4 ms·
Especially government of a small, homogenous country with massive oil wealth in a peaceful part of the world. It's very much "easy mode" as far as governments g
by HPsquared 2mo ago
Especially government of a small, homogenous country with massive oil wealth in a peaceful part of the world. It's very much "easy mode" as far as governments go.
- throwaway894345 2mo agoAh yes, massive oil wealth, that famously strong predictor of good governance.
- throwaway27448 2mo agoWhat are the counterexamples? Maybe Nigeria? EDIT: yes, also Iraq and Venezuela
- cyberax 2mo agoHonestly, pretty much every other resource-rich country: Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, ... Norway is an outlier.
- throwaway27448 2mo agoRussia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran seem to be doing just fine.
- detourdog 2mo agoMy first job was at a design firm that worked for Samarec Riyadh Refinery. We were design an interactive exhibit based on the refining process. Our principal was Jewish and we needed special permission for him to enter the country for presentations. During one of the presentations one of our team took a photo of a fountain and it initially ended up in our presentation to be used to set the tone. While previewing our slideshow to our handlers we were told to remove the slide of the fountain. The fountain belonged to the king and could not be photographed without permission from the king. Admittedly there was no violence but we were warned that it was very bad. This was the early 1990’s so I’m sure this are much looser now.
- GeneralMayhem 2mo agoIn what universe is Russia "doing just fine"?
- scrollaway 2mo ago“The resource curse” is what you’re looking for. There’s a lot of counter examples - Norway is the odd one out.
- true_religion 2mo agoOr even the USA historically. Pre 1900s, America was a country of continual economic crises, and fractured politics. It was sitting at the time in the latest supply of easily exploited natural resources in the world, yet somehow could not pay its troops pensions lost Civil war, could not keep its strategic oil supply from being raided by the executive branch corruption, and could not keep it plutocrats from directing military action for the sake of bananas of all things.
- givinguflac 2mo ago|Or even the USA historically. Pre 1900s, America was a country of continual economic crises, and fractured politics. Have you read about the US post-1900? I think you can leave off pre 1900s…
- true_religion 2mo agoYes but pre 1900s there were vastly more resources. The USA at some point had the lions share of the world’s easily exploitable oil.
- _--__--__ 2mo agoI think the resource curse didn't apply to Norway because they had an established post-industrial economy for hundreds of years before they got into oil exporting (they didn't even start drilling until the 1960s, 50 years after Venezuela or the Arab states).
- atombender 2mo agoWhile being an established post-industrial economy is part of it, Norway was also keenly aware of the resource curse at that point. The "Dutch disease" comes from what happened when the Dutch, a liberal democracy, found oil in the 1950s — just a little before Norway did. A lot is thanks to Farouk Al-Kasim [1], who helped develop the fundamental plan for Norway's petroleum industry. As far I know, his task group's plan, developed while at the Department of Industry, was essentially accepted wholesale by the government. Part of it was ensuring the government retained control, and another part of it was ensuring oil revenue was carefully managed rather than flooding every level of society and government. [1] https://archive.ph/lEYl7 https://archive.ph/lEYl7
- GeneralMayhem 2mo agoNorway is pretty much the only country with oil wealth that can reasonably be considered well run (unless you count Canada or the US, which, while resource-rich, have a lot of other things going on and aren't dependent on their petroleum resources). Of the other countries where petroleum is >10% of the national economy, I think Norway might be the only one that isn't a brutal dictatorship, a failed state, or both?
- throwaway2037 2mo ago> Of the other countries where petroleum is >10% of the national economy, I think Norway might be the only one that isn't a brutal dictatorship, a failed state, or both? You raise a great point. I wracked my brain trying to think of counterexamples: It is tough! I found this graphic from CNBC that summarises data from the World Bank: https://assets.weforum.org/editor/0GAQbN2nVTxgIqOLjWpWSZYh-97_gtckmxgQl32fK6o.JPG https://assets.weforum.org/editor/0GAQbN2nVTxgIqOLjWpWSZYh-9... One thing I want to point out: Kuwait is the most dependent upon oil and gas of any nation in the world (about 50% of its GDP). However, I think it would be a stretch to call them "a brutal dictatorship, a failed state, or both". Sure, it isn't a Western liberal democracy, but people live pretty good lives and the state does not have a strong reputation for suppressing its people. (I'm not here to apologize for their gov't... but I think it would be a bit harsh to put in your categories.) UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Brunei, and Qatar: I would put in the same category: Non-democracy or flawed democracy, but life is pretty good for the locals. I guess that we can call all of the countries that I mentioned before: "benevolent dictator" gov't model. Interestingly, Ecuador is about 20% of GDP, but I would call them a developing/emerging democracy. The rest of the list... sheesh: It does not look good! What do you think about my analysis? Do you agree?
- throwaway27448 2mo ago?? Russia, the US, half the damn gulf states seem to be doing just fine (maybe excluding Bahrain and Iraq). Very much including Iran, despite our efforts to strangle it to death for fifty years straight. > I think Norway might be the only one that isn't a brutal dictatorship Just because you don't like a government doesn't mean it's doing a bad job at, well, holding a state together.
- joecot 2mo agoIt usually is when western countries don't continuously interfere with your government.
- noosphr 2mo agoTexas is well known for good government and long term planning.
- telotortium 2mo agoI mean, compared to a lot of other states Texas is fairly well run for its budget.
- georgeecollins 2mo agoThis. I think people in California (like me) have trouble seeing the things Texas does well because of partisanship. It's bad for California not to see when another state does a thing better.
- all2 2mo ago[flagged]
- scarmig 2mo agoCalifornia's biggest problems are mostly along the lines of "too many people want to live here." I have plenty of complaints about California governance, many of them conservative coded. But if California is a failed state, it's a failed state that much of the world aspires to be.
- rmunn 2mo agoI have family in California so I've visited often. It's got beautiful geography, and very pleasant weather most of the time (at least in the areas people have chosen to live: few people voluntarily choose to live in the desert areas). I don't have much personal experience with California's government other than second-hand reports, usually from people leaving the state so you can imagine those reports tend negative. But I suspect that if California's government were better, there would be even more overcrowding problems, i.e. that bad government is actually helping the state (in a small, entirely backwards, way) by keeping many more people from wanting to move there.
- throwaway2037 2mo agoWhat is wild to me: The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Norway took very different paths. For those unaware, the UK shares the North Sea with Norway and there is plenty of oil and gas extract in the UK area of the North Sea. And, the Netherlands has an enormous gas field in the northern part of its country. The UK and Netherlands left it up to private industry and (mostly) taxed it as regular business profits. They didn't create a national petro fund from these profits. However, Norway took a very different path. They created a state-run oil and gas company (Statoil/Equinor) that operate many of the oil and gas extraction sites, and famously created a national petro fund to manage most of the profits. I always wonder why... Was this a missed opportunity for UK and Netherlands?
- fancyfredbot 2mo agoI wonder the same thing about high taxes and state run energy companies. I don't think the UK ever really had an option to create a fund though. Deficit was too high. Doubt there would have been anything left to invest even with an increased cut for the state. UK had an IMF bailout in the 70s and was in a mess. Norway was in much better shape I think.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- touwer 2mo agoIn the Netherlands it was surely a wasted opportunity. They used the money mostly to prop up some services and fill short-term gaps in the budget. Should have saved it like Norwy. It's awful
- fmajid 2mo agoBoth the UK and the Netherlands budgets relied heavily on wealth extraction from India and Indonesia respectively during the colonial era (~$50 trillion over 200 years for the UK and around $34T for the Netherlands). That kind of money spigot is hard to wean a country off from, and tends to mask all sorts of governance failures, so it was inevitable the oil windfall would be used to plug the imperial shortfall. The difference with Norway is it was never a colonial power.
- GeoAtreides 2mo ago>homogenous country must you whistle so loud, i'm deaf now
- ai_critic 2mo ago[flagged]
- linkregister 2mo agoI'm assuming you meant "heterogeneity" for your statement to make sense. (And I agree with your statement given that revision)
- WarmWash 2mo agoThey are saying "If having a group of like mined people creates instability, show your work."
- danlitt 2mo agoNazi Germany?
- linkregister 2mo agoIf that's the case, it makes no sense. The parent statement is claiming that homogeneity is "easy mode". How is this congruent with your statement?
- throwaway2037 2mo ago> homogenous country This is widely misunderstood about modern Norway. Twenty years ago, yes, it may have been true. Today, the population is about 17.5% foreign born. As a point of comparison, the United States is about 15% foreign born.
- thesmtsolver2 2mo agoHow much of that is from legal migration from developed first world countries for both countries? I know I will be downvoted for this.
- throwaway2037 1mo agoOverwhelming, the world over, people from less developed countries try to migrate to more developed countries. If Norway had lots of highly skilled, well educated engineers, doctors and nurses moving from Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh would it make you feel different? Also it is weird that you used the term "legal". Due to natural geography, it is very hard to illegally migrate to Norway. Probably, legit visa overstay is the most common. Also, during the Arab Spring and Syria Civil War, many refugees came by bicycle (no joke!) from Russia to far northern Norway.
- kulahan 2mo agoThis must require a shocking cultural adaptation. In the US, we have many social bonding customs. You'll hear often about how Americans strike up conversations at random, often say "how are you?" as a default greeting, and smile a suspicious amount. There are dozens of examples, but that's because it's baked into the culture of USA as a foundational aspect. I can't imagine trying to shift from essentially Japan to America++ in two decades.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- throwaway2037 2mo ago> This must require a *shocking* cultural adaptation. I agree. The change was pretty fast. Same for Sweden (20.5%), Denmark (14%), and Finland (11%). I would like to hear from people in their 30s and 40s who grew up in these countries and witnessed the changes first hand. (There is no hidden agenda/meaning in my request.) The real trick to seeing the best parts of US culture: Get away from the east and west coasts. Once you go inland, especially to small cities, people are very welcoming. I have seen many YouTube videos were foreigners travel to "parts unknown", and are pleasantly surprised when random people stop to have a chat and wish them a good day. For example, lots of Peter Santenello's YouTube videos[1] are about visiting lesser known parts of countryside US. The people are overwhelmingly friendly (to a fault!). Honestly, I think a lot of continental Europe isn't so different. In small cities and towns, all kinds of random people will wave and say hello in the local language, even if they guess that you cannot speak their language. Usually, they are excited to see some obvious foreigners visiting their place. [1] https://www.youtube.com/@PeterSantenello https://www.youtube.com/@PeterSantenello
- danso 2mo agoJust came back from traveling through Norway, and from my perspective as a Chicagoan, Oslo and Bergen definitely did not look or feel homogeneous.