A trillion-dollar catalyst for change in the Arab World

The Middle East's oil wealth has the potential to become the key driver for change and innovation in

At the end of the 19th Century, Lord Curzon, the then British Viceroy of India, described Iran and its Arab neighbours as "pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for the domination of the world".

Throughout history, the geostrategic importance of the Middle East, with its immense oil wealth, has shaped the policies of colonial empires, secured the longevity of autocratic regimes and given rise to religious elites. The 'game of chess', as described by Lord Curzon, promises great riches and influence for the players involved, but has often come at a huge cost for the majority of the Arab people.

Indeed, oil wealth, so narrowly shared between the region's ruling minorities, has historically presented a barrier to democracy and left a vacuum of inequality and lost opportunities in many Arab societies. It is no coincidence that the citizens of Arab countries with limited fossil fuel reserves have enjoyed greater freedom over the years than their oil-rich neighbours.

Now, however, the uprisings of the Arab Spring present a unique opportunity to use the wealth of the region to reinvest in the future prosperity and wellbeing of the Arab people. It is an opportunity which must be grasped before history repeats itself and, as with recent events in Cairo, the transition to democracy is derailed.

Fuelling progress

While the Arab world is no stranger to revolution - Egypt, 1952, Iran, 1979 - this time around the stakes are higher than ever. With oil prices climbing to above $100/barrel, the Arab Peninsula is currently generating export oil revenues of $1 trillion dollars a year. But the conventional reserves and production capacities of oil-rich Arab countries are finite and slowly depleting. This means there is a narrowing window of opportunity to leverage the region's resources for the benefit of the people.

What's more, the ease of wealth creation from oil readily attracts those whose sole interests lie in personal profit, religious agenda or geopolitical power. If such forces emerge triumphant from the Arab Spring, oil wealth will continue to line the pockets of the few, rather than meet the needs of the many.

With these scenarios in mind, the new emerging Arab leadership needs to create genuine democratic expectations as a bulwark against corruption and oligarchy. In many countries across the region, the euphoria of revolution will soon give way to the on-the-ground realities of reconstruction. Amid the many challenges and complexities of state-building, it is critical that these countries recalibrate their socio-economic systems in a way that provides enhanced economic and human prosperity.

Diversification and development

The new Arab leadership also need to focus on transforming oil-based economies into information-based economies supported by firm democratic foundations and social equity. And this can only be achieved through the reinvestment of petrodollars into manufacturing, technology and intellectual capital. The development of mass-transit systems, solar energy conversion, water desalination or passive cooling technologies, for example, will be of long-term value to Arab societies, providing new employment and export opportunities in a warming world.

By harnessing the region's potential for alternative energy from sunlight, and by enhancing their non-oil based productive capacity, countries will be able to project themselves onto a path of sustainable and inclusive economic development. The decentralisation of oil wealth will also break up governments' ownership of petrodollar wealth and lead to improved transparency, good governance and trust among the Arab people.

Levelling the playing field

The Middle East's oil wealth, then, has the potential to become the key driver for change and innovation in Arab countries. To ensure a more sustainable model for the future, states' natural resource wealth should be saved for export, and foreign oil companies should only be awarded oil contracts once they partake in third-party monitored bidding rounds.

But other issues also need to be addressed to enable long-term wealth creation in the region - not least the record number of 75 million illiterate adults, the fatal mismatch within the labour market and, most importantly, the gender inequality in both education and employment. At present, 50 per cent of the talent base is excluded from society and the workplace, and the Middle East's long-term growth strategy must address all parts of an inclusive wealth-creation framework. Such a strategy should be based on a home-grown path for change, and provide inclusive and broadly shared development gains. One trillion dollars a year could serve as sufficient investment to achieve these goals.

In Egypt, we've already seen how easily interim leaders can renege on their promises. Without doubt, new governments with old mindsets will undermine all progress made so far in the Arab Spring. For this reason, the calls for democracy, transparency and accountability currently sweeping the region need to be answered with genuine commitment. If they are not, the sacrifices and achievements of the younger Arab generation will be squandered. Leaders must also take a long-term approach to the management of oil wealth to ensure the region can meet the challenges of food and water shortages, rising population levels and global warming.

The Arab Spring presents an opportunity not only to reset the pieces on the chessboard, but to level the playing field entirely. The new Arab leadership needs to show strength and vision to take this opportunity in the months ahead.

Tara Shirvani and Sir David King
Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's U-Turn may have just traded one problem for another

The problems of the policy have been moved, not eradicated. 

That didn’t take long. Theresa May has U-Turned on her plan to make people personally liable for the costs of social care until they have just £100,000 worth of assets, including property, left.

As the average home is valued at £317,000, in practice, that meant that most property owners would have to remortgage their house in order to pay for the cost of their social care. That upwards of 75 per cent of baby boomers – the largest group in the UK, both in terms of raw numbers and their higher tendency to vote – own their homes made the proposal politically toxic.

(The political pain is more acute when you remember that, on the whole, the properties owned by the elderly are worth more than those owned by the young. Why? Because most first-time buyers purchase small flats and most retirees are in large family homes.)

The proposal would have meant that while people who in old age fall foul of long-term degenerative illnesses like Alzheimers would in practice face an inheritance tax threshold of £100,000, people who die suddenly would face one of £1m, ten times higher than that paid by those requiring longer-term care. Small wonder the proposal was swiftly dubbed a “dementia tax”.

The Conservatives are now proposing “an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs”. The actual amount is TBD, and will be the subject of a consultation should the Tories win the election. May went further, laying out the following guarantees:

“We are proposing the right funding model for social care.  We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care.  We will make sure there’s an absolute limit on what people need to pay. And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family.”

There are a couple of problems here. The proposed policy already had a cap of sorts –on the amount you were allowed to have left over from meeting your own care costs, ie, under £100,000. Although the system – effectively an inheritance tax by lottery – displeased practically everyone and spooked elderly voters, it was at least progressive, in that the lottery was paid by people with assets above £100,000.

Under the new proposal, the lottery remains in place – if you die quickly or don’t require expensive social care, you get to keep all your assets, large or small – but the losers are the poorest pensioners. (Put simply, if there is a cap on costs at £25,000, then people with assets below that in value will see them swallowed up, but people with assets above that value will have them protected.)  That is compounded still further if home-owners are allowed to retain their homes.

So it’s still a dementia tax – it’s just a regressive dementia tax.

It also means that the Conservatives have traded going into the election’s final weeks facing accusations that they will force people to sell their own homes for going into the election facing questions over what a “reasonable” cap on care costs is, and you don’t have to be very imaginative to see how that could cause them trouble.

They’ve U-Turned alright, but they may simply have swerved away from one collision into another.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496