Book review: The Narrow Corridor

My last book review was of Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson's 2012 book Why Nations Fail. It's taken me a while (with many interruptions), but I recently finished reading their 2019 book The Narrow Corridor. I described it briefly in that earlier review as a follow-up to Why Nations Fail, but that may be somewhat unfair. The Narrow Corridor takes a slightly different direction, asking the question of how and why human societies have achieved liberty, which Acemoglu and Robinson define by quoting John Locke:

...perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit... without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

In Acemoglu and Robinson's view, societies are able to achieve liberty for their population when they operate within the 'narrow corridor', which is:

Squeezed between the fear and repression wrought by despotic states and the violence and lawlessness that emerge in their absence...

The book rests on several metaphors, of which the narrow corridor is one. Another key metaphor that Acemoglu and Robinson employ dates back to Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan. Hobbes used the metaphor of Leviathan (which comes from the Book of Job in the Bible) to represent a social contract between the people and an absolute sovereign, who would protect the population from lives that would otherwise be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". This was one of the origins of modern social contract theory, which we now use to explain the existence of government more generally, rather than the population's acquiescence to an absolute sovereign per se.

Acemoglu and Robinson adopt the metaphor of Leviathan, but give it even greater nuance. They distinguish between a 'Despotic Leviathan', where the power of the state dominates society, and an 'Absent Leviathan', where the power of society dominates a weak state. In between these two, within the narrow corridor, lies the 'Shackled Leviathan', where the power of the state, and the power of society, are more balanced. It is within the narrow corridor where the greatest liberty for the population is to be found. Later in the book, they introduce a fourth category, the 'Paper Leviathan', where both state power and societal power are weak, leading to a state that is "despotic, repressive, and arbitrary" - the worst characteristics of both the Despotic Leviathan and the Absent Leviathan.

The third metaphor that Acemoglu and Robinson employ is what they term the 'Red Queen Effect', which occurs when society and the state each push the other along, each balancing out the worst tendencies of the other, as the society accelerates along the narrow corridor. I found this metaphor to be somewhat strained and not helpful, but it is sufficiently similar to the 'red queen hypothesis' in evolutionary biology (which I blogged about here). However, later in the book Acemoglu and Robinson talk about Red Queen Effects getting out of control, which I think breaks the metaphor.

Much of the book is given over to numerous examples of states in each category, as well as states moving between categories. This material is heavy on description, with narratives that seem to fit the overall framework well, as you would expect. However, as in their earlier book, I was left with questions of 'how'. How can a society shackle a Despotic Leviathan, or encourage the Absent Leviathan to return, and move itself into the narrow corridor. This is where the book is lightest, and where future work is most desperately needed.

Given the focus of Why Nations Fail on the role of institutions, it was somewhat surprising that institutions did not feature more strongly in this book. However, the biggest lacuna to me was the absence of social capital. Having recently read Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone (which I reviewed here), it is difficult to ignore the key role that social capital must play in ensuring that society and the state are both kept in balance. It is not until nearly the end of the final chapter that Acemoglu and Robinson mention the mobilisation of society and the "ability and willingness of the population to organise and form associations outside the government", which is one expression of social capital. A broader consideration of the role of social capital in the processes that Acemoglu and Robinson discuss would be a welcome addition.

Nevertheless, despite this omission, I was glad to have read the book, especially having just read Why Nations Fail last month. While I feel like we still don't have a fully formed picture here, I think that Acemoglu and Robinson have helped us a little way along our own narrow corridors.