#Why Nations Fail

[sencilla-mentelibros]

Por qué fracasan los países

Este libro fue publicado ya hace once años, y sin embargo sus palabras aún hacen sentido. En él, Aemoglou y Robinson proponen una teoría para explicar por qué algunos países son prósperos y otros no lo son tanto, no solo por el nivel de renta ―que juega su papel en toda charla económica― sino también por su nivel de alcance en cuanto a servicios públicos y la presencia/provisión del Estado en el territorio. No designan un espacio para definir estrictamente el término prosperidad, pero a lo largo del libro el rango del concepto se hace notar.

El pilar principal de su teoría ―de por qué los países fracasan― es básicamente la adopción de instituciones inclusivas o extractivas, entendiendo que «mediante el proceso político la sociedad elige las reglas que la gobernarán y que las instituciones políticas estipulan quién tiene poder en la sociedad y para qué fines puede utilizarse». Los autores denominan instituciones inclusivas «aquellas que están suficientemente centralizadas y que son pluralistas. Si no cumplen esta condición, serán extractivas». Básicamente dicen que las instituciones extractivas son aquellas que sirven para extraer renta por parte de las élites políticas. Las instituciones inclusivas son benignas e incentivan el pluralismo y la igualdad de condiciones.

Pero antes de continuar, me gustaría hacer la aclaración que cuando ellos hablan de «instituciones», lo hacen desde una aproximación sociológica ―entiendo que el concepto proviene de esa disciplina―, donde las «instituciones» tienen que ver con estructuras o asociaciones que están relacionadas o implican normas regulatorias del comportamiento, ya sean leyes o costumbres, por ejemplo, alrededor de ciertos valores ―desde que nos aclararon este concepto en clase hace ya varios años, no volví a ver pa’tras ni pa’parquearme, como dicen―. Entonces, dentro de este concepto, entiendo yo, se encuentran instituciones políticas/económicas como el Estado y la familia. La esclavitud y la servidumbre como instituciones económicas, el sistema impositivo vendría a ser otra, el libre mercado, el sistema de contratos, juntas comerciales, enconmiendas…, y así.

El libro desarrolla la teoría anterior descrita con una variedad de ejemplos comprendidos en un amplio periodo de tiempo y en diferentes espacios para, no solo explicar y defender su postura, sino también para refutar otras explicaciones académicas de por qué hay tanta desigualdad en el mundo. Argumentan por qué ellos piensan que tres hipótesis: la de la geografía, la de la cultura y la de la ignorancia, no funcionan para una descripción general de lo que sucede y por qué sí, la teoría de las instituciones funciona.

Tenemos una variedad de ejemplos en este texto, desde dos territorios fronterizos entre EE.UU. y México, una comparación entre las Coreas, algunos países de américa, hasta los territorios africanos y de medio oriente. Así mismo, los autores hacen un viaje en el tiempo para retomar los temas que atañen dentro del imperio romano, los imperios indígenas de América y los imperios/dinastías que se establecieron en Asia. Creo que cada caso ejemplifica a través de la historia en qué momentos se adoptaron ciertas instituciones y muestra cómo éstas interactúan con coyunturas críticas, es decir, eventos de grandes magnitudes como la peste negra o la revolución industrial, y cómo a su vez esto hace que las sociedades diverjan en cuanto a la adopción de otras instituciones.

Los autores no brindan una aproximación determinista de la historia, tomando en cuenta que las decisiones dentro del devenir histórico pueden ser contingentes. Sin embargo, enfatizan en un ciclo virtuoso y un ciclo vicioso en los cuáles las instituciones inclusivas refuerzan e incentivan comportamientos que propician la prosperidad o que la detienen. Del texto se infiere que mucho está relacionado con los incentivos dentro de la sociedad, provistos por las mismas instituciones, y que afectan la voluntad política, tanto de los gobernantes como del público en general.

El libro tiene alrededor de 539 páginas de contenido explicativo y no es mi intención tampoco trasladar cada razonamiento del libro. Sí considero, por otro lado, que si lo leen pueden adquirir nociones sobre cómo la política y la economía van de la mano, y de cómo los sistemas políticos pluralistas son preferidos por sobre los sistemas autoritarios para establecer contrapesos y restricciones que incentivan la participación de los diferentes sectores de la sociedad. Porque si bien nos explican que cierto nivel de prosperidad puede ser alcanzado en sociedades con instituciones extractivas durante cierto periodo de tiempo, éste no es sostenible.

Una observación que añadiría es que, en realidad, en este libro no se habla mucho del relegado rol que la mujer ha tenido a lo largo de la historia en temas de política y economía y, además, juzga con conceptos modernos ―como la inclusividad― tiempos anteriores; sin embargo, le hago la concesión de que habla de inclusividad como un espectro, donde según el tiempo, unas sociedades fueron más inclusivas que otras. Otra observación es que algunos países como Estados Unidos y Reino Unido quedan reflejados como sociedades idílicas, un poco, cuando sabemos que todos los países enfrentan sus propios problemas. Y la última observación que tengo es que nos brinda pocas estadísticas o números detrás de las conclusiones. Si bien se entiende que hubo rigor a la hora de concluir, a veces algunos aspectos se visualizan mejor con una comparación estadística.

Aprendí mucho leyendo este libro sobre la historia de algunos países. Me pareció muy ilustrativo en el sentido de que detrás de cada argumento hay situaciones reales que justifican el mismo y que si bien, las ciencias sociales tratan de ser positivas hasta donde pueden, generalizando sobre fenómenos humanos, creo que incluye muy bien las variables incontrolables y no medibles ―aleatorias, por decirlo así― que hacen que la historia tome diferentes rumbos. A mí esta teoría de las instituciones inclusivas que, en conjunto con un sincero respeto al Estado de derecho, ayudan a los países a ser prósperos me hace mucho sentido. Le doy cinco estrellas.

Fecha original de publicación: octubre 28, 2023

[a-star-that-burns-brightly]

(x) David - bisexual with a strong female lean. but he describes himself as “straight but also not opposed to any random impulses that may arise”

I kind of overlooked this for a very long time admittedly, as I assume a lot of people did because I rarely appear to see this discussed in depth minus one, but like. I know this is an Andrew Garfield quote, but the actual prospect of David being fifteen feet in the closet makes so much sense. He is an incredibly notable figure in the universe of DRDT, his whole character is basically built upon that fact. Something else that's pretty obvious is that David is someone who cares a lot about how he's perceived by others. He works hard to make himself as palatable and uncontroversial as possible to other people. It's no wonder that he would hide and/or sugarcoat his attraction to men when describing his sexuality to the public, or even begin repressing it himself. And not only that, but it makes the inappropriate way he responded to Nico being forcefully outed make so much more sense

(x) David: So then, revealing your secret was a good thing, right? That way, you won’t have to be misgendered anymore. Nico: … Nico: I wasn’t ready. David: This is definitely an improvement. It’s good for everyone to be open with their secrets.

Like no wonder this man cannot be trusted to handle queer identity in a respectful way, he's repressing his own so far that it's going to come out of his ass.

[alluralater]

the american government: hey who put this splash of democracy in my facism??

[northwest-by-a-train]

New rule for Anglos: you are not allowed to talk about the French Revolution if you don't spend at least three minutes on the wikipedia article "War of the first coalition"

[nightswatchdisbandmentera]

Everyone arguing about Stannis, JonCon, Jaime, god forbid Jorah being the 1000th commander of the NW….when it will be Jon again 🌚

[deci-doodles]

This was originally a request from a friend but I figured I might as well post here coz I think it’s too funny

Audio: Berlioz, Symphonie Fantastique Mvt. 4. March to the Scaffold

Would highly recommend listening to the whole track coz it’s a banger but also it’s literally the composer having an opium-induced fever dream about him getting his head lopped off at the guillotine so

[amplexadversary]

I'm screenshotting rather than derailing this post but

I'd like to call it now before I'm accused of this by someone who thinks the thematic foundation of a particular show is the "romance"

just. Based on some *takes* I've seen.

[pegasusrightsforall]

One of the beauties of Claude and Lorenz as a ship is the completely uneven stakes they’re perceiving in this.

Lorenz is living in a high stakes spy thriller where an Almyran subterfuge agent has infiltrated their government at its highest seat of power and garnered the affections of an heir to the one other seat of power that can keep the Almyran Menace(tm) at bay. He alone sees the threat this man poses to their country, nay, continent, and yet he finds himself growing feelings of affection for this man, and even some trust, despite his continued insistence upon lying to him at every turn.

Claude on the other hand is just like uh oh he’s activated my debate kink. At first I thought he was just an ugly annoying prudish nationalist but is it just me or is he kind of sexy? This game of chess is getting a little homoerotic. He’s a little pathetic. I can’t believe I’m going to fuck him.

[orcelito]

Shino raising his dead friends and friend's dog from the dead with the power of bugs as one friend's cousin watches [not clickbait]

[paracosmiist]

gOD why did that bio writinng just take a full hour i'm so tired

[nyupuun]

everyone WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!

[officialromaniantranslatiuni]

why go out when you can binge watch disparuti fara urma on youtube?

[pirates-and-ninja-lover]

fuck politics btw <3

[deqdyke]

Cw: race, genocide denial, antiblackness

Just working through some thoughts after seeing the millionth annoying "Are x group white? Discuss" tweets.

Honestly I think like 90% of discourse around race and whiteness in leftist spaces could be solved by people saying "I don't know that history well enough". Like, people when they discuss race, have these competing internal desires to treat race as solely defined by current social standings, and also point to historical oppression as evidence. Neither works. If you go purely by current social standings, then we have absolutely nothing to build off of besides personal lived experiences. I've met Italians who have had old white people call them wops. Does that mean Italians aren't white? Are Polish people not white because of the existence of anti-polish sentiments? Are Russians not white because of how often they're portrayed as villains? Are Armenians white universally bc of the Kardashians?

But then if you base it entirely off history, then you have to accept that no Jewish person has ever attained whiteness. That race is a permanent and immutable aspect of someone's character - something that just... That's just racial ideology, same as it ever was.

The reality is whiteness is nebulous and difficult to pin down because it serves a social function. It needs to be fluid, but it needs to justify itself by appearing as if it's immutable. It also props up European nation-building myths. Like, if the question is "Are Italians white" the question should be "Well, who's an Italian?". Who's a Russian? I know Black Russians, and Black Ashkenazim. Is the understanding they're somehow less part of those groups due to their Blackness? Because I know they would take serious issue with that. Romans (as in, Italians from Rome) are a core part of the Western nation-building myth. You can't exclude them from whiteness without whiteness collapsing. But Sicilians were ruled by North African Muslims for hundreds of years - they're noticeably darker, and their culture is distinct. So Sicilians were denied whiteness, and they were used as a scapegoat for xenophobic sentiments during waves of Italian immigration. When they had sufficiently assimilated, then suddenly Sicilians were "Italians" and Italians are white, so Sicilians are white. So you've now managed to redefine whiteness across an era of immigration to build white unity and maintain a white supremacist majority.

White Fascism is self-destructive and suicidal because it maintains rigid immutable boundaries and requires constant expansion, which means eventually whiteness WILL be a minority. Liberalism upholds whiteness by redefining whiteness over time to maintain a White social majority. When whiteness needs to be mutable, there needs to be a population that can be used as the scapegoat. (Which is also why anti-Blackness is a core component of White supremacist racial ideology - it functions as a permanent fixed class to pivot other groups' whiteness around).

That's how it functions in America. But the rules of whiteness ARE mutable, and they change based on time and region. So the question of "Is x person white" really depends on time AND location, and how their identities exist in relation to nation-building myths. And it reaches a point where asking a question like "Are Armenians white?" or "Are Balkan Muslims white?" or "Are Jews white?" stops being useful, because the point shouldn't be to reify race, it should be to point out that people who fail to fit neatly within these national racial narratives are the best possible example to show how Whiteness contradicts itself. Is an Arab white? Is a Jew white? Is a North African white? It depends, when, where, and who are we talking about?

[blorbocedes]

Have you read Jensons book Life to the Limit? Because I just read it and ... he just called Lewis out for basically 2/3 chapters and his perspective is actually so interesting bc it also explains a lot of what might have happened at Mercedes

I just need to discuss this with someone bc ... Jenson did not hold back

I haven't read it Nope but please tell me I'd love to know

[depressedhatakekakashi]

Can i just say, cuz i saw the tag and it’s bothering me a little (as a lover of history)

Yes Japan allied with germany in world ward II, but they didn’t really do it because they agreed with germany. Like i’m not giving Japan a pass on anything they’ve done (they’re very much a coloniser as well)

But Japan joined germany out of anger a spit not out of shared ideology. Japan was angry they got short shafted after world war I where they fought alongside the allied forced and helped win some major battles, and then when it came to making a peace treaty they got nothing.

They didn’t get any labd like britian, france and the USA.

They didn’t even really get invited to be a part of the peace treaty like other countries on the winning side.

Japan joined Germany more out of frustration than being actual fascists. Like, yes. Their country has gone a really sort of terrible way in terms of government and they did commit a lot of war crimes and murder for the sake of getting rid of people they deemed ‘beneath them’

But had the other allied countries shown them even an ounce of respect after world war I maybe they would have stayed on their side.