I just finished writing my semester’s research paper (what a relief!) – regarding rentierism in the Middle East. The term “rentier state” refers to a nation whose economy is almost entirely based off of the exportation of natural resources. The term was coined by a researcher, Hazem Beblawi, in the 1980′s, who sought to find a relationship between “rentier” states and the development of authoritarian rule. In “rentier” states, the wealth of the nation is controlled by the elite few who run the government. The government’s role is to process the resources, and then redistribute wealth throughout the nation, effectively creating a welfare state. Now, redistribution through this system institutes a hierarchical system where the elite few hold the majority of the political power, and the majority of the population retains almost no say in the political process (essentially, the economy in a rentier state creates the foundation for authoritarian rule to flourish).
examples of rentier states are Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Syria, and other Middle Eastern countries. However, rentier states are not limited to the Middle East, and the political outcomes are not always the same – for example the Asian Tigers were also considered rentier states at one point or another, as well as countries in South/Central America (Ex: Venezuela).
Now, the reason I bring this up is to note the significance of economics on the political outcomes of countries. The international political economy has had dramatic effects on the development of nations. What may be more noteworthy, is that the economic system of rentier states is not a sustainable one. The nation is only effective as long as the “rents” from natural resources keep coming in.
Without the inflow of money, the government fails to redistribute wealth throughout the state, leaving many people pissed off! During the 1970′s many Middle Eastern states faced big problems when the price of oil dropped off the table —> equating to a shortage of money for each respective rentier state government. As finite resources (oil supplies) become more scarce, countries who rely on this natural resources need to start diversifying their economies in preparation for a post-oil era. Most times, this means that these nations need to liberalize (not the #1 choice for a authoritative government!).
I am wondering how the economy has effected the Arab Spring. Have rentier states (such as Libya) failed to redistribute wealth properly, and if so, how has that affected political mobilization? Has economic liberalization translated to political liberalization, and if so, what will it take to institute democracy?
There is no doubt in my mind that economic factors have been a leading contributor in the Arab Spring. In essence, a citizen who is being sufficiently provided for would not have a reason to oppose a government politically. I feel that the large-scale riots associated with the Arab Spring and the military crackdowns of such protests (like in the above article about Syria) are a reflection of a country’s inefficient transition into the global economy.
What do you think?
