Conclusion

Summary

The core claim of the politics of place is that the politics, economics, and morals of a society must fit a particular place and its people. All states must commit to pursuing security, liberty, and prosperity. But they must have leeway in how they define and achieve these goods. This is a key reason why Montesquieu's particularism is more appealing than universalism. His claims are descriptive and normative. They are descriptive because factors differ significantly across time and place. The factors on which we have focused include laws, institutions, the environment, commerce, religion, and morals. These factors in turn form, and are formed by, the esprit or character of a society. Consider France and South Korea. Descriptively, they differ on many of these factors; consequently, they have distinct esprits. The politics of place assists us in understanding better how societies actually operate. This fundamental context defines the parameters of a society. What's more, it is dangerous to disregard the particularities of a place when attempting to make policies there. Legislators who do so often make undesirable, inappropriate, or harmful changes. The politics of place recognizes the fact that “one size does not fit all”; that is, the same regime (however good) is neither possible nor desirable in all times and places for all peoples. The politics of place is useful for analyzing and describing states independent of normative analysis. The framework allows us to understand better how societies operate. But it is the normative component that makes the framework more compelling.

The politics of place also tells us how societies should operate. By establishing that all societies must pursue security, liberty, and prosperity, the politics of place is useful for evaluating whether societies are “good,” “bad,” or somewhere in between. While some cases are clear-cut, the politics of place recognizes that there are many shades of gray when attempting to evaluate the goodness of states. A state might score well on some fronts, and not on others. For example, a state could be secure and free, but not prosperous. Rather than condemn the society in toto, the politics of place insists on a more nuanced evaluation. The politics of place thus is a mix of descriptive and normative analysis.