Ethnolinguistic fractionalization has a negative impact on governance. Political scientists argue that in an ethnically diverse society, officials have a tendency to restrict political freedom and protect “their own” by redistributing national wealth to their own group. Thus ethnically diverse countries tend to be more corrupt.
An abundance of natural resources in a country is also associated with weak governance. Governments that are able to extract revenues from natural resources would be less dependent on their citizenry for tax revenues. Independence from tax revenues would give governments an upper hand since the citizens have ‘reduced’ capability to demand accountability and transparency – the citizens do not have a strong bargaining power since the government do not depend on them for revenues / resources.
(See Al-Marhubi (2004) for a brief discussion)
Evidence? Compare the so-called Western countries – who are less ethnically diverse and have less natural resources – with the so-called Third World, in which many Muslim countries belong to. The Third World is more ethnically diverse and has an abundance of natural resources. The evidence is obvious. Most (not all) governments in the West are more transparent, more accountable and they take their citizens more seriously. The same cannot be said about Muslim countries, Malaysia included.
Does that mean we should be working towards the reduction of ethnolinguistic differences by creating one nation with one identity (ie: the end of multiculturalism)? And a higher tax regime? The former would reduce the sense of belonging to a particular ‘group’, and therefore significantly reducing corrupted cronyism, and the latter would increase citizens’ bargaining power.
Should I be saying “Hail Bangsa Malaysia” and “Please come this way, higher-tax regime”?
Filed under: Misc

Recent Comments