Emmanuel Teitelbaum raises some very valuable points regarding my book. First, on the issue of regime type, I argued that the central variables that affect equitable development are the character of institutions, especially institutionalized political parties and cohesive state structures, and pragmatic ideology—not regime type. While one conclusion that emerges from the study is that illiberal regimes (Malaysia and Vietnam) have done better than liberal regimes (Thailand and the Philippines), I do not argue that illiberalism is a necessary variable for equitable development. The record across the developing world shows that many authoritarian regimes have very dismal economic outcomes. My argument hinges on the power, responsiveness, and capacity of institutions.