Yuen Yuen Ang’s Post

A brilliant article that articulates the discomfort I felt when reading the reasons why Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and Jim Robinson were awarded the Nobel. "First, in a multipolar world, we should embrace a global principle of non-domination, rather than any great-power’s politics as an ideology. This means recognizing that authoritarianism and colonial-imperialism are both forms of domination, and both should be rejected. It means valuing indigenous knowledge and diverse solutions in the Global Majority—doing development by “using what you have,” not by copying someone else’s templates. Preaching democratic values within societies while upholding a Western-centric political and ideational order, either explicitly or implicitly, is hypocritical.  Second, we should celebrate democracy for its intrinsic value—in giving voice to diverse, marginalized groups and holding power to account—instead of making exaggerated promises that democracy alone will make nations rich and powerful. " The 2024 Nobel Laureates Are Not Only Wrong About China, But Also About the West https://lnkd.in/gDDcNBAD

Professor @ Yuen Yuen Ang (known for her “directed improvisation” model) on the recent Nobel Laureates and the raging debates about development, good governance , anticorruption, democracy, polycrisis vs. “poly-tunity”, China and so much more… The 2024 Nobel Laureates Are Not Only Wrong About China, But Also About the West October 31, 2024 “This year's awarding of the Nobel Prize in Economics to Acemoglu, Johnson & Robinson (AJR) has sparked vigorous debate not only in the Global Majority, but also in parts of the Global North. One common assumption is that AJR is only wrong about China, but right that democracy alone explains prosperity in the West (my work has often been [mis]cited to make this point). Peeling just a few layers back, however, suggests that is not true: AJR isn’t right about either. xxx By raising questions about AJR’s claims, my objective is to advocate for a better way of promoting democracy in the twenty-first century. One uncomfortable but not surprising truth is this: especially during the Cold War, liberalism was an ideological instrument for great power competition, “and the field of development was one of the arenas in which this competition played out most actively,” as the historian Corinna Unger reminds us. The ideologizing of capitalist democracy is distorting. When translated into development programs, it invariably becomes top-down, one-size-fits-all campaigns that disempower the poor. Not only that, it has blinded the establishment from detecting long-simmering problems in Western capitalism and democracy. Corruption studies is a case in point. By consistently measuring rich democracies as clean and poor countries as corrupt, elites failed to see that the flourish of “access money” (legalized elite exchanges of power and profit) in rich countries was angering citizens and pushing them toward populism.”

Must read! "The 2024 Nobel Laureates Are Not Only Wrong About China, But Also About the West" I particularly liked and support** Yuen Yuen Ang's conclusions (only selected ones here): "By raising questions about AJR’s claims, my objective is to advocate for a better way of promoting democracy in the twenty-first century. One uncomfortable but not surprising truth is this: especially during the Cold War, liberalism was an ideological instrument for great power competition, “and the field of development was one of the arenas in which this competition played out most actively,” as the historian Corinna Unger reminds us [...] The ideologizing of capitalist democracy is distorting. When translated into development programs, it invariably becomes top-down, one-size-fits-all campaigns that disempower the poor. Not only that, it has blinded the establishment from detecting long-simmering problems in Western capitalism and democracy. Corruption studies is a case in point. By consistently measuring rich democracies as clean and poor countries as corrupt, elites failed to see that the flourish of “access money” (legalized elite exchanges of power and profit) in rich countries was angering citizens and pushing them toward populism."    "What is the alternative? First, in a multipolar world, we should embrace a global principle of non-domination, rather than any great-power’s politics as an ideology. This means recognizing that authoritarianism and colonial-imperialism are both forms of domination, and both should be rejected. It means valuing indigenous knowledge and diverse solutions in the Global Majority—doing development by “using what you have,” not by copying someone else’s templates. Preaching democratic values within societies while upholding a Western-centric political and ideational order, either explicitly or implicitly, is hypocritical. Second, we should celebrate democracy for its intrinsic value—in giving voice to diverse, marginalized groups and holding power to account—instead of making exaggerated promises that democracy alone will make nations rich and powerful. This kind of sales pitch, which has long been the norm in the political economy of development, is no different from cultivating followers based on material interest; as soon as democracy runs into problems—as we see in the West today—the appeal of democracy falls apart." ** I disagree with the statement that AJR suggest that democracy alone can explain economic wealth.

This is a wonderful analysis of the work of Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (AJR), 2024 Nobel Laureates for economics, by Yuen Yuen Ang. https://lnkd.in/e8ZqVZSV Recent posts from Yuen Yuen Ang, emphasising that in her view the Nobel Laureates deserve the prize, had puzzled me and left me wanting a fuller take on her views. This more comprehensive assessment, while reiterating that view - a view which I do not share - does not disappoint, suggesting that the award is anachronistic and noting that: "Put simply, AJR confirms a well-known correlation: richer countries tend to be liberal democracies. But they provide zero causal evidence that it is good institutions, rather than other entangled factors, that explains divergent incomes." and that "In short, the complete truth that AJR’s elegant theory omits is this: European settler colonies built wealth by establishing a bifurcated economy—inclusive and non-extractive for elite white males, but systematically extracting from the rest." This does not mean that openness, inclusivity, fairness, justice and democracy are not important. However, as Yuen Yuen Ang puts it: "we should celebrate democracy for its intrinsic value—in giving voice to diverse, marginalized groups and holding power to account—instead of making exaggerated promises that democracy alone will make nations rich and powerful." Perhaps Yuen Yuen Ang's work on the emergence of political institutions and their role in adaptive processes of development will one day be as influential as Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson's western-centric take. Here's hoping. A Good Governance agenda which assesses "good" against western norms and benchmarks, and encourages other countries to copy and paste policy templates with little attention to context, is well past its sell-by date. This piece from the Economist, on econsplaining, complements Yuen Yuen Ang's piece nicely https://lnkd.in/eVwwxSYy My 2017 notes from Yuen Yuen Ang's analysis of how China escaped the poverty trap can be found here. https://lnkd.in/eGRkqrbn

#IntheSpiritofNobel - Today, we're highlighting the 2024 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 🌍 The 2024 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel has been awarded to Simon Johnson, Daron Acemoglu, and James A. Robinson for their groundbreaking research on the impact of societal institutions on national prosperity. Their work reveals that the institutions introduced during colonization play a crucial role in explaining the differences in countries’ prosperity today. Inclusive institutions, often established in poorer regions during colonization, have led to generally prosperous populations over time. Extractive institutions, which provide short-term gains for those in power, seem to have trapped some countries in cycles of low economic growth. This research highlights the importance of credible promises of positive change and the potential for democratization in the face of revolutionary threats. 💡Meaningful insights, driving the potential for transformative change in economic systems worldwide. Learn more about the 2024 Nobel Laureates in Economic Sciences: https://lnkd.in/dwUUKBCZ  #NobelPrize #EconomicSciences  📷: Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson. Ill. Niklas Elmehed © Nobel Prize Outreach

🎉 Congratulations to the 2024 Nobel Prize Winners in Economic Sciences! 🎉 Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson have been awarded the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics for their pioneering work on how political and economic institutions shape national prosperity. They have shown how inclusive institutions, such as democratic governance and free markets, promote long-term economic growth by providing access to opportunities for all. Conversely, extractive institutions, which are designed to benefit a small elite (often seen in dictatorships or monopolistic economies), hinder development by limiting the majority’s access to resources. Their influential book, Why Nations Fail, provides examples such as: • North vs. South Korea: Despite having the same cultural and historical roots, North Korea’s extractive institutions have led to poverty, while South Korea’s inclusive institutions have driven economic success. • Colonial Latin America vs. Colonial North America: The Spanish colonizers implemented extractive systems in Latin America, focusing on resource extraction, whereas settlers in North America established more inclusive institutions, fostering long-term prosperity. This research explains why some countries thrive and others lag behind, offering vital insights into reducing global inequality. #NobelPrize #Economics #WealthInequality #InstitutionalEconomics #InclusiveGrowth #GlobalDevelopment #DaronAcemoglu #SimonJohnson #JamesRobinson Sources: NobelPrize.org , Business Insider

Yuen Yuen Ang’s latest critique of AJR’s theory on institutions is recommended reading. We will continue to underestimate China’s capacity, and fail to address problems in the West and international development policy, if we don’t acknowledge and reconcile these contradictions. In essence, extraction, exploitation and other undemocratic practices did power Western growth, and technocratic competence and state intervention did drive China’s own Gilded Age under Deng, Jiang and Hu. Both processes and periods also led to inequality and many other problems, which both societies are now struggling to address, in very different ways. This does not in any way imply a moral equivalence between liberal democracy and communist authoritarianism, by the way. It’s just being honest that while good institutions are indeed good, there are other things that can also drive growth, and not all of them are nice. https://lnkd.in/gUawpZYA

This year's Nobel Prize in Economics went to experts working on democracy and prosperity. However, this recognition has ignited important discussions in the field. A thought-provoking piece from Open Society Foundations challenges the idea that democracy alone is the key to economic success. She points out that their theories don’t explain China’s rapid economic growth and questions the claim that democracy directly drives prosperity in the West. The article argues we should celebrate democracy for its intrinsic value, rather than overstate its economic impact. 🔗https://lnkd.in/giZjYQ2N #TAIMember #TAIWeekly #Democracy #Economics #NobelPrize #OpenSocietyFoundations #EconomicGrowth

The role of societal institutions in shaping a country’s prosperity, a factor often overlooked by Classical Marxism, has been recognized with the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Dr. Daron Acemoglu, Dr Simon Johnson and Dr. Robinson. Congratulations to you guys! It means alot to early career researchers like me and others who are striving to bring positive institutional chnage for inclusive and sustainable development. Nevertheless, future researchers must recognize that these societal institutions are deeply contextualized, emerging from the unique political struggles and interactions of local actors. Economies can only truly develop when the concept of development and public policy is decentralized and adapted to local realities and circumstances of local actors, rather than being shaped by a broader Eurocentric understanding of 'institutions' led by post war international organisations. With this approach we will be able to acknowledges the diversity of institutional pathways that different countries may follow based on their specific historical, cultural, and political contexts. Cheers!! https://lnkd.in/ee64xdqb

THE 2024 NOBEL PRIZE in ECONOMIC SCIENCES The Nobel Prize | LIVE Mon. 14th Oct. 11.45 am CEST WINNERS: D Acemoglu, S Johnson & J A. Robinson “For studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity.” (Various Impacts of European #Colonialism)   This year’s economic sciences laureates – Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson – have demonstrated the importance of societal institutions for a country’s prosperity. Societies with a poor rule of law and institutions that exploit the population do not generate growth or change for the better. The laureates’ research helps us understand why - nobelprize.org In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden’s central bank) established the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The prize is based on a donation received by the Nobel Foundation in 1968 from Sveriges Riksbank on the occasion of the bank’s 300th anniversary. The prize amount is the same as for the Nobel Prizes and is paid by the Riksbank. The first prize in economic sciences was awarded to Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen in 1969. The Nobel Prize in Literature is awarded by: The Swedish Academy, Stockholm, Sweden. Watch Live LinkedIn → https://lnkd.in/e8pDkqhU History & Learn More → https://lnkd.in/gFsKgTAs ©2024 | The Nobel Foundation #NobelPrize #economic #science #finance #money #business #education #politics #policy #framework