Article Summary and Analysis

In What Makes Countries Rich or Poor? Jared Diamond discusses the factors that have
led some countries to be wealthy while others remain poor. He states that life is better in the U.S.
compared to Mexico because average income and life expectancy are higher, corruption and
crimes are lower, roads and health care are better, and elections are more democratic. In the
article, Diamond cites Why Nations Fail by Daron Avcemoglu and James Robinson to illustrate
the variation been affluent and deprived nations worldwide.1 The author of the article points out
that Norway (the world's richest country) is 496 times more prosperous compared to Burundi
(the most impoverished nation worldwide).2
Diamond examines the conditions and factors that make countries richer or poorer.3 In his
review of Why Nations Fail, Diamond points out those prosperous nations have many things in
common. In particular, he asserts that such countries have good economic and political
institutions that form a stable government (in contrast to countries with deep tribal divisions like
Papua New Guinea), are the primary common variation between wealthy states. According to
Diamond, these institutions allow for a well-regulated and centralized government. Further,
Diamond states that other scholars like Acemoglu and Robinson support the idea that good
institutions safeguard individuals' livelihoods and rights and disallow insecurity and corruption.
Diamond asserts that when a government creates a conducive environment for business and
creates many opportunities for people to invest their earnings profitably, it encourages
individuals to work hard. However, lack of such openings or confiscating their profits or earning
discourages investors.
Diamond examines the factors that make a country poor and points out some reasons for
economic variations in specific states. He asserts that Europeans should be criticized for
introducing corrupt "extractive" economic institutions, such as confiscation of produce and
forced labor, something that drains labor and wealth from the natives. In the article, Diamond
points out that "the curse of natural resources" credits the lack of economic success for a lot of
nations that are rich with raw materials to the capacity of a degenerate frontrunner to misuse
regular assets instead of using them to improve the wellbeing of the citizens. He asserts that the
inherent dependence of specific natural resources (like oil and diamonds) appears to advance
awful organizations, for example, common wars, debasement, lack of education, and inflation.
Analysis
I agree with the author of the article that there is a relationship between civil wars and
natural resources. Oil and diamonds are linked to blood conflict because accessible resource
wealth encourages rebels to accumulate private gain and provides rebel leaders with sufficient
funding opportunities to organize armed conflict, therefore increasing the risk of civil war.

1
Jared, Diamond. "What Makes Countries Reach or Poor?." (The New York Review Books, 2012), 8.
2
Ibid. 2
 2

However, many nations with similar resources and significant levels of resource wealth have
experienced different outcomes due to good institutions, accountable leadership, and less
corruption. For example, where oil abundance and dependence have not created political
instability in Canada and Norway, oil-rich states such as Nigeria and Sudan have experienced the
oil curse, violent events, and civil conflict. It is evident that country-specific factors, namely state
capacity and domestic institutions play an essential to induce civil war. Although institutional
performance is significantly connected to civil war, natural resources do not often decay local
institutions and weaken state capacity as seen in Norway and Canada.
Discussion question
What is the role of democratic institutions in the natural resource-linked conflict?
 3

Bibliography
Diamond, Jared. "What Makes Countries Reach or Poor?." The New York Review Books, 2012,
pp. 1-12.