Carl Mosk has written a unique and provocative account of the relationship between nationalism and economic growth since 1800. Mosk, who is Professor of Economics at the University of Victoria in Canada, argues that nationalism is a product of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century European Enlightenment. Two features distinguish nationalism from proto-nationalism. First, nationalism pledges political and economic progress for all, rather than for the elite alone. Second, science and rationality play a prominent role in nationalist ideology. Ideology is still relevant, however, due to the legacy of belief from our proto-nationalist past, which is hardwired into our at times irrational brains. Nationalism puts ideology to constructive (with major caveats) ends, because it solves heretofore insurmountable collective action problems and fosters political consensus around modern political and economic ideals (for example, the principles of the U.S. constitution). This consensus promotes the creation of effective state administration, which underpins key investments in educational, financial, and physical infrastructure. Nationalism spreads because technological progress increases relative military strength. To fend off imperialist threats, proto-nations themselves must develop nationalist ideologies (for example, the Meiji Restoration in Japan). With the advent of nuclear technology and the possibility of mutual destruction, imperialist motives decrease and economic competition replaces military competition.

The book is divided into four parts. Part I describes Mosk's theory of nationalism. Chapter 2 contrasts nationalism with proto-nationalism and tribalism. Chapter 3 examines the three types or phases of nationalism, which Mosk labels as Moderate Enlightenment, Radical Enlightenment, and Counter-Enlightenment. Chapter 4 develops the range of Mosk's argument with an emphasis on the United States.

Parts II and III present evidence in the form of country case studies for Europe and Asia. Chapter 5 uses seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Great Britain to explain the Moderate Enlightenment phase (Revolutionary France demonstrates Radical Enlightenment). To illustrate the subsequent Counter-Enlightenment phase, Chapter 6 examines Germany from the nineteenth century onward, culminating in the 1930s rise of the Nazis. Chapter 7 traces the twentieth-century evolution of nationalism in Yugoslavia, a small, vulnerable country that is no longer with us. Chapters 8 and 9 study how Japan and China, respectively, became nation-states in response to new external threats of attack and conquest. Part IV concludes with a discussion of the spread of nationalism through warfare, and the post-World War II shift from military to economic rivalry in the face of nuclear destruction.

At its core, Mosk's account is about the role of the state in economic development. In this regard, the book builds on previous works in the Routledge Explorations in Economic History series, including Freedom and Growth (2000) by Stephan Epstein, which emphasizes the elimination of formal institutional barriers within states, and Nation, State, and Industrial Revolution (2009) by Lars Magnusson, which focuses on the regulatory policies through which nineteenth-century states promoted industrialization. What is novel about Mosk's work is his emphasis on the economic importance of the “informal institution” of nationalist ideology and its ability to overcome daunting free-riding problems in society. What is also new is that Mosk draws upon neuroscience and philosophy to make his case.

One obvious criticism of this book is the lack of rigorous methods, which Mosk himself acknowledges. His claim that statistical analysis cannot capture the “soft” side of nationalist ideologies and myths is not necessarily true. For example, recent work by Guido Tabellini (“Culture and Institutions: Economic Development in the Regions of Europe.” Journal of the European Economic Association 8, no. 4 [2010]: 677–716) and others on the economic importance of culture manages to codify “soft” variables. The exclusive focus on case studies makes it difficult at times to distinguish between the cause-and-effect elements of Mosk's hypotheses. Simple, well-placed regression models would help clarify key parts of his argument. Furthermore, subjecting a panel of countries to this type of analysis would protect Mosk from the criticism that he cherry picks cases. One recent example of this approach to the study of nationalism is the working paper, “Education and Military Rivalry” by Philippe Aghion, Torsten Persson, and Dorothee Rouze, which tests the relationship between external threats and state investments in primary education in historical perspective.

Mosk writes with passion, which I very much admire, but his prose, which at times veers into “Manifesto” style (for example, the repeated use of the capitalized phrase “Total War”), could be somewhat tempered. In turn, his arguments, which he illustrates with skill over a wide range of countries, periods, and disciplines, would appear more objective.