Inclusiveness and Big Men

This week's readings and lecture focused on the role that elites and political settlements play in the development/success of a state. Acemoglu and Robinson's chapter "Understanding Prosperity and Poverty"  began with the classical explanation that poverty and development were not predetermined and has nothing to do with geography or culture. This same sentiment was mentioned in Moore's paper "Political Underdevelopment: What Causes Bad Governance". In both readings, the authors explained how at one point some entities in the global south such as the Aztecs, were more advanced than their Northern counterparts. I personally do not understand why anyone would actually think nations in the southern hemisphere are not as developed simply as a result of their geographical location. Logically it does not make sense and as discussed in the last class session, the case of North Korea v. South Korea proves this to be incorrect.

The rest of the Acemoglu and Robinson chapter focused extensively on the effect that inclusive and extractive institutions had on the development of a state. While I do agree that a state with an inclusive institution and economy has a better chance of being developed, I do not think that being extractive completely rules one out of the development process. The example of China is consistently used in regards to a state that seems to be developed but due to its lack of inclusiveness will eventually cease to grow. I do not agree with this. There is no "right" way to develop and the methods that work in one state might not work in another. Based on the readings and my perception of them, Accemoglu and Robinson as well as Leftwich do not think that it is necessary to replicate the development strategies of one state to another. They are however of the opinion that there are certain correct ways to go about development especially in regards to state building. Personally, as a result of the various cultural practices, informal institutions, and patrimonial style of governance that exist in many developing countries, trying to impose a liberal democracy or inclusive institutions on a state that is not prepared for it or does not want it will not be successful because those values are not embedded in the the culture of the given state. Regardless of how much resources and effort is put into building a state, simply trying to replicate an ideal western state with the intrusion of liberal democracy, such as attempted in Afghanistan, will not work.

The readings though did shed a light on  how the being inclusive versus extractive can affect the overall progress and development of a state.

In regards to the role of elites in development, it is pretty much agreed by many that it is almost impossible to alter the government or any major aspect of the state without the allegiance of the elite. After doing the readings and the discussions in the seminar, I agree as well. Even though the elites of a state are the minority, most likely any sort of reforms that are being implemented will affect them. The determinant of whether or not the elites will support the reforms lies in whether or not it will negatively or positively affect their standing in society. For instance, if an initiative includes a very strong effort to rid corruption, which is something that the elites is heavily involved in, most likely the reform will not succeed as well.

References:

Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. (2012) Why Nations Fail: The origin of power, prosperity and poverty, London Profile Books.  Chapter 15: “Understanding Prosperity and Poverty”

Daloz, P. (2003) ‘Big Men, in Sub-Saharan Africa: How Elites Accumulate Positions and Resources’, Comparative Sociology 2 (1) pp. 272-285 [online] available at: UoB E-library