The announcement by Iraq’s minister of oil that the country’s reserve stands at 143 billion barrels makes it second to Saudi Arabia. Iraq is a relatively wealthy country but its citizens have been poor for a long time.
The Pen Table 6.3 (Heston, Summers and Aten, 2009), which are the most reliable data we have, report the real PPP-adjusted GDP per capita in 2005 constant US prices (chain series).
Gulf Cooperation Council Countries (GCC) | |||||||
Year | Iraq | Bahrain | Kuwait | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | UAE |
1980 | 11128.47 | 24899.21 | 43407.82 | 13135.34 | 81459.88 | 43008.02 | 74228.50 |
2007 | 4867.60 | NA | 42074.47 | 24702.12 | 88292.58 | 20225.31 | 51346.98 |
Year | Iraq | Sri Lanka | Djibouti |
1980 | 11128.47 | 2258.65 | 5737.47 |
2007 | 4867.60 | 6050.12 | 4273.85 |
Iraqis have been significantly poorer than all other GCC citizens. In 2007, Iraq was poorer than Sri Lanka and as poor as Djibouti. Despite the fact that the GCC countries are not productive and are “rent states”, they are prosperous and their citizens are among the richest in the world. The GCC countries are run by a social consensus whereby the ruling elite share the oil wealth with their citizens.
Iraq is different. There is no social contract between the government and the people. Also, Iraq’s population is not homogenous; it is populated by Arab, Kurds, and various other ethnicities and religions. Because of the backward political system that exists now, this heterogeneity is reflected in the groups competing for premiership, the top positions and ministries, and those competing for provincial governments. All of them have oil in mind. The wrangling about the city of Kirkuk is an example. The central government wants to have control over oil just like the provinces do. When they talk about “ a share in decision making” they are talking about power. Oil is power; when it is concentrated in the hands of the state (central or provincial) it makes democracy unattainable. In the absence of an agreement between the groups and in the absence of a plan for development, the Iraqi people should demand to have their share of the oil wealth. The transfer of oil wealth to the people is a transfer of power to the people.
Transferring the oil wealth to people could be done easily, and has been achieved in Alaska and Norway, but is conditional on the absence of corruption. An international body could be assembled to manage the process along with requisite checks-and-balances mechanisms. Alternatives to the Norwegian and Alaskan models could be discussed (see the paper, English).
Iraq differs greatly from the GCC in that it has a sizable stock of human capital and a large well-trained labor force. Oil shares would be the capital, which, combined with human capital and quality labor, could produce real GDP. When these factors of production are in place Iraqis could build much needed schools and hospitals. The Iraqis would farm Mesopotamia again. There is a lot of industrial experience in Iraq: they could rebuild the manufacturing sector.
The answer to my title question is No. The Iraqis should not be poor. But the fact is that Iraq’s GDP per person was reduced by more than half in the last 30 years. My prediction is that the average Iraqi will remain relatively poorer unless a fundamental change in the political and economic institutions occurs. The transfer of oil wealth to the people will lead to the transfer of power from the ruling elites to the people, leading to democracy and with it, the responsibility to rebuild the country faster.
ورغم كون دول الخليج ليست من الدول ذات الإنتاجية العالية كونها دول ريعيه ولكن مواطنوها ميسورون و مرفهون. إن دول الخليج تحكمها اتفاقيات اجتماعية بين مواطنوها وحكامها تقتسم من خلالها الثروة النفطية.
أما العراق فهو مختلف. ليس هناك عقد اجتماعي بين الحكومة والشعب. فالعراق ليس متجانسا. وفيه قوميات وملل ومذاهب مختلفة. فالكتل المتنافسة على المناصب العليا والوزارات في المركز أو الأقاليم تتصارع على السلطة. فالحكومة المركزية حالها حال حكومات الإقليم لا تريد أن تفقد السيطرة على النفط و موضوع كركوك مثالا على ذلك. وعندما نسمع عن "المشاركة في اتخاذ القرار" فهذا يعني المشاركة في السلطة وان النفط هو السلطة. فمن يسيطر علية يسيطر سياسيا. وتركز النفط بيد الحكومة سواء مركزية كانت أم محلية يجعل الديموقراطية صعبة المنال. فالنفط لا تملكه الحكومات في الدول المتقدمة الديمقراطية.
ففي غياب الاتفاق بين الكتل والإطراف المتنازعة على السلطة وغياب خطط التنمية على الشعب العراقي أن يطالب بتحويل حصته من النفط إليه مباشرة. .إن إعادة النفط للشعب هو بمثابة إعادة السلطة للشعب. وهذا ممكن تحقيقه كما فعلت ولاية ألاسكا الأمريكية والنرويج شريطة أن لا يكون هناك فساد إداري لكي تضمن عملية التوزيع العادلة.وهذا ممكن عن طريق اشتراك منظمات دولية مع وضع آليات للتدقيق والموازنة لضمان إدارة نقل الملكية. وهناك طرق أخرى يمكن مناقشتها. (لاحظ المرفقات).
العراق يختلف بشكل كبير عن دول الخليج كونه يملك مخزون كبير من راس المال البشري وقوة عاملة كبيرة مدربة. عندها إذا ستكون حصص النفط راس المال الذي يمكن, إذا دمج مع راس المال البشري والقوة العاملة المدربة أن يزيد من الناتج القومي الإجمالي للفرد. والكل يعلم عندما كانت الشركات الأجنبية تعمل في العراق في منتصف السبعينات كانت لا تجد صعوبة في توظيف العراقي في كل الحقول فعرض العمل كان مرنا للغاية وجودته كانت عالية.
فعندما تتوفر عناصر الإنتاج هذه للفرد سيبني العراقيون المدارس لأبنائهم ويبني الأطباء العراقيين المستشفيات ويفلحوا بلاد ما بين النهرين مرة أخرى.و العراق لدية خبرة صناعية عريقة وسيبني الصناعيين القطاع الصناعي.
فالجواب على سؤالي هو لا. لا يفترض أن يكون العراقي فقيرا. ولكن الحقيقة المؤلمة هي إن الناتج القومي
الإجمالي للفرد انخفض بأكثر من النصف خلال ما يقارب الثلاثين سنة الماضية. إذا أنا أتوقع أن يبقى العراقي فقيرا نسبيا إلا إذا حدث تغير جذري في المؤسسات السياسية والاقتصادية. إن نقل الثروة النفطية من سيطرة الطبقة الحاكمة إلى الشعب سيدعم بناء الديمقراطية وذلك سيؤدي إلى زيادة الناتج القومي الإجمالي للفرد.
Related Links
Let's say Iraq creates a national oil export agency that will market all Iraqi oil. What will this agency do with the proceeds from oil exports? The Alaska model is "use oil revenue to pay for the cost of government in excess of a few user fees and Pigovian taxes, then rebate the balance to the people, on a per capita sharing basis." For example, for every dinar paid to the first adult in a household, pay 75 cents to every other person in the household. Continue to offer free medical care, but stop the subsidues on energy and staple foods.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with this model is that every dinar paid to the people is a dinar taken from some government budget. This would collide with inability of Iraq to forge any kind of democratic consensus. He who controls the government decides who gets hired by the public service. Almost the only way to have a comfortable western standard of living in Iraq today is to have a nice public service job. In such a situation, freedom of corruption is impossible, unless the typical public service executive is some kind of saint.
Post Saddaam, there is no evidence that the residents of Iraq see themselves as one people with a common destiny. For that reason, I have supported for some time a 3 way division of Iraq: a Kurdish and Christian state in the north, a Sunni state in the centre, and a Shiite state in the south. I realise full well that this would give the lion's share of the oil to the Shiites and no oil to the Sunnis. But the Sunnis have the finest human capital of the 3 communities, and could make their way in the world, post oil, as have Syria and Jordan.