It is about the Book "The Narrow Corridor - States, Societies and the Fate of Liberty" by Robinson and Acemoglu. I will show the main argument of them both and the three versions of Leviathans they describe. At the end there is an attempt to compare their understanding of liberty with that of Buchanan.
Drawing inspiration from John Locke's definition of Liberty, the paper explores the link to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and the three versions presented by Acemoglu and Robinson. Highlighting the fragility of Liberty, the paper emphasizes the challenge of reaching and maintaining the narrow corridor where Liberty flourishes.
An additional chapter focuses on James Buchanan's perspective on freedom, derived from his book "The Limits of Liberty – between anarchy and Leviathan" (1975). The primary goal is to establish connections between Acemoglu and Robinson's arguments and Buchanan's views on Liberty, exploring both similarities and differences. The concluding chapter summarizes the main arguments, emphasizing the shared goal and significant similarities between Acemoglu and Robinson's concept of Liberty and Buchanan's perspective. The paper concludes by addressing potential differences in the distribution of roles between the state and society in both approaches. Despite potential variances, both perspectives share common goals and essential similarities.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The main argument
3. The three versions of the Leviathan
3.1 Absent Leviathan
3.2 Despotic Leviathan
3.3 Shackled Leviathan
4. Acemoglu and Robinson vs. Buchanan
4.1 Buchanan’s version of liberty
4.2 Relation to Acemoglu and Robinson’s concept of liberty
5. Conclusion
Objectives & Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to examine the concept of "Liberty" as defined by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, and to compare their theoretical framework with the perspectives offered by James Buchanan in his work "The Limits of Liberty." The paper explores how the interaction between state institutions and societal mobilization determines the survival of liberty and whether societies fall into states of despotism or anarchy.
- The concept of the "Narrow Corridor" and the Red Queen Effect.
- Taxonomy of Leviathans: Absent, Despotic, and Shackled.
- The role of predatory elites in institutional collapse.
- Comparative analysis of social contract theories (Buchanan vs. Rawls/Hobbes).
- The necessity of a balanced power dynamic between state and society.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2 Despotic Leviathan
In the Despotic Leviathan there is dominance of the state against the rest. The public services that the state deems appropriate are provided but still the economic growth is non-sustained. If the state is too strong relative to society, society gives up its attempts to control it. The state may prevent “Warre” in such a Hobbesian state, but it threatens its citizens while society has no bargaining power to defend its liberty. Consequently, the state is less efficient and loses capacities, because society is unwilling to cooperate with the authority. This distrust often leads to a massive loss of credibility of the state and corruption. On the one hand, the despotic leaders are able to create better economic opportunities and incentives than the cage of norms. As we will see, these states can be even organized and structured to get a high level of capacities that concludes economic growth – “despotic growth”. This shows the Janus face of the despotic Leviathan. Economic growth is possible and often, at least in the short term, achieved but it is not sustainable as society will not foster the state in the long term. Let us catch up the example of Muhammad, who did break down the cage of norms in Mecca and Medina. Why did they fail to shackle the Leviathan and ended up in the despotic growth? “In the face of the will to power, there is nowhere else for society to go but toward the Despotic Leviathan”, as the authors put it. The Islam gave Muhammad the advantage of getting society to submit to that “will to power”. But in fact, this brought another, religious cage of norms. Despotic leaders like Saddam Hussein or the Saudi family need and use this religious cage of norms to maintain and strengthen their power. They relied on the cooperation of the society to a certain degree. Another long-range example is China, historically the most significant Despotic Leviathan. China used two approaches. Legalism on the one hand, which imposes oppression on the people, and Confucianism on the other hand, which emphasizes the obligations of the rulers towards the governed. But the Chinese state can never guarantee protection against its own changing moods. The economic success was inevitably limited. China has huge capacities, but the government depends in cooperation with society to keep and strengthen their power. The authors made out big question marks on the future of states like China. They are convinced that China will mercilessly lose the race for the top of the world economy.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the core theoretical focus of the paper, introducing the work of Acemoglu, Robinson, and Buchanan, and setting the goal of reconciling their views on liberty.
2. The main argument: This section defines liberty as a product of the balance of power between state and society, referencing Hobbes and Pettit to explain the risks of dominance.
3. The three versions of the Leviathan: An analysis of three types of state organization—Absent, Despotic, and Shackled—illustrating how power dynamics shape political and social outcomes.
3.1 Absent Leviathan: Discusses societies where state institutions are weak or non-existent, leading to a "cage of norms" and distrust, exemplified by the Tiv people.
3.2 Despotic Leviathan: Examines states with high, albeit oppressive, capacity, where the government dominates society, leading to unsustainable growth and corruption.
3.3 Shackled Leviathan: Describes the ideal condition where the state is powerful enough to provide services but constrained by an active, mobilized society.
4. Acemoglu and Robinson vs. Buchanan: Compares the historical/institutional approach of Acemoglu and Robinson with the contractarian, unanimity-based view of James Buchanan.
4.1 Buchanan’s version of liberty: Details Buchanan's reliance on collective choice and the unanimity principle as a solution to market failure and state overreach.
4.2 Relation to Acemoglu and Robinson’s concept of liberty: Synthesizes the differences between Buchanan's anti-government-mindset and the institutional requirements emphasized by Acemoglu and Robinson.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, reinforcing that liberty is fragile and dependent on the continuous struggle between state capacity and societal checks.
Keywords
Liberty, Narrow Corridor, Leviathan, State Capacity, Social Contract, James Buchanan, Acemoglu, Robinson, Despotism, Anarchy, Power Balance, Institutional Theory, Red Queen Effect, Cage of Norms, Non-dominance
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores the conditions required for liberty to flourish in a society, specifically analyzing the interplay between state authority and societal pressure.
What are the central themes discussed?
The central themes include the "Narrow Corridor" to liberty, the different forms of the Leviathan state, the balance of power, and how institutions manage political and economic life.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to relate Acemoglu and Robinson's argument about the fragility of liberty to James Buchanan’s contractarian theories, highlighting both their similarities and differences.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The paper employs a comparative literature review and theoretical analysis, synthesizing arguments from political economy and political philosophy.
What does the main body address?
The main body breaks down the taxonomy of state power (Absent, Despotic, Shackled) and provides a comparative analysis of the institutional views of the authors versus the constitutional views of Buchanan.
Which terms best characterize this work?
Terms like "Shackled Leviathan," "Narrow Corridor," "Collective Choice," "Red Queen Effect," and "Institutional Balance" are central to the work.
How do the authors define the "Red Queen Effect" in this context?
It refers to the necessity for both state and society to constantly exert effort and improve to maintain their relative positions, keeping the society within the "narrow corridor" where liberty exists.
Why does Buchanan criticize Rawls' "maximum principle"?
Buchanan views it as irrational because it forces contractual partners to orient themselves only toward the "worst-off" possible outcome, rather than considering the expected average or individual freedom.
What is the fundamental difference between the authors and Buchanan regarding the state?
While Buchanan leans toward an anti-government stance favoring strict contractual limitations, Acemoglu and Robinson view a powerful state as an essential, albeit risky, prerequisite for protecting citizens from violence.
What is the "Paper Leviathan" and why is it dangerous?
It describes a state that is oppressive yet ineffective, common in many developing countries; it lacks the actual capacity to protect its citizens while acting with the power of a despot.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Asim Mahmud (Autor:in), 2019, Liberty in "The Narrow Corridor" compared to Liberty by Buchanan, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1004256
