Nobel Economist discusses the role of political institutions, global dynamics and his upcoming works - James A. Robinson in an exclusive interview

Congratulations to you and your colleagues on winning the Nobel Prize in Economics. Did you expect this possibility? And why do you think your research, published 12 years ago as a joint effort, has received recognition now?

Well, I thought it was possible, but I wasn’t really thinking about it, to be honest. Thinking about things like that can make you miserable. I think it’s very nice, but there are many distinguished scholars in economics who could have received the Nobel Prize. Obviously, I’m delighted, but I wasn’t really focused on it, although I knew it was possible.

We’ve been doing a lot of research since the book came out. If you asked me to talk about the world and the distribution of prosperity, I would basically explain it the same way we did in the book. So, in that sense, I still think it's a useful framework for understanding the world. But there are still many things to understand, like what is really going on in China. That’s an obvious example. But if you asked me about China, I would still say the same thing.

You worked closely with two other scholars, Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, throughout much of your career. How did you divide the work between you? Was it a natural process, or did you consciously decide who would handle certain aspects of the research?

I think that when you've been working with people for so long and know them so well on a personal level, it becomes extremely easy to divide tasks and handle different aspects of the work. We're all probably good at different things, but when we meet to discuss ideas or a research project, it’s very easy to say, "Okay, you take this," or "Why don't you look at that?" It just happens in a very natural way. We don’t take notes or count who did what. It’s just very much a joint effort.

And were there areas where you disagreed or had to challenge each other's thinking?

Yeah, I mean, I think, we don't actually disagree that much. If we do, we debate, and almost always converge on a common interpretation of what's happening. We've been discussing certain topics for years, like how to incorporate certain aspects into the analysis—like ideas, for example. The role of ideas is crucial when discussing events like the French Revolution or, closer to home in Kazakhstan, the Bolshevik Revolution. It’d be hard to talk about such revolutions without mentioning ideas, right?

But it’s very difficult to develop a social science framework for thinking about how ideas are generated and their impact, or the role of culture. I’ve worked a lot in sub-Saharan Africa, and I'm very interested in African culture and history. So, how do you bring culture into this framework? I wouldn't say we disagree, but there are definitely things we don’t quite know how to study yet.

Your research contrasts two types of institutions—political and economic. Why did this particular topic interest you?

Well, I think the big topic is inequality in the world and the differences—why are there such huge differences between poor and rich countries? There are many different factors you could look at, but one obvious one is economic. So, it’s natural to study economic institutions, as they structure the economy and influence economic incentives. Economists were already thinking about this when we started, but for us, it wasn’t enough to just talk about economic institutions.

For example, if I tell you that hyperinflation in Argentina is happening because the government is printing a lot of money, that’s fine. There’s a theory of hyperinflation, and the solution is to stop printing money. Most economists might be satisfied with that answer, but for me, that’s not enough. It doesn’t explain why the government is engaging in this self-defeating, inefficient policy. That’s where politics comes in.

As a student, I could never understand why economists were happy to stop at what I found to be a superficial level. Behind these economic issues is obviously politics, and political institutions structure politics. So, for us, thinking about the political side was the next obvious step to take.

What is your opinion on the role of big businessmen, like Elon Musk, in supporting political candidates in the U.S. elections? Do their actions—such as financial support or promoting values like freedom of speech and the right to bear arms—significantly impact the democratic process? What role do economic elites play in shaping political realities?

Well, I think this is an issue we've written about—the corrosive effect of economic inequality on politics. The enormous increase in economic inequality over the last 40 years is feeding back into politics now. Elon Musk, for example, is engaging in what in Latin America might be called "turnout buying," essentially using his immense wealth to push one presidential candidate. That’s unusual in the U.S., where wealthy people with political preferences have traditionally donated in a more covert, anonymous way. But that's not Musk’s style, he's interested in being in the spotlight and being important.

He can't run for president himself, since he was born in South Africa, and you have to be born a U.S. citizen to be president. Otherwise, I'm sure he'd be running. I think this situation is a disaster, honestly. He’s a citizen, and he has the right to his opinion and to voice it, but I don't believe democracy can withstand this enormous influx of money, especially in a context where institutions are under threat. If President Trump comes back to power, institutions will be seriously endangered. Trump doesn’t care about institutions at all, and the combination of weakened institutions and this influx of money could be disastrous for democracy in this country.

Do you consider Central Asia, including Kazakhstan, as a potential focus of your research in the future?

Yeah, well, it would be fascinating. I visited Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan last year to launch the translations of my book, and I have a good friend who's an economist from Uzbekistan. So, yes, I certainly consider it. However, my research is very much driven by the questions I pursue, and those questions could take me anywhere in the world. I’ve worked a lot in Latin America and Africa, and right now I’m actually in the middle of writing a book about Africa. So, I would consider researching Central Asia, but it really depends on finding the right questions to explore, that's how I approach my work.

In your work, you also focused on Afghanistan, where, at the time, there was no centralized power and the country's economic development depended on the balance of power between competing clans. Can we say that with the Taliban coming to power, centralization of power has been achieved? And what might change now in terms of Afghanistan's economic development?

Well, I think it's fascinating because, in some sense, the Taliban has much more control over the country than any previous U.S.-sponsored government did. My impression is that previous Afghan presidents didn’t really rule the country—they had very little control. The Taliban, on the other hand, has much deeper mechanisms and social connections to assert control.

It’s a complicated question, though, as to whether the Taliban is seen as a legitimate state by many Afghans. From a Western point of view, it may seem completely illegitimate, but my reading, even if somewhat superficial, suggests that’s not entirely true. The Taliban primarily represents the Pashtun people, but Afghanistan is a multicultural country—there are Uzbeks in the north and many other groups—so there's a question of whether the Taliban is truly a government for all Afghans or just part of the population. However, the emphasis on Islam and the Islamic foundations of the state does resonate with many in Afghanistan.

I think, the U.S. failed to build an effective or legitimate state in Afghanistan, and that wasn’t helping people, so somehow you have to start again. I think what you have to do now is that you have to engage with the Taliban, work on the issues that matter, and avoid turning them into an international pariah, because that's the government now. I don't see why the government in China should be considered any more legitimate than the one in Afghanistan. It's just that the United States was humiliated in Afghanistan. So, it's sort of difficult to engage with them, I think, for that reason. But I don't see the point in vilifying them. There are certainly things we disagree with, like how they treat women, and many aspects are inconsistent with Western values.

Can we still say that China's economic growth rate is higher than in developed countries? If so, how do you explain this?

Well, I think China's growth rate is bound to slow down. You can't carry on at 10% a year forever. Economic growth processes naturally slow over time—you start with easier tasks, but as you progress, it gets harder and requires more innovation, which leads to slower growth. So, I think it’s natural and expected that China’s growth will slow down. That said, China is still incredibly dynamic economically, probably more so than any other developing country. China’s influence is spreading in all sorts of ways.

I read an interesting story in the New York Times about Chinese people buying coffee shops in Italy, with Chinese baristas running them— so there's a sort of very interesting phenomenon of the spread of China in many ways.

However, as we argued in Why Nations Fail, I don’t think that growth can continue. There’s no historical precedent for having a modern, inclusive, and innovative economy under a totalitarian political system. Ultimately, the Communist Party is focused on staying in power and controlling people, and at some point, that will likely become incompatible with sustained economic growth. That’s still my prediction about China.

What global economic processes taking place now have interested you as a scientist? What are you working on now? What can we expect next?

Well, I’m working on different things. As I mentioned earlier, I’m finishing a book on Africa, though I’m not sure how generally interesting that will be. I also have many smaller research projects in Africa and Latin America, focusing on specific questions.

Professor Asamoah and I are very interested in the role of ideas. If you look at world history, we often talk about how humans create different societies, and how collectively societies shape the institutions and rules they live under. But we also believe that ideas play a crucial role in that process. Broadly speaking, culture, especially religious ideas historically, has been significant in bringing communities together. That’s something we’re thinking a lot about right now.

What has been a major influence on your thinking as you’ve progressed through your career?

Well, I think there have been different influences, and I’ve been very lucky that many people have helped and pushed me. At a conference in Chicago on Monday, I mentioned that my thesis advisor when I was a PhD student at Yale was very important in shaping the way I think about the world. One person I didn’t mention there, but who was also crucial, is Kenneth Sokoloff. He was an economic historian at UCLA, he’s passed away now.

My first job in the U.S. was in Los Angeles, teaching at the University of Southern California, and I became very good friends with Ken. And he did some fundamental research on the comparative economic development of the Americas, in particular why North America diverged from Latin America.

That work was extremely important for us. In some sense, he was more of an economic historian—he didn’t test hypotheses or run regressions—but his work was very important in providing a framework that helped guide our early work, which eventually led to the Nobel Prize. So, I think Ken's work, along with that of his co-author Stanley Engerman—both of whom were very good friends of mine—was highly influential.

There are many people who kind of inspired me. One of the last people I would mention is the great historian of Africa, Jan Vansina, who has also passed away. His work was extremely impactful for me—he laid out an agenda for thinking about the deep history of Africa, which I found amazing. It was mind-blowing when I started reading his books, and I had the chance to get to know him a little before he passed. He was an amazing inspiring scholar.

I know it’s been less than a month, but I’d like to ask—how has winning the Nobel Prize impacted your daily life or approach to work? Have there been any unexpected changes or new opportunities since the announcement?

Yeah, I haven’t had any time to work since the announcement. I’ve just been doing hundreds of things like this—talking to people, doing interviews, and answering emails. I think I got 5,000 emails last week. So honestly, I don’t know the answer yet. It’s too early to tell. I’m still in this kind of chaos, so you’d have to ask me again in a few months.

What do you see as your next big challenge or life goal?

One of the things I’ve been focusing on over the last few years is teaching in Africa and collaborating with young African scholars, as well as Western scholars, to improve the quality of social science education there. While there are initiatives, I feel they aren’t intellectually ambitious enough.

What I’d love to see is more African scholars and intellectuals participating in discussions about the continent. Too often, you go to a conference about Africa, and it’s mostly a group of white people. We need more Africans, more African scholars. That’s something I’ve been investing a lot of time and effort into, and I really hope to make progress on that front.

What books have been most influential in shaping your thinking? Are there any recent works—whether academic or non-academic—that you would recommend to readers for a better understanding of global dynamics?

We could talk about many books. I think one of the books that was very important for me when I was a student was a book by Robert Bates called “Markets and States in Tropical Africa”, which was a sort of political explanation for economic decline in post-colonial Africa. I think that was very influential. It's not how I think about it now at all, but it was very influential in bringing together economics and politics, which was really exciting for me.

I think, Jared Diamond's book “Guns, Germs and Steel” is very inspiring in how it tackles big questions about comparative development throughout history. Ian Morris's “Why the West Rules - for Now”. It is about the relationship between China and the West. While I don’t agree with his thesis, it's still a very fascinating and accessible book.

There's a beautiful book by two archaeologists, Joyce Marcus and Kent Flannery, called “The Creation of Inequality”, which looks at the origins of inequality in human society and when inequality emerged, going back 10,000 years. I tend to like these very historical works.

I don’t know how accessible these books are for others, but “Guns, Germs, and Steel” is certainly very accessible and exciting. Again, I completely disagree with the thesis. I don't think the fate of human society is determined by geography. I believe it's really determined by how humans themselves build their society. I don't think success or failure is driven by the factors Diamond focuses on. But it's just a brilliantly written book, and it really makes you think.

What about outside of economics and politics? Do you have any favorite novels you'd like to recommend?

I think novels are very powerful. While I tend to be obsessed with social science, novels offer a powerful way of thinking about society. Sometimes I even tell my students of class on Africa that if you want to understand African society, novels depict it better than academic books. For example, “Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe is an amazing book about pre-colonial society in Eastern Nigeria—it’s a beautiful book.

Similarly, if you want to learn about Colombia, you should probably start with “100 Years of Solitude” by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. I enjoy literature, but particularly literature that delves into politics and society. I recently read Vargas Llosa’s “Harsh Times”, which is about the 1954 coup in Guatemala, largely driven by the United Fruit Company against a government pushing for land reform.

So, I read a lot of novels about Africa and Latin America and other parts of the world, but I tend to like novels that are about society, social problems and history.