In The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies and the Fate of Liberty, authors Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson explore a critical question in political science literature: why do certain societies achieve liberty while others descend into authoritarianism or chaos? Their response centers on an ostensibly simple foundation. In 15 chapters, the authors explain how and why societies attained or failed to gain liberty, examining diverse cases including Chinese dynasties, Indian caste systems, Latin American republics, and European trajectories – remarkably Italian medieval communes and city-states that exemplify early experiments in stable governance. They believe that the Shackled Leviathan represents the pinnacle of liberty, and that long-term liberty necessitates a constant struggle between the state and society. They labeled this as the Red Queen effect, in which each entity must constantly enhance its might to keep pace with the other.

The first three chapters establish the book’s conceptual framework for understanding human liberty focusing on state-society relations. A theoretically innovative tripartite classification has been introduced which includes Absent Leviathans, Despotic Leviathans, and Shackled Leviathans. Absent Leviathans embody stateless societies, exemplified by pre-colonial Congo. Despotic Leviathans illustrate authoritarian regimes, from Nazi Germany to contemporary China. Shackled Leviathans explain democracies that balance state power with citizen oversight. This typology moves beyond simplistic democracy–autocracy binaries, illuminating how both insufficient and excessive state authority threaten liberty.

The central argument of the book developed from Chapters 4 through 6 states that sustainable economic development demands a delicate equilibrium between state capacity and societal strength. The authors contrasted the stateless societies like the Tiv and Tonga with despotic regimes ranging from Islamic caliphates to modern Georgia. They argue that through the Red Queen Effect of perpetual state-society competition, lasting prosperity can be achieved by creating a narrow corridor. The subsequent chapters apply this framework globally, examining Chinese and Indian development (Chapters 7–8), European and American trajectories including Italian city-states (Chapters 9–10), Latin American Paper Leviathans (Chapter 11), Middle Eastern authoritarianism (Chapter 12), democratic failures in Weimar Germany and Chile (Chapter 13), and pathways into and within the corridor (Chapters 14–15).

I find the Paper Leviathan notion presented in Chapter 11 particularly interesting, since it succinctly captures Latin American republics that exhibit the formal characteristics of modern governance while fundamentally lacking both capability and accountability. This approach elucidates the persistence of apparently paradoxical combination throughout postcolonial regions. This combination includes elections devoid of democracy, constitutions without rule of law, bureaucracies absent of meritocracy. The analysis illustrates how the elite’s fear of public mobilization deliberately sustains state fragility, making dysfunction a defining feature rather than an exception. The Colombian Road, unbuilt for a century, and Argentina’s “patients of the state,” who suffer interminably due to arbitrary bureaucrats, vividly illustrate how bureaucratic inefficacy serves elite interests. The concept of the Cage of Norms also offers insight by challenging romanticized views of stateless nations, demonstrating how traditional social structures can restrict individual freedom as much as totalitarian governments. The examination of India’s caste structure in this context offers a nuanced view of political growth based on normative frameworks.

However, these theoretical advancements are not devoid of analytical flaws. The authors’ deterministic tendencies provide significant issues with the Slippery Slope from limited authority to authoritarianism discussed in Chapter 3. If this evolution is nearly inevitable, as demonstrated by the cases of Muhammad, Shaka, and Shevardnadze, then the fundamental justification for achieving Shackled Leviathans becomes intrinsically contradictory. The paradigm clarifies failure more effectively than success, raising questions about its ability to offer meaningful guidance beyond mere retrospective rationalization.

Also, the Red Queen image, while motivating, simplifies complicated political processes. The idea comes from evolutionary biology and says that constant competition creates balance. However, political growth does not usually follow such rigid patterns. The model says that freedom requires constant monitoring, which seems both unrealistic and idealistic. The United States’ story of success includes a lot of contradictions, such as slavery and constitutional rights, inadequate welfare programs and an unrestricted security apparatus, and racial oppression in Ferguson while the country is supposed to be a constitutional democracy. These examples show that the Shackled Leviathan is more of an idealized idea than a real-life model, rarely seen in the people who are supposed to be its examples.

The book’s regional generalizations frequently failed upon empirical scrutiny. While the Paper Leviathan adeptly clarifies the dysfunctions of Argentina and Colombia, does it adequately encapsulate the unique trajectories of Chile, Uruguay, or Costa Rica? The authors acknowledge diversity but fail to appropriately analyze it, creating an analytical framework that effectively confirms cases yet struggles with counterexamples. The examination of East Asian development – particularly the extraordinary advancement of South Korea, Singapore, and China under authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes – seems to be superficial, merely comparing to “despotic growth” without sufficiently addressing how these cases challenge the central thesis that only constrained Leviathans enable sustained prosperity.

Similarly, the examination of Saudi Arabia in Chapter 12 extrapolates one extreme scenario to the entire Middle East, downplaying critical differences among Gulf monarchies, secular autocracies like pre-revolution Egypt, and countries with more vibrant civil societies like as Tunisia or Lebanon. Not all Latin American countries uniformly adhere to the Paper Leviathan model; likewise, not all Middle Eastern governments replicate Saudi monarchy. The framework’s explanatory power diminishes when confronted with regional diversity.

The book’s encyclopedic scope, while demonstrating impressive erudition, ultimately becomes overwhelming. Readers encounter the Tiv of Nigeria, Italian communes, Zapotec civilization, Hawaiian chiefs, the Song dynasty, Swedish corporatism, Weimar Germany, and dozens more cases across 15 densely packed chapters. This abundance creates analytical confusion – are these examples illustrating general principles or special cases requiring additional variables? The constant geographic and temporal shifts leave readers struggling to synthesize lessons, suggesting the authors have tried to explain too much within a single framework. The historical detail, though rich, often obscures rather than clarifies the theoretical argument.

Moreover, the concept of the “narrow corridor” itself strains credibility. If achieving the precise balance between state and society is so difficult that only a handful of countries have managed it – and even these imperfectly – the framework verges on unfalsifiable. When does difficult become impossible? The authors want to claim their model is both rigorous (explaining why most countries fail) and optimistic (showing success is possible), but these commitments create tension. The corridor appears so narrow that successfully navigating it resembles a fairy tale more than replicable political development.

Overall, The Narrow Corridor will prove most valuable for scholars seeking provocative theoretical frameworks and students exploring comparative political development. The Paper Leviathan and Cage of Norms concepts alone justify engagement with the text, offering analytical tools applicable beyond the book’s immediate cases. However, readers seeking actionable guidance for contemporary democratization or clear empirical tests of the book’s claims may find themselves disappointed. The work reads more as an ambitious interpretive essay on political history than a rigorous social science study, raising profound questions about liberty’s prerequisites while leaving many unanswered. Ultimately, the book’s greatest contribution may be demonstrating how difficult achieving and maintaining the narrow corridor truly is.