Why Nations FailThe extraordinary book Why Nations Fail, written by Doran Acemoglu and James Robinson, provides an in-depth look at the theories revolving throughout the past centuries on how to ensure the success of nations and why these theories fail. These theories, namely the geographical hypothesis, the cultural hypothesis and the ignorance hypothesis, are theories devoid of any relativity to the economic institutions of a nation. The authors, through an in-depth analysis of inclusive and extractive institutions, were able to show how other theories have failed while their theory has succeeded. The geographical, cultural, and ignorance hypotheses are all hypotheses that have been disproven in this book, as in many cases in history, and therefore should be abandoned. Nations around the world must adhere to the theory of economic development discussed in Acemoglu and Robinson's book, and instill it in their societies to have a successful nation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The authors say there are three widely accepted theories that explain why nations fail. However, each of these theories fails to focus on what the problem really is. The first example of this can be seen in the geographical hypothesis. According to Acemoglu and Robinson, “the geographical hypothesis holds that the large gap between rich and poor countries is created by geographical differences” (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). However, at this point the reader already knows that this theory is wrong since the authors opened the book with an example to counter this theory. In the book's introduction, the reader is described the circumstances on both the U.S. side of the city of Nogales and the Mexican side of the city of Nogales. The Arizona (United States) side of the wall has a high level of quality of life with low crime rates, high average income, majority of society with at least high school diplomas, high life expectancy, as well as the help they receive from the government such as medical insurance and benefits for the elderly. On the other side of the wall lies Nogales, however, still within the borders of Mexico. Although the authors claim that this part of Mexico is an affluent region, their average income is still a third of that of their neighbors on the other side of the wall. Furthermore, unlike their neighbors, they risk theft and crime in their homes and businesses every day, their life expectancy is low, and education is not emphasized. Medical and seniority benefits are nonexistent. On top of all this, citizens sometimes have to worry about electricity and water source, something that all Americans take for granted. Therefore, Acemoglu and Robinson's initial example goes on to demonstrate how geographic location has absolutely nothing to do with the success or failure of an economy. In addition to this geographic factor, the geographic hypothesis also makes a nation's climate an element in why that nation succeeds or fails. The climate hypothesis states that tropical and warmer climate nations have a lower quality of life than nations with four seasons. This, apparently, is due to the heat and humidity leading to laziness and ultimately unproductivity. However, those who advanced the geographical hypothesis completely excluded the trade factor. Trade is what makes the global economy happen in the first place. The reason why places like Australia and Qatar, which have warm climates, are thriving is because they are in the businessinternational. Trade allows nations to produce whatever they specialize in and export it, while importing what they need. By trading, everyone involved is usually better off, that is, if they trade what they specialize in. So the climatic hypothesis within the geographical hypothesis has no basis or evidence to support it. The second theory, which is the cultural hypothesis, is based on the information of the German sociologist Max Weber and states that "the Protestant Reformation and the Protestant ethic stimulated by it played an important key role in facilitating the rise of modern society industrial in Western Europe. The cultural hypothesis is no longer based exclusively on religion, but also emphasizes other types of beliefs, values ​​and ethics” (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). What sociologist Weber meant here is that industrial society has been successful largely due to the existence of Protestant believers over those of the Catholic faith, which essentially translates into Weber's assertion that some nations are more successful than others due to their unique cultural characteristics However, any citizen of the United States cannot agree with this. The United States, a thriving nation with one of the highest GDP per capita, is a nation mixed with so many different cultures and nationalities. The success of the United States, however, is not due to the fact that it has so many different cultures, just as Somalia's poverty is not due only to the fact that it is Somali. In contrast, the United States is succeeding because it has so many inclusive institutions within its nations that take into account people and businesses who make easy money. They succeed because their government is not depriving their people of the right to trade and free markets. Ultimately, there is no cultural contribution to why the United States is succeeding. Furthermore, most countries, with the exception of those that are communist or subject to extremist Islamic law, still have a mix of cultures within their country. Every culture has blended more than ever. Thanks to improved technology and transportation, people can travel more around the world and choose where they want to live, which ultimately leads to the mixing of cultures. The fallacy in the cultural assumption can also be seen in North Korea and South Korea. Although the two nations are now separate, they once were not and thus the cultural background between the two countries is virtually the same. The fact that the cultures are almost the same does not prevent North Korea from being one of the poorest countries, while South Korea raises the bar by placing itself on the higher end of the spectrum of high-income nations. The difference in the standard of living between these two nations is that in North Korea the government is in the hands of the leader, the richest are put first instead of having equality for all and, above all, there are no inclusive economic institutions to assist the people in their daily lives and in their economic well-being. Instead, North Korea is made up of extractive institutions that prevent any creative destruction and/or technological improvement. Last, but not least, is the ignorance hypothesis. The ignorance hypothesis states that “global inequality exists because we or our rulers do not know how to enrich poor countries” (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). This theory continues to represent the idea that poor countries actually have good leaders who want to make improvements in the country, but don't know how to do it. This is by far the theory without any supporting evidence. At least, in the context of cultural or geographical hypotheses, someone who supports it could provide some examples in which the.