Penguin Press Left Behind A New Economics for Neglected Places.

by Paul Collier

The world-renowned economist offers a ground-breaking new vision for inclusive prosperity

Left behind places can be found in prosperous countries—from South Yorkshire, integral to the industrial revolution and now England’s poorest county, to Barranquilla, once Colombia’s portal to the Caribbean and now struggling. More alarmingly, the poorest countries in the world are diverging further from the rest of humanity. Why have these places fallen further behind? And what can we do about it? World-renowned development economist Paul Collier has spent his life working in neglected communities. In this book he offers his candid diagnosis of why some regions and countries are falling further behind, and a new vision for how they can catch up. Collier lays the blame for widening inequality on stale economic orthodoxies that prioritize market forces and centralized bureaucracies like the UK Treasury. In contrast, a new wave of academic research has revealed the crucial role of collective learning, social capital and local agency in reversing decline and equalising life-chances. Drawing on insights from social psychology, moral philosophy and behavioural economics, as well as a range of illuminating case studies, Collier shares a galvanizing vision for a more inclusive, prosperous world.

Genres: Economics, Nonfiction, Politics, Audiobook, Business

304 pages, Paperback

Published June 12, 2025

About the author

Paul Collier, CBE is a Professor of Economics, Director for the Centre for the Study of African Economies at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St Antony's College. He is the author of The Plundered Planet; Wars, Guns, and Votes; and The Bottom Billion, winner of Estoril Distinguished Book Prize, the Arthur Ross Book Award, and the Lionel Gelber Prize.

Reviews

[Graeme Newell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Phenomenally brilliant ideas presented in a disappointingly jumbled narrative.

Paul Collier is a world-renowned economist and incredibly knowledgeable about how to solve the persistent problem of third-world poverty. I’ve always had a sense that helping the world’s poor rise out of poverty was a complicated challenge, but this book opened my eyes to just how intricate it really can be.

After reading this book, I feel like I have a much better grasp of the complexities involved and the subtle factors that come into play. It’s not just a matter of throwing money or resources at a problem and hoping it gets fixed - it’s an intricate dance of political reform, citizen marketing, and financial resourcefulness.

One of my biggest takeaways is how the West, with the best of intentions, can be incredibly ham-handed when it comes to implementing effective aid programs. I mean, goodness, the number of times Western governments and NGOs have barged into a problem with little understanding of local dynamics is staggering.

They often throw money at issues without fully appreciating the intricacies of the regions they’re trying to help. The criminals, kleptocrats, and corrupt forces within these areas get really good at subverting these resources for their own gain. Things quickly go to hell with the staggering amounts of money that can be stolen. It’s disheartening to read about, but I can’t deny that I got some really great insights from the book. It deepened my understanding of how things can go wrong - and why.

But this book is not just criticisms, Collier also offers so many smart solutions. He doesn’t just tear apart the existing systems; he provides a framework for thinking about how future programs could succeed. That’s where the book really shines for me.

His analysis is razor-sharp, and he brings a wealth of experience and research to bear on every problem he addresses. I found myself nodding along, thinking, “Yes, this is what needs to happen,” and feeling hopeful that these smarter solutions could make a real difference if only they were implemented. Collier’s genius is evident throughout the book, and he makes a powerful case for how the West needs to rethink its approach to aid.

Now, with all that being said, I have to address the elephant in the room: the organization of this book is… well, it’s a mess. There are so many brilliant ideas in “Left Behind,” but they’re scattered all over the place.

I found myself getting frustrated because Collier has these moments of absolute clarity where he explains something so well, and then the next moment, we’re off on a tangent that doesn’t seem to connect to what came before. It’s almost like reading a stream of consciousness at times. I get the sense that he was bursting with ideas and insights, but instead of shaping them into a coherent narrative, he just let them spill out onto the page.

It’s a real shame because the content is so valuable. I can’t help but think that a more rigorous editor could have turned this book into something extraordinary. With better organization, it would have been easier to follow his arguments and come away with clear, actionable recommendations. As it stands, there are moments of brilliance, but they’re buried in what feels like a jumbled mess. You walk away from the book with a head full of thoughts, but it’s hard to summarize or piece together a methodical conclusion about where to go from here.

In the end, I’m giving Left Behind a high rating because the ideas inside are just that good. Collier’s insights into poverty, economic development, and the role of the West in shaping global outcomes are nothing short of genius. But I’d be lying if I said the book didn’t leave me a bit frustrated. I wanted to walk away with a clear sense of direction, but instead, I found myself scratching my head at how disorganized it all felt.

If you’re willing to wade through the muddled structure, there’s a lot to gain from this book. If you care about global poverty and want to understand why so many well-intentioned programs fail, “Left Behind” is worth the read - just don’t expect it to be an easy one.

[Max O'Sullivan · Rating 5 out of 5]

honestly this was beyond exceptional - collier provides a detailed account of how economic orthodoxy has failed communities the world over, and a careful construction of how these effects can be countered. cannot recommend it highly enough to anyone who wants to understand what’s gone wrong, and how to counter these failures. so incredibly insightful, diligently researched, and above all optimistic about the power we yield to improve things. would give it six stars if i could

[David Margetts · Rating 1 out of 5]

An incredibly disappointing book. I was looking for an incisive book that would provide an accurate analysis of the situation, root causes and pragmatic solutions for the 'Left Behind'. What I got was an incoherent rant, overly simplistic, superficial, politically biased (particularly against the centre / right, The West (mostly UK & USA) / Worldwide Institutions, Colonialism etc ), personalised, often outdated account which focussed mainly on the authors pet subject sub Saharan Africa (I read the Bottom Billion many years ago and found it reasonable, but didn't want a repeat). It seeks to place blame on everything and everyone, except those 'left behind' who are portrayed as helpless victims, lacking in any agency. The author in his writings portrays himself as both egotistic and bitter, not least unsurprisingly with the institutions, politicians and organisations that have disagreed with him or don't fit with his philosophy.
The greatest failure of the book is in not providing a laser focus to issues, and carefully analysing the situations empirically. So much is basically 'lazy' groundwork and 'populist rhetoric' (highly complex issues made to look simple).
For example he says that most people who voted Remain were wealthy, and most who voted to leave were poor. This is fundamentally untrue, given the high volume of older white rural Tory males who voted to leave and the high volume of city youth who voted Remain (Bristol / Birmingham / Manchester etc) As we all know the reasons for people voting on Brexit were far more nuanced and highly varied. (Immigration / Poverty / Sovereignty / Nationalism / Racism / Public services / £100m for the NHS / Ignorance of the econmic 'consequences' / The Boris factor etc ) 65% now say it was a 'mistake'.
He talks of young people from South Yorks who are failing at school, but fails to identify them as mainly white working class boys, and omits to explain why Bangladeshi girls, African boys are doing better?
He espouses the Nordic countries, especially Denmark for greater equality but fails to admit that the income and cost of living is more beneficial to every decile of the UK population compared to Sweden, let alone the incredible success and jobs creation in the USA. I guess he would say it is better to be poorer but more equal, than richer and less equal...well the voters tend to disagree, not least when it comes to paying tax! (would Labour have won by a landslide had they been honest with the voters and said that we needed to pay more income tax, NI, VAT etc if we want a good NHS, Police force etc?)
Collier speaks positively about Estonia's education, but barely mentions the only real success of the Tories and Gove's reforms in education over the past 10 years!
Yes we need more equal opportunity, better education standards, more vocational study vs Uni', but we also need greater aspiration, standards, discipline, work ethic, and above all parenting.
He lauds the creation of a unified Germany and the investment in Eastern Germany, but fails to acknowledge that the AfD is doing particularly well there, and the project has not been so succesfull for a myriad of reasons.
On the International scene he claims that the issues in Africa are caused mainly by Colonialism, poor Aid agencies , World Bank etc but does not explain why Vietnam, Malaysia, Phillipines, India, China have pulled themselves out of poverty despite facing many of the same issues?
When it comes to 'solutions' the book is incredibly weak, with a tendency to the 'blinding obvious' .....Teamworking / Co-operation / Contribution / Leadership / anti corruption / common purpose / urgency / devolved responsibility /security......yes 'Motherhood and Apple Pie' served lavishly.
In summary this book is just plain wrong and deceitful on so many levels, 'cherry picking' cases that suit the narrative, but above all, 'we learned nothing'. When he states that Fiona Hill is a good friend, everything made sense!! Her book was equally dire and bitter.
It is a disappointment, we need to identify the root causes of populism, nationalism, anti globalism effectively to understand much better the practical and pragmatic solutions to deliver real 'meritocracy' and 'opportunity', and avoid creating helpless victims without hope.
I read Nexus prior to this, so maybe I should have lowered my standards for Collier!

[Scott Ward · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Collier has written the economics version of “Good to Great” and “Built to Last” by comparing nations of similar starting points and their divergent results. Not only does he review the statistics of the US, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway but also Singapore, Tanzania, Malawi and so on. How the author compares the economic and cultural policies of nation-states is a methodology he also uses to compare the resulting prosperity and resilience of cities and companies (Toyota vs GM in the 2000s, e.g.). Collier’s broad experience and research refutes Friedman’s orthodoxy that has reigned for nearly five decades in economics. Unlike another book being published this year under the guise of common sense, Collier demonstrates how tax policies, industrialization, inclusion/unity, urbanization, use of mining revenues and socioeconomic behaviors combine to create winners or losers.

At times the book is confusing as it seems to argue with itself, but I think it’s revealing just onerous the capture of multiple influences and factors can be. Sometimes there can be a few broad generalizations of a nation’s governmental intent or motivations, or the motivations of millions of people as a group.

I highly recommend this book for policy wonks, government leaders who want to search for ways to create long-term success for their communities.

[Miles Row · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting examples and includes a good range of countries but falls into those who face economic inequality will be reactionary trope which is problematic. His analysis of gay rights fails when you look at cultures where there is some acceptance of trans and gender diverse people, because while imperialism he describes exists it ignores the less western centric history of cultures inclusive in some way of trans and gender diverse people.

[Raymundo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un libro que nos invita a reflexionar sobre la política pública basada en lugares. El autor basa buena parte de sus argumentos en la Justicia Contributiva de Michael Sandel. Cualquier política tiene que tener un grado de autonomía en las localidades y otorgar agencia. Me ha gustado, aunque hubiera sido bueno tener más ejemplos para entender mejor diversas políticas.

[Martin Rogers · Rating 1 out of 5]

it's just a rant. life's too short. he's clearly not ill-informed, but maybe slapdash with facts would be a better description. and if some basic things are wrong, how can I trust the rest? feels like if you want to life left wing rants against the economics profession/The Treasury you'll have a lovely time with this. not for me

[Conor Nakkan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting insights are scattered throughout - including, for instance, the rather compelling criticism of HM Treasury. But it is poorly structured, overuses anecdotes, and is deeply uncharitable towards Derek Parfit (of all people). It lacks rigour and clarity in dealing with the idea of contributive justice. I would recommend reading Michael Sandel to get a better (and far more nuanced) picture of what this approach to justice involves and potential policy implications.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting examples and anecdotes, but overall I felt the book was too vague and simplistic. For example, the author would give an example of a problem and say that to solve it, all the affected parties needed to work together. Sure that sounds great, but how do you actually achieve this?

[N · Rating 2 out of 5]

Argh. I really wanted to like this book as part of my economists of developing countries canon (Why nations fail by Acemoglu and Robinson, and Good Economics for Hard Times by Duflo and Banerjee)
Insights started strong: people have friction and don't perfectly allocate as what the market wants, which creates left behind places where people mostly suffer. The UK listened too much to neoliberal economists and let the market be and that created a lot of places of despair. Moreover, industrial jobs are more qualitative than service: there is more sense of belonging working in a factory than in a call center. Interesting.
Good bits about why some leaders created great outcomes for their countries (or failed).

Now, I have two major beefs with the book.

First, it never really defines who are the left behinds. It leads to the author quoting some pretty silly figures. For example, it cites the gender wage gap... I feel like this issue has been beat to death, but is the fact that careers men get into pay more than women "leaving them behind"? Moreover, the figure he's stating also reflects differences in working time due to different gender roles within couples. There are interesting ways women are left behind (esp single mothers who left high paying career and can't catch back). "Left behind" sounds like people are victim of a system, does that really apply here?!

The second, tightly linked, is that it does not give any agentism to the people "left behind". This is found across the book, but the point that pissed me off was discussing the issue of maghrebian French.
In 2023, a French 16 yrs old was shot trying to escape the police in a rented sport audi. This led to riots across the country (and even in Switzerland) that caused billions of damages, injured firemen, and really fed up the French people. The author sees the Muslim French people as left behind and wants France to do ethnical statistics so that it can do affirmative action to repair the unfairness of the system. But who is forcing people of the banlieues to burn libraries, to complain that they have nothing to do while 117bn euros have been fed to various banlieues projects with not much to show for (more than 10 times the per capita amount of underfavored French countryside). Asking for a country to stop being race blind in front of the failures of affirmative action in the US (that the same book quotes) is a farce.
It is upsetting to see a book correctly state that somme immigration succeeds very well despite adversial situation (Vietnamese in France), that there are leftover places in the countryside that don't receive much funding/interest, but that what's required is yet more initiatives for the pampered non-integrated migrants who have already massively been targeted by aids.

All in all, some good analysis, but this book probably also explains why people are tired with the intelligentsia. Stating such facts but coming to such conclusion requires a lot of cynicism.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have to admit to coming to this book from the perspective of the left behind places in the UK. I accept that there are more pressing places left behind, but this is the focus that I wanted to have. I was interested in finding out why the author felt that they had been left behind, and what we can do about it.

The analysis is well rehearsed. Institutional failure on the part of government, combined with a desire to exercise tight control from the centre, has stifled local initiative. It has resulted in a very poorly run country, which only really works for a narrow geographical spread of citizens. What growth in living standards there has been, has accrued to a narrow section of society, and much to the exclusion of everyone else. This exclusion is the fuel that has given rise to the growth of populism, characterised by the vote in favour of Brexit.

If we accept that there is a problem, the question arises over what happens if it isn't addressed? And if we want to, how do we address it? The case for addressing the issue is quite a strong one. If we fail to address the root causes of this decline, then we will see increasing cases of institutional failure that will lead to an inevitable decline in living standards for all. If we want to renew and regenerate both society and the economy, we have to deal with these issues. How can we do that?

According to the author, we need to start to operate at the human scale. To give space to grass roots leadership to find solutions. That means no longer micromanaging public services from the centre. We need to ensure that prosperity becomes inclusive, and that does mean a degree of taxation and redistribution. We need to invest in our future, underpinned by a common purpose and common vision of how we want the country to be. I agree that this vision is very much lacking in the public arena at the moment.

This will not guarantee success, but it will ensure that we avoid failure. We are currently on a trajectory that is not sustainable. Vested interests and special interests have captured too much of the prosperity in the country. It needs it be spread around a bit more in order to ensure out future prosperity. In terms of the book, we need to move from 'me' to 'we' as the focus of our activities.

I found the argument to be convincing. The book isn't well argued or well laid out. At times you have to hunt for the meaning within the stories told. I didn't mind that because I was invested into the argument. I can see how a more casual reader might be put off. It's a good book to master, but it might take a bit of effort to do so.

[Jenny]

I have long appreciated Paul Collier’s approach to economics, and willingness to challenge the status quo in favor of ideas that promote a more equal world. Left Behind is an interesting book that builds on many of his previous ideas (like The Bottom Billion), shining a spotlight on not just the poorest countries in the world, but regions within nations that have little opportunity and high rates of poverty.

Left Behind is filled with illustrative examples and case studies that highlight Collier’s three-pronged approach to supporting vulnerable communities. I really appreciated the emphasis on giving agency to local leaders who have the best understanding what their people excel at, and where they need investment more than outside groups, or international institutions which often act paternalistically. I don’t think a degree in economics is needed to read Left Behind, but I do think a basic understanding of macroeconomics is helpful. I don’t necessarily think this title should be pushed as someone’s first foray into popular economics, but as supplementary material.

I think many readers will appreciate the time Collier spends on left behind regions in both the US and the UK. He unpacks the impacts of COVID on these communities, as well as how widening economic gaps have fueled political actions like Brexit and Trump. I would have liked to see more explanation on how we can and should integrate developing high-income communities into our discussions of international development, particularly when we are proposing similar strategies in very low-income countries.

While I agree with many of the main economic principles in this book, I anticipate that critics will try and poke holes at his theory of taking risks, arguing that there are too many variables (i.e. natural disasters, famine, etc.), or not enough resources to go around. Perhaps the largest takeaway for me, and one that I hope will get taken up in the general dialogue, is our failure to measure widening gaps in left behind places. Simply changing our measurements and pointing to our successes does little for communities that are actively backtracking. It’s not enough to leave the invisible hand of the market to bring poor communities to prosperity, we need new ideas, and I hope this book helps influence new conversations.

Thank you to Netgalley and PublicAffairs for an advanced reader copy of Left Behind.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

I agree with a fellow reader/reviewer that the composition could have been tighter so there might have fewer times when I wondered if sentences in different chapters weren’t identical or very close to that. Also the several nuggets of pure gold are there but one has mine or sift for them.

Another quibble is Collier’s faith in the availability of risk capital seems to apply equally to American-style private VC as well as the more targeted and patient and impact-oriented finance offered by institutional and philanthropic sources as mission-based investment.

Private equity and VC in the US has a goal of highest return as fast as possible via an exit which most often (when there is a positive return) is through an acquisition by a larger firm. That can contribute to a greater concentration of the market among fewer and fewer players. That isn’t in the best interest of left behind people or places. Also regulations in the US make the seed and venture capital talked most about in the media an investment instrument for the wealthy, leading to greater concentration of wealth, not less.


All that aside, this is a worthwhile read for those interested in improving our approaches to increasing prosperity in human geographies where it has either not occurred or the areas have been fully exploited and abandoned as their natural resources were tapped out or their comparative advantage lost through technological advancement, market concentration, or discontinuous local investment in innovation and human capital.

Humans have been a nomadic species the vast majority of our existence. Even those occasions where we say people have lived in the same areas for thousands of years did so in numbers the environment and immediate food and other resources could sustain. And those humans moved around. We have such great numbers of left behind places and peoples now because of how we have chosen to “progress” with little to no regard to carrying capacity and limits, including the limits of capitalism. Collier knows those last-mentioned limits well, I believe, yet gives them a lighter touch as he discusses ways to overcome some of them (such as his recommendation for devolution of decision making, taxation for redistribution, and need to control overly greedy individualism).

The reader likely won’t agree with everything in the book (or this review), but the book would probably not be as provocative and valuable if one did.

[AcademicEditor · Rating 4 out of 5]

In "Left Behind," economist Paul Collier dives into the complex economic struggles of neglected regions, highlighting how many impoverished communities persist not only in the poorest countries but within the wealthiest ones as well. Collier brings a bold perspective on how current economic policies fail to bridge the ever-widening gap between thriving urban centers and regions left on the margins.

Collier's central argument is that the mainstream belief in market forces has left these vulnerable areas underserved. He contends that the hands-off, centralized approach of many Western economies does little to uplift impoverished communities, instead widening economic divides. Through real-world examples and data analysis, Collier outlines how the global economy’s one-size-fits-all growth model misses the mark. Rather than relying solely on market dynamics, he proposes a more region-specific, holistic approach that draws from diverse fields like behavioral psychology, evolutionary biology, and even moral philosophy. Looking at case studies of post-industrial cities in the US and UK, he illustrates how disconnected policies from afar ignore local needs. He advocates for granting local leaders greater authority in shaping economic policy because they are in the best position to address their communities’ strengths and vulnerabilities.

While "Left Behind" is undoubtedly thought-provoking, it's a bit academic, demanding a solid understanding of economics to fully grasp Collier’s analysis. It might not be the most accessible book for the average reader. But it's worth recognizing that real progress will require moving beyond traditional market solutions.

Thank you to the publishers and NetGalley for the opportunity to review a temporary digital ARC in exchange for an unbiased review.

[Jonny · Rating 1 out of 5]

A rare DNF - it’s honestly a ridiculously poor book. I was expecting something that identified actual policies that could help with left-behind areas in advanced economies. After the obligatory Brexit, Trump, 2016 etc section we then had some outright weird cantering around different countries (China! Denmark!) overlaid by periodic sniping about the US and UK and some frankly strange conclusions about the key to Zelensky’s leadership of Ukraine being that he knows his limitations and empowers the military (apparently this is like the case for fiscal devolution in the UK? I think the idea is that decentralisation is good).

I gave up entirely when Somalialand (GDP per capita of c $800 per year, not actually recognised as a country) was held up as an example of inclusive capitalism that has achieved highly equal distributions of incomes.

[Helena · Rating 3 out of 5]

'All of us except a tiny minority of sociopaths have evolved to belong to communities.'

Let's start with the positives. This book is really interesting and you can tell that professor Collier is very enthusiastic about the topic. He uses his own experiences and those of the people in the places he talks about, which makes the book very believable.

On the other side... as much as he is trying to use multidisciplinary studies, you can really tell he is an economist at heart. The writing style is extremely difficult to get into and not written for the everyperson. Which unfortunately means he misses his own point about making everyone financially literate.

I almost DNF'ed at 70 pages but am glad I pushed through.

[Nash Δ. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paul Collier offers a compelling examination of global poverty. With a blend of academic depth and accessible writing, Collier explores the economic, social, and political factors perpetuating inequality. He argues for a nuanced approach to development, emphasizing investment in infrastructure, education, and governance. This thought-provoking book challenges conventional wisdom and advocates for tailored solutions to address the root causes of poverty. It's a must-read for anyone interested in understanding and tackling the complexities of global development.

[J D · Rating 2 out of 5]

Most interesting when focussed on problem diagnosis in uk planning with regards to the strength of Whitehall specifically treasury. Unfortunately two thirds of the book is just a rehash of previously articulated ideas and examples and a series of claims made on the basis of conversations with students and people with pretty obvious biases. Particularly weak on Rwanda where he is willing to make huge allowances for the crimes of the government because they are good at keeping the trains running on time.

[Richard Marney · Rating 4 out of 5]

Noble spirit, noble ideas!

The book’s thesis of promoting localized development solutions to incentivize growth and the strengthening of social welfare in areas and countries which have fallen behind economically is sound advice, and a good, indeed noble endeavor. Sadly, translating this into actual progress remains elusive.

[Faolitaruna · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the book, Paul Collier shares his advice on how to establish consent for the social contract in troubled regions. The essay is selective in its descriptions of past events but still provides a valuable perspective.

[Aaron James · Rating 5 out of 5]

As an American, it's not only nice to hear that we aren't alone in our problems, but other places have figured out how to work towards solving them. Despite some of the stories being glum, this was a refreshing read and made me rethink quite a few of our established policies.

[Isabel Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting concept but some of the ideas felt a little haphazard and not fully developed

[GM · Rating 3 out of 5]

bit dry but still insightful.

tldr; need to have sense of duty / belonging (e.g. before your tribal identity you are a Tasmanian, and you should be able to sacrifice short term benefits for long term benefits), need to have a committed leader that doesn't tolerate corruption, and need to see what business model is suitable (e.g. LA = high income, low density, car dependent. China = low income, high density, high population, top down).

UK issues = too Whitehall / centralised. Left behind cities like Yorkshire doesn't have enough investment + motivation to believe they can do better.

Baffled at how the author insinuates that discrimination towards Black people in Britain only started from Windrush in 1948.

[Carola · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good ideas, but poorly structured. The future of capitalism was better

[Juan Nadie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ideas demasiado generales. Bien el diagnóstico. Pero soluciones básicas: mejor liderazgo, más comunidad, mejores instituciones, valores, ... Generalidades.