Bruce Bueno de Mesquita

I have not read a book like this before. The author argues that three treaties signed in the 12th century between the catholic church and the kings of England, France and Germany (the "holy Roman empire") were so groundbreaking that their consequences are still evident today. The modern (more or less north-northwestern) European countries that correspond to regions covered by these treaties have seen more economic success than the (more or less southern) countries that were not covered by the treaties. The author surmises that the structure of the treaties explains this fact. The treaty institutionalized a power/wealth tradeoff between the church and the monarchies which incentivized monarchs to foster economic activity and loosened the retarding grip of the catholic church.

This is a reasonably interesting thesis insofar as it challenges Max Weber's view of protestant religion as the cause of the economic revolution in the 18th and 18th centuries. The author points out that the reformation and the rise of capitalism were in fact both consequences of these 12th century treaties. However, the author argument draws very strong conclusions from information which could indicate mere correlation without causation. Granted that some European countries have had more success in the realm of economic growth and parliamentary governance than others - a hundred other factors (in addition to the treaty of Worms) might also have influenced this outcome.

I could not really make sense of how the balanced bargaining between a monarch and the church worked. The author explains on several occasions that the king had the right to reject a new bishop proposed by the catholic church to fill a vacancy at a diocese in the king's realm, but "as long as no nominee was consecrated, the regalia remained in the possession of the crown". Which seems to have resulted in an economic advantage to the monarchy. But unless I missed something (which I don't think I did), the author never explains the other side of the bargain. How was did this increase in wealth on the side of the monarchy result in a comparable increase in power on the side of the church? I found it difficult to identify any benefits for the church in this treaty - the author repeatedly states that they existed, but I don't think he explains what they were. At least not sufficiently clearly for me (the brief note on page 73 is the only explanation I could find, but I do not understand it).

I also think the final chapter, where the author tries to draw direct parallels from the treaty of Worms to the present day, is silly and stupid. It is about as far as you can get from an academic argument without deliberate parody. My guess is that the editor made the author include this chapter to boost sales.

In any event, this book is a nice and quick read if you like to spend a few hours learning more about a treaty between European kings and the catholic church in the 12th century. If you're about to write a book on the "rise of the West", this might also give you some useful food for thought. I would not bother with this book otherwise - historians tend to write better history books than non-historians.… (meer)

When I glanced the title, my first thought was that it is another concoction of superficial factoids drawn from a few banal cases. It was anything but. Continuing the line of an honest and impartial researcher, much in the vein of Ecologic by David Clegg and Origin of Wealth by Eric Beinhocker, the authors allow you to see a number of significant events from an unexpectedly curious, yet still very convincing point of view. They don’t hide their democratic leanings, but these aspirations and ideals don’t hinder their ability to find flaws with the democracies and give apt autocrats their due, like in case of Lenin. What they after is efficiency. In the case of this book efficiency means obtaining and staying in power and responding to various political threats (and natural disasters) successfully. That means if a leader succeeds in this, her (I think the authors had a field day reducing ad absurdum recent fad of installing pronoun SHE as a main protagonist instead of more traditional HE. In the context of this book this trick never failed to extract an extra smile from me) legacy is worth studying and at times admiring. However they don’t condone autocracy. They practically (some may say cynically) demonstrate that keeping power is politician’s main task. Benefits to populace such as humane and kind government are mostly a byproduct in democracy or a grudging concession in tyranny. Insightful revelations include answers to many other burning issues including the constant failure of foreign aid to Third World countries. Authors’ conclusions are based on an impressive array of examples, mostly from the XX and XXI centuries (as recent as 2011). Equipped with this tome you’ll be able to run any nation in the world, or rather stay in power once you grabbed it.… (meer)

You know how at your most cynical moments, you sometimes think any political decision is ultimately just about maintaining power anyway possible?

You're right.

Bueno de Mesquita and Smith tell you basically what no one who truly believes in any political process (authoritarian or democrat) can tolerate:

1. political goal number 1 is to stay power
2. staying in power is about keeping your coalition of powerful support as small as possible
3. broadening your coalition and other such reforms really don't make a lot of sense if you want to stay in power.

It's harsh but the book is written so well and engagingly that you forget you're taking in a work of hardcore political science. Copious research and case studies went into making what could have been an extremely wonky read feel indeed like a handbook. The chapter's presaging authoritarian tactics with a democratic framework (i.e. ratfucking) are especially chilling and prescient given that they were written well before the rise of the alt-right and global populist/fascist movements.… (meer)

They apply their framework describing selectors, influencers and selectors to politics and organizational behavior in several contexts: modern corporations, democracies, autocracies and historical empires. It explains why former colonies like Nigeria after their independence fail to improve economic prospects for their citizens despite aid from wealthy nations, why democracies tend to improve things for citizens and autocracies don't, why debt forgiveness counter-intuitively harms the people it says it's trying to help.… (meer)