The author's key argument is that extractive institutions lead to state failure. Like most theories of state failure, there's some good examples but enough weak or counter examples to discredit it as 'the' answer. At best, I'd argue that extractive institutions are a block to success: countries with them have one fewer barrier to overcome.
I recently researched the thorny issue of what consititutes art, and the leading idea in that field is a cluster theory: a set of ten ideas which commonly associated with things accepted as art. Some objects don't have all ten, but together they provide a powerful guide. My point in mentioning this is that state failure seems to follow the same pattern. Geography (ie Jared Diamond's theory) is a factor in state success and failure. Culture is another factor. Economic system and the nature of institutions (extractive or inclusive) are two more factors. (And there's bound to be a few more).
A state can succeed with only a couple of these. Lacking them all is a sure sign of failure. Having them all likely comes as close to guaranteeing success as possible. But thinking there's some single indicator that determines state failure is a doomed project.
There is a general dislike for monolithic theories in the social sciences and humanities for a reason: they tend to be reductionist, and this theory seems to be no exception.
And in regards to parameters (a "cluster" of factors) that can be indicative of a failed state:
Looking at the submission's chosen title here, I would at least have expected some sort of connection to the actual idea of failed states[1], which are yearly ranked by a combination of multiple influences, where institutional organisation is a factor alongside others.
While I am sure there are a number of reasons that lead to states success or failure, I am not sure we can determine them because we don't have much data. There are about 200 sovereign states so if you should use less than log_2(200) ~ 8 criteria if you want your theory to make sense.
You can try to use history to add some data, but on the other hand, many smallish states will have similar criteria (history, culture, geography,...) so that diminishes you data set.
In addition, while you could try to use this to make predictions, the time scale is so big that I don't think the whole endeavor is very useful.
Hi zipdog, when such an article is published, it should (if you're doing real work/research in this area) be interpreted as X is one of hypothesized significant causes of Y. X is often a new finding, or an old hypothesis with new support, or with new relevance. There's little reason to think the author meant it literally, given the extensive literature (just search any journal) on how and why states fail, and it is both sensible and charitable to assume the authors at The Economist are well-educated and do their background research (:
In fact, you'll find that this is a popular style in economics and business articles.
> I recently researched the thorny issue of what consititutes art, and the leading idea in that field is a cluster theory: a set of ten ideas which commonly associated with things accepted as art.
Fascinating. Can you post some links about this?
It was eye-opening for me to find out about research into multiple kinds of intelligence. I think I'd like to know more about what you found out about art.
I often wonder about these types of theories. They are often hard to prove or disprove. It is fun to try and come up with a theory that is equally as plausible given the information provided.
To your theory on art, could art be defined as anything which a group of people would define as art? Or potentially anything valued by a group seemly without functional value? It seems to be a balance between simplicity and informational content.
Acceptance by the art community is a key factor, possibly the most important. Other factors include artistic intention, aesthetic qualities, and being considered based on what is already considered art.
These hard to prove theories, such as Jared Diamond's and in the reviewed book, exist in large part to counter the highly convincing and data driven eugenic theories. The eugenic and IQ based theories are politically unacceptable. "A Farewell to Alms" and "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" lay out very convincing and heavily researched cases that explain different national economies very well. The explanations are just not PC.
Realistically, art is whatever the art community considers art, either at the time or after the fact. That's why John Cage can be an artist for being quiet whereas I'm just being quiet.
It doesn't necessarily have to exist for its own sake. Plenty of furniture is considered art, and is exhibited by art museums, but that furniture was designed to be used.
If you mean, was _primarily_ designed to be used, then I don't think that is necessarily the case. For example, certain pieces of furniture are sometimes designed by an architect to complement their overall design. Of course, they want the furniture to be used just as they want the building to be used, but for many I think the art comes first.
I recently researched the thorny issue of what consititutes art, and the leading idea in that field is a cluster theory: a set of ten ideas which commonly associated with things accepted as art. Some objects don't have all ten, but together they provide a powerful guide. My point in mentioning this is that state failure seems to follow the same pattern. Geography (ie Jared Diamond's theory) is a factor in state success and failure. Culture is another factor. Economic system and the nature of institutions (extractive or inclusive) are two more factors. (And there's bound to be a few more).
A state can succeed with only a couple of these. Lacking them all is a sure sign of failure. Having them all likely comes as close to guaranteeing success as possible. But thinking there's some single indicator that determines state failure is a doomed project.