Noble and Confused

Trio of professors win Nobel economics prize for work on post-colonial wealth | Nobel economics prize | The Guardian

I don't know how to unpack this, because the literature and the ideas around why some 'Nations' are prosperous and others poor seems too complex even for one erudite book (as cited in the link above, Why Nations Fail, Anderson and Acemoğlu).

Suffice to say that Capitalism has been the single most important development in human history since the end of the Medieval era, and that, contrary to what Marx predicted, it has yet to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, to be replaced by a furious phase of class struggle under Socialism, until everyone is liberated from Government and the State and Monetized relations to be absolutely free (the material version of Hegel's Absolutism, possibly Nirvana if you are a Buddhist, or Utopia for everyone else).

This critical review of Why Nations Fail is useful, but so too is the review of Martin Walzer's compelling book The Paradox of Liberation.

The one thing, and it is wicked thought out of all this, that troubles me is the possibility that the economies of 'Nations' that embrace Religious Nationalism might be successful, even as in social terms they are condemned to violence and/or discrimination against those who do not belong. The term State suggests something secular, pluralist that everyone can commit to, whereas the Nation begs the question -how is Nationality defined -by Race, as in the Third Reich? By Religion, as in Israel or India?

This means that with Religious Nationalism you have what Anderson and Acemoğlu would have to concede are exclusionary institutions presiding over prosperous economies.

That said, while Israel has emerged in the last 25 years as one of the most successful economies in the world, the Religious Nationalism of its Govt is currently in the process of destroying it twice over -a) because the wars against freedom it is engaged in vs Palestinians and Arabs and Iran is financially unsustainable over time, and we expect these wars to continue for several years from now; and b) because the men and women who made Israel a success are more secular than nationalist and are in the process of exiting Israel and taking their capital and expertise with them, in which case Religious Nationalism may have a more corrosive impact on Israel, ie impoverishing it from within, than Israel's hostile neighbours.

It is hard to know if Modi's Hindu Nationalism is making India more prosperous than it was, using whatever metrics there are -but as pointed out in the Walzer review, a lot of India's problems do not lie so much with the distinctions between Hindus and non-Hindus, but land ownership and how the political institutions of India have failed to 'secularize' the economy -as happened in China under Mao- suggesting that over time Modi's revolution is not going to make India as prosperous as it could be. I just can't work that one out.

So much to consider, so many complex issues.

Useful critiquea here-
Book Review: Why Nations Fail | Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (lse.ac.uk)

Books for self-isolation: Revisiting Why Nations Fail | Lowy Institute

Walzer review here-

Michael Walzer The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions (uel.ac.uk)

That's a strange argument. The major historical fact is that scientific and economic development took off only after societies moved away from religious domination. It's not a coincidence that living standards were stagnant from the end of the Roman empire to the Industrial revolution, which was also period in which most societies were dominated by religion.

Here's a list of the top countries by GDP per capita.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita
Which of these are 'religious nationalist'? Apart from a few Islamic countries that have lots of oil, all the top ones seem to be fairly secular. The fastest growing economies in recent decades have been in East Asia, which is hardly a region dominated by religious nationalism.

I focused on Religious Nationalism rather than go into all of the other possible examples that relate to the arguments proposed by the winners of the Nobel Prize, if that is not clear that is my fault. It might be the case that Religious Nationalism as we know it today was not a component of the industrial revolution in the UK, but religion at the time was not challenged in the way it has been since. To mount a serious critique would require many more inches than even I can produce, and I think you will be relieved to hear that.