Abdul-Hadi said that the pros and cons of an oil dividend needed a lot of debate and discussion. Fr the time being, he felt it was better to spend the money on badly needed improvements to infrastructure, such as roading and power supplies.
Back in 2003, Washington-based economist Palley had already suggested a couple of answers to Abdul-Hadi’s questions on distribution.
“An Iraq oil revenue trust fund should directly distribute oil revenues to Iraqi citizens. Thus, rather than saving a share of revenues in a trust fund and building up the fund over time [as they do in Alaska], a significant portion of oil revenues should be immediately and directly paid to Iraq's citizens,” Palley wrote.
“In addition, a companion fund should be established that would distribute a share of oil revenues to provincial and local governments. This second fund can ensure a fair regional distribution of revenues, thereby reducing the potential for regional grievances which can lead to civil war. This is a major concern in Iraq which is afflicted by significant regional divisions,” Palley concluded.
In some ways, industry analyst West wrote, the essence of the direct oil dividend was not necessarily even economic. “Their essence is political, in the right way … When there is a crowded football stadium of hard core transparency activists in Iraq - and millions of armchair spectators at home, cheering them on - that's when we'll see progress on [the] Resource Curse.”
Ordinary Iraqis themselves are divided over whether Iraq should directly transfer some of the country's expected oil income to citizens. And some of them had their own suggestions.
College student Sam Ahmed said the best solution might be to put oil money into funds that could be used by anyone over the age of 18. After finishing high school or tertiary education, most young Iraqis found it extremely hard to make ends meet and many ended up abandoning their qualifications or further education and taking casual jobs.
Comments are closed.