What do you think?
Rate this book
راز سرمایه
«دو سوتو به تنهایی انقلابی را در جهان سوم برانگیخته است... راز سرمایه توانسته است بعد از مدتی طولانی یکی از معدود روشهای جدید و واقعاً امیدبخش را برای مهار فقر به همراه بیاورد.»
فرانسیس فوکویاما، نویسندهٔ کتابهای پایان تاریخ
و آخرین مرد
«تفکر تازه نادر است - این کتاب ظرفیت تبدیل اقتصاد کشورهایی را دارد که تاکنون نتوانستهاند مناسبات سرمایهداری را برای مردم خود به خدمت گیرند... این کتاب تحلیل میکند اقتصادهایی که ابتدا ساختارهای ضروری قانونی را ایجاد نکرده و همچنین اجازه ندادهاند که اقتصاد «بازار سیاه» وارد جریان اصلی اقتصاد بشود، چگونه شکست میخورند.»
دیوید اوئن، وزیر امور خارجهٔ سابق بریتانیا
«راز سرمایه ظرفیت ایجاد انقلابی جدید و فوقالعاده مفید را دارد. زیرا از مهمترین علت شکست در جهان سوم و کشورهای کمونیستی سابق سخن میگوید: فقدان حکومت قانون که از مالکیت خصوصی حمایت کند و چارچوب لازم را برای کسب و کار آزاد فراهم نماید. خواندن این کتاب برای تمام آنهایی که مسئول ثروت ملل هستند الزامی است.»
مارگارت تاچر، نخستوزیر سابق بریتانیا
فرانسیس فوکویاما، نویسندهٔ کتابهای پایان تاریخ
و آخرین مرد
«تفکر تازه نادر است - این کتاب ظرفیت تبدیل اقتصاد کشورهایی را دارد که تاکنون نتوانستهاند مناسبات سرمایهداری را برای مردم خود به خدمت گیرند... این کتاب تحلیل میکند اقتصادهایی که ابتدا ساختارهای ضروری قانونی را ایجاد نکرده و همچنین اجازه ندادهاند که اقتصاد «بازار سیاه» وارد جریان اصلی اقتصاد بشود، چگونه شکست میخورند.»
دیوید اوئن، وزیر امور خارجهٔ سابق بریتانیا
«راز سرمایه ظرفیت ایجاد انقلابی جدید و فوقالعاده مفید را دارد. زیرا از مهمترین علت شکست در جهان سوم و کشورهای کمونیستی سابق سخن میگوید: فقدان حکومت قانون که از مالکیت خصوصی حمایت کند و چارچوب لازم را برای کسب و کار آزاد فراهم نماید. خواندن این کتاب برای تمام آنهایی که مسئول ثروت ملل هستند الزامی است.»
مارگارت تاچر، نخستوزیر سابق بریتانیا
328 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
470 people are currently reading
10142 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 371 reviews
March 10, 2010
More than most conservatives, Hernando De Soto understands that, even with the death of Cold War socialism, the “advocates for capitalism are intellectually on the retreat” (209). “The hour of capitalism’s greatest triumph is its hour of crisis.” Perhaps this explains the recent rise in panicked defenses of free markets, though most of these defenses simply regurgitate Reagan-era arguments with no realization of how the debate has shifted and deepened. De Soto observes, “for those who have not noticed, the arsenal of anticapitalism and antiglobalization is building up. Today, there are serious statistics that provide the anticapitalists with just the ammunition they need to argue that capitalism is a transfer of property from poorer to richer countries” (214). So right.
De Soto’s book, basically, has just one point throughout that he reiterates in several ways: that capitalism isn’t working in non-Western countries because, though they have wealth, they lack legally enforceable property rights. Obviously there’s truth here. Free marketers have been saying this for decades. And, to his credit, de Soto dismisses typical conservative explanations of poverty that blame poverty primarily on the poor – low I.Q.s, laziness, lack of entrepreneurial spirit. He just keeps pointing to a lack of clear property rights. But the counterexamples to his claim are easy. If clear property rights are so central, then why is there still serious poverty in countries, like the U.S. and Britain, with systems of clear property rights? It seems he’d have to revert to those old cultural explanations in those cases.
Going the other direction, clear property rights haven’t seemed all that necessary in generating great wealth. The West started growing rich – take British, Dutch, and Spanish colonialism – long before any country had a clear system of property rights (in fact, such rights would have greatly hindered early wealth accumulation). This is due to the fact that great wealth has historically come from state interventions over centuries. That’s simply the plain history of capitalism starting from Henry VIII’s “redistributions” to the Bush-Obama bailouts. Great wealth has always depended on a very intrusive state.
Strategically, de Soto’s prescriptions will fail because of his Pollyanna conservatism. He actually thinks this debate is about ideas. He thinks people just need to wake up and hear the stats and facts about clear property rights and then “the government will be in a position to move the whole issue of poverty dramatically into its agenda for economic growth” (191). I couldn’t believe a grown man wrote that line. He goes farther: his reformers can “use facts and figures to win over vested interests. The elites must support reform not out of patriotism or altruism but because it will enlarge their pocketbooks” (191). Enlarging pocketbooks more than by state interventions on their behalf? The elites didn’t exclude people from property and make complicated bureaucracies absent-mindedly. There’s a long, documented history of vested interests protecting themselves by laws and bureaucracies and special privileges (just one example, check Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine).
Near the end of the book, de Soto says, “the goal of formal property is to put capital in the hands of the whole nation” (205). But capitalist nations have always gone to great lengths to do just the opposite. Why change something that works so well for the powerful? Capitalist nations have fought many wars and spent trillions, especially in South America, to restrict property and capital. Poverty is no accident. It was and is an important part of Western policy. This was not done in the dark. The U.S., itself, has time and again, before the Cold War and after, explained its need to hold down any competing nations. To think that cumbersome bureaucracy and unclear property rights in those circumstances are just accidental blindspots fixed with facts and figures is criminal naïveté. Perhaps that’s why de Soto can say such insanities as, “Looting, slavery, and colonialism now have no government’s imprimatur” (217). Ask Afghanistan and Iraq.
No wonder “advocates for capitalism are intellectually on the retreat.”
De Soto’s book, basically, has just one point throughout that he reiterates in several ways: that capitalism isn’t working in non-Western countries because, though they have wealth, they lack legally enforceable property rights. Obviously there’s truth here. Free marketers have been saying this for decades. And, to his credit, de Soto dismisses typical conservative explanations of poverty that blame poverty primarily on the poor – low I.Q.s, laziness, lack of entrepreneurial spirit. He just keeps pointing to a lack of clear property rights. But the counterexamples to his claim are easy. If clear property rights are so central, then why is there still serious poverty in countries, like the U.S. and Britain, with systems of clear property rights? It seems he’d have to revert to those old cultural explanations in those cases.
Going the other direction, clear property rights haven’t seemed all that necessary in generating great wealth. The West started growing rich – take British, Dutch, and Spanish colonialism – long before any country had a clear system of property rights (in fact, such rights would have greatly hindered early wealth accumulation). This is due to the fact that great wealth has historically come from state interventions over centuries. That’s simply the plain history of capitalism starting from Henry VIII’s “redistributions” to the Bush-Obama bailouts. Great wealth has always depended on a very intrusive state.
Strategically, de Soto’s prescriptions will fail because of his Pollyanna conservatism. He actually thinks this debate is about ideas. He thinks people just need to wake up and hear the stats and facts about clear property rights and then “the government will be in a position to move the whole issue of poverty dramatically into its agenda for economic growth” (191). I couldn’t believe a grown man wrote that line. He goes farther: his reformers can “use facts and figures to win over vested interests. The elites must support reform not out of patriotism or altruism but because it will enlarge their pocketbooks” (191). Enlarging pocketbooks more than by state interventions on their behalf? The elites didn’t exclude people from property and make complicated bureaucracies absent-mindedly. There’s a long, documented history of vested interests protecting themselves by laws and bureaucracies and special privileges (just one example, check Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine).
Near the end of the book, de Soto says, “the goal of formal property is to put capital in the hands of the whole nation” (205). But capitalist nations have always gone to great lengths to do just the opposite. Why change something that works so well for the powerful? Capitalist nations have fought many wars and spent trillions, especially in South America, to restrict property and capital. Poverty is no accident. It was and is an important part of Western policy. This was not done in the dark. The U.S., itself, has time and again, before the Cold War and after, explained its need to hold down any competing nations. To think that cumbersome bureaucracy and unclear property rights in those circumstances are just accidental blindspots fixed with facts and figures is criminal naïveté. Perhaps that’s why de Soto can say such insanities as, “Looting, slavery, and colonialism now have no government’s imprimatur” (217). Ask Afghanistan and Iraq.
No wonder “advocates for capitalism are intellectually on the retreat.”
June 6, 2022
Written by a Peruvian author, this book is wonderfully enlightening for anyone interested in issues of 3rd World economic development.
De Soto's central thesis is quite simple: you can't solve the problem of stagnant, poverty-stricken economies unless you figure out how to make credit available so that people can start and operate businesses. But you can't get credit if you have no assets to secure it with. And you have no significant assets you can call your own if you can't establish title to your land and house. And that's precisely the problem of much of the 3rd world -- where you have vast squatter communities on the periphery of virtually every major city. Those squatters may have been there for decades, but no matter. They still can't establish title to land or house. Not only that, they're vulnerable to eviction, which leads to another chronic problem of countries where property rights are shaky: violence. It takes armed force to protect your property, so societies without the rule of law for property rights also lack the rule of law for personal safety.
It's a compelling argument. I recommend the book highly.
De Soto's central thesis is quite simple: you can't solve the problem of stagnant, poverty-stricken economies unless you figure out how to make credit available so that people can start and operate businesses. But you can't get credit if you have no assets to secure it with. And you have no significant assets you can call your own if you can't establish title to your land and house. And that's precisely the problem of much of the 3rd world -- where you have vast squatter communities on the periphery of virtually every major city. Those squatters may have been there for decades, but no matter. They still can't establish title to land or house. Not only that, they're vulnerable to eviction, which leads to another chronic problem of countries where property rights are shaky: violence. It takes armed force to protect your property, so societies without the rule of law for property rights also lack the rule of law for personal safety.
It's a compelling argument. I recommend the book highly.
May 4, 2018
"چرا سرمایهداری در غرب موفق میشود و در جاهای دیگر شکست میخورد؟" شاید بهتر میبود که عنوان فرعی کتاب اینگونه باشد؛ "چرا سرمایهداری نمیتواند در تمام کشورها برپا شود؟"
اگر سرمایهداری را نظامی بدانیم که مولفههایش عبارتاند از حقوق مالکیت فردی، آزادی مبادله و فعالیتهای اقتصادی، وجود بخش خصوصی و دخالت حداقلی دولت، و نتایج آن را هم کاهش و نابودی فقر، توسعه و رفاه برای آحاد مردم درنظر بگیریم آن وقت میتوان از خود پرسید که پس چرا چنین نظامی نتوانسته در همه جای دنیا برپا شود و رشد کند؟
هرچند دیگر نمیتوان سرمایهداری را صرفا متعلق به غرب در نظر گرفت زیرا که ژاپن، چین، کرهجنوبی، امارات، سنگاپور، مالزی و... علیرغم غربی نبودن به سرمایهداری گذار کردند.
هدف دسوتو در این کتاب این است که نشان دهد مانع مهمی که بقیه جهان را از استفاده از نظام سرمایهداری و بهرهمندی از مواهب آن بازمیدارد عدم توانایی آنها در تولید سرمایه است.
سرمایه عاملی است که بهرهوری نیروی کار را افزایش داده و ثروت ملل را خلق میکند. هرچند نباید دچار این خطا شد که سرمایه را صرفا امری عینی تلقی کرد و آن را در پول کاغذی و ملک و طلا خلاصه نمود، بلکه سرمایه و ارزش آن امری است ذهنی و پول و ملک و طلا تنها نمود عینی آن هستند.
سرمایه به خودی خود باعث خلق ثروت نمیشود و صرفا به صورت بالقوه باقی میماند. آنچه که دسوتو در تلاش برای نشان دادنش است این میباشد که چطور میشود این ظرفیت بالقوه را بالفعل کرد.
دسوتو در پی آن است که نشان دهد آنچه بسیاری از کشورها و سیاستمداران از آن، برای تبیین علل توسعهنیافتگی کشورها، غافل بودهاند عدم توجه به مسئله مالکیت است.
فرض کنید در کشوری تمام زمینها بدون صاحب باشد یعنی همه مالک همه زمینها باشند، آنگاه میتوان گفت دیگر هیچکس مالک چیزی نیست. اگر مالکیتی وجود نداشته باشد آنگاه هیچگاه، هیچکس انگیزهای برای کار بر روی زمین و کشاورزی و افزایش تولید و بهرهوری نخواهد داشت. این مثال سادهترین مثال برای تبیینِ اهمیتِ مالکیت فردی است.
دسوتو برخلاف بسیاری از اقتصاددانان زیاد خود را درگیر تئوریها نمیکند و با تیم تحقیقاتی خود دست به کار شده و به کشورهای فقیر سرک کشیده تا از نزدیک وضعیت آنان را ببینید.
وی و تیم تحقیقاتی او متوجه شدهاند که سرمایه انباشتهشده این فقرا خیلی خیلی بیش از آنچیزی است که بتوان متصور بود و این ذهنیت که افراد فقیر سرمایه و پساندازی ندارند خطاست. مشکل اصلی عدم بالفعل شدنِ این سرمایههای بالقوه است.
دسوتو فقرا را نه به عنوان مسئله بلکه به عنوان بخشی از راهحل میبیند.
پس از سقوط اتحاد جماهیر شوروی همگی، و به خصوص غرب، آنچنان اجرای پول باثبات، بازارهای آزاد، تعدیلهای کلان اقتصادی، تجارت آزاد و کسبوکارهای خصوصی را به کشورهای دیگر توصیه میکردند که پاک فراموش کردند آنچه غرب را به ثروت رساند به کارگیری نظام مالکیت قانونی و دسترسی به این نظام برای همگی بوده است.
دسوتو معتقد است صرف تقلید از غرب برای کشورها کافی نبوده و باید به فرایند گذار غرب، و آنچه که غرب را غرب کرد، نیز توجه داشت. شاید بهتر است که بیان کرد آنچه غرب را ثروتمند کرد نظام مالکیت قانونی، نهادهای قانونی و آزادیهای اقتصادی برای همگان بوده است.
دسوتو در این کتاب نشان میدهد که حتی غرب نیز یکشبه به اهمیت نظام مالکیت قانونی پی نبرد و دههها و شاید سدهها وقت برد که سیاستمدارانش به اهمین نظام مالکیت و حکومت قانون پی بردند و این موضوع نیز نه یک کار برنامهریزیشده، بلکه فرآیندی تدریجی بوده است.
دسوتو به خوبی نشان میدهد که وضعیت و چالشهایی که بسیاری از کشورهای درحال توسعه با آن دست و پنجه نرم میکنند بسیار شبیه به آمریکای قرن نوزدهم است.
دسوتو 2 چالش را برای عدم به کارگیری نظام مالکیت قانونی در کشورهای فقیر بیان میکند؛ 1-چالش قانونی و 2-چالش سیاسی که دومی به مراتب مهمتر بوده و راهحل هم بیشتر از همین گزینه 2 میگذرد.
دسوتو با توجه به تجربه تاریخ بیان میکند که رییس دولت برای پیشبرد انقلاب مالکیت حداقل باید سه کار انجام دهد؛ 1-پذیرش دیدگاه فقرا، 2-جذب و پذیرش طبقه ممتاز و 3- مقابله با دیوانسالاریهای قانونی و فنی .
دسوتو معتقد است اگر مقررات بسیار و کاغذبازیهای هزینهزا در کشورها کاهش نباید درنهایت باعث گرایش افراد به خارج از نظام مالکیت رسمی یا همان بخش فراقانونی (extralegal) خواهد شد.
دسوتو کتاب را با این جملات به پایان میبرد؛
"من یک سرمایهدار محافظهکار نیستم و به سرمایهداری به عنوان مجموعهای از باورهای محکم نگاه نمیکنم. برای من آزادی، دلسوزی برای فقرا، احترام به قرارداد اجتماعی و فرصتهای برابر مهمتر است. در حال حاضر، برای نیل به آن اهداف، سرمایهداری تنها «بازی در شهر» است و تنها نظامی است که میدانیم میتواند ما را با ابزار لازم برای تولید ارزش اضافی چشمگیر تجهیز کند. هنگامی که سرمایه، نه تنها در غرب بلکه در همه جا یک داستان موفق باشد، ما میتوانیم فراتر از محدودیتهای جهان فیزیکی حرکت، و از افکار خود برای اوجگیری و رسیدن به آینده استفاده کنیم."
اگر سرمایهداری را نظامی بدانیم که مولفههایش عبارتاند از حقوق مالکیت فردی، آزادی مبادله و فعالیتهای اقتصادی، وجود بخش خصوصی و دخالت حداقلی دولت، و نتایج آن را هم کاهش و نابودی فقر، توسعه و رفاه برای آحاد مردم درنظر بگیریم آن وقت میتوان از خود پرسید که پس چرا چنین نظامی نتوانسته در همه جای دنیا برپا شود و رشد کند؟
هرچند دیگر نمیتوان سرمایهداری را صرفا متعلق به غرب در نظر گرفت زیرا که ژاپن، چین، کرهجنوبی، امارات، سنگاپور، مالزی و... علیرغم غربی نبودن به سرمایهداری گذار کردند.
هدف دسوتو در این کتاب این است که نشان دهد مانع مهمی که بقیه جهان را از استفاده از نظام سرمایهداری و بهرهمندی از مواهب آن بازمیدارد عدم توانایی آنها در تولید سرمایه است.
سرمایه عاملی است که بهرهوری نیروی کار را افزایش داده و ثروت ملل را خلق میکند. هرچند نباید دچار این خطا شد که سرمایه را صرفا امری عینی تلقی کرد و آن را در پول کاغذی و ملک و طلا خلاصه نمود، بلکه سرمایه و ارزش آن امری است ذهنی و پول و ملک و طلا تنها نمود عینی آن هستند.
سرمایه به خودی خود باعث خلق ثروت نمیشود و صرفا به صورت بالقوه باقی میماند. آنچه که دسوتو در تلاش برای نشان دادنش است این میباشد که چطور میشود این ظرفیت بالقوه را بالفعل کرد.
دسوتو در پی آن است که نشان دهد آنچه بسیاری از کشورها و سیاستمداران از آن، برای تبیین علل توسعهنیافتگی کشورها، غافل بودهاند عدم توجه به مسئله مالکیت است.
فرض کنید در کشوری تمام زمینها بدون صاحب باشد یعنی همه مالک همه زمینها باشند، آنگاه میتوان گفت دیگر هیچکس مالک چیزی نیست. اگر مالکیتی وجود نداشته باشد آنگاه هیچگاه، هیچکس انگیزهای برای کار بر روی زمین و کشاورزی و افزایش تولید و بهرهوری نخواهد داشت. این مثال سادهترین مثال برای تبیینِ اهمیتِ مالکیت فردی است.
دسوتو برخلاف بسیاری از اقتصاددانان زیاد خود را درگیر تئوریها نمیکند و با تیم تحقیقاتی خود دست به کار شده و به کشورهای فقیر سرک کشیده تا از نزدیک وضعیت آنان را ببینید.
وی و تیم تحقیقاتی او متوجه شدهاند که سرمایه انباشتهشده این فقرا خیلی خیلی بیش از آنچیزی است که بتوان متصور بود و این ذهنیت که افراد فقیر سرمایه و پساندازی ندارند خطاست. مشکل اصلی عدم بالفعل شدنِ این سرمایههای بالقوه است.
دسوتو فقرا را نه به عنوان مسئله بلکه به عنوان بخشی از راهحل میبیند.
پس از سقوط اتحاد جماهیر شوروی همگی، و به خصوص غرب، آنچنان اجرای پول باثبات، بازارهای آزاد، تعدیلهای کلان اقتصادی، تجارت آزاد و کسبوکارهای خصوصی را به کشورهای دیگر توصیه میکردند که پاک فراموش کردند آنچه غرب را به ثروت رساند به کارگیری نظام مالکیت قانونی و دسترسی به این نظام برای همگی بوده است.
دسوتو معتقد است صرف تقلید از غرب برای کشورها کافی نبوده و باید به فرایند گذار غرب، و آنچه که غرب را غرب کرد، نیز توجه داشت. شاید بهتر است که بیان کرد آنچه غرب را ثروتمند کرد نظام مالکیت قانونی، نهادهای قانونی و آزادیهای اقتصادی برای همگان بوده است.
دسوتو در این کتاب نشان میدهد که حتی غرب نیز یکشبه به اهمیت نظام مالکیت قانونی پی نبرد و دههها و شاید سدهها وقت برد که سیاستمدارانش به اهمین نظام مالکیت و حکومت قانون پی بردند و این موضوع نیز نه یک کار برنامهریزیشده، بلکه فرآیندی تدریجی بوده است.
دسوتو به خوبی نشان میدهد که وضعیت و چالشهایی که بسیاری از کشورهای درحال توسعه با آن دست و پنجه نرم میکنند بسیار شبیه به آمریکای قرن نوزدهم است.
دسوتو 2 چالش را برای عدم به کارگیری نظام مالکیت قانونی در کشورهای فقیر بیان میکند؛ 1-چالش قانونی و 2-چالش سیاسی که دومی به مراتب مهمتر بوده و راهحل هم بیشتر از همین گزینه 2 میگذرد.
دسوتو با توجه به تجربه تاریخ بیان میکند که رییس دولت برای پیشبرد انقلاب مالکیت حداقل باید سه کار انجام دهد؛ 1-پذیرش دیدگاه فقرا، 2-جذب و پذیرش طبقه ممتاز و 3- مقابله با دیوانسالاریهای قانونی و فنی .
دسوتو معتقد است اگر مقررات بسیار و کاغذبازیهای هزینهزا در کشورها کاهش نباید درنهایت باعث گرایش افراد به خارج از نظام مالکیت رسمی یا همان بخش فراقانونی (extralegal) خواهد شد.
دسوتو کتاب را با این جملات به پایان میبرد؛
"من یک سرمایهدار محافظهکار نیستم و به سرمایهداری به عنوان مجموعهای از باورهای محکم نگاه نمیکنم. برای من آزادی، دلسوزی برای فقرا، احترام به قرارداد اجتماعی و فرصتهای برابر مهمتر است. در حال حاضر، برای نیل به آن اهداف، سرمایهداری تنها «بازی در شهر» است و تنها نظامی است که میدانیم میتواند ما را با ابزار لازم برای تولید ارزش اضافی چشمگیر تجهیز کند. هنگامی که سرمایه، نه تنها در غرب بلکه در همه جا یک داستان موفق باشد، ما میتوانیم فراتر از محدودیتهای جهان فیزیکی حرکت، و از افکار خود برای اوجگیری و رسیدن به آینده استفاده کنیم."
December 20, 2022
Hernando de Soto is, and probably always will be best known for his earlier book, "The Other Path". He is a Peruvian economist, and the title in that book was a nod (or perhaps riposte) to the Shining Path guerilla movement in Peru that advocated a Maoist ideology. de Soto is pro-markets, but he believes that they do not work well for the poor in Third World countries like Peru, primarily because of the difficulty (for a person too poor to pay bribes or hire legal representation) of entering the "formal", i.e. legally recognized, private sector. The primary policy recommendation in "The Other Path", was to make it easier for the poor to start businesses legally. His research demonstrated a horrifying amount of "red tape" standing between the poor and legal recognition for even the smallest of businesses. This doesn't mean they didn't start them anyway, of course, but it did mean that they had no legal recognition, and were therefore always one government intervention away from having their business shut down.
In this book, de Soto examines the perpetual failure of capitalist systems in Third World and former communist nations, and asks why they work so much better in the advanced economies of the West. His assertion, is that the West was unable to tell these nations how to set up a good capitalist system, even if they genuinely wanted to, because they know so little of the history of how they started their own. In particular, he asserts that at one time economies such as the United States had much larger "informal" economies as well, with most of the population (and its resources) locked out of the formal sector (and thus from the formal sector's banking system). This is important because, for example, many new businesses in the United States are started with the money from a friend or family member mortgaging their home, but if you are squatting in a house which you have no legal title to, this option is closed off from you.
Many Americans are taught in school that Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Homesteading Act, which gave legal title to settlers in the West provided that they built homes on the land they were laying claim to (up to a certain size). What de Soto claims is not so often even known in the U.S. now, is that most of the homes which settlers gained title to using the Homestead Act, were ones they had already built and were living in, often for years. The Homestead Act was, in de Soto's telling of it, important not so much because it encouraged settling of the American West (that was happening already), but because it gave federal legal recognition to the property rights of the many, many settlers who had already take up residence there.
There are a host of other historical examples that he gives, for example of how miner's claims in California were recognized in the 19th century. The recurring theme is that whereas the law "requires" that you first gain legal title to the property, then move in, and then make improvements to that property, the actual process was roughly the opposite. Settlers built homes in uninhabited territory (regardless of who theoretically owned it), then moved in and lived there for years before they gained legal recognition of their right to be there. In many cases, there was an intermediate step of quasi-legality, in which local cooperatives or local government recognized their claim, in many cases even issuing formal documentation of it, and then years later the federal government recognized it as a fait accompli.
The problem in industrializing or de-communizing countries, asserts de Soto, is that they are taking advice from entities like the World Bank or the IMF, who advocate for property rights and the "rule of law", for obvious reasons. This causes them to deny this path for the masses of the population, so that (unlike in the West) you never get a large middle class of propertied bourgeoisie. Add to this the byzantine complexity of government bureaucatic procedures, and you have a system which (intentionally or not) locks out 90% of the population from property ownership. This, according to de Soto, the answer to the question of "why doesn't capitalism work outside the advanced economies?", is "because you didn't allow 90% of the population to participate in it".
Now, I am not knowledgeable enough in the ways of 18th and 19th century property law to evaluate de Soto's claims. As the spouse of a 21st century business owner, however, I can say that it is often the case that small businesses get started without full knowledge of what is required by law, and they gain this knowledge over time. For example, all businesses in the state I live in are supposed to pay an inventory tax, of a percentage of all property which the business owns at the end of the year (one reason for after-Christmas sales, by the way). In practice, most new, small businesses know nothing of this, and start paying the tax when a government representative shows up and informs them of it.
If we had a more punitive system, which shut down such businesses for tax evasion (instead of just showing up at their store and saying, "you know, you have to pay this inventory tax thingy"), and if you multiply that example by a few dozen more legal requirements and restrictions, you could probably push all small businesses out of the "formal" (i.e. legal) system, such that some would go out of existence, and others would operate in the black market. So, while I have no experience as a would-be entrepeneur in the Third or former communist world, I could easily believe it to be true. Whether or not the situation has gotten any better in the 20 or so years since he wrote this book is another open question (for me, anyway).
But more generally, I think it is an underappreciated question, not "how much should government require", but "how complex should it be to figure out what the government requires". Laws are not like computer programs, that get executed objectively and without (human) effort. They are more like customs or habits, which live only in the minds of humans, and thus necessarily take up space there (and time) that cannot be expended on anything else. It is difficult enough to launch a new enterprise, and the thicket of government regulations which must be understood, is much like learning a new language or a new culture. The wealthy, and to a lesser extent the professional class, are native speakers of this bureaucratic language. Those from the working class are put at a substantial disadvantage when they are forced to deal with it, in a way that someone who got a degree from a large university (which, for all its many other flaws, is good at teaching you how to navigate bureaucracy) does not. It would be better if more attention were paid to this obstacle, and ways to, if not eliminate it, then at least render it less of a handicap for precisely those people who the government should be trying to help.
In this book, de Soto examines the perpetual failure of capitalist systems in Third World and former communist nations, and asks why they work so much better in the advanced economies of the West. His assertion, is that the West was unable to tell these nations how to set up a good capitalist system, even if they genuinely wanted to, because they know so little of the history of how they started their own. In particular, he asserts that at one time economies such as the United States had much larger "informal" economies as well, with most of the population (and its resources) locked out of the formal sector (and thus from the formal sector's banking system). This is important because, for example, many new businesses in the United States are started with the money from a friend or family member mortgaging their home, but if you are squatting in a house which you have no legal title to, this option is closed off from you.
Many Americans are taught in school that Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Homesteading Act, which gave legal title to settlers in the West provided that they built homes on the land they were laying claim to (up to a certain size). What de Soto claims is not so often even known in the U.S. now, is that most of the homes which settlers gained title to using the Homestead Act, were ones they had already built and were living in, often for years. The Homestead Act was, in de Soto's telling of it, important not so much because it encouraged settling of the American West (that was happening already), but because it gave federal legal recognition to the property rights of the many, many settlers who had already take up residence there.
There are a host of other historical examples that he gives, for example of how miner's claims in California were recognized in the 19th century. The recurring theme is that whereas the law "requires" that you first gain legal title to the property, then move in, and then make improvements to that property, the actual process was roughly the opposite. Settlers built homes in uninhabited territory (regardless of who theoretically owned it), then moved in and lived there for years before they gained legal recognition of their right to be there. In many cases, there was an intermediate step of quasi-legality, in which local cooperatives or local government recognized their claim, in many cases even issuing formal documentation of it, and then years later the federal government recognized it as a fait accompli.
The problem in industrializing or de-communizing countries, asserts de Soto, is that they are taking advice from entities like the World Bank or the IMF, who advocate for property rights and the "rule of law", for obvious reasons. This causes them to deny this path for the masses of the population, so that (unlike in the West) you never get a large middle class of propertied bourgeoisie. Add to this the byzantine complexity of government bureaucatic procedures, and you have a system which (intentionally or not) locks out 90% of the population from property ownership. This, according to de Soto, the answer to the question of "why doesn't capitalism work outside the advanced economies?", is "because you didn't allow 90% of the population to participate in it".
Now, I am not knowledgeable enough in the ways of 18th and 19th century property law to evaluate de Soto's claims. As the spouse of a 21st century business owner, however, I can say that it is often the case that small businesses get started without full knowledge of what is required by law, and they gain this knowledge over time. For example, all businesses in the state I live in are supposed to pay an inventory tax, of a percentage of all property which the business owns at the end of the year (one reason for after-Christmas sales, by the way). In practice, most new, small businesses know nothing of this, and start paying the tax when a government representative shows up and informs them of it.
If we had a more punitive system, which shut down such businesses for tax evasion (instead of just showing up at their store and saying, "you know, you have to pay this inventory tax thingy"), and if you multiply that example by a few dozen more legal requirements and restrictions, you could probably push all small businesses out of the "formal" (i.e. legal) system, such that some would go out of existence, and others would operate in the black market. So, while I have no experience as a would-be entrepeneur in the Third or former communist world, I could easily believe it to be true. Whether or not the situation has gotten any better in the 20 or so years since he wrote this book is another open question (for me, anyway).
But more generally, I think it is an underappreciated question, not "how much should government require", but "how complex should it be to figure out what the government requires". Laws are not like computer programs, that get executed objectively and without (human) effort. They are more like customs or habits, which live only in the minds of humans, and thus necessarily take up space there (and time) that cannot be expended on anything else. It is difficult enough to launch a new enterprise, and the thicket of government regulations which must be understood, is much like learning a new language or a new culture. The wealthy, and to a lesser extent the professional class, are native speakers of this bureaucratic language. Those from the working class are put at a substantial disadvantage when they are forced to deal with it, in a way that someone who got a degree from a large university (which, for all its many other flaws, is good at teaching you how to navigate bureaucracy) does not. It would be better if more attention were paid to this obstacle, and ways to, if not eliminate it, then at least render it less of a handicap for precisely those people who the government should be trying to help.
June 14, 2022
کتاب راز سرمایه از اقتصاددان مشهور پرویی یکی از مهمترین پرسشهایی را که جهان امروز با آن مواجهست مطرح میکند: چرا سرمایهداری در غرب موفق شد ولی در بسیاری از کشورهای در حال توسعه بهرغم تلاش متعدد برای توسعهیافتگی شکست خورد؟
دو سوتو با ارائه نتایج تحقیقات مردمی که در پنج کشور (هائیتی، پرو، برزیل، مصر و فیلیپین) انجام داد، نشان میدهد که حتی افراد فقیر در چنین کشورهایی دارایی و پس انداز دارند که می تواند برای سرمایه داری موفق استفاده شود. مشکل اصلی از نظر دوسوتو فقدان حقوق مالکیت در جهان سومست.به عنوان مثال، فقرا در پرو حدود ۷۴ میلیارد دلار دارایی دارند (مبلغی که چهارده برابر ارزش تمامی سرمایه گذاری مستقیم خارجیست). اما مشکل اینه که تمام آن ۷۴میلیارد دلار دارایی «سرمایه مرده»ست، چون در بخش خارج از قانون اقتصاد وجود دارد. از آنجایی که هیچ عنوان یا سند قانونی وجود ندارد، این «سرمایه مرده» نمیتواند به عنوان وثیقه برای راه اندازی کسب و کار یا تولید ثروت مستقل استفاده شود به زبان ساده، حقوق مالکیت برای تعداد زیادی از مردم جهان کاملاً دور از دسترسست. موانع اداری و بوروكراتیک كشوری محدودیتهای سنگینی برای ثبت مشاغل قانونی به وجود میآورد. او معتقدست که این سرمایه راکد اگر تحت عنوان قانون مالکیت تصویب شود باعث رشد اقتصادی این کشورها میشود. دو سوتو فضای قابل توجهی را به بررسی تاریخچه توسعه حقوق مالکیت در ایالات متحده اختصاص میدهد. دو سوتو توضیح میده که روند توسعه حقوق مالکیت در ایالات متحده بیش از یک قرن طول کشید تا به یک سیستم مالکیت یکپارچه که برای کل جمعیت ایالات متحده قابل دسترسی باشد برسه. او در نهایت یک استراتژی برای ادغام جمعیت خارج از قانون در جریان اصلی اقتصادی ترسیم میکنه.
من همیشه در مورد تبیینهای تک علتی برای پدیدههای اقتصادی و اجتماعی بدبینم، فقدان حقوق مالکیت میتونه بخش مهم و بزرگی از مشکلات باشه ولی تنها مشکل نیست و باید چارچوب تحلیلی گستردهتر و دانش عمیقتر برای حل مشکلات اقتصادی داشت.
دو سوتو با ارائه نتایج تحقیقات مردمی که در پنج کشور (هائیتی، پرو، برزیل، مصر و فیلیپین) انجام داد، نشان میدهد که حتی افراد فقیر در چنین کشورهایی دارایی و پس انداز دارند که می تواند برای سرمایه داری موفق استفاده شود. مشکل اصلی از نظر دوسوتو فقدان حقوق مالکیت در جهان سومست.به عنوان مثال، فقرا در پرو حدود ۷۴ میلیارد دلار دارایی دارند (مبلغی که چهارده برابر ارزش تمامی سرمایه گذاری مستقیم خارجیست). اما مشکل اینه که تمام آن ۷۴میلیارد دلار دارایی «سرمایه مرده»ست، چون در بخش خارج از قانون اقتصاد وجود دارد. از آنجایی که هیچ عنوان یا سند قانونی وجود ندارد، این «سرمایه مرده» نمیتواند به عنوان وثیقه برای راه اندازی کسب و کار یا تولید ثروت مستقل استفاده شود به زبان ساده، حقوق مالکیت برای تعداد زیادی از مردم جهان کاملاً دور از دسترسست. موانع اداری و بوروكراتیک كشوری محدودیتهای سنگینی برای ثبت مشاغل قانونی به وجود میآورد. او معتقدست که این سرمایه راکد اگر تحت عنوان قانون مالکیت تصویب شود باعث رشد اقتصادی این کشورها میشود. دو سوتو فضای قابل توجهی را به بررسی تاریخچه توسعه حقوق مالکیت در ایالات متحده اختصاص میدهد. دو سوتو توضیح میده که روند توسعه حقوق مالکیت در ایالات متحده بیش از یک قرن طول کشید تا به یک سیستم مالکیت یکپارچه که برای کل جمعیت ایالات متحده قابل دسترسی باشد برسه. او در نهایت یک استراتژی برای ادغام جمعیت خارج از قانون در جریان اصلی اقتصادی ترسیم میکنه.
من همیشه در مورد تبیینهای تک علتی برای پدیدههای اقتصادی و اجتماعی بدبینم، فقدان حقوق مالکیت میتونه بخش مهم و بزرگی از مشکلات باشه ولی تنها مشکل نیست و باید چارچوب تحلیلی گستردهتر و دانش عمیقتر برای حل مشکلات اقتصادی داشت.
October 7, 2022
Recommended here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5LEL...
August 29, 2023
الباحث الاقتصادي الكبير هيرناندو دي سوتو من اهم الباحثين فيما يتعلق بالاقتصاد الرمادي في الدول النامية وكيفية معالته وادماجه في الاقتصاد الحقيقي وفي هذا الكتاب يحاول تقديم توصيف لاسباب وجود هذا الاقتصاد الرمادي ومن اهم الاسباب التشريع غي الواقعي ويحاول ايجاد حلول لهذه الاسباب
الباحث له اهتمام بالواقع الاقتصادي المصري حيث اجرى ابحاث مهمة فيما يتعلق بالتسجيل العقاري في الاحياء العشوائية
الباحث له اهتمام بالواقع الاقتصادي المصري حيث اجرى ابحاث مهمة فيما يتعلق بالتسجيل العقاري في الاحياء العشوائية
June 19, 2008
Best Economic Development book I ever read. It's thought provoking and it resonates. Third World poverty could dramatically shrink if property owners had a legitimate claim to their real property. I thought micro lending was the answer to most of Latin America's problems (it still is a partial answer), however, De Soto convinces me that most of the Third World already owns enough property to leverage themselves out of poverty if only formal property and legal systems could legitimize their property enough to take a loan against it.
This book changed my world view concerning poverty, Latin America, Capitalism, and Financial systems more than any other book or idea before it.
This book changed my world view concerning poverty, Latin America, Capitalism, and Financial systems more than any other book or idea before it.
August 17, 2007
everything your soc prof fails to consider
July 3, 2009
This book explains the importance of property rights to the success of capitalist systems. In order for a society to use its assets to their fullest potential, it needs a legal system that transforms wealth into "living capital." "Living capital" can be leveraged to create further wealth: for example, in the U.S. most new enterprises are funded by mortgages on the entrepreneur’s home. But in a society that does not clearly define and protect ownership, such strategies are impossible.
This explains why market-type economies have brought enormous wealth to Western countries, but have failed to do so in most of Latin America, Africa, and the former Soviet block. The poor in those regions lack access to formal property systems. Regulations and red tape stop them from legally owning their land or starting a business. Consequently, huge “informal sectors” have developed in these countries – markets and neighborhoods buzzing with extra-legal activity. This activity will not lead to large-scale growth and development, however, because the size of markets are limited to the networks where individuals can develop trust and reciprocity, and because extra-legal businesses need to keep a low profile, preventing them from realizing economies of scale. The poor are left frustrated by the growing economic disparity between themselves and the fortunate few who live inside the “bell jar” of formal property rights, where capital creates wealth.
This narrative, De Soto claims, describes struggling economies around the world, from Morocco to Peru. He repeatedly rejects the idea that economic performance is determined primarily by cultural factors. Experience shows that capitalism can succeed in diverse cultures, and the phenomena of failing capitalism are the same in countries with no common cultural heritage. Instead of turning to sociological details – such as colonization or religious philosophy – De Soto attributes poverty and the growth of the informal sector to a universal human characteristic: rational, maximizing behavior. The solution to failing capitalism and the growth of the informal sector, therefore, is the same throughout the third world. Governments need to lift the bell jar by creating coherent and inclusive property systems. It is a transformation that took place in the West only a few centuries ago, and Hernando De Soto spends some time in The Mystery of Capital describing how the United States’ property system developed. However, property rights are not an alien concept which third world governments must force on unwilling citizens. Informal sectors already try to clarify and protect ownership. Recreating property law involves adopting and integrating the laws and customs that the informal sector has already developed.
The most intriguing concept in The Mystery of Capital is capital’s metaphysical nature. Although we may associate capital with money, capital is not something that we perceive with our senses. Rather, capital has to do with the potential value of an asset, and is something that we perceive with our minds. Property law is the symbolic system that unleashes economic growth. De Soto’s prose becomes near-mystical when he writes about capital’s transcendent nature, and he compares property systems to other symbolic systems that have empowered humans over the course of history, from musical notation to computer software. It is by our ability to create and manipulate symbolic systems that we can “soar into the future.”
This explains why market-type economies have brought enormous wealth to Western countries, but have failed to do so in most of Latin America, Africa, and the former Soviet block. The poor in those regions lack access to formal property systems. Regulations and red tape stop them from legally owning their land or starting a business. Consequently, huge “informal sectors” have developed in these countries – markets and neighborhoods buzzing with extra-legal activity. This activity will not lead to large-scale growth and development, however, because the size of markets are limited to the networks where individuals can develop trust and reciprocity, and because extra-legal businesses need to keep a low profile, preventing them from realizing economies of scale. The poor are left frustrated by the growing economic disparity between themselves and the fortunate few who live inside the “bell jar” of formal property rights, where capital creates wealth.
This narrative, De Soto claims, describes struggling economies around the world, from Morocco to Peru. He repeatedly rejects the idea that economic performance is determined primarily by cultural factors. Experience shows that capitalism can succeed in diverse cultures, and the phenomena of failing capitalism are the same in countries with no common cultural heritage. Instead of turning to sociological details – such as colonization or religious philosophy – De Soto attributes poverty and the growth of the informal sector to a universal human characteristic: rational, maximizing behavior. The solution to failing capitalism and the growth of the informal sector, therefore, is the same throughout the third world. Governments need to lift the bell jar by creating coherent and inclusive property systems. It is a transformation that took place in the West only a few centuries ago, and Hernando De Soto spends some time in The Mystery of Capital describing how the United States’ property system developed. However, property rights are not an alien concept which third world governments must force on unwilling citizens. Informal sectors already try to clarify and protect ownership. Recreating property law involves adopting and integrating the laws and customs that the informal sector has already developed.
The most intriguing concept in The Mystery of Capital is capital’s metaphysical nature. Although we may associate capital with money, capital is not something that we perceive with our senses. Rather, capital has to do with the potential value of an asset, and is something that we perceive with our minds. Property law is the symbolic system that unleashes economic growth. De Soto’s prose becomes near-mystical when he writes about capital’s transcendent nature, and he compares property systems to other symbolic systems that have empowered humans over the course of history, from musical notation to computer software. It is by our ability to create and manipulate symbolic systems that we can “soar into the future.”
July 21, 2022
ایدۀ محوری کتاب-که میتوانست در صفحات بسیار کمتری گنجانده شود-این است که توسعه و موفقیت سرمایهداری در کشورهای درحال توسعه با اقتصاد رشدنیافته، در گرو ادغام مالکیت خصوصی در یک نظام یکپارچۀ رسمی است. عمدۀ فعالیتهای اقتصادی و اجتماعی این کشورها در بستر «خارج از قانون» جریان مییابد و داراییهای قشر فقیر که در بسیاری از کشورهای مورد مطالعه، درمجموع ارزش و قیمت بسیار بالایی دارد، به دلیل همین نابسامانی حقوق رسمی افراد، تبدیل به سرمایه نشده و نمیتواند در راستای افزایش تولید و استفاده از مکانیزمهای مختلف خلق ثروت بکار گرفته شود.
July 7, 2015
Книжка обіцяє розказати, чому капіталізм не є ефективним в незахідних країнах загалом і пострадянських загалом, але не робить цього. Основне пояснення автора: недосконалість правового регулювання прав власності. Якщо на Заході все є чітко регламентованим, то в інших країнах – ні. Зокрема, основна проблема, що реальні відносини власності не є присутніми в правилах та законах. Отже, капіталізм запрацює, на думку автора, коли юридична сфера легалізує ті практики, що вже існують в суспільстві.
Ось і весь секрет, який хоче розповісти автор книги читачеві. Проте одразу ж виникають питання: чи це так? Автор свідомо йде на провокацію, коли пише: “Культура не має значення, коли йдеться про капіталізм. Мають значення лише правила!” Проте тут виникає низка запитань.
По-перше, автор не відповідає, як саме формуються народні правила. А саме це є важливим аспектом проблеми! Якщо вже є спосіб вирішення проблем – мафія чи рекет, то їх легалізація апріорі є неможливою! То як люди робляють ці правила? Автор повністю оминає питання, які так хвилювали Менкура Олсона чи Елінор Остром.
По-друге, автор ігнорує той факт, що його рецепти описують ситуацію ХІХ ст. Наприклад, він стверджує, що майнове законодавство в США виникло на основі “народних правил” золотошукачів, вироблених в 1848 р. в Каліфорнії під час “золотої лихоманки”. Але тоді ситуація була іншою: гравці були в одній ваговій категорії, оскільки в справи не втручалася модерна держава з її монополією на насильство. Чи такий шлях можна повторити в ХХ чи ХХІ ст.? Досвід Донбасу показує, що ні: народні правила були роздавлені великим бізнесом, який мав “кришу” у вигляді державних структур. І населення не могло цьому опиратися в стилі Дикого Заходу.
По-третє, автор рясно згадує в перших розділах про Мішеля Фуко, але цілком не розуміє суті його теорії. Згідно з Фуко, якщо правила існують, значить це комусь треба! Тобто факт, що нори закону “відстають” від народних правил, - це не випадковість, а закономірність. Очевидно, що політики чи влада мають з цього вигоду: корупційні схеми так набагато легше реалізовувати. Проте автор твердо переконаний, що варто елітам відкрити очі на народні правила – і ситуація зміниться моментально. Автор щиросердно пише: жодна еліта не буде грабувати своє населення і доводити економіку до колапсу. Правління Януковича продемонструвало, що де Сото не розуміє реалій пострадянських країн. А трагічна доля Донбасу, який опинився в скруті саме через дивну політику держави ще в 1990-х рр. демонструє, що справа не в Януковичі, а в особливостях пострадянських еліт. В Росії ситуація не є радикально іншою, як і в Грузії – до Революції Троянд. Пострадянські еліти демонструють схильність грабувати власний народ.
Загалом, книжка цікава прикладами, які автор наводить, але зводиться до однієї тези, яка ще й не є достатньо аргументованою. Тому залишається лише тішитися, що книжка є не великою.
Ось і весь секрет, який хоче розповісти автор книги читачеві. Проте одразу ж виникають питання: чи це так? Автор свідомо йде на провокацію, коли пише: “Культура не має значення, коли йдеться про капіталізм. Мають значення лише правила!” Проте тут виникає низка запитань.
По-перше, автор не відповідає, як саме формуються народні правила. А саме це є важливим аспектом проблеми! Якщо вже є спосіб вирішення проблем – мафія чи рекет, то їх легалізація апріорі є неможливою! То як люди робляють ці правила? Автор повністю оминає питання, які так хвилювали Менкура Олсона чи Елінор Остром.
По-друге, автор ігнорує той факт, що його рецепти описують ситуацію ХІХ ст. Наприклад, він стверджує, що майнове законодавство в США виникло на основі “народних правил” золотошукачів, вироблених в 1848 р. в Каліфорнії під час “золотої лихоманки”. Але тоді ситуація була іншою: гравці були в одній ваговій категорії, оскільки в справи не втручалася модерна держава з її монополією на насильство. Чи такий шлях можна повторити в ХХ чи ХХІ ст.? Досвід Донбасу показує, що ні: народні правила були роздавлені великим бізнесом, який мав “кришу” у вигляді державних структур. І населення не могло цьому опиратися в стилі Дикого Заходу.
По-третє, автор рясно згадує в перших розділах про Мішеля Фуко, але цілком не розуміє суті його теорії. Згідно з Фуко, якщо правила існують, значить це комусь треба! Тобто факт, що нори закону “відстають” від народних правил, - це не випадковість, а закономірність. Очевидно, що політики чи влада мають з цього вигоду: корупційні схеми так набагато легше реалізовувати. Проте автор твердо переконаний, що варто елітам відкрити очі на народні правила – і ситуація зміниться моментально. Автор щиросердно пише: жодна еліта не буде грабувати своє населення і доводити економіку до колапсу. Правління Януковича продемонструвало, що де Сото не розуміє реалій пострадянських країн. А трагічна доля Донбасу, який опинився в скруті саме через дивну політику держави ще в 1990-х рр. демонструє, що справа не в Януковичі, а в особливостях пострадянських еліт. В Росії ситуація не є радикально іншою, як і в Грузії – до Революції Троянд. Пострадянські еліти демонструють схильність грабувати власний народ.
Загалом, книжка цікава прикладами, які автор наводить, але зводиться до однієї тези, яка ще й не є достатньо аргументованою. Тому залишається лише тішитися, що книжка є не великою.
Read
May 25, 2016در هاییتی فقیرترین کشور آمریکای لاتین، کل داراییهای فقرا بیش از ۱۵۰ برابر ارزش تمامی سرمایهگذاریهای خارجی است اما مردم این منابع را به شکل معیوب نگهداری میکنند و فرایندی ندارند که مالکیت آنها را نشان داده و سرمایه تولید کند.
اگر جهان سوم در حال گذار به یک نظام سرمایهداریِ متکی بر بازار باشد،که به تمایلات و اعتقادات مردم احترام بگذارد، من به اینکه جهان سومی هستم عشق میورزم. هنگامی که سرمایه در همه جا یک داستان موفق باشد، ما میتوانیم فراتر از محدودیتهای جهان فیزیکی حرکت و از افکار خود برای اوجگیری و رسیدن به آینده استفاده کنیم.
اگر جهان سوم در حال گذار به یک نظام سرمایهداریِ متکی بر بازار باشد،که به تمایلات و اعتقادات مردم احترام بگذارد، من به اینکه جهان سومی هستم عشق میورزم. هنگامی که سرمایه در همه جا یک داستان موفق باشد، ما میتوانیم فراتر از محدودیتهای جهان فیزیکی حرکت و از افکار خود برای اوجگیری و رسیدن به آینده استفاده کنیم.
October 2, 2008
De Soto has a point, namely that the biggest reason for the continued laggardness of people in developing countries to "catch up" with those in the developed world lies in the convoluted local legal structures that favor those with the power, money, influence, and the wherewithal to navigate their way through the system. As in it is cheaper and easier to just stay outside of the legal system altogether and cobble together an implicit, grassroots alternative to it. Hence the overwhelming majority of economic activity that lies in the "informal sector," retaining people's assets in a form that doesn't lend itself to the multi-faceted liquidity engendered almost as an epiphenomenon by the legal system of personal property rights that we take so much for granted.
What is frustrating is his willfully obdurate assertion that after the failure of state socialism, "capitalism is the only game around," especially when the full-throttle exploitation of the very liquidity that he touts as the way out of the poverty hole in which the majority of people in the developing world are stuck forms the core of what has led to the current financial crisis. It would be greatly interesting to see what he would have to say about the current state of affairs, given the book was published back in 2000.
What is frustrating is his willfully obdurate assertion that after the failure of state socialism, "capitalism is the only game around," especially when the full-throttle exploitation of the very liquidity that he touts as the way out of the poverty hole in which the majority of people in the developing world are stuck forms the core of what has led to the current financial crisis. It would be greatly interesting to see what he would have to say about the current state of affairs, given the book was published back in 2000.
October 27, 2009
What an eye-opening book this one was! Everyone who has a heart for the globally poor needs to read it. Along with everyone who pretends to have a heart for the poor.
Read
September 2, 2016لم اقرأ كتاب منذ فترة يحمل هذا الكم من التحيزات المعرفية للحضارة التي ينتسب اليها الكاتب .... عندما ابحر فيه سوف اكتب انتقاداتي له تباعا لان التحفظات عليه لا آخر لها
December 7, 2025
Super brugbar i BA😊😊
October 9, 2014
A wonderfully argued book on the advantages that we westerners have over much of the rest of the world in firmly established, transferable, and accountable property rights. de Soto slashes away at the cultural arguments that many authors make in celebration of the west (I'm thinking of Niall Ferguson here), and instead focuses on the structures that allow for individuals to build up credit through the acquisition of property. It is this which enables risk taking and, and debt creation allowing for such things as building legal business and loans for education. de Soto does a marvelous job of using fact and examples to demonstrate that work ethic is cross-cultural - many instead are trapped in that their investments in home and business cannot be transferred, because there is no legal designation for who actually owns what. By his estimation, there are trillions of dollars of uncapped capital in many parts of the world for the simple consequence of there not being sufficient legal institutions to ensure that transfer of property is recognized by state institutions, and therefor honored.
This is not a left/right, conservative/liberal book, but I do detect some Hayek (not the ideologue) here. It clarifies the reasons why capitalism works, and what it takes to make it viable.
This is not a left/right, conservative/liberal book, but I do detect some Hayek (not the ideologue) here. It clarifies the reasons why capitalism works, and what it takes to make it viable.
March 24, 2007
This book puts forward the stunning notion that one of the things that keeps poor countries poor is that they have most of their value locked up in defunct land, which is tended (but not owned) by squatters and people who don't have titles to it. DeSoto's idea is that land reform in these countries would end up allowing the poor to buy, sell, and borrow the things they already have. All it would really take is streamlining title acquisition and land-use laws.
I haven't really read much criticism on this book, though it feels like their must be some flaws. He thinks that the poor are the best caretakers of their own money, and if they were suddenly richer they'd take full advantage of ownership. While I tend to agree, this isn't really testable because not having much money to take care of is what makes them poor in the first place. Seems like there's a lot of conjecture here, but at the very least it reminds us that land reform is a key piece of development that we inheritors of the English legal system take for granted.
I haven't really read much criticism on this book, though it feels like their must be some flaws. He thinks that the poor are the best caretakers of their own money, and if they were suddenly richer they'd take full advantage of ownership. While I tend to agree, this isn't really testable because not having much money to take care of is what makes them poor in the first place. Seems like there's a lot of conjecture here, but at the very least it reminds us that land reform is a key piece of development that we inheritors of the English legal system take for granted.
March 12, 2020
"Capitalism stands alone as the only feasible way to rationally organize a modern economy."
Sitting here marinating in late-stage capitalism, it is difficult not to approach a book with this statement in the first paragraph with a bit of suspicion and contempt. HOWEVER:
- In order to move away from capitalism and fight for something better, you need to understand capitalism.
- This book will help you understand capitalism. I definitely learned a lot. It is also organized well and fairly engaging.
- Soto is Peruvian and writes from a non-western point-of-view. A point of view not well-represented in English-language writing on capitalism.
- His main point is that property bureaucracy in non-Western countries is a nightmare and could be streamlined so that poor people could build capital.
- After opening with that statement, he does walk it back a bit by stating that he is not a "die-hard capitalist." However, it is the system we live and it could be optimized to help the poor and foster equal opportunity.
Sitting here marinating in late-stage capitalism, it is difficult not to approach a book with this statement in the first paragraph with a bit of suspicion and contempt. HOWEVER:
- In order to move away from capitalism and fight for something better, you need to understand capitalism.
- This book will help you understand capitalism. I definitely learned a lot. It is also organized well and fairly engaging.
- Soto is Peruvian and writes from a non-western point-of-view. A point of view not well-represented in English-language writing on capitalism.
- His main point is that property bureaucracy in non-Western countries is a nightmare and could be streamlined so that poor people could build capital.
- After opening with that statement, he does walk it back a bit by stating that he is not a "die-hard capitalist." However, it is the system we live and it could be optimized to help the poor and foster equal opportunity.
November 8, 2017
Quyển sách này trong một thời gian đã đúng với các nước trong sách (Ai Cập, Haiti, etc), và như các reviews bên dưới, với Việt Nam. Tuy nhiên, giờ Việt Nam đã trải qua các bước "quá độ" như trong sách từ lâu, với báo cáo Doing Business in Vietnam gần đây nhất của NH Thế Giới đánh giá Việt Nam nằm trong top 30 thế giới về chỉ số tiếp cận tín dụng.
Xét về mặt nghiên cứu, trình bày, thì các chương đầu làm rất tốt. Những chương ��� giữa nói về hình thành vốn ở xã hội Mỹ với các giai đoạn lịch sử cũng rất liên quan tới Việt Nam mình thời kỳ đầu sau 75. Tuy nhiên, và mình nói điều này rất hạn chế, chúng ta đã có một bước nhảy vọt. Và những gì đang xảy ra với "vốn" ở Việt Nam trong mấy thập kỷ đổ lại chắc vẫn đang được đợi được giải trình ở quyển số 2 của quyển này.
Hãy đọc như đọc một quyển sách sử không có đoạn kết. Còn mình đọc để tìm tòi thêm thì đã thất vọng nhanh chóng so với nửa cuối quyển sách, tuy nhiên không thể nói đã không hài lòng và đôi chỗ vui thú với nửa đầu.
Xét về mặt nghiên cứu, trình bày, thì các chương đầu làm rất tốt. Những chương ��� giữa nói về hình thành vốn ở xã hội Mỹ với các giai đoạn lịch sử cũng rất liên quan tới Việt Nam mình thời kỳ đầu sau 75. Tuy nhiên, và mình nói điều này rất hạn chế, chúng ta đã có một bước nhảy vọt. Và những gì đang xảy ra với "vốn" ở Việt Nam trong mấy thập kỷ đổ lại chắc vẫn đang được đợi được giải trình ở quyển số 2 của quyển này.
Hãy đọc như đọc một quyển sách sử không có đoạn kết. Còn mình đọc để tìm tòi thêm thì đã thất vọng nhanh chóng so với nửa cuối quyển sách, tuy nhiên không thể nói đã không hài lòng và đôi chỗ vui thú với nửa đầu.
September 24, 2019
This book presents the fascinating premise that capitalism only works due to abstract representations (and protections) for property. It's intriguing and well-argued. Unfortunately, it also gets a bit repetitive, restating some of the same ideas multiple times. So, neat stuff, but it outstays its welcome.
August 4, 2024
For me only the beginning was interesting, where it defined capital and had some striking statistics about the size of un-capitalized goods in developing nations. Then it got pretty boring and repetitive on this topic. I’m not familiar enough with Marxism to understand his section on that topic.
September 14, 2020
De Soto makes a convincing argument that the Third World stays poor because most economic activity happens in the extralegal sector, and the majority of people are denied access to the formal property system. This is very much the case in my country, even 20 years after this book was written.
A very important book. I wish lawmakers in my country would read it.
A very important book. I wish lawmakers in my country would read it.
June 3, 2023
A good book with some flaws. This is one of those books, like "Flow" or "The Marshmallow Test" that is not often read in its entirety, and is not without its flaws, but one which posits a thesis that is so smart that it should be at least referenced by anyone purporting to be aware in their field. Hernando De Soto, back in the 80's and 90's, argued (through tough, empirically-gathered data in various countries) that what separates the third from the first world is that the former do not have systems of law which facilitate the creation of and use of capital–and therefore, massive amounts of "dead capital" exist in urban centers which cannot be used because it is not recognized by the greater community/government.
For example–what makes property so valuable is not merely that you can, in real estate, live on a piece of dirt, and build a house on it. it is also that you can borrow money against it, among other things. De Soto points out that many small businesses begin (at least in the U.S.) through liquidity raised via second mortgages. In the third world, poor people live in houses, but they don't have titles to their property. Because they don't have titles, they can't borrow money, etc. etc. Their homes and businesses operate outside the formal law system. This is not because they are bad people, but simply because the cost of operating legally is too prohibitive. De Soto and his team tried to set up a business in Lima, for example, and it took them many hundreds of steps almost a year to simply register the business to operate. The cost to file all of the paperwork was 31-times monthly minimum wage.
De Soto spends a chapter outlining his thesis and showing his receipts–charts showing real estate in various cities around the world–Cairo, Port Au Prince, Lima–that looks impressive but is "extra-legal" it doesn't exist on government records, and therefore is outside of the formal law system which would make it so much more valuable because it can have a parallel "life" as capital rather than commodity. The most valuable and interesting chapter (for me, who appreciates historical narrative) was on the history of the U.S. property system emerging from an extralegal one (squatters!) to one that the government was forced to fold into a formal system by the mid-19th century.
Unfortunately, that chapter was the closest thing to a case study that De Soto ever gives, and that's merely a historical argument. Given that the point of his book is policy-based, namely, that third-world countries need to redo their property systems to improve the overall economy for their poorer citizens–their are no examples of this actually being done successfully, apart from the U.S., which is not a great comparison.
Another niggle would be the lack of vividness in the prose. The narrative could have benefited from a few stories about some of these poorer folks living their lives and businesses in the cities where De Soto and his team spent so much time gathering data.
All in all, a flawed but useful book, one that should be read and digested by anyone working in public policy, missions, or economics. Not for the casual generalist, though.
For example–what makes property so valuable is not merely that you can, in real estate, live on a piece of dirt, and build a house on it. it is also that you can borrow money against it, among other things. De Soto points out that many small businesses begin (at least in the U.S.) through liquidity raised via second mortgages. In the third world, poor people live in houses, but they don't have titles to their property. Because they don't have titles, they can't borrow money, etc. etc. Their homes and businesses operate outside the formal law system. This is not because they are bad people, but simply because the cost of operating legally is too prohibitive. De Soto and his team tried to set up a business in Lima, for example, and it took them many hundreds of steps almost a year to simply register the business to operate. The cost to file all of the paperwork was 31-times monthly minimum wage.
De Soto spends a chapter outlining his thesis and showing his receipts–charts showing real estate in various cities around the world–Cairo, Port Au Prince, Lima–that looks impressive but is "extra-legal" it doesn't exist on government records, and therefore is outside of the formal law system which would make it so much more valuable because it can have a parallel "life" as capital rather than commodity. The most valuable and interesting chapter (for me, who appreciates historical narrative) was on the history of the U.S. property system emerging from an extralegal one (squatters!) to one that the government was forced to fold into a formal system by the mid-19th century.
Unfortunately, that chapter was the closest thing to a case study that De Soto ever gives, and that's merely a historical argument. Given that the point of his book is policy-based, namely, that third-world countries need to redo their property systems to improve the overall economy for their poorer citizens–their are no examples of this actually being done successfully, apart from the U.S., which is not a great comparison.
Another niggle would be the lack of vividness in the prose. The narrative could have benefited from a few stories about some of these poorer folks living their lives and businesses in the cities where De Soto and his team spent so much time gathering data.
All in all, a flawed but useful book, one that should be read and digested by anyone working in public policy, missions, or economics. Not for the casual generalist, though.
August 4, 2022
The aim here is to find out why poor countries stay poor and why Western countries stay relatively rich. Basically, the more a government behaves like a capitalist entity, the more useful and less obstructing it is to its society. It is really basic logics as far as I’m concerned but this problem is presented by a serious Third World economist from Peru who has a real passion towards actually learning what could make his country and the rest of the Third World prosper similarly to the Western World. Thus he will reverse engineer this problem through years of work in order to have enough empirical data and a step-by-step understanding of this process. I think he has achieved it and it is really an amazing accomplishment. Everyone should read this book. It’s not just about economy, it’s about understanding the world on a deeper level and being proud of what we have achieved.
As I mentioned, the core idea in my estimation is about governments either behaving like free market entities or rather like anti-free market entities. As an example, in Haiti it requires about 176 steps and nineteen years of going through crippling bureaucracy just to buy land from the government. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world and one would think that governments of poorer countries would be more forgiving about these things. I mean selling land for people to start small businesses would be good for the economy, right? Well, actually it’s kind of a rule that governments of Third World countries create these ludicrous barriers for people entering the formal, legal sector of the economy. What happens as a result of that? People simply do not enter the legal sector of the economy and form shadow economies, or extralegal sectors. These extralegal economies can form up to 80-90% of productivity of these developing nations because people are forced to work outside of the official law.
Why is this bad, why does it matter? For example In Brazil, there are extralegal cities, Favelas, where people just occupy land and build their houses on it. One can buy and rent houses in these cities by paying cash in US dollars. There are no rent controls or cumbersome regulations to deal with. If you do not pay, you get evicted quickly. These extralegal cities combined together contain billions of dollars’ worth of assets that exist outside the formal sector of the economy. This means that these assets are not available to be used to produce more economic activity and value. There is no clear system of ownership of these houses which means it is impossible for service industries to provide electricity, plumbing, phone service, internet service, trash collection etc to these houses. It would be impossible to collect payments for these services since nobody knows who owns anything in these cities. So the problem, again, is that the assets in these cities are not available to be used to create further productivity, or capital in other words.
A great analogy would be to think of a lake somewhere in nature. By itself, the lake has value. People can swim in it, perhaps get drinking water from it, wash their clothes in it etc. But in order for the lake to generate more capital, it requires the work, skills and imagination of engineers and builders to harness the lake’s potential to create something more valuable. Thus a hydroelectric plant can be built next to the lake which could provide electricity and that is much more valuable than the value of the lake by itself. These extralegal cities in Brazil and all over the third world are like lakes whose potential cannot be realized because the government prevents people from entering into a formal, unified legal sector. According to the author, this is the main problem for poor countries – their assets are locked in a dead state where they cannot be used to create capital. Another analogy to describe this situation would be to think of the internet. If you have any number of individual computers, they’re relatively valuable but if you connect them through the internet, an infinite amount of extra productivity is created. The computers as physical entities stay the same but through the imagination and ingenuity of productive people, infinite amount of extra capital can be created from these computers.
Another point here to make is that the people in these Third World countries also have savings which in total amount to trillions and trillions of dollars but it does not matter since they mostly operate outside of and formal laws. Their assets are locked in a dead state, their investments cannot create extra capital. Thus they cannot escape their poverty collectively. Also funneling aid money into the governments of these nations with the purpose of reducing poverty would be like sending money directly to heroin addicts to reduce drug use. The problem is not a lack of resources. The problem is a lack of a unified formal system of property ownership under which the difficulty and cost of transactions would be drastically decreased.
Why would governments try to restrict their people in such a way? Firstly we should look how government of the US has developed to produce the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen. In a nutshell, the US government gradually realized throughout its several hundred year development that enforcing laws on its people will not result in increased wealth and quality of living. Actually quite the opposite happened. Tradesmen and manufacturers started exiting the formal sector governed by laws and eventually formed their own organizations. These became bigger and much more successful than those under government regulations. Here the government was faced with a choice – to blindly pursue its authority and unbendingly enforce its laws or try to adapt. Well adapt they did. They eventually just declared law whatever was already working efficiently among the people. They got rid of the anachronistic British laws and adapted to new and changing situations. After several hundred years, with the cooperation between people and its government, a unified formal system of property ownership developed which was another key element in this story.
So what do we do about it? Is there hope for the third world? With public intellectuals like De Soto, there is. He has made a detailed plan on how to convert dead capital into live capital and he has conducted successful experiments in Peru doing this. Then again this whole process of creating a working system for producing more and more capital is really quite hard to achieve and it took hundreds of years for the most freedom-minded high-functioning Western nations to achieve this. So is there hope? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
As I mentioned, the core idea in my estimation is about governments either behaving like free market entities or rather like anti-free market entities. As an example, in Haiti it requires about 176 steps and nineteen years of going through crippling bureaucracy just to buy land from the government. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world and one would think that governments of poorer countries would be more forgiving about these things. I mean selling land for people to start small businesses would be good for the economy, right? Well, actually it’s kind of a rule that governments of Third World countries create these ludicrous barriers for people entering the formal, legal sector of the economy. What happens as a result of that? People simply do not enter the legal sector of the economy and form shadow economies, or extralegal sectors. These extralegal economies can form up to 80-90% of productivity of these developing nations because people are forced to work outside of the official law.
Why is this bad, why does it matter? For example In Brazil, there are extralegal cities, Favelas, where people just occupy land and build their houses on it. One can buy and rent houses in these cities by paying cash in US dollars. There are no rent controls or cumbersome regulations to deal with. If you do not pay, you get evicted quickly. These extralegal cities combined together contain billions of dollars’ worth of assets that exist outside the formal sector of the economy. This means that these assets are not available to be used to produce more economic activity and value. There is no clear system of ownership of these houses which means it is impossible for service industries to provide electricity, plumbing, phone service, internet service, trash collection etc to these houses. It would be impossible to collect payments for these services since nobody knows who owns anything in these cities. So the problem, again, is that the assets in these cities are not available to be used to create further productivity, or capital in other words.
A great analogy would be to think of a lake somewhere in nature. By itself, the lake has value. People can swim in it, perhaps get drinking water from it, wash their clothes in it etc. But in order for the lake to generate more capital, it requires the work, skills and imagination of engineers and builders to harness the lake’s potential to create something more valuable. Thus a hydroelectric plant can be built next to the lake which could provide electricity and that is much more valuable than the value of the lake by itself. These extralegal cities in Brazil and all over the third world are like lakes whose potential cannot be realized because the government prevents people from entering into a formal, unified legal sector. According to the author, this is the main problem for poor countries – their assets are locked in a dead state where they cannot be used to create capital. Another analogy to describe this situation would be to think of the internet. If you have any number of individual computers, they’re relatively valuable but if you connect them through the internet, an infinite amount of extra productivity is created. The computers as physical entities stay the same but through the imagination and ingenuity of productive people, infinite amount of extra capital can be created from these computers.
Another point here to make is that the people in these Third World countries also have savings which in total amount to trillions and trillions of dollars but it does not matter since they mostly operate outside of and formal laws. Their assets are locked in a dead state, their investments cannot create extra capital. Thus they cannot escape their poverty collectively. Also funneling aid money into the governments of these nations with the purpose of reducing poverty would be like sending money directly to heroin addicts to reduce drug use. The problem is not a lack of resources. The problem is a lack of a unified formal system of property ownership under which the difficulty and cost of transactions would be drastically decreased.
Why would governments try to restrict their people in such a way? Firstly we should look how government of the US has developed to produce the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen. In a nutshell, the US government gradually realized throughout its several hundred year development that enforcing laws on its people will not result in increased wealth and quality of living. Actually quite the opposite happened. Tradesmen and manufacturers started exiting the formal sector governed by laws and eventually formed their own organizations. These became bigger and much more successful than those under government regulations. Here the government was faced with a choice – to blindly pursue its authority and unbendingly enforce its laws or try to adapt. Well adapt they did. They eventually just declared law whatever was already working efficiently among the people. They got rid of the anachronistic British laws and adapted to new and changing situations. After several hundred years, with the cooperation between people and its government, a unified formal system of property ownership developed which was another key element in this story.
So what do we do about it? Is there hope for the third world? With public intellectuals like De Soto, there is. He has made a detailed plan on how to convert dead capital into live capital and he has conducted successful experiments in Peru doing this. Then again this whole process of creating a working system for producing more and more capital is really quite hard to achieve and it took hundreds of years for the most freedom-minded high-functioning Western nations to achieve this. So is there hope? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
April 23, 2020
Як я вже писала, досить смішно читати сьогодні, після гучного БААМММС! іпотечної бульки, яка у 2008 році заляпала увесь світ кризою, про те, що бідні країни бідні тільки тому, що в них нерухомість не бере участі у продукуванні капіталу шляхом іпотечного кредитування.
Але це була тільки перша частина книги, яка, до речі, видавництвом Наш Формат у 2017-му перекладена вдруге, перший раз її видало Ніка-центр у 2009-му. Бо далі там пішла досить цікавезна історична довідка про те, як саме США та Европа вийшли з того кута тіньового ринку нерухомості, у якому сьогодні перебуває півсвіту (у тому числі й Україна). Про те, як Америку зробили обжитою сквотери, як держава прийняла єдині правила землепрорядкування та володіння, як і коли було прийнято "а й мать його їті, нехай ото вже ваше, але далі - тільки законним шляхом!". Тут же поруч йде порівняння того, що сучасний стан країн Азії та Латинської Америки - це рівно те саме, що було у Штатах 200 років тому: самозахвати, нелегальні бізнеси, які годують 90% країни, та суціль��ий треш у законах, які, якщо вони є, мало хто читав.
І якщо початок був досить смішний, з огляду на те, що страпилося через кілька років після написання. То далі було досить слушно. Не у тому, що всі заразом побігли до кредитування. А у тому, що тіньовий бізнес дійсно робить державу слабкою і цим щось треба робити.
Це той формат нон-фікшну, який мені надзвичайно подобається: стисло, структуровано, лаконічно й про головне, без 100500-го повторення однієї думки різними словами. Прочитано за 2 вечори
Але це була тільки перша частина книги, яка, до речі, видавництвом Наш Формат у 2017-му перекладена вдруге, перший раз її видало Ніка-центр у 2009-му. Бо далі там пішла досить цікавезна історична довідка про те, як саме США та Европа вийшли з того кута тіньового ринку нерухомості, у якому сьогодні перебуває півсвіту (у тому числі й Україна). Про те, як Америку зробили обжитою сквотери, як держава прийняла єдині правила землепрорядкування та володіння, як і коли було прийнято "а й мать його їті, нехай ото вже ваше, але далі - тільки законним шляхом!". Тут же поруч йде порівняння того, що сучасний стан країн Азії та Латинської Америки - це рівно те саме, що було у Штатах 200 років тому: самозахвати, нелегальні бізнеси, які годують 90% країни, та суціль��ий треш у законах, які, якщо вони є, мало хто читав.
І якщо початок був досить смішний, з огляду на те, що страпилося через кілька років після написання. То далі було досить слушно. Не у тому, що всі заразом побігли до кредитування. А у тому, що тіньовий бізнес дійсно робить державу слабкою і цим щось треба робити.
Це той формат нон-фікшну, який мені надзвичайно подобається: стисло, структуровано, лаконічно й про головне, без 100500-го повторення однієї думки різними словами. Прочитано за 2 вечори
April 14, 2020
Ha sido un descubrimiento para mi leer este libro de Hernando de Soto. La visión que da del verdadero motivo de la pobreza y desigualdad en los países de Latinoamérica y que han salido recientemente del comunismo, es sorprendente ya que no está en debates, ni libros de economía, ni en ningún programa político. Y nada tiene que ver con las ideas preconcebidas de la gran mayoría de la población occidental.
La forma en la que explica la desigualdad entre el mundo 'extralegal' y legal es tan clara y contundente que te hace pensar de manera diferente. Como transformar los activos que valen mucho pero que no aportan ni generan valor para que la sociedad en su conjunto se beneficie de ellos.
Aunque es impresionante el análisis que hay detrás, es harto complicado, el que un Gobierno pueda desarrollar un plan para ejecutarlo. Los ejemplo demuestran que son procesos laboriosos que pueden llevar siglos. Pero lo positivo es, que Hernando de Soto identifica la raíz del problema y esgrime soluciones para remar en la buena dirección.
Libro recomendable para todo aquel que se sienta atraído por entender lo que hay detrás de los diferentes sistemas económicos, que quiera descifrar el motivo de las desigualdades que hay en el mundo y que le guste la filosofía.
La forma en la que explica la desigualdad entre el mundo 'extralegal' y legal es tan clara y contundente que te hace pensar de manera diferente. Como transformar los activos que valen mucho pero que no aportan ni generan valor para que la sociedad en su conjunto se beneficie de ellos.
Aunque es impresionante el análisis que hay detrás, es harto complicado, el que un Gobierno pueda desarrollar un plan para ejecutarlo. Los ejemplo demuestran que son procesos laboriosos que pueden llevar siglos. Pero lo positivo es, que Hernando de Soto identifica la raíz del problema y esgrime soluciones para remar en la buena dirección.
Libro recomendable para todo aquel que se sienta atraído por entender lo que hay detrás de los diferentes sistemas económicos, que quiera descifrar el motivo de las desigualdades que hay en el mundo y que le guste la filosofía.
November 11, 2011
التسجيل والتوثيق وايجاد مستندات لكل الأصول الماديه ... هذا هو ما يقصده المؤلف بسر رأس المال وقد توسع فى شرحه وفى فائدته لكل الأطراف سواء للمواطنين وللدوله
ويستعرض الكتاب اهمية عملية التوثيق والتسجيل وما هى الصعوبات التى تواجهها ومدى خطورة ان يكون هناك جزء كبير من العقارات والأراضى والورش والمصانع الصغيره والحقول الخ الخ غير مسجله ولا يملك اصحابها سندات ملكيه واهمية ان يعى السياسين ما الذى تمثله المستندات السليمه بالنسبه للأقتصاد كما يفرد الكتاب فصلا كاملا لشرح كيف استطاعت امريكا بعد مسيره طويله ان تصل لنظام توثيق محكم وشامل
والحق ان الكتاب مهم بالفعل ويناقش قضيه اقتصاديه خطيره للغايه ( على عكس ما يتصور البعض ) وعيب الكتاب الوحيد هو تكرار شرح لنفس النقاط فى اماكن متعدده من الصفحات
كتبت هذا التعليق بعد اطلاعى على طبعه عربيه من الكتاب مسماه ( سر رأس المال ) ... من ترجمة كمال السيد وهى الطبعه الأولى وصدرت عن مركز الأهرام للترجمة والنشر فى عام 2002 ميلاديه
ومن الجدير بالذكر ان الهيئة المصرية العامة للكتاب قامت بأصدار الكتاب فى عام 2009
ويستعرض الكتاب اهمية عملية التوثيق والتسجيل وما هى الصعوبات التى تواجهها ومدى خطورة ان يكون هناك جزء كبير من العقارات والأراضى والورش والمصانع الصغيره والحقول الخ الخ غير مسجله ولا يملك اصحابها سندات ملكيه واهمية ان يعى السياسين ما الذى تمثله المستندات السليمه بالنسبه للأقتصاد كما يفرد الكتاب فصلا كاملا لشرح كيف استطاعت امريكا بعد مسيره طويله ان تصل لنظام توثيق محكم وشامل
والحق ان الكتاب مهم بالفعل ويناقش قضيه اقتصاديه خطيره للغايه ( على عكس ما يتصور البعض ) وعيب الكتاب الوحيد هو تكرار شرح لنفس النقاط فى اماكن متعدده من الصفحات
كتبت هذا التعليق بعد اطلاعى على طبعه عربيه من الكتاب مسماه ( سر رأس المال ) ... من ترجمة كمال السيد وهى الطبعه الأولى وصدرت عن مركز الأهرام للترجمة والنشر فى عام 2002 ميلاديه
ومن الجدير بالذكر ان الهيئة المصرية العامة للكتاب قامت بأصدار الكتاب فى عام 2009
November 4, 2008
An amazing book that investigates the power of informal economic infrastructures. Latin America had a higher per capita income than North America in 1789. What happened? Why did capitalism take root in North America and why did it fail elsewhere? Now that Capitalism's big rival is for intents vanquished, the capitalist society is the only viable option for economic growth left for the developing countries. DeSoto's brilliant work examines the impediments to economic growth in the developing world, while examining the liberating effects of ownership of capital.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 371 reviews