Especially government of a small, homogenous country with massive oil wealth in a peaceful part of the world. It's very much "easy mode" as far as governments go.
> homogenous country
I know I will be downvoted for this.
> This must require a *shocking* cultural adaptation.
The real trick to seeing the best parts of US culture: Get away from the east and west coasts. Once you go inland, especially to small cities, people are very welcoming. I have seen many YouTube videos were foreigners travel to "parts unknown", and are pleasantly surprised when random people stop to have a chat and wish them a good day. For example, lots of Peter Santenello's YouTube videos[1] are about visiting lesser known parts of countryside US. The people are overwhelmingly friendly (to a fault!).
Honestly, I think a lot of continental Europe isn't so different. In small cities and towns, all kinds of random people will wave and say hello in the local language, even if they guess that you cannot speak their language. Usually, they are excited to see some obvious foreigners visiting their place.
EDIT: yes, also Iraq and Venezuela
Norway is an outlier.
Our principal was Jewish and we needed special permission for him to enter the country for presentations.
During one of the presentations one of our team took a photo of a fountain and it initially ended up in our presentation to be used to set the tone. While previewing our slideshow to our handlers we were told to remove the slide of the fountain. The fountain belonged to the king and could not be photographed without permission from the king.
Admittedly there was no violence but we were warned that it was very bad. This was the early 1990’s so I’m sure this are much looser now.
It was sitting at the time in the latest supply of easily exploited natural resources in the world, yet somehow could not pay its troops pensions lost Civil war, could not keep its strategic oil supply from being raided by the executive branch corruption, and could not keep it plutocrats from directing military action for the sake of bananas of all things.
Have you read about the US post-1900? I think you can leave off pre 1900s…
The USA at some point had the lions share of the world’s easily exploitable oil.
A lot is thanks to Farouk Al-Kasim [1], who helped develop the fundamental plan for Norway's petroleum industry. As far I know, his task group's plan, developed while at the Department of Industry, was essentially accepted wholesale by the government. Part of it was ensuring the government retained control, and another part of it was ensuring oil revenue was carefully managed rather than flooding every level of society and government.
this also means there weren't entrenched oil barons (or rail barons, or shipping barons, etc.) that already had massive regulatory capture and could sway the government and economy their way.
greenfields, limited rent seeking, and knowledge of the risks -- sure enough it all went right
Of the other countries where petroleum is >10% of the national economy, I think Norway might be the only one that isn't a brutal dictatorship, a failed state, or both?
> Of the other countries where petroleum is >10% of the national economy, I think Norway might be the only one that isn't a brutal dictatorship, a failed state, or both?
I found this graphic from CNBC that summarises data from the World Bank: https://assets.weforum.org/editor/0GAQbN2nVTxgIqOLjWpWSZYh-9...
One thing I want to point out: Kuwait is the most dependent upon oil and gas of any nation in the world (about 50% of its GDP). However, I think it would be a stretch to call them "a brutal dictatorship, a failed state, or both". Sure, it isn't a Western liberal democracy, but people live pretty good lives and the state does not have a strong reputation for suppressing its people. (I'm not here to apologize for their gov't... but I think it would be a bit harsh to put in your categories.) UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Brunei, and Qatar: I would put in the same category: Non-democracy or flawed democracy, but life is pretty good for the locals. I guess that we can call all of the countries that I mentioned before: "benevolent dictator" gov't model. Interestingly, Ecuador is about 20% of GDP, but I would call them a developing/emerging democracy. The rest of the list... sheesh: It does not look good!
What do you think about my analysis? Do you agree?
> I think Norway might be the only one that isn't a brutal dictatorship
Just because you don't like a government doesn't mean it's doing a bad job at, well, holding a state together.
Totalitarian, and trending toward failed state.
> US
Not eligible for the reason I stated: the US economy is much less than 10% petroleum. We have a lot of oil, but we have a lot more of everything else.
> gulf states
Mostly brutal, repressive dictatorships (especially Saudi Arabia and Iran) - some are better than others, but the trend is poor.
> Just because you don't like a government doesn't mean it's doing a bad job at, well, holding a state together
You're moving the goalposts a fair amount here. The thread started with "good governance", and I said "well run" - it's hard to say that the bar for either of those is simply maintaining superficial order. But even if you set that aside, consider the famous quote from the Shiekh of Dubai about the fragility of the petrostates that haven't figured out how to build strong civil societies with their wealth: "my grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel."
Well it's clearly more than superficial or the state would be collapsing.
Regardless, I don't think the form of the government itself implies any sort of governance quality. Both Russia and Iran are the subjects of such heavy propaganda I don't expect anyone to evaluate them in good faith—but I would certainly prefer to live in either place compared to, say, Mississippi.
This isn't an accident. Yes, there has been a oil-and-gas boom (fracking, mostly), but it is a great place to do business, so many other non-petro industries have been furiously expanding there in the last 25 years.
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/naep-test-scores-mississippi-m...
I don't think the UK ever really had an option to create a fund though. Deficit was too high. Doubt there would have been anything left to invest even with an increased cut for the state. UK had an IMF bailout in the 70s and was in a mess. Norway was in much better shape I think.
The term "Dutch Disease" is a bit more general than that:
>...The term was coined in 1977 by The Economist to describe the decline of the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands after the discovery of the large Groningen gas field in 1959.[1][2]
>The presumed mechanism is that while revenues increase in a growing sector (or inflows of foreign aid), the given economy's currency becomes stronger ("appreciates") compared to foreign currencies (manifested in the exchange rate). This results in the country's other exports becoming more expensive for other countries to buy, while imports become cheaper, rendering those sectors less competitive.
Ideally a temporary windfall should be used to invest in the future. Taking a temporary windfall and spending it on basically buying votes should have a name, but that isn't generally what the term Dutch Disease refers too.
> $34T for the Netherlands
> That kind of money spigot is hard to wean a country off from, and tends to mask all sorts of governance failures, so it was inevitable the oil windfall would be used to plug the imperial shortfall.
> The difference with Norway is it was never a colonial power.
The immediate after-war years were quite grim, even after £1B Marshall plan ($13B in 2026 dollars) reconstruction aid, almost as much as Germany got. In 1850 the colonial income represented half of all government revenues, but in 1870 that was dismantled and privatized to benefit the elite. Most of the UK’s imperial looting went to the elite from the very beginning, of course.
Norway was in personal union with the kings of either Sweden or Denmark, so not quite the same as being a colony, but they themselves were not colonizers (unlike Denmark in Greenland).
must you whistle so loud, i'm deaf now