the main point(s): - throughout history, great powers rose up following Tilly’s hypothesis that dozens of small states fight each other → absorb each otehr, develop advanced ifnrastructure to go to war → great power - the reason why there has been no great powers in the middle east is not (so...
no great powers in the middle east
💡 the main point(s): - throughout history, great powers rose up following Tilly’s
hypothesis that dozens of small states fight each other → absorb each otehr,
develop advanced ifnrastructure to go to war → great power - the reason why there
has been no great powers in the middle east is not (solely) because of internal factors (like
how scholars used to talk about Europe), but rather because of the international rules and
norms + external intervention to uphold them, which serve the interests of already existing
great European powers. European great powers directly and indirectly intervened in order to
preserve artificial political borders.
background
● oil boom mid 1970s → ME was the fastest growing region and people
expected that the smaller countries would merge (?) and a great Arab
power would be created in ME
● however, all integration schemes have failed and intraregional trade remains low
○ 1980s- 1990s economic decline, unemployment
● why did this happen?
○ despite Arab nationalism, the region is full of conflicts, meaningless schemes
for mergers and federations, and regimes that are strong enough to suppress
dissidents but not strong enough to cooperate with neighbours
○ artificial colonial borders means extraction of resources + the surplus is
separated from the people and administtrative centres
● people who have tried to explain the “arab predicament” applied processes and
successes of European integration to the ME and the reasons for its failure
○ arguments from people who are hopeful towards integration:
■ Arab govs would be able to leave old feuds behind and cooperate
■ it is necessary to have close economic cooperation, so we expect that
it will happen
■ large-scale movement of labour and remittances across arab
states → Deutsch and Haas — increasing transactions lead to
unintended spillover of important requirements for
cooperation (used to explain EUR)
○ pessimists:
■ used the EUR experience to explain Arab failure
■ cites regime heterogeneity, absence of dem institutions,
inequality, weakness and insecurity of governments: internal
factors
lustick’s questions
● previous analyses have been based on European states
○ it would be more useful if we compare the dozens of ME states to the
hundreds of old EUR states that made up modern EUR
■ how could great powers rise in this region and serve as either
hegemonic leaders in regional blocs or the peaceful trustworthy
facilitator of it?
● why have there been no ME great powers?
, the ottoman empire
● ottoman turks = romans of the Muslim world
○ originally both empires took universal claim of territory (heterogenous
populations), divided into stabilising but never fixed sections
● similarity: the gradual reduction and disappearance of an imperial center
○ abandonment of claiming wide cultural and geographic areas →
smaller but locally potent claims to sovereignty by local elites
● W*stphalian — formal acknowledgement of claim of small sovereignties; separate
sovereigns rather than universal sovereignty
○ Tilly’s selection theory — smaller Eur states didn’t disappear
peacefully; they were usurped as losers of war. Early Eur was
anarchic but fairly homogenous culturally → easier for absorption
○ rulers who wanted to expand weren’t interfered by external great powers (bc
there were none), and also weren’t constrained by international law
● Middle East — local elites were ready to advance their own claims, but this was
submerged by imperial tendencies of Eur states
○ T. of Versailles: acknowledgement of replacement of ottoman empire’s
universal rule by diff eur “mandatory” powers under League of Nations
○ ME states were overwhelmed by Eur power + international
institutions and norms → did not allow cross-border warfare
lustick’s argument
● historical sequence-linked differences in ctxt of Eur and ME state systems is the most
important explanation of the absence of an ME great power.
○ parallel: economic backwardness — states who were late to industrialisation
didn’t benefit as much from free market capitalism which was founded by
early comers such as UK and FR.
● the way western eur countries became great was competition among conquest
cnetres that had high capability to expand and establish larger “empires”.
● Hintze — argument for evolution of strong states in europe is from rivalry
in the the state system. ****France, in fighting against the Habsburgs, set
the example that other states had to follow to preserve indepedence →
taxation, improving admin and military, etc.
○ Tilly — war made the state and state made war: the only way we know great
powers emerge
○ institutional mechanisms needed:
■ absolute monarchs needed to extend rights to those who pay taxes to
finance wars
■ development of national identity
■ effective administrative structures to pay tax
■ broader indigenous, industrial and agricultural bases for
logistical support → growth of demand and production
■ when you win, more resources go towards these lol
● generally, states that aren’t competitive enough by the end of C19 (cannot extend
power outside geographical region) are less likely to be able to do so in the future.
○ more specifically, the latecomer status is the most important factor in
explaining where there has been no great power(s) in ME
○ this is not a new argument: see world systems and dependency theory
■ however, in explaining the absence of large-scale state frameworks
for econ development, even tho they apply consequences of Eur
colonialism and artificial fragmentation enforced by post-colonial
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper menelekmansouri. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €12,67. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
