He tries to explain why the west advanced and the "rest" didn't. He boils it down to 6 key points, 1.Competition (competing empires resulting in innovation) 2.science (the scientific revolution) 3.property (property rights in north and South America) 4.medicine (medical advancements) 5.consumption (capitalism) and 6.work. Personally it all derailed for me at the end when he starts saying that advancement depended on the Protestant work ethic, and as less religious Europe and America becomes the less powerful they will be. Any thoughts?
Niall Ferguson is not considered a legit historian (incidentally, I'm not either but I've had qualified historians tell me he isn't one...). I actually watched the TV series associated with that book when it first aired, and found it completely incomprehensible. It wasn't even right-wing propaganda, it was just a complete load of bollocks.
Ferguson wrote some well received books on the history of banking and The Pity of War was also seen as an interesting, revisionist take on WWI. His recent big TV show books are not taken very seriously. The main complaints against The West and the Rest are that it is selective in its use of facts, attacks straw men, shows no understanding of the non European cultures it discusses and is barely disguised propaganda for modern neoconservative foreign policy.
For most historians, Ferguson has become less interesting the more popular (populist?) he has become.