A CRITIQUE OF THE CRITICAL THEORIES OF ACEMOGLU AND ROBINSON

Abstract

In the chapter two of their masterpiece, Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James Alan Robinson vehemently described other traditional theories namely, the Geography theories, the Culture and Ignorance hypothesis as simply, theories that don’t work. The assumption here is that the three traditional theories named above are false or in a subtle explanation, has no useful information as to Why Nations are poor and others prosperous. It is against this backdrop that this work employs the method of analysis and argues that there are differences between social and natural phenomenon. While the physical environment is ruled by inexorable laws that are almost consistent, the social environment because of the dynamic nature of man is somewhat unpredictable. Thus, why it is possible to use a single theory to explain natural occurrences such as eclipses, flood, earthquakes, it is not easy to do same with social phenomena. Social events are interconnected and require a member of theories to explain. It is in been unable to make this singular but pertinent, obvious and important distinction that the authors of Why Nations Fail, why fail. While we would concede that their Inclusive Institution theory has more information content and explanatory power, we would not argue as they did, that other theories don’t work. Thus, this work concludes that there is no mono-factorial explanation of nation’s inequality, rather, it requires the confluence of theories as any attempt to do that would amount to intellectual rascality.