Survey of Economic Development

Discussion 3.1

How robust is the 'extractive versus inclusive institutions' theory at explaining why certain nations succeed and why others fail? Or do you find the distinction simplistic? [Note that this is based on Acemoglu and Robinson's quite lengthy book. You are not responsible for reading the entire book during this Week. Many reviews have been written about it, which you can consult in order to get the main ideas. My lecture notes will also cover the essential points. I do recommend that you read Chs. 3, 8, and 13 of their book. For this Discussion Post, focus on the reasoning behind the institutional characterization and the quality of the evidence offered by the authors, their proponents, and their critics.]

Post your thoughts on the Discussion Board.

Post at least two follow-up postings of other students' Discussions.

Consult the grading rubric for posting on the Discussion Board. You can view the grading rubric by clicking the upper right "three dots" button - "show rubric".

Econ 661 Discussion Posts Criteria Original Posting Ratings 3 pts Excellent Same as Good, except the ideas and insights are of high quality in that they are critical, incorporate concepts from the readings, and synthesize the ideas into a coherent whole. They are also supported with examples, or references/cita tions. 2 pts Good Demonstrates thorough familiarity with the reading(s), and interprets the content or objective accurately. Posts a discussion that addresses all aspects of the task. Ideas and insights are interesting, but tangential or not fully developed. 1 pts Acceptable Demonstrates some familiarity with the reading(s), but does not have fully accurate information about the content or objective. Posts a discussion with superficial thought and preparation; does not address all aspects of the task. 0 pts Unacceptable Posts no discussion Follow- Up Postings 3 pts Excellent Demonstrates analysis of others' posts; extends meaningful discussion by building on previous posts. Asks questions or shows examples to extend the discussion further than the initial question. (Half credit given if only 1 follow- on posting is made) 2 pts Good Elaborates on an existing posting with further comment or observation. Asks thoughtful questions to further the discussion. (Half credit given if only 1 follow-on posting is made) 1 pts Acceptable Posts shallow contribution to discussion (e.g., agrees or disagrees): does not enrich discussion. (Half credit given if only 1 follow-on posting is made) 0 pts Unacceptable Posts no comments on other people's discussions