Is Islamic Law to Blame for the Middle East's Economic Failures?

People praying in the Kocatepe Mosque in Ankara, Turkey (Photo: Murat Taner / Getty Images)

One of the great mysteries of economic history concerns how the Islamic world lost its mojo. A thousand years ago, the Middle East was richer and more influential in the global economy than Europe. According to data compiled by the late economist and statistical wizard Angus Maddison, the Middle East accounted for about 9.5% of global GDP in the year 1000 while Western Europe's share was less than 9%. By 1700, however, the situation had totally reversed, with Western Europe commanding a hefty 22% of global GDP and the Middle East a pathetic 3%. The Arab world had controlled many of the lucrative trade routes between Asia and the West, but that role got usurped first by the Portuguese, then by the British and Dutch. What went wrong?

Economists and historians have struggled over that question for centuries. The answer is not just of academic interest. The revolutions that have swept through the Middle East, toppling dictators in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, got a good part of their momentum from the widespread public frustration over the persistent lack of economic progress and opportunity omnipresent in the Middle East. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the new governments that have emerged from the Arab Spring is providing the jobs and higher incomes all of those young people who participated in the rebellions desperately expect. If the new political leaders fail to deliver, the Arab Spring, which has brought such hope to the region, could deteriorate into a cycle of protest and political upheaval that will only set back its economic development.

There have been many theories of how the Middle East lost out economically to the West. But they have generally felt unsatisfactory. One argues that European colonialism suppressed the economic progress of the region. However, the dominance of the West is a symptom of the Middle East's economic decline, not a cause. If the Arab world had maintained its edge over the West in economic clout, it is unlikely that European imperialists could have advanced very far in the region. Another theory claims that Islam itself is biased against economic progress. This argument, too, falls very flat. If Islam was inherently un-economic, how can we explain the vibrancy of the Muslim world's economies in the centuries after the Arab conquests? And in modern times as well, certain Islamic nations, especially Malaysia and Indonesia, have been among the world's best economic performers. Remember, Mohammad himself was a merchant before he became the Prophet, and Mecca, the first city of Islam, had been a major center of the caravan trade.

A much more compelling argument was outlined by economist Timur Kuran in his 2010 book The Long Divergence. He makes the intriguing case that Islamic law was at the root of the problem. Its strictures, he claims inhibited the emergence of the institutions of modern capitalism as they developed in Europe. And the Middle East is suffering for that failure to this day.

How's that? When first developed, Islamic law was actually quite progressive for its time on economic matters, allowing, for example, for the easy formation of partnerships and clear rules to guide commercial behavior in a fair fashion. However, over the centuries, it fell out of touch with the times and failed to adapt to the new world economy being designed by European capitalists. While Europeans were creating innovative types of institutions that allowed them to amass and mobilize resources on a mammoth scale – such as joint stock companies and modern banking systems – Islamic law in the Middle East prevented these same institutions from forming. Partnership practices, which allow any partner to dissolve the arrangement, and inheritance laws, which mandate the deceased's assets go to certain family members,  discouraged the emergence of the modern corporation, for example, by restricting the Muslims' ability to form long-standing business organizations. Ordering the death penaly for apostasy made it extremely difficult to do business in non-Muslim legal systems.  The new institutions of capitalism gave the West an edge that it has never relinquished. Even after strict Islamic law was eventually liberalized in many parts of the Muslim world, its strictures had already done their damage, leaving the Middle East devoid of the strong private economies it needed to compete. When Arab countries then tried to copy Western economic institutions, like courts with European commercial codes, they proved a poor fit. Having not emerged naturally from society, the imported institutions didn't work as they did back home. In modern times, that left the state to play an overly powerful role in the Middle East's economic development, which didn't produce the same, amazing results of the Asian model based on trade and entrepreneurship.

We can see the consequences by looking at the shape of Middle East economies today. I personally cannot think of one private company from the Arab world that holds a significant international presence. Those corporations that do play on the world stage – like Dubai-based airline Emirates, for example – are owned by the state. And those small parts of the Islamic world that have developed modern, competitive economies have done so through building better institutions. Take, again, Dubai. As I detailed in a recent story for TIME magazine, the secret behind Dubai's success is, to a degree, due to its ability to import Western-style economic institutions and make them work. Yes, Islamic finance is a powerful economic force in the emirate, and will only grow further, but Dubai didn't become a wealthy city by sticking to Islamic law. The forward-looking leadership in Dubai launched a stock market, created special zones for finance and media with Western-style regulatory systems to govern them, and backed it all up with a level of religious and cultural tolerance that is rare in much of the region. And when Dubai has stumbled – most notably with its colossal property bust – the factors behind those failures can be found in the incomplete development of these institutions of capitalism, such as insufficient transparency and weak corporate governance. Dubai is an institution-building experiment in progress.

So what does all of this mean for the Arab Spring? The rest of the Arab world is going to have to follow Dubai's example. The Arab world's incoming leadership has been left with the unenviable task of first building the foundation necessary for vibrant, modern, competitive economies. Without that, the emerging governments won't be able to create the healthy private economies they need to bring the jobs and growth the region so badly desires. Perhaps they'll copy their institutions from the West; perhaps they'll find a new route, through modernized Islamic-style systems. But the process could be painful and slow. Kuran, though writing before the Arab Spring emerged, had the foresight to recognize the problems the revolution faces:

In leaving its private sectors and civil societies weak for centuries, the Middle East's premodern institutions set the stage for today's bloated state bureaucracies and, in many places, government policies and social norms harmful to creativity. Consequently, with a few exceptions, the countries of the region are uncompetitive in the global marketplace for industrial products and services, and, again with few exceptions, their civil societies are too poorly organized, and too beaten down, to provide the political checks and balances essential to sustained democratic rule. If the region's autocratic regimes were magically to fall, the development of strong private sectors and civil societies could take decades. (p. 301)

The Arab Spring governments, however, don't have decades to build the institutions they need to compete economically. The angry people who brought them into power don't have that much patience. They want jobs and better living standards now, not in 2060. This leaves the Middle East's new leaders in a dangerous mismatch between what people expect and the tools they have to deliver it. Whether we should blame Islamic law or not, how the Arab Spring leaders solve this problem could very well determine their success or failure.

Show Them the Money: Three Cheers for the Return of Economic Populism

Jon Meacham on Occupy Wall Street's Economic Populism | TIME Ideas | TIME.com /* */ Home TIME Magazine Photos Videos Specials Topics Subscribe Mobile AppsNewslettersRSS @TIME NewsFeed U.S. Politics World Business Money Tech Health Science Entertainment Opinion SEARCH TIME.COM Full Archive Covers Videos ContributorsLetters U.S.Show Them The MoneyIt's about time economic populism became as big a force in American politics as it used to beBy Jon Meacham | @jmeacham | October 12, 2011 | View CommentsTweetAndrew Burton / APDemonstrators affiliated with the "Occupy Wall Street" protests chant outside 740 Park Avenue in New York, October 11, 2011.

Meacham's book American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House was published in 2008.

The homepage of occupywallst.org is somewhat plaintive. Under the heading “Mail,” the organizers of the populist economic movement advise supporters to send what they can to a UPS Store in downtown Manhattan. But all donations are not created equal: “Money orders only please, cannot cash checks yet. Non-perishable goods only. We can accept packages of any size. We’re currently low on food.”

Judging from the reaction of the broad American establishment, however, they are not low on energy or impact. The mayor of New York City has said such protests against economic inequality and banking excesses will cost the city jobs; I have heard Wall Street satraps in recent days take a dismissive tone about the “crazies” that suggest the powers that be are not entirely dismissive. For they know in their hearts — or at least in their guts — that this backlash is long overdue.

(MORE: Kanye West Visits Occupy Wall Street; Cold Weather Looms)

From the 1820s to the 1960s, the major engine of the politics of the few versus the many was more about money and power than it was about symbols and power. From Andrew Jackson to William Jennings Bryan to Harry Truman, leaders rallied in support in of “the little guy who has no pull,” in Truman’s phrase.

Then came the mid-1960s. Roughly put, the white backlash against civil rights and an increasingly expensive government enabled politicians such as Richard Nixon — who is really the architect of the kind of populism still practiced by figures like Sarah Palin — to change the conversation from economics to culture. For decades now, Republicans have successfully urged Truman’s “little guy” to think more about cultural elites than financial ones. (George Wallace’s “pointy-headed professors,” for instance, or Roger Ailes’s “liberal media.”) Democrats who talked about economic justice were marginalized or defeated outright. And so cultural populism displaced economic populism as a political force in American life.

The Occupy Wall Street protests at last suggest that America’s wealth gap is once again becoming an organizing political principle in the country. Mobs rarely have good answers to problems, and there is no doubt much to be skeptical about in the crowds making all the noise. But the noise they’re making deserves a place in the broad arena of contending forces. They may not be eating much, but what they’re saying is important. The rest of us owe them a hearing.

Meacham is the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House and executive editor at Random House, where he also runs The Conversation OnlineRead other related stories about this:Michael Bloomberg: Occupy Wall Street Is Trying To Destroy JobsThe GuardianPaul Krugman: Panic of the PlutocratsThe New York TimesRelated Topics: economic populism, occupy wall street, wealth gap, Politics, U.S.
emailprintshareLinkedInStumbleUponRedditDiggMixxDel.i.ciousWriteView Comments@TIMEIdeasLatest on TIME IdeasSociety | October 14, 2011How To Feed A Country

As charming as it sounds, growing kale in your backyard won’t solve the nation’s food ills

From our PartnersRepublicans Channel Their Inner David Cronenberg Robert J. Elisberg, HuffPoWhat If the Terror Plot Had Succeeded?Frida Ghitis, CNNThe Shameful Bias Against MormonsKathleen Parker, Washington PostMovies | October 14, 2011In Defense of Movie Remakes

Those familiar titles you’re seeing on theater marquees are a sign of good stories, not creative bankruptcy

previousWake Up Rick Perry — And Smell the FumesnextThe Stories I Carry With Meblog comments powered by Disqus Letters to the EditorOctober 12, 2011American ProtestationsWhat does "antiglobalization" mean?October 10, 2011The Harassed Can Have HopeIn the face of death threats, a Boston transsexual encourages bullied teensOctober 8, 2011Hitting the BooksA Korean middle-school student's firsthand experience with inflexible educationSend us your letters | View more lettersMore on TIME.comPhotos: Occupy Wall StreetChicago Ideas Week 2011: Intelligence SquaredWhat You Need to Know About BullyingFull ListMost PopularTIME.COMBLOGSIdeas Scientists Discover a Diamond as Big as a PlanetMandela: His 8 Lessons of LeadershipWhy You Should Worry About China's Real Estate Bubble BurstingThe Saudi-Iran Cold War: Will the Assassination Plot Heat It Up?Dilma vs. Gisele: The War over Brazilian WomanhoodTeacher, Leave Those Kids Alone: A Look at South Korea's Education SystemSteve Jobs, 1955?2011: Mourning Technology's Great ReinventorKazakhstan Passes Restrictive Religion LawNew Proof That Comets Watered the EarthThe Supreme Court: When Double Jeopardy Isn't Double Jeopardy Harold Camping's Back, With a Brand-New Doomsday PredictionNYC Official: Occupy Wall Street Cleanup Is Being PostponedWill the Washington Bomb Plot Force Obama into War with Iran?What's Behind Violence at the World's Largest Gold Mine?Reality Check: The Cain Train Is Going to WreckWealth Matters, Part 2: Materialistic People Are Less Happy in MarriageHerman Cain's '999 Plan' Looks a Lot Like Sim City's 999 PlanWatch: Nicki Minaj Surprises Two Tiny Fans on 'Ellen'Top 10 Must-Have iPhone GamesTeen Sex Update: Fewer Teens Doing It, More Boys Using CondomsThe Myths of “Natural” ChildbirthShow Them The MoneyFrom the Arab Spring to the American Fall?Can Whites Say The N-Word?Don’t Denigrate The PotatoThe Stories I Carry With MeMitt Romney’s Faith Has Been Called Into Question. That’s Bad for All of Us.Can Education Be ‘Moneyball’-ed?Has Empathy Become The New Scapegoat?God and the NFL: What Tim Tebow’s Celebrity Says About AmericaHistoric TIME LettersJune 5, 1933The Royal TreatmentVanderbilt reports from pre-war GermanyFebruary 9, 1948Unfair Snapshot?Journalist Eric Sevareid takes issue with a story that mentions himNovember 2, 1959In Defense of Clark GableTony Randall speaks out for one of his own Powered by WordPress.com VIP Stay Connected with TIME.comSubscribe to
RSS FeedsSign Up for
NewslettersGet the TIME
Magazine iPad EditionRead TIME Mobile
on your PhoneBecome a
Fan of TIMEGet TIME
Twitter Updates NewsFeed U.S. Politics World Business Money Health Science Entertainment Photos Videos Specials Magazine © 2011 Time Inc. All rights reservedPrivacy PolicyRSSNewsletterMobileTIME For KidsLIFE.com SubscribeContact UsTerms of UseMedia KitReprints & PermissionsHelpSite MapAd Choices TIME Our partners CNN CNN MONEY LIFE