The non-generalizability of The First Law of Petropolitics Sierra Rayne a,* , Kaya Forest b a Chemologica Research, 318 Rose Street, PO Box 74, Mortlach, Saskatchewan, Canada, S0H 3E0 b Department of Environmental Engineering, Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology, Palliser Campus, 600-6th Avenue NW, PO Box 1420, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, Canada, S6H 4R4 Keywords: First Law of Petropolitics, Petroleum, Resource Curse, Geopolitics In 2006, Friedman wrote an influential and widely cited article in Foreign Policy magazine entitled “The First Law of Petropolitics.” [1]. Within this article, Friedman made the following statement: “The First Law of Petropolitics posits the following: The price of oil and the pace of free- dom always move in opposite directions in oil-rich petrolist states. According to the First Law of Petropolitics, the higher the average global crude oil price rises, the more free speech, free press, free and fair elections, an indepen- dent judiciary, the rule of law, and independent political parties are eroded ... Conversely, according to the First Law of Petropolitics, the lower the price of oil, the more petrolist countries are forced to move toward a political system and a society that is more transparent, more sen- sitive to opposition voices, and more focused on building the legal and educational structures that will maximize their people’s ability, both men’s and women’s, to com- pete, start new companies, and attract investments from abroad. The lower the price of crude oil falls, the more petrolist leaders are sensitive to what outside forces think of them.” Friedman further states that he would “define petrolist states as states that are both dependent on oil production for the bulk of their exports or gross domes- tic product and have weak state institutions or outright authoritarian governments. High on my list of petrolist states would be Azerbaijan, Angola, Chad, Egypt, Equa- torial Guinea, Iran, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan, and Venezuela.” In the current article, we will look at these states listed by Friedman, but also consider the following nations that are influential oil-producing and exporting countries: Uni- ted Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Algeria, Libya, and Qatar. Friedman notes that “[l]et me stress again that I know that the correlations suggested by these graphs are not perfect and, no doubt, there are exceptions that readers will surely point out. But I do believe they illustrate a general trend that one can see reflected in the news every day: The rising price of oil clearly has a negative impact on the pace of freedom in many countries, and when you * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 306 690 0573. E-mail address: sierra.rayne@live.co.uk (S. Rayne). get enough countries with enough negative impacts, you start to poison global politics.” This is a contradictory statement. One cannot posit a “Law” and then state that the correlations upon which the “Law” is based are “not perfect” and contain “exceptions.” Intellectually rigorous “Laws” do not contain exceptions. We begin our investigation into the generalizability of The First Law of Petropolitics by considering the following World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators [2]: voice and accountability; political stability and absence of vio- lence; government effectiveness; regulatory quality; rule of law; and control of corruption. The historical values of these individual governance indicators between 1996 and 2010 are plotted against the corresponding average annual global crude oil price [3] in both dollars of the day (Figure 1) and in 2010 constant dollars (Figure 2). Figures 3 (dol- lars of the day) and 4 (2010 dollars) show the correspond- ing annual percentile rankings for the governance indicator values of each country under consideration in comparison to all other countries. Press Freedom Indices [4] (Figure 5) for each country (lower values indicate a greater degree of press freedom) and their relative world rankings (Figure 6) between 2002 and 2010 as compared to the corresponding average annual global crude oil price are shown in both dollars of the day and in 2010 dollars. In addition, we consider the Corruption Perceptions In- dices [5] (Figure 7) for each country (higher values indicate a lower degree of perceived corruption) and their relative world rankings (Figure 8) between 1998 and 2010 as com- pared to the corresponding average annual global crude oil price in both dollars of the day and in 2010 dollars. Fi- nally, we investigate the Democracy Indices [6] (Figure 9) for each country (higher values indicate a higher level of democracy) and their relative world rankings (Figure 10) between 2006 and 2010 as compared to the corresponding average annual global crude oil price in both dollars of the day and in 2010 dollars. Note that the democracy indices only date back to 2006 and were only produced in 2006, 2008, and 2010. Thus, only three data points are available for each country. Overall, there are no generally consistent governance Preprint submitted to viXra March 24, 2013