They've found some very intriguing comparisons across borders, where the cultures are similar or identical but outcomes are very different. For example they compare North and South Korea, which had identical outcomes until the end of World War II.
They also compare Nogales north and south of the Mexican border, their blithe assumption of cultural similarity there is perhaps exaggerated as that border has existed for ca. 160 years, since the Gadsden Treaty. It is probably well that they concentrate on the North/South Korea comparison where the line dividing them is less than half that old.
In any event, they pin the blame for the development (or lack thereof) in nations upon the institutions those nations adopt. Their model is inclusive vs. extractive institutions and their argument is very pro-capitalism and pro-rule of law, these being characteristics of inclusive institutions.
----- 0 -----
I believe another cross-border comparison Acemoglu and Robinson might have made is between Chile and Argentina; countries of similar culture with different institutions and as a result substantially different outcomes. Their institutional divergence dates back to 1973 when Gen. Pinochet put Chile on a market-based economy thanks to some young economists who trained with Milton Friedman at U. of Chicago.
Of course it is seriously incorrect politically to approve of anything done by Gen. Pinochet. Oddly, we don't take quite the same view of the less-than-democratic Syngman Rhee and Park Chung-hee who seem to have done the same economic favors for South Korea that Pinochet did for Chile. Why do you suppose that is the case?
