in skilled occupations, commercial farming, andentrepreneurship. All this not only explains whyindustrialization passed by large parts of the world but alsoencapsulates how economic development may sometimesfeed on, and even create, the underdevelopment in someother part of the domestic or the world economy.

10.

THE DIFFUSION OF PROSPERITY

HONOR AMONG THIEVES

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND—or more appropriately,Great Britain after the 1707 union of England, Wales, andScotland—had a simple solution for dealing with criminals:out of sight, out of mind, or at least out of trouble. Theytransported many to penal colonies in the empire. Beforethe War of Independence, the convicted criminals, convicts,were primarily sent to the American colonies. After 1783the independent United States of America was no longerso welcoming to British convicts, and the authorities inBritain had to find another home for them. They first thoughtabout West Africa. But the climate, with endemic diseasessuch as malaria and yellow fever, against which Europeanshad no immunity, was so deadly that the authoritiesdecided it was unacceptable to send even convicts to the“white man’s graveyard.” Their next option was Australia. Itseastern seaboard had been explored by the great seafarerCaptain James Cook. On April 29, 1770, Cook landed in awonderful inlet, which he called Botany Bay in honor of therich species found there by the naturalists traveling withhim. This seemed like an ideal location to Britishgovernment officials. The climate was temperate, and theplace was as far out of sight and mind as could beimagined.

A fleet of eleven ships packed with convicts was on itsway to Botany Bay in January 1788 under the command ofCaptain Arthur Phillip. On January 26, now celebrated asAustralia Day, they set up camp in Sydney Cove, the heartof the modern city of Sydney. They called the colony NewSouth Wales. On board one of the ships, the Alexander,captained by Duncan Sinclair, were a married couple ofconvicts, Henry and Susannah Cable. Susannah had beenfound guilty of stealing and was initially sentenced to death.

This sentence was later commuted to fourteen years andtransportation to the American colonies. That plan fellthrough with the independence of the United States. In themeantime, in Norwich Castle Jail, Susannah met and fell inlove with Henry, a fellow convict. In 1787 she was picked tobe transported to the new convict colony in Australia withthe first fleet heading there. But Henry was not. By this timeSusannah and Henry had a young son, also called Henry.This decision meant the family was to be separated.Susannah was moved to a prison boat moored on theThames, but the word got out about this wrenching eventand reached the ears of a philanthropist, Lady Cadogan.Lady Cadogan organized a successful campaign to reunitethe Cables. Now they were both to be transported withyoung Henry to Australia. Lady Cadogan also raised £20 topurchase goods for them, which they would receive inAustralia. They sailed on the Alexander, but when theyarrived in Botany Bay, the parcel of goods had vanished, orat least that is what Captain Sinclair claimed.

What could the Cables do? Not much, according toEnglish or British law. Even though in 1787, Britain hadinclusive political and economic institutions, thisinclusiveness did not extend to convicts, who hadpractically no rights. They could not own property. Theycould certainly not sue anyone in court. In fact, they couldnot even give evidence in court. Sinclair knew this andprobably stole the parcel. Though he would never admit it,he did boast that he could not be sued by the Cables. Hewas right according to British law. And in Britain the wholeaffair would have ended there. But not in Australia. A writwas issued to David Collins, the judge advocate there, asfollows:

Whereas Henry Cable and his wife, newsettlers of this place, had before they leftEngland a certain parcel shipped on boardthe Alexander transport Duncan SinclairMaster, consisting of cloaths and severalother articles suitable for their presentsituation, which were collected and bought atthe expence of many charitable disposedpersons for the use of the said Henry Cable,

his wife and child. Several applications hasbeen made for the express purpose ofobtaining the said parcel from the Master ofthe Alexander now lying at this port, and thatwithout effect (save and except) a small partof the said parcel containing a few books, theresidue and remainder, which is of a moreconsiderable value still remains on board thesaid ship Alexander, the Master of which,seems to be very neglectfull in not causingthe same to be delivered, to its respectiveowners as aforesaid.

Henry and Susannah, since they were both illiterate,could not sign the writ and just put their “crosses” at thebottom. The words “new settlers of this place” were latercrossed out, but were highly significant. Someoneanticipated that if Henry Cable and his wife were describedas convicts, the case would have no hope of proceeding.Someone had come up instead with the idea of callingthem new settlers. This was probably a bit too much forJudge Collins to take, and most likely he was the one whohad these words struck out. But the writ worked. Collins didnot throw out the case, and convened the court, with a juryentirely made up of soldiers. Sinclair was called before thecourt. Though Collins was less than enthusiastic about thecase, and the jury was composed of the people sent toAustralia to guard convicts such as the Cables, the Cableswon. Sinclair contested the whole affair on the grounds thatthe Cables were criminals. But the verdict stood, and hehad to pay fifteen pounds.

To reach this verdict Judge Collins didn’t apply Britishlaw; he ignored it. This was the first civil case adjudicatedin Australia. The first criminal case would have appearedequally bizarre to those in Britain. A convict was found guiltyof stealing another convict’s bread, which was worth twopence. At the time, such a case would not have come tocourt, since convicts were not allowed to own anything.Australia was not Britain, and its law would not be justBritish. And Australia would soon diverge from Britain incriminal and civil law as well as in a host of economic andpolitical institutions.

The penal colony of New South Wales initially consistedof the convicts and their guards, mostly soldiers. Therewere few “free settlers” in Australia until the 1820s, and thetransportation of convicts, though it stopped in New SouthWales in 1840, continued until 1868 in Western Australia.Convicts had to perform “compulsory work,” essentially justanother name for forced labor, and the guards intended tomake money out of it. Initially the convicts had no pay. Theywere given only food in return for the labor they performed.The guards kept what they produced. But this system, likethe ones with which the Virginia Company experimented inJamestown, did not work very well, because convicts didnot have the incentives to work hard or do good work. Theywere lashed or banished to Norfolk Island, just thirteensquare miles of territory situated more than one thousandmiles east of Australia in the Pacific Ocean. But sinceneither banishing nor lashing worked, the alternative was togive them incentives. This was not a natural idea to thesoldiers and guards. Convicts were convicts, and they werenot supposed to sell their labor or own property. But inAustralia there was nobody else to do the work. There wereof course Aboriginals, possibly as many as one million atthe time of the founding of New South Wales. But they werespread out over a vast continent, and their density in NewSouth Wales was insufficient for the creation of aneconomy based on their exploitation. There was no LatinAmerican option in Australia. The guards thus embarkedon a path that would ultimately lead to institutions that wereeven more inclusive than those back in Britain. Convictswere given a set of tasks to do, and if they had extra time,they could work for themselves and sell what theyproduced.

The guards also benefited from the convicts’ neweconomic freedoms. Production increased, and the guardsset up monopolies to sell goods to the convicts. The mostlucrative of these was for rum. New South Wales at thistime, just like other British colonies, was run by a governor,appointed by the British government. In 1806 Britainappointed William Bligh, the man who seventeen yearspreviously, in 1789, had been captain of the H.M.S. Bounty,during the famous “Mutiny on the Bounty.” Bligh was a strictdisciplinarian, a trait that was probably largely responsible

for the mutiny. His ways had not changed, and heimmediately challenged the rum monopolists. This wouldlead to another mutiny, this time by the monopolists, led bya former soldier, John Macarthur. The events, which cameto be known as the Rum Rebellion, again led to Bligh’sbeing overpowered by rebels, this time on land rather thanaboard the Bounty. Macarthur had Bligh locked up. TheBritish authorities subsequently sent more soldiers to dealwith the rebellion. Macarthur was arrested and shippedback to Britain. But he was soon released, and he returnedto Australia to play a major role in both the politics andeconomics of the colony.

The roots of the Rum Rebellion were economic. Thestrategy of giving the convicts incentives was making a lotof money for men such as Macarthur, who arrived inAustralia as a soldier in the second group of ships thatlanded in 1790. In 1796 he resigned from the army toconcentrate on business. By that time he already had hisfirst sheep, and realized that there was a lot of money to bemade in sheep farming and wool export. Inland fromSydney were the Blue Mountains, which were finallycrossed in 1813, revealing vast expanses of opengrassland on the other side. It was sheep heaven.Macarthur was soon the richest man in Australia, and heand his fellow sheep magnates became known as theSquatters, since the land on which they grazed their sheepwas not theirs. It was owned by the British government. Butat first this was a small detail. The Squatters were the eliteof Australia, or, more appropriately, the Squattocracy.

Even with a squattocracy, New South Wales did not lookanything like the absolutist regimes of Eastern Europe or ofthe South American colonies. There were no serfs as inAustria-Hungary and Russia, and no large indigenouspopulations to exploit as in Mexico and Peru. Instead, NewSouth Wales was like Jamestown, Virginia, in many ways:the elite ultimately found it in their interest to createeconomic institutions that were significantly more inclusivethan those in Austria-Hungary, Russia, Mexico, and Peru.Convicts were the only labor force, and the only way toincentivize them was to pay them wages for the work theywere doing.

Convicts were soon allowed to become entrepreneurs

and hire other convicts. More notably, they were even givenland after completing their sentences, and they had all theirrights restored. Some of them started to get rich, even theilliterate Henry Cable. By 1798 he owned a hotel called theRamping Horse, and he also had a shop. He bought a shipand went into the trade of sealskins. By 1809 he owned atleast nine farms of about 470 acres and also a number ofshops and houses in Sydney.

The next conflict in New South Wales would be betweenthe elite and the rest of the society, made up of convicts,ex-convicts, and their families. The elite, led by formerguards and soldiers such as Macarthur, included some ofthe free settlers who had been attracted to the colonybecause of the boom in the wool economy. Most of theproperty was still in the hands of the elite, and the ex-convicts and their descendants wanted an end totransportation, the opportunity of trial by a jury of theirpeers, and access to free land. The elite wanted none ofthese. Their main concern was to establish legal title to thelands they squatted on. The situation was again similar tothe events that had transpired in North America more thantwo centuries earlier. As we saw in chapter 1, the victoriesof the indentured servants against the Virginia Companywere followed by the struggles in Maryland and theCarolinas. In New South Wales, the roles of Lord Baltimoreand Sir Anthony Ashley-Cooper were played by Macarthurand the Squatters. The British government was again onthe side of the elite, though they also feared that one dayMacarthur and the Squatters might be tempted to declareindependence.

The British government dispatched John Bigge to thecolony in 1819 to head a commission of inquiry into thedevelopments there. Bigge was shocked by the rights thatthe convicts enjoyed and surprised by the fundamentallyinclusive nature of the economic institutions of this penalcolony. He recommended a radical overhaul: convicts couldnot own land, nobody should be allowed to pay convictswages anymore, pardons were to be restricted, ex-convictswere not to be given land, and punishment was to be mademuch more draconian. Bigge saw the Squatters as thenatural aristocracy of Australia and envisioned anautocratic society dominated by them. This wasn’t to be.

While Bigge was trying to turn back the clock, ex-convictsand their sons and daughters were demanding greaterrights. Most important, they realized, again just as in theUnited States, that to consolidate their economic andpolitical rights fully they needed political institutions thatwould include them in the process of decision making. Theydemanded elections in which they could participate asequals and representative institutions and assemblies inwhich they could hold office.

The ex-convicts and their sons and daughters were ledby the colorful writer, explorer, and journalist WilliamWentworth. Wentworth was one of the leaders of the firstexpedition that crossed the Blue Mountains, which openedthe vast grasslands to the Squatters; a town on thesemountains is still named after him. His sympathies werewith the convicts, perhaps because of his father, who wasaccused of highway robbery and had to accepttransportation to Australia to avoid trial and possibleconviction. At this time, Wentworth was a strong advocateof more inclusive political institutions, an elected assembly,trial by jury for ex-convicts and their families, and an end totransportation to New South Wales. He started anewspaper, the Australian, which would from then on leadthe attack on the existing political institutions. Macarthurdidn’t like Wentworth and certainly not what he was askingfor. He went through a list of Wentworth’s supporters,characterizing them as follows:

sentenced to be hung since he came hererepeatedly flogged at the cart’s tail aLondon JewJew publican lately deprived of his licenseauctioneer transported for trading in slavesoften flogged hereson of two convictsa swindler—deeply in debtan American adventureran attorney with a worthless charactera stranger lately failed here in a musick shopmarried to the daughter to two convictsmarried to a convict who was formerly atambourine girl.

Macarthur and the Squatters’ vigorous opposition couldnot stop the tide in Australia, however. The demand forrepresentative institutions was strong and could not besuppressed. Until 1823 the governor had ruled New SouthWales more or less on his own. In that year his powerswere limited by the creation of a council appointed by theBritish government. Initially the appointees were from theSquatters and nonconvict elite, Macarthur among them, butthis couldn’t last. In 1831 the governor Richard Bourkebowed to pressure and for the first time allowed ex-convictsto sit on juries. Ex-convicts and in fact many new freesettlers also wanted transportation of convicts from Britainto stop, because it created competition in the labor marketand drove down wages. The Squatters liked low wages, butthey lost. In 1840 transportation to New South Wales wasstopped, and in 1842 a legislative council was created withtwo-thirds of its members being elected (the restappointed). Ex-convicts could stand for office and vote ifthey held enough property, and many did.

By the 1850s, Australia had introduced adult white malesuffrage. The demands of the citizens, ex-convicts and theirfamilies, were now far ahead of what William Wentworthhad first imagined. In fact, by this time he was on the side ofconservatives insisting on an unelected Legislative Council.But just like Macarthur before, Wentworth would not be ableto halt the tide toward more inclusive political institutions. In1856 the state of Victoria, which had been carved out ofNew South Wales in 1851, and the state of Tasmaniawould become the first places in the world to introduce aneffective secret ballot in elections, which stopped votebuying and coercion. Today we still call the standardmethod of achieving secrecy in voting in elections theAustralian ballot.

The initial circumstances in Sydney, New South Wales,were very similar to those in Jamestown, Virginia, 181years earlier, though the settlers at Jamestown were mostlyindentured laborers, rather than convicts. In both cases theinitial circumstances did not allow for the creation ofextractive colonial institutions. Neither colony had densepopulations of indigenous peoples to exploit, ready accessto precious metals such as gold or silver, or soil and cropsthat would make slave plantations economically viable. The

slave trade was still vibrant in the 1780s, and New SouthWales could have been filled up with slaves had it beenprofitable. It wasn’t. Both the Virginia Company and thesoldiers and free settlers who ran New South Wales bowedto the pressures, gradually creating inclusive economicinstitutions that developed in tandem with inclusive politicalinstitutions. This happened with even less of a struggle inNew South Wales than it had in Virginia, and subsequentattempts to put this trend into reverse failed.

AUSTRALIA, LIKE THE UNITED STATES, experienced a differentpath to inclusive institutions than the one taken by England.The same revolutions that shook England during the CivilWar and then the Glorious Revolution were not needed inthe United States or Australia because of the very differentcircumstances in which those countries were founded—though this of course does not mean that inclusiveinstitutions were established without any conflict, and, in theprocess, the United States had to throw off Britishcolonialism. In England there was a long history ofabsolutist rule that was deeply entrenched and required arevolution to remove it. In the United States and Australia,there was no such thing. Though Lord Baltimore inMaryland and John Macarthur in New South Wales mighthave aspired to such a role, they could not establish astrong enough grip on society for their plans to bear fruit.The inclusive institutions established in the United Statesand Australia meant that the Industrial Revolution spreadquickly to these lands and they began to get rich. The paththese countries took was followed by colonies such asCanada and New Zealand.

There were still other paths to inclusive institutions. Largeparts of Western Europe took yet a third path to inclusiveinstitutions under the impetus of the French Revolution,which overthrew absolutism in France and then generateda series of interstate conflicts that spread institutionalreform across much of Western Europe. The economicconsequence of these reforms was the emergence ofinclusive economic institutions in most of Western Europe,the Industrial Revolution, and economic growth.

BREAKING THE BARRIERS: THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

For the three centuries prior to 1789, France was ruled byan absolutist monarchy. French society was divided intothree segments, the so-called estates. The aristocrats (thenobility) made up the First Estate, the clergy the SecondEstate, and everybody else the Third Estate. Differentestates were subject to different laws, and the first twoestates had rights that the rest of the population did not.The nobility and the clergy did not pay taxes, while thecitizens had to pay several different taxes, as we wouldexpect from a regime that was largely extractive. In fact, notonly was the Church exempt from taxes, but it also ownedlarge swaths of land and could impose its own taxes onpeasants. The monarch, the nobility, and the clergy enjoyeda luxurious lifestyle, while much of the Third Estate lived indire poverty. Different laws not only guaranteed a greatlyadvantageous economic position to the nobility and theclergy, but it also gave them political power.

Life in French cities of the eighteenth century was harshand unhealthy. Manufacturing was regulated by powerfulguilds, which generated good incomes for their membersbut prevented others from entering these occupations orstarting new businesses. The so-called ancien régimeprided itself on its continuity and stability. Entry byentrepreneurs and talented individuals into newoccupations would create instability and was not tolerated.If life in the cities was harsh, life in the villages was probablyworse. As we have seen, by this time the most extremeform of serfdom, which tied people to the land and forcedthem to work for and pay dues to the feudal lords, was longin decline in France. Nevertheless, there were restrictionson mobility and a plethora of feudal dues that the Frenchpeasants were required to pay to the monarch, the nobility,and the Church.

Against this background, the French Revolution was aradical affair. On August 4, 1789, the National ConstituentAssembly entirely changed French laws by proposing anew constitution. The first article stated:

The National Assembly hereby completelyabolishes the feudal system. It decrees that,

among the existing rights and dues, bothfeudal and censuel, all those originating in orrepresenting real or personal serfdom shallbe abolished without indemnification.

Its ninth article then continued:

Pecuniary privileges, personal or real, in thepayment of taxes are abolished forever.Taxes shall be collected from all the citizens,and from all property, in the same mannerand in the same form. Plans shall beconsidered by which the taxes shall be paidproportionally by all, even for the last sixmonths of the current year.

Thus, in one swoop, the French Revolution abolished thefeudal system and all the obligations and dues that itentailed, and it entirely removed the tax exemptions of thenobility and the clergy. But perhaps what was most radical,even unthinkable at the time, was the eleventh article, whichstated:

All citizens, without distinction of birth, areeligible to any office or dignity, whetherecclesiastical, civil, or military; and noprofession shall imply any derogation.

So there was now equality before the law for all, not onlyin daily life and business, but also in politics. The reforms ofthe revolution continued after August 4. It subsequentlyabolished the Church’s authority to levy special taxes andturned the clergy into employees of the state. Together withthe removal of the rigid political and social roles, criticalbarriers against economic activities were stamped out. Theguilds and all occupational restrictions were abolished,creating a more level playing field in the cities.

These reforms were a first step toward ending the reignof the absolutist French monarchs. Several decades ofinstability and war followed the declarations of August 4.But an irreversible step was taken away from absolutismand extractive institutions and toward inclusive political andeconomic institutions. These changes would be followed by

other reforms in the economy and in politics, ultimatelyculminating in the Third Republic in 1870, which wouldbring to France the type of parliamentary system that theGlorious Revolution put in motion in England. The FrenchRevolution created much violence, suffering, instability, andwar. Nevertheless, thanks to it, the French did not gettrapped with extractive institutions blocking economicgrowth and prosperity, as did absolutist regimes of EasternEurope such as Austria-Hungary and Russia.

How did the absolutist French monarchy come to thebrink of the 1789 revolution? After all, we have seen thatmany absolutist regimes were able to survive for longperiods of time, even in the midst of economic stagnationand social upheaval. As with most instances of revolutionsand radical changes, it was a confluence of factors thatopened the way to the French Revolution, and these wereintimately related to the fact that Britain was industrializingrapidly. And of course the path was, as usual, contingent,as many attempts to stabilize the regime by the monarchyfailed and the revolution turned out to be more successful inchanging institutions in France and elsewhere in Europethan many could have imagined in 1789.

Many laws and privileges in France were remnants ofmedieval times. They not only favored the First and SecondEstates relative to the majority of the population but alsogave them privileges vis-à-vis the Crown. Louis XIV, theSun King, ruled France for fifty-four years, between 1661 tohis death in 1715, though he actually came to the throne in1643, at the age of five. He consolidated the power of themonarchy, furthering the process toward greater absolutismthat had started centuries earlier. Many monarchs oftenconsulted the so-called Assembly of Notables, consisting ofkey aristocrats handpicked by the Crown. Though largelyconsultative, the Assembly still acted as a mild constrainton the monarch’s power. For this reason, Louis XIV ruledwithout convening the Assembly. Under his reign, Franceachieved some economic growth—for example, viaparticipation in Atlantic and colonial trade. Louis’s ableminister of finance, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, also oversawthe development of government-sponsored andgovernment-controlled industry, a type of extractive growth.This limited amount of growth benefited almost exclusively

the First and Second Estates. Louis XIV also wanted torationalize the French tax system, because the state oftenhad problems financing its frequent wars, its large standingarmy, and the King’s own luxurious retinue, consumption,and palaces. Its inability to tax even the minor nobility putsevere limits on its revenues.

Though there had been little economic growth, by thetime Louis XVI came to power in 1774, there hadnevertheless been large changes in society. Moreover, theearlier fiscal problems had turned into a fiscal crisis, andthe Seven Years’ War with the British between 1756 and1763, in which France lost Canada, had been particularlycostly. A number of significant figures attempted to balancethe royal budget by restructuring the debt and increasingtaxes; among them were Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, oneof the most famous economists of the time; JacquesNecker, who would also play an important role after therevolution; and Charles Alexandre de Calonne. But nonesucceeded. Calonne, as part of his strategy, persuadedLouis XVI to summon the Assembly of Notables. The kingand his advisers expected the Assembly to endorse hisreforms much in the same way as Charles I expected theEnglish Parliament to simply agree to pay for an army tofight the Scottish when he called it in 1640. The Assemblytook an unexpected step and decreed that only arepresentative body, the Estates-General, could endorsesuch reforms.

The Estates-General was a very different body from theAssembly of Notables. While the latter consisted of thenobility and was largely handpicked by the Crown fromamong major aristocrats, the former includedrepresentatives from all three estates. It had last beenconvened in 1614. When the Estates-General gathered in1789 in Versailles, it became immediately clear that noagreement could be reached. There were irreconcilabledifferences, as the Third Estate saw this as its chance toincrease its political power and wanted to have more votesin the Estates-General, which the nobility and the clergysteadfastly opposed. The meeting ended on May 5, 1789,without any resolution, except the decision to convene amore powerful body, the National Assembly, deepening thepolitical crisis. The Third Estate, particularly the merchants,

businessmen, professionals, and artisans, who all haddemands for greater power, saw these developments asevidence of their increasing clout. In the National Assembly,they therefore demanded even more say in theproceedings and greater rights in general. Their support inthe streets all over the country by citizens emboldened bythese developments led to the reconstitution of theAssembly as the National Constituent Assembly on July 9.

Meanwhile, the mood in the country, and especially inParis, was becoming more radical. In reaction, theconservative circles around Louis XVI persuaded him tosack Necker, the reformist finance minister. This led tofurther radicalization in the streets. The outcome was thefamous storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789. From thispoint onward, the revolution started in earnest. Necker wasreinstated, and the revolutionary Marquis de Lafayette wasput in charge of the National Guard of Paris.

Even more remarkable than the storming of the Bastillewere the dynamics of the National Constituent Assembly,which on August 4, 1789, with its newfound confidence,passed the new constitution, abolishing feudalism and thespecial privileges of the First and Second Estates. But thisradicalization led to fractionalization within the Assembly,since there were many conflicting views about the shapethat society should take. The first step was the formation oflocal clubs, most notably the radical Jacobin Club, whichwould later take control of the revolution. At the same time,the nobles were fleeing the country in great numbers—theso-called émigrés. Many were also encouraging the king tobreak with the Assembly and take action, either by himselfor with the help of foreign powers, such as Austria, thenative country of Queen Marie Antoinette and where mostof the émigrés had fled. As many in the streets started tosee an imminent threat against the achievements of therevolution over the past two years, radicalization gatheredpace. The National Constituent Assembly passed the finalversion of the constitution on September 29, 1791, turningFrance into a constitutional monarchy, with equality of rightsfor all men, no feudal obligations or dues, and an end to alltrading restrictions imposed by guilds. France was still amonarchy, but the king now had little role and, in fact, noteven his freedom.

But the dynamics of the revolution were then irreversiblyaltered by the war that broke out in 1792 between Franceand the “first coalition,” led by Austria. The war increasedthe resolve and radicalism of the revolutionaries and of themasses (the so-called sans-culottes, which translates as“without knee breeches,” because they could not afford towear the style of trousers then fashionable). The outcome ofthis process was the period known as the Terror, under thecommand of the Jacobin faction led by Robespierre andSaint-Just, unleashed after the executions of Louis XVI andMarie Antoinette. It led to the executions of not only scoresof aristocrats and counterrevolutionaries but also severalmajor figures of the revolution, including the former popularleaders Brissot, Danton, and Desmoulins.

But the Terror soon spun out of control and ultimatelycame to an end in July 1794 with the execution of its ownleaders, including Robespierre and Saint-Just. Therefollowed a phase of relative stability, first under thesomewhat ineffective Directory, between 1795 and 1799,and then with more concentrated power in the form of athree-person Consulate, consisting of Ducos, Sieyès, andNapoleon Bonaparte. Already during the Directory, theyoung general Napoleon Bonaparte had become famousfor his military successes, and his influence was only togrow after 1799. The Consulate soon became Napoleon’spersonal rule.

The years between 1799 and the end of Napoleon’sreign, 1815, witnessed a series of great military victoriesfor France, including those at Austerlitz, Jena-Auerstadt,and Wagram, bringing continental Europe to its knees.They also allowed Napoleon to impose his will, his reforms,and his legal code across a wide swath of territory. The fallof Napoleon after his final defeat in 1815 would also bring aperiod of retrenchment, more restricted political rights, andthe restoration of the French monarchy under Louis XVII.But all these were simply slowing the ultimate emergenceof inclusive political institutions.

The forces unleashed by the revolution of 1789 endedFrench absolutism and would inevitably, even if slowly, leadto the emergence of inclusive institutions. France, andthose parts of Europe where the revolutionary reforms hadbeen exported, would thus take part in the industrialization

process already under way in the nineteenth century.

EXPORTING THE REVOLUTION

On the eve of the French Revolution in 1789, there weresevere restrictions placed on Jews throughout Europe. Inthe German city of Frankfurt, for example, their lives wereregulated by orders set out in a statute dating from theMiddle Ages. There could be no more than five hundredJewish families in Frankfurt, and they all had to live in asmall, walled part of town, the Judengasse, the Jewishghetto. They could not leave the ghetto at night, onSundays, or during any Christian festival.

The Judengasse was incredibly cramped. It was aquarter of a mile long but no more than twelve feet wide andin some places less than ten feet wide. Jews lived underconstant repression and regulation. Each year, at most twonew families could be admitted to the ghetto, and at mosttwelve Jewish couples could get married, and only if theywere both above the age of twenty-five. Jews could notfarm; they could also not trade in weapons, spices, wine, orgrain. Until 1726 they had to wear specific markers, twoconcentric yellow rings for men and a striped veil forwomen. All Jews had to pay a special poll tax.

As the French Revolution erupted, a successful youngbusinessman, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, lived in theFrankfurt Judengasse. By the early 1780s, Rothschild hadestablished himself as the leading dealer in coins, metals,and antiques in Frankfurt. But like all Jews in the city, hecould not open a business outside the ghetto or even liveoutside it.

This was all to change soon. In 1791 the French NationalAssembly emancipated French Jewry. The French armieswere now also occupying the Rhineland and emancipatingthe Jews of Western Germany. In Frankfurt their effectwould be more abrupt and perhaps somewhatunintentional. In 1796 the French bombarded Frankfurt,demolishing half of the Judengasse in the process. Aroundtwo thousand Jews were left homeless and had to moveoutside the ghetto. The Rothschilds were among them.Once outside the ghetto, and now freed from the myriadregulations barring them from entrepreneurship, they could

seize new business opportunities. This included a contractto supply grain to the Austrian army, something they wouldpreviously not have been allowed to do.

By the end of the decade, Rothschild was one of therichest Jews in Frankfurt and already a well-establishedbusinessman. Full emancipation had to wait until 1811; itwas finally implemented by Karl von Dalberg, who hadbeen made Grand Duke of Frankfurt in Napoleon’s 1806reorganization of Germany. Mayer Amschel told his son,“[Y]ou are now a citizen.”

Such events did not end the struggle for Jewishemancipation, since there were subsequent reverses,particularly at the Congress of Vienna of 1815, whichformed the post-Napoleonic political settlement. But therewas no going back to the ghetto for the Rothschilds. MayerAmschel and his sons would soon have the largest bank innineteenth-century Europe, with branches in Frankfurt,London, Paris, Naples, and Vienna.

This was not an isolated event. First the FrenchRevolutionary Armies and then Napoleon invaded largeparts of continental Europe, and in almost all the areas theyinvaded, the existing institutions were remnants of medievaltimes, empowering kings, princes, and nobility andrestricting trade both in cities and the countryside. Serfdomand feudalism were much more important in many of theseareas than in France itself. In Eastern Europe, includingPrussia and the Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary, serfswere tied to the land. In the West this strict form of serfdomhad already vanished, but peasants owed to feudal lordsvarious seigneurial fees, taxes, and labor obligations. Forexample, in the polity of Nassau-Usingen, peasants weresubject to 230 different payments, dues, and services.Dues included one that had to be paid after an animal hadbeen slaughtered, called the blood tithe; there was also abee tithe and a wax tithe. If a piece of property was boughtor sold, the lord was owed fees. The guilds regulating allkinds of economic activity in the cities were also typicallystronger in these places than in France. In the westernGerman cities of Cologne and Aachen, the adoption ofspinning and weaving textile machines was blocked byguilds. Many cities, from Berne in Switzerland to Florencein Italy, were controlled by a few families.

The leaders of the French Revolution and, subsequently,Napoleon exported the revolution to these lands, destroyingabsolutism, ending feudal land relations, abolishing guilds,and imposing equality before the law—the all-importantnotion of rule of law, which we will discuss in greater detailin the next chapter. The French Revolution thus preparednot only France but much of the rest of Europe for inclusiveinstitutions and the economic growth that these would spur.

As we have seen, alarmed by the developments inFrance, several European powers organized aroundAustria in 1792 to attack France, ostensibly to free KingLouis XVI, but in reality to crush the French Revolution. Theexpectation was that the makeshift armies fielded by therevolution would soon crumble. But after some earlydefeats, the armies of the new French Republic werevictorious in an initially defensive war. There were seriousorganizational problems to overcome. But the French wereahead of other countries in a major innovation: massconscription. Introduced in August 1793, mass conscriptionallowed the French to field large armies and develop amilitary advantage verging on supremacy even beforeNapoleon’s famous military skills came on the scene.

Initial military success encouraged the Republic’sleadership to expand France’s borders, with an eye towardcreating an effective buffer between the new republic andthe hostile monarchs of Prussia and Austria. The Frenchquickly seized the Austrian Netherlands and the UnitedProvinces, essentially today’s Belgium and theNetherlands. The French also took over much of modern-day Switzerland. In all three places, the French had strongcontrol through the 1790s.

Germany was initially hotly contested. But by 1795, theFrench had firm control over the Rhineland, the western partof Germany lying on the left bank of the Rhine River. ThePrussians were forced to recognize this fact under theTreaty of Basel. Between 1795 and 1802, the French heldthe Rhineland, but not any other part of Germany. In 1802the Rhineland was officially incorporated into France.

Italy remained the main seat of war in the second half the1790s, with the Austrians as the opponents. Savoy was

annexed by France in 1792, and a stalemate was reacheduntil Napoleon’s invasion in April 1796. In his first majorcontinental campaign, by early 1797, Napoleon hadconquered almost all Northern Italy, except for Venice,which was taken by the Austrians. The Treaty of CampoFormio, signed with the Austrians in October 1797, endedthe War of the First Coalition and recognized a number ofFrench-controlled republics in Northern Italy. However, theFrench continued to expand their control over Italy evenafter this treaty, invading the Papal States and establishingthe Roman Republic in March 1798. In January 1799,Naples was conquered and the Parthenopean Republiccreated. With the exception of Venice, which remainedAustrian, the French now controlled the entire Italianpeninsula either directly, as in the case of Savoy, or throughsatellite states, such as the Cisalpine, Ligurian, Roman,and Parthenopean republics.

There was further back-and-forth in the War of theSecond Coalition, between 1798 and 1801, but this endedwith the French essentially remaining in control. The Frenchrevolutionary armies quickly started carrying out a radicalprocess of reform in the lands they’d conquered, abolishingthe remaining vestiges of serfdom and feudal land relationsand imposing equality before the law. The clergy werestripped of their special status and power, and the guilds inurban areas were stamped out or at the very least muchweakened. This happened in the Austrian Netherlandsimmediately after the French invasion in 1795 and in theUnited Provinces, where the French founded the BatavianRepublic, with political institutions very similar to those inFrance. In Switzerland the situation was similar, and theguilds as well as feudal landlords and the Church weredefeated, feudal privileges removed, and the guildsabolished and expropriated.

What was started by the French Revolutionary Armieswas continued, in one form or another, by Napoleon.Napoleon was first and foremost interested in establishingfirm control over the territories he conquered. Thissometimes involved cutting deals with local elites or puttinghis family and associates in charge, as during his briefcontrol of Spain and Poland. But Napoleon also had agenuine desire to continue and deepen the reforms of the

revolution. Most important, he codified the Roman law andthe ideas of equality before the law into a legal system thatbecame known as the Code Napoleon. Napoleon saw thiscode as his greatest legacy and wished to impose it inevery territory he controlled.

Of course, the reforms imposed by the French Revolutionand Napoleon were not irreversible. In some places, suchas in Hanover, Germany, the old elites were reinstatedshortly after Napoleon’s fall and much of what the Frenchachieved was lost for good. But in many other places,feudalism, the guilds, and the nobility were permanentlydestroyed or weakened. For instance, even after theFrench left, in many cases the Code Napoleon remained ineffect.

All in all, French armies wrought much suffering inEurope, but they also radically changed the lay of the land.In much of Europe, gone were feudal relations; the power ofthe guilds; the absolutist control of monarchs and princes;the grip of the clergy on economic, social, and politicalpower; and the foundation of ancien régime, which treateddifferent people unequally based on their birth status.These changes created the type of inclusive economicinstitutions that would then allow industrialization to takeroot in these places. By the middle of the nineteenthcentury, industrialization was rapidly under way in almost allthe places that the French controlled, whereas places suchas Austria-Hungary and Russia, which the French did notconquer, or Poland and Spain, where French hold wastemporary and limited, were still largely stagnant.

SEEKING MODERNITY

In the autumn of 1867, Ōkubo Toshimichi, a leading courtierof the feudal Japanese Satsuma domain, traveled from thecapital of Edo, now Tokyo, to the regional city ofYamaguchi. On October 14 he met with leaders of theChōshū domain. He had a simple proposal: they would joinforces, march their armies to Edo, and overthrow theshogun, the ruler of Japan. By this time Ōkubo Toshimichialready had the leaders of the Tosa and Aki domains onboard. Once the leaders of the powerful Chōshū agreed, asecret Satcho Alliance was formed.

secret Satcho Alliance was formed.In 1868 Japan was an economically underdeveloped

country that had been controlled since 1600 by theTokugawa family, whose ruler had taken the title shogun(commander) in 1603. The Japanese emperor wassidelined and assumed a purely ceremonial role. TheTokugawa shoguns were the dominant members of a classof feudal lords who ruled and taxed their own domains,among them those of Satsuma, ruled by the Shimazufamily. These lords, along with their military retainers, thefamous samurai, ran a society that was similar to that ofmedieval Europe, with strict occupational categories,restrictions on trade, and high rates of taxation on farmers.The shogun ruled from Edo, where he monopolized andcontrolled foreign trade and banned foreigners from thecountry. Political and economic institutions were extractive,and Japan was poor.

But the domination of the shogun was not complete.Even as the Tokugawa family took over the country in 1600,they could not control everyone. In the south of the country,the Satsuma domain remained quite autonomous and waseven allowed to trade independently with the outside worldthrough the Ryūkyū Islands. It was in the Satsuma capital ofKagoshima where Ōkubo Toshimichi was born in 1830. Asthe son of a samurai, he, too, became a samurai. His talentwas spotted early on by Shimazu Nariakira, the lord ofSatsuma, who quickly promoted him in the bureaucracy. Atthe time, Shimazu Nariakira had already formulated a planto use Satsuma troops to overthrow the shogun. He wantedto expand trade with Asia and Europe, abolish the oldfeudal economic institutions, and construct a modern statein Japan. His nascent plan was cut short by his death in1858. His successor, Shimazu Hisamitsu, was morecircumspect, at least initially.

Ōkubo Toshimichi had by now become more and moreconvinced that Japan needed to overthrow the feudalshogunate, and he eventually convinced ShimazuHisamitsu. To rally support for their cause, they wrapped itin outrage over the sidelining of the emperor. The treaty(Ōkubo Toshimichi had already signed with the Tosadomain asserted that “a country does not have twomonarchs, a home does not have two masters; governmentdevolves to one ruler.” But the real intention was not simply

to restore the emperor to power but to change the politicaland economic institutions completely. On the Tosa side,one of the treaty’s signers was Sakamoto Ryūma. AsSatsuma and Chōshū mobilized their armies, SakamotoRyūma presented the shogun with an eight-point plan,urging him to resign to avoid civil war. The plan was radical,and though clause 1 stated that “political power of thecountry should be returned to the Imperial Court, and alldecrees issued by the Court,” it included far more than justthe restoration of the emperor. Clauses 2, 3, 4, and 5stated:

2. Two legislative bodies, an Upper and Lower house,should be established, and all government measuresshould be decided on the basis of general opinion.3. Men of ability among the lords, nobles and people atlarge should be employed as councillors, andtraditional offices of the past which have lost theirpurpose should be abolished.4. Foreign affairs should be carried on according toappropriate regulations worked out on the basis ofgeneral opinion.5. Legislation and regulations of earlier times shouldbe set aside and a new and adequate code should beselected.

Shogun Yoshinobu agreed to resign, and on January 3,1868, the Meiji Restoration was declared; Emperor Kōmeiand, one month later after Kōmei died, his son Meiji wererestored to power. Though Satsuma and Chōshū forcesnow occupied Edo and the imperial capital Kyōto, theyfeared that the Tokugawas would attempt to regain powerand re-create the shogunate. (Ōkubo Toshimichi wantedthe Tokugawas crushed forever. He persuaded theemperor to abolish the Tokugawa domain and confiscatetheir lands. On January 27 the former shogun Yoshinobuattacked Satsuma and Chōshū forces, and civil war brokeout; it raged until the summer, when finally the Tokugawaswere vanquished.

Following the Meiji Restoration there was a process oftransformative institutional reforms in Japan. In 1869feudalism was abolished, and the three hundred fiefs were

surrendered to the government and turned into prefectures,under the control of an appointed governor. Taxation wascentralized, and a modern bureaucratic state replaced theold feudal one. In 1869 the equality of all social classesbefore the law was introduced, and restrictions on internalmigration and trade were abolished. The samurai classwas abolished, though not without having to put down somerebellions. Individual property rights on land wereintroduced, and people were allowed freedom to enter andpractice any trade. The state became heavily involved inthe construction of infrastructure. In contrast to the attitudesof absolutist regimes to railways, in 1869 the Japaneseregime formed a steamship line between Tokyo and Osakaand built the first railway between Tokyo and Yokohama. Italso began to develop a manufacturing industry, and(Ōkubo Toshimichi, as minister of finance, oversaw thebeginning of a concerted effort of industrialization. The lordof Satsuma domain had been a leader in this, buildingfactories for pottery, cannon, and cotton yarn and importingEnglish textile machinery to create the first modern cottonspinning mill in Japan in 1861. He also built two modernshipyards. By 1890 Japan was the first Asian country toadopt a written constitution, and it created a constitutionalmonarchy with an elected parliament, the Diet, and anindependent judiciary. These changes were decisivefactors in enabling Japan to be the primary beneficiary fromthe Industrial Revolution in Asia.

IN THE MID-NINETEENTH CENTURY both China and Japan werepoor nations, languishing under absolutist regimes. Theabsolutist regime in China had been suspicious of changefor centuries. Though there were many similarities betweenChina and Japan—the Tokugawa shogunate had alsobanned overseas trade in the seventeenth century, asChinese emperors had done earlier, and were opposed toeconomic and political change—there were also notablepolitical differences. China was a centralized bureaucraticempire ruled by an absolute emperor. The emperorcertainly faced constraints on his power, the most importantof which was the threat of rebellion. During the period 1850to 1864, the whole of southern China was ravaged by the

Taiping Rebellion, in which millions died either in conflict orthrough mass starvation. But opposition to the emperorwas not institutionalized.

The structure of Japanese political institutions wasdifferent. The shogunate had sidelined the emperor, but aswe have seen, the Tokugawa power was not absolute, anddomains such as that of the Satsumas maintainedindependence, even the ability to conduct foreign trade ontheir own behalf.

As with France, an important consequence of the BritishIndustrial Revolution for China and Japan was militaryvulnerability. China was humbled by British sea powerduring the First Opium War, between 1839 and 1842, andthe same threat became all too real for the Japanese asU.S. warships, led by Commodore Matthew Perry, pulledinto Edo Bay in 1853. The reality that economicbackwardness created military backwardness was part ofthe impetus behind Shimazu Nariakira’s plan to overthrowthe shogunate and put in motion the changes that eventuallyled to the Meiji Restoration. The leaders of the Satsumadomain realized that economic growth—perhaps evenJapanese survival—could be achieved only by institutionalreforms, but the shogun opposed this because his powerwas tied to the existing set of institutions. To exact reforms,the shogun had to be overthrown, and he was. The situationwas similar in China, but the different initial politicalinstitutions made it much harder to overthrow the emperor,something that happened only in 1911. Instead of reforminginstitutions, the Chinese tried to match the British militarilyby importing modern weapons. The Japanese built theirown armaments industry.

As a consequence of these initial differences, eachcountry responded differently to the challenges of thenineteenth century, and Japan and China divergeddramatically in the face of the critical juncture created by theIndustrial Revolution. While Japanese institutions werebeing transformed and the economy was embarking on apath of rapid growth, in China forces pushing forinstitutional change were not strong enough, and extractiveinstitutions persisted largely unabated until they would takea turn for the worse with Mao’s communist revolution in1949.

ROOTS OF WORLD INEQUALITY

This and the previous three chapters have told the story ofhow inclusive economic and political institutions emergedin England to make the Industrial Revolution possible, andwhy certain countries benefited from the IndustrialRevolution and embarked on the path to growth, whileothers did not or, in fact, steadfastly refused to allow eventhe beginning of industrialization. Whether a country didembark on industrialization was largely a function of itsinstitutions. The United States, which underwent atransformation similar to the English Glorious Revolution,had already developed its own brand of inclusive politicaland economic institutions by the end of the eighteenthcentury. It would thus become the first nation to exploit thenew technologies coming from the British Isles, and wouldsoon surpass Britain and become the forerunner ofindustrialization and technological change. Australiafollowed a similar path to inclusive institutions, even ifsomewhat later and somewhat less noticed. Its citizens, justlike those in England and the United States, had to fight toobtain inclusive institutions. Once these were in place,Australia would launch its own process of economic growth.Australia and the United States could industrialize andgrow rapidly because their relatively inclusive institutionswould not block new technologies, innovation, or creativedestruction.

Not so in most of the other European colonies. Theirdynamics would be quite the opposite of those in Australiaand the United States. Lack of a native population orresources to be extracted made colonialism in Australiaand the United States a very different sort of affair, even iftheir citizens had to fight hard for their political rights and forinclusive institutions. In the Moluccas as in the many otherplaces Europeans colonized in Asia, in the Caribbean, andin South America, citizens had little chance of winning sucha fight. In these places, European colonists imposed a newbrand of extractive institutions, or took over whateverextractive institutions they found, in order to be able toextract valuable resources, ranging from spices and sugarto silver and gold. In many of these places, they put in

motion a set of institutional changes that would make theemergence of inclusive institutions very unlikely. In some ofthem they explicitly stamped out whatever burgeoningindustry or inclusive economic institutions existed. Most ofthese places would be in no situation to benefit fromindustrialization in the nineteenth century or even in thetwentieth.

The dynamics in the rest of Europe were also quitedifferent from those in Australia and the United States. Asthe Industrial Revolution in Britain was gathering speed atthe end of the eighteenth century, most European countrieswere ruled by absolutist regimes, controlled by monarchsand by aristocracies whose major source of income wasfrom their landholdings or from trading privileges theyenjoyed thanks to prohibitive entry barriers. The creativedestruction that would be wrought by the process ofindustrialization would erode the leaders’ trading profitsand take resources and labor away from their lands. Thearistocracies would be economic losers fromindustrialization. More important, they would also bepolitical losers, as the process of industrialization wouldundoubtedly create instability and political challenges totheir monopoly of political power.

But the institutional transitions in Britain and the IndustrialRevolution created new opportunities and challenges forEuropean states. Though there was absolutism in WesternEurope, the region had also shared much of the institutionaldrift that had impacted Britain in the previous millennium.But the situation was very different in Eastern Europe, theOttoman Empire, and China. These differences matteredfor the dissemination of industrialization. Just like the BlackDeath or the rise of Atlantic trade, the critical juncturecreated by industrialization intensified the ever-presentconflict over institutions in many European nations. A majorfactor was the French Revolution of 1789. The end ofabsolutism in France opened the way for inclusiveinstitutions, and the French ultimately embarked onindustrialization and rapid economic growth. The FrenchRevolution in fact did more than that. It exported itsinstitutions by invading and forcibly reforming the extractiveinstitutions of several neighboring countries. It thus openedthe way to industrialization not only in France, but in

Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and parts ofGermany and Italy. Farther east the reaction was similar tothat after the Black Death, when, instead of crumbling,feudalism intensified. Austria-Hungary, Russia, and theOttoman Empire fell even further behind economically, buttheir absolutist monarchies managed to stay in place untilthe First World War.

Elsewhere in the world, absolutism was as resilient as inEastern Europe. This was particularly true in China, wherethe Ming-Qing transition led to a state committed tobuilding a stable agrarian society and hostile tointernational trade. But there were also institutionaldifferences that mattered in Asia. If China reacted to theIndustrial Revolution as Eastern Europe did, Japan reactedin the same way as Western Europe. Just as in France, ittook a revolution to change the system, this time one led bythe renegade lords of the Satsuma, Chōshū, Tosa, and Akidomains. These lords overthrew the shogun, created theMeiji Restoration, and moved Japan onto the path ofinstitutional reforms and economic growth.

We also saw that absolutism was resilient in isolatedEthiopia. Elsewhere on the continent the very same force ofinternational trade that helped to transform Englishinstitutions in the seventeenth century locked large parts ofwestern and central Africa into highly extractive institutionsvia the slave trade. This destroyed societies in someplaces and led to the creation of extractive slaving states inothers.

The institutional dynamics we have described ultimatelydetermined which countries took advantage of the majoropportunities present in the nineteenth century onward andwhich ones failed to do so. The roots of the world inequalitywe observe today can be found in this divergence. With afew exceptions, the rich countries of today are those thatembarked on the process of industrialization andtechnological change starting in the nineteenth century, andthe poor ones are those that did not.

11.

THE VIRTUOUS CIRCLE

THE BLACK ACT

W INDSOR CASTLE, located just west of London, is one ofthe great royal residencies of England. In the earlyeighteenth century, the castle was surrounded by a greatforest, full of deer, though little of this remains today. One ofthe keepers of the forest in 1722, Baptist Nunn, was lockedin to a violent conflict. On June 27 he recorded,

Blacks came in the night shot at me 3 times 2bullets into my chamber window and [I]agreed to pay them 5 guineas at Crowthorneon the 30th.

Another entry in Nunn’s diary read, “A fresh surprise. Oneappeared disguised with a message of destruction.”

Who were these mysterious “Blacks” making threats,shooting at Nunn, and demanding money? The Blackswere groups of local men who had their faces “blacked” toconceal their appearance at night. They appeared widelyacross southern England in this period, killing and maimingdeer and other animals, burning down haystacks andbarns, and destroying fences and fish ponds. On thesurface it was sheer lawlessness, but it wasn’t. Illegalhunting (poaching) deer in lands owned by the king or othermembers of the aristocracy had been going on for a longtime. In the 1640s, during the Civil War, the entirepopulation of deer at Windsor Castle was killed. After theRestoration in 1660, when Charles II came to the throne,the deer park was restocked. But the Blacks were not justpoaching deer to eat; they also engaged in wantondestruction. To what end?

A crucial building block of the Glorious Revolution of1688 was the pluralistic nature of interests represented in

Parliament. None of the merchants, industrialists, gentry, oraristocracy allied with William of Orange and then with theHanoverian monarchs, who succeeded Queen Anne in1714, were strong enough to impose their will unilaterally.

Attempts at restoring the Stuart monarchy continuedthroughout much of the eighteenth century. After James II’sdeath in 1701, his son, James Francis Edward Stuart, the“Old Pretender,” was recognized as the lawful heir to theEnglish Crown by France, Spain, the pope, and supportersof the Stuart monarchy in England and Scotland, the so-called Jacobites. In 1708 the Old Pretender attempted totake back the throne with support of French troops, but wasunsuccessful. In the ensuing decades there would beseveral Jacobite revolts, including major ones in 1715 and1719. In 1745–46, the Old Pretender’s son, CharlesEdward Stuart, the “Young Pretender,” made an attempt totake back the throne, but his forces were defeated by theBritish army.

The Whig political party, which as we saw (this page–thispage) was founded in the 1670s to represent the newmercantile and economic interests, was the mainorganization behind the Glorious Revolution, and the Whigsdominated Parliament from 1714 to 1760. Once in power,they were tempted to use their newly found position to preyon the rights of others, to have their cake and eat it, too.They were no different from the Stuart kings, but their powerwas far from absolute. It was constrained both bycompeting groups in Parliament, particularly the Tory Partywhich had formed to oppose the Whigs, and by the veryinstitutions that they had fought to introduce to strengthenParliament and to prevent the emergence of a newabsolutism and the return of the Stuarts. The pluralisticnature of society that emerged from the Glorious Revolutionalso meant that the population at large, even those withoutformal representation in Parliament, had been empowered,and “blacking” was precisely a response by the commonpeople to perceptions that the Whigs were exploiting theirposition.

The case of William Cadogan, a successful general inthe War of the Spanish Succession between 1701 and1714 and in the suppression of the Jacobite revolts,illustrates the sort of encroachment of common people’s

rights by the Whigs that led to blacking. George I madeCadogan a baron in 1716 and then an earl in 1718. He wasalso an influential member of the Regency Council of LordsJustices, which presided over major affairs of state, and heserved as the acting commander in chief. He bought alarge property of about a thousand acres at Caversham,about twenty miles west of Windsor. There he built a grandhouse and ornate gardens and laid out a 240-acre deerpark. Yet this property was consolidated by encroaching onthe rights of those around the estate. People were evicted,and their traditional rights to graze animals and collect peatand firewood were abrogated. Cadogan faced the wrath ofthe Blacks. On January 1, 1722, and again in July, the parkwas raided by mounted and armed Blacks. The first attackkilled sixteen deer. Earl Cadogan was not alone. Theestates of many notable landowners and politicians werealso raided by the Blacks.

The Whig government was not going to take this lyingdown. In May 1723, Parliament passed the Black Act,which created an extraordinary fifty new offenses that werepunishable by hanging. The Black Act made it a crime notonly to carry weapons but to have a blackened face. Thelaw in fact was soon amended to make blackingpunishable by hanging. The Whig elites went aboutimplementing the law with gusto. Baptist Nunn set up anetwork of informers in Windsor Forest to discover theidentity of the Blacks. Soon several were arrested. Thetransition from arrest to hanging ought to have been astraightforward affair. After all, the Black Act had alreadybeen enacted, the Whigs were in charge of Parliament,Parliament was in charge of the country, and the Blackswere acting directly contrary to the interests of somepowerful Whigs. Even Sir Robert Walpole, secretary ofstate, then prime minister—and like Cadogan, anotherinfluential member of the Regency Council of the LordsJustices—was involved. He had a vested interest inRichmond Park in southwest London, which had beencreated out of common land by Charles I. This park alsoencroached upon the traditional rights of local residents tograze their animals, hunt hares and rabbits, and collectfirewood. But the ending of these rights appears to havebeen rather laxly enforced, and grazing and hunting

continued, until Walpole arranged for his son to become thepark ranger. At this time, the park was closed off, a newwall was constructed, and man traps were installed.Walpole liked hunting deer, and he had a lodge built forhimself at Houghton, within the park. The animosity of localBlacks was soon ignited.

On November 10, 1724, a local resident outside thepark, John Huntridge, was accused of aiding deer stealersand abetting known Blacks, both crimes punishable byhanging. The prosecution of Huntridge came right from thetop, initiated by the Regency Council of Lords Justices,which Walpole and Cadogan dominated. Walpole went sofar as to extract evidence himself as to Huntridge’s guiltfrom an informant, Richard Blackburn. Conviction ought tohave been a foregone conclusion, but it wasn’t. After a trialof eight or nine hours, the jury found Huntridge innocent,partly on procedural grounds, since there were irregularitieswith the way the evidence had been collected.

Not all Blacks or those who sympathized with them wereas lucky as Huntridge. Though some others were alsoacquitted or had their convictions commuted, many werehanged or transported to the penal colony of choice at thetime, North America; the law in fact stayed on the statutebooks until it was repealed in 1824. Yet Huntridge’s victoryis remarkable. The jury was made up not of Huntridge’speers, but of major landowners and gentry, who ought tohave sympathized with Walpole. But this was no longer theseventeenth century, where the Court of Star Chamberwould simply follow the wishes of Stuart monarchs and actas an open tool of repression against their opponents, andwhere kings could remove judges whose decisions they didnot like. Now the Whigs also had to abide by the rule of law,the principle that laws should not be applied selectively orarbitrarily and that nobody is above the law.

THE EVENTS SURROUNDING the Black Act would show that theGlorious Revolution had created the rule of law, and thatthis notion was stronger in England and Britain, and theelites were far more constrained by it than they themselvesimagined. Notably, the rule of law is not the same as rule bylaw. Even if the Whigs could pass a harsh, repressive law

to quash obstacles from common people, they had tocontend with additional constraints because of the rule oflaw. Their law violated the rights that the GloriousRevolution and the changes in political institutions thatfollowed from it had already established for everybody bytearing down the “divine” rights of kings and the privilegesof elites. The rule of law then implied that both elites andnonelites alike would resist its implementation.

The rule of law is a very strange concept when you thinkabout it in historical perspective. Why should laws beapplied equally to all? If the king and the aristocracy havepolitical power and the rest don’t, it’s only natural thatwhatever is fair game for the king and the aristocracyshould be banned and punishable for the rest. Indeed, therule of law is not imaginable under absolutist politicalinstitutions. It is a creation of pluralist political institutionsand of the broad coalitions that support such pluralism. It’sonly when many individuals and groups have a say indecisions, and the political power to have a seat at thetable, that the idea that they should all be treated fairlystarts making sense. By the early eighteenth century,Britain was becoming sufficiently pluralistic, and the Whigelites would discover that, as enshrined in the notion of therule of law, laws and institutions would constrain them, too.

But why did the Whigs and parliamentarians abide bysuch restraints? Why didn’t they use their control overParliament and the state to force an uncompromisingimplementation of the Black Act and overturn the courtswhen the decisions didn’t go their way? The answer revealsmuch about the nature of the Glorious Revolution—why itdidn’t just replace an old absolutism with a new version—the link between pluralism and the rule of law, and thedynamics of virtuous circles. As we saw in chapter 7, theGlorious Revolution was not the overthrow of one elite byanother, but a revolution against absolutism by a broadcoalition made up of the gentry, merchants, andmanufacturers as well as groupings of Whigs and Tories.The emergence of pluralist political institutions was aconsequence of this revolution. The rule of law alsoemerged as a by-product of this process. With manyparties at the table sharing power, it was natural to havelaws and constraints apply to all of them, lest one party start

amassing too much power and ultimately undermine thevery foundations of pluralism. Thus the notion that therewere limits and restraints on rulers, the essence of the ruleof law, was part of the logic of pluralism engendered by thebroad coalition that made up the opposition to Stuartabsolutism.

In this light, it should be no surprise that the principle ofthe rule of law, coupled with the notion that monarchs didnot have divine rights, was in fact a key argument againstStuart absolutism. As the British historian E. P. Thompsonput it, in the struggle against the Stuart monarchs:

immense efforts were made … to project theimage of a ruling class which was itselfsubject to the rule of law, and whoselegitimacy rested upon the equity anduniversality of those legal forms. And therulers were, in serious senses, whetherwillingly or unwillingly, the prisoners of theirown rhetoric; they played games of poweraccording to rules which suited them, but theycould not break those rules or the wholegame would be thrown away.

Throwing the game away would destabilize the systemand open the way for absolutism by a subset of the broadcoalition or even risk the return of the Stuarts. InThompson’s words, what inhibited Parliament from creatinga new absolutism was that

take away law, and the royalprerogative … might flood back upon theirproperties and lives.

Moreover,

it was inherent in the very nature of themedium which they [those aristocrats,merchants etc. fighting the Crown] hadselected for their own self-defense that itcould not be reserved for the exclusive useonly of their own class. The law, in its formsand traditions, entailed principles of equity

and universality which … had to be extendedto all sorts and degrees of men.

Once in place, the notion of the rule of law not only keptabsolutism at bay but also created a type of virtuous circle:if the laws applied equally to everybody, then no individualor group, not even Cadogan or Walpole, could rise abovethe law, and common people accused of encroaching onprivate property still had the right to a fair trial.

WE SAW HOW INCLUSIVE economic and political institutionsemerge. But why do they persist over time? The history ofthe Black Act and the limits to its implementation illustratethe virtuous circle, a powerful process of positive feedbackthat preserves these institutions in the face of attempts atundermining them and, in fact, sets in motion forces thatlead to greater inclusiveness. The logic of virtuous circlesstems partly from the fact that inclusive institutions arebased on constraints on the exercise of power and on apluralistic distribution of political power in society,enshrined in the rule of law. The ability of a subset toimpose its will on others without any constraints, even ifthose others are ordinary citizens, as Huntridge was,threatens this very balance. If it were temporarilysuspended in the case of the peasants protesting againstelites encroaching on their communal lands, what was thereto guarantee that it would not be suspended again? Andthe next time it was suspended, what would prevent theCrown and aristocracy from taking back what themerchants, businessmen, and the gentry had gained in theintervening half century? In fact, the next time it wassuspended, perhaps the entire project of pluralism wouldcome crumbling down, because a narrow set of interestswould take control at the expense of the broad coalition.The political system would not risk this. But this madepluralism, and the rule of law that it implied, persistentfeatures of British political institutions. And we will see thatonce pluralism and the rule of law were established, therewould be demand for even greater pluralism and greaterparticipation in the political process.

The virtuous circle arises not only from the inherent logicof pluralism and the rule of law, but also because inclusive

political institutions tend to support inclusive economicinstitutions. This then leads to a more equal distribution ofincome, empowering a broad segment of society andmaking the political playing field even more level. This limitswhat one can achieve by usurping political power andreduces the incentives to re-create extractive politicalinstitutions. These factors were important in the emergenceof truly democratic political institutions in Britain.

Pluralism also creates a more open system and allowsindependent media to flourish, making it easier for groupsthat have an interest in the continuation of inclusiveinstitutions to become aware and organize against threatsto these institutions. It is highly significant that the Englishstate stopped censoring the media after 1688. The mediaplayed a similarly important role in empowering thepopulation at large and in the continuation of the virtuouscircle of institutional development in the United States, aswe will see in this chapter.

While the virtuous circle creates a tendency for inclusiveinstitutions to persist, it is neither inevitable nor irreversible.Both in Britain and the United States, inclusive economicand political institutions were subject to many challenges. In1745 the Young Pretender got all the way to Derby, a merehundred miles from London, with an army to unseat thepolitical institutions forged during the Glorious Revolution.But he was defeated. More important than the challengesfrom without were potential challenges from within thatmight also have led to the unraveling of inclusiveinstitutions. As we saw in the context of the PeterlooMassacre in Manchester in 1819 (this page), and as we willsee in more detail next, British political elites thought ofusing repression to avoid having to further open the politicalsystem, but they pulled back from the brink. Similarly,inclusive economic and political institutions in the UnitedStates faced serious challenges, which could haveconceivably succeeded, but didn’t. And of course it was notpreordained that these challenges should be defeated. It isdue to not only the virtuous circle but also to the realizationof the contingent path of history that British and U.S.inclusive institutions survived and became substantiallystronger over time.

THE SLOW MARCH OF DEMOCRACY

The response to the Black Act showed ordinary Britishpeople that they had more rights than they previouslyrealized. They could defend their traditional rights andeconomic interests in the courts and in Parliament throughthe use of petitions and lobbying. But this pluralism had notyet delivered effective democracy. Most adult men couldnot vote; neither could women; and there were manyinequities in the existing democratic structures. All this wasto change. The virtuous circle of inclusive institutions notonly preserves what has already been achieved but alsoopens the door to greater inclusiveness. The odds wereagainst the British elite of the eighteenth centurymaintaining their grip on political power without seriouschallenges. This elite had come to power by challenging thedivine right of kings and opening the door to participationby the people in politics, but then they gave this right only toa small minority. It was only a matter of time until more andmore of the population demanded the right to participate inthe political process. And in the years leading up to 1831,they did.

The first three decades of the nineteenth centurywitnessed increasing social unrest in Britain, mostly inresponse to increasing economic inequities and demandsfrom the disenfranchised masses for greater politicalrepresentation. The Luddite Riots of 1811–1816, whereworkers fought against the introduction of new technologiesthey believed would reduce their wages, were followed byriots explicitly demanding political rights, the Spa FieldsRiots of 1816 in London and the Peterloo Massacre of1819 in Manchester. In the Swing Riots of 1830, agriculturalworkers protested against falling living standards as well asthe introduction of new technology. Meanwhile, in Paris, theJuly Revolution of 1830 exploded. A consensus amongelites was starting to form that the discontent was reachingthe boiling point, and the only way to defuse social unrest,and turn back a revolution, was by meeting the demands ofthe masses and undertaking parliamentary reform.

It was no surprise then that the 1831 election was mostlyabout a single issue: political reform. The Whigs, almostone hundred years after Sir Robert Walpole, were much

more responsive to the wishes of the common man andcampaigned to extend voting rights. But this meant only asmall increase in the electorate. Universal suffrage, evenonly for men, was not on the table. The Whigs won theelection, and their leader, Earl Grey, became the primeminister. Earl Grey was no radical—far from it. He and theWhigs pushed for reform not because they thought abroader voting franchise was more just or because theywanted to share power. British democracy was not given bythe elite. It was largely taken by the masses, who wereempowered by the political processes that had beenongoing in England and the rest of Britain for the lastseveral centuries. They had become emboldened by thechanges in the nature of political institutions unleashed bythe Glorious Revolution. Reforms were granted becausethe elite thought that reform was the only way to secure thecontinuation of their rule, albeit in a somewhat lessenedform. Earl Grey, in his famous speech to Parliament in favorof political reform, said this very clearly:

There is no-one more decided againstannual Parliaments, universal suffrage andthe ballot, than I am. My object is not tofavour, but to put an end to such hopes andprojects … The principle of my reform is, toprevent the necessity ofrevolution … reforming to preserve and not tooverthrow.

The masses did not just want the vote for its own sakebut to have a seat at the table to be able to defend theirinterests. This was well understood by the Chartistmovement, which led the campaign for universal suffrageafter 1838, taking its name from its adoption of thePeople’s Charter, named to evoke a parallel with theMagna Carta. Chartist J. R. Stephens articulated whyuniversal suffrage, and the vote for all citizens, was key forthe masses:

The question of universal suffrage … is aknife and fork question, a bread and cheesequestion … by universal suffrage I mean tosay that every working man in the land has a

right to a good coat on his back, a good haton his head, a good roof for the shelter of hishousehold, a good dinner upon his table.

Stephens had well understood that universal suffragewas the most durable way of empowering the Britishmasses further and guaranteeing a coat, a hat, a roof, anda good dinner for the working man.

Ultimately, Earl Grey was successful both in ensuring thepassage of the First Reform Act and in defusing therevolutionary tides without taking any major strides towarduniversal mass suffrage. The 1832 reforms were modest,only doubling the voting franchise from 8 percent to about16 percent of the adult male population (from about 2 to 4percent of all the population). They also got rid of rottenboroughs and gave independent representation to the newindustrializing cities such as Manchester, Leeds, andSheffield. But this still left many issues unresolved. Hencethere were soon further demands for greater voting rightsand further social unrest. In response, further reform wouldfollow.

Why did the British elites give in to the demands? Whydid Earl Grey feel that partial—indeed, very partial—reformwas the only way to preserve the system? Why did theyhave to put up with the lesser of the two evils, reform orrevolution, rather than maintaining their power without anyreform? Couldn’t they just have done what the Spanishconquistadors did in South America, what Austria-Hungarian and Russian monarchs would do in the nextseveral decades when the demands for reform reachedthose lands, and what the British themselves did in theCaribbean and in India: use force to put down thedemands? The answer to this question comes from thevirtuous circle. The economic and political changes thathad already taken place in Britain made using force torepress these demands both unattractive for the elite andincreasingly infeasible. As E. P. Thompson wrote:

When the struggles of 1790–1832 signalledthat this equilibrium had changed, the rulersof England were faced with alarmingalternatives. They could either dispense with

the rule of law, dismantle their elaborateconstitutional structures, countermand theirown rhetoric and rule by force; or they couldsubmit to their own rules and surrender theirhegemony … they took halting steps in thefirst direction. But in the end, rather thanshatter their own self-image and repudiate150 years of constitutional legality, theysurrendered to the law.

Put differently, the same forces that made the British elitenot wish to tear down the edifice of the rule of law during theBlack Act also made them shun repression and rule byforce, which would again risk the stability of the entiresystem. If undermining the law in trying to implement theBlack Act would have weakened the system thatmerchants, businessmen, and the gentry had built in theGlorious Revolution, setting up a repressive dictatorship in1832 would have entirely undermined it. In fact, theorganizers of the protests for parliamentary reform werewell aware of the importance of the rule of law and itssymbolism to the British political institutions during thisperiod. They used its rhetoric to bring home this point. Oneof the first organizations seeking parliamentary reform wascalled the Hampden Club, after the member of Parliamentwho had first resisted Charles I over the ship money tax, acrucial event leading up to the first major uprising againstStuart absolutism, as we saw in chapter 7.

There was also dynamic positive feedback betweeninclusive economic and political institutions making such acourse of action attractive. Inclusive economic institutionsled to the development of inclusive markets, inducing amore efficient allocation of resources, greaterencouragement to acquire education and skills, and furtherinnovations in technology. All of these forces were in play inBritain by 1831. Clamping down on popular demands andundertaking a coup against inclusive political institutionswould also destroy these gains, and the elites opposinggreater democratization and greater inclusiveness mightfind themselves among those losing their fortunes from thisdestruction.

Another aspect of this positive feedback is that under

inclusive economic and political institutions, controllingpower became less central. In Austria-Hungary and inRussia, as we saw in chapter 8, the monarchs and thearistocracy had much to lose from industrialization andreform. In contrast, in Britain at the beginning of thenineteenth century, thanks to the development of inclusiveeconomic institutions, there was much less at stake: therewere no serfs, relatively little coercion in the labor market,and few monopolies protected by entry barriers. Clinging topower was thus much less valuable for the British elite.

The logic of the virtuous circle also meant that suchrepressive steps would be increasingly infeasible, againbecause of the positive feedback between inclusiveeconomic and political institutions. Inclusive economicinstitutions lead to a more equitable distribution ofresources than extractive institutions. As such, theyempower the citizens at large and thus create a more levelplaying field, even when it comes to the fight for power. Thismakes it more difficult for a small elite to crush the massesrather than to give in to their demands, or at least to someof them. The British inclusive institutions had also alreadyunleashed the Industrial Revolution, and Britain was highlyurbanized. Using repression against an urban,concentrated, and partially organized and empoweredgroup of people would have been much harder thanrepressing a peasantry or dependent serfs.

The virtuous circle thus brought the First Reform Act toBritain in 1832. But this was just the beginning. There wasstill a long road to travel toward real democracy, because in1832 the elite had only offered what they thought they hadto and no more. The issue of parliamentary reform wastaken up by the Chartist movement, whose People’sCharter of 1838 included the clauses

A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, of soundmind, and not undergoing punishment for crime.The ballot.—To protect the elector in the exercise ofhis vote.No property qualification for members of Parliament—thus enabling the constituencies to return the man oftheir choice, be he rich or poor.Payment of members, thus enabling an honest

Payment of members, thus enabling an honesttradesman, working man, or other person, to serve aconstituency, when taken from his business to attendto the interests of the Country.Equal Constituencies, securing the same amount ofrepresentation for the same number of electors,instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp thevotes of large ones.Annual Parliaments, thus presenting the most effectualcheck to bribery and intimidation, since though aconstituency might be bought once in seven years(even with the ballot), no purse could buy aconstituency (under a system of universal suffrage) ineach ensuing twelve-month; and since members, whenelected for a year only, would not be able to defy andbetray their constituents as now.

By the “ballot,” they meant the secret ballot and the end ofopen voting, which had facilitated the buying of votes andthe coercion of voters.

The Chartist movement organized a series of massdemonstrations, and throughout this period Parliamentcontinually discussed the potential for further reforms.Though the Chartists disintegrated after 1848, they werefollowed by the National Reform Union, founded in 1864,and the Reform League, which was founded in 1865. In July1866, major pro-reform riots in Hyde Park brought reformright to the top of the political agenda once more. Thispressure bore dividends in the form of the Second ReformAct of 1867, in which the total electorate was doubled andworking-class voters became the majority in all urbanconstituencies. Shortly afterward the secret ballot wasintroduced and moves were made to eliminate corruptelectoral practices such as “treating” (essentially buyingvotes in exchange for which the voter received a treat,usually money, food, or alcohol). The electorate wasdoubled again by the Third Reform Act of 1884, when 60percent of adult males were enfranchised. Following theFirst World War, the Representation of the People Act of1918 gave the vote to all adult males over the age oftwenty-one, and to women over the age of thirty who weretaxpayers or married to taxpayers. Ultimately, all womenalso received the vote on the same terms as men in 1928.

The measures of 1918 were negotiated during the war andreflected a quid pro quo between the government and theworking classes, who were needed to fight and producemunitions. The government may also have taken note of theradicalism of the Russian Revolution.

Parallel with the gradual development of more inclusivepolitical institutions was a movement toward even moreinclusive economic institutions. One major consequence ofthe First Reform Act was the repeal of the Corn Laws in1846. As we saw in chapter 7, the Corn Laws banned theimport of grains and cereals, keeping their prices high andensuring lucrative profits for large landowners. The newparliamentarians from Manchester and Birmingham wantedcheap corn and low wages. They won, and the landedinterests suffered a major defeat.

The changes in the electorate and other dimensions ofpolitical institutions taking place during the course of thenineteenth century were followed by further reforms. In 1871the Liberal prime minister Gladstone opened up the civilservice to public examination, making it meritocratic, andthus continuing the process of political centralization andthe building of state institutions that started during the Tudorperiod. Liberal and Tory governments during this periodintroduced a considerable amount of labor marketlegislation. For example, the Masters and Servants Acts,which allowed employers to use the law to reduce themobility of their workers, was repealed, changing the natureof labor relations in favor of workers. During 1906–1914,the Liberal Party, under the leadership of H. H. Asquith andDavid Lloyd George, began to use the state to provide farmore public services, including health and unemploymentinsurance, government-financed pensions, minimumwages, and a commitment to redistributive taxation. As aresult of these fiscal changes, taxes as a proportion ofnational product more than doubled in the last threedecades of the nineteenth century, and then doubled againin the first three decades of the twentieth. The tax systemalso became more “progressive,” so that wealthier peoplebore a heavier burden.

Meanwhile, the education system, which was previouslyeither primarily for the elite, run by religious denominations,or required poor people to pay fees, was made more

accessible to the masses; the Education Act of 1870committed the government to the systematic provision ofuniversal education for the first time. Education becamefree of charge in 1891. The school-leaving age was set ateleven in 1893. In 1899 it was increased to twelve, andspecial provisions for the children of needy families wereintroduced. As a result of these changes, the proportion often-year-olds enrolled in school, which stood at adisappointing 40 percent in 1870, increased to 100percent in 1900. Finally, the Education Act of 1902 led to alarge expansion in resources for schools and introducedthe grammar schools, which subsequently became thefoundation of secondary education in Britain.

In fact, the British example, an illustration of the virtuouscircle of inclusive institutions, provides an example of a“gradual virtuous circle.” The political changes wereunmistakably toward more inclusive political institutions andwere the result of demands from empowered masses. Butthey were also gradual. Every decade another step,sometimes smaller, sometimes larger, was taken towarddemocracy. There was conflict over each step, and theoutcome of each was contingent. But the virtuous circlecreated forces that reduced the stakes involved in clingingto power. It also spurred the rule of law, making it harder touse force against those who were demanding what theseelites had themselves demanded from Stuart monarchs. Itbecame less likely that this conflict would turn into an all-outrevolution and more likely that it would be resolved in favorof greater inclusiveness. There is great virtue in this sort ofgradual change. It is less threatening to the elite than thewholesale overthrow of the system. Each step is small, andit makes sense to give in to a small demand rather thancreate a major showdown. This partly explains how theCorn Law was repealed without more serious conflict. By1846 landowners could no longer control legislation inParliament. This was an outcome of the First Reform Act.However, if in 1832 the expansion of the electorate, thereform of the rotten boroughs, and the repeal of the CornLaws had all been on the table, landowners would have putup much more resistance. The fact that there were firstlimited political reforms and that repeal of the Corn Lawscame on the agenda only later defused conflict.

Gradual change also prevented ventures into unchartedterritories. A violent overthrow of the system means thatsomething entirely new has to be built in place of what hasbeen removed. This was the case with the FrenchRevolution, when the first experiment with democracy led tothe Terror and then back to a monarchy twice before finallyleading to the French Third Republic in 1870. It was thecase in the Russian Revolution, where the desires of manyfor a more equal system than that of the Russian Empireled to a one-party dictatorship that was much more violent,bloody, and vicious than what it had replaced. Gradualreform was difficult in these societies precisely becausethey lacked pluralism and were highly extractive. It was thepluralism emerging from the Glorious Revolution, and therule of law that it introduced, that made gradual changefeasible, and desirable, in Britain.

The conservative English commentator Edmund Burke,who steadfastly opposed the French Revolution, wrote in1790, “It is with infinite caution that any man should ventureupon pulling down an edifice, which has answered in anytolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society,or on building it up again without having models andpatterns of approved utility before his eyes.” Burke waswrong on the big picture. The French Revolution hadreplaced a rotten edifice and opened the way for inclusiveinstitutions not only in France, but throughout much ofWestern Europe. But Burke’s caution was not entirely offthe mark. The gradual process of British political reform,which had started in 1688 and would pick up pace threedecades after Burke’s death, would be more effectivebecause its gradual nature made it more powerful, harderto resist, and ultimately more durable.

BUSTING TRUSTS

Inclusive institutions in the United States had their roots inthe struggles in Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinasduring the colonial period (this page–this page). Theseinstitutions were reinforced by the Constitution of the UnitedStates, with its system of constraints and its separation ofpowers. But the Constitution did not mark the end of thedevelopment of inclusive institutions. Just as in Britain,

these were strengthened by a process of positivefeedback, based on the virtuous circle.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, all white males,though not women or blacks, could vote in the UnitedStates. Economic institutions became more inclusive—forexample, with the passage of the Homestead Act in 1862(this page), which made frontier land available to potentialsettlers rather than allocating these lands to political elites.But just as in Britain, challenges to inclusive institutionswere never entirely absent. The end of the U.S. Civil Warinitiated a rapid spurt of economic growth in the North. Asrailways, industry, and commerce expanded, a few peoplemade vast fortunes. Emboldened by their economicsuccess, these men and their companies becameincreasingly unscrupulous. They were called the RobberBarons because of their hard-nosed business practicesaimed at consolidating monopolies and preventing anypotential competitor from entering the market or doingbusiness on an equal footing. One of the most notorious ofthese was Cornelius Vanderbilt, who famously remarked,“What do I care about the Law? Hain’t I got the power?”

Another was John D. Rockefeller, who started theStandard Oil Company in 1870. He quickly eliminatedrivals in Cleveland and attempted to monopolize thetransportation and retailing of oil and oil products. By 1882he had created a massive monopoly—in the language ofthe day, a trust. By 1890 Standard Oil controlled 88 percentof the refined oil flows in the United States, and Rockefellerbecame the world’s first billionaire in 1916. Contemporarycartoons depict Standard Oil as an octopus wrapping itselfaround not just the oil industry but also Capitol Hill.

Almost as infamous was John Pierpont Morgan, thefounder of the modern banking conglomerate J.P. Morgan,which later, after many mergers over decades, eventuallybecame JPMorgan Chase. Along with Andrew Carnegie,Morgan founded the U.S. Steel Company in 1901, the firstcorporation with a capitalized value of more than $1 billionand by far the largest steel corporation in the world. In the1890s, large trusts began to emerge in nearly every sectorof the economy, and many of them controlled more than 70percent of the market in their sector. These includedseveral household names, such as Du Pont, Eastman

Kodak, and International Harvester. Historically the UnitedStates, at least the northern and midwestern United States,had relatively competitive markets and had been moreegalitarian than other parts of the country, particularly theSouth. But during this period, competition gave way tomonopoly, and wealth inequality rapidly increased.

The pluralistic U.S. political system already empowereda broad segment of society that could stand up againstsuch encroachments. Those who were the victims of themonopolistic practices of the Robber Barons, or whoobjected to their unscrupulous domination of theirindustries, began to organize against them. They formedthe Populist and then subsequently the Progressivemovements.

The Populist movement emerged out of a long-runningagrarian crisis, which afflicted the Midwest from the late1860s onward. The National Grange of the Order ofPatrons of Husbandry, known as the Grangers, wasfounded in 1867 and began to mobilize farmers againstunfair and discriminatory business practices. In 1873 and1874, the Grangers won control of eleven midwestern statelegislatures, and rural discontent culminated in theformation of the People’s Party in 1892, which got 8.5percent of the popular vote in the 1892 presidentialelection. In the next two elections, the Populists fell inbehind the two unsuccessful Democratic campaigns byWilliam Jennings Bryan, who made many of their issues hisown. Grass-roots opposition to the spread of the trusts hadnow organized to try to counteract the influence thatRockefeller and other Robber Barons were exerting overnational politics.

These political movements slowly began to have animpact on political attitudes and then on legislation,particularly concerning the role of the state in the regulationof monopoly. The first important piece of legislation was theInterstate Commerce Act of 1887, which created theInterstate Commerce Commission and initiated thedevelopment of the federal regulation of industry. This wasquickly followed by the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. TheSherman Act, which is still a major part of U.S. antitrustregulation, would become the basis for attacks on theRobber Barons’ trusts. Major action against the trusts came

after the election of presidents committed to reform and tolimiting the power of the Robber Barons: TheodoreRoosevelt, 1901–1909; William Taft, 1909–1913; andWoodrow Wilson, 1913–1921.

A key political force behind antitrust and the move toimpose federal regulation of industry was again the farmvote. Early attempts by individual states in the 1870s toregulate railroads came from farmers’ organizations.Indeed, nearly all the fifty-nine petitions that concernedtrusts sent to Congress prior to the enactment of theSherman Act came from farming states and emanatedfrom organizations such as the Farmers’ Union, Farmers’Alliance, Farmers’ Mutual Benefit Association, and Patronsof Animal Husbandry. Farmers found a collective interest inopposing the monopolistic practices of industry.

From the ashes of the Populists, who seriously declinedafter throwing their weight behind the Democrats, came theProgressives, a heterogeneous reform movementconcerned with many of the same issues. The Progressivemovement initially gelled around the figure of TeddyRoosevelt, who was William McKinley’s vice president andwho assumed the presidency following McKinley’sassassination in 1901. Prior to his rise to national office,Roosevelt had been an uncompromising governor of NewYork and had worked hard to eliminate political corruptionand “machine politics.” In his first address to Congress,Roosevelt turned his attention to the trusts. He argued thatthe prosperity of the United States was based on marketeconomy and the ingenuity of businessmen, but at thesame time,

there are real and grave evils … anda … widespread conviction in the minds ofthe American people that the greatcorporations known as trusts are in certain oftheir features and tendencies hurtful to thegeneral welfare. This springs from no spirit ofenvy or un-charitableness, nor lack of pride inthe great industrial achievements that haveplaced this country at the head of the nationsstruggling for commercial supremacy. It doesnot rest upon a lack of intelligent appreciation

of the necessity of meeting changing andchanged conditions of trade with newmethods, nor upon ignorance of the fact thatcombination of capital in the effort toaccomplish great things is necessary whenthe world’s progress demands that greatthings be done. It is based upon sincereconviction that combination andconcentration should be, not prohibited, butsupervised and within reasonable limitscontrolled; and in my judgment this convictionis right.

He continued: “It should be as much the aim of those whoseek for social betterment to rid the business world ofcrimes of cunning as to rid the entire body politic of crimesof violence.” His conclusion was that

in the interest of the whole people, the nationshould, without interfering with the power ofthe states in the matter itself, also assumepower of supervision and regulation over allcorporations doing an interstate business.This is especially true where the corporationderives a portion of its wealth from theexistence of some monopolistic element ortendency in its business.

Roosevelt proposed that Congress establish a federalagency with power to investigate the affairs of the greatcorporations and that, if necessary, a constitutionalamendment could be used to create such an agency. By1902 Roosevelt had used the Sherman Act to break up theNorthern Securities Company, affecting the interests of J.P.Morgan, and subsequent suits had been brought againstDu Pont, the American Tobacco Company, and theStandard Oil Company. Roosevelt strengthened theInterstate Commerce Act with the Hepburn Act of 1906,which increased the powers of the Interstate CommerceCommission, particularly allowing it to inspect the financialaccounts of railways and extending its authority into newspheres. Roosevelt’s successor, William Taft, prosecutedtrusts even more assiduously, the high point of this being

the breakup of the Standard Oil Company in 1911. Taftalso promoted other important reforms, such as theintroduction of a federal income tax, which came with theratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913.

The apogee of Progressive reforms came with theelection of Woodrow Wilson in 1912. Wilson noted in his1913 book, The New Freedom, “If monopoly persists,monopoly will always sit at the helm of government. I do notexpect to see monopoly restrain itself. If there are men inthis country big enough to own the government of the UnitedStates, they are going to own it.”

Wilson worked to pass the Clayton Antitrust Act in 1914,strengthening the Sherman Act, and he created the FederalTrade Commission, which enforced the Clayton Act. Inaddition, under the impetus of the investigation of the PujoCommittee, led by Louisiana congressman Arsene Pujo,into the “money trust,” the spread of monopoly into thefinancial industry, Wilson moved to increase regulation ofthe financial sector. In 1913 he created the FederalReserve Board, which would regulate monopolisticactivities in the financial sector.

The rise of Robber Barons and their monopoly trusts inthe late nineteenth and early twentieth centuriesunderscores that, as we already emphasized in chapter 3,the presence of markets is not by itself a guarantee ofinclusive institutions. Markets can be dominated by a fewfirms, charging exorbitant prices and blocking the entry ofmore efficient rivals and new technologies. Markets, left totheir own devices, can cease to be inclusive, becomingincreasingly dominated by the economically and politicallypowerful. Inclusive economic institutions require not justmarkets, but inclusive markets that create a level playingfield and economic opportunities for the majority of thepeople. Widespread monopoly, backed by the politicalpower of the elite, contradicts this. But the reaction to themonopoly trusts also illustrates that when politicalinstitutions are inclusive, they create a countervailing forceagainst movements away from inclusive markets. This isthe virtuous circle in action. Inclusive economic institutionsprovide foundations upon which inclusive politicalinstitutions can flourish, while inclusive political institutionsrestrict deviations away from inclusive economic

institutions. Trust busting in the United States, in contrast towhat we have seen in Mexico (this page–this page),illustrates this facet of the virtuous circle. While there is nopolitical body in Mexico restricting Carlos Slim’s monopoly,the Sherman and Clayton Acts have been used repeatedlyin the United States over the past century to restrict trusts,monopolies, and cartels, and to ensure that markets remaininclusive.

The U.S. experience in the first half of the twentiethcentury also emphasizes the important role of free media inempowering broad segments of society and thus in thevirtuous circle. In 1906 Roosevelt coined the termmuckraker, based on a literary character, the man with themuckrake in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, to describe whathe regarded as intrusive journalism. The term stuck andcame to symbolize journalists who were intrusively, but alsoeffectively, exposing the excesses of Robber Barons aswell as corruption in local and federal politics. Perhaps themost famous muckraker was Ida Tarbell, whose 1904book, History of the Standard Oil Company, played a keyrole in moving public opinion against Rockefeller and hisbusiness interests, culminating in the breakup of StandardOil in 1911. Another key muckraker was lawyer and authorLouis Brandeis, who would later be named Supreme Courtjustice by President Wilson. Brandeis outlined a series offinancial scandals in his book Other People’s Money andHow Bankers Use It, and was highly influential on the PujoCommittee. The newspaper magnate William RandolphHearst also played a salient role as muckraker. Hisserialization in his magazine The Cosmopolitan in 1906 ofarticles by David Graham Phillips, called “The Treason ofthe Senate,” galvanized the campaign to introduce directelections for the Senate, another key Progressive reformthat happened with the enactment of the SeventeenthAmendment to the U.S. constitution in 1913.

The muckrakers played a major role in inducingpoliticians to take action against the trusts. The RobberBarons hated the muckrakers, but the political institutions ofthe United States made it impossible for them to stamp outand silence them. Inclusive political institutions allow a freemedia to flourish, and a free media, in turn, makes it morelikely that threats against inclusive economic and political

institutions will be widely known and resisted. In contrast,such freedom is impossible under extractive politicalinstitutions, under absolutism, or under dictatorships, whichhelps extractive regimes to prevent serious opposition fromforming in the first place. The information that the freemedia provided was clearly key during the first half of thetwentieth century in the United States. Without thisinformation, the U.S. public would not have known the trueextent of the power and abuses of the Robber Barons andwould not have mobilized against their trusts.

PACKING THE COURT

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democratic Party candidate andcousin of Teddy Roosevelt, was elected president in 1932in the midst of the Great Depression. He came to powerwith a popular mandate to implement an ambitious set ofpolicies for combating the Great Depression. At the time ofhis inauguration in early 1933, one-quarter of the laborforce was unemployed, with many thrown into poverty.Industrial production had fallen by over half since theDepression hit in 1929, and investment had collapsed. Thepolicies Roosevelt proposed to counteract this situationwere collectively known as the New Deal. Roosevelt hadwon a solid victory, with 57 percent of the popular vote, andthe Democratic Party had majorities in both the Congressand Senate, enough to pass New Deal legislation.However, some of the legislation raised constitutionalissues and ended up in the Supreme Court, whereRoosevelt’s electoral mandate cut much less ice.

One of the key pillars of the New Deal was the NationalIndustrial Recovery Act. Title I focused on industrialrecovery. President Roosevelt and his team believed thatrestraining industrial competition, giving workers greaterrights to form trade unions, and regulating workingstandards were crucial to the recovery effort. Title IIestablished the Public Works Administration, whoseinfrastructure projects include such landmarks as theThirtieth Street railroad station in Philadelphia, theTriborough Bridge, the Grand Coulee Dam, and theOverseas Highway connecting Key West, Florida, with themainland. President Roosevelt signed the bill into law on

June 16, 1933, and the National Industrial Recovery Actwas put into operation. However, it immediately facedchallenges in the courts. On May 27, 1935, the SupremeCourt unanimously ruled that Title I of the act wasunconstitutional. Their verdict noted solemnly,“Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinaryremedies. But … extraordinary conditions do not create orenlarge constitutional power.”

Before the Court’s ruling came in, Roosevelt had movedto the next step of his agenda and had signed the SocialSecurity Act, which introduced the modern welfare stateinto the United States: pensions at retirement,unemployment benefits, aid to families with dependentchildren, and some public health care and disabilitybenefits. He also signed the National Labor Relations Act,which further strengthened the rights of workers to organizeunions, engage in collective bargaining, and conductstrikes against their employers. These measures alsofaced challenges in the Supreme Court. As these weremaking their way through the judiciary, Roosevelt wasreelected in 1936 with a strong mandate, receiving 61percent of the popular vote.

With his popularity at record highs, Roosevelt had nointention of letting the Supreme Court derail more of hispolicy agenda. He laid out his plans in one of his regularFireside Chats, which was broadcast live on the radio onMarch 9, 1937. He started by pointing out that in his firstterm, much-needed policies had only cleared the SupremeCourt by a whisker. He went on:

I am reminded of that evening in March, fouryears ago, when I made my first radio reportto you. We were then in the midst of the greatbanking crisis. Soon after, with the authorityof the Congress, we asked the nation to turnover all of its privately held gold, dollar fordollar, to the government of the UnitedStates. Today’s recovery proves how rightthat policy was. But when, almost two yearslater, it came before the Supreme Court itsconstitutionality was upheld only by a five-to-four vote. The change of one vote would have

thrown all the affairs of this great nation backinto hopeless chaos. In effect, four justicesruled that the right under a private contract toexact a pound of flesh was more sacred thanthe main objectives of the Constitution toestablish an enduring nation.

Obviously, this should not be risked again. Rooseveltcontinued:

Last Thursday I described the American formof government as a three-horse teamprovided by the Constitution to the Americanpeople so that their field might be plowed.The three horses are, of course, the threebranches of government—the Congress, theexecutive, and the courts. Two of the horses,the Congress and the executive, are pulling inunison today; the third is not.

Roosevelt then pointed out that the U.S. Constitution hadnot actually endowed the Supreme Court with the right tochallenge the constitutionality of legislation, but that it hadassumed this role in 1803. At the time, Justice BushrodWashington had stipulated that the Supreme Court should“presume in favor of [a law’s] validity until its violation of theConstitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.”Roosevelt then charged:

In the last four years the sound rule of givingstatutes the benefit of all reasonable doubthas been cast aside. The Court has beenacting not as a judicial body, but as apolicymaking body.

Roosevelt claimed that he had an electoral mandate tochange this situation and that “after consideration of whatreform to propose the only method which was clearlyconstitutional … was to infuse new blood into all our courts.”He also argued that the Supreme Court judges wereoverworked, and the load was just too much for the olderjustices—who happened to be the ones striking down hislegislation. He then proposed that all judges should face

compulsory retirement at the age of seventy and that heshould be allowed to appoint up to six new justices. Thisplan, which Roosevelt presented as the JudiciaryReorganization Bill, would have sufficed to remove thejustices who had been appointed earlier by moreconservative administrations and who had most strenuouslyopposed the New Deal.

Though Roosevelt skillfully tried to win popular support forthe measure, opinion polls suggested that only about 40percent of the population was in favor of the plan. LouisBrandeis was now a Supreme Court justice. ThoughBrandeis sympathized with much of Roosevelt’s legislation,he spoke against the president’s attempts to erode thepower of the Supreme Court and his allegations that thejustices were overworked. Roosevelt’s Democratic Partyhad large majorities in both houses of Congress. But theHouse of Representatives more or less refused to deal withRoosevelt’s bill. Roosevelt then tried the Senate. The billwas sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which thenheld highly contentious meetings, soliciting variousopinions on the bill. They ultimately sent it back to theSenate floor with a negative report, arguing that the bill wasa “needless, futile and utterly dangerous abandonment ofconstitutional principle … without precedent or justification.”The Senate voted 70 to 20 to send it back to committee tobe rewritten. All the “court packing” elements were strippedaway. Roosevelt would be unable to remove the constraintsplaced on his power by the Supreme Court. Even thoughRoosevelt’s powers remained constrained, there werecompromises, and the Social Security and the NationalLabor Relations Acts were both ruled constitutional by theCourt.

More important than the fate of these two acts was thegeneral lesson from this episode. Inclusive politicalinstitutions not only check major deviations from inclusiveeconomic institutions, but they also resist attempts toundermine their own continuation. It was in the immediateinterests of the Democratic Congress and Senate to packthe court and ensure that all New Deal legislation survived.But in the same way that British political elites in the earlyeighteenth century understood that suspending the rule oflaw would endanger the gains they had wrested from the

monarchy, congressmen and senators understood that ifthe president could undermine the independence of thejudiciary, then this would undermine the balance of power inthe system that protected them from the president andensured the continuity of pluralistic political institutions.

Perhaps Roosevelt would have decided next thatobtaining legislative majorities took too much compromiseand time and that he would instead rule by decree, totallyundermining pluralism and the U.S. political system.Congress certainly would not have approved this, but thenRoosevelt could have appealed to the nation, asserting thatCongress was impeding the necessary measures to fightthe Depression. He could have used the police to closeCongress. Sound farfetched? This is exactly whathappened in Peru and Venezuela in the 1990s. PresidentsFujimori and Chávez appealed to their popular mandate toclose uncooperative congresses and subsequently rewrotetheir constitutions to massively strengthen the powers of thepresident. The fear of this slippery slope by those sharingpower under pluralistic political institutions is exactly whatstopped Walpole from fixing British courts in the 1720s,and it is what stopped the U.S. Congress from backingRoosevelt’s court-packing plan. Roosevelt hadencountered the power of virtuous circles.

But this logic does not always play out, particularly insocieties that may have some inclusive features but thatare broadly extractive. We have already seen thesedynamics in Rome and Venice. Another illustration comesfrom comparing Roosevelt’s failed attempt to pack theCourt with similar efforts in Argentina, where crucially thesame struggles took place in the context of predominantlyextractive economic and political institutions.

The 1853 constitution of Argentina created a SupremeCourt with duties similar to those of the U.S. SupremeCourt. An 1887 decision allowed the Argentine court toassume the same role as that of the U.S. Supreme Court indeciding whether specific laws were constitutional. Intheory, the Supreme Court could have developed as one ofthe important elements of inclusive political institutions inArgentina, but the rest of the political and economic systemremained highly extractive, and there was neitherempowerment of broad segments of society nor pluralism

in Argentina. As in the United States, the constitutional roleof the Supreme Court would also be challenged inArgentina. In 1946 Juan Domingo Perón wasdemocratically elected president of Argentina. Perón was aformer colonel and had first come to national prominenceafter a military coup in 1943, which had appointed himminister of labor. In this post, he built a political coalitionwith trade unions and the labor movement, which would becrucial for his presidential bid.

Shortly after Perón’s victory, his supporters in theChamber of Deputies proposed the impeachment of four ofthe five members of the Court. The charges leveled againstthe Court were several. One involved unconstitutionallyaccepting the legality of two military regimes in 1930 and1943—rather ironic, since Perón had played a key role inthe latter coup. The other focused on legislation that thecourt had struck down, just as its U.S. counterpart haddone. In particular, just prior to Perón’s election aspresident, the Court had issued a decision ruling thatPerón’s new national labor relations board wasunconstitutional. Just as Roosevelt heavily criticized theSupreme Court in his 1936 reelection campaign, Perón didthe same in his 1946 campaign. Nine months after initiatingthe impeachment process, the Chamber of Deputiesimpeached three of the judges, the fourth having alreadyresigned. The Senate approved the motion. Perón thenappointed four new justices. The undermining of the Courtclearly had the effect of freeing Perón from politicalconstraints. He could now exercise unchecked power, inmuch the same way the military regimes in Argentina didbefore and after his presidency. His newly appointedjudges, for example, ruled as constitutional the conviction ofRicardo Balbín, the leader of the main opposition party toPerón, the Radical Party, for disrespecting Perón. Peróncould effectively rule as a dictator.

Since Perón successfully packed the Court, it hasbecome the norm in Argentina for any new president tohandpick his own Supreme Court justices. So a politicalinstitution that might have exercised some constraints onthe power of the executive is gone. Perón’s regime wasremoved from power by another coup in 1955, and wasfollowed by a long sequence of transitions between military

and civilian rule. Both new military and civilian regimespicked their own justices. But picking Supreme Courtjustices in Argentina was not an activity confined totransitions between military and civilian rule. In 1990Argentina finally experienced a transition betweendemocratically elected governments—one democraticgovernment followed by another. Yet, by this timedemocratic governments did not behave much differentlyfrom military ones when it came to the Supreme Court. Theincoming president was Carlos Saúl Menem of thePerónist Party. The sitting Supreme Court had beenappointed after the transition to democracy in 1983 by theRadical Party president Raúl Alfonsín. Since this was ademocratic transition, there should have been no reason forMenem to appoint his own court. But in the run-up to theelection, Menem had already shown his colors. Hecontinually, though not successfully, tried to encourage (oreven intimidate) members of the court to resign. Hefamously offered Justice Carlos Fayt an ambassadorship.But he was rebuked, and Fayt responded by sending him acopy of his book Law and Ethics, with the note “Beware Iwrote this” inscribed. Undeterred, within three months oftaking office, Menem sent a law to the Chamber ofDeputies proposing to expand the Court from five to ninemembers. One argument was the same Roosevelt used in1937: the court was overworked. The law quickly passedthe Senate and Chamber, and this allowed Menem toname four new judges. He had his majority.

Menem’s victory against the Supreme Court set inmotion the type of slippery-slope dynamics we mentionedearlier. His next step was to rewrite the constitution toremove the term limit so he could run for president again.After being reelected, Menem moved to rewrite theconstitution again, but was stopped not by Argentinapolitical institutions but by factions within his own PerónistParty, who fought back against his personal domination.

Since independence, Argentina has suffered from mostof the institutional problems that have plagued LatinAmerica. It has been trapped in a vicious, not a virtuous,circle. As a consequence, positive developments, such asfirst steps toward the creation of an independent SupremeCourt, never gained a foothold. With pluralism, no group

wants or dares to overthrow the power of another, for fearthat its own power will be subsequently challenged. At thesame time, the broad distribution of power makes such anoverthrow difficult. A Supreme Court can have power if itreceives significant support from broad segments ofsociety willing to push back attempts to vitiate the Court’sindependence. That has been the case in the UnitedStates, but not Argentina. Legislators there were happy toundermine the Court even if they anticipated that this couldjeopardize their own position. One reason is that withextractive institutions there is much to gain fromoverthrowing the Supreme Court, and the potential benefitsare worth the risks.

POSITIVE FEEDBACK AND VIRTUOUS CIRCLES

Inclusive economic and political institutions do not emergeby themselves. They are often the outcome of significantconflict between elites resisting economic growth andpolitical change and those wishing to limit the economicand political power of existing elites. Inclusive institutionsemerge during critical junctures, such as during theGlorious Revolution in England or the foundation of theJamestown colony in North America, when a series offactors weaken the hold of the elites in power, make theiropponents stronger, and create incentives for the formationof a pluralistic society. The outcome of political conflict isnever certain, and even if in hindsight we see manyhistorical events as inevitable, the path of history iscontingent. Nevertheless, once in place, inclusive economicand political institutions tend to create a virtuous circle, aprocess of positive feedback, making it more likely thatthese institutions will persist and even expand.

The virtuous circle works through several mechanisms.First, the logic of pluralistic political institutions makesusurpation of power by a dictator, a faction within thegovernment, or even a well-meaning president much moredifficult, as Franklin Roosevelt discovered when he tried toremove the checks on his power imposed by the SupremeCourt, and as Sir Robert Walpole discovered when heattempted to summarily implement the Black Act. In bothcases, concentrating power further in the hands of an

individual or a narrow group would have startedundermining the foundations of pluralistic politicalinstitutions, and the true measure of pluralism is preciselyits ability to resist such attempts. Pluralism also enshrinesthe notion of the rule of law, the principle that laws shouldbe applied equally to everybody—something that isnaturally impossible under an absolutist monarchy. But therule of law, in turn, implies that laws cannot simply be usedby one group to encroach upon the rights of another.What’s more, the principle of the rule of law opens the doorfor greater participation in the political process and greaterinclusivity, as it powerfully introduces the idea that peopleshould be equal not only before the law but also in thepolitical system. This was one of the principles that made itdifficult for the British political system to resist the forcefulcalls for greater democracy throughout the nineteenthcentury, opening the way to the gradual extension of thefranchise to all adults.

Second, as we have seen several times before, inclusivepolitical institutions support and are supported by inclusiveeconomic institutions. This creates another mechanism ofthe virtuous circle. Inclusive economic institutions removethe most egregious extractive economic relations, such asslavery and serfdom, reduce the importance of monopolies,and create a dynamic economy, all of which reduces theeconomic benefits that one can secure, at least in the shortrun, by usurping political power. Because economicinstitutions had already become sufficiently inclusive inBritain by the eighteenth century, the elite had less to gainby clinging to power and, in fact, much to lose by usingwidespread repression against those demanding greaterdemocracy. This facet of the virtuous circle made thegradual march of democracy in nineteenth-century Britainboth less threatening to the elite and more likely tosucceed. This contrasts with the situation in absolutistregimes such as the Austro-Hungarian or Russian empires,where economic institutions were still highly extractive and,in consequence, where calls for greater political inclusionlater in the nineteenth century would be met by repressionbecause the elite had too much to lose from sharing power.

Finally, inclusive political institutions allow a free mediato flourish, and a free media often provides information

about and mobilizes opposition to threats against inclusiveinstitutions, as it did during the last quarter of the nineteenthcentury and first quarter of the twentieth century, when theincreasing economic domination of the Robber Baronswas threatening the essence of inclusive economicinstitutions in the United States.

Though the outcome of the ever-present conflictscontinues to be contingent, through these mechanisms thevirtuous circle creates a powerful tendency for inclusiveinstitutions to persist, to resist challenges, and to expandas they did in both Britain and the United States.Unfortunately, as we will see in the next chapter, extractiveinstitutions create equally strong forces toward theirpersistence—the process of the vicious circle.

12.

THE VICIOUS CIRCLE

YOU CAN’T TAKE THE TRAIN TO BO ANYMORE

ALL OF THE WEST AFRICAN nation of Sierra Leone becamea British colony in 1896. The capital city, Freetown, hadoriginally been founded in the late eighteenth century as ahome for repatriated and freed slaves. But when Freetownbecame a British colony, the interior of Sierra Leone wasstill made up of many small African kingdoms. Gradually, inthe second half of the nineteenth century, the Britishextended their rule into the interior through a long series oftreaties with African rulers. On August 31, 1896, the Britishgovernment declared the colony a protectorate on the basisof these treaties. The British identified important rulers andgave them a new title, paramount chief. In eastern SierraLeone, for example, in the modern diamond-mining districtof Kono, they encountered Suluku, a powerful warrior king.King Suluku was made Paramount Chief Suluku, and thechieftaincy of Sandor was created as an administrative unitin the protectorate.

Though kings such as Suluku had signed treaties with aBritish administrator, they had not understood that thesetreaties would be interpreted as carte blanche to set up acolony. When the British tried to levy a hut tax—a tax of fiveshillings to be raised from every house—in January 1898,the chiefs rose up in a civil war that became known as theHut Tax Rebellion. It started in the north, but was strongestand lasted longer in the south, particularly in Mendeland,dominated by the Mende ethnic group. The Hut TaxRebellion was soon defeated, but it warned the Britishabout the challenges of controlling the Sierra Leoneanhinterland. The British had already started to build a railwayfrom Freetown into the interior. Work began in March 1896,and the line reached Songo Town in December 1898, inthe midst of the Hut Tax Rebellion. British parliamentary

papers from 1904 recorded that:

In the case of the Sierra Leone Railways theNative Insurrection that broke out in February1898 had the effect of completely stoppingthe works and disorganizing the staff forsome time. The rebels descended upon therailway, with the result that the entire staff hadto be withdrawn to Freetown … Rotifunk, nowsituated upon the railways at 55 miles fromFreetown, was at that time completely in thehands of the rebels.

In fact, Rotifunk was not on the planned railway line in1894. The route was changed after the start of the rebellion,so that instead of going to the northeast, it went south, viaRotifunk and on to Bo, into Mendeland. The British wantedquick access to Mendeland, the heart of the rebellion, andto other potentially disruptive parts of the hinterland if otherrebellions were to flare up.

When Sierra Leone became independent in 1961, theBritish handed power to Sir Milton Margai and his SierraLeone People’s Party (SLPP), which attracted supportprimarily in the south, particularly Mendeland, and the east.Sir Milton was followed as prime minister by his brother, SirAlbert Margai, in 1964. In 1967 the SLPP narrowly lost ahotly contested election to the opposition, the All People’sCongress Party (APC), led by Siaka Stevens. Stevens wasa Limba, from the north, and the APC got most of theirsupport from northern ethnic groups, the Limba, the Temne,and the Loko.

Though the railway to the south was initially designed bythe British to rule Sierra Leone, by 1967 its role waseconomic, transporting most of the country’s exports:coffee, cocoa, and diamonds. The farmers who grewcoffee and cocoa were Mende, and the railway wasMendeland’s window to the world. Mendeland had votedhugely for Albert Margai in the 1967 election. Stevens wasmuch more interested in holding on to power thanpromoting Mendeland’s exports. His reasoning was simple:whatever was good for the Mende was good for the SLPP,and bad for Stevens. So he pulled up the railway line to

Mendeland. He then went ahead and sold off the track androlling stock to make the change as irreversible aspossible. Now, as you drive out of Freetown to the east, youpass the dilapidated railway stations of Hastings andWaterloo. There are no more trains to Bo. Of course,Stevens’s drastic action fatally damaged some of the mostvibrant sectors of Sierra Leone’s economy. But like manyof Africa’s postindependence leaders, when the choicewas between consolidating power and encouragingeconomic growth, Stevens chose consolidating his power,and he never looked back. Today you can’t take the train toBo anymore, because like Tsar Nicholas I, who feared thatthe railways would bring revolution to Russia, Stevensbelieved the railways would strengthen his opponents. Likeso many other rulers in control of extractive institutions, hewas afraid of challenges to his political power and waswilling to sacrifice economic growth to thwart thosechallenges.

Stevens’s strategy at first glance contrasts with that of theBritish. But in fact, there was a significant amount ofcontinuity between British rule and Stevens’s regime thatillustrates the logic of vicious circles. Stevens ruled SierraLeone by extracting resources from its people using similarmethods. He was still in power in 1985 not because he hadbeen popularly reelected, but because after 1967 he set upa violent dictatorship, killing and harassing his politicalopponents, particularly the members of the SLPP. Hemade himself president in 1971, and after 1978, SierraLeone had only one political party, Stevens’s APC. Stevensthus successfully consolidated his power, even if the costwas impoverishing much of the hinterland.

During the colonial period, the British used a system ofindirect rule to govern Sierra Leone, as they did with mostof their African colonies. At the base of this system werethe paramount chiefs, who collected taxes, distributedjustice, and kept order. The British dealt with the cocoa andcoffee farmers not by isolating them, but by forcing them tosell all their produce to a marketing board developed by thecolonial office purportedly to help the farmers. Prices foragricultural commodities fluctuated wildly over time. Cocoaprices might be high one year but low the next. Theincomes of farmers fluctuated in tandem. The justification

for marketing boards was that they, not the farmers, wouldabsorb the price fluctuations. When world prices were high,the board would pay the farmers in Sierra Leone less thanthe world price, but when world prices were low, they woulddo the opposite. It seemed a good idea in principle. Thereality was very different, however. The Sierra LeoneProduce Marketing Board was set up in 1949. Of coursethe board needed a source of revenues to function. Thenatural way to attain these was by paying farmers just a littleless than they should have received either in good or badyears. These funds could then be used for overheadexpenditures and administration. Soon the little lessbecame a lot less. The colonial state was using themarketing board as a way of heavily taxing farmers.

Many expected the worst practices of colonial rule in sub-Saharan Africa to stop after independence, and the use ofmarketing boards to excessively tax farmers to come to anend. But neither happened. In fact, the extraction of farmersusing marketing boards got much worse. By the mid-1960s, the farmers of palm kernels were getting 56 percentof the world price from the marketing board; cocoa farmers,48 percent; and coffee farmers, 49 percent. By the timeStevens left office in 1985, resigning to allow hishandpicked successor, Joseph Momoh, to becomepresident, these numbers were 37, 19, and 27 percent,respectively. As pitiful as this might sound, it was betterthan what the farmers were getting during Stevens’s reign,which had often been as low as 10 percent—that is, 90percent of the income of the farmers was extracted byStevens’s government, and not to provide public services,such as roads or education, but to enrich himself and hiscronies and to buy political support.

As part of their indirect rule, the British had alsostipulated that the office of the paramount chief would beheld for life. To be eligible to be a chief, one had to be amember of a recognized “ruling house.” The identity of theruling houses in a chieftaincy developed over time, but itwas essentially based on the lineage of the kings in aparticular area and of the elite families who signed treatieswith the British in the late nineteenth century. Chiefs wereelected, but not democratically. A body called the TribalAuthority, whose members were lesser village chiefs or

were appointed by paramount chiefs, village chiefs, or theBritish authorities, decided who would become theparamount chief. One might have imagined that thiscolonial institution would also have been abolished or atleast reformed after independence. But just like themarketing board, it was not, and continued unchanged.Today paramount chiefs are still in charge of collectingtaxes. It is no longer a hut tax, but its close descendant, apoll tax. In 2005 the Tribal Authority in Sandor elected anew paramount chief. Only candidates from the Fasulukuruling house, which is the only ruling house, could stand.The victor was Sheku Fasuluku, King Suluku’s great-great-grandson.

The behavior of the marketing boards and the traditionalsystems of land ownership go a long way to explain whyagricultural productivity is so low in Sierra Leone and muchof sub-Saharan Africa. The political scientist Robert Batesset out in the 1980s to understand why agriculture was sounproductive in Africa even though according to textbookeconomics this ought to have been the most dynamiceconomic sector. He realized that this had nothing to dowith geography or the sorts of factors discussed in chapter2 that have been claimed to make agricultural productivityintrinsically low. Rather, it was simply because the pricingpolicies of the marketing boards removed any incentivesfor the farmers to invest, use fertilizers, or preserve the soil.

The reason that the policies of the marketing boardswere so unfavorable to rural interests was that theseinterests had no political power. These pricing policiesinteracted with other fundamental factors making tenureinsecure, further undermining investment incentives. InSierra Leone, paramount chiefs not only provide law andorder and judicial services, and raise taxes, but they arealso the “custodians of the land.” Though families, clans,and dynasties have user rights and traditional rights to land;at the end of the day chiefs have the last say on who farmswhere. Your property rights to land are only secure if youare connected to the chief, perhaps from the same rulingfamily. Land cannot be bought or sold or used as collateralfor a loan, and if you are born outside a chieftaincy, youcannot plant any perennial crop such as coffee, cocoa, orpalm for fear that this will allow you to establish “de facto”

property rights.The contrast between the extractive institutions

developed by the British in Sierra Leone and the inclusiveinstitutions that developed in other colonies, such asAustralia, is illustrated by the way mineral resources weremanaged. Diamonds were discovered in Kono in easternSierra Leone in January 1930. The diamonds were alluvial,that is, not in deep mines. So the primary method of miningthem was by panning in rivers. Some social scientists callthese “democratic diamonds,” because they allow manypeople to become involved in mining, creating a potentiallyinclusive opportunity. Not so in Sierra Leone. Happilyignoring the intrinsically democratic nature of panning fordiamonds, the British government set up a monopoly for theentire protectorate, called it the Sierra Leone SelectionTrust, and granted it to De Beers, the giant South Africandiamond mining company. In 1936 De Beers was alsogiven the right to create the Diamond Protection Force, aprivate army that would become larger than that of thecolonial government in Sierra Leone. Even so, thewidespread availability of the alluvial diamonds made thesituation difficult to police. By the 1950s, the DiamondProtection Force was overwhelmed by thousands of illegaldiamond miners, a massive source of conflict and chaos. In1955 the British government opened up some of thediamond fields to licensed diggers outside the SierraLeone Selection Trust, though the company still kept therichest areas in Yengema and Koidu and Tongo Fields.Things only got worse after independence. In 1970 SiakaStevens effectively nationalized the Sierra Leone SelectionTrust, creating the National Diamond Mining Company(Sierra Leone) Limited, in which the government, effectivelymeaning Stevens, had a 51 percent stake. This was theopening phase of Stevens’s plan to take over diamondmining in the country.

In nineteenth-century Australia it was gold, discovered in1851 in New South Wales and the newly created state ofVictoria, not diamonds, that attracted everyone’s attention.Like diamonds in Sierra Leone, the gold was alluvial, and adecision had to be made about how to exploit it. Some,such as James Macarthur, son of John Macarthur, theprominent leader of the Squatters we discussed earlier

(this page–this page), proposed that fences be placedaround the mining areas and the monopoly rights auctionedoff. They wanted an Australian version of the Sierra LeoneSelection Trust. Yet many in Australia wanted free accessto the gold mining areas. The inclusive model won, andinstead of setting up a monopoly, Australian authoritiesallowed anyone who paid an annual mining license fee tosearch and dig for gold. Soon the diggers, as theseadventurers came to be known, were a powerful force inAustralian politics, particularly in Victoria. They played animportant role in pushing forward the agenda of universalsuffrage and the secret ballot.

We have already seen two pernicious effects ofEuropean expansion and colonial rule in Africa: theintroduction of the transatlantic slave trade, whichencouraged the development of African political andeconomic institutions in an extractive direction, and the useof colonial legislation and institutions to eliminate thedevelopment of African commercial agriculture that mighthave competed with Europeans. Slavery was certainly aforce in Sierra Leone. At the time of colonization there wasno strong centralized state in the interior, just many small,mutually antagonistic kingdoms continually raiding oneanother and capturing one another’s men and women.Slavery was endemic, with possibly 50 percent of thepopulation working as slaves. The disease environmentmeant that large-scale white settlement was not possible inSierra Leone, as it was in South Africa. Hence there wereno whites competing with the Africans. Moreover, the lackof a mining economy on the scale of Johannesburg meantthat, in addition to the lack of demand for African labor fromwhite farms, there was no incentive to create the extractivelabor market institutions so characteristic of ApartheidSouth Africa.

But other mechanisms were also in play. Sierra Leone’scocoa and coffee farmers did not compete with whites,though their incomes were still expropriated via agovernment monopoly, the marketing board. Sierra Leonealso suffered from indirect rule. In many parts of Africawhere the British authorities wished to use indirect rule,they found peoples who did not have a system ofcentralized authority who could be taken over. For example,

in eastern Nigeria the Igbo peoples had no chiefs when theBritish encountered them in the nineteenth century. TheBritish then created chiefs, the warrant chiefs. In SierraLeone, the British would base indirect rule on existingindigenous institutions and systems of authority.

Nevertheless, regardless of the historical basis for theindividuals recognized as paramount chiefs in 1896,indirect rule, and the powers that it invested in paramountchiefs, completely changed the existing politics of SierraLeone. For one, it introduced a system of socialstratification—the ruling houses—where none had existedpreviously. A hereditary aristocracy replaced a situationthat had been much more fluid and where chiefs hadrequired popular support. Instead what emerged was arigid system with chiefs holding office for life, beholden totheir patrons in Freetown or Britain, and far lessaccountable to the people they ruled. The British werehappy to subvert the institutions in other ways, too, forexample, by replacing legitimate chiefs with people whowere more cooperative. Indeed, the Margai family, whichsupplied the first two prime ministers of independent SierraLeone, came to power in the Lower Banta chieftaincy bysiding with the British in the Hut Tax Rebellion against thereigning chief, Nyama. Nyama was deposed, and theMargais became chiefs and held the position until 2010.

What is remarkable is the extent of continuity betweencolonial and independent Sierra Leone. The British createdthe marketing boards and used them to tax farmers.Postcolonial governments did the same extracting at evenhigher rates. The British created the system of indirect rulethrough paramount chiefs. Governments that followedindependence didn’t reject this colonial institution; rather,they used it to govern the countryside as well. The Britishset up a diamond monopoly and tried to keep out Africanminers. Postindependence governments did the same. It istrue that the British thought that building railways was agood way to rule Mendeland, while Siaka Stevens thoughtthe opposite. The British could trust their army and knew itcould be sent to Mendeland if a rebellion arose. Stevens,on the other hand, could not do so. As in many other Africannations, a strong army would have become a threat toStevens’s rule. It was for this reason that he emasculated

the army, cutting it down and privatizing violence throughspecially created paramilitary units loyal only to him, and inthe process, he accelerated the decline of the little stateauthority that existed in Sierra Leone. Instead of the army,first came the Internal Security Unit, the ISU, which SierraLeone’s long-suffering people knew as “I Shoot U.” Thencame the Special Security Division, the SSD, which thepeople knew as “Siaka Stevens’s Dogs.” In the end, theabsence of an army supporting the regime would also beits undoing. It was a group of only thirty soldiers, led byCaptain Valentine Strasser, that pitched the APC regimefrom power on April 29, 1992.

Sierra Leone’s development, or lack thereof, could bebest understood as the outcome of the vicious circle.British colonial authorities built extractive institutions in thefirst place, and the postindependence African politicianswere only too happy to take up the baton for themselves.The pattern was eerily similar all over sub-Saharan Africa.There were similar hopes for postindependence Ghana,Kenya, Zambia, and many other African countries. Yet in allthese cases, extractive institutions were re-created in apattern predicted by the vicious circle—only they becamemore vicious as time went by. In all these countries, forexample, the British creation of marketing boards andindirect rule were sustained.

There are natural reasons for this vicious circle.Extractive political institutions lead to extractive economicinstitutions, which enrich a few at the expense of many.Those who benefit from extractive institutions thus have theresources to build their (private) armies and mercenaries,to buy their judges, and to rig their elections in order toremain in power. They also have every interest in defendingthe system. Therefore, extractive economic institutionscreate the platform for extractive political institutions topersist. Power is valuable in regimes with extractivepolitical institutions, because power is unchecked andbrings economic riches.

Extractive political institutions also provide no checksagainst abuses of power. Whether power corrupts isdebatable, but Lord Acton was certainly right when heargued that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We saw inthe previous chapter that even when Franklin Roosevelt

wished to use his presidential powers in a way that hethought would be beneficial for the society, unencumberedby constraints imposed by the Supreme Court, the inclusiveU.S. political institutions prevented him from setting asidethe constraints on his power. Under extractive politicalinstitutions, there is little check against the exercise ofpower, however distorted and sociopathic it may become.In 1980 Sam Bangura, then the governor of the central bankin Sierra Leone, criticized Siaka Stevens’s policies forbeing profligate. He was soon murdered and thrown fromthe top floor of the central bank building onto the aptlynamed Siaka Stevens Street. Extractive politicalinstitutions thus also tend to create a vicious circle becausethey provide no line of defense against those who want tofurther usurp and misuse the powers of the state.

Yet another mechanism for the vicious circle is thatextractive institutions, by creating unconstrained power andgreat income inequality, increase the potential stakes of thepolitical game. Because whoever controls the statebecomes the beneficiary of this excessive power and thewealth that it generates, extractive institutions createincentives for infighting in order to control power and itsbenefits, a dynamic that we saw played out in Maya city-states and in Ancient Rome. In this light, it is no surprisethat the extractive institutions that many African countriesinherited from the colonial powers sowed the seeds ofpower struggles and civil wars. These struggles would bevery different conflicts from the English Civil War and theGlorious Revolution. They would not be fought to changepolitical institutions, introduce constraints on the exercise ofpower, or create pluralism, but to capture power and enrichone group at the expense of the rest. In Angola, Burundi,Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo,Ethiopia, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Republic ofCongo Brazzaville, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda,and of course in Sierra Leone, as we will see in more detailin the next chapter, these conflicts would turn into bloodycivil wars and would create economic ruin and unparalleledhuman suffering—as well as cause state failure.

FROM ENCOMIENDA TO LAND GRAB

On January 14, 1993, Ramiro De León Carpio was swornin as the president of Guatemala. He named RichardAitkenhead Castillo as his minister of finance, and RicardoCastillo Sinibaldi as his minister of development. Thesethree men all had something in common: all were directdescendants of Spanish conquistadors who had come toGuatemala in the early sixteenth century. De León’sillustrious ancestor was Juan De León Cardona, while theCastillos were related to Bernal Díaz del Castillo, a manwho wrote one of the most famous eyewitness accounts ofthe conquest of Mexico. In reward for his service to HernánCortés, Díaz del Castillo was appointed governor ofSantiago de los Caballeros, which is today the city ofAntigua in Guatemala. Both Castillo and De León foundeddynasties along with other conquistadors, such as Pedrode Alvarado. The Guatemalan sociologist Marta CasaúsArzú identified a core group of twenty-two families inGuatemala that had ties through marriage to anothertwenty-six families just outside the core. Her genealogicaland political study suggested that these families havecontrolled economic and political power in Guatemalasince 1531. An even broader definition of which familieswere part of this elite suggested that they accounted for justover 1 percent of the population in the 1990s.

In Sierra Leone and in much of sub-Saharan Africa, thevicious circle took the form of the extractive institutions setup by colonial powers being taken over bypostindependence leaders. In Guatemala, as in much ofCentral America, we see a simpler, more naked form of thevicious circle: those who have economic and politicalpower structure institutions to ensure the continuity of theirpower, and succeed in doing so. This type of vicious circleleads to the persistence of extractive institutions and thepersistence of the same elites in power together with thepersistence of underdevelopment.

At the time of the conquest, Guatemala was denselysettled, probably with a population of around two millionMayas. Disease and exploitation took a heavy toll aseverywhere else in the Americas. It was not until the 1920sthat its total population returned to this level. As elsewherein the Spanish Empire, the indigenous people wereallocated to conquistadors in grants of encomienda. As we

saw in the context of the colonization of Mexico and Peru,the encomienda was a system of forced labor, whichsubsequently gave way to other similar coerciveinstitutions, particularly to the repartimiento, also called themandamiento in Guatemala. The elite, made up of thedescendants of the conquistadors and some indigenouselements, not only benefited from the various forced laborsystems but also controlled and monopolized trade througha merchant guild called the Consulado de Comercio. Mostof the population in Guatemala was high in the mountainsand far from the coast. The high transportation costsreduced the extent of the export economy, and initially landwas not very valuable. Much of it was still in the hands ofindigenous peoples, who had large communal landholdingscalled ejidos. The remainder was largely unoccupied andnotionally owned by the government. There was moremoney in controlling and taxing trade, such as it was, thanin controlling the land.

Just as in Mexico, the Guatemalan elite viewed the CadizConstitution (this page–this page) with hostility, whichencouraged them to declare independence just as theMexican elites did. Following a brief union with Mexico andthe Central American Federation, the colonial elite ruledGuatemala under the dictatorship of Rafael Carrera from1839 to 1871. During this period the descendants of theconquistadors and the indigenous elite maintained theextractive economic institutions of the colonial era largelyunchanged. Even the organization of the Consulado did notalter with independence. Though this was a royal institution,it happily continued under a republican government.

Independence then was simply a coup by the preexistinglocal elite, just as in Mexico; they carried on as usual withthe extractive economic institutions from which they hadbenefited so much. Ironically enough, during this period theConsulado remained in charge of the economicdevelopment of the country. But as had been the case pre-independence, the Consulado had its own interests atheart, not those of the country. Part of its responsibility wasfor the development of infrastructure, such as ports androads, but as in Austria-Hungary, Russia, and SierraLeone, this often threatened creative destruction and couldhave destabilized the system. Therefore, the development

of infrastructure, rather than being implemented, was oftenresisted. For example, the development of a port on theSuchitepéquez coast, bordering the Pacific Ocean, wasone of the proposed projects. At the time the only properports were on the Caribbean coast, and these werecontrolled by the Consulado. The Consulado did nothing onthe Pacific side because a port in that region would haveprovided a much easier outlet for goods from the highlandtowns of Mazatenango and Quezaltenango, and access toa different market for these goods would have underminedthe Consulado’s monopoly on foreign trade. The samelogic applied to roads, where, again, the Consulado hadthe responsibility for the entire country. Predictably it alsorefused to build roads that would have strengthenedcompeting groups or would have potentially undone itsmonopoly. Pressure to do so again came from westernGuatemala and Quezaltenango, in the Los Altos region. Butif the road between Los Altos and the Suchitepéquez coasthad been improved, this could have created a merchantclass, which would have been a competitor to theConsulado merchants in the capital. The road did not getimproved.

As a result of this elite dominance, Guatemala wascaught in a time warp in the middle of the nineteenthcentury, as the rest of the world was changing rapidly. Butthese changes would ultimately affect Guatemala.Transportation costs were falling due to technologicalinnovations such as the steam train, the railways, and new,much faster types of ships. Moreover, the rising incomes ofpeople in Western Europe and North America werecreating a mass demand for many products that a countrysuch as Guatemala could potentially produce.

Early in the century, some indigo and then cochineal,both natural dyes, had been produced for export, but themore profitable opportunity would become coffeeproduction. Guatemala had a lot of land suitable for coffee,and cultivation began to spread—without any assistancefrom the Consulado. As the world price of coffee rose andinternational trade expanded, there were huge profits to bemade, and the Guatemalan elite became interested incoffee. In 1871 the long-lasting regime of the dictatorCarrera was finally overthrown by a group of people calling

themselves Liberals, after the worldwide movement of thatname. What liberalism means has changed over time. Butin the nineteenth century in the United States and Europe, itwas similar to what is today called libertarianism, and itstood for freedom of individuals, limited government, andfree trade. Things worked a little differently in Guatemala.Led initially by Miguel García Granados, and after 1873 byJusto Rufino Barrios, the Guatemalan Liberals were, for themost part, not new men with liberal ideals. By and large, thesame families remained in charge. They maintainedextractive political institutions and implemented a hugereorganization of the economy to exploit coffee. They didabolish the Consulado in 1871, but economiccircumstances had changed. The focus of extractiveeconomic institutions would now be the production andexport of coffee.

Coffee production needed land and labor. To create landfor coffee farms, the Liberals pushed through landprivatization, in fact really a land grab in which they wouldbe able to capture land previously held communally or bythe government. Though their attempt was bitterlycontested, given the highly extractive political institutionsand the concentration of political power in Guatemala, theelite were ultimately victorious. Between 1871 and 1883nearly one million acres of land, mostly indigenouscommunal land and frontier lands, passed into the hands ofthe elite, and it was only then that coffee developed rapidly.The aim was the formation of large estates. The privatizedlands were auctioned off typically to members of thetraditional elite or those connected with them. The coercivepower of the Liberal state was then used to help largelandowners gain access to labor by adapting andintensifying various systems of forced labor. In November1876, President Barrios wrote to all the governors ofGuatemala noting that

because the country has extensive areas ofland that it needs to exploit by cultivationusing the multitude of workers who todayremain outside the movement ofdevelopment of the nation’s productiveelements, you are to give all help to export

agriculture:1. From the Indian towns of your jurisdiction

provide to the owners of fincas [farms] of thatdepartment who ask for labor the number ofworkers they need, be it fifty or one hundred.

The repartimiento, the forced labor draft, had never beenabolished after independence, but now it was increased inscope and duration. It was institutionalized in 1877 byDecree 177, which specified that employers could requestand receive from the government up to sixty workers forfifteen days of work if the property was in the samedepartment, and for thirty days if it was outside it. Therequest could be renewed if the employer so desired.These workers could be forcibly recruited unless they coulddemonstrate from their personal workbook that suchservice had recently been performed satisfactorily. All ruralworkers were also forced to carry a workbook, called alibreta, which included details of whom they were workingfor and a record of any debts. Many rural workers wereindebted to their employers, and an indebted worker couldnot leave his current employer without permission. Decree177 further stipulated that the only way to avoid beingdrafted into the repartimiento was to show you werecurrently in debt to an employer. Workers were trapped. Inaddition to these laws, numerous vagrancy laws werepassed so that anyone who could not prove he had a jobwould be immediately recruited for the repartimiento orother types of forced labor on the roads, or would be forcedto accept employment on a farm. As in nineteenth- andtwentieth-century South Africa, land policies after 1871were also designed to undermine the subsistenceeconomy of the indigenous peoples, to force them to workfor low wages. The repartimiento lasted until the 1920s; thelibreta system and the full gamut of vagrancy laws were ineffect until 1945, when Guatemala experienced its first briefflowering of democracy.

Just as before 1871, the Guatemalan elite ruled viamilitary strongmen. They continued to do so after the coffeeboom took off. Jorge Ubico, president between 1931 and1944, ruled longest. Ubico won the presidential election in1931 unopposed, since nobody was foolish enough to run

against him. Like the Consulado, he didn’t approve ofdoing things that would have induced creative destructionand threatened both his political power and his and theelite’s profits. He therefore opposed industry for the samereason that Francis I in Austria-Hungary and Nicholas I inRussia did: industrial workers would have caused trouble.In a legislation unparalleled in its paranoid repressiveness,Ubico banned the use of words such as obreros (workers),sindicatos (labor unions), and huelgas (strikes). You couldbe jailed for using any one of them. Even though Ubico waspowerful, the elite pulled the strings. Opposition to hisregime mounted in 1944, headed by disaffected universitystudents who began to organize demonstrations. Populardiscontent increased, and on June 24, 311 people, many ofthem from the elite, signed the Memorial de los 311, anopen letter denouncing the regime. Ubico resigned on July1. Though he was followed by a democratic regime in1945, this was overthrown by a coup in 1954, leading to amurderous civil war. Guatemala democratized again afteronly 1986.

The Spanish conquistadors had no compunction aboutsetting up an extractive political and economic system. Thatwas why they had come all the way to the New World. Butmost of the institutions they set up were meant to betemporary. The encomienda, for example, was atemporary grant of rights over labor. They did not have afully worked-out plan of how they would set up a system thatwould persist for another four hundred years. In fact, theinstitutions they set up changed significantly along the way,but one thing did not: the extractive nature of the institutions,the result of the vicious circle. The form of extractionchanged, but neither the extractive nature of the institutionsnor the identity of the elite did. In Guatemala theencomienda, the repartimiento, and the monopolization oftrade gave way to the libreta and the land grab. But themajority of the indigenous Maya continued to work as low-wage laborers with little education, no rights, and no publicservices.

In Guatemala, as in much of Central America, in a typicalpattern of the vicious circle, extractive political institutionssupported extractive economic institutions, which in turnprovided the basis for extractive political institutions and

the continuation of the power of the same elite.

FROM SLAVERY TO JIM CROW

In Guatemala, extractive institutions persisted from colonialto modern times with the same elite firmly in control. Anychange in institutions resulted from adaptations to changingenvironments, as was the case with the land grab by theelite motivated by the coffee boom. The institutions in theU.S. South were similarly extractive until the Civil War.Economics and politics were dominated by the southernelite, plantation owners with large land and slave holdings.Slaves had neither political nor economic rights; indeed,they had few rights of any kind.

The South’s extractive economic and political institutionsmade it considerably poorer than the North by the middle ofthe nineteenth century. The South lacked industry and maderelatively little investment in infrastructure. In 1860 its totalmanufacturing output was less than that of Pennsylvania,New York, or Massachusetts. Only 9 percent of the southernpopulation lived in urban areas, compared with 35 percentin the Northeast. The density of railroads (i.e., miles of trackdivided by land area) was three times higher in the Norththan in southern states. The ratio of canal mileage wassimilar.

Map 18 (this page) shows the extent of slavery by plottingthe percentage of the population that were slaves acrossU.S. counties in 1840. It is apparent that slavery wasdominant in the South with some counties, for example,along the Mississippi River having as much as 95 percentof the population slaves. Map 19 (this page) then showsone of the consequences of this, the proportion of the laborforce working in manufacturing in 1880. Though this wasnot high anywhere by twentieth-century standards, there aremarked differences between the North and the South. Inmuch of the Northeast, more than 10 percent of the laborforce worked in manufacturing. In contrast in much of theSouth, particularly the areas with heavy concentrations ofslaves, the proportion was basically zero.

The South was not even innovative in the sectors in whichit specialized: from 1837 to 1859, the numbers of patentsissued per year for innovations related to corn and wheatwere on average twelve and ten, respectively; there wasjust one per year for the most important crop of the South,cotton. There was no indication that industrialization andeconomic growth would commence anytime soon. Butdefeat in the Civil War was followed by fundamentaleconomic and political reform at bayonet point. Slaverywas abolished, and black men were allowed to vote.

These major changes should have opened the way for a

radical transformation of southern extractive institutions intoinclusive ones, and launched the South onto a path toeconomic prosperity. But in yet another manifestation of thevicious circle, nothing of the sort happened. A continuationof extractive institutions, this time of the Jim Crow kindrather than of slavery, emerged in the South. The phraseJim Crow, which supposedly originated from “Jump JimCrow,” an early-nineteenth-century satire of black peopleperformed by white performers in “blackface,” came torefer to the whole gamut of segregationist legislation thatwas enacted in the South after 1865. These persisted foralmost another century, until yet another major upheaval, thecivil rights movement. In the meantime, blacks continued tobe excluded from power and repressed. Plantation-typeagriculture based on low-wage, poorly educated laborpersisted, and southern incomes fell further relative to theU.S. average. The vicious circle of extractive institutionswas stronger than many had expected at the time.

The reason that the economic and political trajectory ofthe South never changed, even though slavery wasabolished and black men were given the right to vote, wasbecause blacks’ political power and economicindependence were tenuous. The southern planters lost thewar, but would win the peace. They were still organized andthey still owned the land. During the war, freed slaves hadbeen offered the promise of forty acres and a mule whenslavery was abolished, and some even got it during thefamous campaigns of General William T. Sherman. But in1865, President Andrew Johnson revoked Sherman’s

orders, and the hoped-for land redistribution never tookplace. In a debate on this issue in Congress, CongressmanGeorge Washington Julian presciently noted, “Of what availwould be an act of congress totally abolishing slavery … ifthe old agricultural basis of aristocratic power shallremain?” This was the beginning of the “redemption” of theold South and the persistence of the old southern landedelite.

The sociologist Jonathan Wiener studied the persistenceof the planter elite in five counties of the Black Belt, primecotton country, of southern Alabama. Tracking families fromthe U.S. census and considering those with at least$10,000 of real estate, he found that of the 236 members ofthe planter elite in 1850, 101 maintained their position in1870. Interestingly, this rate of persistence was very similarto that experienced in the pre–Civil War period; of the 236wealthiest planter families of 1850, only 110 remained so adecade later. Nevertheless, of the 25 planters with thelargest landholdings in 1870, 18 (72 percent) had been inthe elite families in 1860; 16 had been in the 1850 elitegroup. While more than 600,000 were killed in the CivilWar, the planter elites suffered few casualties. The law,designed by the planters and for the planters, exemptedone slaveholder from military service for every twentyslaves held. As hundreds of thousands of men died topreserve the southern plantation economy, many bigslaveholders and their sons sat out the war on their porchesand thus were able to ensure the persistence of theplantation economy.

After the end of the war, the elite planters controlling theland were able to reexert their control over the labor force.Though the economic institution of slavery was abolished,the evidence shows a clear line of persistence in theeconomic system of the South based on plantation-typeagriculture with cheap labor. This economic system wasmaintained through a variety of channels, including bothcontrol of local politics and exercise of violence. As aconsequence, in the words of the African American scholarW.E.B. Du Bois, the South became “simply an armedcamp for intimidating black folk.”

In 1865 the state legislature of Alabama passed theBlack Code, an important landmark toward the repression

of black labor. Similar to Decree 177 in Guatemala, theBlack Code of Alabama consisted of a vagrancy law and alaw against the “enticement” of laborers. It was designed toimpede labor mobility and reduce competition in the labormarket, and it ensured that southern planters would stillhave a reliable low-cost labor pool.

Following the Civil War, the period called Reconstructionlasted from 1865 until 1877. Northern politicians, with thehelp of the Union Army, engineered some social changesin the South. But a systematic backlash from the southernelite in the guise of support for the so-called Redeemers,seeking the South’s redemption, re-created the old system.In the 1877 presidential election, Rutherford Hayes neededsouthern support in the electoral college. This college, stillused today, was at the heart of the indirect election forpresident created by the U.S. Constitution. Citizens’ votesdo not directly elect the president but instead elect electorswho then choose the president in the electoral college. Inexchange for their support in the electoral college, thesoutherners demanded that Union soldiers be withdrawnfrom the South and the region left to its own devices. Hayesagreed. With southern support, Hayes became presidentand pulled out the troops. The period after 1877 thenmarked the real reemergence of the pre–Civil War planterelite. The redemption of the South involved the introductionof new poll taxes and literacy tests for voting, whichsystematically disenfranchised blacks, and often also thepoor white population. These attempts succeeded andcreated a one-party regime under the Democratic Party,with much of the political power vested in the hands of theplanter elite.

The Jim Crow laws created separate, and predictablyinferior, schools. Alabama, for example, rewrote itsconstitution in 1901 to achieve this. Shockingly, even todaySection 256 of Alabama’s constitution, though no longerenforced, still states:

Duty of legislature to establish and maintainpublic school system; apportionment ofpublic school fund; separate schools for whiteand colored children.

The legislature shall establish, organize,

and maintain a liberal system of publicschools throughout the state for the benefit ofthe children thereof between the ages ofseven and twenty-one years. The publicschool fund shall be apportioned to theseveral counties in proportion to the numberof school children of school age therein, andshall be so apportioned to the schools in thedistricts or townships in the counties as toprovide, as nearly as practicable, schoolterms of equal duration in such schooldistricts or townships. Separate schools shallbe provided for white and colored children,and no child of either race shall be permittedto attend a school of the other race.

An amendment to strike Section 256 from theconstitution was narrowly defeated in the state legislature in2004.

Disenfranchisement, the vagrancy laws such as theBlack Code of Alabama, various Jim Crow laws, and theactions of the Ku Klux Klan, often financed and supportedby the elite, turned the post–Civil War South into aneffective apartheid society, where blacks and whites liveddifferent lives. As in South Africa, these laws and practiceswere aimed at controlling the black population and its labor.

Southern politicians in Washington also worked to makesure that the extractive institutions of the South couldpersist. For instance, they ensured that no federal projectsor public works that would have jeopardized southern elitecontrol over the black workforce ever got approved.Consequently, the South entered the twentieth century as alargely rural society with low levels of education andbackward technology, still employing hand labor and mulepower virtually unassisted by mechanical implements.Though the proportion of people in urban areas increased,it was far less than in the North. In 1900, for example, 13.5percent of the population of the South was urbanized, ascompared with 60 percent in the Northeast.

All in all, the extractive institutions in the southern UnitedStates, based on the power of the landed elite, plantationagriculture, and low-wage, low-education labor, persisted

well into the twentieth century. These institutions started tocrumble only after the Second World War and then trulyafter the civil rights movement destroyed the political basisof the system. And it was only after the demise of theseinstitutions in the 1950s and ’60s that the South began itsprocess of rapid convergence to the North.

The U.S. South shows another, more resilient side of thevicious circle: as in Guatemala, the southern planter eliteremained in power and structured economic and politicalinstitutions in order to ensure the continuity of its power. Butdifferently from Guatemala, it was faced with significantchallenges after its defeat in the Civil War, which abolishedslavery and reversed the total, constitutional exclusion ofblacks from political participation. But there is more thanone way of skinning a cat: as long as the planter elite wasin control of its huge landholdings and remained organized,it could structure a new set of institutions, Jim Crow insteadof slavery, to achieve the same objective. The vicious circleturned out to be stronger than many, including AbrahamLincoln, had thought. The vicious circle is based onextractive political institutions creating extractive economicinstitutions, which in turn support the extractive politicalinstitutions, because economic wealth and power buypolitical power. When forty acres and a mule was off thetable, the southern planter elite’s economic powerremained untarnished. And, unsurprisingly andunfortunately, the implications for the black population of theSouth, and the South’s economic development, were thesame.

THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY

The Solomonic dynasty in Ethiopia lasted until it wasoverthrown by a military coup in 1974. The coup was led bythe Derg, a group of Marxist army officers. The regime thatthe Derg pitched from power looked like it was frozen insome earlier century, a historical anachronism. Theemperor Haile Selassie would start his day by arriving inthe courtyard at the Grand Palace, which had been built byEmperor Menelik II in the late nineteenth century. Outsidethe palace would be a crowd of dignitaries anticipating hisarrival, bowing and desperately trying to get his attention.

The emperor would hold court in the Audience Hall, sittingon the imperial throne. (Selassie was a small man; so thathis legs were not left swinging in the air, it was the job of aspecial pillow bearer to accompany him wherever he wentto make sure there was a suitable pillow to put under hisfeet. The bearer kept a stock of fifty-two pillows to copewith any situation.) Selassie presided over an extreme setof extractive institutions and ran the country as his ownprivate property, handing out favors and patronage andruthlessly punishing lack of loyalty. There was no economicdevelopment to speak of in Ethiopia under the Solomonicdynasty.

The Derg initially formed out of 108 representatives ofdifferent military units from all over the country. Therepresentative of the Third Division in Harar province was amajor named Mengistu Haile Mariam. Though in their initialdeclaration of July 4, 1974, the Derg officers declared theirloyalty to the emperor, they soon started to arrest membersof the government, testing how much opposition it wouldcreate. As they became more confident that the support forSelassie’s regime was hollow, they moved on the emperorhimself, arresting him on September 12. Then theexecutions began. Many politicians at the core of the oldregime were swiftly killed. By December, the Derg haddeclared that Ethiopia was a socialist state. Selassie died,probably murdered, on August 27, 1975. In 1975 the Dergstarted nationalizing property, including all urban and ruralland and most kinds of private property. The increasinglyauthoritarian behavior of the regime sparked oppositionaround the country. Large parts of Ethiopia were puttogether during the European colonial expansion in the latenineteenth and early twentieth centuries by the policies ofEmperor Menelik II, the victor of the battle of Adowa, whichwe encountered before (this page). These included Eritreaand Tigray in the north and the Ogaden in the east.Independence movements in response to the Derg’sruthless regime emerged in Eritrea and Tigray, while theSomali army invaded the Somali-speaking Ogaden. TheDerg itself started to disintegrate and split into factions.Major Mengistu turned out to be the most ruthless andclever of them. By mid-1977 he had eliminated his majoropponents and effectively taken charge of the regime,

which was saved from collapse only by a huge influx ofweapons and troops from the Soviet Union and Cuba laterin November of that year.

In 1978 the regime organized a national celebrationmarking the fourth anniversary of the overthrow of HaileSelassie. By this time Mengistu was the unchallengedleader of the Derg. As his residence, the place from wherehe would rule Ethiopia, he had chosen Selassie’s GrandPalace, left unoccupied since the monarchy was abolished.At the celebration, he sat on a gilded armchair, just like theemperors of old, watching the parade. Official functionswere now held once again at the Grand Palace, withMengistu sitting on Haile Selassie’s old throne. Mengistustarted to compare himself to Emperor Tewodros, who hadrefounded the Solomonic Dynasty in the mid-nineteenthcentury after a period of decline.

One of his ministers, Dawit Wolde Giorgis, recalled in hismemoir:

At the beginning of the Revolution all of ushad utterly rejected anything to do with thepast. We would no longer drive cars, or wearsuits; neckties were considered criminal.Anything that made you look well-off orbourgeois, anything that smacked ofaffluence or sophistication, was scorned aspart of the old order. Then, around 1978, allthat began to change. Gradually materialismbecame accepted, then required. Designerclothes from the best European tailors werethe uniform of all senior government officialsand members of the Military Council. We hadthe best of everything: the best homes, thebest cars, the best whiskey, champagne,food. It was a complete reversal of the idealsof the Revolution.

Giorgis also vividly recorded how Mengistu changedonce he became sole ruler:

The real Mengistu emerged: vengeful, crueland authoritarian … Many of us who used totalk to him with hands in our pockets, as if he

were one of us, found ourselves standingstiffly to attention, cautiously respectful in hispresence. In addressing him we had alwaysused the familiar form of “you,” ante; now wefound ourselves switching to the more formal“you,” ersiwo. He moved into a bigger, morelavish office in the Palace of Menelik … Hebegan using the Emperor’s cars … We weresupposed to have a revolution of equality;now he had become the new Emperor.

The pattern of vicious circle depicted by the transitionbetween Haile Selassie and Mengistu, or between theBritish colonial governors of Sierra Leone and SiakaStevens, is so extreme and at some level so strange that itdeserves a special name. As we already mentioned inchapter 4, the German sociologist Robert Michels called itthe iron law of oligarchy. The internal logic of oligarchies,and in fact of all hierarchical organizations, is that, arguedMichels, they will reproduce themselves not only when thesame group is in power, but even when an entirely newgroup takes control. What Michels did not anticipateperhaps was an echo of Karl Marx’s remark that historyrepeats itself—the first time as tragedy, the second time asfarce.

It is not only that many of the postindependence leadersof Africa moved into the same residences, made use of thesame patronage networks, and employed the same waysof manipulating markets and extracting resources as hadthe colonial regimes and the emperors they replaced; butthey also made things worse. It was indeed a farce that thestaunchly anticolonial Stevens would be concerned withcontrolling the same people, the Mende, whom the Britishhad sought to control; that he would rely on the same chiefswhom the British had empowered and then used to controlthe hinterland; that he would run the economy in the sameway, expropriating the farmers with the same marketingboards and controlling the diamonds under a similarmonopoly. It was indeed a farce, a very sad farce indeed,that Laurent Kabila, who mobilized an army againstMobutu’s dictatorship with the promise of freeing thepeople and ending the stifling and impoverishing corruption

and repression of Mobutu’s Zaire, would then set up aregime just as corrupt and perhaps even more disastrous. Itwas certainly farcical that he tried to start a Mobutuesquepersonality cult aided and abetted by Dominique SakombiInongo, previously Mobutu’s minister of information, andthat Mobutu’s regime was itself fashioned on patterns ofexploitation of the masses that had started more than acentury previously with King Leopold’s Congo Free State. Itwas indeed a farce that the Marxist officer Mengistu wouldstart living in a palace, viewing himself as an emperor, andenriching himself and his entourage just like Haile Selassieand other emperors before him had done.

It was all a farce, but also more tragic than the originaltragedy, and not only for the hopes that were dashed.Stevens and Kabila, like many other rulers in Africa, wouldstart murdering their opponents and then innocent citizens.Mengistu and the Derg’s policies would bring recurringfamine to Ethiopia’s fertile lands. History was repeatingitself, but in a very distorted form. It was a famine in Wolloprovince in 1973 to which Haile Selassie was apparentlyindifferent that did so much finally to solidify opposition tohis regime. Selassie had at least been only indifferent.Mengistu instead saw famine as a political tool toundermine the strength of his opponents. History was notonly farcical and tragic, but also cruel to the citizens ofEthiopia and much of sub-Saharan Africa.

The essence of the iron law of oligarchy, this particularfacet of the vicious circle, is that new leaders overthrowingold ones with promises of radical change bring nothing butmore of the same. At some level, the iron law of oligarchy isharder to understand than other forms of the vicious circle.There is a clear logic to the persistence of the extractiveinstitutions in the U.S. South and in Guatemala. The samegroups continued to dominate the economy and the politicsfor centuries. Even when challenged, as the U.S. southernplanters were after the Civil War, their power remainedintact and they were able to keep and re-create a similarset of extractive institutions from which they would againbenefit. But how can we understand those who come topower in the name of radical change re-creating the samesystem? The answer to this question reveals, once again,that the vicious circle is stronger than it first appears.

Not all radical changes are doomed to failure. TheGlorious Revolution was a radical change, and it led towhat perhaps turned out to be the most important politicalrevolution of the past two millennia. The French Revolutionwas even more radical, with its chaos and excessiveviolence and the ascent of Napoleon Bonaparte, but it didnot re-create the ancien régime.

Three factors greatly facilitated the emergence of moreinclusive political institutions following the GloriousRevolution and the French Revolution. The first was newmerchants and businessmen wishing to unleash the powerof creative destruction from which they themselves wouldbenefit; these new men were among the key members ofthe revolutionary coalitions and did not wish to see thedevelopment of yet another set of extractive institutions thatwould again prey on them.

The second was the nature of the broad coalition thathad formed in both cases. For example, the GloriousRevolution wasn’t a coup by a narrow group or a specificnarrow interest, but a movement backed by merchants,industrialists, the gentry, and diverse political groupings.The same was largely true for the French Revolution.

The third factor relates to the history of English andFrench political institutions. They created a backgroundagainst which new, more inclusive regimes could develop.In both countries there was a tradition of parliaments andpower sharing going back to the Magna Carta in Englandand to the Assembly of Notables in France. Moreover, bothrevolutions happened in the midst of a process that hadalready weakened the grasp of the absolutist, or aspiringabsolutist, regimes. In neither case would these politicalinstitutions make it easy for a new set of rulers or a narrowgroup to take control of the state and usurp existingeconomic wealth and build unchecked and durable politicalpower. In the aftermath of the French Revolution, a narrowgroup under the leadership of Robespierre and Saint-Justdid take control, with disastrous consequences, but thiswas temporary and did not derail the path toward moreinclusive institutions. All this contrasts with the situation ofsocieties with long histories of extreme extractiveeconomic and political institutions, and no checks on thepower of rulers. In these societies, there would be no new

strong merchants or businessmen supporting andbankrolling the resistance against the existing regime inpart to secure more inclusive economic institutions; nobroad coalitions introducing constraints against the powerof each of their members; no political institutions inhibitingnew rulers intent on usurping and exploiting power.

In consequence, in Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, and theCongo, the vicious circle would be far harder to resist, andmoves toward inclusive institutions far more unlikely to getunder way. There were also no traditional or historicalinstitutions that could check the power of those who wouldtake control of the state. Such institutions had existed insome parts of Africa, and some, as in Botswana, evensurvived the colonial era. But they were much lessprominent throughout Sierra Leone’s history, and to theextent that they existed, they were warped by indirect rule.The same was true in other British colonies in Africa, suchas Kenya and Nigeria. They never existed in the absolutistkingdom of Ethiopia. In the Congo, indigenous institutionswere emasculated by Belgian colonial rule and theautocratic policies of Mobutu. In all these societies, therewere also no new merchants, businessmen, orentrepreneurs supporting the new regimes and demandingsecure property rights and an end to previous extractiveinstitutions. In fact, the extractive economic institutions ofthe colonial period meant that there was not muchentrepreneurship or business left at all.

The international community thought that postcolonialAfrican independence would lead to economic growththrough a process of state planning and cultivation of theprivate sector. But the private sector was not there—exceptin rural areas, which had no representation in the newgovernments and would thus be their first prey. Mostimportant perhaps, in most of these cases there wereenormous benefits from holding power. These benefits bothattracted the most unscrupulous men, such as Stevens,who wished to monopolize this power, and brought theworst out of them once they were in power. There wasnothing to break the vicious circle.

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND VICIOUS CIRCLES

Rich nations are rich largely because they managed todevelop inclusive institutions at some point during the pastthree hundred years. These institutions have persistedthrough a process of virtuous circles. Even if inclusive onlyin a limited sense to begin with, and sometimes fragile,they generated dynamics that would create a process ofpositive feedback, gradually increasing their inclusiveness.England did not become a democracy after the GloriousRevolution of 1688. Far from it. Only a small fraction of thepopulation had formal representation, but crucially, she waspluralistic. Once pluralism was enshrined, there was atendency for the institutions to become more inclusive overtime, even if this was a rocky and uncertain process.

In this, England was typical of virtuous circles: inclusivepolitical institutions create constraints against the exerciseand usurpation of power. They also tend to create inclusiveeconomic institutions, which in turn make the continuationof inclusive political institutions more likely.

Under inclusive economic institutions, wealth is notconcentrated in the hands of a small group that could thenuse its economic might to increase its political powerdisproportionately. Furthermore, under inclusive economicinstitutions there are more limited gains from holdingpolitical power, thus weaker incentives for every group andevery ambitious, upstart individual to try to take control ofthe state. A confluence of factors at a critical juncture,including interplay between existing institutions and theopportunities and challenges brought by the criticaljuncture, is generally responsible for the onset of inclusiveinstitutions, as the English case demonstrates. But oncethese inclusive institutions are in place, we do not need thesame confluence of factors for them to survive. Virtuouscircles, though still subject to significant contingency,enable the institutions’ continuity and often even unleashdynamics taking society toward greater inclusiveness.

As virtuous circles make inclusive institutions persist,vicious circles create powerful forces toward thepersistence of extractive institutions. History is not destiny,and vicious circles are not unbreakable, as we will seefurther in chapter 14. But they are resilient. They create apowerful process of negative feedback, with extractivepolitical institutions forging extractive economic institutions,

which in turn create the basis for the persistence ofextractive political institutions. We saw this most clearly inthe case of Guatemala, where the same elite held power,first under colonial rule, then in independent Guatemala, formore than four centuries; extractive institutions enrich theelite, and their wealth forms the basis for the continuation oftheir domination.

The same process of the vicious circle is also apparentin the persistence of the plantation economy in the U.S.South, except that it also showcases the vicious circle’sgreat resilience in the face of challenges. U.S. southernplanters lost their formal control of economic and politicalinstitutions after their defeat in the Civil War. Slavery, whichwas the basis of the plantation economy, was abolished,and blacks were given equal political and economic rights.Yet the Civil War did not destroy the political power of theplanter elite or its economic basis, and they were able torestructure the system, under a different guise but still undertheir own local political control, and to achieve the sameobjective: abundance of low-cost labor for the plantations.

This form of the vicious circle, where extractiveinstitutions persist because the elite controlling them andbenefiting from them persists, is not its only form. At first amore puzzling, but no less real and no less vicious, form ofnegative feedback shaped the political and economicdevelopment of many nations, and is exemplified by theexperiences of much of sub-Saharan Africa, in particularSierra Leone and Ethiopia. In a form that the sociologistRobert Michels would recognize as the iron law ofoligarchy, the overthrow of a regime presiding overextractive institutions heralds the arrival of a new set ofmasters to exploit the same set of pernicious extractiveinstitutions.

The logic of this type of vicious circle is also simple tounderstand in hindsight: extractive political institutionscreate few constraints on the exercise of power, so thereare essentially no institutions to restrain the use and abuseof power by those overthrowing previous dictators andassuming control of the state; and extractive economicinstitutions imply that there are great profits and wealth tobe made merely by controlling power, expropriating theassets of others, and setting up monopolies.

Of course, the iron law of oligarchy is not a true law, in thesense that the laws of physics are. It does not chart aninevitable path, as the Glorious Revolution in England or theMeiji Restoration in Japan illustrate.

A key factor in these episodes, which saw a major turntoward inclusive institutions, was the empowerment of abroad coalition that could stand up against absolutism andwould replace the absolutist institutions by more inclusive,pluralistic ones. A revolution by a broad coalition makes theemergence of pluralistic political institutions much morelikely. In Sierra Leone and Ethiopia, the iron law ofoligarchy was made more likely not only because existinginstitutions were highly extractive but also because neitherthe independence movement in the former nor the Dergcoup in the latter were revolutions led by such broadcoalitions, but rather by individuals and groups seekingpower so that they could do the extracting.

There is yet another, even more destructive facet of thevicious circle, anticipated by our discussion of the Mayacity-states in chapter 5. When extractive institutions createhuge inequalities in society and great wealth andunchecked power for those in control, there will be manywishing to fight to take control of the state and institutions.Extractive institutions then not only pave the way for the nextregime, which will be even more extractive, but they alsoengender continuous infighting and civil wars. These civilwars then cause more human suffering and also destroyeven what little state centralization these societies haveachieved. This also often starts a process of descent intolawlessness, state failure, and political chaos, crushing allhopes of economic prosperity, as the next chapter willillustrate.

13.

WHY NATIONS FAIL TODAY

HOW TO WIN THE LOTTERY IN ZIMBABWE

IT WAS JANUARY 2000 in Harare, Zimbabwe. Master ofCeremonies Fallot Chawawa was in charge of drawing thewinning ticket for the national lottery organized by a partlystate-owned bank, the Zimbabwe Banking Corporation(Zimbank). The lottery was open to all clients who had keptfive thousand or more Zimbabwe dollars in their accountsduring December 1999. When Chawawa drew the ticket,he was dumfounded. As the public statement of Zimbankput it, “Master of Ceremonies Fallot Chawawa could hardlybelieve his eyes when the ticket drawn for the Z$100,000prize was handed to him and he saw His Excellency RGMugabe written on it.”

President Robert Mugabe, who had ruled Zimbabwe byhook or by crook, and usually with an iron fist, since 1980,had won the lottery, which was worth a hundred thousandZimbabwe dollars, about five times the annual per capitaincome of the country. Zimbank claimed that Mr. Mugabe’sname had been drawn from among thousands of eligiblecustomers. What a lucky man! Needless to say he didn’treally need the money. Mugabe had in fact only recentlyawarded himself and his cabinet salary hikes of up to 200percent.

The lottery ticket was just one more indication ofZimbabwe’s extractive institutions. One could call thiscorruption, but it is just a symptom of the institutionalmalaise in Zimbabwe. The fact that Mugabe could even winthe lottery if he wanted showed how much control he hadover matters in Zimbabwe, and gave the world a glimpse ofthe extent of the country’s extractive institutions.

The most common reason why nations fail today isbecause they have extractive institutions. Zimbabwe underMugabe’s regime vividly illustrates the economic and social

consequences. Though the national statistics in Zimbabweare very unreliable, the best estimate is that by 2008,Zimbabwe’s per capita income was about half of what itwas when the country gained its independence in 1980.Dramatic as this sounds, it does not in fact begin to capturethe deterioration in living standards in Zimbabwe. The statehas collapsed and more or less stopped providing anybasic public services. In 2008–2009 the deterioration in thehealth systems led to an outbreak of cholera across thecountry. As of January 10, 2010, there have been 98,741reported cases and 4,293 deaths, making it the deadliestcholera outbreak in Africa over the previous fifteen years. Inthe meantime, mass unemployment has also reachedunprecedented levels. In early 2009, the UN Office for theCoordination of Humanitarian Affairs claimed that theunemployment rate had hit an incredible 94 percent.

The roots of many economic and political institutions inZimbabwe, as is the case for much of sub-Saharan Africa,can be traced back to the colonial period. In 1890 CecilRhodes’s British South Africa Company sent a militaryexpedition into the then-kingdom of the Ndebele, based inMatabeleland, and also into the neighboring Mashonaland.Their superior weaponry quickly suppressed Africanresistance, and by 1901 the colony of Southern Rhodesia,named after Rhodes, had been formed in the area that iscurrently Zimbabwe. Now that the area was a privatelyowned concession of the British South Africa Company,Rhodes anticipated making money there throughprospecting and mining for precious minerals. The venturesnever got off the ground, but the very rich farmlands beganattracting white migration. These settlers soon annexedmuch of the land. By 1923 they had freed themselves fromthe rule of the British South Africa Company andpersuaded the British government to grant them self-government. What then occurred is very similar to what hadhappened in South Africa a decade or so previously. The1913 Natives Land Act (this page–this page) created adual economy in South Africa. Rhodesia passed verysimilar laws, and inspired by the South African model, awhite-only apartheid state was constructed soon after1923.

As the European colonial empires collapsed in the late

1950s and early 1960s, the white elite in Rhodesia, led byIan Smith, comprising possibly 5 percent of the population,declared independence from Britain in 1965. Fewinternational governments recognized Rhodesia’sindependence, and the United Nations levied economicand political sanctions against it. The black citizensorganized a guerrilla war from bases in the neighboringcountries of Mozambique and Zambia. Internationalpressure and the rebellion waged by the two main groups,Mugabe’s ZANU (the Zimbabwe African National Union)and ZAPU (the Zimbabwe African People’s Union), led byJoshua Nkomo, resulted in a negotiated end to white rule.The state of Zimbabwe was created in 1980.

After independence, Mugabe quickly established hispersonal control. He either violently eliminated hisopponents or co-opted them. The most egregious acts ofviolence happened in Matabeleland, the heartland ofsupport for ZAPU, where as many as twenty thousandpeople were killed in the early 1980s. By 1987 ZAPU hadmerged with ZANU to create ZANU-PF, and JoshuaNkomo was sidelined politically. Mugabe was able torewrite the constitution he had inherited as a part of theindependence negotiation, making himself president (hehad started as prime minister), abolishing white voter rollsthat were part of the independence agreement, andeventually, in 1990, getting rid of the Senate altogether andintroducing positions in the legislature that he couldnominate. A de facto one-party state headed by Mugabewas the result.

Upon independence, Mugabe took over a set ofextractive economic institutions created by the whiteregime. These included a host of regulations on prices andinternational trade, state-run industries, and the obligatoryagricultural marketing boards. State employment expandedrapidly, with jobs given to supporters of ZANU-PF. The tightgovernment regulation of the economy suited the ZANU-PFelites because it made it difficult for an independent classof African businessmen, who might then have challengedthe former’s political monopoly, to emerge. This was verysimilar to the situation we saw in Ghana in the 1960s inchapter 2 (this page–this page). Ironically, of course, thisleft whites as the main business class. During this period

the main strengths of the white economy, particularly thehighly productive agricultural export sector, was leftuntouched. But this would last only until Mugabe becameunpopular.

The model of regulation and market interventiongradually became unsustainable, and a process ofinstitutional change, with the support of the World Bank andthe International Monetary Fund, began in 1991 after asevere fiscal crisis. The deteriorating economicperformance finally led to the emergence of a seriouspolitical opposition to ZANU-PF’s one-party rule: theMovement for Democratic Change (MDC). The 1995parliamentary elections were far from competitive. ZANU-PF won 81 percent of the vote and 118 out of the 120seats. Fifty-five of these members of Parliament wereelected unopposed. The presidential election the followingyear showed even more signs of irregularities and fraud.Mugabe won 93 percent of the vote, but his two opponents,Abel Muzorewa and Ndabaningi Sithole, had alreadywithdrawn their candidacy prior to the election, accusingthe government of coercion and fraud.

After 2000, despite all the corruption, ZANU-PF’s gripwas weakening. It took only 49 percent of the popular vote,and only 63 seats. All were contested by the MDC, whotook every seat in the capital, Harare. In the presidentialelection of 2002, Mugabe scraped home with only 56percent of the vote. Both sets of elections went ZANU-PF’sway only because of violence and intimidation, coupled withelectoral fraud.

The response of Mugabe to the breakdown of hispolitical control was to intensify both the repression and theuse of government policies to buy support. He unleashed afull-scale assault on white landowners. Starting in 2000, heencouraged and supported an extensive series of landoccupations and expropriations. They were often led by warveterans’ associations, groups supposedly comprised offormer combatants in the war of independence. Some ofthe expropriated land was given to these groups, but muchof it also went to the ZANU-PF elites. The insecurity ofproperty rights wrought by Mugabe and ZANU-PF led to acollapse of agricultural output and productivity. As theeconomy crumbled, the only thing left was to print money to

buy support, which led to enormous hyperinflation. InJanuary 2009, it became legal to use other currencies,such as the South African rand, and the Zimbabwean dollarvanished from circulation, a worthless piece of paper.

What happened in Zimbabwe after 1980 wascommonplace in sub-Saharan Africa since independence.Zimbabwe inherited a set of highly extractive political andeconomic institutions in 1980. For the first decade and ahalf, these were maintained relatively untouched. Whileelections took place, political institutions were anything butinclusive. Economic institutions changed somewhat; forexample, there was no longer explicit discriminationagainst blacks. But on the whole the institutions remainedextractive, with the only difference being that instead of IanSmith and the whites doing the extracting, it was RobertMugabe and the ZANU-PF elites filling their pockets. Overtime the institutions became even more extractive, andincomes in Zimbabwe collapsed. The economic andpolitical failure in Zimbabwe is yet another manifestation ofthe iron law of oligarchy—in this instance, with theextractive and repressive regime of Ian Smith beingreplaced by the extractive, corrupt, and repressive regimeof Robert Mugabe. Mugabe’s fake lottery win in 2000 wasthen simply the tip of a very corrupt and historically shapediceberg.

NATIONS FAIL TODAY because their extractive economicinstitutions do not create the incentives needed for peopleto save, invest, and innovate. Extractive political institutionssupport these economic institutions by cementing thepower of those who benefit from the extraction. Extractiveeconomic and political institutions, though their details varyunder different circumstances, are always at the root of thisfailure. In many cases, for example, as we will see inArgentina, Colombia, and Egypt, this failure takes the formof lack of sufficient economic activity, because thepoliticians are just too happy to extract resources or quashany type of independent economic activity that threatensthemselves and the economic elites. In some extremecases, as in Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone, which wediscuss next, extractive institutions pave the way for

complete state failure, destroying not only law and order butalso even the most basic economic incentives. The result iseconomic stagnation and—as the recent history of Angola,Cameroon, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo,Haiti, Liberia, Nepal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Zimbabweillustrates—civil wars, mass displacements, famines, andepidemics, making many of these countries poorer todaythan they were in the 1960s.

A CHILDREN’S CRUSADE?

On March 23, 1991, a group of armed men under theleadership of Foday Sankoh crossed the border fromLiberia into Sierra Leone and attacked the southern frontiertown of Kailahun. Sankoh, formerly a corporal in the SierraLeonean army, had been imprisoned after taking part in anabortive coup against Siaka Stevens’s government in1971. After being released, he eventually ended up inLibya, where he entered a training camp that the Libyandictator Colonel Qaddafi ran for African revolutionaries.There he met Charles Taylor, who was plotting to overthrowthe government in Liberia. When Taylor invaded Liberia onChristmas Eve 1989, Sankoh was with him, and it was witha group of Taylor’s men, mostly Liberians and Burkinabes(citizens of Burkina Faso), that Sankoh invaded SierraLeone. They called themselves the RUF, the RevolutionaryUnited Front, and they announced that they were there tooverthrow the corrupt and tyrannical government of theAPC.

As we saw in the previous chapter, Siaka Stevens andhis All People’s Congress, the APC, took over andintensified the extractive institutions of colonial rule inSierra Leone, just as Mugabe and ZANU-PF did inZimbabwe. By 1985, when Stevens, ill with cancer, broughtin Joseph Momoh to replace him, the economy wascollapsing. Stevens, apparently without irony, used to enjoyquoting the aphorism “The cow eats where it is tethered.”And where Stevens had once eaten, Momoh now gorged.The roads fell to pieces, and schools disintegrated.National television broadcasts stopped in 1987, when thetransmitter was sold by the minister of information, and in1989 a radio tower that relayed radio signals outside

Freetown fell down, ending transmissions outside thecapital. An analysis published in a newspaper in the capitalcity of Freetown in 1995 rings very true:

by the end of Momoh’s rule he had stoppedpaying civil servants, teachers and evenParamount Chiefs. Central government hadcollapsed, and then of course we had borderincursions, “rebels” and all the automaticweapons pouring over the border fromLiberia. The NPRC, the “rebels” and the“sobels” [soldiers turned rebels] all amount tothe chaos one expects when governmentdisappears. None of them are the causes ofour problems, but they are symptoms.

The collapse of the state under Momoh, once again aconsequence of the vicious circle unleashed by the extremeextractive institutions under Stevens, meant that there wasnothing to stop the RUF from coming across the border in1991. The state had no capacity to oppose it. Stevens hadalready emasculated the military, because he worried theymight overthrow him. It was then easy for a relatively smallnumber of armed men to create chaos in most of thecountry. They even had a manifesto called “Footpaths toDemocracy,” which started with a quote from the blackintellectual Frantz Fanon: “Each generation must, out ofrelative obscurity, discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it.”The section “What Are We Fighting For?” begins:

We continue to fight because we are tired ofbeing perpetual victims of state sponsoredpoverty and human degradation visited on usby years of autocratic rule and militarism. But,we shall exercise restraint and continue towait patiently at the rendezvous of peace—where we shall all be winners. We arecommitted to peace, by any meansnecessary, but what we are not committed tois becoming victims of peace. We know ourcause to be just and God/Allah will neverabandon us in our struggle to reconstruct anew Sierra Leone.

new Sierra Leone.

Though Sankoh and other RUF leaders may have startedwith political grievances, and the grievances of the peoplesuffering under the APC’s extractive institutions may haveencouraged them to join the movement early on, thesituation quickly changed and spun out of control. The“mission” of the RUF plunged the country into agony, as inthe testimony of a teenager from Geoma, in the south ofSierra Leone:

They gathered some of us … They chosesome of our friends and killed them, two ofthem. These were people whose fatherswere the chiefs, and they had soldiers’ bootsand property in their houses. They were shot,for no other reason than that they wereaccused of harbouring soldiers. The chiefswere also killed—as part of the government.They chose someone to be the new chief.They were still saying they had come to freeus from the APC. After a point, they were notchoosing people to kill, just shooting people.

In the first year of the invasion, any intellectual roots thatthe RUF may have had were completely extinguished.Sankoh executed those who criticized the mounting streamof atrocities. Soon, few voluntarily joined the RUF. Insteadthey turned to forcible recruitment, particularly of children.Indeed, all sides did this, including the army. If the SierraLeonean civil war was a crusade to build a better society,in the end it was a children’s crusade. The conflictintensified with massacres and massive human rightsabuses, including mass rapes and the amputation of handsand ears. When the RUF took over areas, they alsoengaged in economic exploitation. It was most obvious inthe diamond mining areas, where they press-gangedpeople into diamond mining, but was widespreadelsewhere as well.

The RUF wasn’t alone in committing atrocities,massacres, and organized forced labor. The governmentdid so as well. Such was the collapse of law and order thatit became difficult for people to tell who was a soldier and

who was a rebel. Military discipline completely vanished.By the time the war ended in 2001, probably eightythousand people had died and the whole country had beendevastated. Roads, houses, and buildings were entirelydestroyed. Today, if you go to Koidu, a major diamond-producing area in the east, you’ll still see rows of burned-out houses scarred with bullet holes.

By 1991 the state in Sierra Leone had totally failed. Thinkof what King Shyaam started with the Bushong (thispage–this page): he set up extractive institutions to cementhis power and extract the output the rest of society wouldproduce. But even extractive institutions with centralauthority concentrated in his hands were an improvementover the situation without any law and order, centralauthority, or property rights that characterized the Lelesociety on the other side of the river Kasai. Such lack oforder and central authority has been the fate of manyAfrican nations in recent decades, partly because theprocess of political centralization was historically delayed inmuch of sub-Saharan Africa, but also because the viciouscircle of extractive institutions reversed any statecentralization that existed, paving the way for state failure.

Sierra Leone during her bloody civil war of ten years,from 1991 to 2001, was a typical case of a failed state. Itstarted out as just another country marred by extractiveinstitutions, albeit of a particularly vicious and inefficienttype. Countries become failed states not because of theirgeography or their culture, but because of the legacy ofextractive institutions, which concentrate power and wealthin the hands of those controlling the state, opening the wayfor unrest, strife, and civil war. Extractive institutions alsodirectly contribute to the gradual failing of the state byneglecting investment in the most basic public services,exactly what happened in Sierra Leone.

Extractive institutions that expropriate and impoverish thepeople and block economic development are quitecommon in Africa, Asia, and South America. CharlesTaylor helped to start the civil war in Sierra Leone while atthe same time initiating a savage conflict in Liberia, whichled to state failure there, too. The pattern of extractiveinstitutions collapsing into civil war and state failure hashappened elsewhere in Africa; for example, in Angola,

Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo,Mozambique, Republic of Congo, Somalia, Sudan, andUganda. Extraction paves the way for conflict, not unlike theconflict that the highly extractive institutions of the Maya city-states generated almost a thousand years ago. Conflictprecipitates state failure. So another reason why nationsfail today is that their states fail. This, in turn, is aconsequence of decades of rule under extractive economicand political institutions.

WHO IS THE STATE?

The cases of Zimbabwe, Somalia, and Sierra Leone, evenif typical of poor countries in Africa, and perhaps evensome in Asia, seem rather extreme. Surely Latin Americancountries do not have failed states? Surely their presidentsare not brazen enough to win the lottery?

In Colombia, the Andean Mountains gradually merge tothe north with a large coastal plain that borders theCaribbean Ocean. Colombians call this the tierra caliente,the “hot country,” as distinct from the Andean world of thetierra fria, the “cold country.” For the last fifty years,Colombia has been regarded by most political scientistsand governments as a democracy. The United States feelshappy to negotiate a potential free trade agreement withthe country and pours all kinds of aid into it, particularlymilitary aid. After a short-lived military government, whichended in 1958, elections have been regularly held, eventhough until 1974 a pact rotated political power and thepresidency between the two traditional political parties, theConservatives and the Liberals. Still, this pact, the NationalFront, was itself ratified by the Colombian people via aplebiscite, and this all seems democratic enough.

Yet while Colombia has a long history of democraticelections, it does not have inclusive institutions. Instead, itshistory has been marred by violations of civil liberties,extrajudicial executions, violence against civilians, and civilwar. Not the sort of outcomes we expect from a democracy.The civil war in Colombia is different from that in SierraLeone, where the state and society collapsed and chaosreigned. But it is a civil war nonetheless and one that has

caused far more casualties. The military rule of the 1950swas itself partially in response to a civil war known inSpanish simply as La Violencia, or “The Violence.” Sincethat time quite a range of insurgent groups, mostlycommunist revolutionaries, have plagued the countryside,kidnapping and murdering. To avoid either of theseunpleasant options in rural Colombia, you have to pay thevacuna, literally “the vaccination,” meaning that you have tovaccinate yourself against being murdered or kidnapped bypaying off some group of armed thugs each month.

Not all armed groups in Colombia are communists. In1981 members of the main communist guerrilla group inColombia, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias deColombia (the FARC—the Revolutionary Armed Forces ofColombia) kidnapped a dairy farmer, Jesus Castaño, wholived in a small town called Amalfi in the hot country in thenortheastern part of the department of Antioquia. TheFARC demanded a ransom amounting to $7,500, a smallfortune in rural Colombia. The family raised it bymortgaging the farm, but their father’s corpse was foundanyway, chained to a tree. Enough was enough for three ofCastaño’s sons, Carlos, Fidel, and Vicente. They foundeda paramilitary group, Los Tangueros, to hunt downmembers of the FARC and avenge this act. The brotherswere good at organizing, and soon their group grew andbegan to find a common interest with other similarparamilitary groups that had developed from similarcauses. Colombians in many areas were suffering at thehands of left-wing guerrillas, and right-wing paramilitariesformed in opposition. Paramilitaries were being used bylandowners to defend themselves against the guerrillas, butthey were also involved in drug trafficking, extortion, and thekidnapping and murder of citizens.

By 1997 the paramilitaries, under the leadership of theCastaño brothers, had managed to form a nationalorganization for paramilitaries called the AutodefensasUnidas de Colombia (the AUC—United Self-DefenseForces of Colombia). The AUC expanded into large partsof the country, particularly into the hot country, in thedepartments of Córdoba, Sucre, Magdalena, and César.By 2001 the AUC may have had as many as thirty thousandarmed men at its disposal and was organized into different

blocks. In Córdoba, the paramilitary Bloque Catatumbowas led by Salvatore Mancuso. As its power continued togrow, the AUC made a strategic decision to get involved inpolitics. Paramilitaries and politicians courted each other.Several of the leaders of the AUC organized a meeting withprominent politicians in the town of Santa Fé de Ralito inCórdoba. A joint document, a pact, calling for the“refounding of the country” was issued and signed byleading members of the AUC, such as “Jorge 40” (thenickname for Rodrigo Tovar Pupo), Adolfo Paz (a nom deguerre for Diego Fernando “Don Berna” Murillo), andDiego Vecino (real name: Edwar Cobo Téllez), along withpoliticians, including national senators William Montes andMiguel de la Espriella. By this point the AUC was runninglarge tracts of Colombia, and it was easy for them to fixwho got elected in the 2002 elections for the Congress andSenate. For example, in the municipality of San Onofre, inSucre, the election was arranged by the paramilitary leaderCadena (“chain”). One eyewitness described whathappened as follows:

The trucks sent by Cadena went around theneighborhoods, corregimientos and ruralareas of San Onofre picking people up.According to some inhabitants … for the2002 elections hundreds of peasants weretaken to the corregimiento Plan Parejo sothey could see the faces of the candidatesthey had to vote for in the parliamentarianelections: Jairo Merlano for Senate andMuriel Benito Rebollo for Congress.

Cadena put in a bag the names of themembers of the municipal council, took outtwo and said that he would kill them and otherpeople chosen randomly if Muriel did not win.

The threat seems to have worked: each candidateobtained forty thousand votes in the whole of Sucre. It is nosurprise that the mayor of San Onofre signed the pact ofSanta Fé de Ralito. Probably one-third of the congressmenand senators owed their election in 2002 to paramilitarysupport, and Map 20, which depicts the areas of Colombia

under paramilitary control, shows how widespread theirhold was. Salvatore Mancuso himself put it in an interviewin the following way:

35 percent of the Congress was elected inareas where there were states of the Self-Defense groups, in those states we were theones collecting taxes, we delivered justice,and we had the military and territorial controlof the region and all the people who wantedto go into politics had to come and deal withthe political representatives we had there.

It is not difficult to imagine the effect of this extent ofparamilitary control of politics and society on economicinstitutions and public policy. The expansion of the AUCwas not a peaceful affair. The group not only fought againstthe FARC, but also murdered innocent civilians andterrorized and displaced hundreds of thousands of peoplefrom their homes. According to the Internal DisplacementMonitoring Centre (IDMC) of the Norwegian RefugeeCouncil, in early 2010 around 10 percent of Colombia’spopulation, nearly 4.5 million people, was internallydisplaced. The paramilitaries also, as Mancuso suggested,took over the government and all its functions, except thatthe taxes they collected were just expropriation for their ownpockets. An extraordinary pact between the paramilitaryleader Martín Llanos (real name: Héctor Germán Buitrago)and the mayors of the municipalities of Tauramena,Aguazul, Maní, Villanueva, Monterrey, and Sabanalarga, inthe department of Casanare in eastern Colombia, lists thefollowing rules to which the mayors had to adhere by orderof the “Paramilitary Peasants of Casanare”:

9) Give 50 percent of the municipality budget to bemanaged by the Paramilitary Peasants of Casanare.10) 10 percent of each and every contract of the

municipality [to be given to the Paramilitary Peasantsof Casanare].11) Mandatory assistance to all the meetings called bythe Paramilitary Peasants of Casanare.12) Inclusion of the Paramilitary Peasants of Casanarein every infrastructure project.13) Affiliation to the new political party formed by theParamilitary Peasants of Casanare.14) Accomplishment of his/hers governance program.

Casanare is not a poor department. On the contrary, ithas the highest level of per capita income of anyColombian department, because it has significant oildeposits, just the kind of resources that attractparamilitaries. In fact, once they gained power, theparamilitaries intensified their systematic expropriation ofproperty. Mancuso himself reputedly accumulated $25million worth of urban and rural property. Estimates of landexpropriated in Colombia by paramilitaries are as high as10 percent of all rural land.

Colombia is not a case of a failed state about tocollapse. But it is a state without sufficient centralizationand with far-from-complete authority over all its territory.Though the state is able to provide security and publicservices in large urban areas such as Bogotá andBarranquilla, there are significant parts of the country whereit provides few public services and almost no law andorder. Instead, alternative groups and people, such asMancuso, control politics and resources. In parts of thecountry, economic institutions function quite well, and thereare high levels of human capital and entrepreneurial skill; inother parts the institutions are highly extractive, even failingto provide a minimal degree of state authority.

It might be hard to understand how a situation like thiscan sustain itself for decades, even centuries. But in fact,the situation has a logic of its own, as a type of viciouscircle. Violence and the absence of centralized stateinstitutions of this type enter into a symbiotic relationshipwith politicians running the functional parts of the society.The symbiotic relationship arises because nationalpoliticians exploit the lawlessness in peripheral parts of the

country, while paramilitary groups are left to their owndevices by the national government.

This pattern became particularly apparent in the 2000s.In 2002 the presidential election was won by Álvaro Uribe.Uribe had something in common with the Castaño brothers:his father had been killed by the FARC. Uribe ran acampaign repudiating the attempts of the previousadministration to try to make peace with the FARC. In 2002his vote share was 3 percentage points higher in areas withparamilitaries than without them. In 2006, when he wasreelected, his vote share was 11 percentage points higherin such areas. If Mancuso and his partners could deliver thevote for Congress and the Senate, they could do so inpresidential elections as well, particularly for a presidentstrongly aligned with their worldview and likely to be lenienton them. As Jairo Angarita, Salvatore Mancuso’s deputyand the former leader of the AUC’s Sinú and San Jorgeblocs, declared in September 2005, he was proud to workfor the “reelection of the best president we have ever had.”

Once elected, the paramilitary senators andcongressmen voted for what Uribe wanted, in particularchanging the constitution so that he could be reelected in2006, which had not been allowed at the time of his firstelection, in 2002. In exchange, President Uribe delivered ahighly lenient law that allowed the paramilitaries todemobilize. Demobilization did not mean the end ofparamilitarism, simply its institutionalization in large parts ofColombia and the Colombian state, which theparamilitaries had taken over and were allowed to keep.

In Colombia many aspects of economic and politicalinstitutions have become more inclusive over time. Butcertain major extractive elements remain. Lawlessness andinsecure property rights are endemic in large swaths of thecountry, and this is a consequence of the lack of control bythe national state in many parts of the country, and theparticular form of lack of state centralization in Colombia.But this state of affairs is not an inevitable outcome. It isitself a consequence of dynamics mirroring the viciouscircle: political institutions in Colombia do not generateincentives for politicians to provide public services and lawand order in much of the country and do not put enoughconstraints on them to prevent them from entering into

implicit or explicit deals with paramilitaries and thugs.

EL CORRALITO

Argentina was in the grip of an economic crisis in late2001. For three years, income had been falling,unemployment had been rising, and the country hadaccumulated a massive international debt. The policiesleading to this situation were adopted after 1989 by thegovernment of Carlos Menem, to stop hyperinflation andstabilize the economy. For a time they were successful.

In 1991 Menem tied the Argentine peso to the U.S.dollar. One peso was equal to one dollar by law. There wasto be no change in the exchange rate. End of story. Well,almost. To convince people that the government reallymeant to stick to the law, it persuaded people to open bankaccounts in U.S. dollars. Dollars could be used in the shopsof the capital city of Buenos Aires and withdrawn from cashmachines all over the city. This policy may have helpedstabilize the economy, but it had one big drawback. It madeArgentine exports very expensive and foreign imports verycheap. Exports dribbled to a halt; imports gushed in. Theonly way to pay for them was to borrow. It was anunsustainable situation. As more people began worryingabout the sustainability of the peso, they put more of theirwealth into dollar accounts at banks. After all, if thegovernment ripped up the law and devalued the peso, theywould be safe with dollar accounts, right? They were right tobe worried about the peso. But they were too optimisticabout their dollars.

On December 1, 2001, the government froze all bankaccounts, initially for ninety days. Only a small amount ofcash was allowed for withdrawal on a weekly basis. First itwas 250 pesos, still worth $250; then 300 pesos. But thiswas allowed to be withdrawn only from peso accounts.Nobody was allowed to withdraw money from their dollaraccounts, unless they agreed to convert the dollars intopesos. Nobody wanted to do so. Argentines dubbed thissituation El Corralito, “the Little Corral”: depositors werehemmed into a corral like cows, with nowhere to go. InJanuary the devaluation was finally enacted, and instead ofthere being one peso for one dollar, there were soon four

pesos for one dollar. This should have been a vindication ofthose who thought that they should put their savings indollars. But it wasn’t, because the government then forciblyconverted all the dollar bank accounts into pesos, but at theold one-for-one exchange rate. Someone who had had$1,000 saved suddenly found himself with only $250. Thegovernment had expropriated three-quarters of people’ssavings.

For economists, Argentina is a perplexing country. Toillustrate how difficult it was to understand Argentina, theNobel Prize–winning economist Simon Kuznets oncefamously remarked that there were four sorts of countries:developed, underdeveloped, Japan, and Argentina.Kuznets thought so because, around the time of the FirstWorld War, Argentina was one of the richest countries inthe world. It then began a steady decline relative to theother rich countries in Western Europe and North America,which turned, in the 1970s and ’80s, into an absolutedecline. On the surface of it, Argentina’s economicperformance is puzzling, but the reasons for its declinebecome clearer when looked at through the lens ofinclusive and extractive institutions.

It is true that before 1914, Argentina experienced aroundfifty years of economic growth, but this was a classic caseof growth under extractive institutions. Argentina was thenruled by a narrow elite heavily invested in the agriculturalexport economy. The economy grew by exporting beef,hides, and grain in the middle of a boom in the world pricesof these commodities. Like all such experiences of growthunder extractive institutions, it involved no creativedestruction and no innovation. And it was not sustainable.Around the time of the First World War, mounting politicalinstability and armed revolts induced the Argentine elites totry to broaden the political system, but this led to themobilization of forces they could not control, and in 1930came the first military coup. Between then and 1983,Argentina oscillated backward and forward betweendictatorship and democracy and between variousextractive institutions. There was mass repression undermilitary rule, which peaked in the 1970s with at least ninethousand people and probably far more being illegallyexecuted. Hundreds of thousands were imprisoned and

tortured.During the periods of civilian rule there were elections—

a democracy of sorts. But the political system was far frominclusive. Since the rise of Perón in the 1940s, democraticArgentina has been dominated by the political party hecreated, the Partido Justicialista, usually just called thePerónist Party. The Perónists won elections thanks to ahuge political machine, which succeeded by buying votes,dispensing patronage, and engaging in corruption,including government contracts and jobs in exchange forpolitical support. In a sense this was a democracy, but itwas not pluralistic. Power was highly concentrated in thePerónist Party, which faced few constraints on what it coulddo, at least in the period when the military restrained fromthrowing it from power. As we saw earlier ( this page–thispage), if the Supreme Court challenged a policy, so muchthe worse for the Supreme Court.

In the 1940s, Perón had cultivated the labor movementas a political base. When it was weakened by militaryrepression in the 1970s and ’80s, his party simply switchedto buying votes from others instead. Economic policies andinstitutions were designed to deliver income to theirsupporters, not to create a level playing field. WhenPresident Menem faced a term limit that kept him frombeing reelected in the 1990s, it was just more of the same;he could simply rewrite the constitution and get rid of theterm limit. As El Corralito shows, even if Argentina haselections and popularly elected governments, thegovernment is quite able to override property rights andexpropriate its own citizens with impunity. There is littlecheck on Argentine presidents and political elites, andcertainly no pluralism.

What puzzled Kuznets, and no doubt many others whovisit Buenos Aires, is that the city seems so different fromLima, Guatemala City, or even Mexico City. You do not seeindigenous people, and you do not see the descendants offormer slaves. Mostly you see the glorious architecture andbuildings put up during the Belle Epoch, the years of growthunder extractive institutions. But in Buenos Aires you seeonly part of Argentina. Menem, for example, was not fromBuenos Aires. He was born in Anillaco, in the province ofLa Rioja, in the mountains far to the northwest of Buenos

Aires, and he served three terms as governor of theprovince. At the time of the conquest of the Americas by theSpanish, this area of Argentina was an outlying part of theInca Empire and had a dense population of indigenouspeople (see Map 1 on this page). The Spanish createdencomiendas here, and a highly extractive economydeveloped growing food and breeding mules for the minersin Potosí to the north. In fact, La Rioja was much more likethe area of Potosí in Peru and Bolivia than it was likeBuenos Aires. In the nineteenth century, La Rioja producedthe famous warlord Facundo Quiroga, who ruled the arealawlessly and marched his army on Buenos Aires. The storyabout the development of Argentine political institutions is astory about how the interior provinces, such as La Rioja,reached agreements with Buenos Aires. Theseagreements were a truce: the warlords of La Rioja agreedto leave Buenos Aires alone so that it could make money.In return, the Buenos Aires elites gave up on reforming theinstitutions of “the interior.” So Argentina at first appears aworld apart from Peru or Bolivia, but it is really not sodifferent once you leave the elegant boulevards of BuenosAires. That the preferences and the politics of the interiorgot embedded into Argentine institutions is the reason whythe country has experienced a very similar institutional pathto those of other extractive Latin American countries.

That elections have not brought either inclusive politicalor economic institutions is the typical case in LatinAmerica. In Colombia, paramilitaries can fix one-third ofnational elections. In Venezuela today, as in Argentina, thedemocratically elected government of Hugo Chávez attacksits opponents, fires them from public-sector jobs, closesdown newspapers whose editorials it doesn’t like, andexpropriates property. In whatever he does, Chávez ismuch more powerful and less constrained than Sir RobertWalpole was in Britain in the 1720s, when he was unable tocondemn John Huntridge under the Black Act (thispage–this page). Huntridge would have fared much lesswell in present-day Venezuela or Argentina.

While the democracy emerging in Latin America is inprinciple diametrically opposed to elite rule, and in rhetoricand action it tries to redistribute rights and opportunitiesaway from at least a segment of the elite, its roots are firmly

based in extractive regimes in two senses. First, inequitiespersisting for centuries under extractive regimes makevoters in newly emerging democracies vote in favor ofpoliticians with extreme policies. It is not that Argentiniansare just naïve and think that Juan Perón or the more recentPerónist politicians such as Menem or the Kirchners areselfless and looking out for their interests, or thatVenezuelans see their salvation in Chávez. Instead, manyArgentinians and Venezuelans recognize that all otherpoliticians and parties have for so long failed to give themvoice, to provide them with the most basic public services,such as roads and education, and to protect them fromexploitation by local elites. So many Venezuelans todaysupport the policies that Chávez is adopting even if thesecome with corruption and waste in the same way that manyArgentinians supported Perón’s policies in the 1940s and1970s. Second, it is again the underlying extractiveinstitutions that make politics so attractive to, and sobiased in favor of, strongmen such as Perón and Chávez,rather than an effective party system producing sociallydesirable alternatives. Perón, Chávez, and dozens of otherstrongmen in Latin America are just another facet of theiron law of oligarchy, and as the name suggests, the rootsof this iron law lies in the underlying elite-controlledregimes.

THE NEW ABSOLUTISM

In November 2009, the government of North Koreaimplemented what economists call a currency reform.Severe bouts of inflation are often the reasons for suchreforms. In France in January 1960, a currency reformintroduced a new franc that was equal to 100 of the existingfrancs. Old francs continued in circulation and people evenquoted prices in them as the change to the new francs wasgradually made. Finally, old francs ceased to be legaltender in January 2002, when France introduced the euro.The North Korean reform looked similar on the face of it.Like the French in 1960, the North Korean governmentdecided to take two zeros off the currency. One hundred oldwons, the currency of North Korea, were to be worth onenew won. Individuals were allowed to come forward to

exchange their old currency for the newly printed currency,though this had to be done in one week, rather than forty-two years, as in the French case. Then came the catch: thegovernment announced that no one could convert morethan 100,000 won, though it later relaxed this to 500,000.One hundred thousand won was about $40 at the blackmarket exchange rate. In one stroke, the government hadwiped out a huge fraction of North Korean citizens’ privatewealth; we do not know exactly how much, but it is probablygreater than that expropriated by the Argentine governmentin 2002.

The government in North Korea is a communistdictatorship opposed to private property and markets. Butit is difficult to control black markets, and black marketsmake transactions in cash. Of course quite a bit of foreignexchange is involved, particularly Chinese currency, butmany transactions use won. The currency reform wasdesigned to punish people who used these markets and,more specifically, to make sure that they did not becometoo wealthy or powerful enough to threaten the regime.Keeping them poor was safer. Black markets are not thewhole story. People in North Korea also keep their savingsin wons because there are few banks in Korea, and theyare all owned by the government. In effect, the governmentused the currency reform to expropriate much of people’ssavings.

Though the government says it regards markets as bad,the North Korean elite rather like what markets can producefor them. The leader, Kim Jong-Il, has a seven-storypleasure palace equipped with a bar, a karaoke machine,and a mini movie theater. The ground floor has anenormous swimming pool with a wave machine, where Kimlikes to use a body board fitted with a small motor. When in2006 the United States placed sanctions on North Korea, itknew how to really hit the regime where it hurt. It made itillegal to export more than sixty luxury items to North Korea,including yachts, water scooters, racing cars, motorcycles,DVD players, and televisions larger than twenty-nineinches. There would be no more silk scarves, designerfountain pens, furs, or leather luggage. These were exactlythe items collected by Kim and his Communist Party elites.One scholar used sales figures from the French company

Hennessy to estimate that Kim’s annual cognac budgetbefore the sanctions could have been as high as $800,000a year.

It is impossible to understand many of the poorestregions of the world at the end of the twentieth centurywithout understanding the new absolutism of the twentiethcentury: communism. Marx’s vision was a system thatwould generate prosperity under more humane conditionsand without inequality. Lenin and his Communist Party wereinspired by Marx, but the practice could not have beenmore different from the theory. The Bolshevik Revolution of1917 was a bloody affair, and there was no humane aspectto it. Equality was not part of the equation, either, since thefirst thing Lenin and his entourage did was to create a newelite, themselves, at the head of the Bolshevik Party. Indoing so, they purged and murdered not only non-communist elements, but also other communists who couldhave threatened their power. But the real tragedies wereyet to come: first with the Civil War, and then under Stalin’scollectivization and his all-too-frequent purges, which mayhave killed as many as forty million people. Russiancommunism was brutal, repressive, and bloody, but notunique. The economic consequences and the humansuffering were quite typical of what happened elsewhere—for example, in Cambodia in the 1970s under the KhmerRouge, in China, and in North Korea. In all casescommunism brought vicious dictatorships and widespreadhuman rights abuses. Beyond the human suffering andcarnage, the communist regimes all set up various types ofextractive institutions. The economic institutions, with orwithout markets, were designed to extract resources fromthe people, and by entirely abhorring property rights, theyoften created poverty instead of prosperity. In the Sovietcase, as we saw in chapter 5, the Communist system atfirst generated rapid growth, but then faltered and led tostagnation. The consequences were much moredevastating in China under Mao, in Cambodia under theKhmer Rouge, and in North Korea, where the Communisteconomic institutions led to economic collapse and famine.

The Communist economic institutions were in turnsupported by extractive political institutions, concentratingall power in the hands of Communist parties and

introducing no constraints on the exercise of this power.Though these were different extractive institutions in form,they had similar effects on the livelihoods of the people asthe extractive institutions in Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone.

KING COTTON

Cotton accounts for about 45 percent of the exports ofUzbekistan, making it the most important crop since thecountry established independence at the breakup of theSoviet Union in 1991. Under Soviet communism allfarmland in Uzbekistan was under the control of 2,048state-owned farms. These were broken up and the landdistributed after 1991. But that didn’t mean farmers couldact independently. Cotton was too valuable to the newgovernment of Uzbekistan’s first, and so far only, president,Ismail Karimov. Instead, regulations were introduced thatdetermined what farmers could plant and exactly how muchthey could sell it for. Cotton was a valuable export, andfarmers were paid a small fraction of world market pricesfor their crop, with the government taking the rest. Nobodywould have grown cotton at the prices paid, so thegovernment forced them. Every farmer now has to allocate35 percent of his land to cotton. This caused manyproblems, difficulties with machinery being one. At the timeof independence, about 40 percent of the harvest waspicked by combine harvesters. After 1991, not surprisingly,given the incentives that President Karimov’s regimecreated for farmers, they were not willing to buy these ormaintain them. Recognizing the problem, Karimov came upwith a solution, in fact, a cheaper option than combineharvesters: schoolchildren.

The cotton bolls start to ripen and are ready to be pickedin early September, at about the same time that childrenreturn to school. Karimov issued orders to local governorsto send cotton delivery quotas to schools. In earlySeptember the schools are emptied of 2.7 million children(2006 figures). Teachers, instead of being instructors,became labor recruiters. Gulnaz, a mother of two of thesechildren, explained what happens:

At the beginning of each school year,

approximately at the beginning ofSeptember, the classes in school aresuspended, and instead of classes childrenare sent to the cotton harvest. Nobody asksfor the consent of parents. They don’t haveweekend holidays [during the harvestingseason]. If a child is for any reason left athome, his teacher or class curator comesover and denounces the parents. They assigna plan to each child, from 20 to 60 kg per daydepending on the child’s age. If a child fails tofulfil this plan then next morning he islambasted in front of the whole class.

The harvest lasts for two months. Rural children luckyenough to be assigned to farms close to home can walk orare bused to work. Children farther away or from urbanareas have to sleep in the sheds or storehouses with themachinery and animals. There are no toilets or kitchens.Children have to bring their own food for lunch.

The main beneficiaries from all this forced labor are thepolitical elites, led by President Karimov, the de facto kingof all Uzbeki cotton. The schoolchildren are supposedlypaid for their labor, but only supposedly. In 2006, when theworld price of cotton was around $1.40 (U.S.) per kilo, thechildren were paid about $0.03 for their daily quota oftwenty to sixty kilos. Probably 75 percent of the cottonharvest is now picked by children. In the spring, school isclosed for compulsory hoeing, weeding, and transplanting.

How did it all come to this? Uzbekistan, like the otherSoviet Socialist Republics, was supposed to gain itsindependence after the collapse of the Soviet Union anddevelop a market economy and democracy. As in manyother Soviet Republics, this is not what happened,however. President Karimov, who began his politicalcareer in the Communist Party of the old Soviet Union,rising to the post of first secretary for Uzbekistan at theopportune moment of 1989, just as the Berlin Wall wascollapsing, managed to reinvent himself as a nationalist.With the crucial support of the security forces, in December1991 he won Uzbekistan’s first-ever presidential election.After taking power, he cracked down on the independent

political opposition. Opponents are now in prison or exile.There is no free media in Uzbekistan, and nonongovernmental organizations are allowed. The apogee ofthe intensifying repression came in 2005, when possibly750, maybe more, demonstrators were murdered by thepolice and army in Andijon.

Using this command of the security forces and totalcontrol of the media, Karimov first extended his presidentialterm for five years, through a referendum, and then wonreelection for a new seven-year term in 2000, with 91.2percent of the vote. His only opponent declared that he hadvoted for Karimov! In his 2007 reelection, widely regardedas fraudulent, he won 88 percent of the vote. Elections inUzbekistan are similar to those that Joseph Stalin used toorganize in the heyday of the Soviet Union. One in 1937was famously covered by New York Times correspondentHarold Denny, who reproduced a translation from Pravda,the newspaper of the Communist Party, which was meantto convey the tension and excitement of Soviet elections:

Midnight has struck. The twelfth ofDecember, the day of the first general, equaland direct elections to the Supreme Soviet,has ended. The result of the voting is about tobe announced.

The commission remains alone in its room.It is quiet, and the lamps are shiningsolemnly. Amid the general attentive andintense expectation the chairman performs allthe necessary formalities before counting ofthe ballots—checking up by list how manyvoters there were and how many have voted—and the result is 100 per cent. 100 percent! What election in what country for whatcandidate has given a 100 per centresponse?

The main business starts now. Excitedlythe chairman inspects the seals on theboxes. Then the members of the commissioninspect them. The seals are intact and are cutoff. The boxes are opened.

It is quiet. They sit attentively and seriously,

these election inspectors and executives.Now it is time to open the envelopes.

Three members of the commission takescissors. The chairman rises. The tellershave their copybooks ready. The firstenvelope is slit. All eyes are directed to it.The chairman takes out two slips—white [fora candidate for the Soviet of the Union] andblue [for a candidate for the Soviet ofNationalities]—and reads loudly anddistinctly, “Comrade Stalin.”

Instantly the solemnity is broken.Everybody in the room jumps up andapplauds joyously and stormily for the firstballot of the first general secret election underthe Stalinist Constitution—a ballot with thename of the Constitution’s creator.

This mood would have captured the suspensesurrounding the reelections of Karimov, who appears anapt pupil of Stalin when it comes to repression and politicalcontrol and seems to organize elections that compete withthose of Stalin in their surrealism.

Under Karimov, Uzbekistan is a country with veryextractive political and economic institutions. And it is poor.Probably one-third of the people live in poverty, and theaverage annual income is around $1,000. Not all thedevelopment indicators are bad. According to World Bankdata, school enrollment is 100 percent … well, exceptpossibly during the cotton picking season. Literacy is alsovery high, though apart from controlling all the media, theregime also bans books and censors the Internet. Whilemost people are paid only a few cents a day to pick cotton,the Karimov family and former communist cadres whoreinvented themselves after 1989 as the new economicand political elites of Uzbekistan have become fabulouslywealthy.

The family economic interests are run by Karimov’sdaughter Gulnora, who is expected to succeed her fatheras president. In a country so untransparent and secretive,nobody knows exactly what the Karimov family controls orhow much money they earn, but the experience of the U.S.

company Interspan is indicative of what has happened inthe Uzbek economy in the last two decades. Cotton is notthe only agricultural crop; parts of the country are ideal forgrowing tea, and Interspan decided to invest. By 2005 ithad taken over 30 percent of the local market, but then itran into trouble. Gulnora decided that the tea industrylooked economically promising. Soon Interspan’s localpersonnel started to be arrested, beaten up, and tortured. Itbecame impossible to operate, and by August 2006 thecompany had pulled out. Its assets were taken over by theKarimov families’ rapidly expanding tea interests, at thetime representing 67 percent of the market, up from 2percent a couple of years earlier.

Uzbekistan in many ways looks like a relic from the past,a forgotten age. It is a country languishing under theabsolutism of a single family and the cronies surroundingthem, with an economy based on forced labor—in fact, theforced labor of children. Except that it isn’t. It’s part of thecurrent mosaic of societies failing under extractiveinstitutions, and unfortunately it has many commonalitieswith other former Soviet Socialist Republics, ranging fromArmenia and Azerbaijan to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, andTurkmenistan, and reminds us that even in the twenty-firstcentury, extractive economic and political institutions cantake an unashamed atrociously extractive form.

KEEPING THE PLAYING FIELD AT AN ANGLE

The 1990s were a period of reform in Egypt. Since themilitary coup that removed the monarchy in 1954, Egypthad been run as a quasi-socialist society in which thegovernment played a central role in the economy. Manysectors of the economy were dominated by state-ownedenterprises. Over the years, the rhetoric of socialismlapsed, markets opened, and the private sector developed.Yet these were not inclusive markets, but marketscontrolled by the state and by a handful of businessmenallied with the National Democratic Party (NDP), thepolitical party founded by President Anwar Sadat in 1978.Businessmen became more and more involved with theparty, and the party became more and more involved withthem under the government of Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak,

who became president in 1981 following Anwar Sadat’sassassination, ruled with the NDP until being forced frompower by popular protests and the military in February2011, as we discussed in the Preface (this page).

Major businesspeople were appointed to keygovernment posts in areas closely related to theireconomic interests. Rasheed Mohamed Rasheed, formerpresident of Unilever AMET (Africa, Middle East, andTurkey), became minister of foreign trade and industry;Mohamed Zoheir Wahid Garana, the owner and managingdirector of Garana Travel Company, one of the largest inEgypt, became minister of tourism; Amin Ahmed MohamedOsman Abaza, founder of the Nile Cotton Trade Company,the largest cotton-exporting company in Egypt, becameminister of agriculture.

In many sectors of the economy, businessmenpersuaded the government to restrict entry through stateregulation. These sectors included the media, iron andsteel, the automotive industry, alcoholic beverages, andcement. Each sector was very concentrated with high entrybarriers protecting the politically connected businessmenand firms. Big businessmen close to the regime, such asAhmed Ezz (iron and steel), the Sawiris family (multimedia,beverages, and telecommunications), and MohamedNosseir (beverages and telecommunications) received notonly protection from the state but also government contractsand large bank loans without needing to put up collateral.Ahmed Ezz was both the chairman of Ezz Steel, the largestcompany in the country’s steel industry, producing 70percent of Egypt’s steel, and also a high-ranking memberof the NDP, the chairman of the People’s Assembly Budgetand Planning Committee, and a close associate of GamalMubarak, one of President Mubarak’s sons.

The economic reforms of the 1990s promoted byinternational financial institutions and economists wereaimed at freeing up markets and reducing the role of thestate in the economy. A key pillar of such reformseverywhere was the privatization of state-owned assets.Mexican privatization (this page–this page), instead ofincreasing competition, simply turned state-ownedmonopolies into privately owned monopolies, in theprocess enriching politically connected businessmen such

as Carlos Slim. Exactly the same thing took place in Egypt.The businesspeople connected to the regime were able toheavily influence implementation of Egypt’s privatizationprogram so that it favored the wealthy business elite—orthe “whales,” as they are known locally. At the time thatprivatization began, the economy was dominated by thirty-two of these whales.

One was Ahmed Zayat, at the helm of the Luxor Group. In1996 the government decided to privatize Al Ahrambeverages (ABC), which was the monopoly maker of beerin Egypt. A bid came in from a consortium of the EgyptianFinance Company, led by real estate developer FaridSaad, along with the first venture capital company formedin Egypt in 1995. The consortium included Fouad Sultan,former minister of tourism, Mohamed Nosseir, andMohamed Ragab, another elite businessman. The groupwas well connected, but not well connected enough. Its bidof 400 million Egyptian pounds was turned down as toolow. Zayat was better connected. He didn’t have the moneyto purchase ABC, so he came up with a scheme of CarlosSlim–type ingenuity. ABC shares were floated for the firsttime on the London Stock Exchange, and the Luxor Groupacquired 74.9 percent of those shares at 68.5 Egyptianpounds per share. Three months later the shares were thensplit in two, and the Luxor Group was able to sell all of themat 52.5 pounds each, netting a 36 percent profit, with whichZayat was able to fund the purchase of ABC for 231 millionpounds the next month. At the time, ABC was making anannual profit of around 41.3 million Egyptian pounds andhad cash reserves of 93 million Egyptian pounds. It wasquite a bargain. In 1999 the newly privatized ABC extendedits monopoly from beer into wine by buying the privatizednational wine monopoly Gianaclis. Gianaclis was a veryprofitable company, nestling behind a 3,000 percent tariffimposed on imported wines, and it had a 70 percent profitmargin on what it sold. In 2002 the monopoly changedhands again when Zayat sold ABC to Heineken for 1.3billion Egyptian pounds. A 563 percent profit in five years.

Mohamed Nosseir hadn’t always been on the losingside. In 1993 he purchased the privatized El Nasr BottlingCompany, which had the monopoly rights to bottle and sellCoca-Cola in Egypt. Nosseir’s relations with the then-

minister of the public business sector, Atef Ebeid, allowedhim to make the purchase with little competition. Nosseirthen sold the company after two years for more than threetimes the acquisition price. Another example was the movein the late 1990s to involve the private sector in the statecinema industry. Again political connections implied thatonly two families were allowed to bid for and operate thecinemas—one of whom was the Sawiris family.

Egypt today is a poor nation—not as poor as mostcountries to the south, in sub-Saharan Africa, but still onewhere around 40 percent of the population is very poor andlives on less than two dollars a day. Ironically, as we sawearlier (this page–this page), in the nineteenth centuryEgypt was the site of an initially successful attempt atinstitutional change and economic modernization underMuhammad Ali, who did generate a period of extractiveeconomic growth before it was effectively annexed to theBritish Empire. From the British colonial period a set ofextractive institutions emerged, and were continued by themilitary after 1954. There was some economic growth andinvestment in education, but the majority of the populationhad few economic opportunities, while the new elite couldbenefit from their connections to the government.

These extractive economic institutions were againsupported by extractive political institutions. PresidentMubarak planned to begin a political dynasty, grooming hisson Gamal to replace him. His plan was cut short only bythe collapse of his extractive regime in early 2011 in theface of widespread unrest and demonstrations during theso-called Arab Spring. During the period when Nasser waspresident, there were some inclusive aspects of economicinstitutions, and the state did open up the education systemand provide some opportunities that the previous regime ofKing Farouk had not. But this was an example of anunstable combination of extractive political institutions withsome inclusivity of economic institutions.

The inevitable outcome, which came during Mubarak’sreign, was that economic institutions became moreextractive, reflecting the distribution of political power insociety. In some sense the Arab Spring was a reaction tothis. This was true not just in Egypt but also in Tunisia.Three decades of Tunisian growth under extractive political

institutions started to go into reverse as President Ben Aliand his family began to prey more and more on theeconomy.

WHY NATIONS FAIL

Nations fail economically because of extractive institutions.These institutions keep poor countries poor and preventthem from embarking on a path to economic growth. This istrue today in Africa, in places such as Zimbabwe andSierra Leone; in South America, in countries such asColombia and Argentina; in Asia, in countries such asNorth Korea and Uzbekistan; and in the Middle East, innations such as Egypt. There are notable differencesamong these countries. Some are tropical, some are intemperate latitudes. Some were colonies of Britain; others,of Japan, Spain, and Russia. They have very differenthistories, languages, and cultures. What they all share isextractive institutions. In all these cases the basis of theseinstitutions is an elite who design economic institutions inorder to enrich themselves and perpetuate their power atthe expense of the vast majority of people in society. Thedifferent histories and social structures of the countries leadto the differences in the nature of the elites and in thedetails of the extractive institutions. But the reason whythese extractive institutions persist is always related to thevicious circle, and the implications of these institutions interms of impoverishing their citizens are similar—even iftheir intensity differs.

In Zimbabwe, for example, the elite comprise RobertMugabe and the core of ZANU-PF, who spearheaded theanticolonial fight in the 1970s. In North Korea, they are theclique around Kim Jong-Il and the Communist Party. InUzbekistan it is President Islam Karimov, his family, and hisreinvented Soviet Union–era cronies. These groups areobviously very different, and these differences, along withthe variegated polities and economies they govern, meanthat the specific form the extractive institutions take differs.For instance, because North Korea was created by acommunist revolution, it takes as its political model the one-party rule of the Communist Party. Though Mugabe didinvite the North Korean military into Zimbabwe in the 1980s

to massacre his opponents in Matabeleland, such a modelfor extractive political institutions is not applicable inZimbabwe. Instead, because of the way he came to powerin the anticolonial struggle, Mugabe had to cloak his rulewith elections, even if for a while he managed actually toengineer a constitutionally sanctified one-party state.

In contrast, Colombia has had a long history of elections,which emerged historically as a method for sharing powerbetween the Liberal and Conservative parties in the wakeof independence from Spain. Not only is the nature of elitesdifferent, but their numbers are. In Uzbekistan, Karimovcould hijack the remnants of the Soviet state, which gavehim a strong apparatus to suppress and murder alternativeelites. In Colombia, the lack of authority of the central statein parts of the country has naturally led to much morefragmented elites—in fact, so much so that they sometimesmurder one another. Nevertheless, despite thesevariegated elites and political institutions, these institutionsoften manage to cement and reproduce the power of theelite that created them. But sometimes the infighting theyinduce leads to the collapse of the state, as in SierraLeone.

Just as different histories and structures mean that theidentity of elites and the details of extractive politicalinstitutions differ, so do the details of the extractiveeconomic institutions that the elites set up. In North Korea,the tools of extraction were again inherited from thecommunist toolkit: the abolition of private property, state-run farms, and industry.

In Egypt, the situation was quite similar under theavowedly socialist military regime created by ColonelNasser after 1952. Nasser sided with the Soviet Union inthe cold war, expropriating foreign investments, such as theBritish-owned Suez Canal, and took into public ownershipmuch of the economy. However, the situation in Egypt in the1950s and ’60s was very different from that in North Koreain the 1940s. It was much easier for the North Koreans tocreate a more radically communist-style economy, sincethey could expropriate former Japanese assets and buildon the economic model of the Chinese Revolution.

In contrast, the Egyptian Revolution was more a coup bya group of military officers. When Egypt changed sides in

the cold war and became pro-Western, it was thereforerelatively easy, as well as expedient, for the Egyptianmilitary to change from central command to cronycapitalism as a method of extraction. Even so, the bettereconomic performance of Egypt compared with NorthKorea was a consequence of the more limited extractivenature of Egyptian institutions. For one thing, lacking thestifling control of the North Korean Communist Party, theEgyptian regime had to placate its population in a way thatthe North Korean regime does not. For another, even cronycapitalism generates some incentives for investment, atleast among those favored by the regime, that are totallyabsent in North Korea.

Though these details are all important and interesting,the more critical lessons are in the big picture, whichreveals that in each of these cases, extractive politicalinstitutions have created extractive economic institutions,transferring wealth and power toward the elite.

The intensity of extraction in these different countriesobviously varies and has important consequences forprosperity. In Argentina, for example, the constitution anddemocratic elections do not work well to promote pluralism,but they do function much better than in Colombia. At leastthe state can claim the monopoly of violence in Argentina.Partly as a consequence, income per capita in Argentina isdouble that of Colombia. The political institutions of bothcountries do a much better job of restraining elites thanthose in Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone, and as a result,Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone are much poorer thanArgentina and Colombia.

The vicious circle also implies that even when extractiveinstitutions lead to the collapse of the state, as in SierraLeone and Zimbabwe, this doesn’t put a conclusive end tothe rule of these institutions. We have already seen that civilwars and revolutions, while they may occur during criticaljunctures, do not necessarily lead to institutional change.The events in Sierra Leone since the civil war ended in2002 vividly illustrate this possibility.

In 2007 in a democratic election, the old party of SiakaStevens, the APC, returned to power. Though the man whowon the presidential election, Ernest Bai Koroma, had noassociation with the old APC governments, many of his

cabinet did. Two of Stevens’s sons, Bockarie and Jengo,were even made ambassadors to the United States andGermany. In a sense this is a more volatile version of whatwe saw happen in Colombia. There the lack of stateauthority in many parts of the country persists over timebecause it is in the interests of part of the national politicalelite to allow it to do so, but the core state institutions arealso strong enough to prevent this disorder from turning intocomplete chaos. In Sierra Leone, partly because of themore extractive nature of economic institutions and partlybecause of the country’s history of highly extractive politicalinstitutions, the society has not only suffered economicallybut has also tipped between complete disorder and somesort of order. Still, the long-run effect is the same: the stateall but remains absent, and institutions are extractive.

In all these cases there has been a long history ofextractive institutions since at least the nineteenth century.Each country is trapped in a vicious circle. In Colombia andArgentina, they are rooted in the institutions of Spanishcolonial rule (this page–this page). Zimbabwe and SierraLeone originated in British colonial regimes set up in thelate nineteenth century. In Sierra Leone, in the absence ofwhite settlers, these regimes built extensively onprecolonial extractive structures of political power andintensified them. These structures themselves were theoutcome of a long vicious circle that featured lack ofpolitical centralization and the disastrous effects of theslave trade. In Zimbabwe, there was much more of aconstruction of a new form of extractive institutions,because the British South Africa Company created a dualeconomy. Uzbekistan could take over the extractiveinstitutions of the Soviet Union and, like Egypt, modify theminto crony capitalism. The Soviet Union’s extractiveinstitutions themselves were in many ways a continuation ofthose of the tsarist regime, again in a pattern predicated onthe iron law of oligarchy. As these various vicious circlesplayed out in different parts of the world over the past 250years, world inequality emerged, and persists.

The solution to the economic and political failure ofnations today is to transform their extractive institutionstoward inclusive ones. The vicious circle means that this isnot easy. But it is not impossible, and the iron law of

oligarchy is not inevitable. Either some preexisting inclusiveelements in institutions, or the presence of broad coalitionsleading the fight against the existing regime, or just thecontingent nature of history, can break vicious circles. Justlike the civil war in Sierra Leone, the Glorious Revolution in1688 was a struggle for power. But it was a struggle of avery different nature than the civil war in Sierra Leone.Conceivably some in Parliament fighting to remove JamesII in the wake of the Glorious Revolution imaginedthemselves playing the role of the new absolutist, as OliverCromwell did after the English Civil War. But the fact thatParliament was already powerful and made up of a broadcoalition consisting of different economic interests anddifferent points of view made the iron law of oligarchy lesslikely to apply in 1688. And it was helped by the fact thatluck was on the side of Parliament against James II. In thenext chapter, we will see other examples of countries thathave managed to break the mold and transform theirinstitutions for the better, even after a long history ofextractive institutions.

14.

BREAKING THE MOLD

THREE AFRICAN CHIEFS

ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1895, the ocean liner Tantallon Castledocked at Plymouth on the southern coast of England.Three African chiefs, Khama of the Ngwato, Bathoen of theNgwaketse, and Sebele of the Kwena, disembarked andtook the 8:10 express train to Paddington Station, London.The three chiefs had come to Britain on a mission: to savetheir and five other Tswana states from Cecil Rhodes. TheNgwato, Ngwaketse, and Kwena were three of the eightTswana states comprising what was then known asBechuanaland, which would become Botswana afterindependence in 1966.

The tribes had been trading with Europeans for most ofthe nineteenth century. In the 1840s, the famous Scottishmissionary David Livingstone had traveled extensively inBechuanaland and converted King Sechele of the Kwenato Christianity. The first translation of the Bible into anAfrican language was in Setswana, the language of theTswana. In 1885 Britain had declared Bechuanaland aprotectorate. The Tswana were content with thearrangement, as they thought this would bring themprotection from further European invasions, particularlyfrom the Boers, with whom they had been clashing sincethe Great Trek in 1835, a migration of thousands of Boersinto the interior to escape from British colonialism. TheBritish, on the other hand, wanted control of the area toblock both further expansions by the Boers (this page–thispage) and possible expansions by Germans, who hadannexed the area of southwest Africa corresponding totoday’s Namibia. The British did not think that a full-scalecolonization was worthwhile. The high commissioner Reysummarized the attitudes of the British government in 1885clearly: “We have no interest in the country to the north of

the Molope [the Bechuanaland protectorate], except as aroad to the interior; we might therefore confine ourselves forthe present to preventing that part of the Protectorate beingoccupied by either filibusters or foreign powers doing aslittle in the way of administration or settlement as possible.”

But things changed for the Tswana in 1889 when CecilRhodes’s British South Africa Company started expandingnorth out of South Africa, expropriating great swaths of landthat would eventually become Northern and SouthernRhodesia, now Zambia and Zimbabwe. By 1895, the yearof the three chiefs’ visit to London, Rhodes had his eye onterritories to the southwest of Rhodesia, Bechuanaland.The chiefs knew that only disaster and exploitation layahead for territories if they fell under the control of Rhodes.Though it was impossible for them to defeat Rhodesmilitarily, they were determined to fight him any way theycould. They decided to opt for the lesser of two evils:greater control by the British rather than annexation byRhodes. With the help of the London Missionary Society,they traveled to London to try to persuade Queen Victoriaand Joseph Chamberlain, then colonial secretary, to takegreater control of Bechuanaland and protect it fromRhodes.

On September 11, 1895, they had their first meeting withChamberlain. Sebele spoke first, then Bathoen, and finallyKhama. Chamberlain declared that he would considerimposing British control to protect the tribes from Rhodes.In the meantime, the chiefs quickly embarked on anationwide speaking tour to drum up popular support fortheir requests. They visited and spoke at Windsor andReading, close to London; in Southampton on the southcoast; and in Leicester and Birmingham, in Chamberlain’spolitical support base, the Midlands. They went north toindustrial Yorkshire, to Sheffield, Leeds, Halifax, andBradford; they also went west to Bristol and then up toManchester and Liverpool.

Meanwhile, back in South Africa, Cecil Rhodes wasmaking preparations for what would become the disastrousJameson Raid, an armed assault on the Boer Republic ofthe Transvaal, despite Chamberlain’s strong objections.These events likely made Chamberlain much moresympathetic to the chiefs’ plight than he might have been

otherwise. On November 6, they met with him again inLondon. The chiefs spoke through an interpreter:

Chamberlain: I will speak about the lands ofthe Chiefs, and about the railway, and aboutthe law which is to be observed in the territoryof the Chiefs … Now let us look at themap … We will take the land that we want forthe railway, and no more.Khama: I say, that if Mr. Chamberlain willtake the land himself, I will be content.Chamberlain: Then tell him that I will makethe railway myself by the eyes of one whom Iwill send and I will take only as much as Irequire, and will give compensation if what Itake is of value.Khama: I would like to know how [i.e., where]the railway will go.Chamberlain: It shall go through his territorybut shall be fenced in, and we will take noland.Khama: I trust that you will do this work as formyself, and treat me fairly in this matter.Chamberlain: I will guard your interests.

The next day, Edward Fairfield, at the Colonial Office,explained Chamberlain’s settlement in more detail:

Each of the three chiefs, Khama, Sebele andBathoen, shall have a country within whichthey shall live as hitherto under the protectionof the Queen. The Queen shall appoint anofficer to reside with them. The chiefs will ruletheir own people much as at present.

Rhodes’s reaction to being outmaneuvered by the threeAfrican chiefs was predictable. He cabled to one of hisemployees, saying, “I do object to being beaten by threecanting natives.”

The chiefs in fact had something valuable that they hadprotected from Rhodes and would subsequently protectfrom British indirect rule. By the nineteenth century, the

Tswana states had developed a core set of politicalinstitutions. These involved both an unusual degree, by sub-Saharan African standards, of political centralization andcollective decision-making procedures that can even beviewed as a nascent, primitive form of pluralism. Just as theMagna Carta enabled the participation of barons into thepolitical decision-making process and put somerestrictions on the actions of the English monarchs, thepolitical institutions of the Tswana, in particular the kgotla,also encouraged political participation and constrainedchiefs. The South African anthropologist Isaac Schaperadescribes how the kgotla worked as follows:

all matters of tribal policy are dealt with finallybefore a general assembly of the adult malesin the chief’s kgotla (council place). Suchmeetings are very frequently held … amongthe topics discussed … are tribal disputes,quarrels between the chief and his relatives,the imposition of new levies, the undertakingof new public works, the promulgation of newdecrees by the chief … it is not unknown forthe tribal assembly to overrule the wishes ofthe chief. Since anyone may speak, thesemeetings enable him to ascertain the feelingsof the people generally, and provide the latterwith an opportunity of stating theirgrievances. If the occasion calls for it, he andhis advisers may be taken severely to task,for the people are seldom afraid to speakopenly and frankly.

Beyond the kgotla, the Tswana chieftaincy was notstrictly hereditary but open to any man demonstratingsignificant talent and ability. Anthropologist John Comaroffstudied in detail the political history of another of theTswana states, the Rolong. He showed that though inappearance the Tswana had clear rules stipulating how thechieftancy was to be inherited, in practice these rules wereinterpreted to remove bad rulers and allow talentedcandidates to become chief. He showed that winning thechieftancy was a matter of achievement, but was then

rationalized so that the successful competitor appeared tobe the rightful heir. The Tswana captured this idea with aproverb, with a tinge of constitutional monarchy: kgosi kekgosi ka morafe, “The king is king by the grace of thepeople.”

The Tswana chiefs continued in their attempts tomaintain their independence from Britain and preservetheir indigenous institutions after their trip to London. Theyconceded the construction of railways in Bechuanaland, butlimited the intervention of the British in other aspects ofeconomic and political life. They were not opposed to theconstruction of the railways, certainly not for the samereasons as the Austro-Hungarian and Russian monarchsblocked railways. They just realized that railways, like therest of the policies of the British, would not bringdevelopment to Bechuanaland as long as it was undercolonial control. The early experience of Quett Masire,president of independent Botswana from 1980 to 1998,explains why. Masire was an enterprising farmer in the1950s; he developed new cultivation techniques forsorghum and found a potential customer in Vryburg Milling,a company located across the border in South Africa. Hewent to the railway station master at Lobatse inBechuanaland and asked to rent two rail trucks to move hiscrop to Vryburg. The station master refused. Then he got awhite friend to intervene. The station master reluctantlyagreed, but quoted Masire four times the rate for whites.Masire gave up and concluded, “It was the practice of thewhites, not just the laws prohibiting Africans from owningfreehold land or holding trading licenses that kept blacksfrom developing enterprises in Bechuanaland.”

All in all, the chiefs, and the Tswana people, had beenlucky. Perhaps against all odds, they succeeded inpreventing Rhodes’s takeover. As Bechuanaland was stillmarginal for the British, the establishment of indirect rulethere did not create the type of vicious circle playing out inSierra Leone (this page–this page). They also avoided thekind of colonial expansion that went on in the interior ofSouth Africa that would turn those lands into reservoirs ofcheap labor for white miners or farmers. The early stagesof the process of colonization are a critical juncture for mostsocieties, a crucial period during which events that will have

important long-term consequences for their economic andpolitical development transpire. As we discussed inchapter 9, most societies in sub-Saharan Africa, just asthose in South America and South Asia, witnessed theestablishment or intensification of extractive institutionsduring colonization. The Tswana would instead avoid bothintense indirect rule and the far worse fate that would havebefallen them had Rhodes succeeded in annexing theirlands. This was not just blind luck, however. It was onceagain a result of the interplay between the existinginstitutions, shaped by the institutional drift of the Tswanapeople, and the critical juncture brought about bycolonialism. The three chiefs had made their own luck bytaking the initiative and traveling to London, and they wereable to do this because they had an unusual degree ofauthority, compared with other tribal leaders in sub-Saharan Africa, owing to the political centralization theTswana tribes had achieved, and perhaps they also had anunusual degree of legitimacy, because of the modicum ofpluralism embedded in their tribal institutions.

Another critical juncture at the end of the colonial periodwould be more central to the success of Botswana,enabling it to develop inclusive institutions. By the timeBechuanaland became independent in 1966 under thename Botswana, the lucky success of chiefs Sebele,Bathoen, and Khama was long in the past. In theintervening years, the British invested little inBechuanaland. At independence, Botswana was one of thepoorest countries in the world; it had a total of twelvekilometers of paved roads, twenty-two citizens who hadgraduated from university, and one hundred fromsecondary school. To top it all off, it was almost completelysurrounded by the white regimes of South Africa, Namibia,and Rhodesia, all of which were hostile to independentAfrican countries run by blacks. It would have been on fewpeople’s list of countries most likely to succeed. Yet overthe next forty-five years, Botswana would become one ofthe fastest-growing countries in the world. Today Botswanahas the highest per capita income in sub-Saharan Africa,and is at the same level as successful Eastern Europeancountries such as Estonia and Hungary, and the mostsuccessful Latin American nations, such as Costa Rica.

How did Botswana break the mold? By quicklydeveloping inclusive economic and political institutionsafter independence. Since then, it has been democratic,holds regular and competitive elections, and has neverexperienced civil war or military intervention. Thegovernment set up economic institutions enforcing propertyrights, ensuring macroeconomic stability, and encouragingthe development of an inclusive market economy. But ofcourse, the more challenging question is, how didBotswana manage to establish a stable democracy andpluralistic institutions, and choose inclusive economicinstitutions, while most other African countries did theopposite? To answer this, we have to understand how acritical juncture, this time the end of colonial rule, interactedwith Botswana’s existing institutions.

In most of sub-Saharan Africa—for example, for SierraLeone and Zimbabwe—independence was an opportunitymissed, accompanied by the re-creation of the same typeof extractive institutions that existed during the colonialperiod. Early stages of independence would play out verydifferently in Botswana, again largely because of thebackground created by Tswana historical institutions. Inthis, Botswana exhibited many parallels to England on theverge of the Glorious Revolution. England had achievedrapid political centralization under the Tudors and had theMagna Carta and the tradition of Parliament that could atleast aspire to constrain monarchs and ensure somedegree of pluralism. Botswana also had some amount ofstate centralization and relatively pluralistic tribal institutionsthat survived colonialism. England had a newly formingbroad coalition, consisting of Atlantic traders, industrialists,and the commercially minded gentry, that was in favor ofwell-enforced property rights. Botswana had its coalition infavor of secure procedure rights, the Tswana chiefs, andelites who owned the major assets in the economy, cattle.Even though land was held communally, cattle was privateproperty in the Tswana states, and the elites were similarlyin favor of well-enforced property rights. All this of course isnot denying the contingent path of history. Things wouldhave turned out very differently in England if parliamentaryleaders and the new monarch had attempted to use theGlorious Revolution to usurp power. Similarly, things could

have turned out very differently in Botswana, especially if ithadn’t been so fortunate as to have leaders such asSeretse Khama, or Quett Masire, who decided to contestpower in elections rather than subvert the electoral system,as many postindependence leaders in sub-Saharan Africadid.

At independence the Tswana emerged with a history ofinstitutions enshrining limited chieftaincy and some degreeof accountability of chiefs to the people. The Tswana wereof course not unique in Africa for having institutions like this,but they were unique in the extent to which these institutionssurvived the colonial period unscathed. British rule hadbeen all but absent. Bechuanaland was administered fromMafeking, in South Africa, and it was only during thetransition to independence in the 1960s that the plans forthe capital of Gaborone were laid out. The capital and thenew structures there were not meant to expunge theindigenous institutions, but to build on them; as Gaboronewas constructed, new kgotlas were planned along with it.

Independence was also a relatively orderly affair. Thedrive for independence was led by the BotswanaDemocratic Party (BDP), founded in 1960 by Quett Masireand Seretse Khama. Khama was the grandson of KingKhama III; his given name, Seretse, means “the clay thatbinds together.” It was to be an extraordinarily apt name.Khama was the hereditary chief of the Ngwato, and most ofthe Tswana chiefs and elites joined the BotswanaDemocratic Party. Botswana didn’t have a marketingboard, because the British had been so uninterested in thecolony. The BDP quickly set one up in 1967, the BotswanaMeat Commission. But instead of expropriating theranchers and cattle owners, the Meat Commission played acentral role in developing the cattle economy; it put upfences to control foot-and-mouth disease and promotedexports, which would both contribute to economicdevelopment and increase the support for inclusiveeconomic institutions.

Though the early growth in Botswana relied on meatexports, things changed dramatically when diamonds werediscovered. The management of natural resources inBotswana also differed markedly from that in other Africannations. During the colonial period, the Tswana chiefs had

attempted to block prospecting for minerals inBechuanaland because they knew that if Europeansdiscovered precious metals or stones, their autonomywould be over. The first big diamond discovery was underNgwato land, Seretse Khama’s traditional homeland.Before the discovery was announced, Khama instigated achange in the law so that all subsoil mineral rights werevested in the nation, not the tribe. This ensured thatdiamond wealth would not create great inequities inBotswana. It also gave further impetus to the process ofstate centralization as diamond revenues could now beused for building a state bureaucracy and infrastructure andfor investing in education. In Sierra Leone and many othersub-Saharan African nations, diamonds fueled conflictbetween different groups and helped to sustain civil wars,earning the label Blood Diamonds for the carnage broughtabout by the wars fought over their control. In Botswana,diamond revenues were managed for the good of thenation.

The change in subsoil mineral rights was not the onlypolicy of state building that Seretse Khama’s governmentimplemented. Ultimately, the Chieftaincy Act of 1965passed by the legislative assembly prior to independence,and the Chieftaincy Amendment Act of 1970 wouldcontinue the process of political centralization, enshriningthe power of the state and the elected president byremoving from chiefs the right to allocate land and enablingthe president to remove a chief from office if necessary.Another facet of political centralization was the effort tounify the country further, for example, with legislationensuring that only Setswana and English were to be taughtin school. Today Botswana looks like a homogenouscountry, without the ethnic and linguistic fragmentationassociated with many other African nations. But this was anoutcome of the policy to have only English and a singlenational language, Setswana, taught in schools to minimizeconflict between different tribes and groups within society.The last census to ask questions about ethnicity was theone taken in 1946, which revealed considerableheterogeneity in Botswana. In the Ngwato reserve, forexample, only 20 percent of the population identifiedthemselves as pure Ngwato; though there were other

Tswana tribes present, there were also many non-Tswanagroups whose first language was not Setswana. Thisunderlying heterogeneity has been modulated both by thepolicies of the postindependence government and by therelatively inclusive institutions of the Tswana tribes in thesame way as heterogeneity in Britain, for example,between the English and the Welsh, has been modulatedby the British state. The Botswanan state did the same.Since independence, the census in Botswana has neverasked about ethnic heterogeneity, because in Botswanaeveryone is Tswana.

Botswana achieved remarkable growth rates afterindependence because Seretse Khama, Quett Masire, andthe Botswana Democratic Party led Botswana onto a pathof inclusive economic and political institutions. When thediamonds came on stream in the 1970s, they did not leadto civil war, but provided a strong fiscal base for thegovernment, which would use the revenues to invest inpublic services. There was much less incentive to challengeor overthrow the government and control the state. Inclusivepolitical institutions bred political stability and supportedinclusive economic institutions. In a pattern familiar from thevirtuous circle described in chapter 11, inclusive economicinstitutions increased the viability and durability of inclusivepolitical institutions.

Botswana broke the mold because it was able to seize acritical juncture, postcolonial independence, and set upinclusive institutions. The Botswana Democratic Party andthe traditional elites, including Khama himself, did not try toform a dictatorial regime or set up extractive institutionsthat might have enriched them at the expense of society.This was once again an outcome of the interplay between acritical juncture and existing institutions. As we have seen,differently from almost anywhere else in sub-SaharanAfrica, Botswana already had tribal institutions that hadachieved some amount of centralized authority andcontained important pluralistic features. Moreover, thecountry had economic elites who themselves had much togain from secure property rights.

No less important, the contingent path of history workedin Botswana’s favor. It was particularly lucky becauseSeretse Khama and Quett Masire were not Siaka Stevens

and Robert Mugabe. The former worked hard and honestlyto build inclusive institutions on the foundations of theTswanas’ tribal institutions. All this made it more likely thatBotswana would succeed in taking a path toward inclusiveinstitutions, whereas much of the rest of sub-Saharan Africadid not even try, or failed outright.

THE END OF THE SOUTHERN EXTRACTION

It was December 1, 1955. The city of Montgomery,Alabama, arrest warrant lists the time that the offenseoccurred as 6:06 p.m. James Blake, a bus driver, washaving trouble, he called the police, and Officers Day andMixon arrived on the scene. They noted in their report:

We received a call upon arrival the busoperator said he had a colored female sittingin the white section of the bus, and would notmove back. We … also saw her. The busoperator signed a warrant for her. RosaParks (cf) was charged with chapter 6section 11 of the Montgomery City Code.

Rosa Parks’s offense was to sit in a section of theCleveland Avenue bus reserved for whites, a crime underAlabama’s Jim Crow laws. Parks was fined ten dollars inaddition to court fees of four dollars. Rosa Parks wasn’t justanybody. She was already the secretary of the Montgomerychapter of the National Association for the Advancement ofColored People, the NAACP, which had long beenstruggling to change the institutions of the U.S. South. Herarrest triggered a mass movement, the Montgomery BusBoycott, masterminded by Martin Luther King, Jr. ByDecember 3, King and other black leaders had organizeda coordinated bus boycott, convincing all black people thatthey should not ride on any bus in Montgomery. The boycottwas successful and it lasted until December 20, 1956. It setin motion a process that culminated in the U.S. SupremeCourt ruling that the laws that segregated buses inAlabama and Montgomery were unconstitutional.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a key moment in thecivil rights movement in the U.S. South. This movement was

part of a series of events and changes that finally broke themold in the South and led to a fundamental change ofinstitutions. As we saw in chapter 12, after the Civil War,southern landowning elites had managed to re-create theextractive economic and political institutions that haddominated the South before the Civil War. Though thedetails of these institutions changed—for example, slaverywas no longer possible—the negative impact on economicincentives and prosperity in the South was the same. TheSouth was notably poorer than the rest of the United States.

Starting in the 1950s, southern institutions would begin tomove the region onto a much faster growth trajectory. Thetype of extractive institutions ultimately eliminated in theU.S. South were different from the colonial institutions ofpre-independence Botswana. The type of critical juncturethat started the process of their downfall was also differentbut shared several commonalities. Starting in the 1940s,those who bore the brunt of the discrimination and theextractive institutions in the South, people such as RosaParks, started to become much better organized in theirfight against them. At the same time, the U.S. SupremeCourt and the federal government finally began to intervenesystematically to reform the extractive institutions in theSouth. Thus a main factor creating a critical juncture forchange in the South was the empowerment of blackAmericans there and the end of the unchallengeddomination of the southern elites.

The southern political institutions, both before the CivilWar and after, had a clear economic logic, not too differentfrom the South African Apartheid regime: to secure cheaplabor for the plantations. But by the 1950s, this logicbecame less compelling. For one, significant massoutmigration of blacks from the South was already underway, a legacy of both the Great Depression and theSecond World War. In the 1940s and ’50s, this reached anaverage of a hundred thousand people per year.Meanwhile, technological innovation in agriculture, thoughadopted only slowly, was reducing the dependence of theplantation owners on cheap labor. Most labor in theplantations was used for picking cotton. In 1950 almost allsouthern cotton was still picked by hand. But themechanization of cotton picking was reducing the demand

for this type of work. By 1960, in the key states of Alabama,Louisiana, and Mississippi, almost half of production hadbecome mechanized. Just as blacks became harder totrap in the South, they also became no longerindispensable for the plantation owners. There was thusless reason for elites to fight vigorously to maintain the oldextractive economic institutions. This did not mean that theywould accept the changes in institutions willingly, however.Instead, a protracted conflict ensued. An unusual coalition,between southern blacks and the inclusive federalinstitutions of the United States, created a powerful forceaway from southern extraction and toward equal politicaland civil rights for southern blacks, which would finallyremove the significant barriers to economic growth in theU.S. South.

The most important impetus for change came from thecivil rights movement. It was the empowerment of blacks inthe South that led the way, as in Montgomery, bychallenging extractive institutions around them, bydemanding their rights, and by protesting and mobilizing inorder to obtain them. But they weren’t alone in this,because the U.S. South was not a separate country and thesouthern elites did not have free rein as did Guatemalanelites, for example. As part of the United States of America,the South was subject to the U.S. Constitution and federallegislation. The cause for fundamental reform in the Southwould finally receive support from the U.S. executive,legislature, and Supreme Court partly because the civilrights movement was able to have its voice heard outsidethe South, thereby mobilizing the federal government.

Federal intervention to change the institutions in theSouth started with the decision of the Supreme Court in1944 that primary elections where only white people couldstand were unconstitutional. As we have seen, blacks hadbeen politically disenfranchised in the 1890s with the use ofpoll taxes and literacy tests (this page–this page). Thesetests were routinely manipulated to discriminate againstblack people, while still allowing poor and illiterate whites tovote. In a famous example from the early 1960s, inLouisiana a white applicant was judged literate after givingthe answer “FRDUM FOOF SPETGH” to a question aboutthe state constitution. The Supreme Court decision in 1944

was the opening salvo in the longer battle to open up thepolitical system to blacks, and the Court understood theimportance of loosening white control of political parties.

That decision was followed by Brown v. Board ofEducation in 1954, in which the Supreme Court ruled thatstate-mandated segregation of schools and other publicsites was unconstitutional. In 1962 the Court knocked awayanother pillar of the political dominance of white elites:legislative malapportionment. When a legislature ismalapportioned—as were the “rotten boroughs” in Englandbefore the First Reform Act—some areas or regionsreceive much greater representation than they shouldbased on their share of the relevant population.Malapportionment in the South meant that the rural areas,the heartland of the southern planter elite, were heavilyoverrepresented relative to urban areas. The SupremeCourt put an end to this in 1962 with its decision in theBaker v. Carr case, which introduced the “one-person, one-vote” standard.

But all the rulings from the Supreme Court would haveamounted to little if they hadn’t been implemented. In the1890s, in fact, federal legislation enfranchising southernblacks was not implemented, because local lawenforcement was under the control of the southern elite andthe Democratic Party, and the federal government washappy to go along with this state of affairs. But as blacksstarted rising up against the southern elite, this bastion ofsupport for Jim Crow crumbled, and the Democratic Party,led by its non-southern elements, turned against racialsegregation. The renegade southern Democrats regroupedunder the banner of the States’ Rights Democratic Partyand competed in the 1948 presidential election. Theircandidate, Strom Thurmond, carried four states and gainedthirty-nine votes in the Electoral College. But this was a farcry from the power of the unified Democratic Party innational politics and the capture of that party by thesouthern elites. Strom Thurmond’s campaign was centeredon his challenge to the ability of the federal government tointervene in the institutions of the South. He stated hisposition forcefully: “I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen,that there’s not enough troops in the army to force theSouthern people to break down segregation and admit the

nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, intoour homes, and into our churches.”

He would be proved wrong. The rulings of the SupremeCourt meant that southern educational facilities had to bedesegregated, including the University of Mississippi inOxford. In 1962, after a long legal battle, federal courtsruled that James Meredith, a young black air force veteran,had to be admitted to “Ole Miss.” Opposition to theimplementation of this ruling was orchestrated by the so-called Citizens’ Councils, the first of which had beenformed in Indianola, Mississippi, in 1954 to fightdesegregation of the South. State governor Ross Barnettpublicly rejected the court-ordered desegregation ontelevision on September 13, announcing that stateuniversities would close before they agreed to bedesegregated. Finally, after much negotiation betweenBarnett and President John Kennedy and Attorney GeneralRobert Kennedy in Washington, the federal governmentintervened forcibly to implement this ruling. A day was setwhen U.S. marshals would bring Meredith to Oxford. Inanticipation, white supremacists began to organize. OnSeptember 30, the day before Meredith was due toappear, U.S. marshals entered the university campus andsurrounded the main administration building. A crowd ofabout 2,500 came to protest, and soon a riot broke out.The marshals used tear gas to disperse the rioters, butsoon came under fire. By 10:00 p.m. that night, federaltroops were moved into the city to restore order. Soonthere were 20,000 troops and 11,000 National Guardsmenin Oxford. In total, 300 people would be arrested. Meredithdecided to stay on campus, where, protected from deaththreats by U.S. marshals and 300 soldiers, he eventuallygraduated.

Federal legislation was pivotal in the process ofinstitutional reform in the South. During the passage of thefirst Civil Rights Act in 1957, Strom Thurmond, then asenator, spoke nonstop for twenty-four hours and eighteenminutes to prevent, or at least delay, passage of the act.During his speech he read everything from the Declarationof Independence to various phone books. But to no avail.The 1957 act culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964outlawing a whole gamut of segregationist state legislation

and practices. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 declared theliteracy tests, poll taxes, and other methods used fordisenfranchising southern blacks to be illegal. It alsoextended a great deal of federal oversight into stateelections.

The impact of all these events was a significant changein economic and legal institutions in the South. InMississippi, for example, only about 5 percent of eligibleblack people were voting in 1960. By 1970 this figure hadincreased to 50 percent. In Alabama and South Carolina, itwent from around 10 percent in 1960 to 50 percent in 1970.These patterns changed the nature of elections, both forlocal and national offices. More important, the politicalsupport from the dominant Democratic Party for theextractive institutions discriminating against blacks eroded.The way was then open for a range of changes in economicinstitutions. Prior to the institutional reforms of the 1960s,blacks had been almost entirely excluded from jobs intextile mills. In 1960 only about 5 percent of employees insouthern textile mills were black. Civil rights legislationstopped this discrimination. By 1970 this proportion hadincreased to 15 percent; by 1990 it was at 25 percent.Economic discrimination against blacks began to decline,the educational opportunities for blacks improvedsignificantly, and the southern labor market became morecompetitive. Together with inclusive institutions came morerapid economic improvements in the South. In 1940southern states had only about 50 percent of the level of percapita income of the United States. This started to changein the late 1940s and ’50s. By 1990 the gap had basicallyvanished.

As in Botswana, the key in the U.S. South was thedevelopment of inclusive political and economicinstitutions. This came at the juxtaposition of the increasingdiscontent among blacks suffering under southernextractive institutions and the crumbling of the one-partyrule of the Democratic Party in the South. Once again,existing institutions shaped the path of change. In this case,it was pivotal that southern institutions were situated withinthe inclusive federal institutions of the United States, andthis allowed southern blacks finally to mobilize the federalgovernment and institutions for their cause. The whole

process was also facilitated by the fact that, with themassive outmigration of blacks from the South and themechanization of cotton production, economic conditionshad changed so that southern elites were less willing to putup more of a fight.

REBIRTH IN CHINA

The Communist Party under the leadership of Mao Zedongfinally overthrew the Nationalists, led by Chiang Kai-shek, in1949. The People’s Republic of China was proclaimed onOctober 1. The political and economic institutions createdafter 1949 were highly extractive. Politically, they featuredthe dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party. No otherpolitical organization has been allowed in China since then.Until his death in 1976, Mao entirely dominated theCommunist Party and the government. Accompanyingthese authoritarian, extractive political institutions werehighly extractive economic institutions. Mao immediatelynationalized land and abolished all kinds of property rightsin one fell swoop. He had landlords, as well as othersegments he deemed to be against the regime, executed.The market economy was essentially abolished. People inrural areas were gradually organized onto communal farms.Money and wages were replaced by “work points,” whichcould be traded for goods. Internal passports wereintroduced in 1956 forbidding travel without appropriateauthorization, in order to increase political and economiccontrol. All industry was similarly nationalized, and Maolaunched an ambitious attempt to promote the rapiddevelopment of industry through the use of “five-year plans,”modeled on those in the Soviet Union.

As with all extractive institutions, Mao’s regime wasattempting to extract resources from the vast country hewas now controlling. As in the case of the government ofSierra Leone with its marketing board, the ChineseCommunist Party had a monopoly over the sale of produce,such as rice and grain, which was used to heavily taxfarmers. The attempts at industrialization turned into theinfamous Great Leap Forward after 1958 with the roll-out ofthe second five-year plan. Mao announced that steel outputwould double in a year based on small-scale “backyard”

blast furnaces. He claimed that in fifteen years, Chinawould catch up with British steel production. The onlyproblem was that there was no feasible way of meetingthese targets. To meet the plan’s goals, scrap metal had tobe found, and people would have to melt down their potsand pans and even their agricultural implements such ashoes and plows. Workers who ought to have been tendingthe fields were making steel by destroying their plows, andthus their future ability to feed themselves and the country.The result was a calamitous famine in the Chinesecountryside. Though scholars debate the role of Mao’spolicy compared with the impact of droughts at the sametime, nobody doubts the central role of the Great LeapForward in contributing to the death of between twenty andforty million people. We don’t know precisely how many,because China under Mao did not collect the numbers thatwould have documented the atrocities. Per capita incomefell by around one-quarter.

One consequence of the Great Leap Forward was that asenior member of the Communist Party, Deng Xiaoping, avery successful general during the revolution, who led an“anti-rightist” campaign resulting in the execution of many“enemies of the revolution,” had a change of heart. At aconference in Guangzhou in the south of China in 1961,Deng argued, “No matter whether the cat is black or white,if it catches mice, it’s a good cat.” It did not matter whetherpolicies appeared communist or not; China neededpolicies that would encourage production so that it couldfeed its people.

Yet Deng was soon to suffer for his newfound practicality.On May 16, 1966, Mao announced that the revolution wasunder threat from “bourgeois” interests that wereundermining China’s communist society and wishing to re-create capitalism. In response, he announced the GreatProletarian Cultural Revolution, usually referred to as theCultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution was based onsixteen points. The first started:

Although the bourgeoisie has beenoverthrown, it is still trying to use the oldideas, culture, and customs, and habits of theexploiting classes to corrupt the masses,

capture their minds, and endeavor to stage acomeback. The proletariat must do just theopposite: it must meet head-on everychallenge of the bourgeoisie in theideological field and use the new ideas,culture, customs, and habits of the proletariatto change the mental outlook of the whole ofsociety. At present our objective is to struggleagainst and crush those persons in authoritywho are taking the capitalist road, to criticizeand repudiate the reactionary bourgeoisacademic authorities and the ideology of thebourgeoisie and all other exploiting classesand transform education, literature, and artand all other parts of the superstructure thatdo not correspond to the socialist economicbase, so as to facilitate the consolidation anddevelopment of the socialist system.

Soon the Cultural Revolution, just like the Great LeapForward, would start wrecking both the economy and manyhuman lives. Units of Red Guards were formed across thecountry: young, enthusiastic members of the CommunistParty who were used to purge opponents of the regime.Many people were killed, arrested, or sent into internalexile. Mao himself retorted to concerns about the extent ofthe violence, stating, “This man Hitler was even moreferocious. The more ferocious, the better, don’t you think?The more people you kill, the more revolutionary you are.”

Deng found himself labeled number-two capitalistroader, was jailed in 1967, and then was exiled to Jiangxiprovince in 1969, to work in a rural tractor factory. He wasrehabilitated in 1974, and Mao was persuaded by PremierZhou Enlai to make Deng first vice-premier. Already in1975, Deng supervised the composition of three partydocuments that would have charted a new direction hadthey been adopted. They called for a revitalization of highereducation, a return to material incentives in industry andagriculture, and the removal of “leftists” from the party. Atthe time, Mao’s health was deteriorating and power wasincreasingly concentrated in the hands of the very leftistswhom Deng Xiaoping wanted to remove from power.

Mao’s wife, Jiang Qing, and three of her close associates,collectively known as the Gang of Four, had been greatsupporters of the Cultural Revolution and the resultingrepression. They intended to continue using this blueprint torun the country under the dictatorship of the CommunistParty. On April 5, a spontaneous celebration of the life ofZhou Enlai in Tiananmen Square turned into a protestagainst the government. The Gang of Four blamed Dengfor the demonstrations, and he was once more stripped ofall his positions and dismissed. Instead of achieving theremoval of the leftists, Deng found that the leftists hadremoved him. After the death of Zhou Enlai, Mao hadappointed Hua Guofeng as the acting premier instead ofDeng. In the relative power vacuum of 1976, Hua was ableto accumulate a great deal of personal power.

In September there was a critical juncture: Mao died. TheChinese Communist Party had been under Mao’sdomination, and the Great Leap Forward and the CulturalRevolution had been largely his initiatives. With Mao gone,there was a true power vacuum, which resulted in a strugglebetween those with different visions and different beliefsabout the consequences of change. The Gang of Fourintended to continue with the policies of the CulturalRevolution as the only way of consolidating theirs and theCommunist Party’s power. Hua Guofeng wanted toabandon the Cultural Revolution, but he could not distancehimself too much from it, because he owed his own rise inthe party to its effects. Instead, he advocated a return to amore balanced version of Mao’s vision, which heencapsulated in the “Two Whatevers,” as the People’sDaily, the newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, putit in 1977. Hua argued, “We will resolutely uphold whateverpolicy decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervinglyfollow whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave.”

Deng Xiaoping did not wish to abolish the communistregime and replace it with inclusive markets any more thanHua did. He, too, was part of the same group of peoplebrought to power by the communist revolution. But he andhis supporters thought that significant economic growthcould be achieved without endangering their politicalcontrol: they had a model of growth under extractivepolitical institutions that would not threaten their power,

because the Chinese people were in dire need ofimproved living standards and because all meaningfulopposition to the Communist Party had been obliteratedduring Mao’s reign and the Cultural Revolution. To achievethis, they wished to repudiate not just the CulturalRevolution but also much of the Maoist institutional legacy.They realized that economic growth would be possible onlywith significant moves toward inclusive economicinstitutions. They thus wished to reform the economy andbolster the role of market forces and incentives. They alsowanted to expand the scope for private ownership andreduce the role of the Communist Party in society and theadministration, getting rid of such concepts as classstruggle. Deng’s group was also open to foreign investmentand international trade, and wished to pursue a much moreaggressive policy of integrating with the internationaleconomy. Still, there were limits, and building truly inclusiveeconomic institutions and significantly lessening the gripthe Communist Party had on the economy weren’t evenoptions.

The turning point for China was Hua Guofeng’s powerand his willingness to use it against the Gang of Four.Within a month of Mao’s death, Hua mounted a coupagainst the Gang of Four, having them all arrested. He thenreinstated Deng in March 1977. There was nothinginevitable either about this course of events or about thenext significant steps, which resulted from Hua himselfbeing politically outmaneuvered by Deng Xiaoping. Dengencouraged public criticism of the Cultural Revolution andbegan to fill key positions in the Communist Party at alllevels with people who, like him, had suffered during thisperiod. Hua could not repudiate the Cultural Revolution, andthis weakened him. He was also a comparative newcomerto the centers of power, and he lacked the web ofconnections and informal relations that Deng had built upover many years. In a series of speeches, Deng began tocriticize Hua’s policies. In September 1978, he explicitlyattacked the Two Whatevers, noting that rather than letwhatever Mao had said determine policy, the correctapproach was to “seek truth from facts.”

Deng also brilliantly began to bring public pressure tobear on Hua, which was reflected most powerfully in the

Democracy Wall movement in 1978, in which peopleposted complaints about the country on a wall in Beijing. InJuly of 1978, one of Deng’s supporters, Hu Qiaomu,presented some basic principles of economic reform.These included the notions that firms should be givengreater initiative and authority to make their own productiondecisions. Prices should be allowed to bring supply anddemand together, rather than just being set by thegovernment, and the state regulation of the economy moregenerally ought to be reduced. These were radicalsuggestions, but Deng was gaining influence. In Novemberand December 1978, the Third Plenum of the EleventhCentral Party Committee produced a breakthrough. OverHua’s objections, it was decided that, from then on, thefocus of the party would be not class struggle but economicmodernization. The plenum announced some tentativeexperiments with a “household responsibility system” insome provinces, which was an attempt to roll backcollective agriculture and introduce economic incentivesinto farming. By the next year, the Central Committee wasacknowledging the centrality of the notion of “truth fromfacts” and declaring the Cultural Revolution to have been agreat calamity for the Chinese people. Throughout thisperiod, Deng was securing the appointment of his ownsupporters to important positions in the party, army, andgovernment. Though he had to move slowly against Hua’ssupporters in the Central Committee, he created parallelbases of power. By 1980 Hua was forced to step downfrom the premiership, to be replaced by Zhao Ziyang. By1982 Hua had been removed from the Central Committee.But Deng did not stop there. At the Twelfth Party Congressin 1982, and then in the National Party Conference inSeptember 1985, he achieved an almost completereshuffling of the party leadership and senior cadres. Incame much younger, reform-minded people. If onecompares 1980 to 1985, then by the latter date, twenty-oneof the twenty-six members of the Politburo, eight of theeleven members of the Communist Party secretariat, andten of the eighteen vice-premiers had been changed.

Now that Deng and the reformers had consummatedtheir political revolution and were in control of the state, theylaunched a series of further changes in economic

institutions. They began in agriculture: By 1983, followingthe ideas of Hu Qiaomu, the household responsibilitysystem, which would provide economic incentives tofarmers, was universally adopted. In 1985 the mandatorystate purchasing of grain was abandoned and replaced bya system of more voluntary contracts. Administrative controlof agricultural prices was greatly relaxed in 1985. In theurban economy, state enterprises were given moreautonomy, and fourteen “open cities” were identified andgiven the ability to attract foreign investment.

It was the rural economy that took off first. Theintroduction of incentives led to a dramatic increase inagricultural productivity. By 1984 grain output was one-thirdhigher than in 1978, though fewer people were involved inagriculture. Many had moved into employment in new ruralindustries, the so-called Township Village Enterprises.These had been allowed to grow outside the system ofstate industrial planning after 1979, when it was acceptedthat new firms could enter and compete with state-ownedfirms. Gradually economic incentives were also introducedinto the industrial sector, in particular into the operation ofstate-run enterprises, though at this stage there was no hintat privatization, which had to wait until the mid-1990s.

The rebirth of China came with a significant move awayfrom one of the most extractive set of economic institutionsand toward more inclusive ones. Market incentives inagriculture and industry, then followed by foreign investmentand technology, would set China on a path to rapideconomic growth. As we will discuss further in the nextchapter, this was growth under extractive politicalinstitutions, even if they were not as repressive as they hadbeen under the Cultural Revolution and even if economicinstitutions were becoming partially inclusive. All of thisshould not understate the degree to which the changes ineconomic institutions in China were radical. China brokethe mold, even if it did not transform its political institutions.As in Botswana and the U.S. South, the crucial changescame during a critical juncture—in the case of China,following Mao’s death. They were also contingent, in facthighly contingent, as there was nothing inevitable about theGang of Four losing the power struggle; and if they had not,China would not have experienced the sustained economic

growth it has seen in the last thirty years. But thedevastation and human suffering that the Great LeapForward and the Cultural Revolution caused generatedsufficient demand for change that Deng Xiaoping and hisallies were able to win the political fight.

BOTSWANA, CHINA, and the U.S. South, just like the GloriousRevolution in England, the French Revolution, and the MeijiRestoration in Japan, are vivid illustrations that history isnot destiny. Despite the vicious circle, extractive institutionscan be replaced by inclusive ones. But it is neitherautomatic nor easy. A confluence of factors, in particular acritical juncture coupled with a broad coalition of thosepushing for reform or other propitious existing institutions,is often necessary for a nation to make strides toward moreinclusive institutions. In addition some luck is key, becausehistory always unfolds in a contingent way.

15.

UNDERSTANDING PROSPERITY AND POVERTY

HISTORICAL ORIGINS

THERE ARE HUGE DIFFERENCES in living standards aroundthe world. Even the poorest citizens of the United Stateshave incomes and access to health care, education, publicservices, and economic and social opportunities that arefar superior to those available to the vast mass of peopleliving in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and CentralAmerica. The contrast of South and North Korea, the twoNogaleses, and the United States and Mexico reminds usthat these are relatively recent phenomena. Five hundredyears ago, Mexico, home to the Aztec state, was certainlyricher than the polities to the north, and the United Statesdid not pull ahead of Mexico until the nineteenth century.The gap between the two Nogaleses is even more recent.South and North Korea were economically, as well associally and culturally, indistinguishable before the countrywas divided at the 38th parallel after the Second WorldWar. Similarly, most of the huge economic differences weobserve around us today emerged over the last twohundred years.

Did this all need to be so? Was it historically—orgeographically or culturally or ethnically—predeterminedthat Western Europe, the United States, and Japan wouldbecome so much richer than sub-Saharan Africa, LatinAmerica, and China over the last two hundred years or so?Was it inevitable that the Industrial Revolution would getunder way in the eighteenth century in Britain, and thenspread to Western Europe and Europe’s offshoots in NorthAmerica and Australasia? Is a counterfactual world wherethe Glorious Revolution and the Industrial Revolution takeplace in Peru, which then colonizes Western Europe andenslaves whites, possible, or is it just a form of historicalscience fiction?

To answer—in fact, even to reason about—thesequestions, we need a theory of why some nations areprosperous while others fail and are poor. This theoryneeds to delineate both the factors that create and retardprosperity and their historical origins. This book hasproposed such a theory. Any complex social phenomenon,such as the origins of the different economic and politicaltrajectories of hundreds of polities around the world, likelyhas a multitude of causes, making most social scientistsshun monocausal, simple, and broadly applicable theoriesand instead seek different explanations for seeminglysimilar outcomes emerging in different times and areas.Instead we’ve offered a simple theory and used it to explainthe main contours of economic and political developmentaround the world since the Neolithic Revolution. Our choicewas motivated not by a naïve belief that such a theory couldexplain everything, but by the belief that a theory shouldenable us to focus on the parallels, sometimes at theexpense of abstracting from many interesting details. Asuccessful theory, then, does not faithfully reproducedetails, but provides a useful and empirically well-groundedexplanation for a range of processes while also clarifyingthe main forces at work.

Our theory has attempted to achieve this by operating ontwo levels. The first is the distinction between extractive andinclusive economic and political institutions. The second isour explanation for why inclusive institutions emerged insome parts of the world and not in others. While the firstlevel of our theory is about an institutional interpretation ofhistory, the second level is about how history has shapedinstitutional trajectories of nations.

Central to our theory is the link between inclusiveeconomic and political institutions and prosperity. Inclusiveeconomic institutions that enforce property rights, create alevel playing field, and encourage investments in newtechnologies and skills are more conducive to economicgrowth than extractive economic institutions that arestructured to extract resources from the many by the fewand that fail to protect property rights or provide incentivesfor economic activity. Inclusive economic institutions are inturn supported by, and support, inclusive politicalinstitutions, that is, those that distribute political power

widely in a pluralistic manner and are able to achieve someamount of political centralization so as to establish law andorder, the foundations of secure property rights, and aninclusive market economy. Similarly, extractive economicinstitutions are synergistically linked to extractive politicalinstitutions, which concentrate power in the hands of a few,who will then have incentives to maintain and developextractive economic institutions for their benefit and use theresources they obtain to cement their hold on politicalpower.

These tendencies do not imply that extractive economicand political institutions are inconsistent with economicgrowth. On the contrary, every elite would, all else beingequal, like to encourage as much growth as possible inorder to have more to extract. Extractive institutions thathave achieved at least a minimal degree of politicalcentralization are often able to generate some amount ofgrowth. What is crucial, however, is that growth underextractive institutions will not be sustained, for two keyreasons. First, sustained economic growth requiresinnovation, and innovation cannot be decoupled fromcreative destruction, which replaces the old with the new inthe economic realm and also destabilizes establishedpower relations in politics. Because elites dominatingextractive institutions fear creative destruction, they willresist it, and any growth that germinates under extractiveinstitutions will be ultimately short lived. Second, the abilityof those who dominate extractive institutions to benefitgreatly at the expense of the rest of society implies thatpolitical power under extractive institutions is highlycoveted, making many groups and individuals fight toobtain it. As a consequence, there will be powerful forcespushing societies under extractive institutions towardpolitical instability.

The synergies between extractive economic and politicalinstitutions create a vicious circle, where extractiveinstitutions, once in place, tend to persist. Similarly, there isa virtuous circle associated with inclusive economic andpolitical institutions. But neither the vicious nor the virtuouscircle is absolute. In fact, some nations live under inclusiveinstitutions today because, though extractive institutionshave been the norm in history, some societies have been

able to break the mold and transition toward inclusiveinstitutions. Our explanation for these transitions ishistorical, but not historically predetermined. Majorinstitutional change, the requisite for major economicchange, takes place as a result of the interaction betweenexisting institutions and critical junctures. Critical juncturesare major events that disrupt the existing political andeconomic balance in one or many societies, such as theBlack Death, which killed possibly as much as half thepopulation of most areas in Europe during the fourteenthcentury; the opening of Atlantic trade routes, which createdenormous profit opportunities for many in Western Europe;and the Industrial Revolution, which offered the potential forrapid but also disruptive changes in the structure ofeconomies around the world.

Existing institutional differences among societiesthemselves are a result of past institutional changes. Whydoes the path of institutional change differ acrosssocieties? The answer to this question lies in institutionaldrift. In the same way that the genes of two isolatedpopulations of organisms will drift apart slowly because ofrandom mutations in the so-called process of evolutionaryor genetic drift, two otherwise similar societies will also driftapart institutionally—albeit, again, slowly. Conflict overincome and power, and indirectly over institutions, is aconstant in all societies. This conflict often has a contingentoutcome, even if the playing field over which it transpires isnot level. The outcome of this conflict leads to institutionaldrift. But this is not necessarily a cumulative process. Itdoes not imply that the small differences that emerge atsome point will necessarily become larger over time. Onthe contrary, as our discussion of Roman Britain in chapter6 illustrates, small differences open up, and thendisappear, and then reappear again. However, when acritical juncture arrives, these small differences that haveemerged as a result of institutional drift may be the smalldifferences that matter in leading otherwise quite similarsocieties to diverge radically.

We saw in chapters 7 and 8 that despite the manysimilarities between England, France, and Spain, thecritical juncture of the Atlantic trade had the mosttransformative impact on England because of such small

differences—the fact that because of developments duringthe fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the English Crowncould not control all overseas trade, as this trade wasmostly under Crown monopoly in France and Spain. As aresult, in France and Spain, it was the monarchy and thegroups allied with it who were the main beneficiaries of thelarge profits created by Atlantic trade and colonialexpansion, while in England it was groups stronglyopposed to the monarchy who gained from economicopportunities thrown open by this critical juncture. Thoughinstitutional drift leads to small differences, its interplay withcritical junctures leads to institutional divergence, and thusthis divergence then creates the now more majorinstitutional differences that the next critical juncture willaffect.

History is key, since it is historical processes that, viainstitutional drift, create the differences that may becomeconsequential during critical junctures. Critical juncturesthemselves are historical turning points. And the viciousand virtuous circles imply that we have to study history tounderstand the nature of institutional differences that havebeen historically structured. Yet our theory does not implyhistorical determinism—or any other kind of determinism. Itis for this reason that the answer to the question we startedwith in this chapter is no: there was no historical necessitythat Peru end up so much poorer than Western Europe orthe United States.

To start with, in contrast with the geography and culturehypotheses, Peru is not condemned to poverty because ofits geography or culture. In our theory, Peru is so muchpoorer than Western Europe and the United States todaybecause of its institutions, and to understand the reasonsfor this, we need to understand the historical process ofinstitutional development in Peru. As we saw in the secondchapter, five hundred years ago the Inca Empire, whichoccupied contemporary Peru, was richer, moretechnologically sophisticated, and more politicallycentralized than the smaller polities occupying NorthAmerica. The turning point was the way in which this areawas colonized and how this contrasted with the colonizationof North America. This resulted not from a historicallypredetermined process but as the contingent outcome of

several pivotal institutional developments during criticaljunctures. At least three factors could have changed thistrajectory and led to very different long-run patterns.

First, institutional differences within the Americas duringthe fifteenth century shaped how these areas werecolonized. North America followed a different institutionaltrajectory than Peru because it was sparsely settled beforecolonization and attracted European settlers who thensuccessfully rose up against the elite whom entities such asthe Virginia Company and the English Crown had tried tocreate. In contrast, Spanish conquistadors found acentralized, extractive state in Peru they could take overand a large population they could put to work in mines andplantations. There was also nothing geographicallypredetermined about the lay of the land within the Americasat the time the Europeans arrived. In the same way that theemergence of a centralized state led by King Shyaamamong the Bushong was a result of a major institutionalinnovation, or perhaps even of political revolution, as wesaw in chapter 5, the Inca civilization in Peru and the largepopulations in this area resulted from major institutionalinnovations. These could instead have taken place in NorthAmerica, in places such as the Mississippi Valley or eventhe northeastern United States. Had this been the case,Europeans might have encountered empty lands in theAndes and centralized states in North America, and theroles of Peru and the United States could have beenreversed. Europeans would then have settled in areasaround Peru, and the conflict between the majority ofsettlers and the elite could have led to the creation ofinclusive institutions there instead of in North America. Thesubsequent paths of economic development would thenlikely have been different.

Second, the Inca Empire might have resisted Europeancolonialism, as Japan did when Commodore Perry’s shipsarrived in Edo Bay. Though the greater extractiveness ofthe Inca Empire in contrast with Tokugawa, Japan, certainlymade a political revolution akin to the Meiji Restoration lesslikely in Peru, there was no historical necessity that the Incacompletely succumb to European domination. If they hadbeen able to resist and even institutionally modernize inresponse to the threats, the whole path of the history of the

New World, and with it the entire history of the world, couldhave been different.

Third and most radically, it is not even historically orgeographically or culturally predetermined that Europeansshould have been the ones colonizing the world. It couldhave been the Chinese or even the Incas. Of course, suchan outcome is impossible when we look at the world fromthe vantage point of the fifteenth century, by which timeWestern Europe had pulled ahead of the Americas, andChina had already turned inward. But Western Europe ofthe fifteenth century was itself an outcome of a contingentprocess of institutional drift punctuated by critical junctures,and nothing about it was inevitable. Western Europeanpowers could not have surged ahead and conquered theworld without several historic turning points. These includedthe specific path that feudalism took, replacing slavery andweakening the power of monarchs on the way; the fact thatthe centuries following the turn of the first millennium inEurope witnessed the development of independent andcommercially autonomous cities; the fact that Europeanmonarchs were not as threatened by, and consequently didnot try to discourage, overseas trade as the Chineseemperors did during the Ming dynasty; and the arrival of theBlack Death, which shook up the foundations of the feudalorder. If these events had transpired differently, we could beliving in a very different world today, one in which Perumight be richer than Western Europe or the United States.

NATURALLY, THE PREDICTIVE POWER of a theory where bothsmall differences and contingency play key roles will belimited. Few would have predicted in the fifteenth or eventhe sixteenth centuries, let alone in the many centuriesfollowing the fall of the Roman Empire, that the majorbreakthrough toward inclusive institutions would happen inBritain. It was only the specific process of institutional driftand the nature of the critical juncture created by the openingof Atlantic trade that made this possible. Neither wouldmany have believed in the midst of the Cultural Revolutionduring the 1970s that China would soon be on a pathtoward radical changes in its economic institutions andsubsequently on a breakneck growth trajectory. It is

similarly impossible to predict with any certainty what thelay of the land will be in five hundred years. Yet these arenot shortcomings of our theory. The historical account wehave presented so far indicates that any approach basedon historical determinism—based on geography, culture, oreven other historical factors—is inadequate. Smalldifferences and contingency are not just part of our theory;they are part of the shape of history.

Even if making precise predictions about which societieswill prosper relative to others is difficult, we have seenthroughout the book that our theory explains the broaddifferences in the prosperity and poverty of nations aroundthe world fairly well. We will see in the rest of this chapterthat it also provides some guidelines as to what types ofsocieties are more likely to achieve economic growth overthe next several decades.

First, vicious and virtuous circles generate a lot ofpersistence and sluggishness. There should be little doubtthat in fifty or even a hundred years, the United States andWestern Europe, based on their inclusive economic andpolitical institutions, will be richer, most likely considerablyricher, than sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, CentralAmerica, or Southeast Asia. However, within these broadpatterns there will be major institutional changes in the nextcentury, with some countries breaking the mold andtransitioning from poor to rich.

Nations that have achieved almost no politicalcentralization, such as Somalia and Afghanistan, or thosethat have undergone a collapse of the state, such as Haitidid over the last several decades—long before themassive earthquake there in 2010 led to the devastation ofthe country’s infrastructure—are unlikely either to achievegrowth under extractive political institutions or to makemajor changes toward inclusive institutions. Instead,nations likely to grow over the next several decades—albeitprobably under extractive institutions—are those that haveattained some degree of political centralization. In sub-Saharan Africa this includes Burundi, Ethiopia, Rwanda,nations with long histories of centralized states, andTanzania, which has managed to build such centralization,or at least put in place some of the prerequisites forcentralization, since independence. In Latin America, it

includes Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, which have not onlyachieved political centralization but also made significantstrides toward nascent pluralism. Our theory would suggestthat sustained economic growth is very unlikely inColombia.

Our theory also suggests that growth under extractivepolitical institutions, as in China, will not bring sustainedgrowth, and is likely to run out of steam. Beyond thesecases, there is much uncertainty. Cuba, for example, mighttransition toward inclusive institutions and experience amajor economic transformation, or it may linger on underextractive political and economic institutions. The same istrue of North Korea and Burma (Myanmar) in Asia. Thus,while our theory provides the tools for thinking about howinstitutions change and the consequences of such changes,the nature of this change—the role of small differences andcontingency—makes more precise predictions difficult.

Even greater caution is necessary in drawing policyrecommendations from this broad account of the origins ofprosperity and poverty. In the same way that the impact ofcritical junctures depends on existing institutions, how asociety will respond to the same policy interventiondepends on the institutions that are in place. Of course, ourtheory is all about how nations can take steps towardprosperity—by transforming their institutions from extractiveto inclusive. But it also makes it very clear from the outsetthat there are no easy recipes for achieving such atransition. First, the vicious circle implies that changinginstitutions is much harder than it first appears. In particular,extractive institutions can re-create themselves underdifferent guises, as we saw with the iron law of oligarchy inchapter 12. Thus the fact that the extractive regime ofPresident Mubarak was overturned by popular protest inFebruary 2011 does not guarantee that Egypt will moveonto a path to more inclusive institutions. Instead extractiveinstitutions may re-create themselves despite the vibrantand hopeful pro-democracy movement. Second, becausethe contingent path of history implies that it is difficult toknow whether a particular interplay of critical junctures andexisting institutional differences will lead toward moreinclusive or extractive institutions, it would be heroic toformulate general policy recommendations to encourage

change toward inclusive institutions. Nevertheless, ourtheory is still useful for policy analysis, as it enables us torecognize bad policy advice, based on either incorrecthypotheses or inadequate understanding of how institutionscan change. In this, as in most things, avoiding the worstmistakes is as important as—and more realistic than—attempting to develop simple solutions. Perhaps this ismost clearly visible when we consider current policyrecommendations encouraging “authoritarian growth”based on the successful Chinese growth experience of thelast several decades. We next explain why these policyrecommendations are misleading and why Chinese growth,as it has unfolded so far, is just another form of growthunder extractive political institutions, unlikely to translateinto sustained economic development.

THE IRRESISTIBLE CHARM OF AUTHORITARIAN GROWTH

Dai Guofang recognized the coming urban boom in Chinaearly on. New highways, business centers, residences, andskyscrapers were sprawling everywhere around China inthe 1990s, and Dai thought this growth would only pick upspeed in the next decade. He reasoned that his company,Jingsu Tieben Iron and Steel, could capture a large marketas a low-cost producer, especially compared with theinefficient state-owned steel factories. Dai planned to builda true steel giant, and with support from the local partybosses in Changzhou, he started building in 2003. ByMarch 2004, however, the project had been stopped byorder of the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing, and Daiwas arrested for reasons never clearly articulated. Theauthorities may have presumed that they would find someincriminating evidence in Dai’s accounts. In the event, hespent the next five years in jail and home detention, andwas found guilty on a minor charge in 2009. His real crimewas to start a large project that would compete with state-sponsored companies and do so without the approval ofthe higher-ups in the Communist Party. This was certainlythe lesson that others drew from the case.

The Communist Party’s reaction to entrepreneurs suchas Dai should not be a surprise. Chen Yun, one of DengXiaoping’s closest associates and arguably the major

architect behind the early market reforms, summarized theviews of most party cadres with a “bird in a cage” analogyfor the economy: China’s economy was the bird; the party’scontrol, the cage, had to be enlarged to make the birdhealthier and more dynamic, but it could not be unlocked orremoved, lest the bird fly away. Jiang Zemin, shortly afterbecoming general secretary of the Communist Party in1989, the most powerful position in China, went evenfurther and summarized the party’s suspicion ofentrepreneurs by characterizing them as “self-employedtraders and peddlers [who] cheat, embezzle, bribe andevade taxation.” Throughout the 1990s, even as foreigninvestment was pouring into China and state-ownedenterprises were encouraged to expand, privateentrepreneurship was greeted with suspicion, and manyentrepreneurs were expropriated or even jailed. JiangZemin’s view of entrepreneurs, though in relative decline, isstill widespread in China. In the words of a Chineseeconomist, “Big state companies can get involved in hugeprojects. But when private companies do so, especially incompetition with the state, then trouble comes from everycorners [sic].”

While scores of private companies are now profitablyoperating in China, many elements of the economy are stillunder the party’s command and protection. JournalistRichard McGregor reports that on the desk of the head ofeach of the biggest state companies in China stands a redphone. When it rings, it is the party calling with orders onwhat the company should do, where it should invest, andwhat its targets will be. These giant companies are stillunder the command of the party, a fact we are reminded ofwhen the party decides to shuffle their chief executives, firethem, or promote them, with little explanation.

These stories of course do not deny that China hasmade great strides toward inclusive economic institutions,strides that underpin its spectacular growth rates over thepast thirty years. Most entrepreneurs have some security,not least because they cultivate the support of local cadresand Communist Party elites in Beijing. Most state-ownedenterprises seek profits and compete in internationalmarkets. This is a radical change from the China of Mao.As we saw in the previous chapter, China was first able to

grow because under Deng Xiaoping there were radicalreforms away from the most extractive economicinstitutions and toward inclusive economic institutions.Growth has continued as Chinese economic institutionshave been on a path toward greater inclusiveness, albeit ata slow pace. China is also greatly benefiting from its largesupply of cheap labor and its access to foreign markets,capital, and technologies.

Even if Chinese economic institutions are incomparablymore inclusive today than three decades ago, the Chineseexperience is an example of growth under extractivepolitical institutions. Despite the recent emphasis in Chinaon innovation and technology, Chinese growth is based onthe adoption of existing technologies and rapid investment,not creative destruction. An important aspect of this is thatproperty rights are not entirely secure in China. Every nowand then, just like Dai, some entrepreneurs areexpropriated. Labor mobility is tightly regulated, and themost basic of property rights, the right to sell one’s ownlabor in the way one wishes, is still highly imperfect. Theextent to which economic institutions are still far from beingtruly inclusive is illustrated by the fact that only a fewbusinessmen and -women would even venture into anyactivity without the support of the local party cadre or, evenmore important, of Beijing. The connection betweenbusiness and the party is highly lucrative for both.Businesses supported by the party receive contracts onfavorable terms, can evict ordinary people to expropriatetheir land, and violate laws and regulations with impunity.Those who stand in the path of this business plan will betrampled and can even be jailed or murdered.

The all-too-present weight of the Communist Party andextractive institutions in China remind us of the manysimilarities between Soviet growth in the 1950s and ’60sand Chinese growth today, though there are also notabledifferences. The Soviet Union achieved growth underextractive economic institutions and extractive politicalinstitutions because it forcibly allocated resources towardindustry under a centralized command structure, particularlyarmaments and heavy industry. Such growth was feasiblepartly because there was a lot of catching up to be done.Growth under extractive institutions is easier when creative

destruction is not a necessity. Chinese economicinstitutions are certainly more inclusive than those in theSoviet Union, but China’s political institutions are stillextractive. The Communist Party is all-powerful in Chinaand controls the entire state bureaucracy, the armed forces,the media, and large parts of the economy. Chinese peoplehave few political freedoms and very little participation inthe political process.

Many have long believed that growth in China wouldbring democracy and greater pluralism. There was a realsense in 1989 that the Tiananmen Square demonstrationswould lead to greater opening and perhaps even thecollapse of the communist regime. But tanks wereunleashed on the demonstrators, and instead of a peacefulrevolution, history books now call it the Tiananmen SquareMassacre. In many ways, Chinese political institutionsbecame more extractive in the aftermath of Tiananmen;reformers such as Zhao Ziyang, who as general secretaryof the Communist Party lent his support to the students inTiananmen Square, were purged, and the party clampeddown on civil liberties and press freedom with greater zeal.Zhao Ziyang was put under house arrest for more thanfifteen years, and his public record was gradually erased,so that he would not be even a symbol for those whosupported political change.

Today the party’s control over the media, including theInternet, is unprecedented. Much of this is achieved throughself-censorship: media outlets know that they should notmention Zhao Ziyang or Liu Xiaobo, the government criticdemanding greater democratization, who is still languishingin prison even after he was awarded the Nobel PeacePrize. Self-censorship is supported by an Orwellianapparatus that can monitor conversations andcommunications, close Web sites and newspapers, andeven selectively block access to individual news stories onthe Internet. All of this was on display when news aboutcorruption charges against the son of the general secretaryof the party since 2002, Hu Jintao, broke out in 2009. Theparty’s apparatus immediately sprang into action and wasnot only able to prevent Chinese media from covering thecase but also managed to selectively block stories aboutthe case on the New York Times and Financial Times

Web sites.Because of the party’s control over economic institutions,

the extent of creative destruction is heavily curtailed, and itwill remain so until there is radical reform in politicalinstitutions. Just as in the Soviet Union, the Chineseexperience of growth under extractive political institutions isgreatly facilitated because there is a lot of catching up todo. Income per capita in China is still a fraction of that in theUnited States and Western Europe. Of course, Chinesegrowth is considerably more diversified than Soviet growth;it doesn’t rely on only armaments or heavy industry, andChinese entrepreneurs are showing a lot of ingenuity. Allthe same, this growth will run out of steam unless extractivepolitical institutions make way for inclusive institutions. Aslong as political institutions remain extractive, growth will beinherently limited, as it has been in all other similar cases.

The Chinese experience does raise several interestingquestions about the future of Chinese growth and, moreimportant, the desirability and viability of authoritariangrowth. Such growth has become a popular alternative tothe “Washington consensus,” which emphasizes theimportance of market and trade liberalization and certainforms of institutional reform for kick-starting economicgrowth in many less developed parts of the world. Whilepart of the appeal of authoritarian growth comes as areaction to the Washington consensus, perhaps its greatercharm—certainly to the rulers presiding over extractiveinstitutions—is that it gives them free rein in maintainingand even strengthening their hold on power and legitimizestheir extraction.

As our theory highlights, particularly in societies that haveundergone some degree of state centralization, this type ofgrowth under extractive institutions is possible and mayeven be the most likely scenario for many nations, rangingfrom Cambodia and Vietnam to Burundi, Ethiopia, andRwanda. But it also implies that like all examples of growthunder extractive political institutions, it will not be sustained.

In the case of China, the growth process based on catch-up, import of foreign technology, and export of low-endmanufacturing products is likely to continue for a while.Nevertheless, Chinese growth is also likely to come to anend, particularly once China reaches the standards of living

level of a middle-income country. The most likely scenariomay be for the Chinese Communist Party and theincreasingly powerful Chinese economic elite to manage tomaintain their very tight grip on power in the next severaldecades. In this case, history and our theory suggest thatgrowth with creative destruction and true innovation will notarrive, and the spectacular growth rates in China will slowlyevaporate. But this outcome is far from preordained; it canbe avoided if China transitions to inclusive politicalinstitutions before its growth under extractive institutionsreaches its limit. Nevertheless, as we will see next, there islittle reason to expect that a transition in China toward moreinclusive political institutions is likely or that it will take placeautomatically and painlessly.

Even some voices within the Chinese Communist Partyare recognizing the dangers on the road ahead and arethrowing around the idea that political reform—that is, atransition to more inclusive political institutions, to use ourterminology—is necessary. The powerful premier WenJiabao has recently warned of the danger that economicgrowth will be hampered unless political reform gets underway. We think Wen’s analysis is prescient, even if somepeople doubt his sincerity. But many in the West do notagree with Wen’s pronouncements. To them, China revealsan alternative path to sustained economic growth, oneunder authoritarianism rather than inclusive economic andpolitical institutions. But they are wrong. We have alreadyseen the important salient roots of Chinese success: aradical change in economic institutions away from rigidlycommunist ones and toward institutions that provideincentives to increase productivity and to trade. Looked atfrom this perspective, there is nothing fundamentallydifferent about China’s experience relative to that ofcountries that have managed to take steps away fromextractive and toward inclusive economic institutions, evenwhen this takes place under extractive political institutions,as in the Chinese case. China has thus achieved economicgrowth not thanks to its extractive political institutions, butdespite them: its successful growth experience over the lastthree decades is due to a radical shift away from extractiveeconomic institutions and toward significantly moreinclusive economic institutions, which was made more

difficult, not easier, by the presence of highly authoritarian,extractive political institutions.

A DIFFERENT TYPE of endorsement of authoritarian growthrecognizes its unattractive nature but claims thatauthoritarianism is just a passing stage. This idea goesback to one of the classical theories of political sociology,the theory of modernization, formulated by Seymour MartinLipset. Modernization theory maintains that all societies, asthey grow, are headed toward a more modern, developed,and civilized existence, and in particular towarddemocracy. Many followers of modernization theory alsoclaim that, like democracy, inclusive institutions will emergeas a by-product of the growth process. Moreover, eventhough democracy is not the same as inclusive politicalinstitutions, regular elections and relatively unencumberedpolitical competition are likely to bring forth thedevelopment of inclusive political institutions. Differentversions of modernization theory also claim that aneducated workforce will naturally lead to democracy andbetter institutions. In a somewhat postmodern version ofmodernization theory, New York Times columnist ThomasFriedman went so far as to suggest that once a country gotenough McDonald’s restaurants, democracy andinstitutions were bound to follow. All this paints anoptimistic picture. Over the past sixty years, most countries,even many of those with extractive institutions, haveexperienced some growth, and most have witnessednotable increases in the educational attainment of theirworkforces. So, as their incomes and educational levelscontinue to rise, one way or another, all other good things,such as democracy, human rights, civil liberties, and secureproperty rights, should follow.

Modernization theory has a wide following both withinand outside academia. Recent U.S. attitudes towardChina, for example, have been shaped by this theory.George H. W. Bush summarized U.S. policy towardChinese democracy as “Trade freely with China and time ison our side.” The idea was that as China traded freely withthe West, it would grow, and that growth would bringdemocracy and better institutions in China, as

modernization theory predicted. Yet the rapid increase inU.S.-China trade since the mid-1980s has done little forChinese democracy, and the even closer integration that islikely to follow during the next decade will do equally little.

The attitudes of many about the future of Iraqi society anddemocracy in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion weresimilarly optimistic because of modernization theory.Despite its disastrous economic performance underSaddam Hussein’s regime, Iraq was not as poor in 2002as many sub-Saharan African nations, and it had acomparatively well-educated population, so it was believedto be ripe ground for the development of democracy andcivil liberties, and perhaps even what we would describe aspluralism. These hopes were quickly dashed as chaos andcivil war descended upon Iraqi society.

Modernization theory is both incorrect and unhelpful forthinking about how to confront the major problems ofextractive institutions in failing nations. The strongest pieceof evidence in favor of modernization theory is that richnations are the ones that have democratic regimes,respect civil and human rights, and enjoy functioningmarkets and generally inclusive economic institutions. Yetinterpreting this association as supporting modernizationtheory ignores the major effect of inclusive economic andpolitical institutions on economic growth. As we haveargued throughout this book, it is the societies withinclusive institutions that have grown over the past threehundred years and have become relatively rich today. Thatthis accounts for what we see around us is shown clearly ifwe look at the facts slightly differently: while nations thathave built inclusive economic and political institutions overthe last several centuries have achieved sustainedeconomic growth, authoritarian regimes that have grownmore rapidly over the past sixty or one hundred years,contrary to what Lipset’s modernization theory would claim,have not become more democratic. And this is in fact notsurprising. Growth under extractive institutions is possibleprecisely because it doesn’t necessarily or automaticallyimply the demise of these very institutions. In fact, it is oftengenerated because those in control of the extractiveinstitutions view economic growth as not a threat but asupport to their regime, as the Chinese Communist Party

has done since the 1980s. It is also not surprising thatgrowth generated by increases in the value of the naturalresources of a nation, such as in Gabon, Russia, SaudiArabia, and Venezuela, is unlikely to lead to a fundamentaltransformation of these authoritarian regimes towardinclusive institutions.

The historical record is even less generous tomodernization theory. Many relatively prosperous nationshave succumbed to and supported repressive dictatorshipsand extractive institutions. Both Germany and Japan wereamong the richest and most industrialized nations in theworld in the first half of the twentieth century, and hadcomparatively well-educated citizens. This did not preventthe rise of the National Socialist Party in Germany or amilitaristic regime intent on territorial expansion via war inJapan—making both political and economic institutionstake a sharp turn toward extractive institutions. Argentinawas also one of the richest countries in the world in thenineteenth century, as rich as or even richer than Britain,because it was the beneficiary of the worldwide resourceboom; it also had the most educated population in LatinAmerica. But democracy and pluralism were no moresuccessful, and were arguably less successful, in Argentinathan in much of the rest of Latin America. One coupfollowed another, and as we saw in chapter 11, evendemocratically elected leaders acted as rapaciousdictators. Even more recently there has been little progresstoward inclusive economic institutions, and as we saw inchapter 13, twenty-first-century Argentinian governmentscan still expropriate their citizens’ wealth with impunity.

All of this highlights several important ideas. First, growthunder authoritarian, extractive political institutions in China,though likely to continue for a while yet, will not translate intosustained growth, supported by truly inclusive economicinstitutions and creative destruction. Second, contrary tothe claims of modernization theory, we should not count onauthoritarian growth leading to democracy or inclusivepolitical institutions. China, Russia, and several otherauthoritarian regimes currently experiencing some growthare likely to reach the limits of extractive growth before theytransform their political institutions in a more inclusivedirection—and in fact, probably before there is any desire

among the elite for such changes or any strong oppositionforcing them to do so. Third, authoritarian growth is neitherdesirable nor viable in the long run, and thus should notreceive the endorsement of the international community asa template for nations in Latin America, Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, even if it is a path that many nations willchoose precisely because it is sometimes consistent withthe interests of the economic and political elites dominatingthem.

YOU CAN’T ENGINEER PROSPERITY

Unlike the theory we have developed in this book, theignorance hypothesis comes readily with a suggestionabout how to “solve” the problem of poverty: if ignorancegot us here, enlightening and informing rulers andpolicymakers can get us out, and we should be able to“engineer” prosperity around the world by providing theright advice and by convincing politicians of what is goodeconomics. In chapter 2, when we discussed thishypothesis, we showed how the experience of Ghana’sprime minister Kofi Busia in the early 1970s underscoredthe fact that the main obstacle to the adoption of policiesthat would reduce market failures and encourage economicgrowth is not the ignorance of politicians, but the incentivesand constraints they face from the political and economicinstitutions in their societies. Nevertheless, the ignorancehypothesis still rules supreme in Western policymakingcircles, which, almost to the exclusion of anything else,focus on how to engineer prosperity.

These engineering attempts come in two flavors. Thefirst, often advocated by international organizations such asthe International Monetary Fund, recognizes that poordevelopment is caused by bad economic policies andinstitutions, and then proposes a list of improvements theseinternational organizations attempt to induce poor countriesto adopt. (The Washington consensus makes up one suchlist.) These improvements focus on sensible things such asmacroeconomic stability and seemingly attractivemacroeconomic goals such as a reduction in the size of thegovernment sector, flexible exchange rates, and capitalaccount liberalization. They also focus on more

microeconomic goals, such as privatization, improvementsin the efficiency of public service provision, and perhapsalso suggestions as to how to improve the functioning ofthe state itself by emphasizing anticorruption measures.Though on their own many of these reforms might besensible, the approach of international organizations inWashington, London, Paris, and elsewhere is still steepedin an incorrect perspective that fails to recognize the role ofpolitical institutions and the constraints they place onpolicymaking. Attempts by international institutions toengineer economic growth by hectoring poor countries intoadopting better policies and institutions are not successfulbecause they do not take place in the context of anexplanation of why bad policies and institutions are there inthe first place, except that the leaders of poor countries areignorant. The consequence is that the policies are notadopted and not implemented, or are implemented inname only.

For example, many economies around the worldostensibly implementing such reforms, most notably in LatinAmerica, stagnated throughout the 1980s and ’90s. Inreality, such reforms were foisted upon these countries incontexts where politics went on as usual. Hence, even whenreforms were adopted, their intent was subverted, orpoliticians used other ways to blunt their impact. All this isillustrated by the “implementation” of one of the keyrecommendations of international institutions aimed atachieving macroeconomic stability, central bankindependence. This recommendation either wasimplemented in theory but not in practice or wasundermined by the use of other policy instruments. It wasquite sensible in principle. Many politicians around theworld were spending more than they were raising in taxrevenue and were then forcing their central banks to makeup the difference by printing money. The resulting inflationwas creating instability and uncertainty. The theory was thatindependent central banks, just like the Bundesbank inGermany, would resist political pressure and put a lid oninflation. Zimbabwe’s president Mugabe decided to heedinternational advice; he declared the Zimbabwean centralbank independent in 1995. Before this, the inflation rate inZimbabwe was hovering around 20 percent. By 2002 it had

reached 140 percent; by 2003, almost 600 percent; by2007, 66,000 percent; and by 2008, 230 million percent! Ofcourse, in a country where the president wins the lottery(this page–this page), it should surprise nobody thatpassing a law making the central bank independent meansnothing. The governor of the Zimbabwean central bankprobably knew how his counterpart in Sierra Leone had“fallen” from the top floor of the central bank building whenhe disagreed with Siaka Stevens (this page). Independentor not, complying with the president’s demands was theprudent choice for his personal health, even if not for thehealth of the economy. Not all countries are like Zimbabwe.In Argentina and Colombia, central banks were also madeindependent in the 1990s, and they actually did their job ofreducing inflation. But since in neither country was politicschanged, political elites could use other ways to buy votes,maintain their interests, and reward themselves and theirfollowers. Since they couldn’t do this by printing moneyanymore, they had to use a different way. In both countriesthe introduction of central bank independence coincidedwith a big expansion in government expenditures, financedlargely by borrowing.

The second approach to engineering prosperity is muchmore in vogue nowadays. It recognizes that there are noeasy fixes for lifting a nation from poverty to prosperityovernight or even in the course of a few decades. Instead, itclaims, there are many “micro-market failures” that can beredressed with good advice, and prosperity will result ifpolicymakers take advantage of these opportunities—which, again, can be achieved with the help and vision ofeconomists and others. Small market failures areeverywhere in poor countries, this approach claims—forexample, in their education systems, health care delivery,and the way their markets are organized. This isundoubtedly true. But the problem is that these smallmarket failures may be only the tip of the iceberg, thesymptom of deeper-rooted problems in a societyfunctioning under extractive institutions. Just as it is not acoincidence that poor countries have bad macroeconomicpolicies, it is not a coincidence that their educationalsystems do not work well. These market failures may not bedue solely to ignorance. The policymakers and bureaucrats

who are supposed to act on well-intentioned advice may beas much a part of the problem, and the many attempts torectify these inefficiencies may backfire precisely becausethose in charge are not grappling with the institutionalcauses of the poverty in the first place.

These problems are illustrated by interventionengineered by the nongovernmental organization (NGO)Seva Mandir to improve health care delivery in the state ofRajasthan in India. The story of health care delivery in Indiais one of deep-rooted inefficiency and failure. Government-provided health care is, at least in theory, widely availableand cheap, and the personnel are generally qualified. Buteven the poorest Indians do not use government healthcare facilities, opting instead for the much more expensive,unregulated, and sometimes even deficient privateproviders. This is not because of some type of irrationality:people are unable to get any care from governmentfacilities, which are plagued by absenteeism. If an Indianvisited his government-run facility, not only would there beno nurses there, but he would probably not even be able toget in the building, because health care facilities are closedmost of the time.

In 2006 Seva Mandir, together with a group ofeconomists, designed an incentive scheme to encouragenurses to turn up for work in the Udaipur district ofRajasthan. The idea was simple: Seva Mandir introducedtime clocks that would stamp the date and time whennurses were in the facility. Nurses were supposed to stamptheir time cards three times a day, to ensure that theyarrived on time, stayed around, and left on time. If such ascheme worked, and increased the quality and quantity ofhealth care provision, it would be a strong illustration of thetheory that there were easy solutions to key problems indevelopment.

In the event, the intervention revealed something verydifferent. Shortly after the program was implemented, therewas a sharp increase in nurse attendance. But this wasvery short lived. In a little more than a year, the local healthadministration of the district deliberately undermined theincentive scheme introduced by Seva Mandir.Absenteeism was back to its usual level, yet there was asharp increase in “exempt days,” which meant that nurses

were not actually around—but this was officially sanctionedby the local health administration. There was also a sharpincrease in “machine problems,” as the time clocks werebroken. But Seva Mandir was unable to replace thembecause local health ministers would not cooperate.

Forcing nurses to stamp a time clock three times a daydoesn’t seem like such an innovative idea. Indeed, it is apractice used throughout the industry, even Indian industry,and it must have occurred to health administrators as apotential solution to their problems. It seems unlikely, then,that ignorance of such a simple incentive scheme was whatstopped its being used in the first place. What occurredduring the program simply confirmed this. Healthadministrators sabotaged the program because they werein cahoots with the nurses and complicit in the endemicabsenteeism problems. They did not want an incentivescheme forcing nurses to turn up or reducing their pay ifthey did not.

What this episode illustrates is a micro version of thedifficulty of implementing meaningful changes wheninstitutions are the cause of the problems in the first place.In this case, it was not corrupt politicians or powerfulbusinesses undermining institutional reform, but rather, thelocal health administration and nurses who were able tosabotage Seva Mandir’s and the development economists’incentive scheme. This suggests that many of the micro-market failures that are apparently easy to fix may beillusory: the institutional structure that creates marketfailures will also prevent implementation of interventions toimprove incentives at the micro level. Attempting toengineer prosperity without confronting the root cause ofthe problems—extractive institutions and the politics thatkeeps them in place—is unlikely to bear fruit.

THE FAILURE OF FOREIGN AID

Following the September 11, 2001, attacks by Al Qaeda,U.S.-led forces swiftly toppled the repressive Talibanregime in Afghanistan, which was harboring and refusing tohand over key members of Al Qaeda. The Bonn Agreementof December 2001 between leaders of the former Afghanmujahideen who had cooperated with the U.S. forces and

key members of the Afghan diaspora, including HamidKarzai, created a plan for the establishment of ademocratic regime. A first step was the nationwide grandassembly, the Loya Jirga, which elected Karzai to lead theinterim government. Things were looking up forAfghanistan. A majority of the Afghan people were longingto leave the Taliban behind. The international communitythought that all that Afghanistan needed now was a largeinfusion of foreign aid. Representatives from the UnitedNations and several leading NGOs soon descended on thecapital, Kabul.

What ensued should not have been a surprise, especiallygiven the failure of foreign aid to poor countries and failedstates over the past five decades. Surprise or not, the usualritual was repeated. Scores of aid workers and theirentourages arrived in town with their own private jets,NGOs of all sorts poured in to pursue their own agendas,and high-level talks began between governments anddelegations from the international community. Billions ofdollars were now coming to Afghanistan. But little of it wasused for building infrastructure, schools, or other publicservices essential for the development of inclusiveinstitutions or even for restoring law and order. While muchof the infrastructure remained in tatters, the first tranche ofthe money was used to commission an airline to shuttlearound UN and other international officials. The next thingthey needed were drivers and interpreters. So they hiredthe few English-speaking bureaucrats and the remainingteachers in Afghan schools to chauffeur and chaperonethem around, paying them multiples of current Afghansalaries. As the few skilled bureaucrats were shunted intojobs servicing the foreign aid community, the aid flows,rather than building infrastructure in Afghanistan, started byundermining the Afghan state they were supposed to buildupon and strengthen.

Villagers in a remote district in the central valley ofAfghanistan heard a radio announcement about a newmultimillion-dollar program to restore shelter to their area.After a long while, a few wooden beams, carried by thetrucking cartel of Ismail Khan, famous former warlord andmember of the Afghan government, were delivered. Butthey were too big to be used for anything in the district, and

the villagers put them to the only possible use: firewood. Sowhat had happened to the millions of dollars promised tothe villagers? Of the promised money, 20 percent of it wastaken as UN head office costs in Geneva. The remainderwas subcontracted to an NGO, which took another 20percent for its own head office costs in Brussels, and so on,for another three layers, with each party takingapproximately another 20 percent of what was remaining.The little money that reached Afghanistan was used to buywood from western Iran, and much of it was paid to IsmailKhan’s trucking cartel to cover the inflated transport prices.It was a bit of a miracle that those oversize wooden beamseven arrived in the village.

What happened in the central valley of Afghanistan is notan isolated incident. Many studies estimate that only about10 or at most 20 percent of aid ever reaches its target.There are dozens of ongoing fraud investigations intocharges of UN and local officials siphoning off aid money.But most of the waste resulting from foreign aid is not fraud,just incompetence or even worse: simply business as usualfor aid organizations.

The Afghan experience with aid was in fact probably aqualified success compared to others. Throughout the lastfive decades, hundreds of billions of dollars have been paidto governments around the world as “development” aid.Much of it has been wasted in overhead and corruption, justas in Afghanistan. Worse, a lot of it went to dictators suchas Mobutu, who depended on foreign aid from his Westernpatrons both to buy support from his clients to shore up hisregime and to enrich himself. The picture in much of therest of sub-Saharan Africa was similar. Humanitarian aidgiven for temporary relief in times of crises, for example,most recently in Haiti and Pakistan, has certainly beenmore useful, even though its delivery, too, has been marredin similar problems.

Despite this unflattering track record of “development”aid, foreign aid is one of the most popular policies thatWestern governments, international organizations such asthe United Nations, and NGOs of different ilk recommendas a way of combating poverty around the world. And ofcourse, the cycle of the failure of foreign aid repeats itselfover and over again. The idea that rich Western countries

should provide large amounts of “developmental aid” inorder to solve the problem of poverty in sub-SaharanAfrica, the Caribbean, Central America, and South Asia isbased on an incorrect understanding of what causespoverty. Countries such as Afghanistan are poor becauseof their extractive institutions—which result in lack ofproperty rights, law and order, or well-functioning legalsystems and the stifling dominance of national and, moreoften, local elites over political and economic life. Thesame institutional problems mean that foreign aid will beineffective, as it will be plundered and is unlikely to bedelivered where it is supposed to go. In the worst-casescenario, it will prop up the regimes that are at the very rootof the problems of these societies. If sustained economicgrowth depends on inclusive institutions, giving aid toregimes presiding over extractive institutions cannot be thesolution. This is not to deny that, even beyond humanitarianaid, considerable good comes out of specific aid programsthat build schools in areas where none existed before andthat pay teachers who would otherwise go unpaid. Whilemuch of the aid community that poured into Kabul did littleto improve life for ordinary Afghans, there have also beennotable successes in building schools, particularly for girls,who were entirely excluded from education under theTaliban and even before.

One solution—which has recently become more popular,partly based on the recognition that institutions havesomething to do with prosperity and even the delivery of aid—is to make aid “conditional.” According to this view,continued foreign aid should depend on recipientgovernments meeting certain conditions—for example,liberalizing markets or moving toward democracy. TheGeorge W. Bush administration undertook the biggest steptoward this type of conditional aid by starting the MillenniumChallenge Accounts, which made future aid paymentsdependent on quantitative improvements in severaldimensions of economic and political development. But theeffectiveness of conditional aid appears no better than theunconditional kind. Countries failing to meet theseconditions typically receive as much aid as those that do.There is a simple reason: they have a greater need for aidof either the developmental or humanitarian kind. And quite

predictably, conditional aid seems to have little effect on anation’s institutions. After all, it would have been quitesurprising for somebody such as Siaka Stevens in SierraLeone or Mobutu in the Congo suddenly to start dismantlingthe extractive institutions on which he depended just for alittle more foreign aid. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, whereforeign aid is a significant fraction of many governments’total budget, and even after the Millennium ChallengeAccounts, which increased the extent of conditionality, theamount of additional foreign aid that a dictator can obtainby undermining his own power is both small and not worththe risk either to his continued dominance over the countryor to his life.

But all this does not imply that foreign aid, except thehumanitarian kind, should cease. Putting an end to foreignaid is impractical and would likely lead to additional humansuffering. It is impractical because citizens of manyWestern nations feel guilt and unease about the economicand humanitarian disasters around the world, and foreignaid makes them believe that something is being done tocombat the problems. Even if this something is not veryeffective, their desire for doing it will continue, and so willforeign aid. The enormous complex of internationalorganizations and NGOs will also ceaselessly demand andmobilize resources to ensure the continuation of the statusquo. Also, it would be callous to cut the aid given to theneediest nations. Yes, much of it is wasted. But if out ofevery dollar given to aid, ten cents makes it to the poorestpeople in the world, that is ten cents more than they hadbefore to alleviate the most abject poverty, and it might stillbe better than nothing.

There are two important lessons here. First, foreign aidis not a very effective means of dealing with the failure ofnations around the world today. Far from it. Countries needinclusive economic and political institutions to break out ofthe cycle of poverty. Foreign aid can typically do little in thisrespect, and certainly not with the way that it is currentlyorganized. Recognizing the roots of world inequality andpoverty is important precisely so that we do not pin ourhopes on false promises. As those roots lie in institutions,foreign aid, within the framework of given institutions inrecipient nations, will do little to spur sustained growth.

Second, since the development of inclusive economic andpolitical institutions is key, using the existing flows offoreign aid at least in part to facilitate such developmentwould be useful. As we saw, conditionality is not the answerhere, as it requires existing rulers to make concessions.Instead, perhaps structuring foreign aid so that its use andadministration bring groups and leaders otherwiseexcluded from power into the decision-making process andempowering a broad segment of population might be abetter prospect.

EMPOWERMENT

May 12, 1978, seemed as if it were going to be a normalday at the Scânia truck factory in the city of São Bernardoin the Brazilian state of São Paulo. But the workers wererestless. Strikes had been banned in Brazil since 1964,when the military overthrew the democratic government ofPresident João Goulart. But news had just broken that thegovernment had been fixing the national inflation figures sothat the rise in the cost of living had been underestimated.As the 7:00 a.m. shift began, workers put down their tools.At 8:00 a.m., Gilson Menezes, a union organizer working atthe plant, called the union. The president of the SãoBernardo Metalworkers was a thirty-three-year-old activistcalled Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (“Lula”). By noon Lula wasat the factory. When the company asked him to persuadethe employees to go back to work, he refused.

The Scânia strike was the first in a wave of strikes thatswept across Brazil. On the face of it these were aboutwages, but as Lula later noted,

I think we can’t separate economic andpolitical factors.… The … struggle was overwages, but in struggling for wages, theworking class won a political victory.

The resurgence of the Brazilian labor movement was justpart of a much broader social reaction to a decade and ahalf of military rule. The left-wing intellectual FernandoHenrique Cardoso, like Lula destined to become presidentof Brazil after the re-creation of democracy, argued in 1973

that democracy would be created in Brazil by the manysocial groups that opposed the military coming together.He said that what was needed was a “reactivation of civilsociety … the professional associations, the trade unions,the churches, the student organizations, the study groupsand the debating circles, the social movements”—in otherwords, a broad coalition with the aim of re-creatingdemocracy and changing Brazilian society.

The Scânia factory heralded the formation of thiscoalition. By late 1978, Lula was floating the idea ofcreating a new political party, the Workers’ Party. This wasto be the party not just of trade unionists, however. Lulainsisted that it should be a party for all wage earners andthe poor in general. Here the attempts of union leaders toorganize a political platform began to coalesce with themany social movements that were springing up. On August18, 1979, a meeting was held in São Paulo to discuss theformation of the Workers’ Party, which brought togetherformer opposition politicians, union leaders, students,intellectuals, and people representing one hundred diversesocial movements that had begun to organize in the 1970sacross Brazil. The Workers’ Party, launched at the SãoJudas Tadeo restaurant in São Bernardo in October 1979,would come to represent all these diverse groups.

The party quickly began to benefit from the politicalopening that the military was reluctantly organizing. In thelocal elections of 1982, it ran candidates for the first time,and won two races for mayor. Throughout the 1980s, asdemocracy was gradually re-created in Brazil, the Workers’Party began to take over more and more localgovernments. By 1988 it controlled the governments inthirty-six municipalities, including large cities such as SãoPaulo and Porto Alegre. In 1989, in the first freepresidential elections since the military coup, Lula won 16percent of the vote in the first round as the party’scandidate. In the runoff race with Fernando Collor, he won44 percent.

In taking over many local governments, something thataccelerated in the 1990s, the Workers’ Party began toenter into a symbiotic relationship with many local socialmovements. In Porto Alegre the first Workers’ Partyadministration after 1988 introduced “participatory

budgeting,” which was a mechanism for bringing ordinarycitizens into the formulation of the spending priorities of thecity. It created a system that has become a world model forlocal government accountability and responsiveness, and itwent along with huge improvements in public serviceprovision and the quality of life in the city. The successfulgovernance structure of the party at the local level mappedinto greater political mobilization and success at thenational level. Though Lula was defeated by FernandoHenrique Cardoso in the presidential elections of 1994 and1998, he was elected president of Brazil in 2002. TheWorkers’ Party has been in power ever since.

The formation of a broad coalition in Brazil as a result ofthe coming together of diverse social movements andorganized labor has had a remarkable impact on theBrazilian economy. Since 1990 economic growth has beenrapid, with the proportion of the population in poverty fallingfrom 45 percent to 30 percent in 2006. Inequality, whichrose rapidly under the military, has fallen sharply,particularly after the Workers’ Party took power, and therehas been a huge expansion of education, with the averageyears of schooling of the population increasing from six in1995 to eight in 2006. Brazil has now become part of theBRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), the firstLatin American country actually to have weight ininternational diplomatic circles.

THE RISE OF BRAZIL since the 1970s was not engineered byeconomists of international institutions instructing Brazilianpolicymakers on how to design better policies or avoidmarket failures. It was not achieved with injections offoreign aid. It was not the natural outcome of modernization.Rather, it was the consequence of diverse groups ofpeople courageously building inclusive institutions.Eventually these led to more inclusive economicinstitutions. But the Brazilian transformation, like that ofEngland in the seventeenth century, began with the creationof inclusive political institutions. But how can society buildinclusive political institutions?

History, as we have seen, is littered with examples ofreform movements that succumbed to the iron law of

oligarchy and replaced one set of extractive institutions witheven more pernicious ones. We have seen that England in1688, France in 1789, and Japan during the MeijiRestoration of 1868 started the process of forging inclusivepolitical institutions with a political revolution. But suchpolitical revolutions generally create much destruction andhardship, and their success is far from certain. TheBolshevik Revolution advertised its aim as replacing theexploitative economic system of tsarist Russia with a morejust and efficient one that would bring freedom andprosperity to millions of Russians. Alas, the outcome wasthe opposite, and much more repressive and extractiveinstitutions replaced those of the government theBolsheviks overthrew. The experiences in China, Cuba,and Vietnam were similar. Many noncommunist, top-downreforms fared no better. Nasser vowed to build a modernegalitarian society in Egypt, but this led only to HosniMubarak’s corrupt regime, as we saw in chapter 13. RobertMugabe was viewed by many as a freedom fighter oustingIan Smith’s racist and highly extractive Rhodesian regime.But Zimbabwe’s institutions became no less extractive, andits economic performance has been even worse thanbefore independence.

What is common among the political revolutions thatsuccessfully paved the way for more inclusive institutionsand the gradual institutional changes in North America, inEngland in the nineteenth century, and in Botswana afterindependence—which also led to significant strengtheningof inclusive political institutions—is that they succeeded inempowering a fairly broad cross-section of society.Pluralism, the cornerstone of inclusive political institutions,requires political power to be widely held in society, andstarting from extractive institutions that vest power in anarrow elite, this requires a process of empowerment. This,as we emphasized in chapter 7, is what sets apart theGlorious Revolution from the overthrow of one elite byanother. In the case of the Glorious Revolution, the roots ofpluralism were in the overthrow of James II by a politicalrevolution led by a broad coalition consisting of merchants,industrialists, the gentry, and even many members of theEnglish aristocracy not allied with the Crown. As we haveseen, the Glorious Revolution was facilitated by the prior

mobilization and empowerment of a broad coalition, andmore important, it in turn led to the further empowerment ofan even broader segment of society than what came before—even though clearly this segment was much less broadthan the entire society, and England would remain far froma true democracy for more than another two hundred years.The factors leading to the emergence of inclusiveinstitutions in the North American colonies were alsosimilar, as we saw in the first chapter. Once again, the pathstarting in Virginia, Carolina, Maryland, and Massachusettsand leading up to the Declaration of Independence and tothe consolidation of inclusive political institutions in theUnited States was one of empowerment for increasinglybroader segments in society.

The French Revolution, too, is an example ofempowerment of a broader segment of society, which roseup against the ancien régime in France and managed topave the way for a more pluralistic political system. But theFrench Revolution, especially the interlude of the Terrorunder Robespierre, a repressive and murderous regime,also illustrates how the process of empowerment is notwithout its pitfalls. Ultimately, however, Robespierre and hisJacobin cadres were cast aside, and the most importantinheritance from the French Revolution became not theguillotine but the far-ranging reforms that the revolutionimplemented in France and other parts of Europe.

There are many parallels between these historicalprocesses of empowerment and what took place in Brazilstarting in the 1970s. Though one root of the Workers’Party is the trade union movement, right from its early days,leaders such as Lula, along with the many intellectuals andopposition politicians who lent their support to the party,sought to make it into a broad coalition. These impulsesbegan to fuse with local social movements all over thecountry, as the party took over local governments,encouraging civic participation and causing a sort ofrevolution in governance throughout the country. In Brazil, incontrast with England in the seventeenth century or Franceat the turn of the eighteenth century, there was no radicalrevolution igniting the process of transforming politicalinstitutions at one fell swoop. But the process ofempowerment that started in the factories of São Bernardo

was effective in part because it translated into fundamentalpolitical change at the national level—for example, thetransitioning out of military rule to democracy. Moreimportant, empowerment at the grass-roots level in Brazilensured that the transition to democracy corresponded to amove toward inclusive political institutions, and thus was akey factor in the emergence of a government committed tothe provision of public services, educational expansion,and a truly level playing field. As we have seen, democracyis no guarantee that there will be pluralism. The contrast ofthe development of pluralistic institutions in Brazil to theVenezuelan experience is telling in this context. Venezuelaalso transitioned to democracy after 1958, but thishappened without empowerment at the grassroots leveland did not create a pluralistic distribution of politicalpower. Instead, corrupt politics, patronage networks, andconflict persisted in Venezuela, and in part as a result,when voters went to the polls, they were even willing tosupport potential despots such as Hugo Chávez, mostlikely because they thought he alone could stand up to theestablished elites of Venezuela. In consequence,Venezuela still languishes under extractive institutions,while Brazil broke the mold.

WHAT CAN BE DONE to kick-start or perhaps just facilitate theprocess of empowerment and thus the development ofinclusive political institutions? The honest answer of courseis that there is no recipe for building such institutions.Naturally there are some obvious factors that would makethe process of empowerment more likely to get off theground. These would include the presence of some degreeof centralized order so that social movements challengingexisting regimes do not immediately descend intolawlessness; some preexisting political institutions thatintroduce a modicum of pluralism, such as the traditionalpolitical institutions in Botswana, so that broad coalitionscan form and endure; and the presence of civil societyinstitutions that can coordinate the demands of thepopulation so that opposition movements can neither beeasily crushed by the current elites nor inevitably turn into avehicle for another group to take control of existing

extractive institutions. But many of these factors arehistorically predetermined and change only slowly. TheBrazilian case illustrates how civil society institutions andassociated party organizations can be built from the groundup, but this process is slow, and how successful it can beunder different circumstances is not well understood.

One other actor, or set of actors, can play atransformative role in the process of empowerment: themedia. Empowerment of society at large is difficult tocoordinate and maintain without widespread informationabout whether there are economic and political abuses bythose in power. We saw in chapter 11 the role of the mediain informing the public and coordinating their demandsagainst forces undermining inclusive institutions in theUnited States. The media can also play a key role inchanneling the empowerment of a broad segment ofsociety into more durable political reforms, again asillustrated in our discussion in chapter 11, particularly in thecontext of British democratization.

Pamphlets and books informing and galvanizing peopleplayed an important role during the Glorious Revolution inEngland, the French Revolution, and the march towarddemocracy in nineteenth-century Britain. Similarly, media,particularly new forms based on advances in informationand communication technology, such as Web blogs,anonymous chats, Facebook, and Twitter, played a centralrole in Iranian opposition against Ahmadinejad’s fraudulentelection in 2009 and subsequent repression, and theyseem to be playing a similarly central role in the ArabSpring protests that are ongoing as this manuscript isbeing completed.

Authoritarian regimes are often aware of the importanceof a free media, and do their best to fight it. An extremeillustration of this comes from Alberto Fujimori’s rule inPeru. Though originally democratically elected, Fujimorisoon set up a dictatorial regime in Peru, mounting a coupwhile still in office in 1992. Thereafter, though electionscontinued, Fujimori built a corrupt regime and ruled throughrepression and bribery. In this he relied heavily on his right-hand man, Valdimiro Montesinos, who headed the powerfulnational intelligence service of Peru. Montesinos was anorganized man, so he kept good records of how much the

administration paid different individuals to buy their loyalty,even videotaping many actual acts of bribery. There was alogic to this. Beyond just recordkeeping, this evidencemade sure that the accomplices were now on record andwould be considered as guilty as Fujimori and Montesinos.After the fall of the regime, these records fell into the handsof journalists and authorities. The amounts are revealingabout the value of the media to a dictatorship. A SupremeCourt judge was worth between $5,000 and $10,000 amonth, and politicians in the same or different parties werepaid similar amounts. But when it came to newspapers andTV stations, the sums were in the millions. Fujimori andMontesinos paid $9 million on one occasion and more than$10 million on another to control TV stations. They paidmore than $1 million to a mainstream newspaper, and toother newspapers they paid any amount between $3,000and $8,000 per headline. Fujimori and Montesinos thoughtthat controlling the media was much more important thancontrolling politicians and judges. One of Montesinos’shenchmen, General Bello, summed this up in one of thevideos by stating, “If we do not control the television we donot do anything.”

The current extractive institutions in China are alsocrucially dependent on Chinese authorities’ control of themedia, which, as we have seen, has become frighteninglysophisticated. As a Chinese commentator summarized,“To uphold the leadership of the Party in political reform,three principles must be followed: that the Party controls thearmed forces; the Party controls cadres; and the Partycontrols the news.”

But of course a free media and new communicationtechnologies can help only at the margins, by providinginformation and coordinating the demands and actions ofthose vying for more inclusive institutions. Their help willtranslate into meaningful change only when a broadsegment of society mobilizes and organizes in order toeffect political change, and does so not for sectarianreasons or to take control of extractive institutions, but totransform extractive institutions into more inclusive ones.Whether such a process will get under way and open thedoor to further empowerment, and ultimately to durablepolitical reform, will depend, as we have seen in many

different instances, on the history of economic and politicalinstitutions, on many small differences that matter and onthe very contingent path of history.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

THIS BOOK IS the culmination of fifteen years ofcollaborative research, and along the way we haveaccumulated a great deal of practical and intellectual debts.Our greatest debt is to our long-term collaborator SimonJohnson, who coauthored many of the key scientific papersthat shaped our understanding of comparative economicdevelopment.

Our other coauthors, with whom we have worked onrelated research projects, played a significant role in thedevelopment of our views, and we would like to particularlythank in this capacity Philippe Aghion, Jean-Marie Baland,María Angélica Bautista, Davide Cantoni, Isaías Chaves,Jonathan Conning, Melissa Dell, Georgy Egorov, LeopoldoFergusson, Camilo García-Jimeno, Tarek Hassan,Sebastián Mazzuca, Jeffrey Nugent, Neil Parsons, StevePincus, Pablo Querubín, Rafael Santos, Konstantin Sonin,Davide Ticchi, Ragnar Torvik, Juan Fernando Vargas,Thierry Verdier, Andrea Vindigni, Alex Wolitzky, PierreYared, and Fabrizio Zilibotti.

Many other people played very important roles inencouraging, challenging, and critiquing us over the years.We would particularly like to thank Lee Alston, AbhijitBanerjee, Robert Bates, Timothy Besley, John Coatsworth,Jared Diamond, Richard Easterlin, Stanley Engerman,Peter Evans, Jeff Frieden, Peter Gourevitch, StephenHaber, Mark Harrison, Elhanan Helpman, Peter Lindert,Karl Ove Moene, Dani Rodrik, and Barry Weingast.

Two people played a particularly significant role inshaping our views and encouraging our research, and wewould like to take this opportunity to express our intellectualdebt and our sincere gratitude to them: Joel Mokyr, andKen Sokoloff, who unfortunately passed away before thisbook was written. Ken is sorely missed by us both.

We are also very grateful to the scholars who attended aconference we organized in February 2010 on an earlyversion of our book manuscript at the Institute for

Quantitative Social Science at Harvard. We wouldparticularly like to thank the co-organizers, Jim Alt and KenShepsle, and our discussants at the conference: RobertAllen, Abhijit Banerjee, Robert Bates, Stanley Engerman,Claudia Goldin, Elhanan Helpman, Joel Mokyr, Ian Morris,Şevket Pamuk, Steve Pincus, and Peter Temin. We arealso grateful to Melissa Dell, Jesús Fernández-Villaverde,Sándor László, Suresh Naidu, Roger Owen, Dan Trefler,Michael Walton, and Noam Yuchtman, who gave usextensive comments at the conference and at many othertimes.

We are also grateful to Charles Mann, Leandro Pradosde la Escosura, and David Webster for their expert advice.

During much of the process of researching and writingthis book we were both members of the Canadian Institutefor Advanced Research’s (CIFAR) program on Institutions,Organizations, and Growth. We presented research relatedto this book many times at CIFAR meetings and havebenefited hugely from the support of this wonderfulorganization and the scholars that it brings together.

We also received comments from literally hundreds ofpeople in various seminars and conferences on thematerial developed in this book, and we apologize forfailing to attribute properly any suggestion, idea, or insightthat we got from those presentations and discussions.

We are also very grateful to María Angélica Bautista,Melissa Dell, and Leander Heldring for their superbresearch assistance on this project.

Last, but certainly not least, we have been very fortunateto have a wonderful, insightful, and extremely supportiveeditor, John Mahaney. John’s comments and suggestionshave greatly improved our book, and his support andenthusiasm for the project made the last year and a halfmuch more pleasant and less taxing than it might havebeen.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY AND SOURCES

PREFACE

Mohamed ElBaradei’s views can be found attwitter.com/#!/ElBaradei.

Mosaab El Shami and Noha Hamed quotes are fromYahoo! news 2/6/2011, at news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110206/ts_yblog_exclusive/egyptian-voices-from-tahrir-square.

On the twelve immediate demands posted on WaelKhalil’s blog, seealethonews.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/egypt-reviewing-the-demands/.

Reda Metwaly is quoted on Al Jazeera, 2/1/2011, atenglish.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011212597913527.html.

CHAPTER 1 : So CLOSE AND YET SO DIFFERENT

A good discussion of the Spanish exploration of the Riode La Plata is Rock (1992), chap. 1. On the discovery andcolonization of the Guaraní, see Ganson (2003). Thequotations from de Sahagún are from de Sahagún (1975),pp. 47–49. Gibson (1963) is fundamental on the Spanishconquest of Mexico and the institutions they structured. Thequotations from de las Casas come from de las Casas(1992), pp. 39, 117–18, and 107, respectively.

On Pizarro in Peru, see Hemming (1983). Chaps. 1–6cover the meeting at Cajamarca and the march south andthe capture of the Inca capital, Cuzco. See Hemming(1983), chap. 20, on de Toledo. Bakewell (1984) gives anoverview of the functioning of the Potosí mita, and Dell(2010) provides statistical evidence that shows how it hashad persistent effects over time.

The quote from Arthur Young is reproduced fromSheridan (1973), p. 8. There are many good books thatdescribe the early history of Jamestown: for example, Price(2003), and Kupperman (2007). Our treatment is heavilyinfluenced by Morgan (1975) and Galenson (1996). Thequote from Anas Todkill comes from p. 38 of Todkill (1885).The quotes from John Smith are from Price (2003), p. 77(“Victuals …”), p. 93 (“If your king …”), and p. 96 (“Whenyou send …”). The Charter of Maryland, the FundamentalConstitutions of Carolina, and other colonial constitutionshave been put on the Internet by Yale University’s AvalonProject, at avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century.

Bakewell (2009), chap. 14, discusses the independenceof Mexico and the constitution. See Stevens (1991) andKnight (2011) on postindependence political instability andpresidents. Coatsworth (1978) is the seminal paper on theevidence on economic decline in Mexico afterindependence. Haber (2010) presents the comparison ofthe development of banking in Mexico and the UnitedStates. Sokoloff (1988) and Sokoloff and Khan (1990)provide evidence on the social background of innovators inthe United States who filed patents. See Israel (2000) for abiography of Thomas Edison. Haber, Maurer, and Razo

(2003) proposes an interpretation of the political economyof the regime of Porfirio Díaz very much in the spirit of ourdiscussion. Haber, Klein, Maurer, and Middlebrook (2008)extend this treatment of Mexico’s political economy into thetwentieth century. On the differential allocation of frontierlands in North and Latin America, see Nugent andRobinson (2010) and García-Jimeno and Robinson (2011).Hu-DeHart (1984) discusses the deportation of the Yaquipeople in chap. 6. On the fortune of Carlos Slim and how itwas made, see Relea (2007) and Martinez (2002).

Our interpretation of comparative economic developmentof the Americas builds on our own previous research withSimon Johnson, particularly Acemoglu, Johnson, andRobinson (2001, 2002), and has also been heavilyinfluenced by Coatsworth (1978, 2008) and Engerman andSokoloff (1997).

CHAPTER 2 : THEORIES THAT DON’T WORK

Jared Diamond’s views on world inequality are laid out inhis book Guns, Germs and Steel (1997). Sachs (2006)sets out his own version of geographical determinism.Views about culture are widely spread throughout theacademic literature but have never been brought togetherin one work. Weber (2002) argued that it was theProtestant Reformation that explained why it was Europethat had the Industrial Revolution. Landes (1999) proposedthat Northern Europeans developed a unique set of culturalattitudes that led them to work hard, save, and beinnovative. Harrison and Huntington, eds. (2000), is aforceful statement of the importance of culture forcomparative economic development. The notion that thereis some sort of superior British culture or superior set ofBritish institutions is widespread and used to explain U.S.exceptionalism (Fisher, 1989) and also patterns ofcomparative development more generally (La Porta,Lopez-de-Silanes, and Shleifer, 2008). The works ofBanfield (1958) and Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti (1994)are very influential cultural interpretations of how one aspectof culture, or “social capital,” as they call it, makes the southof Italy poor. For a survey of how economists use notions ofculture, see Guiso, Sapienza, and Zingales (2006).Tabellini (2010) examines the correlation between theextent to which people trust each other in Western Europeand levels of annual income per capita. Nunn andWantchekon (2010) show how the lack of trust and socialcapital in Africa is correlated with the historical intensity ofthe slave trade.

The relevant history of the Kongo is presented in Hilton(1985) and Thornton (1983). On the historicalbackwardness of African technology, see the works ofGoody (1971), Law (1980), and Austen and Headrick(1983).

The definition of economics proposed by Robbins isfrom Robbins (1935), p. 16.

The quote from Abba Lerner is in Lerner (1972), p. 259.The idea that ignorance explains comparative development

is implicit in most economic analyses of economicdevelopment and policy reform: for example, Williamson(1990); Perkins, Radelet, and Lindauer (2006); and Aghionand Howitt (2009). A recent, forceful version of this view isdeveloped in Banerjee and Duflo (2011).

Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2001, 2002) providea statistical analysis of the relative role of institutions,geography, and culture, showing that institutions dominatethe other two types of explanations in accounting fordifferences in per capita income today.

CHAPTER 3 : THE MAKING OF PROSPERITY AND POVERTY

The reconstruction of the meeting between HwangPyŏng-Wŏn and his brother is taken from James A. Foley’sinterview of Hwang transcribed in Foley (2003), pp. 197–203.

The notion of extractive institutions originates fromAcemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2001). The terminologyof inclusive institutions was suggested to us by Tim Besley.The terminology of economic losers and the distinctionbetween them and political losers comes from Acemogluand Robinson (2000b). The data on Barbados comes fromDunn (1969). Our treatment of the Soviet economy relies onNove (1992) and Davies (1998). Allen (2003) provides analternative and more positive interpretation of Sovieteconomic history.

In the social science literature there is a great deal ofresearch related to our theory and argument. SeeAcemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2005b) for an overviewof this literature and our contribution to it. The institutionalview of comparative development builds on a number ofimportant works. Particularly notable is the work of North;see North and Thomas (1973), North (1982), North andWeingast (1989), and North, Wallis, and Weingast (2009).Olson (1984) also provided a very influential account of thepolitical economy of economic growth. Mokyr (1990) is afundamental book that links economic losers tocomparative technological change in world history. Thenotion of economic losers is very widespread in socialscience as an explanation for why efficient institutional andpolicy outcomes do not occur. Our interpretation, whichbuilds on Robinson (1998) and Acemoglu and Robinson(2000b, 2006b), differs by emphasizing the idea that themost important barrier to the emergence of inclusiveinstitutions is elites’ fear that they will lose their politicalpower. Jones (2003) provides a rich comparative historyemphasizing similar themes, and Engerman and Sokoloff’s(1997) important work on the Americas also emphasizesthese ideas. A seminal political economy interpretation ofAfrican underdevelopment was developed by Bates (1981,1983, 1989), whose work heavily influenced ours. Seminal

1983, 1989), whose work heavily influenced ours. Seminalstudies by Dalton (1965) and Killick (1978) emphasize therole of politics in African development and particularly howthe fear of losing political power influences economicpolicy. The notion of political losers was previously implicitin other theoretical work in political economy, for instance,Besley and Coate (1998) and Bourguignon and Verdier(2000). The role of political centralization and stateinstitutions in development has been most heavilyemphasized by historical sociologists following the work byMax Weber. Notable is the work of Mann (1986, 1993),Migdal (1988), and Evans (1995). In Africa, work on theconnection between the state and development isemphasized by Herbst (2000) and Bates (2001).Economists have recently begun to contribute to thisliterature; for example, Acemoglu (2005) and Besley andPersson (2011). Finally, Johnson (1982), Haggard (1990),Wade (1990), and Amsden (1992) emphasized how it wasthe particular political economy of East Asian nations thatallowed them to be so economically successful. Finley(1965) made a seminal argument that slavery wasresponsible for the lack of technological dynamism in theclassical world.

The idea that growth under extractive institutions ispossible but is also likely to run out of steam is emphasizedin Acemoglu (2008).

CHAPTER 4 : SMALL DIFFERENCES AND CRITICAL JUNCTURES

Benedictow (2004) provides a definitive overview of theBlack Death, though his assessments of how many peoplethe plague killed are controversial. The quotations fromBoccaccio and Ralph of Shrewsbury are reproduced fromHorrox (1994). Hatcher (2008) provides a compellingaccount of the anticipation and arrival of the plague inEngland. The text of the Statute of Laborers is availableonline from the Avalon Project, atavalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/statlab.asp

The fundamental works on the impact of the Black Deathon the divergence of Eastern and Western Europe areNorth and Thomas (1973) and particularly Brenner (1976),whose analysis of how the initial distribution of politicalpower affected the consequences of the plague has greatlyinfluenced our thinking. See DuPlessis (1997) on theSecond Serfdom in Eastern Europe. Conning (2010) andAcemoglu and Wolitzky (2011) develop formalizations ofBrenner’s thesis. The quote from James Watt isreproduced from Robinson (1964), pp. 223–24.

In Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2005a) we firstpresented the argument that it was the interaction betweenAtlantic trade and initial institutional differences that led tothe divergence of English institutions and ultimately theIndustrial Revolution. The notion of the iron law of oligarchyis due to Michels (1962). The notion of a critical juncturewas first developed by Lipset and Rokkan (1967).

On the role of institutions in the long-run development ofthe Ottoman Empire, the research of Owen (1981), Owenand Pamuk (1999), and Pamuk (2006) is fundamental.

CHAPTER 5 : “I’VE SEEN THE FUTURE, AND IT WORKS”

On Steffens’s mission to Russia and his words toBaruch, see Steffens (1931), chap. 18, pp. 790–802. Forthe number of people who starved in the 1930s, we use thefigures of Davies and Wheatcroft (2004). On the 1937census numbers, see Wheatcroft and Davies (1994a,1994b). The nature of innovation in the Soviet economy isstudied in Berliner (1976). Our discussion of how Stalinism,and particularly economic planning, really worked is basedon Gregory and Harrison (2005). On how writers of U.S.economics textbooks continually got Soviet economicgrowth wrong, see Levy and Peart (2009).

Our treatment and interpretation of the Lele and theBushong is based on the research of Douglas (1962,1963) and Vansina (1978).

On the concept of the Long Summer, see Fagan (2003).An accessible introduction to the Natufians andarchaeological sites we mention can be found in Mithen(2006) and Barker (2006). The seminal work on AbuHureyra is Moore, Hillman, and Legge (2000), whichdocuments how sedentary life and institutional innovationappeared prior to farming. See Smith (1998) for a generaloverview of the evidence that sedentary life precededfarming, and see Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen (1992) forthe case of the Natufians. Our approach to the NeolithicRevolution is inspired by Sahlins (1972), which also has theanecdote about the Yir Yoront.

Our discussion of Maya history follows Martin and Grube(2000) and Webster (2002). The reconstruction of thepopulation history of Copán comes from Webster, Freter,and Gonlin (2000). The number of dated monuments isfrom Sidrys and Berger (1979).

CHAPTER 6 : DRIFTING APART

The discussion of the Venetian case follows Puga andTrefler (2010), and chaps. 8 and 9 of Lane (1973).

The material on Rome is contained in any standardhistory. Our interpretation of Roman economic institutionsfollows Finlay (1999) and Bang (2008). Our account ofRoman decline follows Ward-Perkins (2006) andGoldsworthy (2009). On institutional changes in the lateRoman Empire, see Jones (1964). The anecdotes aboutTiberius and Hadrian are from Finley (1999).

The evidence from shipwrecks was first used by Hopkins(1980). See De Callataǿ (2005) and Jongman (2007) foran overview of this and the Greenland Ice Core Project.

The Vindolanda tablets are available online atvindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/. The quote we use comes fromTVII Pub. no.: 343.

The discussion of the factors that led to the decline ofRoman Britain follows Cleary (1989), chap. 4; Faulkner(2000), chap. 7; Dark (1994), chap. 2.

On Aksum, see Munro-Hay (1991). The seminal work onEuropean feudalism and its origins is Bloch (1961); seeCrummey (2000) on Ethiopian feudalism. Phillipson (1998)makes the comparison between the collapse of Aksum andthe collapse of the Roman Empire.

CHAPTER 7 : THE TURNING POINT

The story of Lee’s machine and meeting with QueenElizabeth I is available atcalverton.homestead.com/willlee.html.

Allen (2009b) presents the data on real wages usingDiocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices.

Our argument about the causes of the IndustrialRevolution is highly influenced by the arguments made inNorth and Thomas (1973), North and Weingast (1989),Brenner (1993), Pincus (2009), and Pincus and Robinson(2010). These scholars in turn were inspired by earlierMarxist interpretations of British institutional change andthe emergence of capitalism; see Dobb

(1963) and Hill (1961, 1980). See also Tawney’s (1941)thesis about how the state building project of Henry VIIIchanged the English social structure.

The text of the Magna Carta is available online at theAvalon Project, atavalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/magframe.asp.

Elton (1953) is the seminal work on the development ofstate institutions under Henry VIII, and Neale (1971) relatesthese to the evolution of parliament.

On the Peasants’ Revolt, see Hilton (2003). The quotefrom Hill on monopolies is from Hill (1961), p. 25. OnCharles I’s period of “personal rule,” we follow Sharp(1992). Our evidence on how different groups and regionssided either for or against Parliament comes from Bruntonand Pennington (1954), Hill (1961), and Stone (2001).Pincus (2009) is fundamental on the Glorious Revolutionand discusses many of the specific changes in policies andeconomic institutions; for example, the repeal of the HearthTax and the creation of the Bank of England. See alsoPincus and Robinson (2010). Pettigrew (2007, 2009)discusses the attack on monopolies, including the RoyalAfrican Company, and our data on petitioning comes fromhis papers. Knights (2010) emphasizes the politicalimportance of petitioning. Our information on Hoare’s Bankcomes from Temin and Voth (2008).

Our information about Superviser Cowperthwaite and theexcise tax bureaucracy comes from Brewer (1988).

excise tax bureaucracy comes from Brewer (1988).Our overview of the economic history of the Industrial

Revolution rests on Mantoux (1961), Daunton (1995), Allen(2009a), and Mokyr (1990, 2009), who provide details onthe famous inventors and inventions we discuss. The storyabout the Baldwyn family is from Bogart and Richardson(2009, 2011), who stress the connection between theGlorious Revolution, the reorganization of property rights,and the construction of roads and canals. On the CalicoeActs and Manchester Acts, see O’Brien, Griffiths, and Hunt(1991), which is the source of the quotes from thelegislation. On the dominance of new people in industry,see Daunton (1995), chap. 7, and Crouzet (1985).

Our account of why the major institutional changes firsttook place in England is based on Acemoglu, Johnson, andRobinson (2005a) and Brenner (1976). The data on thenumber of independent merchants and their politicalpreferences come from Zahedieh (2010).

CHAPTER 8 : NOT ON OUR TURF

On the opposition to the printing press in the OttomanEmpire, see Savage-Smith (2003) pp. 656–59.Comparative historical literacy comes from Easterlin(1981).

Our discussion of political institutions of Spain followsThompson (1994a, 1994b). For evidence on the economicdecline of Spain over this period, see Nogal and Pradosde la Escosura (2007).

Our discussion of the impediments to economicdevelopment in Austria-Hungary follows Blum (1943),Freudenberger (1967), and Gross (1973). The quotationfrom Maria Theresa comes from Freudenberger, p. 495. Allother quotations from Count Hartig and Francis I are fromBlum. Francis’s reply to the delegates from the Tyrol isquoted from Jászi (1929), pp. 80–81. The comment ofFriedrich von Gentz to Robert Owen is also quoted fromJászi (1929), p. 80. The experience of the Rothschilds inAustria is discussed in chap. 2 of Corti (1928).

Our analysis of Russia follows Gerschenkron (1970). Thequotation from Kropotkin is from p. 60 of the 2009 editionof his book. The conversation between Nicholas andMikhail is quoted from Saunders (1992), p. 117. Kankrin’squote on railways is in Owen (1991), pp. 15–16.

The speech by Nicholas to the manufacturers isreproduced from Pintner 967), p. 100.

The quote from A. A. Zakrevskii is from Pintner (1967), p.235.

On Admiral Zheng, see Dreyer (2007). The economichistory of early Modern China is covered by Myers andWang (2002). The quote from T’ang Chen is quoted fromMyers and Wang, pp. 564–65.

See Zewde (2002) for an overview of the relevantEthiopian history. The data on how extractive Ethiopia hasbeen historically come from Pankhurst (1961), as do all thequotes we reproduce here.

Our description of Somali institutions and history followsLewis (1961, 2002). The heer of the Hassan Ugaas isreproduced on p.177 of Lewis (1961); our description of a

feud comes from chap. 8 of Lewis (1961), where he reportsmany other examples. On the Kingdom of Taqali andwriting, see Ewald (1988).

CHAPTER 9 : REVERSING DEVELOPMENT

Our discussion of the takeover of Ambon and Banda bythe Dutch East India Company and the company’s negativeeffect on the development of Southeast Asia follows Hanna(1978) and particularly Reid (1993), chap. 5. The quotesfrom Reid on Tomé Pires are from p. 271; the Dutch factori n Maguindanao, p. 299; the sultan of Maguindanao, pp.299–300. Data on the impact of the Dutch East IndiaCompany on the price of spices come from O’Rourke andWilliamson (2002).

A definitive overview of slavery in African society and theimpact of the slave trade is Lovejoy (2000). Lovejoy, p. 47,Table 31, reports consensus estimates of the extent of theslave trade. Nunn (2008) provided the first quantitativeestimates of the impact of the slave trade on Africaneconomic institutions and economic growth. The data onfirearms and gunpowder imports are from Inikori (1977).The testimony of Francis Moore is quoted from Lovejoy(2000), pp. 89–90. Law (1977) is a seminal study of theexpansion of the Oyo state. The estimates of the impact ofthe slave trade on population in Africa are taken fromManning (1990). Lovejoy (2000), chap. 8, the essays inLaw (1995), and the important book of Austin (2005) arethe basis for our discussion of the analysis of the period of“legitimate commerce.” Data on the proportion of Africanswho were slaves in Africa comes from Lovejoy (2000), e.g.,p. 192, Table 9.2.

Data on labor in Liberia is from Clower, Dalton, Harwitz,and Walters (1966).

The dual economy idea was developed by Lewis (1954).Fergusson (2010) develops a mathematical model of thedual economy. The notion that this was a creation ofcolonialism was first proposed in the seminal collection ofessays edited by Palmer and Parsons (1977). Our accountof South Africa is based on Bundy (1979) and Feinstein(2005).

The Moravian missionary is quoted in Bundy (1979), p.46, and John Hemming is quoted in Bundy, p. 72. Thespread of land ownership in Griqualand East is from Bundy,p. 89; the exploits of Stephen Sonjica are from Bundy, p.

p. 89; the exploits of Stephen Sonjica are from Bundy, p.94; the quote from Matthew Blyth is from p. 97; and thequote from a European observer in Fingoland 1884 is fromBundy, pp. 100–101. George Albu is quoted in Feinstein(2005), p. 63; secretary for native affairs is quoted fromFeinstein, p. 45; and Verwoerd is quoted from Feinstein, p.159. Data on the real wages of African gold miners arefrom p. 66 of Wilson (1972). G. Findlay is quoted in Bundy(1979), p. 242.

The notion that the development of the rich countries ofthe West is the mirror image of the underdevelopment ofthe rest of the world was originally developed byWallertsein (1974–2011), though he emphasizes verydifferent mechanisms than we do.

CHAPTER 10 : THE DIFFUSION OF PROSPERITY

This chapter builds heavily on our previous research withSimon Johnson and Davide Cantoni: Acemoglu, Johnson,and Robinson (2002) and Acemoglu, Cantoni, Johnson,and Robinson (2010, 2011).

Our discussion of the development of early institutions inAustralia follows the seminal work of Hirst (1983, 1988,2003) and Neal (1991). The original manuscript of the writissued to Judge Collins is available (thanks to theMacquarie University Law School in Australia) atwww.law.mq.edu.au/scnsw/html/Cable%20v%20Sinclair,%201788.htm.

Macarthur’s characterization of Wentworth’s supportersis quoted from Melbourne (1963), pp. 131–32.

Our discussion of the origins of the Rothschilds followsFerguson (1998); Mayer Rothschild’s remark to his son isreproduced from Ferguson, p. 76.

Our discussion of the impact of the French on Europeaninstitutions is taken from Acemoglu, Cantoni, Johnson, andRobinson (2010, 2011) and the references therein. SeeDoyle (2002) for a standard overview of the FrenchRevolution. Information on the feudal dues in Nassau-Usingen is from Lenger (2004), p. 96. Ogilivie (2011)overviews the historical impact of guilds on Europeandevelopment.

For a treatment of the life of (Ōkubo Toshimichi, seeIwata (1964). Sakamoto Ryūma’s eight-point plan isreproduced from Jansen (2000), p. 310.

CHAPTER 11 : THE VIRTUOUS CIRCLE

Our discussion of the Black Act follows Thompson(1975). Baptist Nunn’s report of June 27 is from Thompson(1975), pp. 65–66. The other quotes are from Thompson’ssection on the rule of law, pp. 258–69, which is well worthreading in its entirety.

Our approach to democratization in England is based onAcemoglu and Robinson (2000a, 2001, and 2006a). EarlGrey’s speech is quoted from Evans (1996), p. 223.Stephens’s comment about democracy is quoted in Briggs(1959), p. 34. Thompson’s quote is from Thompson (1975),p. 269.

The entire text of the People’s Charter can be found inCole and Filson (1951) and atweb.bham.ac.uk/1848/document/peoplech.htm.

The quote from Burke is taken from Burke (1790/1969),p. 152.

Lindert (2004, 2009) is a seminal treatment of thecoevolution of democracy and public policy over the pasttwo hundred years.

Keyssar (2009) is a seminal introduction to the evolutionof political rights in the United States. Vanderbilt is quotedin Josephson (1934), p. 15. The text of Roosevelt’saddress is at www.theodore-roosevelt.com/sotu1.html.

The quote from Woodrow Wilson is from Wilson (1913),p. 286.

The text of President Roosevelt’s Fireside Chat can befound at miller-center.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3309.

Data on the relative tenure of Supreme Court justices inArgentina and the United States is presented in Iaryczower,Spiller, and Tommasi (2002). Helmke (2004) discusses thehistory of court packing in Argentina and quotes JusticeCarlos Fayt.

CHAPTER 12 : THE VICIOUS CIRCLE

This chapter heavily relies on our theoretical andempirical research on institutional persistence, particularlyAcemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2005b) and Acemogluand Robinson (2008a). Heath (1972) and Kelley and Klein(1980) made a seminal application of the iron law ofoligarchy to the 1952 Bolivian Revolution.

The quote from the British parliamentary papers isreproduced from p. 15 of House of Commons (1904). Theearly political history of postindependence Sierra Leone iswell told in Cartwright (1970). Though interpretations differas to why Siaka Stevens pulled up the railway line, thesalient one is that he did this to isolate Mendeland. In thiswe follow Abraham and Sesay (1993), p. 120; Richards(1996), pp. 42–43; and Davies (2007), pp. 684–85. Reno(1995, 2003) are the best treatments of Stevens’s regime.The data on the agricultural marketing boards comes fromDavies (2007). On the murder of Sam Bangura bydefenestration, see Reno (1995), pp. 137–41. Jackson(2004), p. 63, and Keen (2005), p. 17, discuss theacronyms ISU and SSD.

Bates (1981) is the seminal analysis of how marketingboards destroyed agricultural productivity inpostindependence Africa, see Goldstein and Udry (2009)on how political connections to chiefs determine propertyrights to land in Ghana.

On the relation between politicians in 1993 and theconquistadors, see Dosal (1995), chap. 1, and CasaúsArzú (2007). Our discussion of the policies of theConsulado de Comercio follows Woodward (1966). Thequote from President Barrios is from McCreery (1994), pp.187–88. Our discussion of the regime of Jorge Ubicofollows Grieb (1979).

Our discussion of the underdevelopment of the U.S.South follows Acemoglu and Robinson (2008b). SeeWright (1978) on the pre–Civil War development of theslave economy, and Bateman and Weiss (1981) on thedearth of industry. Fogel and Engerman (1974) give adifferent and controversial interpretation. Wright (1986) andRansom and Sutch (2001) give overviews of the extent to

Ransom and Sutch (2001) give overviews of the extent towhich the southern economy after 1865 really changed.Congressman George Washington Julian is quoted inWiener (1978), p. 6. The same book contains the analysisof the persistence of the southern landed elite after the CivilWar. Naidu (2009) examines the impact of the introductionof poll taxes and literacy tests in the 1890s in southernstates. The quotation from W.E.B. Du Bois is in his bookDu Bois (1903), p. 88. Clause 256 of the Alabamaconstitution can be found atwww.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245806.htm.

Alston and Ferrie (1999) discuss how southernpoliticians blocked federal legislation they thought woulddisrupt the South’s economy. Woodward (1955) gives aseminal overview of the creation of Jim Crow.

Overviews of the Ethiopian revolution are provided inHalliday and Molyneux (1981). On the Emperor’s cushions,see Kapuściński (1983). The quotes from Dawit WoldeGiorgis are from Dawit Wolde Giorgis (1989), pp. 49 and48, respectively.

CHAPTER 13 : WHY NATIONS FAIL TODAY

For the BBC report on Mugabe’s lottery success,including the public statement of Zimbank, seenews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/621895.stm.

Our treatment of the creation of white rule in Rhodesiafollows Palmer (1977) and Alexander (2006). Meredith(2007) provides a good overview of more recentZimbabwean politics.

Our account of the civil war in Sierra Leone followsRichards (1996), Truth and Reconciliation Commission(2004), and Keen (2005). The analysis published in anewspaper in the capital city of Freetown in 1995 is quotedfrom Keen (2005), p. 34. The text of the RUF’s “Footpathsto Democracy” can we found at www.sierra-leone.org/AFRC-RUF/footpaths.html.

The quotation from the teenager from Geoma is fromKeen (2005), p. 42.

Our discussion of the Colombian paramilitaries followsAcemoglu, Robinson, and Santos (2010) and Chaves andRobinson (2010), which in turn heavily rely on the extensivework by Colombian scholars, particularly Romero (2003),the essays in Romero (2007), and López (2010). León(2009) is an accessible and balanced account of the natureof contemporary conflicts in Colombia. Also fundamental isthe Web site run by the weekly newspaper Semana,www.verdadabierta.com/. All the quotes come fromAcemoglu, Robinson, and Santos (2010). The contractbetween Martín Llanos and the mayors in Casanare isavailable in Spanish atwww.verdadabierta.com/victimarios/los-jefes/714-perfil-hector-german-buitrago-alias-martin-llanos.

The origins and consequences of El Corralito are wellpresented in a series of articles in The Economistmagazine, available atwww.economist.com/search/apachesolr_search/corralito.

On the role of the interior in Argentine development, seeSawers (1996).

Hassig and Oh (2009) provides an excellent, valuableaccount of life in North Korea. Chap. 2 covers the luxurious

lifestyle of the leadership, and chaps. 3 and 4, theeconomic realities that most people face. The BBCcoverage of the currency reform can be found atnews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8500017.stm. On the pleasure palaceand brandy consumption, see chap. 12 of Post (2004).

Our discussion of child labor and its use for pickingcotton in Uzbeksitan follows Kandiyoti (2008), available atwww.soas.ac.uk/cccac/events/cotton-sector-in-central-asia-2005/file49842.pdf. The quote from Gulnaz is on p. 20 ofKandiyoti. On the Andijon uprising, see International CrisisGroup (2005). The description of the election of JosephStalin in the Soviet Union is reproduced from Denny(1937).

Our analysis of “crony capitalism” in Egypt followsSfakianakis (2004).

CHAPTER 14 : BREAKING THE MOLD

Our treatment of Botswana follows Acemoglu, Johnson,and Robinson (2003); Robinson and Parsons (2006); andLeith (2005). Schapera (1970) and Parsons, Henderson,and Tlou (1995) are fundamental works. HighCommissioner Rey is quoted in Acemoglu, Johnson, andRobinson (2003), p. 96. The discussion of the three chiefs’visit to England follows Parsons (1998), and all quotesrelating to this come from his book: Chamberlain, pp. 206–7; Fairfield, p. 209; and Rhodes, p. 223. Schapera isquoted from Schapera (1940), p. 72. The quote from QuettMasire is from Masire (2006), p. 43. On the ethniccomposition of the Tswana tribes, see Schapera (1952).

Our treatment of change in the U.S. South followsAcemoglu and Robinson (2008b). On the populationmovement out of the U.S. South, see Wright (1999); on themechanization of cotton picking, Heinicke (1994). “FRDUMFOOF SPETGH” is quoted from Mickey (2008), p. 50.Thurmond’s 1948 speech is taken fromwww.slate.com/id/2075151/, where you also can listen tothe audio recording. On James Meredith and Oxford,Mississippi, see Doyle (2001). See Wright (1999) on theimpact of civil rights legislation on black voting in the South.

On the nature and politics of China’s political transitionafter the death of Mao, see Harding (1987) andMacFarquhar and Schoenhals (2008). Deng’s quote aboutthe cat is from Harding, p. 58. The first point of the CulturalRevolution is from Schoenhals (1996), p. 33; Mao on Hitleris from MacFarquhar and Schoenhals, p. 102; Hua on the“Two Whatevers” is from Harding, p. 56.

CHAPTER 15 : UNDERSTANDING PROSPERITY AND POVERTY

For the story of Dai Guofang, see McGregor (2010), pp.219–26. The story of red telephones is also fromMcGregor, chap. 1. On the control of the party over media,see Pan (2008), chap. 9, and McGregor (2010), pp. 64–69and 235–62. The quotes on the party’s attitudes towardentrepreneurs are from McGregor (2010), pp. 200–201and 223. For Wen Jiabao’s comments on political reformsin China, see www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/29/wen-jiabao-china-reform.

The modernization hypothesis is clearly articulated inLipset (1959). The evidence against it is discussed indetail in Acemoglu, Johnson, Robinson, and Yared (2008,2009). George H. W. Bush’s quote is fromnews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/752224.stm.

Our discussion of NGO activity and foreign aid inAfghanistan after December 2001 draws on Ghani andLockhart (2008). See also Reinikka and Svensson (2004)and Easterly (2006) on problems of foreign aid.

Our discussion of problems of macroeconomic reformand inflation in Zimbabwe is from Acemoglu, Johnson,Robinson, and Querubín (2008). The Seva Mandirdiscussion is drawn from Banerjee, Duflo, and Glennerster(2008).

The formation of the Workers’ Party in Brazil is coveredin Keck (1992); on the Scânia strike, see chap. 4. Thequote from Cardoso is from Keck, pp. 44–45; the quotefrom Lula is on Keck, p. 65.

The discussion of the efforts of Fujimori and Montesinosto control the media is from McMillan and Zoido (2004),and the quote on the Chinese Communist Party’s control isfrom McGregor (2010), p. 69.

SOURCES FOR THE MAPS

Map 1: The Inca Empire and road system are adaptedfrom John V. Murra (1984), “Andean Societies before1532,” in Leslie Bethell, ed., The Cambridge History ofLatin America, vol. 1 (New York: Cambridge University

Press). The map of the mita catchment area is taken fromMelissa Dell (2010), “The Persistent Effects of Peru’sMining Mita,” Econometrica 78:6, 1863–1903.

Map 2: Drawn using data from Miriam Bruhn andFrancisco Gallego (2010), “The Good, the Bad, and theUgly: Do They Matter for Economic Development?”forthcoming in the Review of Economics and Statistics.

Map 3: Drawn using data from World DevelopmentIndicators (2008), the World Bank.

Map 4: Map of wild pigs adapted from W. L. R. Oliver; I.L. Brisbin, Jr.; and S. Takahashi (1993), “The EurasianWild Pig (Sus scrofa),” in W. L. R. Oliver, ed., Pigs,Peccaries, and Hippos: Status Survey and Action Plan(Gland, Switzerland: IUCN), pp. 112–21. Wild cattleadapted from map of aurochs from Cis van Vuure (2005),Retracing the Aurochs (Sofia: Pensoft Publishers), p. 41.

Map 5: Adapted from Daniel Zohary and Maria Hopf(2001), The Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 3rdedition (New York: Oxford University Press), wheat map 4,p. 56; barley map 5, p. 55. Map of rice distribution adaptedfrom Te-Tzu Chang (1976), “The Origin, Evolution,Cultivation, Dissemination, and Diversification of Asian andAfrican Rices,” Euphytica 25, 425–41, figure 2, p. 433.

Map 6: The Kuba Kingdom is based on Jan Vansina(1978), The Children of Woot (Madison: University ofWisconsin Press), map 2, p. 8. Kongo based on JanVansina (1995), “Equatorial Africa Before the NineteenthCentury,” in Philip Curtin, Steven Feierman, LeonardThompson, and Jan Vansina, African History: FromEarliest Times to Independence (New York: Longman),map 8.4, p. 228.

Map 7: Drawn using data from the DefenseMeteorological Satellite Program’s Operational LinescanSystem (DMSP-OLS), which reports images of the Earth atnight captured from 20:00 to 21:30 local time from analtitude of 830 km(http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dmsp/sensors/ols.html).

Map 8: Constructed from data in Jerome Blum (1998),The End of the Old Order in Rural Europe (Princeton:Princeton University Press).

Map 9: Adapted from the maps in Colin Martin and

Geoffrey Parker (1988), The Spanish Armada (London:Hamilton), pp. i–ii, 243.

Map 10: Adapted from Simon Martin and Nikolai Gribe(2000), Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens:Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya (London:Thames and Hudson), p. 21.

Map 11: Map adapted from Mark A. Kishlansky, PatrickGeary, and Patricia O’Brien (1991), Civilization in theWest (New York: HarperCollins Publishers), p. 151.

Map 12: Somali clan families adapted from Ioan M.Lewis (2002), A Modern History of Somalia (Oxford:James Currey), map of “Somali ethnic and clan-familydistribution 2002”; map of Aksum adapted from KevinShillington (1995), History of Africa, 2nd edition (New York:St. Martin’s Press), map 5.4, p. 69.

Map 13: J. R. Walton (1998), “Changing Patterns ofTrade and Interaction Since 1500,” in R. A. Butlin and R. A.Dodgshon, eds., An Historical Geography of Europe(Oxford: Oxford University Press), figure 15.2, p. 326.

Map 14: Adapted from Anthony Reid (1988), SoutheastAsia in the Age of Commerce, 1450–1680: Volume 1,The Land Below the Winds (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress), map 2, p. 9.

Map 15: Drawn from data taken from Nathan Nunn(2008), “The Long Term Effects of Africa’s Slave Trades,”Quarterly Journal of Economics 123, no. 1, 139–76.

Map 16: Maps based on the following maps: for SouthAfrica, A. J. Christopher (2001), The Atlas of ChangingSouth Africa (London: Routledge), figure 1.19, p. 31; forZimbabwe, Robin Palmer (1977), Land and RacialDomination in Rhodesia (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress), map 5, p. 245.

Map 17: Adapted from Alexander Grab (2003),Napoleon and the Transformation of Europe (London:Palgrave Macmillan), map 1, p. 17; map 2, p. 91.

Map 18: Drawn using data from the 1840 U.S. Census,downloadable at the National Historical GeographicInformation System: http://www.nhgis.org/.

Map 19: Drawn using data from the 1880 U.S. Census,downloadable at the National Historical GeographicInformation System: http://www.nhgis.org/.

Map 20: Daron Acemoglu, James A. Robinson, andRafael J. Santos (2010), “The Monopoly of Violence:Evidence from Colombia,” athttp://scholar.harvard.edu/jrobinson/files/jr_formationofstate.pdf.

REFERENCES

Abraham, Arthur, and Habib Sesay (1993) . “RegionalPolitics and Social Service Provision SinceIndependence.” In C. Magbaily Fyle, ed. The State and theProvision of Social Services in Sierra Leone SinceIndependence, 1961–1991. Oxford, U.K.: Codesaria.

Acemoglu, Daron (2005). “Politics and Economics inWeak and Strong States.” Journal of Monetary Economics52: 1199–226.

——(2008). “Oligarchic Versus Democratic Societies.”Journal of European Economic Association 6: 1–44.

Acemoglu, Daron, Davide Cantoni, Simon Johnson,and James A. Robinson (2010). “From Ancien Régimeto Capitalism: The Spread of the French Revolution as aNatural Experiment.” In Jared Diamond and James A.Robinson, eds. Natural Experiments in History.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

——(2011). “Consequences of Radical Reform: TheFrench Revolution.” American Economic Review,forthcoming.

Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James A.Robinson (2001). “The Colonial Origins of ComparativeDevelopment: An Empirical Investigation.” AmericanEconomic Review 91: 1369–1401.

——(2002). “Reversal of Fortune: Geography andInstitutions in the Making of the Modern World IncomeDistribution.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118: 1231–

94.

——(2003). “An African Success Story: Botswana.” In DaniRodrik, ed. In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives onEconomic Growth. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UniversityPress.

——(2005a). “Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, InstitutionalChange and Economic Growth.” American EconomicReview 95: 546–79.

——(2005b). “Institutions as the Fundamental Cause ofLong-Run Growth.” In Philippe Aghion and Steven Durlauf,eds. Handbook of Economic Growth. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, James A.Robinson, and Pablo Querubín (2008). “When DoesPolicy Reform Work? The Case of Central BankIndependence.” Brookings Papers in Economic Activity,351–418.

Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, James A.Robinson, and Pierre Yared (2008). “Income andDemocracy.” American Economic Review 98: 808–42.

——(2009). “Reevaluating the Modernization Hypothesis.”Journal of Monetary Economics 56: 1043–58.

Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson (2000a).“Why Did the West Extend the Franchise? Growth,Inequality and Democracy in Historical Perspective.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 115: 1167–99.

——(2000b). “Political Losers as Barriers to EconomicDevelopment.” American Economic Review 90: 126–30.

——(2001). “A Theory of Political Transitions.” AmericanEconomic Review 91: 938–63.

——(2006a). Economic Origins of Dictatorship andDemocracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

——(2006b). “Economic Backwardness in PoliticalPerspective.” American Political Science Review 100:115–31.

——(2008a). “Persistence of Power, Elites andInstitutions.” American Economic Review 98: 267–93.

——(2008b). “The Persistence and Change of Institutionsin the Americas.” Southern Economic Journal 75: 282–99.

Acemoglu, Daron, James A. Robinson, and RafaelSantos (2010). “The Monopoly of Violence: Evidence fromColombia.” Unpublished.

Acemoglu, Daron, and Alex Wolitzky (2010). “TheEconomics of Labor Coercion.” Econometric, 79: 555–600.

Aghion, Philippe, and Peter Howitt (2009). TheEconomics of Growth. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Alexander, Jocelyn (2006). The Unsettled Land: State-making and the Politics of Land in Zimbabwe, 1893–2003. Oxford, U.K.: James Currey.

Allen, Robert C. (2003). Farm to Factory: AReinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution.

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

——(2009a). The British Industrial Revolution in GlobalPerspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

——(2009b). “How Prosperous Were the Romans?Evidence from Diocletian’s Price Edict (301 AD).” In AlanBowman and Andrew Wilson, eds. Quantifying the RomanEconomy: Methods and Problems. Oxford, U.K.: OxfordUniversity Press.

Alston, Lee J., and Joseph P. Ferrie (1999) . SouthernPaternalism and the Rise of the American Welfare State:Economics, Politics, and Institutions in the South. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Amsden, Alice H. (1992). Asia’s Next Giant, New York:Oxford Universty Press.

Austen, Ralph A., and Daniel Headrick (1983). “TheRole of Technology in the African Past.” African StudiesReview 26: 163–84.

Austin, Gareth (2005). Labour, Land and Capital inGhana: From Slavery to Free Labour in Asante, 1807–1956. Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press.

Bakewell, Peter J. (1984). Miners of the Red Mountain:Indian Labor in Potosí, 1545–1650. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.

—— (2009). A History of Latin America to 1825. Hoboken,N.J.: Wiley-Blackwell.

Banerjee, Abhijit V., and Esther Duflo (2011) . Poor

Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to FightGlobal Poverty. New York: Public Affairs.

Banerjee, Abhijit V., Esther Duflo, and RachelGlennerster (2008). “Putting a Band-Aid on a Corpse:Incentives for Nurses in the Indian Public Health CareSystem.” Journal of the European Economic Association7: 487–500.

Banfield, Edward C. (1958). The Moral Basis of aBackward Society. Glencoe, N.Y.: Free Press.

Bang, Peter (2008). The Roman Bazaar. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Barker, Graeme (2006). The Agricultural Revolution inPrehistory: Why Did Foragers Become Farmers? NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Bar-Yosef, Ofer, and Avner Belfer-Cohen (1992) . “FromForaging to Farming in the Mediterranean Levant.” In A. B.Gebauer and T. D. Price, eds. Transitions to Agriculture inPrehistory. Madison, Wisc.: Prehistory Press.

Bateman, Fred, and Thomas Weiss (1981). ADeplorable Scarcity: The Failure of Industrialization in theSlave Economy. Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress.

Bates, Robert H. (1981). Markets and States in TropicalAfrica. Berkeley: University of California Press.

——(1983). Essays in the Political Economy of RuralAfrica. New York: Cambridge University Press.

——(1989). Beyond the Miracle of the Market. New York:Cambridge University Press.

——(2001). Prosperity and Violence: The PoliticalEconomy of Development. New York: W.W. Norton.

Benedictow, Ole J. (2004). The Black Death, 1346–1353: The Complete History. Rochester, N.Y.: BoydellPress.

Berliner, Joseph S. (1976). The Innovation Decision inSoviet Industry. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress.

Besley, Timothy, and Stephen Coate (1998) . “Sourcesof Inefficiency in a Representative Democracy: A DynamicAnalysis.” American Economic Review 88: 139–56.

Besley, Timothy, and Torsten Persson (2011) . Pillarsof Prosperity: The Political Economics of DevelopmentClusters. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Bloch, Marc L. B. (1961). Feudal Society. 2 vols.Chiacgo: University of Chicago Press.

Blum, Jerome (1943). “Transportation and Industry inAustria, 1815–1848.” The Journal of Modern History 15:24–38.

Bogart, Dan, and Gary Richardson (2009). “MakingProperty Productive: Reorganizing Rights to Real andEquitable Estates in Britain, 1660 to 1830.” EuropeanReview of Economic History 13: 3–30.

——(2011). “Did the Glorious Revolution Contribute to the

Transport Revolution? Evidence from Investment in Roadsand Rivers.” Economic History Review. Forthcoming.

Bourguignon, François, and Thierry Verdier (1990).“Oligarchy, Democracy, Inequality and Growth.” Journal ofDevelopment Economics 62: 285–313.

Brenner, Robert (1976). “Agrarian Class Structure andEconomic Development in Preindustrial Europe.” Past andPresent 70: 30–75.

——(1993). Merchants and Revolution. Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.

Brenner, Robert, and Christopher Isett (2002).“England’s Divergence from China’s Yangzi Delta: PropertyRelations, Microeconomics, and Patterns of Development.”Journal of Asian Studies 61: 609–62.

Brewer, John (1988). The Sinews of Power: War, Moneyand the English State, 1688–1773. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.

Briggs, Asa (1959). Chartist Studies. London: Macmillan.

Brunton, D., and D. H. Pennignton (1954). Members ofthe Long Parliament. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Bundy, Colin (1979). The Rise and Fall of the SouthAfrican Peasantry. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burke, Edmund (1790/1969). Reflections of theRevolution in France. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books.

Cartwright, John R. (1970). Politics in Sierra Leone1947–67. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Casaús Arzú, Marta (2007). Guatemala: Linaje yRacismo. 3rd ed., rev. y ampliada. Guatemala City: F&GEditores.

Chaves, Isaías, and James A. Robinson (2010).“Political Consequences of Civil Wars.” Unpublished.

Cleary, A. S. Esmonde (1989) . The Ending of RomanBritain. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.

Clower, Robert W., George H. Dalton, Mitchell Harwitz,and Alan Walters (1966) . Growth Without Development;an Economic Survey of Liberia. Evanston: NorthwesternUniversity Press.

Coatsworth, John H. (1974). “Railroads, Landholdingand Agrarian Protest in the Early Porfiriato.” HispanicAmerican Historical Review 54: 48–71.

——(1978). “Obstacles to Economic Growth in Nineteenth-Century Mexico.” American Historical Review 83: 80–100.

——(2008). “Inequality, Institutions and Economic Growth inLatin America.” Journal of Latin American Studies 40:545–69.

Cole, G.D.H., and A. W. Filson, eds. (1951) . BritishWorking Class Movements: Select Documents 1789–1875. London: Macmillan.

Conning, Jonathan (2010). “On the Causes of Slavery orSerfdom and the Roads to Agrarian Capitalism: Domar’s

Hypothesis Revisited.” Unpublished, Department ofEconomics, Hunter College, CUNY.

Corti, Egon Caeser (1928). The Reign of the House ofRothschild. New York: Cosmopolitan Book Corporation.

Crouzet, François (1985). The First Industrialists: TheProblem of Origins. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Crummey, Donald E. (2000). Land and Society in theChristian Kingdom of Ethiopia: From the Thirteenth to theTwentieth Century. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Dalton, George H. (1965). “History, Politics and EconomicDevelopment in Liberia.” Journal of Economic History 25:569–91.

Dark, K. R. (1994). Civitas to Kingdom: British PoliticalContinuity 300–800. Leicester, U.K.: Leicester UniversityPress.

Daunton, Martin J. (1995). Progress and Poverty: AnEconomic and Social History of Britain, 1700–1850.Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Davies, Robert W. (1998). Soviet EconomicDevelopment from Lenin to Khrushchev. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Davies, Robert W., and Stephen G. Wheatcroft (2004).The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–33 . NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan.

Davies, Victor A. B. (2007). “Sierra Leone’s Economic

Growth Performance, 1961–2000.” In Benno J. Ndulu et al.,eds. The Political Economy of Growth in Africa, 1960–2000. Vol. 2. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dawit Wolde Giorgis (1989). Red Teas: War, Famineand Revolution in Ethiopia. Trenton, N.J.: Red Sea Press.

De Callataǿ, François (2005). “The Graeco-RomanEconomy in the Super Longrun: Lead, Copper, andShipwrecks.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 18: 361–72.

de las Casas, Bartolomé (1992). A Short Account of theDestruction of the Indies. New York: Penguin Books.

Dell, Melissa (2010). “The Persistent Effects of Peru’sMining Mita.” Econometrica 78: 1863–903.

Denny, Harold (1937). “Stalin Wins Poll by a Vote of1005.” New York Times, December 14, 1937, p. 11.

de Sahagún, Bernardino (1975). Florentine Codex:General History of the Things of New Spain. Book 12: TheConquest of Mexico. Santa Fe, N.M.: School of AmericanResearch.

Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, Germs and Steel. NewYork: W.W. Norton and Co.

Dobb, Maurice (1963). Studies in the Development ofCapitalism. Rev. ed. New York: International Publishers.

Dosal, Paul J. (1995). Power in Transition: The Rise ofGuatemala’s Industrial Oligarchy, 1871–1994. Westport,Conn.: Praeger.

Douglas, Mary (1962). “Lele Economy Compared to theBushong.” In Paul Bohannan and George Dalton, eds.Markets in Africa. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern UniversityPress.

——(1963). The Lele of the Kasai. London: OxfordUniversity Press.

Doyle, William (2001). An American Insurrection: TheBattle of Oxford Mississippi. New York: Doubleday.

——(2002). The Oxford History of the French Revolution.2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dreyer, Edward L. (2007). Zheng He: China and theOceans in the Early Ming Dynasty, 1405–1433. New York:Pearson Longman.

Du Bois, W.E.B. (1903). The Souls of Black Folk. NewYork: A.C. McClurg & Company.

Dunn, Richard S. (1969). “The Barbados Census of1680: Profile of the Richest Colony in English America.”William and Mary Quarterly 26: 3–30.

DuPlessis, Robert S. (1997). Transitions to Capitalism inEarly Modern Europe. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Easterly, William (2006). The White Man’s Burden: Whythe West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Illand So Little Good. New York: Oxford University Press.

Elton, Geoffrey R. (1953). The Tudor Revolution in

Government. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Engerman, Stanley L. (2007). Slavery, Emancipation &Freedom: Comparative Perspectives. Baton Rouge:University of Lousiana Press.

Engerman, Stanley L., and Kenneth L. Sokoloff (1997).“Factor Endowments, Institutions, and Differential Paths ofGrowth Among New World Economies.” In Stephen H.Haber, ed. How Latin America Fell Behind. Stanford,Calif.: Stanford University Press.

——(2005). “The Evolution of Suffrage Institutions in theNew World.” Journal of Economic History 65: 891–921.

Evans, Eric J. (1996). The Forging of the Modern State:Early Industrial Britain, 1783–1870. 2nd ed. New York:Longman.

Evans, Peter B. (1995). Embedded Autonomy: Statesand Industrial Transformation. Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Ewald, Janet (1988). “Speaking, Writing and Authority:Explorations in and from the Kingdom of Taqali.”Comparative Studies in History and Society 30: 199–224.

Fagan, Brian (2003). The Long Summer: How ClimateChanged Civilization. New York: Basic Books.

Faulkner, Neil (2000). The Decline and Fall of RomanBritain. Stroud, U.K.: Tempus Publishers.

Feinstein, Charles H. (2005). An Economic History ofSouth Africa: Conquest, Discrimination and

Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ferguson, Niall (1998). The House of Rothschild: Vol. 1:Money’s Prophets, 1798–1848. New York: Viking.

Fergusson, Leopoldo (2010). “The Political Economy ofRural Property Rights and the Persistance of the DualEconomy.” Unpublished. http://economia.uniandes.edu.co.

Finley, Moses (1965). “Technical Innovation andEconomic Progress in the Ancient World.” EconomicHistory Review 18: 29–4.

——(1999). The Ancient Economy. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Fischer, David H. (1989). Albion’s Seed: Four BritishFolkways in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fogel, Robert W., and Stanley L. Engerman (1974).Time on the Cross: The Economics of American NegroSlavery. Boston: Little, Brown.

Foley, James A. (2003) . Korea’s Divided Families: FiftyYears of Separation. New York: Routledge.

Freudenberger, Herman (1967). “The State as anObstacle to Economic Growth in the Hapsburg Monarchy.”Journal of Economic History 27: 493–509.

Galenson, David W. (1996). “The Settlement and Growthof the Colonies: Population, Labor and EconomicDevelopment.” In Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E.Gallman, eds. The Cambridge Economic History of theUnited States, Volume I: The Colonial Era. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Ganson, Barbara (2003). The Guaraní Under SpanishRule in the Río de la Plata. Palo Alto, Calif.: StanfordUniversity Press.

García-Jimeno, Camilo, and James A. Robinson(2011). “The Myth of the Frontier.” In Dora L. Costa andNaomi R. Lamoreaux, eds. Understanding Long-RunEconomic Growth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gerschenkron, Alexander (1970). Europe in theRussian Mirror. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ghani, Ashraf, and Clare Lockhart (2008). Fixing FailedStates: A Framework for Rebuilding a Fractured World .New York: Oxford University Press.

Gibson, Charles (1963). The Aztecs Under SpanishRule. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Goldstein, Marcus, and Christopher Udry (2008). “TheProfits of Power: Land Rights and Agricultural Investment inGhana.” Journal of Political Economy 116: 981–1022.

Goldsworthy, Adrian K. (2009) . How Rome Fell: Deathof a Superpower. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Goody, Jack (1971). Technology, Tradition and the Statein Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gregory, Paul R., and Mark Harrison (2005). “AllocationUnder Dictatorship: Research in Stalin’s Archives.” Journalof Economic Literature 43: 721–61.

Grieb, Kenneth J. (1979). Guatemalan Caudillo: TheRegime of Jorge Ubico, 1931–1944. Athens: OhioUniversity Press.

Gross, Nachum T. (1973) . “The Habsburg Monarchy,1750–1914.” In Carlo M. Cipolla, ed. The FontanaEconomic History of Europe. Glasgow, U.K.: WilliamCollins Sons and Co.

Guiso, Luigi, Paola Sapienza, and Luigi Zingales(2006). “Does Culture Affect Economic Outcomes?”Journal of Economic Perspectives 20: 23–48.

Haber, Stephen H. (2010). “Politics, Banking, andEconomic Development: Evidence from New WorldEconomies.” In Jared Diamond and James A. Robinson,eds. Natural Experiments of History. Cambridge, Mass.:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Haber, Stephen H., Herbert S. Klein, Noel Maurer, andKevin J. Middlebrook (2008). Mexico Since 1980. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Haber, Stephen H., Noel Maurer, and Armando Razo(2003). The Politics of Property Rights: PoliticalInstability, Credible Commitments, and Economic Growthin Mexico, 1876–1929. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Haggard, Stephan (1990). Pathways from the Periphery:The Politics of Growth in the Newly IndustrializingCountries. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Halliday, Fred, and Maxine Molyneux (1981). TheEthiopian Revolution. London: Verso.

Hanna, Willard (1978). Indonesian Banda: Colonialismand Its Aftermath in the Nutmeg Islands. Philadelphia:Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

Harding, Harry (1987). China’s Second Revolution:Reform After Mao. Washington, D.C.: Brookings InstitutionPress.

Harrison, Lawrence E., and Samuel P. Huntington,eds. (2000). Culture Matters: How Values Shape HumanProgress. New York: Basic Books.

Hassig, Ralph C., and Kongdan Oh (2009). The HiddenPeople of North Korea: Everyday Life in the HermitKingdom. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and LittlefieldPublishers.

Hatcher, John (2008). The Black Death: A PersonalHistory. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press.

Heath, Dwight (1972). “New Patrons for Old: ChangingPatron-Client Relations in the Bolivian Yungas.” In ArnoldStrickton and Sidney Greenfield, eds. Structure andProcess in Latin America. Albuquerque: University of NewMexico Press.

Heinicke, Craig (1994). “African-American Migration andMechanized Cotton Harvesting, 1950–1960.” Explorationsin Economic History 31: 501–20.

Helmke, Gretchen (2004). Courts Under Constraints:Judges, Generals, and Presidents in Argentina. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Hemming, John (1983). The Conquest of the Incas. NewYork: Penguin Books.

Herbst, Jeffrey I. (2000). States and Power in Africa.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Hill, Christopher (1961). The Century of Revolution,1603–1714. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.

——(1980). “A Bourgeois Revolution?” In Lawrence Stone,ed. The British Revolutions: 1641, 1688, 1776. Princeton,N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Hilton, Anne (1985). The Kingdom of Kongo. New York:Oxford University Press.

Hilton, Rodney (2003). Bond Men Made Free: MedievalPeasant Movements and the English Rising of 1381. 2nded. New York: Routledge.

Hirst, John B. (1983). Convict Society and Its Enemies:A History of Early New South Wales. Boston: Allen andUnwin.

——(1988). The Strange Birth of Colonial Democracy:New South Wales, 1848–1884. Boston: Allen and Unwin.

——(2003). Australia’s Democracy: A Short History .London: Allen and Unwin.

Hopkins, Anthony G. (1973). An Economic History ofWest Africa. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Hopkins, Keith (1980). “Taxes and Trade in the Roman

Empire, 200 BC–400 AD.” Journal of Roman Studies LXX:101–25.

Horrox, Rosemary, ed. (1994). The Black Death. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press.

House of Commons (1904). “Papers Relating to theConstruction of Railways in Sierra Leone, Lagos and theGold Coast.”

Hu-DeHart, Evelyn (1984). Yaqui Resistance andSurvival: The Struggle for Land and Autonomy, 1821–1910. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Iaryczower, Matías, Pablo Spiller, and MarianoTommasi (2002). “Judicial Independence in UnstableEnvironments: Argentina 1935–1998.” American Journalof Political Science 46: 699–716.

Inikori, Joseph (1977). “The Import of Firearms into WestAfrica, 1751–1807.” Journal of African History 18: 339–68.

International Crisis Group (2005). “Uzbekistan: TheAndijon Uprising,” Asia Briefing No. 38,www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/central-asia/uzbekistan/B038-uzbekistan-the-andijon-uprising.aspx.

Israel, Paul (2000). Edison: A Life of Invention . Hoboken,N.J.: John Wiley and Sons.

Iwata, Masakazu (1964). Ōkubo Toshimichi: TheBismarck of Japan. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Jackson, Michael (2004). In Sierra Leone. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press.

Jansen, Marius B. (2000). The Making of Modern Japan.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Jászi, Oscar (1929). The Dissolution of the HabsburgMonarchy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Johnson, Chalmers A. (1982). MITI and the JapaneseMiracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975. PaloAlto, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Jones, A.M.H. (1964). The Later Roman Empire. Volume2. Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell.

Jones, Eric L. (2003). The European Miracle:Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the Historyof Europe and Asia. 3rd ed. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Jongman, Willem M. (2007). “Gibbon Was Right: TheDecline and Fall of the Roman Economy.” In O. Hekster etal., eds. Crises and the Roman Empire. Leiden, theNetherlands: BRILL.

Josephson, Matthew (1934). The Robber Barons.Orlando, Fla.: Harcourt.

Kandiyoti, Deniz (2008). “Invisible to the World? TheDynamics of Forced Child Labour in the Cotton Sector ofUzbekistan.” Unpublished. School of Oriental and AfricaStudies.

Kapuściński, Ryszard (1983). The Emperor: Downfall ofan Autocrat. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Keck, Margaret E. (1992). The Workers’ Party andDemocratization in Brazil. New Haven, Conn.: YaleUniversity Press.

Keen, David (2005). Conflict and Collusion in SierraLeone. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kelley, Jonathan, and Herbert S. Klein (1980).Revolution and the Rebirth of Inequality: A Theory ofInequality and Inherited Privilege Applied to the BolivianNational Revolution. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Keyssar, Alexander (2009) . The Right to Vote: TheContested History of Democracy in the United States.Revised Edition. New York: Basic Books.

Killick, Tony (1978). Development Economics in Action.London: Heinemann.

Knight, Alan (2011) . Mexico: The Nineteenth andTwentieth Centuries. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Knights, Mark (2010). “Participation and RepresentationBefore Democracy: Petitions and Addresses in PremodernBritain.” In Ian Shapiro, Susan C. Stokes, Elisabeth JeanWood, and Alexander S. Kirshner, eds. PoliticalRepresentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kropotkin, Peter (2009). Memoirs of a Revolutionary.New York: Cosimo.

Kupperman, Karen O. (2007). The Jamestown Project.Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard UniversityPress.

Landes, David S. (1999). The Wealth and Poverty ofNations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor.New York: W. W. Norton and Co.

Lane, Frederick C. (1973). Venice: A Maritime Republic .Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, andAndrei Shleifer (2008). “The Economic Consequences ofLegal Origins.” Journal of Economic Literature 46: 285–332.

Law, Robin C. (1977). The Empire, c.1600–c.1836: WestAfrican Imperialism in the Era of the Atlantic Slave Trade .Oxford, UK: The Clarendon Press.

——(1980). “Wheeled Transportation in Pre-Colonial WestAfrica.” Africa 50: 249–62.

——, ed. (1995). From Slave Trade to “Legitimate”Commerce: The Commercial Transition in Nineteenth-century West Africa. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Leith, Clark J. (2005). Why Botswana Prospered.Montreal: McGill University Press.

Lenger, Friedrich (2004). “Economy and Society.” InJonathan Sperber, ed. The Shorter Oxford History ofGermany: Germany 1800–1870. New York: Oxford

University Press.

León, Juanita (2009). Country of Bullets: Chronicles ofWar. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Lerner, Abba P. (1972) . “The Economics and Politics ofConsumer Sovereignty.” American Economic Review 62:258–66.

Levy, David M., and Sandra J. Peart (2009). “SovietGrowth and American Textbooks.” Unpublished.

Lewis, I. M. (1961). A Pastoral Democracy. Oxford, U.K.:Oxford University Press.

——(2002). A Modern History of the Somali. 4th ed.Oxford, U.K.: James Currey.

Lewis, W. Arthur (1954) . “Economic Development withUnlimited Supplies of Labour.” Manchester School ofEconomic and Social Studies 22: 139–91.

Lindert, Peter H. (2004). Growing Public. Volume 1:Social Spending and Economic Growth Since theEighteenth Century. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

——(2009). Growing Public. Volume 2: Further Evidence:Social Spending and Economic Growth Since theEighteenth Century. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Lipset, Seymour Martin (1959). “Some Social Requisitesof Democracy: Economic Development and PoliticalLegitimacy.” American Political Science Review 53: 69–

105.

Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Stein Rokkan, eds.(1967). Party System and Voter Alignments . New York:Free Press.

López, Claudia, ed. (2010). Y Refundaron la Patria … decómo mafiosos y políticos reconfiguraron el EstadoColombiano. Bogotá: Corporación Nuevo Arco Iris:Intermedio.

Lovejoy, Paul E. (2000). Transformations in Slavery: AHistory of Slavery in Africa. 2nd ed. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

MacFarquhar, Roderick, and Michael Schoenhals(2008). Mao’s Last Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.

Mann, Michael (1986). The Sources of Social Power.Volume 1: A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D.1760. New York: Cambridge University Press.

——(1993). The Sources of Social Power. Volume 2: TheRise of Classes and Nation-states, 1760–1914. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Manning, Patrick (1990). Slavery and African Life:Occidental, Oriental, and African Slave Trades . New York:Cambridge University Press.

Mantoux, Paul (1961). The Industrial Revolution in theEighteenth Century. Rev. ed. New York: Harper and Row.

Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube (2000). Chronicle of

Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube (2000). the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynastiesof the Ancient Maya. New York: Thames and Hudson.

Martinez, José (2002). Carlos Slim: Retrato Inédito.Mexico City: Editorial Oceano.

Masire, Quett K. J. (2006). Very Brave or Very Foolish?Memoirs of an African Democrat. Gaborone, Botswana:Macmillan.

McCreery, David J. (1994). Rural Guatemala, 1760–1940. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

McGregor, Richard (2010). The Party: The Secret Worldof China’s Communist Rulers. New York: Harper.

McMillan, John, and Pablo Zoido (2004). “How toSubvert Democracy: Montesinos in Peru.” Journal ofEconomic Perspectives 18: 69–92.

Melbourne, Alexander C. V. (1963) . Early ConstitutionalDevelopment in Australia: New South Wales 1788–1856;Queensland 1859–1922. With notes to 1963 by the editor.Edited and introduced by R. B. Joyce. 2nd ed. St. Lucia:University of Queensland Press.

Meredith, Martin (2007). Mugabe: Power, Plunder, andthe Struggle for Zimbabwe’s Future. New York: PublicAffairs Press.

Michels, Robert (1962). Political Parties: A SociologicalStudy of the Oligarchical Tendencies of ModernDemocracy. New York: Free Press.

Mickey, Robert W. (2008) . Paths out of Dixie: TheDemocratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America’sDeep South, 1944–1972. Unpublished book manuscript.

Migdal, Joel S. (1988). Strong Societies and WeakStates: State-Society Relations and State Capabilities inthe Third World. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UniversityPress.

Mithen, Stephen (2006). After the Ice: A Global HumanHistory 20,000–5000 BC. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press.

Mokyr, Joel (1990). The Lever of Riches: TechnologicalCreativity and Economic Progress. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

——(2009). The Enlightened Economy. New York:Penguin.

Moore, Andrew M. T., G. C. Hillman, and A. J. Legge(2000). Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging toFarming at Abu Hureyra. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Morgan, Edmund S. (1975). American Slavery,American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. NewYork: W. W. Norton and Co.

Munro-Hay, Stuart C. (1991). Aksum: An AfricanCivilisation of Late Antiquity. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.

Myers, Ramon H., and Yeh-Chien Wang (2002) .“Economic Developments, 1644–1800.” In Willard J.

Peterson, ed. The Cambridge History of China. Volume 9,Part 1: The Ch’ing Empire to 1800. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Naidu, Suresh (2009). “Suffrage, Schooling, and Sortingin the Post-Bellum South.” Unpublished. Department ofEconomics, Columbia University. Available attuvalu.santafe.edu/~snaidu/papers/suffrage_sept_16_2010_combined.pdf.

Narayan, Deepa, ed. (2002). Empowerment and PovertyReduction: A Sourcebook . Washington, D.C.: The WorldBank.

Neal, David (1991). The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Neale, J. E. (1971). Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments,1559–1581. London: Cape.

Nogal, C. Álvarez, and Leandro Prados de laEscosura (2007). “The Decline of Spain (1500–1850):Conjectural Estimates.” European Review of EconomicHistory 11: 319–66.

North, Douglass C. (1982). Structure and Change inEconomic History. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.

North, Douglass C., and Robert P. Thomas (1973). TheRise of the Western World: A New Economic History. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

North, Douglass C., John J. Wallis, and Barry R.Weingast (1989). Violence and Social Orders: AConceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded HumanHistory. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

North, Douglass C., and Barry R. Weingast (1989).“Constitutions and Commitment: Evolution of InstitutionsGoverning Public Choice in 17th Century England.” Journalof Economic History 49: 803–32.

Nove, Alec (1992). An Economic History of the USSR1917–1991. 3rd ed. New York: Penguin Books.

Nugent, Jeffrey B., and James A. Robinson (2010).“Are Endowments Fate? On the Political Economy ofComparative Institutional Development.” Revista deHistoria Económica (Journal of Iberian and LatinAmerican Economic History) 28: 45–82.

Nunn, Nathan (2008). “The Long-Term Effects of Africa’sSlave Trades.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 123: 139–76.

Nunn, Nathan, and Leonard Wantchekon (2011) . “TheSlave Trade and the Origins of Mistrust in Africa,”forthcoming in the American Economic Review.

O’Brien, Patrick K., Trevor Griffiths, and Philip Hunt(1991). “Political Components of the Industrial Revolution:Parliament and the English Cotton Textile Industry, 1660–1774.” Economic History Review, New Series 44: 395–423.

Ogilvie, Sheilagh (2011). Institutions and EuropeanTrade: Merchant Guilds 1000–1500. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Olson, Mancur C. (1984). The Rise and Decline ofNations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and SocialRigidities. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

O’Rourke, Kevin H., and Jeffrey G. Williamson (2002).“After Columbus: Explaining the Global Trade Boom 1500–1800.” Journal of Economic History 62: 417–56.

Owen, E. Roger (1981). The Middle East in the WorldEconomy, 1800–1914. London: Methuen and Co.

Owen, E. Roger, and Şevket Pamuk (1999). A History ofMiddle East Economies in the Twentieth Century.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Owen, Thomas C. (1991). The Corporation UnderRussian Law, 1800–1917. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Palmer, Robin H. (1977). Land and Racial Domination inRhodesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Palmer, Robin H., and Q. Neil Parsons, eds. (1977).The Roots of Rural Poverty in Central and SouthernAfrica. London: Heinemann Educational.

Pamuk, Şevket (2006). “Estimating Economic Growth inthe Middle East Since 1820.” Journal of Economic History66: 809–28.

Pan, Philip P. (2008) . Out Of Mao’s Shadow: TheStruggle for the Soul of a New China. New York: Simon &Schuster.

Pankhurst, Richard (1961). An Introduction to theEconomic History of Ethiopia, from Early Times to 1800.London: Lalibela House.

Parsons, Q. Neil (1998). King Khama, Emperor Joe andthe Great White Queen. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Parsons, Q. Neil, Willie Henderson, and Thomas Tlou(1995). Seretse Khama, 1921–1980. Bloemfontein, SouthAfrica: Macmillan.

Perkins, Dwight H., Steven Radelet, and David L.Lindauer (2006). Development Economics. 6th ed. NewYork: W. W. Norton and Co.

Pettigrew, William (2007). “Free to Enslave: Politics andthe Escalation of Britain’s Transatlantic Slave Trade,1688–1714.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., LXIV:3–37.

——(2009). “Some Underappreciated ConnectionsBetween Constitutional Change and National EconomicGrowth in England, 1660–1720.” Unpublished paper.Department of History, University of Kent, Canterbury.

Phillipson, David W. (1998). Ancient Ethiopia: Aksum, ItsAntecedents and Successors. London: British MuseumPress.

Pincus, Steven C. A. (2009). 1688: The First ModernRevolution. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Pincus, Steven C. A., and James A. Robinson (2010) .“What Really Happened During the Glorious Revolution?”Unpublished. http://scholar.harvard.edu/jrobinson.

Pintner, Walter M. (1967) . Russian Economic PolicyUnder Nicholas I. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Post, Jerrold M. (2004). Leaders and Their Followers in aDangerous World: The Psychology of Political Behavior.Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Price, David A. (2003). Love and Hate in Jamestown:John Smith, Pocahontas, and the Heart of a New Nation.New York: Knopf.

Puga, Diego, and Daniel Trefler (2010). “InternationalTrade and Domestic Institutions: The Medieval Responseto Globalization.” Unpublished. Department of Economics,University of Toronto.

Putnam, Robert H., Robert Leonardi, and Raffaella Y.Nanetti (1994). Making Democracy Work: CivicTraditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Ransom, Roger L., and Richard Sutch (2001). OneKind of Freedom: The Economic Consequences ofEmancipation. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Reid, Anthony (1993). Southeast Asia in the Age ofCommerce, 1450–1680. Volume 2: Expansion andCrisis. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Reinikka, Ritva, and Jacob Svensson (2004). “LocalCapture: Evidence from a Central Government TransferProgram in Uganda.” Quarterly Journal of Economics,119: 679–705.

Relea, Francesco (2007). “Carlos Slim, Liderazgo sinCompetencia.” In Jorge Zepeda Patterson, ed. Los amosde México: los juegos de poder a los que sólo unos

pocos son invitados. Mexico City: Planeta Mexicana.

Reno, William (1995). Corruption and State Politics inSierra Leone. New York: Cambridge University Press.

——(2003). “Political Networks in a Failing State: TheRoots and Future of Violent Conflict in Sierra Leone,” IPG2: 44–66.

Richards, Paul (1996). Fighting for the Rainforest: War,Youth and Resources in Sierra Leone. Oxford, U.K.:James Currey.

Robbins, Lionel (1935). An Essay on the Nature andSignificance of Economic Science. 2nd ed. London:Macmillan.

Robinson, Eric (1964). “Matthew Boulton and the Art ofParliamentary Lobbying.” The Historical Journal 7: 209–29.

Robinson, James A. (1998). “Theories of Bad Policy.”Journal of Policy Reform 1, 1–46.

Robinson, James A, and Q. Neil Parsons (2006). “StateFormation and Governance in Botswana.” Journal ofAfrican Economies 15, AERC Supplement (2006): 100–140.

Rock, David (1992). Argentina 1516–1982: FromSpanish Colonization to the Falklands War. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Romero, Mauricio (2003). Paramilitares y autodefensas,1982–2003. Bogotá: Editorial Planeta Colombiana.

——, ed. (2007). Para Política: La Ruta de la ExpansiónParamilitar y los Acuerdos Políticos, Bogotá: CorporaciónNuevo Arco Iris: Intermedio.

Sachs, Jeffery B. (2006). The End of Poverty: EconomicPossibilities for Our Time. New York: Penguin.

Sahlins, Marshall (1972). Stone Age Economics.Chicago: Aldine.

Saunders, David (1992). Russia in the Age of Reactionand Reform, 1801–1881. New York: Longman.

Savage-Smith, Emily (2003). “Islam.” In Roy Porter, ed.The Cambridge History of Science. Volume 4:Eighteenth-Century Science. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sawers, Larry (1996). The Other Argentina: The Interiorand National Development. Boulder: Westview Press.

Schapera, Isaac (1940). “The Political Organization of theNgwato of Bechuanaland Protectorate.” In E. E. Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes, eds. African PoliticalSystems. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

——(1952). The Ethnic Composition of the TswanaTribes. London: London School of Economics and PoliticalScience.

——(1970). Tribal Innovators: Tswana Chiefs and SocialChange 1795–1940. London: The Athlone Press.

Schoenhals, Michael, ed. (1996). China’s CulturalRevolution, 1966–1969. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Sfakianakis, John (2004). “The Whales of the Nile:Networks, Businessmen and Bureaucrats During the Era ofPrivatization in Egypt.” In Steven Heydemann, ed. Networksof Privilege in the Middle East. New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

Sharp, Kevin (1992). The Personal Rule of Charles I.New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Sheridan, Richard B. (1973). Sugar and Slaves: AnEconomic History of the British West Indies 1623–1775.Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sidrys, Raymond, and Rainer Berger (1979). “LowlandMaya Radiocarbon Dates and the Classic Maya Collapse.”Nature 277: 269–77.

Smith, Bruce D. (1998). Emergence of Agriculture. NewYork: Scientific American Library.

Sokoloff, Kenneth L. (1988). “Inventive Activity in EarlyIndustrial America: Evidence from Patent Records, 1790–1846.” Journal of Economic History 48: 813–30.

Sokoloff, Kenneth L., and B. Zorina Khan (1990). “TheDemocratization of Invention During Early Industrialization:Evidence from the United States, 1790–1846.” Journal ofEconomic History 50: 363–78.

Steffens, Lincoln (1931). The Autobiography of LincolnSteffens. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Stevens, Donald F. (1991) . Origins of Instability in EarlyRepublican Mexico. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Stone, Lawrence (2001). The Causes of the EnglishRevolution, 1529–1642. New York: Routledge.

Tabellini, Guido (2010). “Culture and Institutions:Economic Development in the Regions of Europe.” Journalof the European Economic Association 8, 677–716.

Tarbell, Ida M. (1904). The History of the Standard OilCompany. New York: McClure, Phillips.

Tawney, R. H. (1941) . “The Rise of the Gentry.” EconomicHistory Review 11: 1–38.

Temin, Peter, and Hans-Joachim Voth (2008) . “PrivateBorrowing During the Financial Revolution: Hoare’s Bankand Its Customers, 1702–24.” Economic History Review61: 541–64.

Thompson, E. P. (1975) . Whigs and Hunters: The Originof the Black Act. New York: Pantheon Books.

Thompson, I.A.A. (1994a). “Castile: Polity, Fiscality andFiscal Crisis.” In Philip T. Hoffman and Kathryn Norberg,e d s . Fiscal Crisis, Liberty, and RepresentativeGovernment 1450–1789. Palo Alto, Calif.: StanfordUniversity Press.

——(1994b). “Castile: Absolutism, Constitutionalism andLiberty.” In Philip T.

Hoffman and Kathryn Norberg, eds. Fiscal Crisis, Liberty,and Representative Government 1450–1789. Palo Alto,

Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Thornton, John (1983). The Kingdom of Kongo: CivilWar and Transition, 1641–1718. Madison: University ofWisconsin Press.

Todkill, Anas (1885) . My Lady Pocahontas: A TrueRelation of Virginia. Writ by Anas Todkill, Puritan andPilgrim. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2004). FinalReport of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission ofSierra Leone. Freetown.

Vansina, Jan (1978). The Children of Woot: A History ofthe Kuba People. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Wade, Robert H. (1990). Governing the Market:Economic Theory and the Role of Government in EastAsian Industrialization. Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1974–2011) . The Modern WorldSystem. 4 Vol. New York: Academic Press.

Ward-Perkins, Bryan (2006). The Fall of Rome and theEnd of Civilization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weber, Max (2002). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit ofCapitalism. New York: Penguin.

Webster, David L. (2002). The Fall of the Ancient Maya.New York: Thames and Hudson.

Webster, David L., Ann Corinne Freter, and NancyGonlin (2000). Copan: The Rise and Fall of an AncientMaya Kingdom. Fort Worth, Tex.: Harcourt CollegePublishers.

Wheatcroft, Stephen G., and Robert W. Davies(1994a). “The Crooked Mirror of Soviet EconomicStatistics.” In Robert W. Davies, Mark Harrison, andStephen G. Wheatcroft, eds. The EconomicTransformation of the Soviet Union, 1913–1945. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

——(1994b). “Population.” In Robert W. Davies, MarkHarrison, and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, eds. The EconomicTransformation of the Soviet Union, 1913–1945. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Wiener, Jonathan M. (1978). Social Origins of the NewSouth: Alabama, 1860–1885. Baton Rouge: LouisianaState University Press.

Williamson, John (1990). Latin American Adjustment:How Much Has Happened? Washington, D.C.: Institute ofInternational Economics.

Wilson, Francis (1972). Labour in the South African GoldMines, 1911–1969. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Wilson, Woodrow (1913). The New Freedom: A Call forthe Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People.New York: Doubleday.

Woodward, C. Vann (1955). The Strange Career of JimCrow. New York: Oxford University Press.

Woodward, Ralph L. (1966). Class Privilege andEconomic Development: The Consulado de Comercio ofGuatemala, 1793–1871. Chapel Hill: University of NorthCarolina Press.

Wright, Gavin (1978). The Political Economy of theCotton South: Households, Markets, and Wealth in theNineteenth Century. New York: Norton.

——(1986). Old South, New South: Revolutions in theSouthern Economy Since the Civil War. New York: BasicBooks.

——(1999). “The Civil Rights Movement as EconomicHistory.” Journal of Economic History 59: 267–89.

Zahedieh, Nuala (2010). The Capital and the Colonies:London and the Atlantic Economy, 1660–1700. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Zewde, Bahru (2002). History of Modern Ethiopia, 1855–1991. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Zohary, Daniel, and Maria Hopf (2001). Domesticationof Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread ofCultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the NileValley Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press.