Squiggly lines can predict political stabilityThe current Vanity Fair presents a hypothetical map of the Middle East drawn by a quartet of experts. It depicts what states should logically exist instead of those created by victorious European colonial powers following World War I. Not surprisingly, there would be no Iraq, a classic fake state. And there are plenty more pretend countries out there awaiting more realistic configurations.
In a study published last year, William Easterly and two other development experts noted that postcolonial states with straight-line borders experience less political stability and economic success than those with squiggly ones. If your country's borders are squiggly, it's probably because they conform to some natural geographic delineator, or perhaps past wars bent them according to tribal boundaries.
Read on at KnoxNews.
Read on at Scripps Howard.
| Permalink |
Comments (2)
"Done well, borders need not change even as national economies are comprehensively recast."
What I wonder is maybe it would be "doing well" if some of these borders did change? I know within the International Relations literature, we see a general disdain for separation or secession, but can't we at least agree that the issue of borders and territory is the root of much instability? Why can't we just allow people to live among who they wish? I realize that its complicated, and not possible nor desirable for all the worlds people to have their own ethno-states, but sometimes I think globalization will have a better chance if people are given some sort of freedom of association?
Posted by GJA | December 23, 2007 1:31 PM
Is the Scripps/Howard version complete this time? There's no link to KnoxNews.
Posted by Michael | December 23, 2007 4:29 PM