The Monkey Cage

Systematically removing women’s genatilia and imprisoning them for getting raped isn’t obvious enough for Ross?

It is not serious that a professional review lends its pages to this statistical nonsense. Have they lost their common sense? I wish Ross a sex change and moving to Saudi Arabia. He will be able to check his/her statistical associations in situ.

Michael and Jose,

Did you actually read the paper? My guess is that you did not, or otherwise you wouldn’t be insinuating that somehow Ross thinks women face no discrimination in countries like Saudi Arabia. The question concerns the causes of women’s lack of incorporation in the economic and political spheres: is it Islam per se, or something else? Ross’ analysis suggests that it is not Islam, but an oil-based economy.

In the future, please make your comments civil and thoughtful.

First I did much of the article - to assume that I did not is the exact intellectual carelessness on your part that you accuse me.

It isn’t outlandish to believe that the economic influence of the onset of oil-based economies in nations of Islamic tyranny hasn’t significantly altered the nature of abject humiliation and degradation of women.

Ross’ very thesis is ridiculous.

Michael,

I’m glad that you read the article. But I think you misconstrue its point. Professor Ross simply doesn’t believe that, absent oil, all Islamic countries would have full gender equality. But if you look across the Muslim world, you see substantial variation in women’s legal and economic incorporation. What explains this variation? A key factor appears to be the extent to which the economy is based on oil as opposed to other factors.

You may find the analysis unconvincing, but its thesis is hardly “ridiculous.”

Sad, that such a well informed and intelligent blog attracts comments that are anything but well informed and intelligent.

Typical of the blogosphere.

Islam explains much less about the status of women in the countries than the cultures of the countries and whether or not they were previously colonies directly ruled by European countries. The author is mixing Arab countries with Berber countries with a Persian country and oh yes, did he forget that Lebanon has a significant Christian population? It’s like expecting social norms in Poland and Spain to be exactly alike because they are both heavily Catholic countries

You could explain most of the variation in female work force participation that he graphs by comparing colonized/non-colonized countries. Highest female participation former colonies: Tunisia, Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco, Syria, Jordan, Libya, Iraq. Iran is an exception but isn’t an Arab country either. Lowest participation never colonized: Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, etc.

Culturally less Arab and more Europeanized former colonies have more modern attitudes towards women. What a shock!

I find it amazing that this was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Does Ross have tenure at UCLA?

John,
Sorry I did not mean to be uncivil or unthoughtful, and I beg your pardon if it was so. Your depiction of Ross’ article embellishes its work. In his article there is no mention of variation but a lot of effects talk. He says “women in the Middle East are underrepresented in the workforce and in government because of oil—–not Islam.” (107), and to demonstrate this point performs a statistical exercise running some regressions and a so-called case study on Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. There are not cause and effects here only statistical associations and the case study is not such a thing at all. How can be discounted the history of Islamic oppression of women in these countries to explain their present under representation in the workforce? The point made on European colonization by Campesino is very good! On the other side, World Wars and subsequent men’s mobilization caused women entering the work force in the West. Ross’ statistical analysis is devoid of cultural and political context. He uses a variable with “the percentage of parliamentary seats held by women” (112), forgetting to mention the undemocratic nature of these countries. He does not mention the Islamist insurgency in Algeria as another social control device of the female population. He ends his article speaking of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional of Mexico and the Syrian Baas Party as “secular, left-of-center parties that showed an interest in women’s rights”, forgetting to mention again the undemocratic nature of Mexico’s PRI or the peculiar synthesis between Nazism and Communism performed by the Baas Party in its two branches of Syria and Iraq.
In sum, you can build variables using international data bases and run sophisticated statistical analysis, but the lack of citizenship rights of women in Middle East countries has to do with Islam, and the variations in the different countries are dependent on their historical, political and cultural contexts. Oil determinism is a kind of the old Marxist recipe under a not so new disguise.This is not good political or social science at all.

@sad - you accuse the amorphous “blogosphere” for it intellectual weakness with your gutless anonymous snipe. That is what is sad.

@John - Jose’s point that you embellish the thesis is something I agree with as well. Also, the basic conclusion to be drawn from Ross’ article is that he is painting a cause and effect where there is none. Painting arguments as such is one of the first pillars of propoganda and misinformation. From your high-minded roost, you are missing that point terribly because (my hunch) that you have some form of kinship either personally or professionally with Ross.

I will deal with the ad hominem attacks first. Michael O’Neill, despite my “high-minded roost,” whatever that is, I have never met Michael Ross and have no professional or personal connection to him.

The purpose of this blog is to highlight political science research that may be of interest to a wider readership. I am not an expert in every subfield of political science, including, among many others, Middle East politics, the political economy of petroleum, etc. Thus I cannot personally defend every aspect of Ross’ article. But I can at least comment on a few of the points made so far.

First, Jose and Michael, I am most certainly not reading anything into the Ross article that is not already there. The variation in the Muslim world is plainly evident in his Figures 3-6. To simply say “women suffer because of Islam” may be true in some respects, but it doesn’t help us understand why women make up 30% of the labor force in Morocco but 3% in Kuwait. Ditto the variation in the adoption of female suffrage, the proportion of women in parliaments, etc. The point about oil is not that somewhere in the dawn of time differences in oil revenues begat differences in gender equality. The point is that looking at both time-series and cross-sectional data from 1960-2002 or 1993-2002 or 2002 (depending on the analysis), there is variation to explain. If Islam were the sole determinant there wouldn’t be this variation. And, Jose, Ross’ account isn’t Marxist determinism: he emphasizes the role of oil, but it isn’t the only factor that matters in his analysis.

Correlation vs. causation (Jose, Michael). I will quote from Ross (p.117-18): “The regression analysis suggests that oil production is statistically correlated with female labor, and female representation, but it cannot tell us why. To explore the causal mechanisms that link oil to female status—–while still controlling for Islam and regional culture—–we can look more closely at a set of highly similar countries that have different petroleum endowments: Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia.” Ross, like most social scientists, is deeply aware of the limitations of quantitative analysis with respect to causation. That is why he includes this qualitative case study. Moreover, I don’t know why you call this is a “so-called” case study. Again, such comments amount to insults, not arguments.

Colonial status. (Campesino, welcome back!) That seems like a possible factor. But note his case study of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. All were former French colonies, and they ended up and different places with regard to gender equality.

Gentlemen, these are my last words on the subject. I will close by reiterating my earlier request for civility. Campesino, you can make your point without gratuitous comments about peer review and tenure. Michael, whatever the limits of Ross’ analysis, it does not amount to “propaganda” or “misinformation.” This an academic blog, not a no-holds-barred political blog, we expect certain norms to be observed. If that makes us “high-minded,” so be it.

John,

I stand by my valid orignial point, intended as an abrasive and obvious contrast to Ross’ convoluted means towards an incorrect conclusion.

Specifically, the conclusion of the thesis does rest on correlation not causation, as you state.

As far as an ad hominem attack, how so? It was stated as an explanation for how you are unwilling to accept reading ugly but truthful explanations for why the conclusion of the thesis is invalid.

Sometimes the truth is ugly. So, referring to you as high-minded is both relevant (believing that all discourse must be flowery) and true (as you seem to agree that you are).

There isn’t one sentence in this whole comment thread that is uncivil, despite your claims otherwise.

Claiming Ross is wrong isn’t uncivil. Stating obvious truths why Ross is wrong is not uncivil.

Your overreaction is, perhaps.

So, please excuse me while I exit your sandbox entirely.

Colonial status. (Campesino, welcome back!) That seems like a possible factor. But note his case study of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. All were former French colonies, and they ended up and different places with regard to gender equality
=======================

I think to give Ross credit, among those three countries he is probably right that oil has had the effect he describes. But why pick those three “similar” countries (I however think saying a city-state like Tunisia is similar to larger countries like Morocco & Algeria is a stretch)?

They are former colonies, Berber countries and outliers on the upper end of the charts on female friendliness.

But why not compare Saudi Arabia and Yemen? Both were not colonies and both Arab countries. Yemen has no oil while S.A. is awash in it - yet Yemen is really no better as a female friendly country than the Saudis. Actually worse in some ways.

I’d say this indicates that Arab culture and colonial legacy factors far outweigh oil income as decisive factors.

I apologize if I sounded cranky about Ross, but I think his reasoning is simplistic and flawed. My background is in anthropology and I’m sure if this had been submitted to most anthropology journals it would not have made the cut for publication.

Focusing on an economic uni-causal explanation while ignoring effects of colonialism and assuming Arab, Berber, and Persian cultural norms are the same would have sent it down in flames. Though the statistical techniques he uses are fine, his basic premise is the sort of simplistic thinking you’d expect from an undergraduate.

I think that is a reasonable critical review and not an ad hominem attack

I’m the author of the ‘Oil, Islam, and Women,’ article, and so wanted to offer some comments. I’m grateful to John Sides (who indeed, I have never met or am otherwise linked to) for trying to explain my argument to the skeptics.

I realize that my conclusions challenge ‘common sense’; I take that as a compliment. There’s more to academic research than confirming common sense. I’m a little surprised at the hostility. As John Sides already noted, I’m not denying the poor conditions for women in many Middle Eastern states; in fact, I’m trying to explain why they persist.

Just a few comments on some specific criticisms:

On ‘unicausal explanations’ (Campesino): if you look at the analysis, you’ll see that I acknowledge the importance of – and even statistically control for – for other many other factors, including economic, demographic, and historical variables.

On ignoring culture: I also agree that culture and history are important; my study is an effort to determine what ADDITIONAL factors influence the status of women. In some of the statistical tests I make an effort to control for culture and history using country ‘fixed-effects’. Basically this means that I look at changes over time within countries – and find that in Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike, a rise in oil revenues is followed by a drop in the number of women in the labor force.

On Yemen: those who read the article will see that I specifically address the issue of Yemen – pointing out that several Mideast countries, most profoundly Yemen, were affected by having so many of their male workers migrate to major oil producers like Saudi Arabia (Yemen has some oil, though not much). I’d also disagree with the claim that women are worse off in Yemen than Saudi Arabia; having traveled there, I think this is untrue.

Here’s something else for skeptics to consider. A century ago, women had fewer rights in Korea than in the Arab Middle East. Something changed there – and in many patriarchal societies in East Asia. Why such improvements in the status of women in East Asia, but not the Middle East – even though both regions have become much wealthier? I think it’s because East Asia became rich through industrialization, while the Middle East because rich through oil.

While the discussion has focused on the Middle East, I’d also point out that we see the same phenomena – oil wealth going hand-in-hand with atypically poor conditions for women – in Africa (like Nigeria), Eurasia (Russia), and Latin America (Venezuela).

Michael, do you actually have evidence of “atypically poor conditions for women” in Russia vs. some non-oil-producing FSU country? I think a Belarus-Russia or Kazakhstan-Kyrgyzstan comparison of women’s rights would be an excellent case study to test your thesis. I don’t study women’s rights, but I work on the post-communist region. I study a profession (judges), which in the post-Communist region is largely feminized, and my impression is that Russian and Ukrainian female judges work in an extremely similar environment from the standpoint of women’s rights. This is quite indirect evidence, of course, but it leads me to be skeptical that one would find an oil-based difference in women’s rights in the FSU region. It’s certainly worth investigating, though. Congratulations on formulating a thought-provoking thesis.

Good question. While women have indeed made greater progress in the FSU region than might be expected based on income alone, Russia is notably behind the other FSU states. For example, in the entire region 14.7% of all parliamentary seats are held by women; in Russia, it is just 9.8%.

Can this be attributed to oil? I’m no Russia expert and am only making inferences based on a handful of statistics. But it is similar to the pattern we see in many other countries. Perhaps a closer investigation in future studies will tell us if I’m right.