End of Poverty and Islam

In his latest op ed, Nick Kristof gives a good argument why Islam is neither the problem nor the solution for the Middle East's economic woes. The article hinges upon a new book by Timur Kuran that shows how specific Islamic legal institutions hindered economic growth. I haven't read the book yet, so I'll focus on Kristof. While he gets the conclusion right, the framing of his argument is incomplete.

He begins with an obvious observation: the Middle East has fallen behind economically from the West. Many often assume that this difference must be caused from something specific about the Middle East. Somehow, something, at some time, went wrong in the region.

Because Islam is the most salient characteristic of the Middle East, it often gets blamed. Kristof rightly dismisses that argument. If Islam were the problem, it's hard to explain why the Middle East used to flourish economically. Moreover, the economic effects of religion varies over time - not only because the economic and political environment changes, but also because religion itself evolves.

But what gets lost in that debate is that perhaps nothing went wrong in the Middle East, but rather, something went right in the West. As Jeffrey Sachs shows in The End of Poverty, standards of living were relatively similar on a global level only a few hundred years ago. But starting with the agricultural revolution, Europe began to shoot ahead. A small growth percentage advantage per year accumulated over several centuries, transforming a small discrepancy into a yawning schism.

The relevant questions are therefore what did Europe do right? Why has it taken the Middle East so long to follow suit? And perhaps the most difficult: are there other ways of getting things right?

None of this suggests Kristof comes to the wrong conclusions. In fact, I think he's completely right. It's just a matter of framing the argment differently.

Egyptian Democracy When Pigs Fly

Last week, I went to an event hosted by the Wilson Center that featured Egyptian journalist Heba el-Koudsy discussing American democracy promotion in Egypt. You can see a summary of the event here. Or, for the more visually-inclined, the video is available online here.


During her lecture, el-Koudsy differentiated between external American and internal Egyptian pressure for reform. She argued it has always been the internal push for reform that has prodded President Mubarak into (insufficient) action. As such, the U.S. should focus on ways to support the internal drive for democratization by, for example, bolstering civil society.


At minute 53, I asked her how the potential candidacy Mohamed ElBaradei may provide a new source of internal leverage for reform on the Mubarak regime.

To give a quick background, Egypt will be holding its second-ever multi-party competitive elections for president in 2011. All experts agree that the presidency will remain in Mubarak's hands through manipulation and coercion. The only question is whether it'll be Hosni or his son Gamal who will be the Mubarak in charge.

Enter Elbaradei. Currently, he enjoys broad popularity in Egypt for his service as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. As such, the Wafd party - one of the oldest parties in Egypt and considered an opposition party - asked the historically apolitical ElBaradei to run as their candidate for president.


After mulling it over, ElBaradei announced he would only run in the very unlikely scenario that elections were "free and fair." Shortly after that announcement, he upped the ante again, declaring he would only run as an independent candidate. To translate for you, he basically said he'd run for president when pigs fly.

The Egyptian constitution, while technically allowing independent candidates to run for president, sets an overwhelming number of restrictions and qualifications on an independent candidacy. To give a domestic example, imagine if a candidate declared he/she would only run for president if the electoral college were abolished, and even then, as neither a Democrat or Republican. That's what ElBaradei is doing.

In short, it won't ever happen under the current constitution. And more importantly, everyone - including ElBaradei and Mubarak - know it will never happen. And yet, according to El-Koudsy, something is happening.

Egyptians are no longer only talking about Mubarak versus Mubarak. ElBaradei's announcement has stimulated Egypt's political conscious, sparking new debate and revealing new possibilities. But most importantly, Mubarak's farcical and cynical use of democratic institutions to mask his dictatorship have been laid bare. And that's exactly what ElBaradei sought to achieve by effectively refusing to participate in sham elections.

During his tenure as IAEA chief, he scoured the deserts of Iraq in search for the mythical weapons of mass destruction and negotiated endlessly with the intransigent Iranian regime. Now as an Egyptian politician, he seems to be prepared to put those experiences to good use: to continue chasing fantasy while tirelessly confronting an uncompromising regime.

And if he and other Egyptians persist, maybe one day that fantasy will be fantasy no more.

Fixing Traffic in Cairo

The Egyptian government has finally decided to fix downtown Cairo traffic.

I have plenty of personal experience in the unique joy of sitting in unrelenting Egyptian gridlock as the hours (no exaggeration) tick slowly away. Everything is a battle. One lane against another. One honk against ten others. The pedestrian against the car. The bus against anything that's foolish enough to get in the way. The cigarette smoke against the car exhaust. The stereo blaring the Qur'an against the other car blasting pop music against the twenty other radios in earshot. Negotiating the taxi fare. Then negotiating it again. And once more.

I once was stuck next to an ambulance, siren screaming. We moved ten meters in as many minutes. Though knowing how bad Egyptians hospitals can be, that delay just might have saved that person's life. Okay, probably not.

So, it's about time the government did something. Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif has called for a comprehensive plan to redevelop downtown into large pedestrian squares, complete with open-air restaurants and cafes. Traffic will be banned or channeled into massive, underground parking garages.

I'm immediately skeptical. Remember Boston's Big Dig? Well try it in a poor underdeveloped country, where corruption, nepotism, and incompetence permeate every level of government. For nearly a decade, the Egyptian government has been promising the completion of the Grand Egyptian Museum, a highly ambitious project that will attract nearly 5 million visitors per year. Well, not only has the government failed to deliver the museum on time, but even the official website, as of today, is not up and running.

Putting the government aside, I'm not sure that building a few garages will substantively change the level of traffic. Admittedly, many streets are lined on either side by a row (sometimes two rows) of parked cars. These lanes could be used for moving traffic if the cars were parked in a garage. But I don't understand why such garages need to be underground and centered only in downtown.

If the government were really serious about traffic, it would:

1. Raise gas prices. The government currently subsidizes gasoline below market prices, largely to garner public favor. Quite simply, if people cannot afford to drive, there'll be less cars in the street. Notably, Cairo's ~100,000 taxi drivers would be disproportionately hurt by such a hike in prices. They could either receive a rebate, or as many cabs have already done, use natural gas instead.

2. Increase public transportation. Buses are inconsistent, overcrowded and often not even buses at all, but glorified Astro vans called microbuses. The money saved on decreasing the gasoline subsidy could be used to fund more public transportation options.

3. Establish the rule of law. Besides a seat belt law that is rarely enforced, Cairo's streets are a completely lawless, Hobbesian nightmare. But with order, comes efficiency. With efficiency, traffic flows. So install traffic lights, establish lanes of traffic, introduce speed limits, create pedestrian crosswalks and, no kidding, prohibit donkey carts on large streets.

Below, I've included my friend's picture of Cairo's streets (one of the less crowded areas) that depicts a car accident and the resulting melee between drivers. Just one chaotic intersection among countless thousands in the Egyptian capital.