Abstract
Scholars often appear obsessed with finding development “models” – that is, universal and transposable strategic and policy formulations for the management and enhancement of socioeconomic conditions and the business-government dynamic – and in modern times a variety of such models have been proposed for the Middle East, from state-led to market-led ones, and from imported ones such as the “Washington consensus” and a “Beijing consensus” to indigenous ones such as a “Dubai model.” But what is the exact history and trajectory of this search, and is it an appropriate approach? Does the Middle Eastern development experience suggest that such models can be identified and widely applied? Or are models really just attempts at creating frameworks, or even just checklists, based on a conglomeration of generic policies? This paper engages with these questions. It does this by examining some of the earlier development approaches of the region and their flaws, and then moves on to look at whether newer models proposed for the region, from the Beijing consensus to a Dubai or Qatar model, contain potential. The paper concludes from this that development “models” have proven weak and flawed when applied to the Middle East, and are an insufficient basis for understanding – much less predicting – the trajectories of the region’s political economies.
