Introduction
Why do some countries thrive in abundance while others languish in poverty? Traditional answers point to climate, culture, or the mistakes of rulers. However, analysis by the Good State Foundation proves that the key lies in institutions. This article explains how the rules of the political and economic game determine the fate of nations. You will learn why inclusivity is the foundation of growth and why systems based on exploitation always hit a glass ceiling. It is a journey from historical Venice to the challenges of the era of artificial intelligence.
Geography, Culture, and the Division of Power
Geographic, cultural, and elite ignorance hypotheses are insufficient because they do not explain the drastic differences between regions with the same climate (such as the two Koreas). A culture of trust is a result, not a cause, of an effective state, and the elites of poor countries rarely act out of ignorance—their decisions are politically rational for maintaining power. The key difference lies in the distinction between inclusive and extractive institutions.
Inclusive political institutions are based on pluralism and the limitation of power, which enables the emergence of private property and equal opportunity. Conversely, extractive institutions concentrate power in the hands of a few to seize the wealth of the many. The foundation of sustainable development is creative destruction—Schumpeter’s process in which innovation displaces old structures. In extractive systems, elites block progress, fearing a loss of control, which ensures that their growth (as seen in the USSR) is destined to run dry due to a lack of innovation.
Vicious Cycles and Critical Junctures
Extractive systems create a vicious cycle: elites use the state to enrich themselves, providing them with the resources for further oppression. Even revolutions often fall into the trap of the iron law of oligarchy, where new rulers simply take over old mechanisms of exploitation. An example of a reversal in development is Venice, which declined when elites blocked competition (the Serrata) to protect their own monopolies.
Breaking these patterns is possible at critical junctures—moments of crisis (like the Black Death) or new trade opportunities. If even a seed of pluralism exists at such a moment, a broad coalition can emerge to force change. Today, these differences are visible in regional paradigms: the US fights for pluralism against corporate power, the EU relies on a dense network of legal norms, and the Arab world struggles with resource rents and clientelism.
Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Freedom
A modern challenge is artificial intelligence, which could become a tool for new data extraction and control. Global capital increasingly chooses the rule of law, treating inclusive institutions as both a magnet for investment and an insurance policy. Although the institutional paradigm is sometimes criticized for overlooking technocratic successes (China) or environmental costs, its core remains intact.
To prevent the dominance of digital oligarchies, it is necessary to democratize technology and build transnational regulations. Institutional theory is, in essence, a theory of freedom: it proves that without pluralism, there is no lasting prosperity. Only systems open to innovation and protecting the individual from arbitrary dominance are able to survive in the long term.
Summary
Freedom is not given once and for all; it is constantly threatened by the temptation of power and monopoly. The real challenge is not only creating inclusive institutions but also constantly questioning their own assumptions to prevent them from calcifying into new forms of oppression. Lasting growth requires pluralism, where elites are unable to monopolize the future. Can we build a world where creative destruction leads not to inequality, but to universal prosperity?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF