Why
Have The Islamic Countries Failed To Develop, Even With Resources Like Oil,
While Countries With No Resources Like Switzerland Have Flourished?
It's true, Outside of oil and gas projects
and a few specific infrastructure projects (ports like Jebel Ali and airports
like Dubai), far less real economic development has happened in the oil-rich
parts of the Arab world than would be expected based on their great endowment
of human and natural resources. The Islamic world isn't monolithic, and it's
probably worthwhile to address relatively stable oil-rich states separately
from Iraq, Iran, and Libya, again separately from other Islamic states without
much oil separately from Asian Islamic countries like Malaysia and Indonesia.
Let's look specifically at the stable oil rich Arab Islamic states for now. I'm
not an academic economist, political scientist, or cultural expert, but I lived
in the region from 2004-2010, ran several businesses there, and have experience
as a tech entrepreneur in the US and Europe, so I can comment directly on some
of the challenges.
(There are some really interesting aspects
of Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, and Indonesia which would be interesting to
address separately -- they demonstrate what happens when some of these trends
are reversed and taken too far the other way. Those countries deserve another
question.)
Overall, the local standard of living has
improved dramatically -- walking around Dubai or even a moderately sized city
anywhere in the region shows a reasonable standard of living, especially
compared to a few decades ago. All those shiny new condo buildings, huge
hypermarkets, highways, etc.
However, it's all consumption of energy
wealth, not evidence of other productive economic activity. While the economic
theory of comparative advantage says you maximize efficiency by going all-in on
areas where you have the greatest comparative advantage, economic efficiency
isn't the ultimate goal of life, and there are serious consequences to blindly
maximizing current economic efficiency to the exclusion of all else. There is a
huge qualitative difference between an economy built on natural resource
extraction, where the populace is a cost center, and an economy built on
productive labor by the population, where increasing capabilities of the
society leads to more wealth. If you look at western countries, Japan, Taiwan,
Korea, and increasingly, China, they largely developed through manufacturing,
initially low cost, low value add manufacturing, moving up the chain, and ended
up with vibrant, well-educated, and diverse economies (even though Japan has
demographic challenges, it will still be the #3 economy in the world in 2030).
The alternative is an extractive economy like Argentina, which went from 10th
in the world in 1930 to a basketcase for the past 80 years. That's not to say
that natural resource endowment hasn't helped some countries (like the US), but
natural resource economies in the absence of local value creation don't tend to
lead to well developed societies.
Wealth in a resource-based economy is
distributed much more unequally and more inefficiently. It goes to a small
number of people at the top, and they're at the top due to tribal, family, or
political connections, not due to skill or productivity. In a vibrant,
competitive manufacturing economy, wealth tends to accrue to innovators and
efficient operators, and someone with a new idea or better way of doing things
has a chance to get to the top.
Admittedly, this is imperfect even in the US, but it's a better system
than political patronage.
And, someday, the oil will run out (or
won't be burned because of global warming).
Outside simple products and services for
local consumption (consumers spending income directly from energy related jobs,
or from government redistribution of energy wealth), and development, funded by
energy wealth, of local transportation, power, and water infrastructure
(starting from a very low base), what local development there has happened has
been economically inefficient -- building empty skyscrapers in the desert. This
has been largely directed by government, or influential families affiliated
with government, and financed by huge capital flows from oil/gas and foreign
investment from Russia, South Asia, and other parts of the Arab or Muslim
world, and not the product of real free enterprise. Essentially, these
investments don't produce wealth; they're just a way to store wealth generated
elsewhere, as a form of regulatory arbitrage. Even crazier, most of the labor,
including skilled labor, to build buildings and operate companies is imported,
too -- labor from China and Pakistan, accountants from the Philippines,
advertising executives from the Levant, and engineers and architects from the
UK and US.
No comments:
Post a Comment