Unlike in an interventionist state, in a rentier state the
government relies on substantial external rent (from outside of the state) to
sustain the economy and lacks a strong productive domestic center. In the MENA
region in many cases, this means that the government of a state will have the
money that they make from oil equal to 90/95% of their budget revenue. This
fosters an environment where citizens of a state aren’t as involved as what
happens in their state’s politics because it isn’t their money that is being
utilized by the government, further widening the disconnect between a state and
its citizens. Another typical quality of a rentier state is that the government
of the state is the principal recipient of the external rent and therefor
creates a major wealth disparity between the government, and the people. The
majority of the people in the state aren’t directly involved with the money that
is being made from oil and are only involved with distributing it or utilizing
it, creating more levels of disconnect and also fosters a sense lack of
legitimacy in the government.
I fundamentally agree with your statement that the rentier state provides for an environment where the citizens are almost excluded from political participation. The wealth disparity that you mentioned generates an environment where the interests of the elite ruling classes are catered for to maintain regime stability and the citizenry is ignored because, well, unless they gather together in large cohorts to oppose the government, their opinions matter less (due to the lack of strong tax collection systems). It's interesting to compare the dynamics of states such as the oil dominant Saudi Arabia and the aid dependent state of Jordan (a state with oil as rent and another with foreign aid as rent). One can see that although the method of rent differs, the effects are just the same: fragmented populations with limited national identities and a strong disconnect with the government.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a rentier economy creates an environment where the people feel disconnected from their governments. However, this is something that can also explained by the authoritarian nature of many of the rentier states in MENA, so then question that then arises from this is one of the origin of this environment. We know that the perpetuation of authoritarian systems is supported by rentier states, but whether or not authoritarian systems are also the product of high amounts of external rent is unknown. Which came first: the rentier economy or the authoritarian government? Did the rentier economy develop as a result of an authoritarian state seizing the sources of rent and therefore be the sole benefactor of that rent? Did the influx of rent into the state generated a concentrated wealth and power disparity from which an authoritarian state developed? I personally feel that it is most likely the latter and that external rent inherently empowers a select few resulting in authoritarian systems that give little regard to the interests of its people.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that, while the disparity of wealth between the people in power and the common citizens is important, even more important is the disparity of power between elites and the general public. However, the two are obviously interconnected- access to power leads to a greater access to wealth, and visa versa.
ReplyDeleteYes, a rentier state creates wealth disparity and a disconnect with the government. But whats a way to solve this disparity and disconnect? A rentier economy in my opinion is kind of tricky because many of the rentier sources are natural resources like oil (Saudi Arabia) or canals (like in Egypt). Can we suggest the countries just don't harvest these sources themselves, maybe privatize the resources in order to incorporate a larger part of the community. What's a way to fix the negatives of a rentier economy?
ReplyDelete