Turkish-American economist (born 1967)

Kamer Daron Acemoğlu (Turkish: [daˈɾon aˈdʒemoːɫu];^[1] born September 3, 1967) is a Turkish-American economist of Armenian descent who has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1993, where he is currently the Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics, and was named an Institute Professor at MIT in 2019.^[2] He received the John Bates Clark Medal in 2005, and the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2024.^[2][3]

Acemoglu ranked third, behind Paul Krugman and Greg Mankiw, in the list of “Favorite Living Economists Under Age 60” in a 2011 survey among American economists. In 2015, he was named the most cited economist of the past 10 years per Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) data. According to the Open Syllabus Project, Acemoglu is the third most frequently cited author on college syllabi for economics courses after Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman.^[4]

In 2024, Acemoglu, James A. Robinson and Simon Johnson, were awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for their comparative studies in prosperity between states and empires.^[5]

Early and personal life

Kamer Daron Acemoğlu^[6][7][a] was born in Istanbul to Armenian parents on September 3, 1967.^[10][11][12] His father, Kevork Acemoglu (1938–1988), was a commercial lawyer and lecturer at Istanbul University. His mother, Irma Acemoglu (d. 1991), was the principal of Aramyan Uncuyan [tr; hy], an Armenian elementary school in Kadıköy,^[13][14][15] which he attended, before graduating from Galatasaray High School in 1986.^[16][17][18] He became interested in politics and economics as a teenager.^[15] He was educated at the University of York, where he received a BA in economics in 1989, and at the London School of Economics (LSE), where he received an MSc in econometrics and mathematical economics in 1990, and a PhD in economics in 1992.^[19] His doctoral thesis was titled Essays in Microfoundations of Macroeconomics: Contracts and Economic Performance.^[10][7] His doctoral advisor was Kevin W. S. Roberts.^[20] James Malcomson, one of his doctoral examiners at the LSE, said that even the weakest three of the seven chapters of his thesis were “more than sufficient for the award of a PhD.” Arnold Kling called him a wunderkind due to the age at which he received his PhD (25).^[22]

Acemoglu is a naturalized U.S. citizen.^[23] He is fluent in English and Turkish,^[24] and speaks some Armenian.^[25] He is married to Asuman “Asu” Ozdağlar, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT,^[15][26] who is the daughter of İsmail Özdağlar, a former Turkish government minister. Together, they have authored several articles.^[27][28] As of 2015, they live in Newton, Massachusetts with their two sons, Arda and Aras.^[29]

Academic career

Acemoglu was a lecturer in economics at the LSE from 1992 to 1993.^[2] He was appointed an assistant professor at MIT in 1993, where he became the Pentti Kouri Associate Professor of Economics in 1997, and was tenured in 1998.^[2][30] He became a full professor at MIT in 2000, and served as the Charles P. Kindleberger Professor of Applied Economics there from 2004 to 2010.^[2][31] In 2010, Acemoglu was appointed the Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics at MIT.^[10] In July 2019, he was named an Institute Professor, the highest faculty honour at MIT.^[32]

As of 2019, he has mentored over 60 PhD students.^[32] Among his doctoral students are Robert Shimer, Mark Aguiar, Pol Antràs, and Gabriel Carroll.^[20] In 2014, he made $841,380, making him one of the top earners at MIT.^[33]

Acemoglu is a research associate at the NBER, and was elected a Fellow of the Econometric Society in 2005.^[19][2][34] He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2006, and to the National Academy of Sciences in 2014.^[35][36] He is also a Senior Fellow at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, and a member of several other learned societies.^[19][37][38] He edited Econometrica, an academic journal published by the Econometric Society, from 2011 to 2015.^[39]

Acemoglu has authored hundreds of academic papers.^[40] He noted that most of his research has been “motivated by trying to understand the sources of poverty.”^[23] His research includes a wide range of topics, including political economy, human capital theory, growth theory, economic development, innovation, labor economics,^[19] income and wage inequality, and network economics, among others.^[42] He noted in 2011 that most his research of the past 15 years concerned with what can be broadly called political economy.^[43] He has made contribution to the labor economics field.^[23]

Acemoglu has extensively collaborated with James A. Robinson, a British political scientist, since 1993.^[30] Acemoglu has described it as a “very productive relationship.” They have worked together on a number of articles and several books, most of which on the subject of growth and economic development.^[23] The two have also extensively collaborated with economist Simon Johnson.^[44]

Research and publications

Acemoglu is considered a follower of new institutional economics.^[45][46][47] His influences include Joel Mokyr, Kenneth Sokoloff,^[48] Douglass North,^[49] Seymour Martin Lipset,^[50] and Barrington Moore.^[50]

Books

Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy

Published by Cambridge University Press in 2006, Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy by Acemoglu and Robinson analyzes the creation and consolidation of democratic societies. They argue that “democracy consolidates when elites do not have strong incentive to overthrow it. These processes depend on (1) the strength of civil society, (2) the structure of political institutions, (3) the nature of political and economic crises, (4) the level of economic inequality, (5) the structure of the economy, and (6) the form and extent of globalization.”^[51]

Romain Wacziarg praised the book and argued that its substantive contribution is the theoretical fusion of the Marxist dialectical materialism (“institutional change results from distributional struggles between two distinct social groups, a rich ruling class and a poor majority, each of whose interests are shaped primarily by economic forces”) and the ideas of Barry Weingast and Douglass North, who argued that “institutional reform can be a way for the elite to credibly commit to future policies by delegating their enactment to interests that will not wish to reverse them.”^[52] William Easterly called it “one of the most important contributions to the literature on the economics of democracy in a long time.” Edward Glaeser described it as “enormously significant” work and a “great contribution to the field.”^[53]

Why Nations Fail

In their 2012 book, Why Nations Fail, Acemoglu and Robinson argue that economic growth at the forefront of technology requires political stability, which the Mayan civilization (to name only one) did not have,^[54] and creative destruction. The latter cannot occur without institutional restraints on the granting of monopoly and oligopoly rights. They say that the Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain, because the English Bill of Rights 1689 created such restraints.

Acemoglu and Robinson insist that “development differences across countries are exclusively due to differences in political and economic institutions, and reject other theories that attribute some of the differences to culture, weather, geography or lack of knowledge about the best policies and practices.”^[55] For example, “Soviet Russia generated rapid growth as it caught up rapidly with some of the advanced technologies in the world [but] was running out of steam by the 1970s” because of a lack of creative destruction.^[56]

The book was written for the general audience.^[55] It was widely discussed by political analysts and commentators.^{[57][58][59][60]} Warren Bass wrote of it in The Washington Post: “bracing, garrulous, wildly ambitious and ultimately hopeful. It may, in fact, be a bit of a masterpiece.”^[61]

Clive Crook wrote in Bloomberg News that the book deserves most of the “lavish praise” it received.^[62] In his review in Foreign Affairs Jeffrey Sachs criticized Acemoglu and Robinson for systematically ignoring factors such as domestic politics, geopolitics, technological discoveries, and natural resources. He also argued that the book’s appeal was based on readers’ desire to hear that “Western democracy pays off not only politically but also economically.”^[63] Bill Gates called the book a “major disappointment” and characterized the authors’ analysis as “vague and simplistic.”^[64] Ryan Avent, an editor at The Economist, responded that “Acemoglu and Robinson might not be entirely right about why nations succeed or fail. But at least they’re engaged with the right problem.”^[65]

The Narrow Corridor

In The Narrow Corridor. States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty (2019), Acemoglu and Robinson argue that a free society is attained when the power of the state and of society evolved in rough balance.
^[66]

Power and Progress

Published in 2023, Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity is a book by Acemoglu and Simon Johnson on the historical development of technology and the social and political consequences of technology.^[67] The book addresses three questions, on the relationship between new machines and production techniques and wages, on the way in which technology could be harnessed for social goods, and on the reason for the enthusiasm around artificial intelligence.

Power and Progress argues that technologies do not automatically yield social goods, their benefits going to a narrow elite. It offers a rather critical view of artificial intelligence (AI), stressing its largely negative impact on jobs and wages and on democracy.

Acemoglu and Johnson also provide a vision about how new technologies could be harnessed for social good. They see the Progressive Era as offering a model. They also discuss a list of policy proposals for the redirection of technology that includes: (1) market incentives, (2) the break up of big tech, (3) tax reform, (4) investing in workers, (5) privacy protection and data ownership, and (6) a digital advertising tax.^[68]

Papers

Social programs and policies

In a 2001 article, Acemoglu argued that the minimum wage and unemployment benefits “shift the composition of employment toward high-wage jobs. Because the composition of jobs in the laissez-faire equilibrium is inefficiently biased toward low-wage jobs, these labor market regulations increase average labor productivity and may improve welfare.”^[69] Furthermore, he has argued that “minimum wages can increase training of affected workers, by inducing firms to train their unskilled employees.”^[70]

Democracy and economy

Acemoglu et al. found that “democracy has a significant and robust positive effect on GDP” and suggest that “democratizations increase GDP per capita by about 20% in the long run.”^[71] In another paper, Acemoglu et al. found that “there is a significant and robust effect of democracy on tax revenues as a fraction of GDP, but no robust impact on inequality.”^[72]

Social democracy and unions

Acemoglu and Philippe Aghion argued in 2001 that although deunionization in the US and UK since the 1980s is not the “underlying cause of the increase in inequality”, it “amplifies the direct effect of skill-biased technical change by removing the wage compression imposed by unions.”^[73]

According to Acemoglu and Robinson, unions historically had a significant role in creating democracy, especially in western Europe, and in maintaining a balance of political power between established business interests and political elites.^[74]

Nordic model

In a 2012 paper titled “Can’t We All Be More Like Scandinavians?”, co-written with Robinson and Verdier, he suggests that “it may be precisely the more ‘cutthroat’ American society that makes possible the more ‘cuddly’ Scandinavian societies based on a comprehensive social safety net, the welfare state and more limited inequality.” They concluded that “all countries may want to be like the ‘Scandinavians’ with a more extensive safety net and a more egalitarian structure,” however, if the United States shifted from being a “cutthroat [capitalism] leader”, the economic growth of the entire world would be reduced.^[75] He argued against the US adopting the Nordic model in a 2015 op-ed for The New York Times. He again argued: “If the US increased taxation to Denmark levels, it would reduce rewards for entrepreneurship, with negative consequences for growth and prosperity.” He praised the Scandinavian experience in poverty reduction, creation of a level playing field for its citizens, and higher social mobility.^[76] This was critiqued by Lane Kenworthy, who argues that, empirically, the US’s economic growth preceded the divergence in cutthroat and ‘cuddly’ policies, and there is no relationship between inequality and innovation for developed countries.^[77]

Colonialism

“The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development”, co-written by Acemoglu, Robinson, and Simon Johnson in 2001, is by far his most cited work.^[40] Graham Mallard described it as an “excellent example of his work: an influential paper that has led to much debate.”^[31] They argue that Europeans set up extractive institutions in colonies where they did not settle, unlike in places where they did settle and that these institutions have persisted. They estimated that “differences in institutions explain approximately three-quarters of the income per capita differences across former colonies.”^[78][79] Historical experience dominated by extractive institutions in these countries has created a vicious circle, which was exacerbated by the European colonization.^[80]

A critique of modernization theory

Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, in their article “Income and Democracy” (2008) show that even though there is a strong cross-country correlation between income and democracy, once one controls for country fixed effects and removes the association between income per capita and various measures of democracy, there is “no causal effect of income on democracy.”^[81] In “Non-Modernization” (2022), they further argue that modernization theory cannot account for various paths of political development “because it posits a link between economics and politics that is not conditional on institutions and culture and that presumes a definite endpoint—for example, an ‘end of history’.”^[82]

Views

Journalists and economists have described Acemoglu as a centrist.^[b] Why Nations Fail was well received by both liberal and conservative economists.^[86] Acemoglu’s and Robinson’s long-time collaborator Simon Johnson suggests that their “point is not just about how things may become awful when the government goes off track (a right-leaning point). They are also more deeply concerned about how powerful people fight to grab control of the state and otherwise compete to exert influence over the rest of society (a left-leaning perspective).”^[44]

Acemoglu has praised the successes of the Progressive Era, and argued in favor of its replication.^[87] Acemoglu argues that the market economy is the only system that creates prosperity. He believes in finding an appropriate balance between “incentivizing creativity, hard work and risk-taking and creating the essential public services, social safety nets and equality of opportunity.”^[88] For Acemoglu, markets work only with regulations and predictable laws and that all markets are regulated to some extent; it is only a matter of degree.^[30] He suggests that free markets are not unregulated markets.^[89]

Wall Street

In September 2008, Acemoglu signed a petition condemning the Bush administration’s bailout plan of the U.S. financial system.^[90] As the main cause of the financial crisis of 2007–2008, he stated that policy makers were “lured by ideological notions derived from Ayn Rand’s novels rather than economic theory” and opined: “In hindsight, we should not be surprised that unregulated profit-seeking individuals have taken risks from which they benefit and others lose.”^[89] In an early analysis of the Great Recession, Acemoglu wrote: “When channeled into profit-maximizing, competitive, and innovative behavior under the auspices of sound laws and regulations, greed can act as the engine of innovation and economic growth. But when unchecked by the appropriate institutions and regulations, it will degenerate into rent-seeking, corruption, and crime.”^[30] He argues that the heavy overrepresentation from the financial sector in the top 1% “has been an outcome of the political processes that have removed all of the regulations in finance, and so created the platform for 40 percent of U.S. corporate profits to be in the financial sector.”^[43] He argues that a platform, particularly in Wall Street, has been created “where the ambition and greed of people, often men, has been channeled in a very anti-social, selfish and socially destructive direction.”^[91]

Inequality

Acemoglu has voiced concerns regarding the increasing inequality in the US, which in his view turns into political inequality, in turn undermining the inclusiveness of US institutions.^[58] In 2012 he identified societal polarization, caused by economic inequality, as the biggest problem for the US.^[92] He argues that “democracy ceases to function because some people have so much money they command greater power.”^[85] He states that he is comfortable with economic inequality which comes through different social contributions as it is a “price that we pay for providing incentives for people to contribute to prosperity.” However, high levels of inequality create problems as the rich who control significant portions of the societal resources use them to create an “unequal distribution of political power.”^[91] He sees the solution in increasing social mobility by “providing an opportunity for the bottom to become rich, not forcing the rich to become poor.”^[85]

Acemoglu has praised the American tradition of vibrant protest movements dating back to the Populists and the Progressives.^[93] He has also praised Occupy Wall Street for “putting the question of inequality on the agenda, but also for actually standing up for political equality.”^[94] He notes that Occupy Wall Street brought the 1% to the attention of the wider public, and to the attention of academia by Tony Atkinson, Thomas Piketty, and Emmanuel Saez.^[91]

Specific policies

Acemoglu is in favor of raising and indexing the minimum wage.^[95]

Acemoglu believes that universal basic income is “expensive and not generous enough” and that a “more efficient and generous social safety net is needed.”^[96] He further called it a “flawed idea” and a “poorly designed policy.” He instead advocates for a “guaranteed-income program [that] would offer transfers only to individuals whose monthly income is below $1,000, thereby coming in at a mere fraction of a UBI’s cost.” He calls for “universal health care, more generous unemployment benefits, better-designed retraining programs, and an expanded earned income tax credit (EITC).”^[97] Acemoglu supports a negative income tax, calling it a “more sensible” alternative to UBI.^[98]

Acemoglu believes that nation-building by the West is no longer possible around the world because the West now lacks the resources and commitment that were present in post-World War II Germany and Japan, and because countries, such as in the Muslim- and Arab-majority countries, where such work is required today do not trust the West.^[99] He views the US war on drugs as a “total and very costly failure”,^[100] and supported the 2013 ballot referendum Colorado Amendment 64, a successful popular initiative that legalized the sale of recreational marijuana.^[101]

In a 2016 interview with NPR, he opined that the US infrastructure is in a “pitiful state, with negative consequences for US economic growth.”^[102]

Socialism, communism, and Marxism

Acemoglu argues that socialist states have not been successful in creating prosperity.^[88] He wrote that socialist regimes “from Cuba to the eastern bloc have been disastrous both for economic prosperity and individual freedom.”^[103]

In a review written with James A. Robinson, he argues that Thomas Piketty and Karl Marx are “led astray” due to their disregard for “the key forces shaping how an economy functions: the endogenous evolution of technology and of the institutions and the political equilibrium that influence not only technology but also how markets function and how the gains from various different economic arrangements are distributed.”^[104]

Social democracy and unions

In 2019, Acemoglu argued in favor of social democracy. He stated: “[Social democracy, when practiced by competent governments] is a phenomenal success. Everywhere in the west is to some degree social democratic, but the extent of this varies. We owe our prosperity and freedom to social democracy.” However, he qualified this statement by arguing that social democracy “did not achieve these things by taxing and redistributing a lot. It achieved them by having labor institutions protecting workers, encouraging job creation and encouraging high wages.”^[103] Following from this, Acemoglu opined that the economists of US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who is an advocate of democratic socialism along the lines of the Nordic model, “don’t understand basic economics. They are not just dangerous, they are clueless.”^[103]

Acemoglu argued that a “tradition of strong labor movement or social democratic party, by constraining the actions of the social planner, can act as a commitment device to egalitarianism, inducing an equilibrium in which the country in question becomes the beneficiary from the asymmetric world equilibrium.”^[75]

Donald Trump

In an op-ed in Foreign Policy, Acemoglu claimed that President Donald Trump shared political goals and strategies of Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, such as “little respect for the rule of law or the independence of state institutions, … a blurred vision of national and personal interests, … little patience with criticism and a long-established strategy of rewarding loyalty, which can be seen in his high-level appointments to date. This is all topped by an unwavering belief in his abilities.”^[93] In a 2019 interview with Der Spiegel, Acemoglu stated that he sees similarities between Trump and the Republican Party and the Nazis: “Surely, Trump and the Republicans are no Nazis. But they are exploiting the same political sentiment.” He argues that Trump “poses a great risk to U.S. democracy” because he is “looking for a new order with elements of anti-liberalism, misinformation and a lax attitude to corruption. If he is re-elected next year, it will be the beginning of the end of American democracy.”^[105]

Authoritarian countries

According to Acemoglu, the three obstacles for economic growth under authoritarian regimes are the tendency of authoritarian regimes to become more authoritarian, their tendency to use power to halt “Schumpeterian creative destruction, which is key to sustaining growth” and the instability and uncertainty caused by internal conflicts.^[30] He believes that Saudi Arabia would be like a poor African country without the oil, while the “only thing that is keeping [Russia] going is a big boom in natural resources and a clever handling of the media.”^[106]

He believes that China has managed to achieve significant economic growth because it “sort of picked up the low hanging fruit from the world technology frontier, but that sort of growth is not going to last until China goes to the next step, which is harnessing innovation,” which he argues will be impossible “unless economic institutions become even more open and the extractive political institutions in China will be a barrier to that.”^[92] He and Robinson wrote for the HuffPost that the “limited rights [China] affords its citizens places major restrictions on the country’s longer-term possibilities for prosperity.”^[107]

Turkey

Acemoglu opined that the Republic of Turkey, formed in 1923 by Atatürk, “is very continuous with the Ottoman Empire.” Although the shift from empire to republic brought some positive changes, he argues, the model was largely maintained by the reformers who took power, citing a persistent concentration of power and economic activity.^[108] He suggests that the Republican period has been characterized by an unwillingness to accept ethnic minorities.^[109] In 2014, Acemoglu condemned the widespread anti-Armenian rhetoric in Turkish textbooks, and demanded that the books be pulled from circulation.^[14]

Acemoglu has criticized Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his government for its authoritarian rule.^[110] In a 2013 op-ed in The New York Times, following the crackdown of Gezi Park protests, Acemoglu wrote that “Even before the brutal suppression of the demonstrations, the belief that Turkey was on its way to becoming a mature democracy — a role model for the rest of the Middle East — had already become untenable.”^[111] In a May 2014 op-ed in Foreign Affairs, Acemoglu wrote that the drift from democracy by Erdogan is lamentable, but an “almost predictable, stage of Turkey’s democratic transition.”^[112] In the late 2010s, Acemoglu often criticized Turkey’s economic policies and consequently became popular with the opposition.^[113]

Armenia

In a 2015 interview with the Armenian service of Voice of America, Acemoglu stated that he has always been interested in economic, political, and social developments in Armenia.^[17] Talking via video, Acemoglu partook in the Armenian Economic Association’s annual conference in October 2013 held at the Yerevan State University, during which he argued that Armenia’s problem is political, and not geographic, cultural, or geopolitical. He called for the Armenian government to be “more responsive to the wishes of its citizens so that through that political process Armenia ceases to be an oligarchy.”^[114] In a September 2016 conference in Toronto, Acemoglu criticized the Armenian diaspora for legitimizing the successive governments in Armenia, especially when the rights of its citizens are violated and a wrong economic and political line is being followed for the country.^[115] In an April 2017 conference held by the USC Institute of Armenian Studies, Acemoglu stated that while “Armenia could have looked much more like the Czech Republic or Estonia and what we got instead is a country that looks much more like Azerbaijan or Uzbekistan, which is a real shame.” He suggested that in the immediate post-Soviet years Armenia was “stronger and it’s been getting worse and worse.” He criticized the level of corruption of the government, which has systematically closed the political system.^[116]

Other countries

In an op-ed for The Globe and Mail following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, Acemoglu advocated Ukraine “to break with its past as quickly as possible. It needs to move away from Russia, politically and economically, even if that means an end to the natural-gas subsidies Russia has used to keep it in the position of a client state. Even more important is for Ukraine’s leaders to spread political power and economic benefits to the maximum number of its people, including Russian speakers.”^[117]

Acemoglu argued that the Greek government-debt crisis was caused by the “terrible state of Greek institutions, and the clientelistic nature of its politics”,^[118] and stated that the country’s problems are “political not just macroeconomic.”^[119] He identified lack of political integration within the EU as Greece’s problem, and said that “the only way forward for Europe is to have greater fiscal and banking integration or to abandon monetary integration.”^[118]

Political involvement

Turkey

In March 2011, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu offered to appoint Acemoglu Turkey’s permanent representative to the OECD in Paris, a post he turned down in order to continue his academic career.^{[120][121][122][123]}

Acemoglu met with Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) in October 2022.^[124][125] In December 2022 Kılıçdaroğlu appointed Acemoglu, among others, as his economic adviser.^[126] Pro-Erdogan circles criticized the move. One pro-government columnist said: “The Armenian Daron Acemoğlu, praised by FETÖ, prepared Kılıçdaroğlu’s vision program, (resembling his own roots).” In response, finance professor Özgür Demirtaş defended Acemoglu. “This tweet is both racist and presumptuous. The influence of Daron Acemoğlu on world’s economy-finance professors is greater than the number of cells in your body. It’s terrible that you talk like this about a professor who made us proud and is going for the Nobel prize.”^[127] Yeni Şafak, a pro-government newspaper, ran the headline: “Daron Acemoğlu, one of the new economic advisors of the CHP, could not solve the economic crisis of Armenia.”^[128]

Armenia

Following the 2018 Armenian revolution, opposition leader-turned-Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan wrote on his Facebook page that Acemoglu told him that he is ready to help Armenia to “restore and develop” its economy.^[129][130] Pashinyan and Acemoglu talked via the internet in June 2018.^[131] Acemoglu met with Deputy Prime Minister Tigran Avinyan in Boston in July 2019.^[132][133]

Recognition

According to data collected by Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Acemoglu was the most cited economist of the decade leading to 2015.^{[134][12][14]} According to Google Scholar, his works (including co-authored works) have been cited more than 200,000 times as of January 2023.^[40] In a 2011 survey of 299 economics professors in the U.S. Acemoglu ranked third, behind Paul Krugman and Greg Mankiw, in the list of “Favorite Living Economists Under Age 60”.^[135]

He was listed 88th in Foreign Policy’s 2010 list of Top 100 Global Thinkers “for showing that freedom is about more than markets.”^[136] Acemoglu was voted by the readers of Prospect Magazine as the world’s top thinker for 2024.^[137]

Francis Fukuyama has described Acemoglu and his long-time collaborator James A. Robinson as “two of the world’s leading experts on development.”^[138] Clement Douglas wrote in the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis publication that the “scope, depth and sheer volume of [his] scholarship are nothing short of breathtaking, verging on implausible.”^[43] Angus Deaton called him a “young superstar” and noted that Acemoglu is “a very good example of the way things ought to be going, which is you do history but you know enough mathematics to be able to model it too.”^[139]

Awards

Economics awards

State orders and awards

Honorary degrees

Acemoglu has been awarded honorary degrees from the following universities: Utrecht University (2008),^[43] Boğaziçi University (2011), the University of Athens (2014),^[19] Bilkent University (2015),^[150] University of Bath (2017),^[151] ENS Paris-Saclay (2017), London Business School (2018), and the University of Glasgow (2024).^[152]

Other

Nobel prize

Acemoglu was long considered a prospective Nobel lauerate.^{[154][155][156][157][158]} In 2024, Acemoglu, jointly with James A. Robinson and Simon Johnson, were awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for their comparative studies in prosperity between nations.^[159] The trio was recognized for their studies on how political and economic institutions impact a nation’s development, highlighting the distinction between inclusive institutions, which promote widespread economic participation and growth, and extractive institutions, which concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few.^[160] Acemoglu became the second ethnic Armenian (after Ardem Patapoutian)^[161] and third Turkish national (after Orhan Pamuk and Aziz Sancar) to become a Nobel laureate.^[162]

Selected bibliography

• Acemoglu, Daron; Robinson, James A. (2006). Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521855266.
• Acemoglu, Daron (2008). Introduction to Modern Economic Growth. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400835775.
• Acemoglu, Daron; Robinson, James A. (2012). Why Nations Fail. Crown Business. ISBN 978-0307719218.
• Acemoglu, Daron; Laibson, David and List, John (2014). Principles of Economics, Pearson, New York.
• Acemoglu, Daron; Robinson, James A. (2019). The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty. Penguin Press. ISBN 978-0735224384. Description, arrow-searchable preview, & reviewers’ comments (at bottom).
• Acemoglu, Daron, and Simon Johnson (2023). Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity. New York: PublicAffairs.

References

Notes

Citations

Sources

}}

}}

The ”’Korea–Australia Free Trade Agreement”’ (”’KAFTA”’) is a bilateral [[free trade agreement]] designed to diminish barriers to trade and investment between [[Australia]] and [[South Korea]]. Coming into force on 12 December 2014, this agreement confers substantially improved market access for Australian exporters of goods and services, as well as for investors seeking opportunities within the South Korean market.<ref>{{Cite web|title=KAFTA outcomes at a glance|url=https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/kafta/fact-sheets/Pages/kafta-outcomes-at-a-glance|access-date=2021-12-06|website=Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade|language=en}}</ref> KAFTA builds upon several decades of [[bilateral relation]]s, rooted in diplomatic, trade, and security cooperation, which have evolved since 1962. During that year, President [[Park Chung-Hee]] introduced a series of [[Five-Year Plans of South Korea|five-year economic plans]] aimed at fostering South Korea’s industrial development and accelerating its integration into the global economy in the aftermath of the [[Korean War]].

The ”’Korea–Australia Free Trade Agreement”’ (”’KAFTA”’) is a bilateral [[free trade agreement]] designed to diminish barriers to trade and investment between [[Australia]] and [[South Korea]] December 2014 agreement confers substantially improved market access for Australian exporters of goods and services, as well as for investors seeking opportunities within the South Korean market.<ref>{{Cite web|title=KAFTA outcomes at a glance|url=https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/kafta/fact-sheets/Pages/kafta-outcomes-at-a-glance|access-date=2021-12-06|website=Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade|language=en}}</ref> KAFTA builds upon several decades of [[bilateral relation]]s, rooted in diplomatic, trade, and security cooperation, which have evolved since 1962. During that year, President [[Park Chung-Hee]] introduced a series of [[Five-Year Plans of South Korea|five-year economic plans]] aimed at fostering South Korea’s industrial development and accelerating its integration into the global economy in the aftermath of the [[Korean War]].

== Historical background ==

== Historical background ==

KAFTA

Map indicating South Korea (orange) and Australia (green)
Type	Free trade agreement
Signed	8 April 2014 (2014-04-08)
Location	Seoul, South Korea
Effective	12 December 2014 (2014-12-12)
Original signatories	Andrew Robb, Minister for Trade and Investment Yoon Sang-jick, Minister for Trade, Industry and Energy

The Korea–Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA) is a bilateral free trade agreement designed to diminish barriers to trade and investment between Australia and South Korea, effective from the 12th December 2014. The agreement confers substantially improved market access for Australian exporters of goods and services, as well as for investors seeking opportunities within the South Korean market.^[1] KAFTA builds upon several decades of bilateral relations, rooted in diplomatic, trade, and security cooperation, which have evolved since 1962. During that year, President Park Chung-Hee introduced a series of five-year economic plans aimed at fostering South Korea’s industrial development and accelerating its integration into the global economy in the aftermath of the Korean War.

Before the Korean War began on the 25 June 1950, Australian involvement in the Korean region was very limited, with the first documented contact between Korea and Australia occurring in 1889 when a group of missionaries from Australia arrived in Busan.^[2] Bilateral relations between Australia and the ROK were fostered by both Australia’s involvement in the UN Commission on Korea (1947) and during the Korean War (1950–53), with approximately 17000 Australian soldiers serving to aid the ROK during the Korean War.^[3] 1961 saw the establishment of full diplomatic relations between Australia and the ROK with The ROK consulate general in Sydney elevated to embassy status and the establishment of the first Korean ambassador in April 1962.^[2] Similarly, Australia established its embassy in Seoul in June 1962, with 2021 marking the 60th anniversary of full diplomatic ties between Australia and the ROK.^[4] The economic link between Australia & the ROK was also forged in the 1960s, when the ROK’s rapid industrialization due to President Park Chung-Hee series of five-year plans required vast amounts of raw materials that could be supplied by Australia in substantial quantities.^[5] Historically, migration has underlined relations between Australia and the ROK, Korean migration to Australia began around the 1970 and has since increased over the decades with the population of Korean immigrants growing from 60 in 1970 to approximately 72 963 people of Korean ethnic origin having migrated under various categories including skilled and business migration.^[6] This shared bilateral history of Australia and Korea culminated over the five-year negotiation period of KAFTA, encompassing all aspects and provisions of the FTA, beginning with the Australian Labor Party Government under Kevin Rudd in 2009 and concluding under the Australian Liberal Party Government of Tony Abbot.^[7] Korea is now Australia’s fourth largest trading partner and shares a variety of economic, strategic and political interests in the Asia-Pacific and global spheres.^[6]

Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb and Korean Trade Minister Yoon Sang-jick, concluded negotiations on the Agreement in early December 2013 and the legally verified text of the agreement was initialed by Chief Negotiators on 10 February 2014.^[8] In April 2014, the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott led a trade delegation to Japan, South Korea and China. The three economies accounted for more than half of all of Australia’s two-way trade.^[9] On the South Korean leg of the mission, Abbott signed the Australia Korea Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA) with the government of Park Geun-hye in Seoul on 8 April.^[10] The agreement came into force on 12 December 2014.^[11]

According to Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia and Korea have “one of the strongest and most complementary trading relationships in the Asia-Pacific region. The Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA) reduces trade and investment barriers, making it easier for Australians to do business with Korea – our 4th largest trading partner.”^[12]

This section provides an overview of the key provisions of KAFTA including:

Chapter 2 of the KAFTA agreement outlines the provisions of the agreement regarding “Trade in goods”. The articles under this section outline the way in which trade can be conducted under the free trade agreement that is KAFTA.^[13] For example, article 2.3 ‘Elimination of Custom duties’ outlines that ‘neither Party shall increase any existing customs duty, or adopt any new customs duty, on an originating good.’ As well as that ‘each Party shall progressively eliminate its customs duties on originating goods.’ ^[13] Similarly, article 2.9 ‘Export Duties, Taxes or Other Charges’ outlines that ‘Neither Party shall adopt or maintain any duty, tax or other charge on the export of any good to the territory of the other Party, unless the duty, tax or charge is also adopted or maintained on the good when destined for domestic consumption.’ ^[13]

This section of provisions relates to the protocols surrounding rules of origin and origin procedures within the KAFTA agreement. Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures are criteria which determine the origins of a good as well as the general requirements and conditions for a good to be traded as something that originated from a nation.^[14] The provisions of Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures within The KAFTA Agreement are outlined in this section and set the precedent for “Originating Goods”, “Wholly Obtained Goods”, and the “Regional Value Content”.^[15] This section also provisions Origin Procedures including the “Certificate of Origin”, “Authorized Bodies”, “Discrepancies and Variations” as well as “Record Keeping Requirements”, which are deemed essential by both nations in maintaining a productive trade relationship.^[15]

The objective of the provisions under the section Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation are to for both Australia and South Korea:

1. Simplify the customs procedures of the cooperating states.^[16]
2. Ensure predictability, consistency and transparency in the application of customs laws, regulations and administrative procedures of the Parties.^[16]
3. Ensure the efficient and expeditious clearance of goods.^[16]
4. Facilitate trade between the Parties.^[16]
5. Promote cooperation between the customs administrations of Australia and South Korea.^[16]

In this section, the above objectives are attained by the provision of transparency measures, the harmonization of documents and data elements, the use of Automated Systems in the Paperless Trading Environment, Appeal Procedures, all of which are encapsulated by the KAFTA agreement.^[16]

The section covers the provisions pertaining to investment within and between Australia and South Korea. It encapsulates the majority of KAFTAs provisions regarding the financial sector, including National Treatment, which relates to the way in which each nations financial institution shall accord to investors of the other nation with treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own investors.^[17]

Similarly, the Minimum Standard of Treatment clause within the Investment provision notes that “Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment in accordance with the customary international law minimum standard of treatment of aliens, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security.”^[17]

The objective of the section on Cooperation within the KAFTA FTA is to facilitate bilateral cooperation and promote an exploration of new cooperative activities between Australian and South Korea in the fields of agriculture, fisheries and forestry, building on top of already existing relationships in the political and business world between the two states to support mutual development and economic growth.^[18] This section on cooperation places large emphasis on cooperation in the industries of agriculture and Energy and Mineral Resources with the establishment of a joint Committee on Agricultural Cooperation as well as a joint Committee on Energy and Mineral Resources Cooperation.^[18]

Due to KAFTA’s provisions, around 99 per cent of goods exported from Australia to Korea are authorized to enter duty-free and/or with preferential access.^[19] For Australia’s agricultural sector, tariffs were eliminated on Korean importation of raw sugar, bottled wine, wheat and some horticulture. Australia’s beef industry has benefited from KAFTA with the ROK progressively reducing the 40 per cent tariff on beef by January 1, 2028.^[19] Australia’s dairy industry has also seen benefits, receiving duty free quotas for cheese, butter and infant formula. The manufacturing, resources and energy sectors of Australia’s economy have benefited as well, with the removal of all tariffs on their export to Korea progressively phasing out by January 1, 2023, these include tariffs on liquefied natural gas (LNG), unwrought aluminum and automotive parts.^[19] Tariffs on Australian pharmaceutical products have also been eliminated.^[19]

KAFTA has provided Australian services exporters with preferential treatment in the Korean market, benefiting sectors including finance, legal, telecommunications and education.^[20] Outcomes include law and accounting firms have the capacity to establish representative offices in the ROK. On the December 12th, 2016, firms were given permission under the FTA to “enter into cooperative agreements with local law firms”. The agreement also stipulates that Australian firm may establish joint ventures and hire local lawyers.^[20] For Australian Accountants, KAFTA has made it possible for them to establish offices in Korea and to provide consulting services on both international and Australian accounting laws in Korea.^[20] The agreement stipulated that by 12 December 2019, Australian accountants were able to work and invest within accounting firms in South Korea.^[20] KAFTA has enabled Australian education and engineering sectors to increase their capacity in the Korean market due to “commitments to guarantee existing market access for Australian providers and work towards improving mutual recognition of qualifications.”^[20] In May 2015, Engineers Australia signed an agreement with the Korean Government which enhanced the recognition of Australian engineering professionals in the ROK.^[21]

According to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade KAFTA has improved prospects for Australian investors/investments in Korea and Korean investors/investments in Australia.^[22] The FTA denotes that the ROK through the progressive reduction of market access barriers will provide greater entry for Australian’s into the Korean market, similarly, the screening threshold for Korean investors in non-sensitive sectors has been loosened by Australia.^[20] The agreement also stipulates provisions to ensure “non-discrimination, and protection and security for investments”. to enhance protection and certainty for Australian and Korean investors.^[20] Additionally, the Australian government in the FTA has altered the screening threshold for private Korean investors in “non-sensitive” sectors from 252 million AUD to $1.134 billion AUD.^[20] A key clause which has been an outcome of merit for the KAFTA agreement is the establishment of a “negative list” regime which simply presumes that a financial service is allowed “unless specifically prohibited and commits Korea to allow new financial services it would permit its own financial institutions to provide.”^[23]

Whilst an FTA is principally economic in nature and an arrangement for liberalized trade, it often triggers security implications. The signing of KAFTA also underlines the shared security concerns of both Australia and Korea in the Indo-Pacific and the Korean Peninsula.^[24] Being two significant middle powers in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia and the ROK share strategic interests and have served in conflicts and peace keeping exercises in relation to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as well as events on the Korean peninsula that have threatened regional security.^[25] The frequency and tempo of military discussions, training exercises and industry cooperation is increasing between Australia and the ROK since KAFTAs inception.^[26] Similarly, the round of biennial foreign and defense minister meetings in 2019 placed emphasis on a “common strategic outlook”.^[26] The signing of KAFTA has contributed to the recognition of Australia and the ROKs relationship being elevated to Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.^[25]

Attitudes towards the KAFTA free trade agreement have been both positive and concerned since its signing. The Australian Embassy in South Korea reported that after a year of the FTA, “it is already making a big impact”,^[27] Citing statistics that Koreas exports to Australia rose by 7.5%.^[27] Similarly, Australian consumers have benefited from a larger access to Korean products, creating a positive attitude within the existing Korean population in Australia towards the agreement. Australian attitudes are also positive due to agricultural exports like beef, nuts and Brussels sprouts steadily increasing, creating a larger market for Australia’s agricultural industry.^[27] KAFTA has also been viewed positively by Australians because Australian’s stands to benefit from a robust South Korea more than many due to strong two-way merchandise trade, services trade and direct investment growth as well as the growth of people-to-people links formed by KAFTA. [1]

Some Australian attitudes have been more concerned. With Labor minister Penny Wong suggesting Australia’s free trade agreement with South Korea should be scrutinized in greater depth.^[28] Citing a clause in the agreement which grants the Korean Government the right to reimpose large tariffs on Australian beef if exports grow by more than 2% a year.^[28] Similarly, Liberal backbencher at the time of KAFTAs signing Sharman Stone who represented the electorate of Murray in Victoria, a large agricultural electorate, criticised the FTA for failing to deliver reductions on a variety of Australian food exports.^[28]

In 2014 KAFTA elevated the status of the economic relationship between South Korea and Australia, with South Korea becoming Australia’s fourth largest trading partner as a result.^[26] Economically this has created a positive sentiment in the Korean market, with greater access to Australian mining and agricultural goods.^[26] Similarly South Korean Attitudes have been overall positive with Migration and education enriching the relationship between the two nations in the years since KAFTAs signing.^[26] Strategically, South Korea sits in a precarious position and the security relationship formed through KAFTA and diplomatic alignment has been a positive influence strategically for South Korea.^[5] Leading President Moon Jae-in to describe Australia as Korea’s “everlasting friend and partner”.^[26]