People often use the phrase "resource curse" to talk about oil. Often, it brings more harm than benefits.
There's few better examples of this than Nigeria.
Within a decade of oil being discovered in 1957, the newly-independent country was fighting a civil war over it.
Oil production hasn't grown since the late 1970s but the population is nearly four times the size.
Crude production in Nigeria (pop.: 200m) is roughly the same as Norway (5m).
Even if the wealth was shared equitably and wisely, there just isn't enough of it to go round.
But it remains absolutely central to the Nigerian state, and an economy that's stunted by oil's influence.
More than half of wage jobs are in the public sector, which traditionally derived about 80% of its tax revenue from crude.
A currency that's perennially overvalued because of the quasi-dollar peg it maintains for the sake of the oil sector has stifled non-oil export industries.
In 1981, Nigeria had a bigger manufacturing sector than South Korea. But it's barely grown since then.
The distortions and vast wealth associated with crude also help fuel the endemic corruption and civil disorder with which Nigeria is almost synonymous:
It's easy here to overlook one thing that should be a substantial advantage for Nigeria: Its vast, and fast-growing, labour force.
One in eight people joining the working-age population over the next 30 years will be Nigerian. Around 2050 it will be roughly one in three!
It's often underappreciated that China's economic rise was demographic.
China boomed because hundreds of millions of people joined the labour force in the 1990s and 2000s, and the country found labour-intensive export industries for them to work in.
That's an area where Nigeria has singularly failed. Almost uniquely among large emerging economies, workforce participation has actually been falling, not rising.
As @Noahpinion argues here, whether African industrialization succeeds or fails is one of the most important issues facing the world over the next century:
I'd argue Nigeria — with its huge and growing labour force, 17 million-strong diaspora, and obsession with high-quality elite education — is actually quite well-placed to be an engine of this growth. But the resource curse is smothering that potential.
A decent comparison is another large, populous, tropical, corrupt, strife-riven oil exporter: Indonesia, 50 years ago.
Indonesia in 1971 looked quite as chaotic as Nigeria does now. But its performance since then has been far better.
That's come as oil production has declined to the point that Indonesia is now a net importer. The end of the Indonesian oil boom was the start of the Indonesian economic boom.
I think there's a few signs that this may be about to change. Oil revenues as a share of Nigeria's budget have fallen in recent years to the point where they're less than half the total. That may start to shift political incentives.
There are also hints that manufacturing may start to take root more strongly — most particularly with the giant sugar, cement and oil refining plants being built by Africa's richest man, Aliko Dangote:
Nigeria also has solar power potential similar to that of India, where that sector is booming.
Industry is seriously hampered by a power grid that's barely functional, leaving factories dependent in back-up diesel generation.
Solar could provide this power more cheaply, and even be linked up into mini- and eventually national-scale grids that could fix the problem of a huge energy exporter that can barely provide energy to its citizens.
So I'm cautiously hopeful about Nigeria in the long term. Breaking the power of oil will be a long and painful struggle, but once it happens the potential of this country is enormous.
This is the third of a four-part series I've been working on with @ClaraDFMarques this week about how oil exporters could cope in a post-oil world.
One quick lesson that Joe Biden's infrastructure plan can learn from China?
Unleash the power of capitalism to make worthwhile investments more attractive to local governments: bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
A quirk of America's infrastructure set-up is that it's unusually difficult for government planners to *invest* in improving their region's infrastructure.
Instead they have to treat it almost as a charity project.
That's because it's unusually difficult for them to capture the increase in land values that come when you build new infrastructure.
Beyond a few almost experimental projects and the very indirect benefits of property taxes, transport mostly has to pay for itself in user fees.
Here's how America could solve a toxic waste crisis in Florida and reduce its dependence on Chinese rare earths and uranium from the former USSR with one weird trick:
Residents around Tampa Bay in Florida are facing evacuation orders and a state of emergency after a dam holding radioactive fertilizer waste started leaking, threatening a breach and a 20ft wall of water: nytimes.com/2021/04/04/us/…
Florida and other parts of the southeastern U.S. have for decades been just one big rainstorm away from this sort of environmental crisis, because of more than a billion tons of phosphogypsum stacked up as waste material from the fertilizer industry.
My spiciest infrastructure bill take is that the "clean energy R&D" funding is basically a subsidy for annoying nuclear obsessives on Twitter.
Nuclear has historically sucked up the lion's share of energy R&D (and still gets the biggest slice today) because it's very complex and basic science-y, done by white lab coats not blue collars etc.
The generous funding for nuclear research combined with its fairly fundamental economic weaknesses means that it's a top-heavy field, with huge expertise in "paper reactors" even while real-world technology is basically updated 1960s reactor designs.
One yardstick for measuring the White House's $3 trillion-over-10-years infrastructure plan and Congressional Democrats' $10tr counter-offer is that China issues about $500 billion in infrastructure debt each year.
To be clear, those are figures for local government bonds in aggregate — but almost all of that goes on infrastructure, which receives non-local government financing in addition.
It sounds like the various U.S. infra plans will include some social-ish spending, too.
Think the Ever Given was a monster ship? The next generation of container vessels is going to make it look like a bath toy, pushing up against hard limits for the size of boats:
Container ships have again and again defied predictions that their size was approaching maximum limits.
One famed 1999 study argued that the biggest possible ships would be able to carry 18,000 containers, or TEUs (20ft-equivalent units). The Ever Given carries 20,124 TEUs.
At the time it launched in 2018, only a handful of 20,000+ TEU ships were on the sea, and the first had been launched less than a year ago.
There's now more than 100 of that size sailing or under construction. The biggest ones are 24,000 TEUs, 20% bigger than the Ever Given!