The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty -- Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson
Why not always choose prosperity?
"In the same way that there is no reason why political institutions should automatically become pluralistic, there is no natural tendency towards political centralization. There would certainly be incentives to create more centralized state institutions in any society, particularly in those with no centralization whatsoever. For example, in Somalia, if one clan created a centralized state cable of imposing order on the country, this could lead to economic benefits and make this clan richer. What stops this? The main barrier to political centralization is again a form of fear from change: any clan, group, or politician attempting to centralize power in the state will also be centralizing power in their own hands, and this is likely to meet the ire of other clans, groups, and individuals, who would be the political losers of this process. Lack of political centralization means not only lack of law and order in much of a territory but also there being many actors with sufficient powers to block or disrupt things, and the fear of their opposition and violent reaction will often deter many would-be centralizers. Political centralization is likely only when one group of people is sufficiently more powerful than others to build a state. In Somalia, power is evenly balanced, and no one clan can impose its will on any other. Therefore, lack of political centralization persists."
And this is my friend why we most likely never have a centralised state
Federalism is not so bad either, we just have to make it less clan based federalism by mixing different regions with different clans
