Economic freedom in Muslim countries: an explanation using the theory of institutional path dependency
This article explains the level of economic freedom in Muslim countries through the theory of institutional path dependency. Islamic countries are generally not free and they have a poor record regarding property rights. To explain these realities we use the institutional history of Muslim countries. We define three steps: the Arab and Ottoman Empires when Islamic law was of great importance, European colonisation, and the contemporary era with its movement towards a revival of Islam. Islamic law is not liberal. This explains why, in general, Muslin countries are generally not free. Colonisation radically changed institutional life in the twentieth century. British colonisation proved to be better than did French or Soviet colonisation. This explains why the Persian Gulf countries are freer. The collapse of the Soviet model explains the speed of liberalisation in former socialist countries (such as Albania, Kyrgyz Republic and Kazakhstan). Nevertheless, the twentieth century was not just the century of Westernisation. It was also the century of the revival of Islam. The article concludes that the history of the twentieth century does not explain the way in which Muslim countries are attracted by the ideal of the Muslim city. The revival of Islamic intellectual innovations and the evolution of Muslim opinion sustain this thesis. Therefore, there is a dependency on the past and on an imagined future. Islam acts, like yesterday, on the world of institutional possibilities
|Date of creation:||Mar 2011|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 106-112 boulevard de l'Hôpital 75 647 PARIS CEDEX 13|
Phone: + 33 44 07 81 00
Fax: + 33 1 44 07 83 01
Web page: http://centredeconomiesorbonne.univ-paris1.fr/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Peter J. Boettke & Christopher J. Coyne & Peter T. Leeson, 2015.
"Institutional stickiness and the New Development Economics,"
Chapters,in: Culture and Economic Action, chapter 6, pages 123-146
Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Peter J. Boettke & Christopher J. Coyne & Peter T. Leeson, 2008. "Institutional Stickiness and the New Development Economics," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 331-358, 04.
- Spindler, Zane A, 1991. "Liberty and Development: A Further Empirical Perspective," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 197-210, February.
- Liebowitz, S J & Margolis, Stephen E, 1995. "Path Dependence, Lock-in, and History," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 205-226, April.
- Stephen E. Margolis & S.J. Liebowitz, "undated". "Path Dependence, Lock-in and History," Working Paper Series 10, North Carolina State University, Department of Economics.
- De Vanssay, Xavier & Spindler, Z A, 1994. "Freedom and Growth: Do Constitutions Matter?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 78(3-4), pages 359-372, March.
- Francois Facchini, 2010. "Religion, law and development: Islam and Christianity—Why is it in Occident and not in the Orient that man invented the institutions of freedom?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 103-129, February. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mse:cesdoc:11015. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lucie Label)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.