Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 583

A Nobel Prize for work on why nations succeed and fail

The 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics has been awarded to three US-based economists who examined the advantages of democracy and the rule of law, and why they are strong in some countries and not others.

Daron Acemoglu is a Turkish-American economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Simon Johnson is a British economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and James Robinson is a British-American economist at the University of Chicago.

The citation awards the prize “for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity”, making it an award for research into politics and sociology as much as economics.

At a time when democracy appears to be losing support, the Nobel committee has rewarded work that demonstrates that, on average, democratic countries governed by the rule of law have wealthier citizens.

The committee says the richest 20% of the world’s countries are now around 30 times richer than the poorest 20%. Moreover, the income gap is persistent; although the poorest countries have become richer, they are not catching up with the most prosperous.

Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson have connected this difference to differences in institutions, and they find this derives from differences in the behaviour of European colonisers in different parts of the world centuries ago.

The denser the indigenous population, the greater the resistance that could be expected and the fewer European settlers moved there. On the other hand, the large indigenous population – once defeated – offered lucrative opportunities for cheap labour.

This meant the institutions focused on benefiting a small elite at the expense of the wider population. There were no elections and limited political rights.

In the places that were more sparsely populated and offered less resistance, more colonisers settled and established inclusive institutions that incentivised hard work and led to demands for political rights.

The committee says, paradoxically, this means the parts of the colonised world that were the most prosperous around 500 years ago are now relatively poor. Prosperity was greater in Mexico under the Aztecs than it was at the same time in the part of North America that is now called Canada and the United States.

More so than in previous years, this year’s winners have written for the public as well as the profession. Acemoglu and Robinson are probably best known for their 2013 best-seller Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty.(It has pictures and no equations.)

Last year Acemoglu and Johnson published Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity.

In May this year Acemoglu wrote about artificial intelligence, putting forward the controversial position that its effects on productivity would be “nontrivial but modest”, which is another way of saying “tiny”. Its effect on wellbeing might be even smaller and it was unlikely to reduce inequality.

This year’s award makes the cohort of Nobel winners a little less US-dominated.

Although all three are currently working at American universities, Acemoglu is from Turkey and the others are British. There is even an Australian link. Robinson taught economics at The University of Melbourne between 1992 and 1995.

Winning the prize is life-changing for more reasons than the 11 million Swedish kroner (about $A 1.5 million) the winners share. As Nobel winners, they will have a higher profile. Their opinions will be accorded more respect by most but not all.

Sixteen former winners recently issued a widely reported statement saying they were “deeply concerned about the risks of a second Trump administration for the US economy”. Rather than address their arguments, the Trump campaign called them “worthless out-of-touch Nobel prize winners”.

The new winners might get the same treatment. Johnson has critiqued Trump’s proposal to raise tariffs. Acemoglu has called Trump “a threat to democracy”.The Conversation

 

John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

  •   23 October 2024
  •      
  •   

RELATED ARTICLES

Australia is lucky the British were the first 'intruders'

Gross National Happiness?

The prospects for investors in India

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

The retirement scorecard: how many of these questions can you answer?

From the maths of retirement, estimating spending and picking the right asset allocation to survive a poor decade, here are the questions every retiree – current or future – should be able to answer for themselves.

Testamentary trusts: Treasury has picked the wrong reading

A decades-old estate planning tool has survived one tax crackdown only to be caught by another. The surprise isn't who the reform is targeting, but who could end up paying the price for drafting choices made years ago.

How the typical Australian Family could save $844,350 in taxes

The value of a testamentary trust is not determined by wealth alone. Depending on circumstances, it can reduce the tax burden on inherited income, create efficiencies and help build intergenerational wealth.

The housing slide could become a crash

House prices are sliding across Australia, yet the most dangerous ingredient for a housing crash is still missing. If job losses surge amid growing economic risks, today's correction could become a historic property downturn.

Will investors be better or worse off under new housing tax changes?

Housing tax reforms have sparked warnings of market turmoil and promises of greater fairness. But after modelling nearly two decades of property data, the results suggest winners and losers may not be who many investors expect.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Division 296: the initial moves to make before the windows close

What if the best superannuation strategy isn't about earning more, but acting before your options disappear? Several overlooked planning windows are narrowing, with consequences that can last for decades.

Planning

Avoid unnecessary CGT with this estate planning clause

A simple estate plan can create a ticking time bomb. One overlooked clause can pit spouses against children, delay inheritances, and potentially leave a family facing an unexpected tax bill worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Exchange traded products

The hidden trade-off in fixed income ETFs

Some investment trade-offs are immediately visible. Others are embedded in the way a portfolio is constructed. Understanding the difference may explain why similar-looking investments can produce surprisingly different results.

Retirement

The mortgage free retirement is fading

What happens when a generation reaches retirement carrying obligations previous generations largely avoided? New research suggests we may need to rethink both how much we need in retirement and what life could look like.

Retirement

The key question to inspire a confident and purposeful retirement

Most people spend decades planning for retirement. Far fewer plan for what happens when they get there. The difference may explain why so many find the transition harder and less fulfilling than expected, despite careful preparation.

Latest from Morningstar

Making the case for a 'good enough' portfolio

Some investors spend years chasing the perfect strategy. Others choose a path that’s simply good enough and move on. Which approach is more likely to deliver both better outcomes and a happier financial life over the long run?

Investment strategies

Is the US market as expensive as CAPE says?

Many investing ideas survive for decades. But that does not make them right. A famous valuation measure implies that US shares are dangerously expensive, but the evidence may point to a very different conclusion.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.