Lyft Industrial Deals Beauty STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon MozartintheJungle MozartintheJungle MozartintheJungle  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Tailgating PSFF17_gno

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-10 of 15 reviews(Verified Purchases). See all 35 reviews
on March 14, 2015
The idea is very good. But the book could be better documented.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 21, 2014
important read for today's world
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 6, 2006
Fukuyama outlines how the "intermediate social organizations" of society, under the Protestant ethic, permitted the development of modern capitalist structures; whereas in low-trust societies (where you cannot depend on the corresponding person to trust you, or you to trust him), only family oriented businesses could grow, and inevitably collapsed after the second or third generation. He links the development of these intermediate organizations--guilds, PTAs, unions, volunteer activities--to the social fabric that engendered trust. He comments that a country can "spend" this hard-to-develop social capital and eventually become a rigid, non-trusting, and economically backward state. Furthermore, Fukuyama points out that the United States probably is doing just that, in nearly all intermediate social organizations, which are now surrounded by litigious critics--the educational system, Boy Scouts, union-management conflicts, the Catholic Church (which has never trusted its parishioners to have other than the standard orthodoxy, and now has suffered enormous scandal), and so forth. The lack of trust in our country is seen as pointing to our economic future, whether for good or bad.

Fukuyama is a genuinely interesting and informative writer. In his sense of fairness, he also points to examples where trust is generated, and cites them as necessary for a country to make both social and economic progress. I really enjoyed the multiple perspectives that the author brings to his task of explaining how some countries are prosperous, and some are not. He is truly an innovative thinker.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 18, 2014
Good book. Recommend to those who are interested in development and economic policy.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 8, 2015
Important work!
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 19, 2016
Excellent. Rare insights. Fukuyama is a genius.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 29, 2014
This guy is brilliant. I don't agree with everything in his books and articles but he definitely makes me think. Excellent book!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 31, 2015
A very good book.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 20, 2013
I heard about this book at a seminar and the presenter had recommended that we should read it, I have started to but is not complete as yet.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 12, 2012
This book has 31 chapters over 362 pages of prose. That works out to about 11.7 pages, and so each chapter is very bite sized. The notes to the book are 57 pages long and are arranged by page and the bibliography is 21 pages and, I estimate, about 500 different sources. So, I the breadth and depth of the book are good. In fact, having this many sources reminds me of Thomas Sowell's writings. The book was written before the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and so if you are a person who reads the news every day, you can go back and see how well this book predicted things. (Not, as it turned out, all that well.)

I don't think I've read a book this interesting in quite some time. The things that he talks about in the Chinese context are the things that I am most familiar with (I've lived here for a number of years), and those observations were 100% correct. That makes me very comfortable with believing his observations about the places that he discusses with which I am less familiar (Italy/ Korea). Even though Fukuyama has a mass of detail, his writing doesn't come across as fatty and manages to keep the reader interested. (It is because of the shortness of the chapters that I kept wanting to stay up another 30 minutes to just "squeeze in another chapter.")

There are, however, a couple of downsides. The first problem is there is not quantitative analysis and testing. I know that every author thinks that for every graph/ equation s/he will cut his readership in half, and I think that this author took that idea very literally. I count not one single graph in the whole book and ONE single table. The questions that I had (and that the author did not come close to answering) were: 1. If a country does have a large number of small firms (because of trust), then does it really make any difference? (Hong Kong SAR has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world in spite of this.) 2. Can some economies get away with having a low trust society because they are small enough to do that? So, is it possible for Hong Kong to have a high level of development, but not to expect China to be able to do the same thing because it is too big to do so? 3. Can we get some quantitative idea of how being low-trust impedes economic development? He classifies Frances as low trust, but in the same chapter (#11) says that it has one of the highest GDPs per capita and is a leader in many technological fields. 4. So, again, what does low trust correspond to? 5. Fukuyama gives some praise to the quality of French bureaucracy, but does that mean that if a country like Japan succeeds at once point in time that their bureaucracy was smart but when their growth severely declines that it became stupid? Or that growth can be improved by smartening up the bureaucracy?

Ultimately, I'm not clear what the author is concluding (or even asserting). Korea is a low trust society. Japan is a higher trust society, but they both went through the Asian financial crisis. Korea came out of it, but Japan has yet to come out of it--15 years later. Japan has a lot of name brands, but Korea has fewer. Israel has almost NO name brands that anyone recognizes, but tons of companies listed on NASDAQ and more venture capital (per capita) than anyone. And its income per head is almost exactly the same as ROK's. But if Israel has no world beating companies, it must be because trust is low (mustn't it?) So now what?

Other questions: Are all voluntary organizations good? Recently in the United States we've seen Occupy Wall Street, and in American English there exists the word "community organizer." (I'm not quite sure what they do that is of value.) Does it follow that more of them would be better (i.e. a matter of degree)? Or is it a matter of type? Is the capacity for forming organizations actually even getting less? How is this facilitated/ vitiated by the internet (which was not around in full force at the time of the writing of this book)?

At a minimum, this book has some interesting history and some interesting conceptual discussions. But the actual *testing*/ demonstration/ QUANTIFICATION of the concepts with data is lacking.

Toward the end, some of his arguments got *really* strained. He talked about the failure of black Americans to reach income parity and their various social pathologies as a consequences of atomization/ fragmentation. (p.302). And he goes on to say that Caribbean blacks are less fragmented and so they do a bit better. (And the same as to why Chinese people come to the United States and make money. More cohesiveness and willingness to buy from each other.) I just don't know how much that holds water. There are other factors (none quantified), such as: self-selection, attitudes toward work, and IQ. Was social trust and cohesiveness 25% of the story? 50%? 75%? No guess.

I bought this book second hand (paperback) and it was worth the price. It was a weekend worth of reading time, and because of the wonderful ease of Fukuyama's prose, I don't regret having spent the money or the time.
2323 comments| 15 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse