A dangerous simplification.
The author claims that power is diluting due to revolutions happening in the areas of More, Mobility, and Mentality. This is a grand claim and a nice alliteration, but I would expect solid evidence and a robust framework to back it up. Naim does not deliver.
More - [b:Capital in the 21st century|22676427|Capital in the 21st century|Thomas Piketty|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|26224121] does a very good job of how economic inequality is growing and likely to continue. While Piketty doesn’t try to forge a link between wealth and power, I feel comfortable arguing that the gini index of power is likely associated with the gini index of wealth. Naim neither establishes an equivalent metric, nor addresses this trend at all.
Mobility - Some people are more mobile now, yes. Are we witnessing a revolution in mobility? [b:World 3.0: Global Prosperity and How to Achieve It|11178053|World 3.0 Global Prosperity and How to Achieve It|Pankaj Ghemawat|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1328765368s/11178053.jpg|16102510] has a much more convincing argument that this is not the case.
Mentality - New players are disrupting the battle for ‘hearts and minds’ across the globe, but is this a new development? Tim Wu’s [b:The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires|8201080|The Master Switch The Rise and Fall of Information Empires|Tim Wu|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320518400s/8201080.jpg|13048036] makes a much more convincing argument that we have seen historical cycles of media disruption and consolidation, suggesting we are in the midst of a cycle, not a revolution.
Naim also manages to mangle the definition of entropy and completely misread the implications of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Power is changing, yes. Is power diluting? Maybe. But Naim does not make a convincing case, nor does he give a definition of what diluting power actually means.