The final chapter reiterates the challenges posed by totalitarianism. By conducting coherent theoretical and empirical research into the origins and expansion of totalitarianism, this work strives to address these significant challenges that Mises warned about decades ago. This chapter summarizes the key insights drawn from both the empirical evidence and the theoretical framework of institutional genes that constitute a comprehensive methodological approach. The literature review distinguishes this book from other works in the fields of China studies, institutional analysis, and social science methodology. The two most extensive sections of the chapter examine the institutional genes and their evolution in Taiwan and in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (FSU-EE). The former section sheds light on the pivotal role the institutional genes played in Taiwan’s transition from authoritarian rule to constitutional democracy, while the latter section explains the collapse of the totalitarian regimes in the FSU-EE countries and their divergent institutional transformations. The chapter also highlights the implications of the transitions in Taiwan and the FSU-EE countries for China’s future transformations.

Over the last twenty years, New Institutional Economics (NIE) has been a highly influential model in the study of the Greek and Roman economy. Although both its assumptions and methods are controversial, NIE approaches have changed the agenda of ancient economic history. The overall goal of neo-institutional economic history is to explain economic development, and notably growth, in line with a much-quoted phrase by the Nobel-prize winning economist Douglass North, that it is the task of economic history to explain the structure and performance of economies through time. NIE approaches and methods have therefore stimulated quite specific research directions in ancient economic history. This chapter suggests that NIE offers a fruitful conceptual matrix for asking new questions – with or without the answers necessarily staying within the NIE model. By contrast, the aim of the NIE method to predict and quantify outcomes, and the broader implications of the approach, are far more difficult to accept and defend. Particularly problematic is its commitment to certain kinds of growth as the desirable outcome of economic development, together with the assumption of the universal benefits of that growth, with its end point and golden standard explicitly or implicitly based on successful economies of the modern West.