ІНКЛЮЗИВНЕ СУСПІЛЬСТВО: ВІД ТЕОРІЇ ДО РЕАЛЬНОСТІ

The article analyses theoretical foundations of the development of an inclusive society in Ukraine. It demonstrates significance of theoretical investigations by D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson into the development of inclusive political and economic institutions as established practices of an inclusive society. The article investigates methodological possibilities of a mono-causal «simple theory» approach, which D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson use to clarify the main contours of economic and political development of different countries from the Neolithic revolution till now. The key idea of the two US scientists is that all the roots of poverty can be traced to politics and political processes. These topics form the subject of their analysis. We note that D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson maintain institutional point of view and argue that societies’ growth requires effective institutions. Inclusive institutions, such as property rights, access to markets, equality before the law, access to infrastructure, support for economic and social mobility, and investment in human capital are needed for economic development. By contrast, extractive institutions enable the appropriation of rent by privileged groups in society, i.e. the elites. These institutions only redistribute resources rather than supporting development. They discriminate and expropriate. D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson consider political institutions fundamental to economic growth. They divide these into inclusive and extractive institutions as well. For D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson, politics is the process of a society choosing the rules governing its activities, and political institutions are the key determinant in the result of the struggle for economic gain – the prosperity of a nation, groups or specific individuals. Political institutions determine who has power in society and what power can be used for. Inclusive political institutions are characterised by plurality – various interest groups affecting political decisions. Under such conditions, the control over life in the country cannot be concentrated within a narrow group. However, D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson also caution that sufficient centralization is required to prevent chaos in a wide plurality. Extractive political institutions allow a narrow circle of elites to concentrate political power and subordinate economic institutions to the task of collecting resources from the rest of society. The article emphasises the importance of D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson’s conclusion regarding the synergies between political and economic institutions. Inclusive political institutions with their wide distribution of power do not allow the usurping of power over economic institutions; and equitable distribution of resources encourages strengthening of inclusive political institutions (“inclusive society”). Such synergies are also inherent in extractive institutions. Four types of institutions create four possible institutional combinations. However, two combinations are typically reproduced: inclusive political and economic institutions, and extractive political and economic institutions. If there is a need to go beyond the bounds of extractive political and economic institutions, such opportunities arise at critical junctures, created by shock situations. The article emphasises the cautious nature of D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson’s conclusions regarding the ways of changing political institutions in society from extractive to inclusive ones, and their confidence in the contingent nature of history, which might create or not create inclusive political institutions. However, even in the context of contingency, inclusive political and economic institutions, if they appeared, would be more likely to be reproduced in history, forming a virtuous circle. There is also a vicious circle of extractive institutions. The article also considers the ignorance hypothesis approach as the foundation of the influence of western political elites. According to D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson, western politicians are convinced that the roots of the poverty problem lie in the lack of knowledge about generating prosperity among the poor countries’ elites. D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson emphasise that the overall perspective chosen by international organisations is false because they do not recognise the key role of political institutions. It is noted that D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson do not provide a programmatic answer to the question of how to create inclusive political institutions, instead emphasising that there is no recipe for the development of such institutions. There are factors that can contribute to their appearance: a significant level of centralisation that will not allow social movements that are trying to change the existing regime out of the boundaries of the law; availability of a broad coalition; civil society institutions that are able to coordinate the demands of the population so that the opposition movements would not be easily crushed by existing elites or used by another group to establish their control over extractive political institutions. We conclude that under the conditions of contingency, the responsibility of the political elites for their chosen development strategies and tactics grows immeasurably. History is not a destiny: a vicious circle can be broken. The elections awaiting Ukraine can become the breakthrough to a prosperous inclusive society