The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else

In the past five years I've read a shade under a thousand books, and this is easily the most important of them. In it, Peruvian economist de Soto sets out to do nothing less than explain why capitalism has worked in the West and been more or less a total disaster in the Third World and former Communist states. This has long been a pivotal question for anyone interested in the world beyond their own back yard, and there have been plenty of attempts to explain it before (often in terms of history, geography, culture, race, etc.). However, de Soto's is the most compelling and logically argued answer I've come across. But it's not just me. I don't generally quote other reviews, but my general reaction echoes the most respected policy journals, newspapers, and magazines, who tend to repeat the same words in their reviews:"revolutionary", "provocative", "extraordinary", "convincing", "stunning", "powerful", "thoughtful". Perhaps my favorite line comes from the Toronto Globe and Mail: "De Soto demolishes the entire edifice of postwar development economics, and replaces it with the answers bright young people everywhere have been demanding." Of course readers (especially those on the left) will have to swallow a few basic premises from the very beginning, such as "Capitalism stands alone as the only feasible way to rationally organize a modern economy" and "As all plausible alternatives to capitalism have now evaporated, we are finally in a position to study capital dispassionately and carefully." And most importantly, "Capital is the force that raises the productivity of labor and creates the wealth of nations.... it is the one thing that the poor countries of the world cannot seem to produce for themselves no matter how eagerly their people engage in all the other activities that characterize a capitalist economy." No matter how badly some of us may want to hold on to cherished ideals of collectivist economies, the reality is that at present these are only viable on a micro scale. For the moment, capitalism has won, and the only question is how to make it work to improve the lives of the bulk of the world. De Soto writes: "I do not view capitalism as a credo. Much more important to me are freedom, compassion for the poor, respect for the social contract, and equal opportunity. But for the moment, to achieve those goals, capitalism is the only game in town. It is the only system we know that provides us with the tools required to create massive surplus value."According to De Soto, the problem outside the West is that while the poor have plenty of assets (land, homes, businesses), these assets lie overwhelmingly in the extralegal, informal realm. De Soto's on the ground research reveals that this is the result of an accelerated process of urbanization and population growth, coupled with the inability of legal systems to adapt to the reality of how people live. What has happened is that throughout the Third World, the costs of making assets legal (obtaini

The Mystery of Capital attempts to "reopen the exploration of the source of capital and thus explain how to correct the economic failures of poor countries." I believe the author makes an interesting argument within the book concerning the failure of capitalism to catch on in developing and post-communist countries. His argument deals with institutions we here in the West take for granted-property rights and other legal institutions. The connection between these legal institutions and economic growth is clear-and de Sota is clear on this point as well. He states that an individual living outside the West faces an impenetrable wall of rules that bar them from legally established social and economic activities-such as deleterious bureaucracies that retard growth by wielding red-tape. De Sota sent teams to Peru, the Philippines, Egypt, and Haiti and they experienced firsthand how it takes several years to obtain legal verification of assets-years compared to days here in the West. Under these burdens, individuals create new laws-extralegal laws. These social contracts have created a vibrant but undercapitalized sector. This sector is known in economic layman's terms as the underground or informal economy. The author estimates that over half on the inhabitants in developing countries engage in this sector-using Dead Capital. The value of the assets in the informal markets are huge-surpassing the assets of rich countries sometimes. De Sota has brought attention to the core of the problem-he then states that the solution can be found at the heart of the countries.He supplies the formula to fix the backwardness of the nascent capitalist nations. The first objective is to unify the many social contracts already existing in the extralegal sector into one, all encompassing social contract-by listening to the "barking dogs", or the people. Past attempts with this aim have failed because they have lacked the legitimacy and support from the current extralegal world. De Sota creates a bridge to fix this dilemma-a bridge that integrates old social property customs into a new all encompassing social contract. By working with their people, government leaders can forge a new regulatory framework. The second task is a task of a political nature because the plan outlined above requires the support of the poor, the elite, and the lawyers. The poor will gain the most because they will greatly increase their economic lifestyles with a more unified social property system that will enable them to use their assets as full functioning capital. The elite will harvest gains as well; they will benefit from an expanded market and growing capitalist economy. The lawyers must not use the current law, but instead fine-tune the law and change it to make it work for all.De Sota's real world studies and solutions make sense in my mind. He identified a problem and supplied the solution. He may fall short though in his solution because a complex capitalist econ

The Mystery of Capital is recommended, among others, by no less than Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, Margaret Thatcher, and William F. Buckley Jr. That's not why you should read the book. De Soto examines a necessary and misunderstood topic: why are poor countries poor? His arguments and insights make the book a necessary read for the economist, or other educated person.The main point of The Mystery of Capital is that the seemingly intractable and hopeless situations in Third World countries is due in large part to one common problem: the issue of property rights. Macroeconomic policies make piecemeal improvements (or may improve nothing at all). Money is not the source of the wealth in a nation. Capital is the source of the wealth of nations! Facilitating the proper legal environment is an integral part of the creation and growth of capital, something First World nations had to develop, and something de Soto argues that Third World nations can develop.The book gets a bit dry in the latter half, but is definitely worth the read. De Soto covers legal ramifications and reforms that will help build a bridge for "dead capital" to be converted to "live capital". The Mystery of Capital will be a surprise for some, because of de Soto's synopses here and there about what life is like for those who live in Third World countries, and the enormous amount of (untapped) wealth the people of Third World Nations possess.De Soto is a decent economist, in part because he draws from so many disciplines and sources. He also did a prodigious amount of observation and collection of data (hardly an ivory tower academic). If you have an interest in developmental economics, law and economics, entrepreneurship, History of Thought, Economic History (especially that of the U.S.), or political science, among other areas, The Mystery of Capital is especially for you. I recommend the book to any social scientist - the book is so well done and relevant that you may find yourself developing an interest in any of the above!econ

The Mystery of Capital, by Hernando DeSoto, could be among the most important books on economics of any century. DeSoto notes that more than a decade after the fall of Marxism, the expected capitalist revolution has not occurred. Capitalism has been successful only in the developed nations and has made little progress in the third world or in the former communist states. He and his team are convinced that the problem is the lack of well defined property rights. He notes that the poor in under-developed countries have assets, but that their real property is often owned informally, and thus cannot be used to generate capital. As a result, the crucial role of real property is simply absent in under-developed countries. He proposes the obvious solution --- formalization of informal property rights and notes that acquisition of property through informal means (squatting) has a storied history in the United States and other developed nations. DeSoto understands that formalization will be politically difficult, but points out that both rich and poor will benefit economically. One might call it "trickle up economics." Finally, formal property rights are under attack in developed nations, through overly intrusive land use and environmental regulations. It is well to reflect upon the potential for slipping toward a system that allows virtual squatters to seize or nullify property rights through regulation, threatening a principal source of national income. Wendell Cox

I spent 5 years in Cambodia doing development/legal reform work and never could figure out why it was so often frustrating and kept running into dead ends. I only wish I had had this book at the beginning of my time there. It reveals what needs to be done to bring the third world out of poverty. Full of simple but powerful ideas. I only hope the development bureaucracy will adopt it. Sound property laws enable land and other assets currently not marketable, saleable or mortgageable to be used as collateral for enterprises (as in the West), and there is more of such property out there in the world than all the Western aid since the beginning of time to all other countries! The author has done his homework on the ground and has compelling and important ideas. An interesting read even if you are not involved in this area.