Corruption in former British colonies
I have read David Landes' book and found it interesting, but rather simplistic. His arguments are based on global trends and there are too many "exceptions to the rule" available to shoot holes into his generalizations (however apt they are). Other books along this line of global development analysis that I have found to be much better include "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond (also a Harvard professor) and "Ecological Imperialism: the Biological Expansion of Europe 900-1900" by Alfred W. Crosby.
Actually, it appears that those countries that either have a strong tradition of democratic process and/or a strong tradition of centralized government with emphasis on education and creating a strong infrastructure for positive economic growth lead the world today. Neo-Europes, as Alfred Crosby calls them (lands that were favored by Europeans for immigration because of similarities in temperate climate and the lack of large numbers of indigenous inhabitants originally)are often today's global economic success stories, but not always. New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United States of America are doing quite well. Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, which also fall into this category are not doing as well. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are also doing well, even if they are not Neo-European countries, but they have adopted either democratic institutions or have governments that generally support universal education and promote private economic investment and growth. It wasn't until these countries adopted these traditions post-WWII that economic development began to bloom
Many former British colonies DO NOT fall into this category. India and Pakistan had a gloss of British structure and government over a vast majority of non-European peoples with their own traditions, divisions, and cultural heritages. The British as colonial rulers often DID NOT train sufficient numbers of "colonials" to take over for them when they left. The vast majority of citizens in these British colonies did not adopt the British sense of governmental responsibility or ethics. When they received their independence they often rejected British notions of power-sharing and check and balances in favor (favour - for the Queen's English readers) of furthering their own traditional agendas based on tribal, ethnic, or racial identity. Most African countries fall into this category. Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, and many other former British colonies in the Caribbean also fall into this category. Corruption is often endemic in these places. Divisions between classes and racial categories (in Jamaica between poor versus middle class versus wealthy, mulatto and black) often help thwart a sense of civic spirit for the country in general. Distrust between Indian descendents and African descendents have also caused serious rifts along party lines in Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana. Just like in the D.R., when these parties get into power, it is time to feed at the trough until they are voted out. The concept of civic duty and working for the good of the "pueblo dominicano" is still weak and it may take several generations before it comes to pass - but I will remain hopeful. Remember, democracy is in its infancy in the D.R. (I would argue that we can point to the 1978 elections as the foundation stone of the democratic tradition in the D.R.) and growing pains will be evident (just as they were in the U.S.A. - remember we had a civil war before we sorted things out to a degree). Let's just hope that those civic minded individuals (and there are many in the D.R.) might someday actually obtain some power to promote positive change.