Though rentierism is one of the more unfortunately common political phenomenons in the Middle East, it doesn’t necessarily come into being in a vacuum. The “resource curse” is not itself a byproduct of the resources themselves, but rather the political environment they’re discovered in. An authoritarian and oppressive government (or even a simply authoritarian one) is not likely to change its ways merely because of a blessing of riches, indeed it’s more likely to use them to bolster its position of power.
Take, for example, Saudi Arabia. Even before the vast reserves of oil that have kept the economy of that wealthy kingdom a-flowing, the marriage of Muhammad ibn Saud’s power and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhabbi’s religious philosophy manifested themselves in a regime that very tightly controlled its people and its populace. Having taken Wahhabism as the cornerstone of the regime, it’s hard to envision an outside influence that could change that course of power.
Saudi oil is not consumed as frantically on the peninsula as it is by the rest of the world;Â accordingly the Saudi government does whatever it can to ensure foreign patrons and clients purchase the lion’s share of it, because that’s where the money is coming from. Though they have plenty of reason to care about investing in their nation’s infrastructure (the better it is, the more product they can produce and export which in turn means more money comes in), they have little reason to want to invest in the nation’s people. The authoritarian government is not reliant on a writ from and support of the people to keep them in power, and when the metaphorical natives get restless, they can simply write a check to keep them complacent and happy. When this is combined with the authoritarian character of the Wahhabi-influenced government, it’s easy to see just why rentier capitalism is so ideal for Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern states.
trommerj 