International Journal Middle East Studies · 2002 · 170 citations · 0 references
Social SciencesArea StudiesPolitical ScienceEconomic DevelopmentMiddle Eastern StudiesSocial DevelopmentMiddle Eastern Economic HistoryMiddle Eastern Political HistoryMiddle Eastern PoliticsMiddle Eastern Social HistoryMiddle Eastern SocietiesPolitical LiberalizationMiddle Eastern NationalismPolitical Economy Of OilSocialist MovementsState-led GrowthState-led IndustrializationUrban Economic Restructuring
Prior to the 1980s, Middle Eastern countries were dominated by nationalist‑populist or pro‑Western rentier regimes that pursued state‑led development, achieving high growth and providing social services to secure popular support. The article investigates how social activism in the Middle East relates to social development, focusing on the strategies employed by urban grassroots movements. It analyzes the myriad strategies used by urban grassroots groups to defend rights and improve lives in the neo‑liberal era. The study finds that oil revenues enabled rentier states and ideological populist regimes to deliver extensive social services, positioning the state as the primary driver of economic and social development.
This article is about social activism and its relationship to social development in the Middle East. It examines the myriad strategies that the region's urban grass-roots pursue to defend their rights and improve their lives in this neo-liberal age. Prior to the advent of the political–economic restructuring of the 1980s, most Middle Eastern countries were largely dominated by either nationalist-populist regimes (such as Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Turkey) or pro-Western rentier states (Iran, Arab Gulf states). Financed by oil or remittances, these largely authoritarian states pursued state-led development strategies, attaining remarkable (21% average annual) growth rates. 1 Income from oil offered the rentier states the possibility of providing social services to many of their citizens, and the ideologically driven populist states dispensed significant benefits in education, health, employment, housing, and the like. 2 For these post-colonial regimes, such provision of social welfare was necessary to build popularity among the peasants, workers, and middle strata at a time that these states were struggling against both the colonial powers and old internal ruling classes. The state acted as the moving force of economic and social development on behalf of the populace.