Talk:Why Nations Fail

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shenqiu92. Peer reviewers: Ianmckeachie, Vivianliu94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors must stop their anti-Turkey bias. The guy holds Turkish and American passports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.206.78 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I’ve received a notice from User:GrahamColm that he has detected copyright problem in my article Why Nations Fail, that has been downloaded by me on 4 August 2012 and had 11 references. He writes: “This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.americanacademy.de/home/program/past/why-nations-fail-origins-power-prosperity-and-poverty, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. “

User:GrahamColm referred to the website that published their review of the book “Why Nations fail” SEVEN MONTHS LATER in March 2013 with no references at all!!! User:GrahamColm “didn’t notice” that the copyright problem was the other way around with me on 4 August 2012 and 11 references and them in March 2013 with no references.

I don’t doubt that there will appear and have already appeared many more reviews of the same book elsewhere later than my article in August 2012. Isn’t it bizarre to charge me with the copyright problem?

But I don’t object to the deletion of this article and any other article or all of them that have been downloaded by me to English Wikipedia. Easy riddance. GenOrl (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• This was published in The Guardian on 26 May 2012 "Inclusive states have no single centre of power but are innovative and prosperous thanks to the jostling of competing interests under the rule of law and secure property rights." And this was added to the article at 15:44, on 4 August 2012, "Inclusive states have no single centre of power but are innovative and prosperous thanks to the jostling of competing interests under the rule of law and secure property rights". Graham Colm (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for elucidating me. Let's close the discussion by deleting of the article and any other article or all of them that have been downloaded by me to English Wikipedia.GenOrl (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

perhaps this should be included in the review section? https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/10/robinson-acemoglu-inclusive-extractive-poverty-wealth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArazZeynili (talk • contribs) 06:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The conspicuous absence in the article of reviews from a more left-wing perspective is indeed concerning. One of my first thoughts was "But isn't colonialism a vital factor too?", a point even the Jacobin review does not go into, even though criticism of colonialism is now mainstream in the American left, and not only among Marxists like this author. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Colonialism is absent in the reviews because its absent in the academic discussion of the topic. Serious analysis shows no correlation between colonial history and long term economic success, which cannot be explained by other factor, like institutional stability etc. In other words, colonialism is just an obsession amongst sociologists and political theorists in the USA. 91.49.76.95 (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I am working on the Environmental determinism and States and Power in Africa.
Kevinmccarthy25 and I briefly discuss this book on each page.

1. If you add a "See Also" section to this page, could you link to both pages? Here's the code.
   

=See also:= * [[Environmental determinism]] * [[States and Power in Africa]]

1. I would add 1-2 sentences on Herbst, but I am not sure where to plug them in on this page layout. Let me know!
   

--Sarah Whittenburg (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shenqiu92. This is an ambitious page in that this large and important book (and indeed the whole body of work) was not covered well in Wikipedia, depite being one of the most influential development theories of the 21st century. It's a lot to tackle and you've done a good job. Here are some impressions and suggestions.

• The lede should summarize the specific argument of the book, in a sentence or a paragraph, rather than just describe the general topic.
• I thought the Content section was not as complete and clearly written as it could be, and in a few instances I thought there were incorrect statements, which I tried to correct. The section could use additional clarification and expansion.
  • Inclusive and extractive institutions were not clearly defined. I have put in a hasty definition but a careful one (perhaps one from the authors or a review) would be better. Reviewers' summaries are a good source for this material.
  • The link between inclusive/democratic regimes and extractive/dictatorial regimes is not made clear. The reader is left to infer that these are synonyms. And they are not exactly synonyms, in that they are only only (albeit) major regime type within the broader array of inclusive and extractive institutions.
  • The authors have a theory about how institutions shape economic outcomes, as well as a theory of how institutions form and change over time. This was not clear in the discussion. I have clarified a little but it could use more work.
  • The summary of their country cases studies is somewhat thin. The last paragraph, on their endogenous framework, is also very thin and it would be challenging for a casual reader to understand what is meant.
• Underlying Acemoglu and Robinson's argument is the idea that growth is a function of investment and innovation, and that institutions affect incentives to invest and innovate. There should be a healthy discussion of economic growth and growth theory in Wikipedia and it would be useful to link to that.
• I think the critical reviews would have been more effective if they were organized along major lines of criticism addressing the empirics or theoretical arguments, rather than be organized by individual.
• Points for clarity
  • I don't understand what this means: "Under that circumstance, the payoff of the rich ruling class is split between, when the poor revolutionizes, the punishment for the ruling class and when the poor acquiesces, the taxation income."
  • At present, the four variables and the table that explains each one is not clear enough or explained at enough length for the average reader to understand what it is and why it is important.
• The section on ignorance and ideas should eventually include Dani Rodrik and Deirdre McCloskey
• Smaller points
  • When you say their theory is rooted in the 2001 AER paper, it is also rooted and explained at more length in their first book, and I recommend that you cite this as well.
  • Should figures be numbered for clarity?
  • The See Also section could be extended to include related books, authors, thinkers and related ideas Chrisblattman (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Is Marvin Heemeyer dispute an example of "extractive" institution? Corporation VS single person. Halfcookie (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The book is freely available digitally from the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/WhyNationsFailTheOriginsODaronAcemoglu

Is there anything to be aware about the Internet Archive? Zzalpha (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

weird that it was removed - I didnt even see your comment@Zzalpha - I added it under external links. Nothing to be aware about the Internet Archive! Its the vault of WP! Wuerzele (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The section "Simon Johnson" states "he did not contribute to this book". How is this section relevant "Context"? cagliost (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• cagliost I couldnt agree more ! I expanded the section heading to make teh craziness obvious, I think its added because Simon Johnson share din teh prize 12 years later.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi - I added the AI generated tag here, as the copyedits/"shortening" done by Verne Equinox appear to have been done by an LLM. Even AI "copy editing" tends to introduce subtle errors, editorializing, and statements not backed up by the original sources, and thus it needs review for all that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the observation Gnomingstuff. I ve reviewed teh Verne Equinox contributions ( all 2023) and in fact all of them SHORTENED sections so IMO improved and didnt add hallucinations etc. OTHER edits were more concerning, that seemed to cut paste some ghibberish-see my bold removals. I will hence remove the flag, because I think it is more misleading than helpful.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the tag -- please read WP:AISIGNS. It took all of 2 seconds for me to verify that there are still signs present in the text of LLM usage. After thoroughly reviewing that page, you too can verify this in all of 2 seconds.

Shortening text does not automatically make it good. If I were to "edit" your sentence to read I've reviewed teh Verne Equinox ghibberish, it would be shorter, but it would obviously not be an improvement. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

???Gnomingstuff PLease help instead of flag ! You are not helping. and ping me next time you revert. Please share how you verified " all of 2 seconds for me to verify "that there are still signs present in the text of LLM usage." --Wuerzele (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

"Aligns with," as well as many other tells mentioned in the "AI vocabulary" section of the page I assume you didn't read. This phrasing is not itself the issue -- which you would know, if you read the page -- but is a code smell that the text it is attached to is likely LLM-generated. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, stop pinging me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

For a concrete example: Diamond disagreed with Acemoglu and Robinson's response and reiterated his argument, despite calling Why Nations Fail a "wonderful book." He emphasized the significance of geographical factors in determining a country's wealth or poverty. For instance, he pointed out that the prevalence of tropical diseases in Zambia leads to prolonged illness among male workers, greatly reducing their productivity. Diamond also highlighted how geography influences the establishment of local plantations and the development of ancient agricultural practices. These practices, in turn, shape sedentary lifestyles and social interactions, which, ultimately, give rise to distinct social institutions and varying economic outcomes among nations.

Three in one paragraph, that's suspicious. Going to fact-check the paragraph against the source, there are already issues:

• "pointed out that the prevalence of tropical diseases in Zambia leads to prolonged illness among male workers" - This part of the letter says nothing about the workers being male.
• "highlighted how geography influences the establishment of local plantations" - Plantations, which are a specific kind of farm and not synonymous with any old farm, are mentioned nowhere.
• "These practices, in turn, shape sedentary lifestyles and social interactions..." - The paragraph ends in a lot of word salad that makes a simple argument -- Diamond is saying that farming is what allows people to live sedentary lifestyles and form complex societies -- seem much more vague and complicated.

How did I know that this paragraph specifically would have so many issues? Because of the signs it was likely AI generated. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, gnomingstuff you still havent answered how it took you "2 seconds to verify there is ai generated content". or maybe you dont mean this literally? also you forgot to ping me, so I didnt see your response til now. I did now read teh unwieldy humongeous page WP:AISIGNS but am as wise as before.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)