Setting the scene - refuting alternative theories
The authors were aware of the numerous theories on why some nations prospered while the others failed. To capture the audience, they actively raised those theories and suggested why they were 'wrong'Geography - this usually postulates that the climatics (temperate vs tropical etc) or geographical provisions of species available for domestication (e.g. Africa had few species for domestication) would determine whether nations could triumph. Colder regions (W Europe, North America) are usually more successful than hotter regions (Africa, S America). Well, Middle East was more prosperous than Europe in the Middle Ages, while New Mexico and Mexico have different fates despite being quite similar in climate.
Availability of species for domestication. S America had few species available, and so they could not become prosperous. However, when the Spanish arrived and introduced the species, they did not become more prosperous. Conversely, wild wheat was available from Middle East through to Middle Asia, but their prosperity differed
Culture - Western (Judaeo-Christian) cultures are better than other cultures in creating prosperity, while the more liberal Protestant culture is better than the more conservative Catholic culture. However, Chinese culture created a more prosperous China and Japan before the rise of Europe after Middle Ages. Likewise, Catholic France is more prosperous than a lot other Protestant countries. Not a good way to apportion prosperity.
Ignorance - the rulers and elites for the struggling countries are ignorant and do not know the best policies for their countries. Give them knowledge and guidance, and they will be back on the right track.
A classic example raised was Ghana after independence - they had the best economists as advisors, but the government ended up suppressing the rural areas and building supply chains that are far apart. The policies look a mess for the country, but makes a lot of sense for the elites in terms of profiteering and politically in terms of pleasing the key stakeholders
The geography and culture arguments imply the fixation of prosperity - not thing could be done about geography and culture is very hard to shift. The flaws are quite obvious - at different junctures throughout history, various geographic zones and cultures rose and fell. The ignorance argument neglects the fact that the rulers were not mal-informed but instead were making conscious decisions after gathering all facts, theories and options
This is why the authors then proceeded to raising their theory - the interaction between political and economic instituions
