« Copyright Creep | Main | Tutu vs. Mugabe » Is Oil Bad for Women?11 Jun 2008 11:11 am Hot new social science says yes, specifically that the presence of oil rents in a country is associated with a low level of women's rights and that this accounts for some of the retrograde conditions in the Middle East. As with much of the "resource curse" literature, this seems to be research you can't use since the oil is there one way or another. Still, interesting findings. Comments (23)
This isn't much of a surprise. If you're free to develop economically simply by pumping oil, then there's no need to move away from traditional, tribal or feudal social structures. If someone had given a whole bunch of gold or oil to 1700s Europe, women's rights there could easily have been just as stagnant as they've been in the Middle East. 
On the contrary, this seems to be research you can use. Canada will have to decide the extent to which it wants to exploit its vast tar sands and oil shale, and the prospect that the extraction of those resources will set back women's rights in Canada should bear on that debate. If Canada exports enough oil, the women there might even lose the vote, which would lock inequality in place. It's a good thing we have top-quality social science to steer us away from such awful outcomes.
Well, you could "use" the research by not attempting to impose western-style democracy on a state with lots of oil.
On the contrary, this seems to be research you can use. Canada will have to decide the extent to which it wants to exploit its vast tar sands and oil shale, and the prospect that the extraction of those resources will set back women's rights in Canada should bear on that debate. If Canada exports enough oil, the women there might even lose the vote, which would lock inequality in place. It's a good thing we have top-quality social science to steer us away from such awful outcomes.
seems like oil is a red herring here. any economy based on a single, valuable resource is going to have pre-industrial social norms. diamonds, gold, oil... it doesn't matter what the resource really is, only that it's the only one of any value in the country and the one resource upon which the entire economy is based.
Or it could just be that countries that happen to have large deposits of oil tend to be countries where women are treated unequally. Which makes sense, as those are most countries in the world. Besides Europe and the associated Anglo countries (US, Canada, NZ, Australia), are there really any other countries that treat women as anything close to equal? And of course you have a situation like Norway. Huge amounts of oil wealth and one of the most gender-equal societies in the world.
This is idiotic. When I was in anthropology graduate school we used to refer to crap like this as "Mickey Mouse laws". So are you trying to say that the status of women in the Middle East was higher before the discovery of oil there? Or that the status of women in the UK was higher before the discovery of the North Sea oil field? Good luck with that. It's idiocy like this that gives social science a bad name
Oil up big again today. Just look at this quote: Oil prices were recently back above $135 after the DOE said U.S. inventories fell by 4.6 million barrels for the week ended June 6, and are down almost 24 million in the past four weeks. Down 24 million barrels in 28 days?! That's 850K barrels a day for a sustained amount of time. Wow.
yeah, because oil rich Norway is an absolutely terrible place to live if you're a woman.....
Wow, some really willfully obtuse commenters here today. Seems to me there are two interesting and, yes, useful take home points here. One is to dispel the notion that the lower status of women in many Middle East/South Asian countries is due predominantly to Islam. (Of course, Pakistan alone would seem to belie that theory.) Second is that progress in women's rights can be retarded by the availability to a society of resource wealth (not necessarily oil, of course) that obviates the need to rely on women's economic participation. I think, moreover, that this is useful: I.e., if you want to promote women's status in the Middle East, then maybe looking for alternatives to oil would actually be the best way to do it.
"Hot new social science says yes, specifically that the presence of oil rents in a country is associated with a low level of women's rights and that this accounts for some of the retrograde conditions in the Middle East." Right, because all of the cultural and religious traditions in the Middle East only developed AFTER oil was discovered. Honestly, identity politics has become as absurd as "family values". Both are nothing but GOPocratic boob bait for the true believers. Looks like Hitler was right: the purpose of politics is to get people to turn off the thinking process.
Wow, some really willfully obtuse commenters here today. Seems to me there are two interesting and, yes, useful take home points here. One is to dispel the notion that the lower status of women in many Middle East/South Asian countries is due predominantly to Islam. (Of course, Pakistan alone would seem to belie that theory.) Well, duh. Islam explains much less about the status of women in the countries than the cultures of the countries and whether or not they were previously colonies directly ruled by European countries. The author is mixing Arab countries with Berber countries with a Persian country and oh yes, did he forget that Lebanon has a significant Christian population? It's like expecting social norms in Poland and Spain to be exactly alike because they are both heavily Catholic countries You could explain most of the variation in female work force participation that he graphs by comparing colonized/non-colonized countries. Highest female participation former colonies: Tunisia, Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco, Syria, Jordan, Libya, Iraq. Iran is an exception but isn't an Arab country either. Lowest participation never colonized: Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, etc. Culturally less Arab and more Europeanized former colonies have more *modern* attitudes towards women. What a shock! I find it amazing that this was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Does Ross have tenure at UCLA?
Hot new social science says yes, specifically that the presence of oil rents in a country is associated with a low level of women's rights and that this accounts for some of the retrograde conditions in the Middle East. As with much of the "resource curse" literature, this seems to be research you can't use since the oil is there one way or another. Still, interesting findings. ================================================= It saddens me to say that I'm not surprised that Matt swallowed this baloney whole. Do they teach critical thinking at Harvard?
Saudi Arabia never colonized? Robert Vitalis's book provides a history that suggests otherwise. Hence the title, America's Kingdom.
The presence of oil or natural gas in a country means that Americans and Europeans will ignore any human rights issues so long as the resources are flowing. Iran has better human rights than Saudi Arabia, but we kiss Saudi Arabia's ass while condemning Iran. The difference? Saudi Arabia cooperates with Western oil companies. It's even worse in Burma. Human rights there are so bad that America and Europe will actually publicly condemn the junta. We'll even put sanctions in place that are designed to not work. But we'll bend over backwards to ensure that the gas keeps flowing. And if one of our companies uses Karen and Shan slaves to build a pipeline in Burma? No problem, we'll defend the company in court. We'll even let one their board members become Secretary of State. We need to look at the source of the human rights problem in resource rich countries. It is us. The problem will continue so long as we defend it. And we will defend it until the resources run out.
Saudi Arabia never colonized? Robert Vitalis's book provides a history that suggests otherwise. Hence the title, America's Kingdom.
================================================ Well, by the Ottoman Empire
This is probably the dumbest thing I've seen today (it vies for that title with the post extolling the virtues of homosexual "marriage".) Is Mexico a super-patriarchal country? Is Venezuela? Is Norway? Is Russia? I think there's a large factor here that is being ignored, which correlates with both being ferociously patriarchal and also, to some extent, tends to be associated with many oil rich countries. Hint: it starts with an 'I'. By the way, Campesino, Lebanon is actually a fairly liberated country for women. The total fertility rate, for example, is 1.8- comparable to a European country or the US, instead of being on the order of 4-6 which is more characteristic of some of the Muslim Arab countries.
Mr Elvisburg hit on an interesting thought--which it turns out is actually did happen. During the 17th and 18th centuries the NativeAmericans of Mexico and Peru 'contributed' millions upon millions in gold and jewels. The result was, as he implied they would be, I think, Thought you'd want to know; the inner history teacher is satisfied.
If the path to riches comes about simply by having been lucky enough to be the owner of land with wealth under your feet, then your society is not going to be particularly geared towards the idea of accumulating wealth through things like hard work and intelligence. It's not just women who suffer-- it's anyone who didn't end up owning land with the natural resources. It just so happens that women are universally out of that category. But as one can see in Mexico, Venezuela, and Russia, it includes lots of men, too.
By the way, Campesino, Lebanon is actually a fairly liberated country for women. The total fertility rate, for example, is 1.8- comparable to a European country or the US, instead of being on the order of 4-6 which is more characteristic of some of the Muslim Arab countries.
================================================ Absolutely agree. I've met a number of first generation Lebanese emigrees here and "culturally" they seem more French than anything. Which makes sense
Tyro, Um, that's pretty silly. No one 'owns' the oil in Mexico, Venezuela or Russia- it's the property of the government. Since at least the latter two governments appear to have a very good rapport with their peoples (by the standards of their respective regions) it's fair to say that most Venezuelans and Russians feel that 'they' own the oil. I believe the same is true of Mexico too. That's why the nationalization of Pemex is a national holiday.
the thesis that women's rights have progressed least in the mid east is kind of dumb. For one thing, women in Iran have been voting for decades, and the Iranian women's movement has been active since 1918 (look it up), which is definitely longer than anywhere east of India. Plus, think of how many distinguished middle eastern women you know (hint: Christiane Amanpour, Anousheh Ansari (first commercial woman in space), that lady on the Today Show, etc) compared to women from, say, Africa.
Comments closed June 25, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Still, interesting findings.
If by 'interesting' you mean 'a total waste of everyone's time,' then yeah.
Posted by JH | June 11, 2008 11:40 AM