Letos sem že nekajkrat omenil zadnjo knjigo Darona Acemogluja in Jamesa Robinsona ‘Why Nations Fail‘ (2012). Knjiga je čudovita v svojem simplificiranem, vendar plauzibilnem poskusu pojasnjevanja, zakaj so nekatere države uspešne, druge pa ne. Acemoglu in Robinson dinamiko razvoja držav razlagata s političnimi in ekonomskimi institucijami, ki so lahko inkluzivne ali ekstraktivne, spodbujajo ali zavirajo razvoj. V knjigi precejšen del pozornosti namenita do sedaj najbolj uveljavljenim “teorijam razvoja, ki ne delujejo“. Pri tem se osredotočata na teorije, ki kot ključne determinante divergentnega razvoja držav jemljejo geopolitični položaj, kulturne razlike ter ignoranco oziroma neznanje političnih elit. Njuna razlaga divergentne dinamike razvoja predvsem zaradi institucionalnih razlik je izzvala kolega s Columbia University Jeffreya Sachsa, da je v Foreign Affairs napisal, kritično recenzijo knjige.

Polemičen odziv Jeffreya Sachsa je bil pričakovan, saj je eden izmed avtorjev t.i. geopolitične teorije divergentnega razvoja držav. V članku iz leta 1999 Sachs s kolegoma ugotavlja naslednje:

… geography may matter directly for growth, controlling for economic policies and institutions, as well as the effects of geography on policy choices and institutions. We find that location and climate have large effects on income levels and income growth, through their effects on transport costs, disease burdens, and agricultural productivity, among other channels. Furthermore, geography seems to be a factor in the choice of economic policy itself. When we identify geographical regions that are not conducive to modern economic growth, we find that many of these regions have high population density and rapid population increase. This is especially true of populations that are located far from the coast, and thus that face large transport costs for international trade, as well as populations in tropical regions of high disease burden.

Acemoglu in Robinson sta to razlago divergentnega razvoja na podlagi lastnih raziskav zavrnila. Pri tem kot preproste narativne primere navajata denimo enormne razlike v razvoju med mestoma Nogales (eden na ameriški strani, drugi na mehiški strani meje), med Južno in Severno Korejo ali med Zahodno in Vzhodno Nemčijo. V vseh treh primerih si mesta ali države delijo isto geografsko lego, isto klimo, isto kulturo in isti jezik, razlikujejo se le glede institucionalne ureditve.

Sachsova kritika razlage Acemogluja in Robinsona gre v smeri relativiziranja njune preveč “simplistične” razlage razlik v razvoju zaradi predhodnih razlik v institucionalnih sistemih:

The authors’ story is soothing. Western readers will no doubt take comfort in the idea that democracy and prosperity go hand in hand and that authoritarian countries are bound to either democratize or run out of economic steam. Indeed, Acemoglu and Robinson predict that China will go the way of the Soviet Union: exhausting its current economic success before transforming into a politically inclusive state.

This tale sounds good, but it is simplistic. Although domestic politics can encourage or impede economic growth, so can many other factors, such as geopolitics, technological discoveries, and natural resources, to name a few. In their single-minded quest to prove that political institutions are the prime driver or inhibitor of growth, Acemoglu and Robinson systematically ignore these other causes. Their theory mischaracterizes the relationship among politics, technological innovation, and growth. But what is most problematic is that it does not accurately explain why certain countries have experienced growth while others have not and cannot reliably predict which economies will expand and which will stagnate in the future.

Sachs v razlago pripelje nazaj spet geografsko lokacijo in klimatske razmere:

Not only can unfavorable geography cripple states; it can also slow the development and diffusion of technology. Again, however, Acemoglu and Robinson leave this variable out of their equation for economic growth, failing to acknowledge that diffusion requires not only inclusive political institutions but also sufficiently low costs of adopting the new technologies. In places where production is expensive because of an inhospitable climate, unfavorable topography, low population densities, or a lack of proximity to global markets, many technologies from abroad will not arrive quickly through foreign investments or outsourcing. Compare Bolivia and Vietnam in the 1990s, both places I experienced firsthand as an economic adviser. Bolivians enjoyed greater political and civil rights than the Vietnamese did, as measured by Freedom House, yet Bolivia’s economy grew slowly whereas Vietnam’s attracted foreign investment like a magnet. It is easy to see why: Bolivia is a landlocked mountainous country with much of its territory lying higher than 10,000 feet above sea level, whereas Vietnam has a vast coastline with deep-water ports conveniently located near Asia’s booming industrial economies. Vietnam, not Bolivia, was the desirable place to assemble television sets and consumer appliances for Japanese and South Korean companies.

The overarching effect of these analytic shortcomings is that when Acemoglu and Robinson purport to explain why nations fail to grow, they act like doctors trying to confront many different illnesses with only one diagnosis. In any system with many interacting components, whether a sick body or an underperforming economy, failure can arise for any number of reasons. The key to troubleshooting complex systems is to perform what physicians call a “differential diagnosis”: a determination of what has led to the system failure in a particular place and time. Bad governance is indeed devastating, but so, too, are geopolitical threats, adverse geography, debt crises, and cultural barriers. Poverty itself can create self-reinforcing traps by making saving and investment impossible.

Nikakor ne pričakujem, da se ob tej polemični akademski diskusiji postavite na eno ali drugo stran. Pomembno je, da razumemo, od kod prihajajo razlike v razvojni dinamiki med državami. Če bomo to razumeli, bomo razumeli ne samo to, ali bo Kitajski uspelo obdržati dinamiko gospodarskega razvoja in se približati stopnji razvitosti zahodnih držav, pač pa tudi, kaj so glavne ovire v Sloveniji, ki preprečujejo bolj dinamičen razvoj. Gre za ključna razvojna vprašanja. In poslanstvo znanosti je, da na ta vprašanja poskuša najti objektivne odgovore. Do odgovorov pa znanost pride skozi nešteto tovrstnih kritičnih interakcij, skozi katere se v dolgotrajnem in velikokrat precej “glasnem” procesu soočanja argumentov in protiargumentov izbrusi tista prava teorija, ki najbolje pojasnjuje dejanska dogajanja.

Zato predlagam, da si preberete tako knjigo kot tudi blog ‘Why Nations Fail’ ter seveda celoten odziv Jeffreya Sachsa.