Why Singapore Succeeded: Applying the Acemoglu and Robinson- Sachs Debate

Why are some nations rich and some poor? Who are the winners and losers of colonialism and why? These questions have recently gained much attention, not only amongst historians but also economists who are now looking into global history to provide a fuller understanding of why and how had nations developed. One of the most recent works was Why Nations Fail by economist Daron Acemoglu and political economist James Robinson. They hypothesise that the nature of political institutions are the causes of why some countries are rich and some are poor today. Their works raised lively debate and comments, including those made by Jeffrey Sachs who argues that such mono-causal explanation is too simplistic. Both works made references to Singapore as one of the many case examples to illustrate their arguments. How is Singapore’s economic transformation explained in the light of this debate? The small city-state had a history of 145 years of colonial rule under the British and for about three years it was known as Syonan-to or the “Light of the South”, under the Japanese Imperial Empire. Acemoglu and Robinson are pessimistic that former colonies of European empires are ever able to become rich nations. The economic transformation of Singapore, a colony of the British Empire, has proven otherwise.