A rentier state is
less legitimate in the eyes of its populous because the rentier economy
hurts political participation by
increasing the disconnect between a state and its citizens. Since only a few
control the resources, it leaves the majority of the population with no direct
participation in the production, sale, or export of the resource collecting
rent. For example, Hazem Beblawi includes the statistic that an average oil
producing rentier state's oil revenue represents 90% of budget revenue. It also
represents 95% exports. However, only 2% to 3%
of the labor force is engaged in production and distribution of this oil
wealth.
Because most of the
income is centralized in the production and exportation of a concise resource,
there are virtually no taxes imposed on the people of a rentier state.
Virtually no taxes mean that citizens are less demanding in terms of political
participation. Nationals take on a rentier mentality, which is a breakup of the
tradition social contract between the state and its people; a contract that the
state will give the people aid and benefits in exchange for their consent.
Without this social bond, there is a huge lack of accountability and connection
between the few in charge of the government and resources and the rest of the
population. This increases the oligarchy or hierarchy and decreases political
legitimacy and participation.
This can be seen in
Saudi Arabia where 80% of the budget revenue and 40% of GDP comes from
exportation. This rentier economy is controlled by the monarchy. The monarchy
then uses its funds from the oil to buy tribal loyalty. However, this system
has its limits. For example, Roger Owen argues that such systems produce the
King's Dilemma, which is a lack of modernization and diversification of the
economy. Since rentier economies are not forced to be self sustaining due to
foreign cash flow, there is no incentive for economic diversification. This
keeps the economy static and increases unemployment rates which further
increases disconnect and dissent.
You make a good point about how having a large percentage of citizens facing unemployment or being a part of a lower class can result in an even larger disconnect between the citizens and those in power. It seems that hostility towards those in power would be the natural reaction from citizens in a rentier state, but I wonder if the disconnect between the two groups is so great that the citizens' perceived illegitimacy of the state and those in power could actually prevent hostility and revolt. If citizens perceive the state as illegitimate, it seems that they would be rather apathetic towards the actions of those in power simply because that is the way it has historically been, and their actions don't affect the citizens anyways.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that citizens in a rentier state demand less political participation as a result of a weaker social contract was applicable in the past but I think this notion is defunct today. As civil society evolves and as a direct result of greater interaction with the west citizens across the MENA region - rentier states included - seem to be demanding change. Perhaps a weaker social contract is only maintainable when the state can buy off loyalty. This can be seen as the price of oil falls and severe strains are put on the Saudi and other Gulf countries' economy. It will be interesting to see how these rentier states respond to severe changes relating to social and economic stratification.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said, in terms of the populous seeing the rentier state less legitimate. You gave compelling examples which strengthens your argument. For instance, your example from Hazem Beblawi is very interesting because it shows how little the actually population participates in the work force. Which then translates into a disconnect and distrust into the government. People distrust the government because of the system of government a rentier economy creates. A government where the power is very centralized on a few people who care very little about the population as a whole because there is no accountability.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said, in terms of the populous seeing the rentier state less legitimate. You gave compelling examples which strengthens your argument. For instance, your example from Hazem Beblawi is very interesting because it shows how little the actually population participates in the work force. Which then translates into a disconnect and distrust into the government. People distrust the government because of the system of government a rentier economy creates. A government where the power is very centralized on a few people who care very little about the population as a whole because there is no accountability.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs political participation actually reduced? Or just expectations of political change? It would seem to me that voting numbers are still quite high across MENA states. I agree with your argument that there is a disconnect and less faith is put into political participation, but I'm not sure that people actually participate less. Do you think the form of participation shifts in rentier states, from non-revolutionary to revolutionary political participation?
ReplyDelete