Article Summary and Analysis In What Makes Countries Rich or Poor? Jared Diamond discusses the factors that have led some countries to be wealthy while others remain poor. He states that life is better in the U.S. compared to Mexico because average income and life expectancy are higher, corruption and crimes are lower, roads and health care are better, and elections are more democratic. In the article, Diamond cites Why Nations Fail by Daron Avcemoglu and James Robinson to illustrate the variation been affluent and deprived nations worldwide.1 The author of the article points out that Norway (the world's richest country) is 496 times more prosperous compared to Burundi (the most impoverished nation worldwide).2 Diamond examines the conditions and factors that make countries richer or poorer.3 In his review of Why Nations Fail, Diamond points out those prosperous nations have many things in common. In particular, he asserts that such countries have good economic and political institutions that form a stable government (in contrast to countries with deep tribal divisions like Papua New Guinea), are the primary common variation between wealthy states. According to Diamond, these institutions allow for a well-regulated and centralized government. Further, Diamond states that other scholars like Acemoglu and Robinson support the idea that good institutions safeguard individuals' livelihoods and rights and disallow insecurity and corruption. Diamond asserts that when a government creates a conducive environment for business and creates many opportunities for people to invest their earnings profitably, it encourages individuals to work hard. However, lack of such openings or confiscating their profits or earning discourages investors. Diamond examines the factors that make a country poor and points out some reasons for economic variations in specific states. He asserts that Europeans should be criticized for introducing corrupt "extractive" economic institutions, such as confiscation of produce and forced labor, something that drains labor and wealth from the natives. In the article, Diamond points out that "the curse of natural resources" credits the lack of economic success for a lot of nations that are rich with raw materials to the capacity of a degenerate frontrunner to misuse regular assets instead of using them to improve the wellbeing of the citizens. He asserts that the inherent dependence of specific natural resources (like oil and diamonds) appears to advance awful organizations, for example, common wars, debasement, lack of education, and inflation. Analysis I agree with the author of the article that there is a relationship between civil wars and natural resources. Oil and diamonds are linked to blood conflict because accessible resource wealth encourages rebels to accumulate private gain and provides rebel leaders with sufficient funding opportunities to organize armed conflict, therefore increasing the risk of civil war. 1 2
Jared, Diamond. "What Makes Countries Reach or Poor?." (The New York Review Books, 2012), 8. Ibid. 2
2 However, many nations with similar resources and significant levels of resource wealth have experienced different outcomes due to good institutions, accountable leadership, and less corruption. For example, where oil abundance and dependence have not created political instability in Canada and Norway, oil-rich states such as Nigeria and Sudan have experienced the oil curse, violent events, and civil conflict. It is evident that country-specific factors, namely state capacity and domestic institutions play an essential to induce civil war. Although institutional performance is significantly connected to civil war, natural resources do not often decay local institutions and weaken state capacity as seen in Norway and Canada. Discussion question What is the role of democratic institutions in the natural resource-linked conflict?
3 Bibliography Diamond, Jared. "What Makes Countries Reach or Poor?." The New York Review Books, 2012, pp. 1-12.