Whenever we look at violent, underdeveloped nations, we often have two responses to their condition:
1. They have a preference for institutions that restrain peace, growth and development. Example: "Middle Eastern people are poor because people have a taste for big, bad government." 2. They are stuck in a sub-optimal equilibrium. People realize the status quo is bad, but the incentives are to stay. Example: "Ethnic conflict in Somalia/Bosnia/etc. won't stop because if either side stopped, the other side would take advantage" Is there any systematic evidence for one explanation over the other? Fabio
