Is Islam good for prosperity?
Tyler Cowen over at Marginal Revolution found some interesting data:
People of Arab descent living in the US are better educated and wealthier than the average American of non-Arab descent. That is one surprising conclusion drawn from data collected by the US Census Bureau in 2000. The census also found that Arab Americans are better educated and wealthier than Americans in general.
He goes on to explain what he thinks this means:
My take: Islam is an excellent religion for motivating commercial success (yes I do know that many Arab-Americans are Christians). It is less effective at supporting rule of law, democracy, and checks and balances. For those features, the idea that Christ is an individual victim, tortured by the Roman state, comes in handy.
My take: There is probably some kind of selection effect going on. Arabs from the poorer end of the spectrum don’t have enough money to emigrate to America; they also are less likely to have the kinds of experience, knowledge, habits, or other advantages which make wealth creation easier if they make it to America. Furthermore, it’s no surprise that the richest nation on earth would be an attractive place to live for the richer citizens of relatively poorer nations.
As far as Cowen’s comment applying the suffering of Christ as a victim to political institutions, that’s a very interesting point, one which I hadn’t thought of before. A logical conclusion: when working on building democratic institutions in other countries, it could be helpful to emphasize how rule of law, checks and balances, and democracy in general help minimize the creation of new victims of power, whether that power is governmental (despotism, socialism), financial (unethical corporations), or individual (warlords in Somalia and Afghanistan) in nature.
It’s interesting to note that Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, the greater victims under Saddam, have embraced democracy with a great fervor and optimism. Contrast this with the attitude of the Sunnis, the former oppressors, who have not known victimhood (the Sunnis or their predecessors have ruled over the area for close to 1000 years.) They have scorned the political process, boycotted the election, and are most of the native Iraqi terrorists.
May 14th, 2006 at 11:14 am
FYI: First, the Nation of Islam and the Black Muslims have nothing to do with the religion of Islam. They don’t hold to any belief in the holy books of Islam or the doctrines. They are simply African American organization based on the beliefs that God was reincarnated into the creator of their organization and that he sent a prophet to lead their organization for decades after the 1930s. Second, you might want to watch your language.
Also, Sunnis didn’t oppress Shias and Kurds in Iraq. It was the Iraqi government that oppressed all opposition to itself. This included primarily the Kurds, who were looking to gain control over a large percentage of Iraq to make their own Kurdistan. Oddly enough the majority of Kurds live in Turkey and are oppressed there as well. Certain Shia areas also demonstrated a large degree of opposition to the dictatorship.
Everyone in Iraq was oppressed. The only ones who escaped this were those who worked with Saddam. In addition the region of Tikrit was also protected as this was the home town of Saddam. The Kurds supported US occupation in hopes of receiving their half of Iraq to make Kurdistan. As for the Shias, they had a problem with the elections initially, then decided to go along with them. The Sunni opposition to the elections has nothing to do with “favoring” dictatorship over democracy, but rather more to do with whose side will be represented.
Sunnis and Shias in Iraq have no problem with each other. Kurds are an ethnic group that speak both Kurdish and Arabic. They are recognized by some facial features and their names, however, their oppression was a result the government, not a result of individual intolerance. The government of Iraq wished to prevent the creation of Kurdistan, in turn it suppressed the Kurdish people.