Question to chapter 13:
1) Just like with respect to everything else about the region, the Middle East is a set of paradoxes with respect to its international relations. In one sense, the region is dramatically globalized: in terms of its entanglement in the international/global flow of power and resources: labor, energy, weapons and foreign influence, this might well be the most “globalized” part of the world. From another point of view, though, the region is dramatically insular: its economies a very closed in many respects, and, even efforts to open countries of the region to each other (with the one exception of GCC countries) ended up in failure. Why? What explains the paradox of globalization and insularity coexisting in the same part of the world?
Question to “Conclusion”
2) What conclusions related to the present and future of political economy of the Middle East do the authors reach? Do you agree or disagree with authors of the book? Why?
Here are some of my friends’ answers since I don’t have the book. Please read them all and do your best.
1. There are several reasons for the paradox that lies within the MENA regions in that there is a desire for access to the global markets but the regional constraints prove to constrain the fragile system. One of the biggest reasons for this paradox is the amount of red tape and costs that go along with the administrative side of intraregional trade within the MENA region. This along with an already fragile transportation system within the region for economic trade allows for very little progress in terms of local economies. The competition is also a paradox as well, on one hand there is the autonomous state that runs many of the economic policies that govern the way business is done and on the other hand there is immense competition between the governments of the states. This causes further tensions between intraregional economies if two or more states produce the same exports.
2. The conclusions made by the authors that they reach by the end of the book were that the region basically comes down to the three types of countries within the nation (RRLA, RRLP, RPLA) and the troubles that lie within these types. This means that policies should be implemented to take into account these different types of countries and the ethnic and class lines that are often drawn around the entire region as a whole. There is just no way to effectively categorized and implement policies to the region as a whole as each country or area has their unique problems that require a well thought out and intelligent answer to complex problems. The authors do mention that there are significant areas for the states to focus on and those are; creation of jobs, economic reforms and stability, and the modernization of the state.
1. One potential reason some of these countries have been failing is that some of these countries are going through this loop where they started with a state-led economy, and then all of these market reforms occurred in 2011 that led to a democratic revolution that has then started heading back to a state-led economy. Some could argue this has led to more stability for some countries, and others not so much. Integration into the world economy was more of a struggle for the non-oil countries of the region and have had to resort to manufacturing exports, and some like the UAE have had to export services, but because they have been poorly integrated internally there have been too many barriers to allow trade.
2. They have said it is difficult to get the full picture because different patterns can be observed throughout many of the countries in the region. They also say that even though the RPLA countries have diverse regimes they have had some of the largest levels of mobilization following the Arab uprisings. While the RRLP countries have had the most continuity, and their stability came from their high per capita resource wealth which has helped maintain the support of the rulers of the people, but with Libya being the exception. They end with how there is still a chance with progress and after the second oil boom there much more resources in the area now. I do agree with them, and I think it is still possible for the country to make political, economic, and social progress if they go in the right direction based on the information given by the authors.
The MENA region is undoubtedly a set of paradoxes that exist but should not be so today. It is very hard to argue that the region itself should not be leaps and bounds more prosperous than it is now considering the resources and opportunities it has been presented. A very interesting question that has been presented here is the paradox of the increased globalization of the region while it at the same time has characteristics of being isolated from and insular when it comes to various economic dealings. In examining this question one must think of the attempts at intraregional trade and cooperation that have produced little results. This is very ironic considering the almost commonly shared, religion, language(s) and culture that many nations here share. Nonetheless, the region is not able to form any type of cohesive governing body to represent the interests of the people in this region. The only on semblance of some unity we have is the formation of GAFTA which was only moderately successfully the book says in increasing trade by around 20%. The most important factor to consider are the tensions and competitiveness that exist between the very nations that are seeking to expand a foothold into the global markets. When smaller private industries and businesses worry about competing with other Arab nation producers therein lies a problem that must be alleviated to truly form an effective economic coalition of Arab nations. What we see in the MENA region is undoubtedly a disconnection between appropriate effective Arab capital and the labor needed to foster the growth of fledgling private industries.
The authors discuss the medley of challenges that face the MENA region. This region is unique and unlike any other in terms of its economic, political and religious institutions that form a confluence of cultural that has hindered and in some ways helped the region. The countries have undergone state led development, market reforms and great improvement in many facets of life that have come to fruition largely due to oil revenues and FDI. The simple fact that the region sits on the largest oil reserves means that the region will always have strategic importance as nations look to fuel their development and oil is vitally important to our global economy. The authors paint a realistic but optimistic picture of the region and its future prospects. I agree with the authors that the largest problem is a lack of institutions in these countries that will effectively respond to the needs of the people, this entails not only being concerned with “cronies” of the state but genuine economic and political reforms to provide for all citizens. This region has a pattern of authoritarian and monarchical rule that shows little concern for those at the bottom struggling to make a living.
1. There exists several reasons that explain that explain the paradox surrounding the coexistence of both globalization and insularity in the region. The book highlights several reasons for the lack of intraregional trade. First, the costs associated with administrative red tape coupled with weaknesses in regional transport-related infrastructure could be argued to be two of the most important constraints in intraregional trade (480). In addition, several MENA countries tend to produce similar goods and thus we see added pressure from these countries, not to mention constant ethnic, religious, and secular conflicts, tends to impede this notion of intraregional trade. Naturally, we see these countries attempting to globalize in an attempt to to boost their economies, not having to rely on natural resources. This export-led strategy of globalization facilitates gradual accumulation of knowledge and skills in ways that are not possible in closed economies (477). It seems as though the MENA region is adamant in greater participation in the global market then the regional market due to the longer-lasting more instantly gratifying benefits that come with it.
2. The authors state that there is no single story about how politics, economics, and society interact to produce economic and political change in the region (518), however one can see common trends within certain political economy subtyppes. The authors argue three main commonalities that the countries in the RPLA share: a.) a decline in social mobility for key constituents in the middle class due cutbacks of public investment into statist economic policies in the 1980s b.)low oil endowments give the RLPA countries fewer resources than their neighbors have for investing in co-operation and repression c.) it is no accident that protests have been less pervasive in the monarchies, where hereditary succession and more diverse social coalitions have muted calls for total regime change (Lebanon). Patterns exist in the RRLA countries as well: a.) inability to launch an ideological project that can somehow mobilize the masses b.)Economic liberalization has been characterized by forms of cronyism c.) Use of second oil shock to dole out resources to their supporters and consolidate power d.) regimes have resisted change and violently act towards any opposition. Patterns exist in RRLP countries as well: a.) exhibited the most continuity since their establishment or independence from colonial rule b.) With the exception of Libya, stability has arisen from high per capita resource wealth c.)Merging private sector that has grown and become a central driver of economic growth d.) Continue to pit the interest of that local business class against those of non-national labor. In regards to the future of the political economy of the MENA region, the authors argue several areas of focus for the region: Economic stability, Modernization of the state, Business environments, and the creation of jobs. The authors argue that a difference will be made through the processes by which solutions adapted to the particular environments of each country are found and implemented (521). Having had little to no knowledge of this region before this class, I find that the authors make a seemingly viable case for both the current and future political economies of this region. Barring the notion that it can happen overnight, one could argue that the focuses highlighted by the authors in the conclusion grow more important and vital to this region daily.
1. There are multiple reasons why the MENA region has failed to reach its highest potential pertaining to expanding and integrating their economies. There are multiple factors that have caused the region to lag in many ways compared to other developing regions. There are multiple factors in the policies in place that create red tape that are inhibiting free trade to be in the region. Also sine there is a shortage of water in the region, there are not may resources and the countries share many possible resources so there would not be a reason for trade. They are also still transitioning from the state developed economies. Besides the Gulf countries, many potential investors do not find many of the countries attractive because of the unstable regimes.
2. What was gathered in the conclusion, is that the MENA region is very diverse and can be classified into sub categories. There is not one blanket solution in order to fix the problems of the region but individualizing the solution with be the most beneficial. Obviously the economy of the region can improve but that will also require the political structure to change as well.
1. I believe that there are several reasons for why the region can be seen as having closed off economies in relation to each other. One of those reasons include the fact that there is such a build up of strife and military focus in the countries that they don’t see each other as possible trading partners. Another reason I believe that the economies are closed off its because of political and administrative blocks on opening the markets to other nations in the region. Sure, there are foreign workers who travel from country to country in search of jobs but the reality is that European and other western investments are the driving force behind the economies of the region. This proves true in the GCC countries because they have oil and trade with the west and have foreign workforce to aid in the process of creating a better economy.
2. After reading through the conclusions, the authors really do not provide any real conclusions about the future of the region. The only thing that they can provide is a list of patterns that have been seen through the different types of countries in the region. I agree that it will take time for these countries to create economies that will work for them but I believe that it will be in a form that we have not seen yet. We have to stop expecting these countries to behave and act as our own. We will have to wait and see how politics, social behaviors, and authorities come together.
1. The MENA region is viewed as paradoxical for many reasons. Although this could be considered a globalized region of the word, the lack of trade between the countries are practically nonexistent with the exception of the Gulf states. Without this trade, the region is lacking economic stimulation which in turn leads to shortage of resources. This creates a domino effect with regards to political instability (i.e crony capitalism), unemployment, the dilapidation of infrastructure and mass discontent among the people. While the Middle East has large amounts of resources in regards to energy, the wealth from the resources is benefiting the common people.
2. It does not seem that the authors come to an agreement at the end of the book. The only true common thread that the authors had is that there needs to be drastic change within the economic sphere of the region. More jobs, more modernization and more business needs to take place in the region. More jobs will allow the people to have money to spend which will ultimately stimulate the economy.
The economic relations aspect of the MENA countries is quite interesting. Among Arab populations, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there has been a huge push to create unity among arab nations. In many ways, these groups dreamed of creating a single Arab polity. This has given rise to political forms of Islam in the form of the United Arab Republic, and currently ISIS and different groups of Al-Qaeda. Although there has been strong national sentiment, the MENA countries have failed to create a single identity and to integrate economically within the region. With the exception of the Gulf states, certain economic and political factors have prevented the region from integrating economically. Elements of Crony Capitalism, and the lack of diversity within the private industries of these nations has decreased incentives for intra-regional trade. In fact, partly as a result of the ISI policies, each of the nations developed industries that matched their neighbors. This makes trade internally because it creates unwanted competition with each nations industries. ISI led to a lack of competitiveness in the private sector, and the lack of dynamism in the private industries made it difficult to create commodities that neighboring MENA countries would want.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!