Thank you all so much for your support! Today, I spoke to a colleague who also wrote a critique of AJR. He said, "Honestly, I felt alone." He's not alone. We may be a tiny minority, but I believe it is a growing tiny minority. This is not the 1990s, the world is changing. Mine is not a critique of AJR personally, whom I think are accomplished, prolific, and super smart in their methodology and storytelling. But I hope to raise awareness about the climate that uncritically celebrates their claims, and the ideology and double standards implicit in a profession that claims objectivity.
It's persuasive and exposes the biased Western scholarship and unacademic assumption towards Non-European countries political, economic and social institutions. Nothing novel about the Nobel Prize
When one of the two larges countries in the world is an "outlier", your paper is crap. Isaac Samuel's article on substack also explains all the many things they got wrong about African countries.
Well written and interesting post!!! Your right about them being wrong about China and the USA but, respectfully, your (understandably as its history has been long buried and redacted) wrong in some important ways about the 19th century American Old Republic, in fact, the USA's Old Republic and post Deng China actually have so much in common that post Deng China in *some* key ways more closely resembles 19th century America than 2024 America does!
There widespread belief about the USA's Gilded Age as an era dominated by elites, but this misses the very important ways in which the governance and economic systems of the United States during that time were fundamentally very different from the elite driven, centralized system we see today. Yes, the Gilded Age did have lost of corruption (but far less than today, today we have a far deeper and worse forms of structural corruption, which 19th century America actually warned us about and provided us tools to deal with should we choose) but the mechanisms of power were not any where near as consolidated or elite controlled as they are now. Unlike today’s highly centralized systems, where a small, interconnected network of political, financial, and corporate elites exerts immense influence, the Gilded Age operated within a much more fragmented and decentralized framework. Power was distributed across state and local governments, and the federal government’s role in the economy was limited, giving rise to a system that, while imperfect, was still accessible to ordinary people in ways that contemporary governance is not.
Importantly, the two mass member political parties of the era, while flawed and full of contradictions, were far more genuinely democratic and republican in their functions than their modern counterparts. The Democratic Party was actually (at least in essence) a small "d" democratic party, advocating for popular governance, regional autonomy, and economic opportunities for the common man. While the Republican Party was actually a small "r" republican party, emphasizing the rule of law, civic virtue, and the importance of protecting individual liberties and private enterprise. Both parties were relatively decentralized, with significant grassroots involvement and public accessibility, allowing ordinary citizens to influence policy and participate meaningfully in political life. This system, though far from perfect, facilitated a degree of democratic responsiveness and local autonomy that has since been eroded by centralization and elite capture.
The semi-political, semi-economic, semi-cultural, and semi-scientific decentralization of that era bears striking similarities to the system established in China following Deng Xiaoping’s reforms. China’s decentralized model, with local governments deeply involved in economic policy, regional trade protections, and fragmented capital markets, more closely resembles the United States’ Old Republic than the contemporary U.S. does. Deng’s reforms created a dynamic system where local governments could experiment with policies tailored to their unique conditions, generating economic growth and innovation while maintaining a balance of power between central and regional authorities. Whereas the USA's contemporary system has moved toward extreme centralization, stifling local variation and concentrating power in the hands of a few national and global elites.
The Gilded Age was not a perfect system, nor was it immune to the influence of powerful interests. But it was not dominated by elites in the way modern systems are. It existed within a decentralized framework that allowed for genuine democratic and republican governance, which enabled more widespread participation and opportunity than our contemporary centralized system. Understanding this difference shows profound changes that have occurred over time, and lets us know about the potential benefits of decentralization and the dangers of elite domination in any form.
Thanks for the good writing! I hope your having a nice weekend. --Mike
Thank you all so much for your support! Today, I spoke to a colleague who also wrote a critique of AJR. He said, "Honestly, I felt alone." He's not alone. We may be a tiny minority, but I believe it is a growing tiny minority. This is not the 1990s, the world is changing. Mine is not a critique of AJR personally, whom I think are accomplished, prolific, and super smart in their methodology and storytelling. But I hope to raise awareness about the climate that uncritically celebrates their claims, and the ideology and double standards implicit in a profession that claims objectivity.
A fantastic explanation and great insights.
Hugely insightful! And a handy companion piece to the author's very insightful commentary on Twitter on these issues.
It's persuasive and exposes the biased Western scholarship and unacademic assumption towards Non-European countries political, economic and social institutions. Nothing novel about the Nobel Prize
Great insights
An excellent piece!
When one of the two larges countries in the world is an "outlier", your paper is crap. Isaac Samuel's article on substack also explains all the many things they got wrong about African countries.
Well written and interesting post!!! Your right about them being wrong about China and the USA but, respectfully, your (understandably as its history has been long buried and redacted) wrong in some important ways about the 19th century American Old Republic, in fact, the USA's Old Republic and post Deng China actually have so much in common that post Deng China in *some* key ways more closely resembles 19th century America than 2024 America does!
There widespread belief about the USA's Gilded Age as an era dominated by elites, but this misses the very important ways in which the governance and economic systems of the United States during that time were fundamentally very different from the elite driven, centralized system we see today. Yes, the Gilded Age did have lost of corruption (but far less than today, today we have a far deeper and worse forms of structural corruption, which 19th century America actually warned us about and provided us tools to deal with should we choose) but the mechanisms of power were not any where near as consolidated or elite controlled as they are now. Unlike today’s highly centralized systems, where a small, interconnected network of political, financial, and corporate elites exerts immense influence, the Gilded Age operated within a much more fragmented and decentralized framework. Power was distributed across state and local governments, and the federal government’s role in the economy was limited, giving rise to a system that, while imperfect, was still accessible to ordinary people in ways that contemporary governance is not.
Importantly, the two mass member political parties of the era, while flawed and full of contradictions, were far more genuinely democratic and republican in their functions than their modern counterparts. The Democratic Party was actually (at least in essence) a small "d" democratic party, advocating for popular governance, regional autonomy, and economic opportunities for the common man. While the Republican Party was actually a small "r" republican party, emphasizing the rule of law, civic virtue, and the importance of protecting individual liberties and private enterprise. Both parties were relatively decentralized, with significant grassroots involvement and public accessibility, allowing ordinary citizens to influence policy and participate meaningfully in political life. This system, though far from perfect, facilitated a degree of democratic responsiveness and local autonomy that has since been eroded by centralization and elite capture.
The semi-political, semi-economic, semi-cultural, and semi-scientific decentralization of that era bears striking similarities to the system established in China following Deng Xiaoping’s reforms. China’s decentralized model, with local governments deeply involved in economic policy, regional trade protections, and fragmented capital markets, more closely resembles the United States’ Old Republic than the contemporary U.S. does. Deng’s reforms created a dynamic system where local governments could experiment with policies tailored to their unique conditions, generating economic growth and innovation while maintaining a balance of power between central and regional authorities. Whereas the USA's contemporary system has moved toward extreme centralization, stifling local variation and concentrating power in the hands of a few national and global elites.
The Gilded Age was not a perfect system, nor was it immune to the influence of powerful interests. But it was not dominated by elites in the way modern systems are. It existed within a decentralized framework that allowed for genuine democratic and republican governance, which enabled more widespread participation and opportunity than our contemporary centralized system. Understanding this difference shows profound changes that have occurred over time, and lets us know about the potential benefits of decentralization and the dangers of elite domination in any form.
Thanks for the good writing! I hope your having a nice weekend. --Mike