Discuss how Acemoglu and Robinson explain how some particular nation or society has succeeded in achieving sustained, broad-based prosperity (for example, England, Japan or Botswana). Be sure to specify the hypothesis (explanans) that they are defending and how it accounts for what they are trying to explain (explanandum). How for example do they know that the inclusive institutions in terms of which they explain prosperity are not more the consequence rather than the cause of prosperity (the problem of reverse causality) or that inclusive institutions and prosperity are only apparently correlated because they are both result of some omitted variable that they are not really considering (the problem of bias due to an omitted variable such as culture of worldly asceticism)? In your paper you should critically discuss what they think are the weaknesses of the alternative hypotheses (the explanatory importance of culture, geography, knowledge or non-inclusive institutions in generating sustained broad-based prosperity).Please use 1” margins in 12 point font. The papers should be double-spaced. The paper is expected to be two pages. The paper should be primarily about the reading in question; page numbers in the original should be given for direct quotations, though block quotes from the readings should be avoided and you should summarize the ideas, for the most part, in your own words. The honor code will be strictly upheld.