The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
For instance, North Korea is able to place satellites in space, manufacture highly sophisticated tanks, armored personnel careers, fighter jets, intercontinental ballistic missiles, advanced artillery, etc. Indeed, if the two nations went to war, North Korea could easily destroy her rich southern neighbour. North Korea is able to achieve technological feats that African countries with 200 times her GDP cannot even attempt.
Even a casual observer would immediately notice that what is holding North Korea from prosperity is the choice of institutions – and I guess this is the reason why Robinson and Acemoglu arrived at their absurd conclusion. But it is wrong to move from North and South Korea and conclude that if Uganda or Malawi were given inclusive institutions, these nations would produce products that would rival Sam Sung.
Robinson and Acemoglu ignored human capital in their analysis of prosperity, an argument I have been making for many years now. While it is true that Ghana and South Korea had roughly the same per capita income in 1960, there are other endowments that South Korea possessed that allowed it to transform from a backward peasant society into a modern industrial economy. One such critical endowment is human capital.
Beyond a shared language and culture, a long history of nationhood and a state built on meritocratic recruitment, South Korea had high levels of human skills. In 1960, it had well over 58,000 engineers and technicians. As early as 1933, over 40% of total industrial output in Korea was produced by home-based factories; Koreans owned 26 banks, not to mention the large number of managers and marketing executives.
There were also 1.5 million Koreans working in Japan and another 1.5 million working in Manchuria, China, who returned after 1946. Many worked in manual jobs but many others in factories where they had manufacturing experience. These initial endowments were fundamental to South Korea’s rapid transformation.
It is not true that if inclusive institutions were hurled on Democratic Republic of Congo with only nine university graduates, no engineers, managers, architects or experienced civil servants – not to mention absence of a shared language, history of nationhood and statehood, it would in a few years achieve what South Korea did. Therefore institutions matter and matter a lot. But they need many other factors including culture, geography, and initial endowments like human capital to bring prosperity to nations.
****
amwenda@independent.co.ug
Mwenda, was it the intentions of the authors to write an “economic encyclopedia?” Maybe, it needed you first find out what their “problem statement” were, what their “literature review” were and probably you would be in a better position to pass on your judgement. The point I am raising is that they had to set a “scope of study” and theirs was “Why nations fail.” You could “expand” your “scope of study” to include the things you state here and that would give you the leverage to title your “study” differently. I mean the authors were not intended to write a “bible” or, the Quran for that matter, to include everything that one could have wished for. And I, don’t want to think for a moment that they are stating (in categorical terms) that other factors other than “inclusive institutions” are wrong but that it is “central.”
Nations in Africa fail mainly for the following reasons;
1.inadequate technology.
2.inadequate capital we need to borrow money for big projects like Dam constructtion,road construction from the 1st world.
3.Foreign interference for example;Uganda almost lost some development partners when she opposed of the Gay rights.
4.political instability which may not nessecairly be war alone but when government fails to honour some business agreements they have signed with investors for example,the case of Umeme,motor vehicle inspection.
5.lack of protection and support by both government and its citizens for local companies for example; why do Ugandans prefer MTN to Utl?
NO study can be ever exhaustive and sometimes even when a study has covered most of the ground, it may be overtaken by time.
The authors of the said book I am sure did not mean to imply that lack of institutions was the only obstacle, may be let alone the main one.
They did a study and were probably going by the principle of ” commonality”, where they looked at all or most of the nations that had failed to develop, and those that had and identified a common ” strain”, which in this case was ” institutions” , the presence or lack there of.
If one says for instance that disease(illness) is the cause of death, it does not mean that all death is caused by disease, just as all disease does not lead to death.
MWENDA tries to redefine the parameters of the book by bringing in the example of the American states.He sites the examples of MASSACHUSETTS and MISSISSIPPI where he states that one has an average per capita twice of the other.How then does CONNECTICUT come into the narrative. And besides , even if one has per capita twice the other, what are the comparative costs of living, especially say housing. AND , here , we are not dealing with one failed state against one that has not failed, we are dealing with a slightly more prosperous state with a less prosperous one(if you use per capita).
Between SOMALIA and DRC and SOUTH SUDAN, one is probably better off than the other/s, whatever measures you will have used, but they are all failed or almost failed states.
I have not read the book, and can not therefore comment on its contents, but I think MWENDA is taking the title of the book too literally. As a writer, he must be aware that titles and topics are most often ” sexed up” or sensationalized to make them more sellable and most times when you open the covers and read through, it does not come through as it is billed in the title.
Check out IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen….also check out The Bell Curve by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. IQ which is also related to long term culture, genetics and natural adaption (to environments) has a lot to do with economic development
Andrew, the authors of the book argue that the central factor in a nations transformation is the presence of good institutions. I do not think that they intended to suggest that other factors such as culture, geography or any other endowments are not crucial. Also fundamental to note is that good institutions help trigger the expansion and improvement of human resources, effectively exploit natural resources and endowments to a nations advantage, and most important rally the requisite financial investments required for a nation to transform(read from third world: The Singapore story first by Lee Kuan Yew). It is therefore not academically fair to suggest that the authors had no consideration of the very issues that institutions stand for.
MWENDAS is taking his desire to be a “non conformist” a bit too far.
I have seen many times M 9 trying to argue against convention.He at most times tries to put himself in a situation where he tries to argue against what others are saying or believe in, not because they are wrong, or that he is right, but just because he wants to. He has stated this by way of saying ” the majority is not always right” and that “common sense is not always common”, things which are very obvious.
Those who have carried out studies on people who behave and think like that have of course identified this as some form of complex.
Such people, when everybody says the sun rises from the east and sets in the west, will always come up with something different and argue their point til they drop dead.
M 9 , M 7 …………..!!!!!!!!!!
Brother Ejakait, How are you?
Just a light one! In our Senior 6 General Paper exam in 1977, there was a question almost exactly as you stated about the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. I thought I would go against the tide and argued almost otherwise: ‘That it has always risen in the east does not guarantee it will do so tomorrow or in future —‘ and I was actually right in some sense.
Well, the examiners at the time were not impressed I guess. But actually, it depends on whether one means East exactly or not because the sun does not rise in the exact east (or set in exact west) day in – day out unless you are located at the ‘exact’ equator. But even then, the wobbling of the earth spinning axis causes differences over long periods of time! In any case, beyond latitude 66.5 deg, the issue of sunrise or sunset hardly arises during parts of the year! So, my dear, it is possible for even those who think they ‘know’ – and hence – who load it – onto those ‘square pegs in round holes’ to be absolutely mistaken!
Cheers. Where is our Rwasubutare?
Dr Eng, nice to hear from you.
Hope all is well with you.
YES, our dear RWASUBUTARE has not been on for a while.
I hope and pray that he is well.