I understand well what the paper says. Your post has essentially reduced the paper into a banality, which it is. And one that fails to provide a compelling case for Anarcho-Capitalism, which is what is being discussed in the thread.

I read the pdf. It reports some marginal improvements in some metrics. I remain skeptical that this is in any way meaningful or illustrative of a successful case of Anarcho-Capitalism. If people here are interested in furthering Anarcho-Capitalism, it would seem obvious to not present Somalia as a case study. Rather, I would discuss why Anarcho-Capitalism has failed to bring about any real improvements to say... make life bearable for Somalis. That would be far more constructive. The trouble, I suspect, is that the philosophy is fundamentally flawed beyond hope.

Although a properly constrained government may be superior to statelessness, it is not true that any government is superior to no government all. De Long and Shleifer (1993), for instance, find that in pre-industrial Europe, countries without unified governments performed better in some ways than those with absolutist autocracies. If a state is highly predatory and its behavior goes unchecked, government may not only fail to add to social welfare, but may actually reduce welfare below its level under anarchy.2 I show that this was the case with Somalia’s government, which did more harm to its citizens than good. The government’s collapse and substitution with statelessness subsequently opened the possibility for progress.