Jack Goldstone mentions proposals for a Marshall Plan for the Middle East to curb mass unemployment. He recognizes that this will fuel corruption and undermine democratic transition.
Although the US does not have the best reputation in the region, what role should the US play in post-revolution Egypt and Tunisia?
I agree with Jack Goldstone’s assessment that a Marshall Plan for the Middle and North Africa would be more likely to fuel corruption and undermine democratic transition than curb mass unemployment. For example, since the Camp David Accords, Egypt has already received more economic and military assistance from the U.S. than any other country in the region beside Israel. At best, it did not do enough to improve standards of living and stave off unemployment, and, at worse, it only fueled the negative conditions in society that led to the 2011 Arab Citizens’ Revolts in the first place. In other words, the last thing that Egypt and Tunisia need is a new source of political rents that may allow the new regimes to delay true economic and political reform.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I liked the idea in the article you posted of encouraging regional trade. As our Waterbury and Richards’ readings have pointed out, the Washington Consensus has proved insufficient for fostering economic development in the region. Many local industries are still not competitive, and SAPs encouraged Egypt and Tunisia to scrap their social safety nets. Encouraging the formation of a regional trading bloc, not unlike the European Union or the North American Trade Agreement, could help MENA create new industries and more jobs while offering it a layer of protection from global markets as it develops its international competitiveness.