Sustainable Growth in Dubai

I've been scratching my head recently as i have tried to think of what my next post could be about. Surprisingly, the economy has not been very prominent in the news recently and so i turned my attention to our annual family holiday. This year we will be visiting Dubai which is one of the emirates which makes up the United Arab Emirates (UAE). We have been to Dubai before and struck me was the scale of the economic growth in such a short period of time.

Dubai's growth over a 15 year period

Dubai is now a place of the luxurious and ridiculous, they have not only built an indoor ski slope in a city where outside summer temperatures regularly hit 45 degrees centigrade but they also built the world's tallest  building, The Burj Khalifa, just because they could. I have not even mentioned the number of lavish hotels which have sprung up from the sands of the desert. The shocking thing is that this sort of development has occurred over a 20 year period and i question every time i go whether it is sustainable growth?

For growth to be sustainable it should not affect the living standards of future generations and most people think that growth is unsustainable when it involves the use of fossil fuels and/or it leads to a destruction of the environment.

Dubai has one of the highest carbon footprints per capita in the world and burns half as much gas as Germany per year. With a population of only 6 million compared to Germany's of 80 million, the growth of Dubai doesn't seem sustainable. Maybe, the consumption of fossil fuels is high at present  because of the level of current construction  in Dubai. After all, prior to the global financial crisis in 2008, 90% of all the cranes in the world were found in Dubai. However, i doubt this theory as the cost of petrol is so low out there, people are incentivised to buy and use more, thus increasing their carbon footprint. Dubai has promised to get 7% of its energy requirements from renewable sources by 2020 but with more people using the cheap, petrol guzzling taxis than the more environmentally friendly Dubai Metro, their aims seem ambitious.

The financial crisis of 2008 almost led to the demise of Dubai as foreign investment in the emirate fell, construction had to stop and demand for the lavish homes on man-made islands and hotel rooms vanished. It appeared to be a case of too much construction and too quickly which left a huge dependance on investment from abroad. This left their economy susceptible to external shocks which appears to be one of the drawbacks of globalisation. Now, although construction and inward investment in Dubai has subsequently picked up since then, the authorities are nervously looking over their shoulder at the rest of the world during these hard times.

The sharp rise in the development of Dubai has led to a sharp rise in the level of tourism in the area. The large numbers of western tourists who visit the emirate each year have led to tensions developing between them and the locals. In a conservative, muslim country where alcohol and pork are not permitted, some would argue that the development of Dubai has led to the loss of local cultures and traditions.

Dubai is a clear example of the dangers of fast, uncontrolled growth. It may seem that i have made it seem like an awful, dirty place in which there are constant battles between the tourists and locals. This is not the case, it is a wonderful city which is able to integrate modern luxuries with core traditions. It does however, remain a reminder to us all of the importance of sustainability. Wanting too much, too quickly can lead to negative long term side effects, something which Dubai is currently trying to reduce.

What Caused The August Riots?

So, im out of the country for just over a week and it seems in that time the country has fallen to pieces. Rioting has been seen across the country in London, Manchester and Birmingham as well as many other places. Whilst on holiday, we only received snippets of news and what we couldn't seem to understand was what had caused these riots to occur. When we left the country there was no indication that violence would engulf the nation, leaving people fearing for their lives and possessions.

So, when i got home on wednesday i tried to find out what had caused the riots and stumbled upon this article on the BBC website. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14483149 Now, i believe that some of these explanations are more credible than others, for example, i do not believe that technology and social networking are responsible for the violence, i agree that they facilitated the hooliganism but don't see it as a cause. However, i can now see that the shooting of Mark Duggan by police on Saturday triggered the eruption of violence in Tottenham

I also listened to the Question Time special that was on the radio last night and it became clear that a large emphasis was put an the policing of the situation and also on how the looters were being punished. Being more specific, it appeared that the audience of the show were less than impressed with the numbers of police present at the scenes of the looting, the speed at which the police got to the violence and the punishments being dished out to the criminals. This reminded me of the book Freakonomics in which Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner unearth what had caused the fall in crime across the US over the 1990's. Now the main crux of their argument was the legalisation of abortions a generation earlier but this has no relevance to this situation. What they also look at are other explanations for the fall in crime rates and they pay particular attention to policing and punishments given out to criminals.

They find a negative correlation (which turns out to be a causation) between the number of police present on the street and the crime rate. This is because when more police are present they are more likely to catch criminals breaking the law, criminals who would tend to reoffend if not caught, than if fewer police were present. Also, by having more police present, potential criminals are less likely to break the law for fear of being caught as they are aware of the increase police numbers. Dubner and Levitt also, find that by having stricter punishments crime tends to fall. This may seem too obvious to need to be said but often it is these things that are overlooked by the authorities. With stricter punishments, fewer criminals will be on the streets as they will be in longer prison sentences but also it will again persuade potential criminals not to break the law.

How does this relate to the explaining the causes of the riots then? Well, with recent spending cuts being enforced across the UK include cuts to the police budget, there was a greater opportunity for people to riot and loot and get away with it as fewer police would be present to catch them, especially if many others were involved. With the country also caught in a long and stuttering recovery with real incomes falling people would also have to resort to stealing to get the latest phones and desirables which at present they can not afford but which seem to be constantly shoved in their faces through television and advertising . The BBC article refers to these two possible explanations as Consumerism and Opportunism.

So, with a country feeling social exclusion all it seemed to take was a flash point moment, the shooting of Mark Duggan, to ignite the anger and frustration of a nation. The riots must be seen as a stark reminder of the bitter mood of the population. Up until now we have seen riots across Europe as countries awaken to the true effects of the economic downturn and we had almost thought that Britain was immune to such violence. It seems now that the country is on a knifepoint, if the economy falters in its recovery more violence could well be expected.

What's worse was some of the suggestions of how to deal with the criminals who committed the senseless violence. Obviously, business owners who have been affected by the looting want to see the offenders pay the price of the damage but some in the audience at Question Time were calling for offenders to lose any benefits they were on and have private property confiscated to pay for the damage. To me and many others this would only cause looters to reoffend as they would experience falling incomes and would see themselves drift further away from the rest of society. It is important  that when dealing with the criminals, the authorities need to have cool tempers to avoid making mistakes.