Two well-known economists - Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson - co-authored a book titled "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty." Daron Acemoglu is an American economist of Turkish origin, he is the “Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics at the Department of Economics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology”. He graduated with a BA in economics from the University of York in 1989, an MSc in mathematical economics and econometrics from the London School of Economics in 1990, and finally a PhD in economics from the same institution in 1992. He is affiliated with various institutes and associations, as well as research centers such as the Center of Economic Policy Research, the European Economic Association, the Institute of Labor Economics and the National Bureau Economic Research, etc... As for the second author - James Robinson - It is an “eminent British political scientist and economist and director of the Pearson Institute for the Study and Resolution of Global Conflict.” James Robinson earned a Bachelor of Science from the London School of Economics and Political Science, a Masters from the University of Warwick and finally received his PhD from Yale University. Robinson has held multiple occupations: from 2009 to 2011 he was a board member of the Global Development Network, he was also the Wilbur A. Cowett Professor of Government at Harvard University and an associate professor at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science and Harvard's Institute for Quantitative Social Science and the Weather Center for International Affairs”. I believe that both Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson are notable, eminent, and exceptional economists, which certainly makes them qualified to write such a book. Both of them have rich educational backgrounds, wonderful career experiences, numerous awards and scholarships and have written pioneering and innovative articles and journal articles on diverse economics topics which have made them eligible to address all the important points of their book and their definitely have the skills to analyze and examine political changes and their relationship with political systems and institutions as well as economic growth in various countries. This book was published in 2012 and is a first edition, meaning it is not outdated and can be used to evaluate and interpret current issues in today's international system. There is a second edition of the book that was published in 2013 and, apart from the cover, everything remained the same (the chapters and the content in general). We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty" is an insightful and edifying book that explains and answers one of the major questions that is why some nations achieve prosperity while others remain stuck in poverty?. The two authors have demonstrated throughout the book, using historical examples and their deep and rich experience and expertise in political history and economics, that the answer to this question is primarily “man-made political and economic institutions.” By this I mean that geography and culture are not the good answer to the previous question as many believe, but rather developments in institutions that have a close and close connection to both the successes and collapses of different nations and societies. The authors began with an introduction in which they clarified the impact that elite governance has on the advancement and progress of numerous societies, and the example they gave – namely Egypt – definitively clarified thisstatement because “Egypt was governed by a small elite who organized society for their own benefit to the detriment of the vast mass of people”. This specific example was countered by the toppling of elites from positions of power that led to prosperity, diverse political rights, and economic opportunities that helped countries like the United States or Great Britain become great powers today. After reading the book, I see that it can be divided into four main parts: the first part is mainly about the main examples, the second part can be called “the refutation of hypotheses”, the third part will focus on the role of institutions and the difference between two main scenarios. For the first part of the book, it can be said that the authors have provided two main examples so that the reader can understand their main argument and what they are trying to prove throughout the book. The first example concerns two different stories of the same city called “Nogales”. As for the second example, it is the well-known "North Korea versus South Korea". Both scenarios show that there are two sides of the same coin: the first is prosperous, wealthy and has a booming economy as well as good education and infrastructure (this is the case of Nogales, Arizona and South Korea). On the other hand, people are stuck in poverty, lack development and good living standards, and suffer from economic stagnation (this is the case in Nogales, Sonora, and North Korea). In the second part, the authors tried to explain these differences by suggesting three main hypotheses or dominant theories whose inefficiency they then realized. The first is the “geographical hypothesis” which claims that “the great gap between rich and poor countries is created by geographical differences” and blames adverse climate and tropical disasters. The second is the “culture hypothesis” and states that there is a strong link between prosperity and culture and this can be defined by the productivity of the population based on its religious, normative and ethical characteristics. As for the third and final one, it is the "ignorance hypothesis" according to which "inequality in the world exists because we or our rulers do not know how to enrich poor countries", and for this reason the majority of scholars or economists who support this hypothesis they argue that if countries had a better economic strategy or device, they would certainly be able to emerge and get out of poverty. Each of these theories and claims were later discovered by the two authors to be incorrect and lacking. The authors suggested that these differences between North and South Korea and the two different parts of Nogales as well as other parts of the world cannot be analyzed and explained using geography, culture and ignorance. However, they assumed that “institutional differences played a fundamental role in explaining economic growth over centuries.” By this they mean that the differences between nations and countries in the world are due to different political alignments and political institutions that create a kind of different economic institutions that are “critical for determining whether a country is poor or prosperous and which economic institutions a the country has." This last topic will lead us to the third part which will focus on the role of institutions and the two different scenarios presented by the authors. Acemoglu and Robinson began their argument by presenting a series of historical events and examples and their critical junctures that have helped “shape the path of economic and political institutions and allow us to have a more complete theory of the origins of differences in poverty and prosperity” . The question we should ask ourselves now is the following:What are the different political and economic institutions that create these differences in the international system? To answer this question, the authors argued that there is a symbiotic relationship between political and economic institutions. In addition to that, they suggested two main scenarios – types of institutions – that help the reader understand what led to divergent development paths of nations. The first scenario is the "virtuous circle of prosperity" which includes "inclusive" political and economic institutions - we can cite the United States and the United Kingdom as an example -. This virtuous circle is based on important mechanisms. The first concerns pluralistic political institutions that make it difficult for a major figure to usurp power and this means that the spread of democracies and the reduction of dictatorships will be encouraged. The second concerns inclusive political institutions that encourage the spread of inclusive economic institutions that “enforce property rights, create a level playing field, and encourage investment in new technologies and skills that are more conducive to economic growth.” The second scenario is the “vicious circle” that includes “extractive” political and economic institutions: this scenario can explain the first two examples North Korea and Nogales, Sonora. This vicious circle is based on main characteristics. On the one hand, we have extractive political institutions “that concentrate power in the hands of a few, who will then be incentivized to maintain and develop extractive economic institutions for their own benefit and to use the resources obtained to consolidate their hold on political power”. On the other hand, these “extractive” institutions create unlimited power and enormous income inequality that directly increases the potential stakes of the political game. To summarize this analysis of vicious and virtuous cycles, it can be said that whenever we have inclusive institutions, a positive feedback loop will be created that will help these institutions become more persistent. However, when we have extractive institutions, a negative feedback loop will always block and prevent progress. Another important point that needs to be discussed and which occupies four main chapters of the book – chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 – is the industrial revolution and its impact on economic growth. The English Revolution or what can be called the Industrial Revolution of the English economy played an important role in the birth of creative destruction that encouraged trade as well as economic openness and success that led to prosperity. This industrialization has reached different parts of the world such as the United States and Australia, which are considered major powers today. In contrast, the authors mention the opposition of the Ottoman Empire and other absolutist regimes to this industrialization, which explains the literacy, lack of development and economic stagnation that these regimes suffered at the time due to their opposition . I believe that this book is a first-rate book and will definitely serve as an appropriate and useful material for the study of international relations theories since all the issues mentioned in it are still and will always remain part of our international system. I assume that the authors have done a great job of answering the question around which the book is developed and have cohesively analyzed and clarified their argument making it easy to follow and understand. However, I believe the book also has limitations. I think the biggest flaw of the book is that the authors did not provide enough explanations on how to prevent the emergence of institutions that.