What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Studies in Economics, Choice, and Society
Anarchy Unbound: Why Self-Governance Works Better Than You Think
In Anarchy Unbound, Peter T. Leeson uses rational choice theory to explore the benefits of self-governance. Relying on experience from the past and present, Professor Leeson provides evidence of anarchy “working” where it is least expected to do so and explains how this is possible. Provocatively, Leeson argues that in some cases anarchy may even outperform government as a system of social organization, and demonstrates where this may occur. Anarchy Unbound challenges the conventional self-governance wisdom. It showcases the incredible ingenuity of private individuals to secure social cooperation without government and how their surprising means of doing so can be superior to reliance on the state.
270 pages, Paperback
First published February 28, 2014
20 people are currently reading
349 people want to read
About the author
Peter T. Leeson
16 books29 followersPeter T. Leeson is the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism in the Department of Economics at George Mason University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 14, 2018
A lot of promise but little delivery. Personally, I was not persuaded that anarchy works all that well.
What I was persuaded is that the author did some cherry-picking and probably narrowed down the definition of the government a bit too far. One could argue that La Nuestra Familia is a criminal government unto itself and the criminals in it.
What I was persuaded is that the author did some cherry-picking and probably narrowed down the definition of the government a bit too far. One could argue that La Nuestra Familia is a criminal government unto itself and the criminals in it.
August 8, 2014
Originally posted on my blog EconPointOfView.com
It takes something special for an author to claim the book isn't arguing much and then spend 200+ pages not arguing much. My guess is the author is understanding the size of the case.
Such is the case with Pete Leeson's Anarchy Unbound. His simple thesis is that "anarchy works better than you think. (1)" That is about as low of a bar as an academic can set. Leeson himself acknowledges that this is an extremely simple task, especially for an academic work that includes 10 essays. While I'm at Mercatus at the moment for an Austrian economics conference, I find it fitting to write-up my thoughts on the book.
Even though Leeson claims he is not making a radical argument, many people will see this as a radical book. As soon as a book has the word "anarchy" in the title eyes are going to roll.
I experienced this reaction first-hand. The confused looks I got when I read this book around campus or up at the lake cabin was evidence of people's gut reaction to word, just the word. As with all words, it can be used to dismiss another's argument out of hand (such as that is socialist or that would be anarchy) or it can be used as a descriptive tool. That is how I want to use words.
To be used properly as a tool for helping conversation, Leeson and readers must first come to agreement on what the word means, or at least what it will mean in this book.
Leeson takes a fairly academic definition of anarchy, not the popular definition. Anarchy is not a state of chaos, as most people use the word. Instead, anarchy simply means no government. That's all. Anytime a government is not around to enforce contracts, protect citizens, whatever it is that governments do, Leeson calls that anarchy.
But this definition really begs the question. Now readers are left wondering, what is government? That's harder to pin down. Leeson wrestles with it a little, but leaves it open. I bet some authors have spent a whole book on this question. Anarchy Unbound is about moving beyond that argument.
Leeson's defines government somewhere between Potter Stewart's definition of porn, "I'll know it when I see it", and Weber's classic definition of government as a territorial monopoly on violence. For this review, that is a good enough definition. You know it when you see it. If you want a more complete explanation, check out the first chapter. He is slightly more nuanced.
Without government, what are we left with? What structure remains when there is not a monopoly on force. Leeson argues that other rules arise to fill the void left when government is absent.
This allows Leeson to distinguish government and governance. Government is only one form of governance. Throughout the book Leeson works to show readers forms of governance that emerge without government. He applies rational-choice theory to understand this topic.
Rational people, through following incentives, develop forms of governance to improve their lives. As always in economics, actors do so because it is in their interest to. They expect life to be better with a form of governance than without one.
To take one example, even when plundering ships on the open sea, privateers had an incentive to not destroy their potential loot. If I'm going to steal your ice-cream cone, I really don't want to hit the cone into the ground in the process. That would be a loss for everyone. It is in my interest for you to hand over the ice-cream cone without violence.
Privateers faced with this incentive developed a system of governance to reduce these deadweight losses. Ransom and parole developed as a form of "Coasean contract." Leeson explains:
After overwhelming a merchantman, such a privateer offered its victims the following bargain: for a price it would allow the merchant vessel, its cargo, and its crewmembers their freedom. If the price was right, this arrangement was mutually beneficial. Provided the price agreed on in the plunder contract was higher than what the privateer expected to earn if it plundered its victim traditionally and thus had to incur the costs discussed earlier, it was happy to enter such a contract. (76)
Leeson shows that even in the worse of scenarios (people who live off of stealing), some rules developed to reduce costs. Governance does do something. It is not all violence like we imagine the Hobbesian jungle.
Again, it's straightforward economic reasoning. Rational people don't like chaos. It is expensive to deal with chaos. These rational actors develop forms of governance even when academic economists with their narrow framework don't believe they will. They make anarchy work better than you think. QED. Well not quite. Leeson has more of an argument to make.
Drawing on Leeson's extensive academic writings (seriously, check out his CV for a list of publications longer than I will have over my entire career), he lays out the ways that anarchy works. If he really wanted to raise the bar only as high as he claims (better than you think), one essay would be enough. But Leeson gives the reader plenty to mull over. He makes an even stronger case than that. The whole book feels like a tug between modesty and intellectual radicalism. I'd venture to say for most people out there this book would convince them that anarchy works MUCH better than they think. That only happens when someone reads a radical.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure it will convince many readers that anarchy works better than they think. This isn't because Leeson doesn't lay out a good case; he lays out a completely compelling case. My appreciation of forms of alternative forms of governance rose immensely from reading this book.
Instead, I'm afraid he won't convince many because few readers will approach this book who don't already believe anarchy works well. That is, most people who pick up this book won't need any convincing. They already appreciate or love anarchy. But this book is not a typical rah-rah anarchy book. It reads like academic work, for good or bad. Actually, it reads like really well-reasoned and written academic work, not like most academic work.
At the same time, I just don't picture many people who are unsympathetic to anarchy picking up this book. People who believe, like Hobbes, that without government everything goes to hell in a hand-basket will not even know this book exists. That's not a knock on Leeson. It's a knock on the intellectual climate around the word "anarchy."
Without strong skeptics and already-convinced anarchists as the right audience, this leaves a small segment of the world who are sympathetic. Luckily, I fit in that and few positioned to write these words. My goal with this review is to convince people in all three categories to check out the book.
I'm comfortable doing this because Anarchy Unbound is completely accessible to the proverbial layman. Anyone who reads this blog can follow and appreciate the argument. When I first picked up the book, I loved his approach so much that I had to tweet it.
I love this trigger warning in Pete Leeson's Anarchy Unbound pic.twitter.com/nscu6M3nYQ
— Brian Albrecht (@BrianCAlbrecht) July 16, 2014
Leeson is writing the book that is for almost everyone, economists or not, anarchist or not.
I've framed the last few paragraphs using words the word anarchist. That's not fair to the book. Only the last bit of the book makes any sort of anarchist points or arguments FOR anarchy.
Instead, the bulk of the book is extremely detailed explanations of the workings of anarchy. It is completely positive, as compared to normative. Leeson is adamant about this in the opening of the book. He even gets a little snarky on this, which I love:
It’s inevitable that some persons will be unable (or unwilling) to accept the claim that the analyses in Chapters 2 through 9 are positive. They will jump from the fact I'm challenging the conventional wisdom about self-governance to the mistake belief that the essays I use to do so are normative. If you're one of these persons, go back and read the allegedly normative essay(s) again. You will see that the discussion is in fact positive. If you don't see this consult a dictionary for the definitions of "positive" and "normative". If you still remain unconvinced, consider the possibility that it's not me who has the difficulty escaping normative thinking. (11)
In that way, Leeson fills in a chuck of the literature that is extremely thin, pure explanation of the workings of anarchy without value judgments. Contrary to some writers, this distinction between pure economic science and normative judgments is possible. I hope to emulate it in my work.
So how does Leeson carry out his admittedly low task? He slowly and methodically lays out (1) theory of how anarchy can work and (2) evidence of how anarchy has worked.
My only beef with some of his examples nagged me throughout the book. He explains historic and modern situations of where people under anarchy have developed forms of governance. Everything from pirates (which Leeson knows plenty about) to international trade to prison gangs to Somalia comes up. Constantly, Leeson finds forms of governance that emerge spontaneously for these groups.
For the pirates, it was democratic elections and checks-and-balances. For international trade, it is social norms and customs. For prison gangs, it is written constitutions. For Somalia, it is private provision of public goods. Everywhere Leeson looks there is some order that is emerging spontaneously. It is not chaos. To Leeson, this is evidence that anarchy works "better than you think."
But what would a society look like with NO forms of governance? What would we find it NO rules emerged? I'm left wondering what sort of evidence would show anarchy works "as bad as you think."
I'm not sure what Leeson's null hypothesis is (to frame it in traditional economics jargon). What is the hypothesis he is refuting? Some of the evidence he provides leaves me thinking, "this is pretty bad." How bad do things have to get to counter his thesis? While I am sure Leeson has thought about this and it is probably in his extensive writings, it is not clear in the book. That and the right audience are the main issues I have.
However, I can't leave this review on a negative note. This is the most interesting book I've read in months. It is a masterly piece of scholarship and worth reading for people interested in governments (or lack thereof).
I raced through it, scribbling notes the whole time. It kept me engaged in a way that most academic books can't. Leeson blends sociology, law, history, and economics together in a great work of "social science" the way the great minds that originated the field would love. No more viewing economics in a narrow box for us!
He shows that anarchy works beyond the limits that conventional wisdom puts on it. He shows that economics works beyond the limits that academic divisions puts on it. Win and win. QED.
It takes something special for an author to claim the book isn't arguing much and then spend 200+ pages not arguing much. My guess is the author is understanding the size of the case.
Such is the case with Pete Leeson's Anarchy Unbound. His simple thesis is that "anarchy works better than you think. (1)" That is about as low of a bar as an academic can set. Leeson himself acknowledges that this is an extremely simple task, especially for an academic work that includes 10 essays. While I'm at Mercatus at the moment for an Austrian economics conference, I find it fitting to write-up my thoughts on the book.
Even though Leeson claims he is not making a radical argument, many people will see this as a radical book. As soon as a book has the word "anarchy" in the title eyes are going to roll.
I experienced this reaction first-hand. The confused looks I got when I read this book around campus or up at the lake cabin was evidence of people's gut reaction to word, just the word. As with all words, it can be used to dismiss another's argument out of hand (such as that is socialist or that would be anarchy) or it can be used as a descriptive tool. That is how I want to use words.
To be used properly as a tool for helping conversation, Leeson and readers must first come to agreement on what the word means, or at least what it will mean in this book.
Leeson takes a fairly academic definition of anarchy, not the popular definition. Anarchy is not a state of chaos, as most people use the word. Instead, anarchy simply means no government. That's all. Anytime a government is not around to enforce contracts, protect citizens, whatever it is that governments do, Leeson calls that anarchy.
But this definition really begs the question. Now readers are left wondering, what is government? That's harder to pin down. Leeson wrestles with it a little, but leaves it open. I bet some authors have spent a whole book on this question. Anarchy Unbound is about moving beyond that argument.
Leeson's defines government somewhere between Potter Stewart's definition of porn, "I'll know it when I see it", and Weber's classic definition of government as a territorial monopoly on violence. For this review, that is a good enough definition. You know it when you see it. If you want a more complete explanation, check out the first chapter. He is slightly more nuanced.
Without government, what are we left with? What structure remains when there is not a monopoly on force. Leeson argues that other rules arise to fill the void left when government is absent.
This allows Leeson to distinguish government and governance. Government is only one form of governance. Throughout the book Leeson works to show readers forms of governance that emerge without government. He applies rational-choice theory to understand this topic.
Rational people, through following incentives, develop forms of governance to improve their lives. As always in economics, actors do so because it is in their interest to. They expect life to be better with a form of governance than without one.
To take one example, even when plundering ships on the open sea, privateers had an incentive to not destroy their potential loot. If I'm going to steal your ice-cream cone, I really don't want to hit the cone into the ground in the process. That would be a loss for everyone. It is in my interest for you to hand over the ice-cream cone without violence.
Privateers faced with this incentive developed a system of governance to reduce these deadweight losses. Ransom and parole developed as a form of "Coasean contract." Leeson explains:
After overwhelming a merchantman, such a privateer offered its victims the following bargain: for a price it would allow the merchant vessel, its cargo, and its crewmembers their freedom. If the price was right, this arrangement was mutually beneficial. Provided the price agreed on in the plunder contract was higher than what the privateer expected to earn if it plundered its victim traditionally and thus had to incur the costs discussed earlier, it was happy to enter such a contract. (76)
Leeson shows that even in the worse of scenarios (people who live off of stealing), some rules developed to reduce costs. Governance does do something. It is not all violence like we imagine the Hobbesian jungle.
Again, it's straightforward economic reasoning. Rational people don't like chaos. It is expensive to deal with chaos. These rational actors develop forms of governance even when academic economists with their narrow framework don't believe they will. They make anarchy work better than you think. QED. Well not quite. Leeson has more of an argument to make.
Drawing on Leeson's extensive academic writings (seriously, check out his CV for a list of publications longer than I will have over my entire career), he lays out the ways that anarchy works. If he really wanted to raise the bar only as high as he claims (better than you think), one essay would be enough. But Leeson gives the reader plenty to mull over. He makes an even stronger case than that. The whole book feels like a tug between modesty and intellectual radicalism. I'd venture to say for most people out there this book would convince them that anarchy works MUCH better than they think. That only happens when someone reads a radical.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure it will convince many readers that anarchy works better than they think. This isn't because Leeson doesn't lay out a good case; he lays out a completely compelling case. My appreciation of forms of alternative forms of governance rose immensely from reading this book.
Instead, I'm afraid he won't convince many because few readers will approach this book who don't already believe anarchy works well. That is, most people who pick up this book won't need any convincing. They already appreciate or love anarchy. But this book is not a typical rah-rah anarchy book. It reads like academic work, for good or bad. Actually, it reads like really well-reasoned and written academic work, not like most academic work.
At the same time, I just don't picture many people who are unsympathetic to anarchy picking up this book. People who believe, like Hobbes, that without government everything goes to hell in a hand-basket will not even know this book exists. That's not a knock on Leeson. It's a knock on the intellectual climate around the word "anarchy."
Without strong skeptics and already-convinced anarchists as the right audience, this leaves a small segment of the world who are sympathetic. Luckily, I fit in that and few positioned to write these words. My goal with this review is to convince people in all three categories to check out the book.
I'm comfortable doing this because Anarchy Unbound is completely accessible to the proverbial layman. Anyone who reads this blog can follow and appreciate the argument. When I first picked up the book, I loved his approach so much that I had to tweet it.
I love this trigger warning in Pete Leeson's Anarchy Unbound pic.twitter.com/nscu6M3nYQ
— Brian Albrecht (@BrianCAlbrecht) July 16, 2014
Leeson is writing the book that is for almost everyone, economists or not, anarchist or not.
I've framed the last few paragraphs using words the word anarchist. That's not fair to the book. Only the last bit of the book makes any sort of anarchist points or arguments FOR anarchy.
Instead, the bulk of the book is extremely detailed explanations of the workings of anarchy. It is completely positive, as compared to normative. Leeson is adamant about this in the opening of the book. He even gets a little snarky on this, which I love:
It’s inevitable that some persons will be unable (or unwilling) to accept the claim that the analyses in Chapters 2 through 9 are positive. They will jump from the fact I'm challenging the conventional wisdom about self-governance to the mistake belief that the essays I use to do so are normative. If you're one of these persons, go back and read the allegedly normative essay(s) again. You will see that the discussion is in fact positive. If you don't see this consult a dictionary for the definitions of "positive" and "normative". If you still remain unconvinced, consider the possibility that it's not me who has the difficulty escaping normative thinking. (11)
In that way, Leeson fills in a chuck of the literature that is extremely thin, pure explanation of the workings of anarchy without value judgments. Contrary to some writers, this distinction between pure economic science and normative judgments is possible. I hope to emulate it in my work.
So how does Leeson carry out his admittedly low task? He slowly and methodically lays out (1) theory of how anarchy can work and (2) evidence of how anarchy has worked.
My only beef with some of his examples nagged me throughout the book. He explains historic and modern situations of where people under anarchy have developed forms of governance. Everything from pirates (which Leeson knows plenty about) to international trade to prison gangs to Somalia comes up. Constantly, Leeson finds forms of governance that emerge spontaneously for these groups.
For the pirates, it was democratic elections and checks-and-balances. For international trade, it is social norms and customs. For prison gangs, it is written constitutions. For Somalia, it is private provision of public goods. Everywhere Leeson looks there is some order that is emerging spontaneously. It is not chaos. To Leeson, this is evidence that anarchy works "better than you think."
But what would a society look like with NO forms of governance? What would we find it NO rules emerged? I'm left wondering what sort of evidence would show anarchy works "as bad as you think."
I'm not sure what Leeson's null hypothesis is (to frame it in traditional economics jargon). What is the hypothesis he is refuting? Some of the evidence he provides leaves me thinking, "this is pretty bad." How bad do things have to get to counter his thesis? While I am sure Leeson has thought about this and it is probably in his extensive writings, it is not clear in the book. That and the right audience are the main issues I have.
However, I can't leave this review on a negative note. This is the most interesting book I've read in months. It is a masterly piece of scholarship and worth reading for people interested in governments (or lack thereof).
I raced through it, scribbling notes the whole time. It kept me engaged in a way that most academic books can't. Leeson blends sociology, law, history, and economics together in a great work of "social science" the way the great minds that originated the field would love. No more viewing economics in a narrow box for us!
He shows that anarchy works beyond the limits that conventional wisdom puts on it. He shows that economics works beyond the limits that academic divisions puts on it. Win and win. QED.
August 30, 2016
Exceptional overview of several anarchic societies past and present, which have functioned and maintained order spontaneously and often democratically, without the imposition of government force and coercion.
Guaranteed to make you think differently about Somalia, pirates, rievers who lived on the Anglo-Scottish border, Familias gang members and anarchy in practice, compared with the dominant caricature of 'chaos, destruction and disorder'.
Easy to read while still getting into the nitty-gritty of the incentives faced by parties to particular socio-political arrangements outlined in the book. The costs, benefits and other factors that guided democratic and other agreements—and why they made sense—are well explained.
Guaranteed to make you think differently about Somalia, pirates, rievers who lived on the Anglo-Scottish border, Familias gang members and anarchy in practice, compared with the dominant caricature of 'chaos, destruction and disorder'.
Easy to read while still getting into the nitty-gritty of the incentives faced by parties to particular socio-political arrangements outlined in the book. The costs, benefits and other factors that guided democratic and other agreements—and why they made sense—are well explained.
January 16, 2024
Leeson provides various instructive case studies to illustrate how self-governance works in difficult circumstances - for example, how diverse people in large populations have made trades possible by acquiring the local language or acquiescing in local land customs in order to overcome the social distance between them ; how criminals such as pirates, lacking access to government to secure social order, have used constitutions to prevent being preyed upon by their leaders while still enabling the leaders to make executive decisions.
I think he succeeds at showing that people can solve several hard problems of governance without relying on government, but he largely avoids discussing a case that many readers are interested in - whether anarchy could outperform government (in terms of securing social order) in societies with highly functional states - and so these readers may wish Leeson had set a higher bar for anarchy to clear. And of course there are more things than just the provision of social order that many people want from government. This is not a criticism but simply a note that this book alone isn't likely enough to make an anarchist out of anyone.
I think he succeeds at showing that people can solve several hard problems of governance without relying on government, but he largely avoids discussing a case that many readers are interested in - whether anarchy could outperform government (in terms of securing social order) in societies with highly functional states - and so these readers may wish Leeson had set a higher bar for anarchy to clear. And of course there are more things than just the provision of social order that many people want from government. This is not a criticism but simply a note that this book alone isn't likely enough to make an anarchist out of anyone.
February 28, 2015
The idea that "anarchy works better than you think" sets a pretty low bar to overcome. Leeson looks to the root of the word anarchy, the Greek 'anarkos' which means "without a ruler". Once this is clarified, he picks examples from many diverse sources to show how societies have functioned "without a ruler". These were not always perfect, but usually better than life with no form of governance at all.
I liked the chapters of privateers and the one on pirate constitutions. Those were both interesting. The last section, on Somalia without a government was interesting as well, but Leeson started to beat me over the head with comparing high government - high anarchy and low government - low anarchy and it just got to bee too much of a goodish thing. Interesting, but not a vital read.
I liked the chapters of privateers and the one on pirate constitutions. Those were both interesting. The last section, on Somalia without a government was interesting as well, but Leeson started to beat me over the head with comparing high government - high anarchy and low government - low anarchy and it just got to bee too much of a goodish thing. Interesting, but not a vital read.
August 7, 2025
Leeson’un yaklaşımı, hayli idealize edilmiş bir homo economicus varsayımı üzerine inşa ediliyor. Oysa gerçek dünyadaki aktörler her zaman rasyonel, bilgiye erişimli ya da etik davranmayabilir. Ayrıca seçilen örnekler –özellikle korsanlar ve Somali– anarşinin yalnızca belirli koşullarda geçici olarak işleyebileceğini, evrensel bir model sunmadığını gösteriyor. Devlet dışı düzenin başarılı olması için gereken “yüksek toplumsal kooperasyon” seviyesi çoğu zaman doğal olarak ortaya çıkmıyor. Güç asimetrileri, uzun vadeli yatırımların eksikliği, temel kamu hizmetlerinin (adalet, sağlık, altyapı) sürdürülebilirliğine dair ciddi soru işaretleri var. Leeson’un “anarşi romantizmi”, somut tarihsel sorunlara karşı çözümden çok, liberal bireyciliğin ekstrem bir savunusu olarak okunabilir.
October 15, 2014
This is a study of how governments and governance has worked in the past comparing anarchies to various levels of government. It was more technical than I think it needed to be, but documents lots of helpful information from the governance of pirate and merchant ships to such countries as Somalia. The author presents findings rather than arguing for or against anarchy.
In summary, I got that no government is perfect. Most governments are predatory and the best (limited) governments tend to become predatory over time. Predatory governments are much worse than the worst anarchies.
In summary, I got that no government is perfect. Most governments are predatory and the best (limited) governments tend to become predatory over time. Predatory governments are much worse than the worst anarchies.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews