Why Is the Arab World So Backwards?

[Chocolate_Hound]

http://www.instablogs.com/entry/why-...-so-backwards/


While Arabs are, of course, innately no different than other people, their region has fallen behind the rest of the world and is incredibly backwards. Arabs have prospered outside of the region, Arab-Americans and Arab-Brazilians, for instance, are incredibly successfully. But why can't Arabs duplicate this success in the Arab world? Why is Arab achievement - as often the case - only possible in the Americas and the West?


The condition right now is just sad. But it is not too late for an Arab renaissance.

Arabs in America are not "incredibly" successful. Chinese and Indian populations significantly out-earn Arab populations in most American cities. Certain nations, such as Jordanians, Moroccans and Algerians, are making Hispanic-level income. Relative to other legal immigrants, Arabs are doing quite poorly. Either way, the average Arab-American is not exactly representative of the average Arab worldwide. Arabs run entire mafias in European cities and are the most likely group to claim welfare in EU nations.

[PersianWolfe21]

It's because they have oil, which has made the Middle Eastern region underdeveloped. The same logic can be applied to African countries.

Natural resources ruin nations. Leaders of nations don't care about their people, but lacking natural resources and needing revenue to uphold their regime, they may be incentivised to support public programmes allowing the population to be educated and earn a living so that they can be taxed.

On the other hand, if you have natural resources, you can just hire some foreign workers to come in and extract the resources, later to sell for a profit.

We in the West may see this same problem for ourselves, for automation can lead to the same consequence. Once robots can perform most jobs, the governments would no longer need to worry about the stomach and brains of the Western population.

It's no coincidence that Israel is a liberal democracy compared to its Arab neighbors, as Israel actually has very little natural resources.

[Demhat]

It's because they have oil, which has made the Middle Eastern region underdeveloped. The same logic can be applied to African countries.

Natural resources ruin nations. Leaders of nations don't care about their people, but lacking natural resources and needing revenue to uphold their regime, they may be incentivised to support public programmes allowing the population to be educated and earn a living so that they can be taxed.

On the other hand, if you have natural resources, you can just hire some foreign workers to come in and extract the resources, later to sell for a profit.

We in the West may see this same problem for ourselves, for automation can lead to the same consequence. Once robots can perform most jobs, the governments would no longer need to worry about the stomach and brains of the Western population.

It's no coincidence that Israel is a liberal democracy compared to its Arab neighbors, as Israel actually has very little natural resources.

Can Confirm too much natural resources make the people and their governments lazy.

[chinshen]

How do you explain Norway then?

[PersianWolfe21]

How do you explain Norway then?

Norway discovered natural resources in 1966 which occured long after its industralisation and liberal polices were implemented.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, discovered oil in 1938 prior to any chance of liberal policies being implemented.

Furthermore, Norway ranks 9th in the export of crude oil. Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, etc all rank in the top 5. Those nations also rank in the top 5 when it comes to the production of crude oil, whereas Norway gets dropped to 15th place.

According to Investopedia, Norway doesn't even make the top 10 of countries that have the most natural resource. (https://www.investopedia.com/article...-resources.asp)

Simply put, Norway doesn't have enough natural resources to incentivise its leaders to make the bold move of turning the nation into a dictatorship and reversing liberal policies.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, as well as other ME countries had the advantage of starting off as a nation with all power vested into one leader.

[Synapsid]

It's because they have oil, which has made the Middle Eastern region underdeveloped. The same logic can be applied to African countries.

Natural resources ruin nations. Leaders of nations don't care about their people, but lacking natural resources and needing revenue to uphold their regime, they may be incentivised to support public programmes allowing the population to be educated and earn a living so that they can be taxed.

On the other hand, if you have natural resources, you can just hire some foreign workers to come in and extract the resources, later to sell for a profit.

We in the West may see this same problem for ourselves, for automation can lead to the same consequence. Once robots can perform most jobs, the governments would no longer need to worry about the stomach and brains of the Western population.

It's no coincidence that Israel is a liberal democracy compared to its Arab neighbors, as Israel actually has very little natural resources.

What you described is called Dutch disease. Interestingly Iran GDP is only 30% relient on petroleum, despite having the largest natural gas reserves on the world. Iran seems to have a much larger industrial base than all Arab nations. And has a much larger educated population. No Arab nation for example, could built something like Khordad 3 which shot down an high altitude 200 million dollars US stealth plane in summer 2019. Let alone the significantly more advanced Bavar 373 which is in between S-300PMU or S-400 in capability

[Kess]

The answer is just one word made up of five letters.