May 26, 2004

IRAQ WAR WINDFALL:

In Libya, chance for new start (Charles A. Radin, May 26, 2004, Boston Globe)

A quarter-century of being identified as a leading enemy of the United States and listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, combined with economic policies based on Khadafy's personal leadership and philosophy, have stagnated the economy despite the country's substantial oil revenues.

Many government buildings and community centers are shabby, in need of plaster and paint. Public works and public services have deteriorated. Roadsides and forests near cities are full of trash; highway maintenance is spotty. Large, government-owned hotels and other public facilities are strongly evocative of China and the Soviet Union before the demise of socialism in those countries.

US-based oil companies, which have major interests in Libya, have not operated here since 1986, when President Ronald Reagan -- who also launched US airstikes against the country and broke diplomatic relations in response to alleged Libyan involvement in terrorism -- ordered the companies out and stopped all energy-related Libyan trade with the United States.

When suspicions arose that Libyan officials were linked to the Lockerbie bombing, most other developed nations joined the US sanctions regime, and the Libyan economy nosedived. Without tourists or business travelers, internal air routes withered in the Alaska-sized country, most of whose 5.5 million people live near the coast. Ferries to Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, and Malta also came to a halt.

The lifting of sanctions by other countries in 1999, when Libya acknowledged responsibility for the airliner bombing and surrendered two suspects for trial, did not do enough to modernize the oil industry and reinvigorate the economy. There are stiil very few foreigners on the streets of Tripoli and in major tourist destinations.

Posted Green Book slogans say things like "there is no freedom for the people when food comes from overseas," but a huge selection of food products, such as yogurt, cheese, pistachio nuts, and breakfast cereals, are imported. Neither the material failings nor the limitations on political speech have engendered the tough political opposition that has arisen in defiance of repression in other Arab countries, such as Syria and Tunisia. A middle-aged history teacher explained with a Libyan saying: "A satisfied stomach has no ears."

Khadafy may not have succeeded in keeping up with modernity or developing the economy, but he apparently did not engage in the gross corruption of many other Arab regimes, and he used Libya's oil resources to subsidize the population's basic needs.

"Oil was everything," said a professional tour guide, with a hint of resentment. "That's why tourism is only just beginning. Quite frankly, until now we did not need it."


A textbook illustration of the way oil retards both political and economic development.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 26, 2004 8:04 AM
Comments

I'd state that backward.

Oil didn't ruin nations capable of self-government. The U.S., Norway, U.K. and Canada seem to have survived the presence of oil.

For countries incapable of self-government, oil offers an incentive for pirates to seize control.

But ejecting the pirates does not necessarily, or even usually, make things better. See Angola.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 26, 2004 3:20 PM

Yes, you do have it backwards. Hard to retard development when nations are already developed.

Posted by: oj at May 26, 2004 3:28 PM

You're both wrong. It's not oil, but a mono-cultural economy, particularly one that is extractive instead of productive. Oil didn't impede the nations Mr. Eager lists because oil was never more than a few percent of GDP. Oil impedes development in other countries not because it's oil but because it's a single thing that's most of the economy (particularly in the Middle East).

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 26, 2004 4:15 PM

AOG:

Doesn't that argue that Sweden should have been destroyed by ABBA in the 70s?

Posted by: mike earl at May 26, 2004 4:35 PM

Mike;

It wasn't? What would you call falling behind Missippi in standard of living?

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 26, 2004 10:02 PM

Guy, I'll buy part of that.

However, if you look at the USA when we were as young, politically, as some of the other countries, ours was an extractive economy.

Few people, I imagine, can say off the top of their heads what the leading US export was in the 1790s.

Potash. We burned down the eastern forests and exported the ash to England for the soap and cloth makers.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 28, 2004 2:38 PM
« BETWEEN EXTREMES: | Main | UNWISE: »