On Bloomberg.com, Amity Shlaes discusses an article by three economists that looks at how a country's borders determine how successful the country is. They claim that national borders that are determined by natural boundaries (mountains, deserts, rivers) result in a more stable and successful country. Therefore, countries that have boundaries that are arbitrarily determined straight lines are more likely to split up or combine ethnic groups in ways that cause conflict for the country.
They use the word "squiggly" to represent natural boundaries and measure the "squiggly index" to determine how much of a country's border is determined by natural boundaries. In the article, Shlaes claims that Iraq will always face turmoil because their borders were arbitrarily determined (they have a low "squiggly index").
This is just an interesting example of applying data anlysis techniques to questions that push the boundaries of economics.
After reading the article, what do you think of the study? Do you agree with the recommendations of the authors? (Any comments that are too politically-charged or in any way disrespectful of both sides will be deleted)
(Source: Greg Mankiw's Blog)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The statement that the more squiggly a country is, the more successful it will be is very broad. With a country with naturally formed borders qualified as "one defined by ethnicity and geographic features such as mountain ranges," it may seem to be the better plan to segregate ethnic groups to avoid conflict, but also by keeping them apart, perhaps great things may be prevented. The interaction of different cultures does not have to be a bad thing. Apparently, as part of the research for the squiggly index, most of the time the interaction is not a pleasant one, but to just say that groups should not be together is such a intolerant point of view. Like in Star Wars Episode I when the JarJarBinks people who have never gotten along with the Queen Amidala people get together and decide that they can work together to fight off the trade federation, that is the kind of thing that is possible when you give the different ethnic groups a chance to prove that they aren't all out for spite on anyone different from themselves. I think that although respecting the wishes of people and their borders is great, if the people are being decided for with no say, the past issues of the groups should be recalled in case of a fight over religious ground or something, but otherwise, just don't let anything escalate out of control. The best idea is probably to have a peaceful meeting of the groups that are planned to live in the area discuss conditions before the lines are drawn.
Kate Vanderlip
Though I certainly understand the viewpoint you take on this subject, Kate, I feel that the conclusions of this study are in fact logical, very convincing, and applicable not only to Iraq but also to the ethnic strife and genocide in Africa, which was what I first thought of upon reading the article. Without this much serious scientific investigation, people have often said that the current division of land in central Africa is detrimental to the stability and health of its populace and the myriad of ethnic groups that composes it. We hear much about the genocide and ethnic cleansing that occurs between rival tribes in countries like Algeria, Rwanda, and Uganda, but less about its cause; if one investigates, one finds that their long history of violence was evidently begun with fears of manipulation or exploitation by another side in the conflict--and often, the source of that distrust stemmed from land disputes or forced interaction by governments (colonial or otherwise) that fundamentally misunderstand their often marked differences. It is interesting to note that the plight of the refugees in the Darfur region of Sudan, which has garnered much media attention recently, is contained almost entirely in the northwestern part of the nation, which with virtually a straight-line border is the least “squiggly.”
Like Lebanon, this could be a fluke. Somehow, though, I am disinclined to think so. It makes logical sense that seas, lakes, or mountain ranges can provide the natural, undisputable boundaries that, while hopefully not prohibiting any positive interaction between ethnic groups, at least prevent the conflicts of interest over land or resources frequently found near “man-made” borders. And back to Iraq: its current state of instability (at least its ethnic instability) was caused in large part by perceived injustices to each group, implemented by the others, and the resulting need to defend the land that they believe is rightfully theirs and is under a dire threat of encroachment.
Also, I have a comment on Shlaes’ justification for America’s stability despite its straight-line borders: rather than never having any border conflicts due to its sparse population at the time when those boundaries were being determined, as she asserts, I think instead that there have indeed been conflicts (just look at the transplantation of the Cherokees and the Trail of Tears as one example)--the only difference today being that both immigrant Americans and native Americans have had 225 more years than Iraqis have to resolve problems and differences and adjust to a new lifestyle; perhaps, if given more time, the Sunni, Shi’ite, and Kurdish Iraqis will become equally able to live together in their new country as well.
-Nicole
I think the author has a point. Obviously she is not right in all cases, but the squiggle test seems like a pretty good rule of thumb. People have historically tended to settle in areas that are cordoned off by some natural feature or another. When natural boundaries such as rivers or mountains are not present, there is room for dispute over borders. Of course this only goes so far as to prevent borders from being questioned. I don't think squiggly borders are a terribly good indicator of stability. Take for Eastern Europe for example, they are pretty squggly, but they are also probably the least stable group of countries around. For example, i had to memorize a map of Europe for AP Euro. over the summer, and on the first day of class we were had to take a map quiz. Well having lost the map Mrs. Stricklen gave us, i went on line and googled a map of Europe. The map i printed out and memorized must have been a few minutes old, several of the European countries had changes by the time the quiz came around. This is not to say the squiggle test is wrong, but there are other factors involved.
jacob hormes
Another thought I had on this later, is perhaps like the Robert Frost poem "Mending Wall", good fences really do make good neighbors. And an entire mountain range is certainly an adequate fence.
Kate Vanderlip
I definatly agree with Jacob that Slaes theory isnt cut in stone as India and Pakistan have been fighting for years for Kashmir which is in between the border of those two countries and the border just happes to be the himelayas, but the theory is good nonetheless. Switzerland is on of the squigliest countries in the world and ranks 4th on the list and is one one of the most stable countries in the world, whereas countries in Africa and the Middle East such as Somalia, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan where violence is part of everyday life ranks at the bottom of the list and their status' are quite unstable. Although the theory cannot be proven for every single country, Shlaes makes a good argument that if countries were divided by natural resources rather than artificial borders, that countries would become much more stable and successful.
Gautam Rao
Everyone above seems to agree with Shlaes that natural borders are superior to artificial borders, and that many of the current troubles in the Middle East are caused by the arbitrary drawing of borders during the breakup of colonial empires following the second world war. The three different groups in Iraq--Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites--seem incapable of getting along. Some of the President's advisors have suggested a strategy of splitting the nation into three seperate states: a Kurdish one in the north, a Shiite one in the center, and a Sunni one in the south. On top of the geographic troubles this would cause (most of the big cities would be in the Shiite state, while 80% of the oil would be controlled by the Sunnis), I disagree with the widely held notion that splitting cultures between nations would solve all our problems. Is it not better to have a mix of peoples in a country, as we do here in the United States, with our nice straight northern border? Many seem to forget that the disastrous Iran-Iraq War that devastated the region in the 1980's essentially boiled down to a conflict between a Sunni nation and a Shiite one. Having national borders that seperate cultures will lead to even higher tensions than already exist.
-Brit
While I hate to say it, I strongly agree with this "squiggly" article for two reasons. But before I go any further, I believe that the reason is not because of the shape of lines but because of the natural borders that are made between some countries. The first reason is that natural borders create a sense of isolation. Two communities are not nearly as likely to interact as much if a mountain range divided them as opposed to a field or desert as a border. With this isolation, there is less tension that is formed between the neighboring countries. Also, if some tension were to arise, these natural borders keep the people safe and protect from any kind of invasion (not including planes bombs etc). The other reason I agree with this has to do with the inability to change the natural boundaries for a country. In a country where the borders where randomly hand drawn, the lines and borders can be changed easily with just the stroke of a pencil. This is quite hard to do with a natural boundary. If two groups of people were to have high tension towards one another, it would be easy to just move borders of an unnatural boundary to seperate the two. Yet with natural borders, the groups are forced to get along with one another; the boundaries cannot be changed so they all just have to deal with it. Take a river as an example of a border. Two different groups of people occupy a part of a country near a border; and these peoople both rely heavy on the river. The river cannot be moved and redrawn, and as a result both communities are forced to stay there. Eventually after some tension efforts will be aborted and peace will be restored.
- Nick Wellmon
Post a Comment