reading False Economy: A Surprising Econ…
reading False Economy: A Surprising Economic History of the World. readable, if a little orthodox in its economics and a bit sloppy on the history (almost all economic history i’ve read has a tendency to look at historical details as afterthoughts, the broader the more extreme the tendency). some stuff about economic performance and the muslim world.
1) lots of stuff about water and raw material inputs. apparently 15% of the world’s freshwater is locked up into reservoirs and such, but 85% in the middle east’s is! the author points out that industrial take off might have been difficult because of the scarcity of material inputs such as fuel (trees, coal) and energy (water power) which aided england in the early years (coal + water in the pennines).
2) malaysia is held up as an example of a high performing muslim country. the author points out that it is in fact outperforming thailand and the phillipines. i think there are several reasons for these (malaysia has a relative surplus of land and resources in relation to its population for example, british legal framework might be better, etc.). but the author ignores the fact that almost all southeast asian economies the chinese minorities are the catalytic engines of growth, and malaysia has the largest percentage of these, with thailand the second largest, and the phillipines only a relatively small minority.
good book, with the caveats above. the part on the natural resources curse is especially clear and fleshed out well.
thabet, 
Len and one other person are discussing.
Len 9:55 pm on June 18, 2009 Permalink |
Razib (and others familiar with the subject): in your readings on economic theory and history, have you come across any books that objectively deal with Islamic finance that you would be able to recommend?
razib 9:59 pm on June 18, 2009 Permalink |
no. the only detailed stuff i’ve ever read on islamic finance is in tariq ramadan’s stuff. from what little i can see islamic finance is more interesting from an islamic, as opposed to economic perspective. i.e., it’s ingenuity is more in how muslims resolve orthopraxic conundrums as opposed to changing the fundamental nature of modern capital flow. the bigger issue that is usually emphasized is the constraint on corporations as independent entities in islamic law, and so the block on joint-stock holding companies and what not. i think this is overplayed, britain severely restricted them for a century after the south seas bubble, and in that century it ushered in the industrial revolution….
Len 10:36 pm on June 18, 2009 Permalink |
Darn. Thanks anyway though.
bingregory 2:11 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
War-free independence and political stability in general probably count for something too.
thabet 7:21 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
What about the Malaya Emergency?
bingregory 10:41 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
Yeah, I meant no war to get free of your colonizers. The British put down the communists with local help, or the other way around I suppose depending on who’s bragging. Either way, not a war of independence really.