1

FinalversionJune5,2020

“Somewhereinthemiddleyoucansurvive”:

ReviewofTheNarrowCorridorbyDaronAcemogluandJamesRobinson

AvinashDixit1

Abstract

ThisarticlereviewsAcemogluandRobinson’sbookTheNarrowCorridor.

Theydepictaconstanttusslebetween“society,”whichwantslibertybutcannot

sustainorder,and“state,”whichmaintainsorderbutgrowsoppressive.Iarguethat

thebookhasahugethemeandanimpressivehistoricalsweepofsupportive

examples,butleavesmanyopenquestions.Thetwoconceptualcategoriesshouldbe

unpackedtoexaminecomplexinteractionswithinandacrossthem,andother

examplesthatcountertheauthors’thesisshouldbereckonedwith.However,the

authorsdeservecongratulationsforabrilliantlywrittenandthought-provoking

bookthatwillinspiremuchfutureresearch.

JELClassifications:Y30,P51,O43,N10

1PrincetonUniversity.IthankTimothyBesley,ToreEllingsen,KarlaHoff,RobertSolow,andStevenDurlauf(theeditor)forvaluablecommentsonearlierdrafts.Thetitleofmyarticlecomesfromthefinalsceneofthe1987comedymovieThrowMommafromtheTrain,writerStuSilver.

2

1.Introduction

Peopleoftenexaggerateandextrapolatetoomuchfromthemostrecent

observation,andnotjustinfinancialmarkets.ThecollapseoftheSovietempire

broughttriumphantassertionsofaliberaldemocraticfuture,mostnotablyTheEnd

ofHistory(FrancisFukuyama1992).Nowthathistoryhasreturnedroaringand

kicking,weareseeingbookslikeHowDemocraciesDie(StevenLevitskyandDaniel

Ziblatt2018).Ittakesamuchlongerandbroaderhistoricalperspective,andmuch

deeperanalysis,togetbetterandbalancedinsightonthehugequestionofwhether

governmentscanberestrainedfromoppressingtheircitizenswhileretainingthe

capacitytoprotectthem.Intheirlatestbook,TheNarrowCorridor:States,Societies,

andtheFateofLiberty,DaronAcemogluandJamesRobinson(AR)provideboththe

historyandtheanalysisinamazingquantityandhighquality.Theiroverarching

themeofconflictbetween“society”thatseekslibertyand“thestate”thatseeks

oppressivepowerspansthewholebook;eachchapterorsectiondiscussesone

aspect,withexamplesandanecdoteswellchosentosupporttheirargumentsin

eachcase.TheexamplesrangeoverhistoryfromGilgameshtoTrump,andover

geographyfromthecity-stateofAthenstoHawaiiandtotheZulunation,withmany

stopsandexcursionsalongtheway.

Iamimpressedbytheirargumentsandevidence,butnotfullyconvinced.In

myjudgmentthecategoriesintheirtheoryaretoobroadlydefined,andinteractions

thatshouldbeoftheessencebothwithinandacrosscategoriesarerelegatedto

afterthoughts.Manyoftheirexamplesremindmeofothersthatgoagainsttheir

claims.

InthisreviewIwilldiscusstheseconcerns.Foreach,IwillstatewhyAR’s

analysisseemsinadequate,offeringsomeexamples.Iapologizeforthefactthatmy

examplesaremostlyrestrictedtorecenttimes;alas,Ilackthebroadanddeep

historicalknowledgethatARsoabundantlydisplay.

Mycriticismsareintendedtosuggestwaysinwhichtheanalysisshouldbe

developed,extended,andmodifiedinfutureresearch;theyshouldnotobscuremy

3

admirationforthebook.Everyweakpointinapaperorabookisaresearch

opportunity,andthisbookisclearlyofsufficientlygreatimportancetograbthe

attentionandinterestofallscholarsofsociety:historians,economists,andpolitical

scientistsalike.Itsclaimsandhypotheseswillbetestedandrefinedinfurtherwork

bythetwoauthorsthemselvesandbyathousandothers.Iamsureenoughwill

standthetestoftime,andevenmorewillspurfurtheradvances,toestablishthis

bookasanimportantlandmarkinthesocialsciences.

2.Thecentralquestion

ARaddressoneofthebiggestquestionsconfrontinghumankind:2howcan

libertybepreservedagainsttheopposingdangersofdisorderononehandand

oppressionontheother.

TheirdefinitionoflibertyfollowsJohnLocke:“perfectfreedom[ofpeople]to

ordertheiractionsanddisposeoftheirpossessionsandpersons,astheythinkfit…

withoutaskingleave,ordependinguponthewillofanyotherman”(p.xi).Thisis

notonlyafundamentalhumanrightandaspiration(theyquoteLockeagain:“noone

oughttoharmanotherinhislife,health,libertyorpossessions”)butalsoimportant

forsustainedeconomicgrowth,since“[i]nnovationneedscreativityandcreativity

needsliberty”(p.114).3

AR’sthesisisthatthefateoflibertyhingesonadelicatebalanceinanever-

endingtusslebetween“society”and“thestate.”Intheirdichotomy,societywants

liberty,butfindsitdifficulttosolvethecollectiveactionproblemofmaintaining

order–“controlviolence,enforcelaws,andprovidepublicservices”(p.xv).Forthat

societyneedstobuildastrongstate,andtosupportitafteritexists.Butsocietyalso

2Inmyviewitranksrightuptherewithavoidingnuclearconflictandmitigatingandreversingclimatechange,andhasbeenwithusformuchlonger.3IwillgiveonlythepagenumbersfromtheAcemoglu-Robinsonbookwhencitingorquotingfromit.Fullpublicationdetailsofthebook,andallotherreferencescitedbyauthor-yearinthetext,arelistedattheendintheusualformat.

4

needsto“controlandshacklethestrongstate”toavoidthe“fearandrepression

wroughtbydespoticstates”(pp.xv,xvi);thatisanothercollectiveactionproblem

(p.50).

Astatelesssociety(AbsentLeviathan)candegenerateintototaldisorder.It

triestopreventthistosomeextentbyevolvingandusinginternalnormsand

beliefs.Butthesenormsareacage:theyconstrainbehaviorsandactions,favor

someinsocietyoverothers,andinhibitthecreativityandinnovationessentialfor

progress(pp.23-24,142-146,andmanyexamplesandapplicationsthroughoutthe

book).4Thestatecantakeoverthetaskofmaintainingorder,therebyrelaxingthe

cageofnorms,butcaneasilybecomeoppressive(DespoticLeviathan),toserveits

owninterests,levyheavyandarbitrarytaxes,andrestrictfreedomofthoughtand

actioninwaysthatarebadforeconomicprogress(pp.17-18,113-114,andmany

others).BetweenthesetwobadsituationsistheNarrowCorridorwithaShackled

Leviathan(pp.64-65,402,andothers).Herethestatehasenoughpowertomaintain

order,butnotsomuchastobeoppressive.Thispreserveslibertyandfacilitates

economicgrowth.Giventheopposingpullsthatthestateandsocietyexert,to

sustainthisbalancetakesanever-endingstruggle:theRedQueeneffectwhere“it

takesalltherunningyoucando,tokeepinthesameplace”(pp.41,66,72-73,and

manyothers).5

Theideaiscapturedinaverysimplediagram(pp.64,402,435inthebook,

andFigures1,2and8intheirpaperAR(2017));Ishowaslightlysimplifiedversion4And,althoughARdonotemphasizethisaspect,society’snormsoftenincludeaspectsofreligionandorganizationthatreducesomedimensionsoflibertyforsomepeopleandgroups.5InasensethisideagoesbackfartherthanLewisCarrolltothefamoussaying:“thepriceoflibertyiseternalvigilance.”ThishasbeenvariouslyattributedtoThomasJefferson,AbrahamLincolnandothers,butprobablythecorrectsourceistheIrishpoliticianandlawyerJohnPhilpotCurran:“TheconditionuponwhichGodhathgivenlibertytomaniseternalvigilance”.SpeechupontheRightofElection,1790.(Speeches.Dublin,1808.)https://www.bartleby.com/100/pages/page1047.htmlaccessedApril28,2020.TheimportantnewfeatureinARisthetwo-sidednessofvigilance:onpartofbothsocietyandstate.

5

hereasFigure1.Themathematicalanalysisisspelledoutindetailinthepaper,and

Iwillrefertoitatvariouspointsinmydiscussion.

.Figure1:Dynamicsofstate-societyinteraction

Thesocietyandthestateconstitutethewholepolity.Theaxesshowthe

powersofthetwo,eachrangingfrom0to1.Thetwoareengagedinadynamic

game.Eachchooseshowmuchtoinvesttoincreaseitspower.Denotesocietyby

subscript1andthestatebysubscript2.Denotethepowerlevelsby𝑋! and

investmentlevelsby𝐼! for𝑖 = 1,2.Thepowerlevelsarelikecapitalstocksthat

depreciateovertime,andinvestmentsarelikeflows.Thecostsofinvestmentare

functions𝐶!(𝐼! ,𝑋!),withincreasingreturnsinthesensethatthemarginalcostof

investmentisadecreasingfunctionof𝑋! .

Eachperiod’soutputisaproductionfunction𝐹(𝑋!,𝑋!);thiscapturesthe

possibilitythatamorecapablestateandastrongercivilsocietycanbothenhance

efficiency,butatworst(andinAR’sstartingassumption)outputcanbeaconstant

independentofthepowerlevels.Eachperiod’soutputgoestothewinnerofa

contestbetweenthestateandsociety.Thesuccessprobabilityisafunctionof

(0,0) (1,0)

(0,1)

Power of society

Pow

er o

f sta

te

S1

S2 I II

III

.(1,1)

6

𝑋! − 𝑋!andsingle-peakedat0,sotheincentivetoinvestisstrongestforbothsides

whentheirpowerlevelsareequal.Afreshcontesthappenseachperiod,andsuccess

isindependentacrossperiods,sooverthelongrunthedivisionofcumulative

outputisgovernedbytheprobabilities,whichevolveovertimewith𝑋!and𝑋!.

Scaleeconomiesininvestmentandtheformofthecontestsuccessfunction

arethekeysubstantiveassumptions,andgoodstartingpoints,butmoreonthem

later.Therearesometechnicalassumptionsandspecificationsoffunctionalform

thatservemainlytoruleoutuninterestingcasesandsimplifythesolutionofthe

model,butatonepointthefunctionalformseemstomatter(seeSection5.2below).

AR(2017)provethat,dependingoninitialconditions,thepolityconvergesto

oneofthreetypesofsteadystates.InRegionIofthefigure,thestateisrelatively

strongandsocietyisrelativelyweak.Withthescaleeconomiesofinvestmentcost,

thisdiscrepancymagnifies,andtheendresultistheDespoticLeviathan:apolity

wherecivilsocietyispowerlessandthestateisstrongandoppressive.Theopposite

happensinRegionIII,resultingintheAbsentLeviathan:apolitywherethestateis

essentiallynon-existent,theHobbesian“Warre…ofeverymanagainsteveryman”

createsaconstantdangertopropertyandeventolife,andasocietythattriesto

avoidsuchtotaldisorderbydevelopinginternalnormsislockedintotheircage.

However,ineachoftheseregionsthe“winning”sideinthesteadystatedoesnot

usuallyattainitsmaximumpower,namely1.InRegionIthesteadystatecanbe

anywherealongthelinesegmentlabeledS2,andinRegionIIIitcanbeanywhere

alongS1.Thatiswhy,forexample,thedespoticstateisusuallyunabletoachieve

efficienteconomicoutcomes.6

InRegionII–theNarrowCorridorofthetitleandtheShackledLeviathanof

theclassification–thetwopowersarebalanced,andeachsidefindsitoptimalto

makesufficientinvestmenttoretainthisbalance(theRedQueeneffect).Powersof

bothgrow,andwilleventuallyconvergetothesteadystateat(1,1),thepointof

maximumpowersforboth.Thatalsoyieldsoptimaleconomicoutcomes.However,if

6MancurOlson(1993)reachesasimilarconclusionbutwithadifferentargument,namelytheinherentinsecurityoftenureandsuccessionindictatorships.

7

bothpowersareinitiallysmall,theninvestmentisverycostlyforboth(remember

theeconomiesofscaleininvestmentcost).Thatmayreduceinvestmentstothe

pointthatthebalanceisdestroyedbyasmalldiscrepancyinpowers;thereforethe

corridorisextremelynarrowtothesouth-west.Thatallowsforatransitiondirectly

fromRegionIIItoRegionI(disordertodespotism)withouttransitingthecorridor.

Ofcoursesuchmodelsshouldnotbetakenasliteralorcompletedescriptions

oftheworld;theyshouldbeusedforchannelinganddiscipliningourthinking.AR’s

bookdoesindeedusetheformalmodeloftheirpaperinthisway.Forexample,the

formalmodelstartsfromanexogenousinitialcondition,i.e.agivenpointinthe

(𝑋!,𝑋!)-space.Aliteralinterpretationwouldbethatpolitiesarefatedtofollow

whateverfatetheirhistoricalconditionmayentail.ButARhaveexampleswherethe

initialpointcanbeshiftedormanipulated(Chapter14,especiallypp.434-435),and

theyusethesetodiscusshowapolitycanenterthenarrowcorridor.Thisisentirely

appropriate.

ButIwillarguethatthereareplaceswherethemodelneedsserious

alterationorextensiontoserveasagoodguidetothought.Onceagain,Idothisto

spurfutureresearch,nottodenigratetheachievementsofthebooksofar.

3.Whatis“society”?

AR’sbasicpictureisof“civilsociety”:acollectivityofindividualsunanimous

intheirdesiretoprovideandprotectlibertyforallmembers.Butsocietiesalmost

everywhereandatalltimesaresplitbywideanddeepcrevassesalongmany

dimensions:race,class,income,wealth,economicideology,nationalityorethnic

origin,andmostimportantlyandmostdisastrouslythroughouthistory,religion.

RealityseemsclosertoTomLehrer’ssongaboutNationalBrotherhoodWeek:7

7Videoathttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY;lyrics,togetherwithblanketpermissiontoquote,canbefoundathttps://tomlehrersongs.com/,bothaccessedApril18,2020.

8

“Oh,thewhitefolkshatetheblackfolks

Andtheblackfolkshatethewhitefolks.

Tohateallbuttherightfolks

Isanoldestablishedrule.”

“Oh,thepoorfolkshatetherichfolks

Andtherichfolkshatethepoorfolks.

Allofmyfolkshateallofyourfolks.

It'sAmericanasapplepie.”

“OhtheProtestantshatetheCatholics

AndtheCatholicshatetheProtestants

AndtheHindushatetheMuslims

AndeverybodyhatestheJews.”

Ifthatistoofrivolousforyou,hereisaserioustopscholar(Allen2017):“theworld

hasneverbuiltamultiethnicdemocracyinwhichnoparticularethnicgroupisinthe

majorityandwherepoliticalequality,socialequality,andeconomiesthatempower

allhavebeenachieved.”8

OfcourseARrecognizethat“ignoringconflictswithinsocietyisahuge

simplification”(p.65),andintheirnarrativediscussionstheymentionsuch

conflicts.Butinmyjudgmentthereismuchmoretoit.Theriftswithinsociety,and

riftsamongactorswhocomprisethe“state”(whichIdiscussinthenextsection),

enterthegamebetweenstateandsocietyinAR’smodelincrucialways.

Forexample,Chapter8describesIndia’scastesystemingreatdetail:its

originsfromancienthistory,itsdefactocontinuationtothisday,andpernicious

effectsofthecageofnormsithascreated.Indianpoliticiansonallsideshave8Thereistheaddedproblemthatthecompositionofthe“majorityethnicgroup”maychangeendogenouslyovertime.ForexampletheIrish,theItalians,andtheeast-EuropeanJewswereout-groupsintheUnitedStatesinthe19thandearly20thcenturies;nowtheyareverymuchpartofthewhiteJudeo-Christianmajority.

9

strategicallyexploitedthecaste(andreligion)divisionstoacquireandretaintheir

ownpower.Thusriftswithin“society”havecruciallyalteredthestate-societygame.

Similarly,theirdiscussionofsociety’sriftstheUnitedStates(Chapter10)isallabout

mattersliketheSupremeCourt’sinterpretationoftheconstitution,andpublic-

privatepartnershipstoprovideservicesliketransportandmedicalcare;theysay

littleornothingaboutthedeliberatestrategiesusedbythetwomainparties–the

southernDemocratsuntilthemid-1960s,andtheRepublicanssincethen–tokeep

aliveandexploitracialandculturalprejudicesandconflictswithinsociety.

SuchstrategiesareabsentfromtheARmodel,buttheyareoftheessencein

explainingfailurestoenterortostayinthecorridor.Theyshouldbeincorporated

intothetheoryfromtheoutset,notasafterthoughtsoradhocadjustmentsin

narrativeapplications.9AR’simportantclaimthat“populistmovementswill

ultimatelyleadtodespotismwhentheycometopower”(p.421)isbeyondthe

scopeoftheirformalmodel,anditshouldnotbe.IwillelaborateonthisinSection5,

afterarguingtheneedforsimilarunpackingofAR’sothercategory,thestate.

4.Whatis“thestate”?

ForAR,thestateconsistsoftheelites.Thisisoftentrue,buttheboundary

betweentheelitesandtherestisfluid.Ashiftintheboundaryandcanpavetheway

fromthecorridor(andalsodirectlyfromdisorder)totheDespoticLeviathan.

NapoleonemergedfromthechaosoftheFrenchrevolutiontobecomeemperor(and

toestablishothermembersofhisfamilyaskingsofothercountries).Whoknows

whatwouldhavehappenedwithouthim.Someofthesetransitionsmaybe

accidental,butthedesiretojointheelitedrivesmanyactionsofindividualsinthe

society,andmayalterwhattheywouldotherwisehavedonetopursuethecauseof

theirgroupinthestate-societyconflict.Manyofthebest-educatedIndians

competedforplacesintheIndianCivilServiceandthenservedtheBritishRaj

9InAcemogluandRobinson(2000)onextendingthefranchise,dichotomybetweentheenfranchisedeliteandthedisenfranchisedmassesseemedmuchmorenatural;hereitdoesnot.

10

loyally,takingactivepartinsuppressingtheirfellow-Indians’strugglefor

independence.

Thedefinitionof“elite”shiftsovertimeandvariesacrossspace,anddoesnot

coincidewith“state”.ARoffertheMagnaCartaasanexampleof“society”securing

libertyfromthe“state”andlaunchingEnglandinthecorridor(pp.174-178).But,

eventhoughtheMagnaCartahadsomeprovisionstoprotectallfree(andinsome

respectsevennon-free)men,itwasmainlytheinitiativeofbarons,whoshouldbe

regardedassociety’selitebyalmostanycriterion,butwerenotfullypartofthe

state.Libertyforeveryoneinthesensewewouldunderstand–securityoflifeand

propertyfromotherpeopleorfromarbitrarydemandsofthestate,votingrights,

andsoon–tookhundredsofyearsmore.10Itwasagradualprocess,includingsteps

likelocalmini-constitutions(pp.178-180)andtheSuffragettemovement(p.xvii).

Theseinvolvedmorecomplexstate-societyandelite-commonerinteractionsthan

aresuggestedbyAR’sformalcategories.

Perhapsmostdramatically,ARdescribe(pp.188-194)howtheEnglish

parliament,whichwas“society”constrainingtheking(state)formostofthe17th

century,turnedintothe“state,”whichthelargerEnglishsocietyhadtoconstrainin

the18thand19thcenturies.Some,atleast,ofthisbiggersociety’svictoriescouldnot

havebeenwonwithoutmuchsympathyandactivesupportfromprominent

membersofthenewstate(parliament),forexampletheWhigaristocracyandLord

JohnRussellandEarlGreyintheprocessthatledtotheGreatReformActof1832.

ARexplaintheexpansionofthefranchisebasedontheelite’sfearofrevolution;

morepositivemotives,namelyaviewof“reformasessentialtoreducethe

pervasivenessofpatronageandtocoaxthemachineryofgovernmenttoservethe

publicpurpose,”isdiscussedbyLizzeriandPersico(2004).10Asacynical,satiricalbutperceptivehistoryofEngland(WalterSellarandRobertYeatman1931,chapterXIX)putsit,MagnaCarta’sprovisionsincluded“1.Thatnoonewastobeputtodeath,saveforsomereason(excepttheCommonPeople)”and“5.ThattheBaronsshouldnotbetriedexceptbyaspecialjuryofotherBaronswhowouldunderstand”(emphasisadded).Theyconclude:“MagnaCartawasthereforethechiefcauseofDemocracyinEngland,andthusaGoodThingforeveryone(excepttheCommonPeople)”(emphasisintheoriginal).

11

Justassocietyhasitscrevasses,sotoodoestheelite.Differentfactionsofthe

elitevieforpower,andtheirstrategiesalterAR’spictureofthetusslebetweenstate

andsocietyinfundamentalways.IwilldiscussthisinSection5.

Butfirstadifferentissue:whatgoesonissometimesbetterdescribedasan

intra-stateconflict.Forexample,fromAR’saccountofthemiddle-eastduringand

afterthe18thcenturyIthinkitwasnotastate-societyconflictbutanintra-elite

matter:a“symbioticrelationshipbetweentheulama[Moslemscholarswho

interpretSharialaw]…and…despoticstates”(p.388).Thetwoengagedinpower

strugglesorformeduneasyalliances“marryinguncheckeddespotismwithan

intense(andintensifying)cageofnorms”(p.387).“Society,”orordinarypeople,

playedalmostnopart,exceptperhapsindecidingwhethertoaccepttheteachingsof

someoneclaimingtobeanulama(p.388).Andtherewerenofundamentaland

permanentprinciples;oneachoccasionthoseelitesjustfiguredoutwhatthey

wantedtodoatthattime,andthenfoundorbentprinciplestojustifyit.11

Next,contrarytoAR’sdepiction,thestateisnotalwaysdespotic,strivingto

increaseitsownpowerattheexpenseofsociety;thosefightingthestatearenot

alwayssociety’sforcesforgood.ThinkoftheSpanishcivilwar(ortheU.S.civilwar,

forthatmatter),Chileintheearly1970s,andmanyfanaticalgroupsofterrorists.

And,asIwritethis,crowdsinmanyAmericanstatesareprotestingagainst

executiveordersthatimposedlockdown,socialdistancingandwearingface-masks

duringthecoronaviruspandemic.Isthisaninstanceof“society”seekinglibertyin

oppositiontoadespotic“state”(astheagitatorsclaim),oronewherethestate

servesthesocialgoodbyconstrainingbehaviorthatinflictspotentiallydeadly

negativeexternalitiesonothers(asamajorityofthepopulation,andprobablymost

readersofthisjournal,think)?AR’sframeworkcarriestheriskthatthesubstanceof

theissuegetsconcealedbehindready-madelabels.

Thestateisnotasingleactor;mostimportantlyitfacesagencyproblems.At

aminimum,theelitehavetohirelargenumbersfromthenon-elitetoimplement

11PerhapsthatisnottoodifferentfromhowtheU.S.SupremeCourtoperatesinarrivingatitsdecisions!

12

theiroppressionandextortionofsociety.Despotsdorewardtheseagentswell

enoughtobuytheirservicesinactingagainsttheirfellownon-elite.Butensuringthe

qualityoftheirworkisasevereagencyproblem.Onewouldhavethoughtthat

Stalin,ofalldictators,hadpowerfulincentiveschemes(sticks,notcarrots)toforce

allSovietcitizenstomakegenuinelyStakhanoviteeffortsandgeneratehuge

surplusesforhisplansofinvestmentandgrowth.Toimplementtheseincentives

efficiently,heneededaccuratemonitoringofwhowasworkinghardandwhowas

slacking.Buthismonitoringapparatuswasvery“noisy”;itreliedonarbitrary

decisions,favoritism,anddenunciationsbymonitorswhowereinturnsubjectto

similarlyimperfectmonitoring.TheresultwaslargeerrorsofbothTypeI

andTypeII.TheprobabilityofendingupintheGulagwasnotverydifferent

whetherornotoneworkedormanagedwell,sotheexpectedmarginalreturnfrom

exertingeffortingreaterquantityand(especially)qualitywastoolow(Paul

GregoryandMarkHarrison2005,Section3.3).

Manyotherdespoticstates(Congo,Venezuela,…)areevenworse;their

administrativeapparatusissodefectivethattheyareperhapsbettercalled

ShambolicLeviathansinsteadofDespoticLeviathans.Theirperformancewouldbe

comicifitwerenotsotragicfortheirownpeople.ARdescribesimilarlyincapable

statesinChapter11,andlabelthemPaperLeviathans.Butthesearelargelynot

despotic.WhatIhaveinmindissomethingworse–statesthathavecapacityfor

oppression,butnotforgovernanceofaqualitythatwillatleastachievealittleof

whatARcalldespoticgrowth.

ARdiscusswhyaDespoticLeviathancannotreachitsoptimalpoint(0,1)in

Figure1,buttheirexplanationfocusesonthedespoticstate’stemptationtoincrease

itsrateoftaxationorextortiontoexcessive,counterproductivelevels(theKhaldun-

Laffercurve,pp.111-112),notsomuchonagencyproblemsandnoisymonitoring.

Andtheydiscusscorruptioninsomedetail(Chapter7andelsewhere).Corruptionat

thetoplevel(GrandCorruption)isoftenaninherentcharacteristicofDespotic

Leviathans,butcorruptionatlowerlevelsofgovernment(pettyandmiddle-level

corruption)isanagencyproblem.

13

AretheseissuesisolatedexceptionstoageneralrulethatconformstoAR’s

schemata?Perhaps,buttheyseemnumerousandimportantenoughtobestatedand

rememberedwhentheorizingabouthowthestate-societystruggleplaysoutinany

specificinstance.Theirexplicitincorporationintoamicrofoundedmodelofthestate

shouldbeanimportantcomponentoftheanalysisofstate-societyinteractionin

futureresearch.

5.Society-stateinteractions

5.1.Strategictargetingofpolicies

Elitesstrategicallyexploitconflictswithinsocietyontheirpathtodespotic

power,andtostaythere.Theyactivelyinterferewithsociety’sinternalgameof

solvingitscollectiveactionproblem,sosocietycan’tbegivenanexogenous(evenif

microfounded)cost-of-investmentfunctionlikeintheARmodel.,

Policyintherealworldhasmanydimensions–economic,cultural,religious,

ideologicalandon.Thedifferentdimensionshavedifferentsaliencefordifferent

segmentsofsociety,andelitescanstrategicallyexploitthesedifferencesinthegame

wheretheycontestforpoweragainstotherelites.Eachelementwithintheelitecan

undertaketorepresentasubsetofsocietyandadvocatepoliciesthatfavorthat

subset,accordingtoitsperceptionofwherethebestroutetopowerlies.Eliteseven

createandfosterthesefissureswithinsocietytowardthesamegoal.12

IntheUnitedStates,Republicanshaveexploitedthecultural,racialand

xenophobicangerandfrustrationsofwhiteless-educatedruralcitizenstogetthem

tovoteagainsttheirowneconomicinterests.Trump’scampaignandvictoryin2016

gavethesepeopleprideandsatisfactionthat“their”countryhadbeenrestoredto

them.SeeArlieRussellHochschild(2018)andRobertWuthnow(2018)fordetailed

sociologicalstudiesofthis.InBritain,similarforceswereimportantintheBrexit12InAR2017,section2.4,policyisone-dimensionalandpurelyabouteconomics:“thestateannouncesataxrate𝜏ontheoutputoftheproducers.Iftheproducersacceptthistaxrate,itiscollectedandtheremainderiskeptbytheproducers.Iftheyrefusetorecognizethistaxrate,therewillbeconflictbetweenstateandsociety.”

14

vote.India’sBJPhasexploitedanti-Muslimattitudesofmanyamongthemajority

Hindus;inIndianstates,regionalpartieshaveexploitedcastedividestoretainand

exploittheirlocalkleptocracies.Ifriftsinsocietydonotexist,theycanbecreatedor

exaggerated.Hardin(1995)demonstrateshowleaderscultivatehatredtomobilize

theirpeopleintoconflict–SerbversusCroatinformerYugoslavia,Hutuversus

TutsiinRwanda,CatholicversusProtestantinNorthernIreland.Andofcourse,

biasesandprejudicesagainstforeignersandimmigrantsaretemptingtargets.In

Europemanyright-wingandxenophobicpartiesandleadersgainedpower,gaineda

shareofpower,orconsolidatedpowerintoan“illiberaldemocracy,”probablyastep

onthepathtodespotism,asaresultoftheimmigrationandrefugeecrisisof2015.

And,ofcourse,allpoliticiansdisguisetheirtruemotivesbehindloftyassertionsthat

“thepeople”wantsuchandsuch.Allsuchphenomenaseemquiteoutsidethescope

oftheARmodel.

Thesevitalconcernsofourtimesgetonlyabriefmention(pp.425-426).AR

dodescribetheeventsintheWeimarrepublicthatledtoNazidespotism(pp.390-

405),butthataccounthardlyconformstothekindofstate-societyconflictoftheir

theory.Faultlineswithinsocietywereoftheessence;ARadmitasmuch(p.403-

404).Foranalysisstressingthesocialandinternationalaspectsbehindthefallofthe

WeimarrepublicandtheriseofHitler,seeMommsen(1996).Incorporatingthese

ideaswillrequireamajoroverhauloftheirmodel.Itisnotclearwhethersucha

modifiedmodelwillhaveacorridoratall.Instead,itmayhaveatightropewith

saddle-pointinstability,soalmostsurelythepolityisdoomedtooneoftheextremes

ofdespotismanddisorder.Thatseemsagoodquestionforfutureresearchers.

ARdohaveamicrofoundationssection(2017,section2.4)butnotamulti-

playergamewhereelementsofthe“state”areactively&strategicallytryingto

disruptsociety’scollectiveactioneffort,ortoformcoalitionswithonesubsetof

societytofavorthemselvesandthatsubsetwhileharmingothers,orwhere

differentfactionswithin“society”aredisruptinganyfunctioningofthestate.

Ataminimum,thestatecanexploitapathyofonegroupwhensomeother

groupisbeingoppressed.Bythetimetheapatheticrealizethefulleviloftheregime,

itistoolateforthem.ARdohighlight(p.495)thefamousquotationfromMartin

15

Niemöller,aLutheranministerandearlyNazisupporterwhowaslaterimprisoned

foropposingHitler'sregime,withitschillingconclusion:“Thentheycameforme,

andtherewasnoonelefttospeakforme.”Theybuildthisintoagoodsetofgeneral

principles:abasicsetofuniversalrightsshouldberecognized,anyencroachment

ontheserightsshouldbeopposedbyabroadcoalitionofthecivilsociety,andsoon.

Thesearebeautifulandcorrectprescriptions.Butinthelastanalysistheyarejust

necessaryconditionsforsolvingcivilsociety’scollectiveactionproblems,whichis

wherethewholestorystarted(pp.xv,xvi,50etc.citedearlier)!

Manyscholarsandobserverscanidentifynecessaryconditionsforagood

outcome;alas,noonehasasetofsufficientconditions.TheconditionsARlayoutin

Chapter15,especiallyfortheUnitedStates(pp.485-488),areinmyopinionfar

frombeingsufficient.Eventhoughcastintheirframework(avoidingazero-sum

RedQueencontestbetweenstateandsociety),theylookverysimilartothose

stipulatedbyotherscholarswithotherframeworks,andsimilarlystopshortof

providingconcreteguidance.

Awould-bedespot’spathtopowercanbefacilitated,nothindered,bythe

existenceofopposingelitesifthosecannotactinunison.Adividedsociety,and

multiplepartieseachwithitsownegotisticleader,cannotmounteffective

opposition.Thenthepartyinpowercanholdelectionsandpretendtouphold

democracy,whileenjoyingdefactoautocracy.Weallknowmanyexamples;more

maybecomingsoon!Asituationwherethestate’spowerislow(becauseithas

clashingelitesorwarlords)maybeespeciallyconducivetothedominantwarlord’s

orparty’smovesagainstsociety’sattempttomarshalandincreaseitscollective

actioncapability.Itisimportantforfutureresearchtostudysuchpossibilitiesina

modelthatwillhavetobeamajorextensionormodificationofwhatARnowhave.

5.2.Substitutesorcomplements?

Arethepowersofsocietyandstatesubstitutesorcomplements?Formally,

doestheproductionfunction𝐹(𝑋!,𝑋!)have𝜕!𝐹/𝜕𝑋!𝜕𝑋! < 0 or > 0?AR’sclaim

thatamajorroleofstatecapacityistorelaxthesociety’scageofnorms(especially

16

pp.19,146)suggeststheformer.Buttheirdiscussionofthedevelopmentof

parliamentsinEurope,resultingintheindustrialrevolutionandeconomicprogress

alongthecorridor(pp.178-200),suggeststhelatter.Whichcaseprevailscan

dependonthehistory,cultureandcircumstancesofindividualpolities.

ThecaseofstrategicsubstitutesmayhelpusbetterunderstandwhatARcall

the“zero-sumRedQueen”(pp.400,413etc.).Inthecaseofstrategiccomplements

eachsidehasgreaterincentivetoincreaseitsownpowerwhentheotherhasmore

power.13Thiswouldbetherightmodelofa“‘positivesum’RedQueen,whereboth

sidesultimatelystrengthenasaresultoftheircompetition”(p.400).Each,by

encouragingtheother’sinvestmentinpower,promotesgreatersocialsurplus.

Unfortunatelyintheirformalmodel,eveninthemoregeneralversion(2017,

Section5),ARconsideronlytherazor’s-edgecasewithneithersubstitutesnor

complements:theyassumealinear𝐹(𝑋!,𝑋!),so𝜕!𝐹/𝜕𝑋!𝜕𝑋! ≡ 0.Generalizingthe

modelinthisrespectandfindingouthowtheresultschangewillenablebetter

contactbetweentheformalmodelandsomeofthenarratives.Myguessisthatin

thesubstitutescasethecorridorwillbecomenarrowerorevenvanish,whereasin

thecomplementscasethecorridorwillbewider,especiallyifthewinner-take-all

natureofthecontestisalteredfollowingmynextsuggestion.

ThissuggestionconcernsAR’sassumptionthatateveryinstantthewinnerof

thestate-societyconflictgets100%ofthepolity’ssurplus.Evenwhenthetwosides

areforward-looking,theydonotseemtorealizethattheywillwinsomeofthetime

andloseatothertimes.Thisbuildsinthe“zero-sumRedQueen”featureinan

extremeform.Itmakesnodifferenceifbotharerisk-neutral,butthatisnotsucha

goodassumptioneither.Inamoregeneralmodelwithrisk-aversion,bothsidescan

dobetterthangettingeverythingwhentheywinbutzerowhentheylose.The

dynamicgamehasself-enforcing(subgame-perfect)equilibriawherethewinning

sidetakeslessthan100%inexchangeforgettingmorethan0whenitlosesatsome

futuredate;howmuchless,andhowmuchmore,isgovernedbydynamicincentive

constraints.Indeeditispossibletocharacterizethebest(Paretoefficient)such

13Ingame-theoreticterms,thebestresponsecurvesareupward-sloping.

17

equilibria;seeAlbertoAlesina(1988),andAvinashDixit,GeneGrossmanandFaruk

Gul(2000).BringingthisfeatureintotheARsettingcanyieldarichharvestof

understandingofpoliticalcompromisesandmoderationinexerciseofpower.After

paintingapicturedarkerthanthatofARinmanyrespects,Iamhappytosuggesta

mechanismthatoffersmorepositivepotentialforstayinginthecorridor.

5.3.MaisOùSontlesTortillas-Boulangersd’Antan?

AR’smodelhasafirst-bestoptimalsteadystateatthenorth-eastcornerof

thecorridor,wherebothstateandsocietyhavetheirmaximumpowers,andthis

steadystateisastableattractorformovementsalongthecorridor.Thebookgives

someappealing,almostbeautifullypoetic,picturesofpolitieslaunchingintothe

corridorandprogressingalongit.ButalmostnoneoftheseexamplesofaShackled

Leviathanhaveendured,letalonereachedtheblisspoint.Wherearethetortilla-

bakers(pp.147-151)ofyesteryear?Eventhefewcurrentpeacefulstate-society

cohabitationsseemonthevergeoffallingapart(pp.425-426).Sure,nothinglasts

forever,butwhatwentwrongeventually?Wasitatotallyidiosyncraticshock,

differentineachexample,orwastheresomecommonfactor?Iftheformer,the

unifying,overarchingframeworkseemsabitshaky.Ifthelatter,thecommonfactor

shouldbeidentifiedandincorporatedintothemodel.Ineithercase,themodel

needstobeextendedbyallowingforsomelargestochasticshocks,asthatcanalter

theoptimaldecisionsofbothsidestoinvestinacquiringgreaterpowers.

IntheirearlierbookWhyNationsFail,ARplacedgreatemphasisontherole

ofcontingency:“Therichlydivergentpatternsofeconomicdevelopmentaroundthe

worldhingeontheinterplayofcriticaljuncturesandinstitutionaldrift.…The

outcome,however,isnothistoricallypredeterminedbutcontingent.Theexactpath

ofinstitutionaldevelopmentduringtheseperiodsdependsonwhichoftheopposing

forceswillsucceed,whichgroupswillbeabletoformeffectivecoalitions,andwhich

leaderswillbeabletostructureeventstotheiradvantage.”Thisperspectiveseems

missing,certainlydownplayed,inTheNarrowCorridor.Infactthedynamicsofthe

reducedformmodelintheunderlying2017paperisentirelydeterministic;see

18

equations(7),(11)and(12)andPropositions1and3.Ibelievethatformally

modelingtheemphasisoncontingency,andintheinterpretationsofhistoryinits

lens,shouldbeanimportanttopicinfutureresearch.

6.Whatis“liberty”?

Libertyhasmultipledimensions.ARandmostoutsideliberalobservers

(includingme)wouldtakeaverybroadview.Butsomesocietiesmaycarealot

aboutsomedimensionsandlittleaboutothers.Theymaybesatisfiedwitheconomic

materialprogress,andwillinglysacrificefreedomofthoughtandexpressiontothat

end.ThisisoftenclaimedtobesoinChina,Singapore,andsomeothercountries.In

thatcase,astatethatisoppressiveinmattersweinthewestregardasimportant

aspectsoflibertymaymeetthatsociety’sapproval.WouldA-Rcountthatasa

ShackledLeviathan,constrainedasitisbytheimperativeofprovidingasufficiently

goodeconomicperformance?Probablynot;theywouldsaythatwithoutfull

freedomofthought,expressionanddissent,truecreativityandinnovationcannot

prevailandeconomicprogresswillstall.ButespeciallyinviewofChina’srecent

stridesinfrontiertechnologicalprogress,thisremainsanopenquestion.

Andwhoselibertyarewetotakeintoaccount?Nowadayswethinkofa

“country”ora“nation-state”astheappropriateunit,andratethemonsome

measureofliberty,suchastheFreedomHouseindex.14Buteventhosemeasuresare

opentochallengebysomeorallofthedividedsocietieswithinthenation-statesand

byoutsideobservers.DotheRohingyasandRakhineshavelibertyinMyanmar,and

forthatmatter,dotheBamarpeople?WhataboutUighersandTibetansinChina?

WhataboutArabsinIsrael,andshouldweincludetheWestBankinthatcontext?

Shouldimmigrantsandtemporaryworkersenjoythesamelibertiesascitizensof

longstanding?Onesubsetofthesesocietieswillmaintainthattheyenjoygreat14Athree-tierclassificationofcountriesintoNotFree,PartlyFree,andFreeisshowninamapathttps://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2020;scrollingonacountrydisplaysitsnumericalscoreona0-100scale.

19

liberty,whileotherscomplainbitterlythattheyareoppressed.Shouldwetakethe

average,orsomeRawlsiancriterionthatemphasizestheworst-off?

Whenfissureswithinsocietymeetmultipledimensionsofliberty,subgroups

areperfectlywillingtodenysomedimensionsoflibertyvaluedbyothers,while

insistingontheirownlibertiesindimensionstheyvalue.IntheUnitedStates,

conservativesinsistonthefreedomofgunownershipwhiledenyingwomen’s

freedomofchoiceconcerningabortionrights,andliberalsfavortheopposite.

7.Interactionsacrosspolities

InthestoriesARtell,eachpolityisonitsown;thereisnointeractionacross

theseentities.Inreality,suchinteractionsarefrequentandveryimportant,bothin

causingthefallofdespoticregimesandinsupportingsuchregimesagainsttheir

owncitizens.WithoutNATO’sinterventioninSerbiainthe1990s,whoknowshow

muchworsethosesocietieswouldhavebeen.Ontheotherhand,thecivilsocietyin

CzechslovakiacouldhavewonitsstruggleagainsttheCommunistdictatorshipinthe

PragueSpringof1968butfortheinvasionoftheSovietarmy,whichtheMoscow

governmentclaimedwasattheinvitationoftheCzechpeople.15

AR’saccountofSouthAfrica’ssuccessfulentryintothecorridor(Chapter14,

pp.430-434)payslittleattentiontothepressureexertedonthewhiteminority

governmentandbusinesspeopleofSouthAfricabythegovernmentsofsomeother

countries,andevenmoreimportantlybycivilsocietiesinmanyothercountries.The

sanctionsnotonlyinflictedeconomiccosts(thesegetonlyonesentenceonp.452),

butalsocreatedthepsychologicalcostforSouthAfrica’swhitepopulationofbeing

theworld’spariahs.(Alas,thatcountry’ssojourninthecorridormaynotcontinue

forlongbeyondtheinspiringleadershipofNelsonMandela.Hissuccessorshave

15Apoliticaljokesoonmadetheundergroundrounds(GregBentonandGrahamLoomes,1976):“Q.WhydidtheRussianssendsomanytroops?A.TofindtheCzechmanwhoinvitedthem.”

20

shownbothatendencytowardoppressionandaninabilitytomaintainorder;the

countrymaythereforeendupwithaShambolicLeviathan.)

InSyriaforalmostadecadethestruggleofdemocraticforcesagainstthe

Assadregimehasbeendrasticallyalteredmanytimesandindifferentdirectionsby

theinterventionsoftheUnitedStates,Iran,Russia,andTurkey.Theircoalitionswith

localdemocrats,IS,andKurdishpopulationshaveformed,reformed,andsometimes

made180-degreeturns.(ArecentaccountisinLukeMogelson(2020).)Whichever

localorforeignpartyprevails,itsvictorywillprobablyprovepyrrhic.

Evenwithoutmilitaryinterventionorboycotts,thetradeandinvestment

policiesthatemergefromonecountry’ssociety-stateinteractioncanaffectother

countries’liberty.AsARsay(pp.195-196),“thestate…hadnoproblemimpinging

onthelibertyofothers;forexample[England’s]NavigationActsmadeitillegalfor

foreignshipstocarrygoodstoEnglandoritscolonies,helpingEnglishmerchants

andmanufacturersmonopolizetrade.”TheJonesActoftheUnitedStateshasa

similareffectformaritimecommercebetweentwoUSports.Butsuchinteractions

acrosscountrieshavenoplaceinAR’smodel.

Andofcourse,real,hypothetical,ortotallyfabricatedthreatsfromother

countries,immigrants,foreignterrorists(and“foreign”viruses!)provideconvenient

excusesfordespotsandwould-be-despotstocoveruptheirownfailures,andto

expandtheirpowerswithsupportfrommanyorevenalloftheirlong-suffering

citizens.

Onthepositiveside,informationaboutcompromisesreachedinonepolityor

somepolitiesmayinfluencesimilarconflictresolutioninothers,asexemplifiedby

AR’saccount(pp.182-185)ofthenear-simultaneousemergenceofparliamentsor

similarbodiesinmanycountriesofEuropeinmedievalandearlymodernperiods.

Thisisanicestory,butquiteoutsidethescopeoftheirformalmodel.Itwillbe

worthextendingthemodeltoseewhetherandhowsuchpositiveinformational

flowscanalterthepoliticaldynamicsinmultiplecountries.Negativeeffectsarealso

conceivable;disillusionmentwithdemocracyinonecountrymayspreadtocitizens

ofothercountries.

21

Allsuchmulti-countryinteractionsareanotherdirectioninwhichAR’s

modelingandnarrativescanandshouldbeextendedandenriched.

8.EuropeandChina

ARviewthepoliticalandeconomicdevelopmentofalmostthewholeworld

overseveralthousandyearsthroughthelensoftheirmodel,andoffernew

interpretations,especiallyaboutEurope(Chapter6)andChina(Chapter7).16

Statedverybriefly,theyarguethatinthethousandyearssinceemperors

ClovisandCharlemagne,manypolitiesinEuropestruckagoodbalancebetweenthe

Romaninstitutionsofacentralizedstatewithitslegalandadministrativeapparatus

(conducivetotheemergenceofaDespoticLeviathan)andthebottom-upGermanic

traditionsofpeople’sassembliesandnorms(riskingdisorderandthe“cage”).This

combination,andanongoingtusslebetweenthetwosystems,ledtomovementto

thenorth-eastalongthecorridor,createdincentivesforinvestment,innovationand

creativity,andculminatedinthemoderneconomywithitshighproductivity,major

scientificandtechnologicaladvances,highstandardsoflivingforthegeneral

population,andcontinuedgrowthpotential.

AR’saccountofChinaalsofeaturesdualphilosophiesforgovernance:

Confucianism,whichesteemed“thepeople,”andlegalism,whichfavored

dominationbyastrongruler(basicallyaHobbesianLeviathan,orthestate)over

society.ButallthetimeforjustovertwothousandyearsfromtheQindynastytothe

Qing,rulewasbasicallydespotic.Successiverulersoscillatedbetweenthetwo

philosophieswithouteverstrikingagoodbalance(thecorridor).Phaseswithless

despotismallowedsomeinnovationandcreativity,butbecauseoftheinherent

weaknessofdespotism(thetemptationtoraisetaxesandfallonthewrongsideof

theKhaldun-LaffercurvementionedinSection4),theeconomicoutcomewasnever

verygood.

16Otherperspectivesoneconomicdevelopmentof,andcomparisonsbetween,EuropeandChinaincludeLandes(1998)andScheidel(2019).

22

Thisisanappealingpicture,especiallyforthoseinclinedtofavorlifeundera

liberaldemocraticregime.Butfurtherthoughtraisesseveralquestionsanddoubts

aboutthisaccountofbothregions.Letmementionjustafewthatoccurredtome.

Forstarters,IthinkARaretoonegativeaboutChina’stechnological

achievementsbeforetheearly1400sCE,widelyregardedasworld-leadingforthat

time.JosephNeedham’smonumentalandstillongoingproject(Needhametal.

1954–)givesmoredetailthanmostreaderswouldwant.Buttomentionjustafew,

paper,moveabletype,magneticcompass,gunpowder,crossbow,largeships(and

longvoyagesofexplorationusingthem),eventhehumbleumbrella–quitealist.AR

maysimilarlybeunderestimating(pp.230-234)thepotentialoftoday’sChinese

firmstoleadandachievefrontiersoftechnology,forexamplein5Gforcellular

networks.ButbythestandardofformerChinesepremierZhouEnlai’s(apocryphal)

verdictontheFrenchrevolution,“Itistooearlytotell.”

InEurope,manypolitiesfoughtlongandbitterwarsamongthemselves:the

HundredYears’War,theThirtyYearsWar,VikingandlaterSwedishinvasions,

Napoleonicwars,theFranco-Prussianwar,thetwoWorldWars,thelistislong.Itis

hardtoargueforprogressalongthecorridorineachpolityonitsown,without

takingintoaccounttheeffectofallthiswarring.Next,thepolitysituatedfarthest

fromRome,namelyPrussia,developedoneofthestrongestdespoticsystems,and

anarmytomatch.ARexplainthis(pp.273-274)asaconsequenceofwars:“Withbig

guns,thestatecouldcontrolmore.Buttogetbigguns,itneededmoretaxrevenue.

MoretaxrevenueswouldbeeasiertoraiseifFrederickWilliamcouldincreasehis

poweroversociety,andthat’swhathedid.”ButEngland’sstatecapacitytoraise

taxes(orborrow)increasedaftertheGloriousRevolutionof1688(pp.188-189)that

reducedtheking’spower.(Theparliament,althoughitselfbeginningtoassumethe

roleof“thestate,”wasveryfarfrompossessingthelevelofpowerthatFrederick

Williamneededtoraisemorerevenue.)

Also,despoticPrussiainthelate19thandearly20thcenturieshada

remarkableburstofcreativityandinnovationinscienceandengineering.Indeedfor

awhileGermanwasalmostthefirstlanguageofscience;Berlinwasperhapsthe

centerofthescientificworld;BritishandAmericanscientistsregularlyvisited

23

Germanyorstudiedthere,andfollowedGermanresearchjournals.Allinall,AR’s

accountsofthedifferenttrajectoriesofdifferentcountriesinEuropeseemratherad

hoc,notverywelltiedintotheiroverallframeworkofstate,society,andthe

corridorthatbalancestheirpowers.

LookingattherecordofconflictinEurope,Iwonderifconflictcanactually

spurratherthanhindercreativityandtechnologicaladvances.17PerhapsHarry

Lime’smemorable,althoughinaccurate,statementinthemovieTheThirdManhasa

germoftruth:“InItalyforthirtyyearsundertheBorgias,theyhadwarfare,terror,

murder,bloodshed.TheyproducedMichelangelo,daVinci,andtheRenaissance.In

Switzerland,theyhadbrotherlylove,fivehundredyearsofdemocracyandpeace,

andwhatdidtheyproduce?Thecuckooclock.”18

Iwouldlikefutureresearchtofocusonstatisticalworkthatsupplementsand

reexaminesAR’sillustrativecasestudies.Isthereapositivecorrelationacross

Chinesedynastiesbetweenthevalueofinnovationsproducedunderadynastyand

itsturnawayfromdespotisminthelegalisticframework?Isthereapositive

correlationacrosspolitiesinEuropebetweeneconomicoutcomesandtheirbalance

ofRomanandGermanicsystems,controllingforotherrelevantfactorslikeinter-

polityconflicts?Andsoon.Thiswillbehardtodo,butanecessarystepbeyond

supportingexamplesandtowardunderstandingbroadertendenciesandcausation.

17Harnessingandmanagingconflicttospurinnovationisawell-knownthemeinbusinessliterature,forexampleColemanandFerguson(2014).Likewise,thefeedbackbetweenwarandstatecapacityisfamous;seeCharlesTilly(1975,p.42).HereIamaskingwhetherindividualslivingunderdisorderordespotismmightactuallybemorecreativeorinnovativethanthoseinAR’scorridor,perhapsbecausetheyhavetobetosurviveinthosedifficultconditions.18Seehttps://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_third_man/quotes/.ThelineisnotinGrahamGreene’snovelonwhichthemoviewasbased;itseemstohavebeenimprovisedattheshootingbyOrsonWelles.Forinaccuraciesintheassertion,seehttps://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19202527.BothsitesaccessedMay1,2020.

24

9.Calltoaction

AcemogluandRobinsonhavewrittenabrilliant,thought-provokingbook.

Theirmodelofadynamicgamepittingforcesofdisorderagainstthoseofdespotism

isavaluablecontributiontofocusthoughtandanalysis.They,andothers,should

extendandmodifythistorecognizethemorecomplexmulti-playernatureofthe

game:fissureswithineachoftheirtwoplayers,stateandsociety,andcoalitions

acrosssubgroupsofthetwo.Theyshouldalsorecognizeexamplesthatgoagainst

theirmaintheme.Confidenceinatheory’svalueasaguideforinterpretingsociety

andhistoryisamatterofdegree;oneneednotinsistthat100.000%ofevidencefits

it.Exceptionsalsosuggestwaystofurtherimprovethetheory.Finally,matterssuch

asculture,identity,ideology,andnon-rationalactorshavereceivedmuchattention

recentlyinthesocialsciences.AR(andI)havesaidlittlesystematicaboutthem,but

theycouldplaybiggerrolesinfuturework.

Iamsurethatnumerousscholarswillbeintriguedandinspiredbythebook’s

thesisandexamples.Itwillleaveahugeandlastingimpactonfutureresearchinall

thesedisciplineswithinthesocialsciences.Ihopethisarticlewillplayasmallrole

inspurringthislargebodyofresearchtocome.

REFERENCES

Acemoglu,DaronandJamesA.Robinson.2000.WhydidtheWestextendthe

franchise?Democracy,inequality,andgrowthinhistoricalperspective.

QuarterlyJournalofEconomics,115(4),November,1167-1199.

URL:https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300555042

------and------.2012.WhyNationsFail:TheOriginsofPower,ProsperityandPoverty.

NewYork:Currency.

------and------.2017.Theemergenceofweak,despotic,andinclusivestates.

Cambridge.MA:NationalBureauofEconomicResearch,WorkingPaperNo.

23657.Availableathttp://www.nber.org/papers/w23657VersiondatedMay

30,2018,retrievedApril23,2020.

25

------and------.2019.TheNarrowCorridor:States,Societies,andtheFateofLiberty.

NewYork:PenguinBooks.

Alesina,Alberto.1988.Credibilityandpolicyconvergenceinatwo-partysystem

withrationalvoters.AmericanEconomicReview78(5),September,796–805.

URL:https://www.jstor.org/stable/1811177

Allen,Danielle.2017.CharlottesvilleIsNottheContinuationofanOldFight:ItIs

SomethingNew.WashingtonPost,August13.URL:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charlottesville-is-not-the-

continuation-of-an-old-fight-it-is-something-new/2017/08/13/971812f6-

8029-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.html

Benton,GregandGrahamLoomes.1976.BigRedJokeBook.London:PlutoPress.

Coleman,PeterT.andRobertFerguson.2014.MakingConflictWork:Harnessingthe

PowerofDisagreement,NewYork:HoughtonMifflinHarcourt.

Dixit,Avinash,GeneM.Grossman,andFarukGul.2000.Thedynamicsofpolitical

compromise.JournalofPoliticalEconomy108(3),June,531-568.URL:

https://doi.org/10.1086/262128

Fukuyama,Francis.1992.TheEndofHistoryandtheLastMan.NewYork:TheFree

Press.

Gregory,PaulandMarkHarrison.2005.Allocationunderdictatorship:Researchin

Stalin’sarchives.JournalofEconomicLiteratureXLIII(3),September,721–761.

URL:https://doi.org/10.1257/002205105774431225

Hardin,Russell.1995.OneforAll:TheLogicofGroupConflict.Princeton,NJ:

PrincetonUniversityPress.

Hochschild,ArlieRussell.2018.StrangersinTheirOwnLand:AngerandMourningon

theAmericanRight.NewYork:TheNewPress.

Landes,DavidS.1998.TheWealthandPovertyofNations.NewYork:W.W.Norton.

Levitsky,StevenandDanielZiblatt.2018.HowDemocraciesDie.NewYork:Crown.

Lizzeri,AlessandroandNicolaPersico.2004.Whydidtheelitesextendthesuffrage?

Democracyandthescopeofgovernment,withanapplicationtoBritain’s“ageof

reform”.QuarterlyJournalofEconomics,119(2),May,707765,,URL:

https://doi.org/10.1162/0033553041382175

26

Mogelson,Luke.2020.America’sAbandonmentofSyria.NewYorker,April27,32-

45.URL:https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/27/americas-

abandonment-of-syria

Mommsen,Hans.1996.TheRiseandFalloftheWeimarRepublic.ChapelHill,NC:

UNCPressBooks.

Needham,Josephetal.1954–.ScienceandCivilizationinChina,Vols.I–.Cambridge,

UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Olson,Mancur.1993.Dictatorship,democracy,anddevelopment.AmericanPolitical

ScienceReview,87(3),567-576.URL:https://www.jstor.org/stable/2938736

Scheidel,Walter.2019.EscapefromRome:TheFailureofEmpireandtheRoadto

Prosperity,Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Sellar,WalterCarruthers,andRobertJulianYateman.1931.1066andAllThat:A

MemorableHistoryofEngland.NewYork:E.F.Dutton.

Tilly,Charles.1975.TheFormationofNationalStatesinWesternEurope.Princeton,

NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Wuthnow,Robert.2018.TheLeftBehind:DeclineandRageinSmall-TownAmerica.

Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.