Countries in both the developed and the
developing worlds rely on a stable and secure supply of oil.
However, abuses and misallocations of oil revenues often lead to
social and political instability and, at times, armed conflict. The
broader the political cooperation and public consensus, and the
greater the transparency in the management of oil revenues, the
greater the chance that the supplier will remain stable.
The
challenge of devising optimal models and policies for oil
production in developing or transitional economies is formidable.
Resource-rich countries tend to fall behind non-oil economies in
economic development, rate of growth in gross domestic product
(GDP), GDP per capita, and human development. Oil often derails democratic
development and causes civil strife and civil war. Other problems
such as graft and "rent-seeking behavior" regularly accompany oil
exploration and exploitation.
Many
have noted that lagging institutional development, democratic
deficiencies, and rampant corruption are the downside of the
windfall profits from large-scale oil production. Political control
of those natural resources makes political power paramount. Thus,
politics becomes a competition for a near total control of wealth,
resulting in a zero-sum game with devastating results for
democratization and civil society.
Simply put, unstable countries make poor
oil suppliers. The examples abound, from Iraq to Iran to
Venezuela.
Moreover, experience and research
demonstrate that private ownership of any industry increases
production and reduces costs anywhere in the world. Thus, consumers of
energy should advocate privatization of the oil and gas sector
worldwide. However, because of the industrial economies' thirst for
oil, it is likely that Western governments and international
institutions will remain quiet on privatization while denouncing
the excesses of producers and abuses of natural resource property
rights and revenue.
This
paper analyzes current models of ownership and revenue management
in the hydrocarbon sector, as well as their political implications,
and suggests policies on property rights, tax collection, and
public expenditure. The achievements in making the rule of law and
transparency a paramount public policy and business value in the
oil and gas industry have been limited at best.
Finally, this paper addresses some
challenges that the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the
Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) face in restoring and managing Iraqi
oil production. It also offers recommendations for the Iraqi oil
industry and public sector.

Production Mode: Privatization Versus
State Management
The
Iraqi oil industry is a case in point. Saddam's predatory
dictatorship succeeded in bankrupting the country with the world's
second largest oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia). The oil sector
formerly provided more than 60 percent of Iraq's GDP and 95 percent
of its hard currency earnings. Yet Iraq's GDP for 2001 was
estimated at only about one-third its 1989 level. Iraq is also
hobbled by $200 billion in foreign debt and reparation claims. This
fiscal devastation is the result of a number of factors, including
nationalization of the country's oil sector in the 1970s, extensive
central planning of industry and trade, the 1982-1988 war with
Iran, the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and subsequent Gulf War, and the
U.S.-led war in 2003.
According to senior Iraqi Oil Ministry
officials, Saddam ran the oil industry as his private kitty--with
devastating results for the infrastructure and the treasury. Moreover, Saddam's
disastrous policies led to Iraq's OPEC quota being taken over by
other producers, primarily Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
Importance of
Privatization
Critics point out that centralized, state-owned industrial
capacity in the oil sector is less successful than wholly owned
private industry or public-private partnerships in attracting
investment, integrating new technology, introducing international
accounting standards and practices, boosting productivity, and
observing environmental standards.
Moreover, as many of the OPEC members
exceed their production quotas, leading to a greater supply of oil
and lower prices, it is not clear whether the countries that follow
the centralized planning model are indeed maximizing their oil
revenue.

Political
Factors
Political underpinnings are crucial in forging a workable
political model for oil exploration and exploitation. In the Iraqi
case, the future model will probably need both to be popularly
accepted and to be incorporated into the new constitution.
Otherwise, civil strife may develop.
Oil
disputes played a large part in the Biafra war in Nigeria in the
1960s, in which 1 million-3 million civilians were starved to death
or bombed. Recently,
tribal unrest in Nigeria resulted in Western and local oil workers
being taken hostage.
Secession movements in Indonesia parallel the distribution of oil,
as the country's smaller and potentially oil-rich islands attempt
to secede from overpopulated Java. Such conflicts should be avoided in
Iraq, which is a relatively new political entity created by the
British Empire after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War
I.
Since the creation of Iraq, relationships
between the Kurds, the Sunni Arabs, and the Shi'a Arabs have been
uneasy at best and murderous at worst. The Sunni Arabs have
dominated Iraq since the Ottoman and British eras.
Beyond ethno-religious strife, clans and
families are the smallest political units, and their interests may
need to be taken into account in devising a stable political
solution that allows equitable and sustainable sharing of oil
revenues. Thus far, the process involved in drafting an Iraqi
constitution has been a painful one, and there is no date certain
by which agreement will be reached and the document will be
ready. As Iraq
develops its own constitution, principles of protection of private
property must be extended to the oil industry and oil reserves.
Property Rights
in Iraq
The launch of the Iraqi oil industry in 1925 was
undertaken by a private consortium, the Iraq Petroleum Corporation,
owned in equal shares (23.75 percent) by British Petroleum and
Shell, Companie Francaise de Petroles, and two constituent parts of
Exxon Mobil. Nubar Gulbenkian, the famous "Mr. Five Percent," owned
the remaining 5 percent. The consortium was expropriated in 1964
and fully nationalized in 1972.
Theoretically, if the property rights of
the original consortium were restored, new companies would
participate in bids for new field projects and the rehabilitation
of existing oil infrastructure. In addition, the future government
of Iraq might recognize some of the contracts concluded by the
Saddam Hussein regime, such as the Russian Lukoil West Qurna
concession, as valid. The Iraqi government could also examine other
production-sharing agreements that Saddam's regime signed with
China, France, and other countries.

Economic
Efficiency
Partial privatization, which the CPA and the Provisional
Council are pursuing, and low taxation are the right policies to
follow. However, more needs to be done to achieve eventual
privatization of reserves and extraction. As Iraqi needs for
reconstruction are high, one way to increase the cash flow up-front
is to sell off the reserves and tax the future oil revenues. This
would better address the immediate needs of the Iraqi people
without giving up natural resource royalties and rents.
The
United States--through its senior representatives of the
Departments of State and Defense in the CPA and its advisers on the
ground, with the assistance of the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), World Bank, and other international and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs)--should begin advising the leaders of Iraq's
three primary ethnic groups to establish policies that would lead
to a thriving modern economy. These policies should be based on
"best practices" developed around the world during the largest
government privatizations in history, during the 1980s and
1990s.
Institutional
Development and Controls
One of the greatest challenges in privatizing Iraqi oil
and attracting foreign investment (in addition to building
political consensus and building the institutions to implement it)
will be ensuring equity, transparency, and the rule of law. To
accomplish these goals, Iraqi political and government
institutions, donor representatives, and international agencies
should coordinate their activities while each plays its distinct
role.
Courts, parliamentary committees,
commissions, government accounting offices, ombudsmen, and chief
prosecutors' offices may have competing jurisdictions on
privatization. (Regrettably, this was often not the case in the
great 1990s privatization in post-communist countries.) Legal and
administrative challenges may increase public control while
simultaneously miring the process in numerous court hearings and
investigations. While such involvement, especially of Iraqi
institutions, may increase transparency and public "buy-in," it may
also slow down the process and open it to frivolous challenges.
Indigenous NGOs and media also have a role. However, it is all too
easy for politicians and unprofessional journalists to denounce and
undermine privatization through demagoguery.
The
Eastern European experience demonstrates that a strong executive
branch with political commitment and a public mandate for
privatization, combined with meticulous insistence on open and
competitive bidding, can carry the day. In that respect, the
process could be facilitated by inviting private foreign companies
and officials with experience in the German Privatization Agency
(Treuhandanstaldt), Estonian Privatization Agency, and similar
organizations to serve as advisers to the Iraqi government.
Revenue Collection and Distribution
Mode
Best
management practices and financial controls in the taxation and
expenditure stages of oil revenue accrual and disbursement are
essential. The history of oil-rich states, from Saudi Arabia to
Nigeria, provides ample evidence of a cycle of high revenue/high
expectations/high expenditure followed by an oil market slump, a
decline in revenue, and social unrest caused by fiscal and
budgetary adjustments.
These states, however, failed to use
centrally managed oil revenues to jump-start development and
prevent precipitous declines in their GDP per capita. Saudi GDP per
capita peaked in 1981, when both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia had a
per capita GDP of about $28,600. In 2001, U.S. GDP per capita was
$36,000, while Saudi Arabia's was less than $7,500. According to
the U.S. Embassy, "Per capita income [in Saudi Arabia] will
continue to decline unless economic growth increases significantly
and/or the birth rate drops."
Political
Factors
Iraqi policymakers should be aware of a "dual hazard" in
politics of revenue taxation and expenditure. On the one hand, Iraq
has a large, growing, and impoverished population whose basic needs
are still unmet. Their representatives are likely to press for
higher tax rates and deficit budgets and to lobby for borrowing
against future oil receipts. Even with projected increases in oil
production and revenue growth, Iraq will still be in the poor
category or in the low end of the medium-income developing
countries. However, if the Iraqi poor, especially the Shi'a, are
excluded from budgetary decisions, such factions as Islamist Shi'a
radicals (often connected to Iran), Sunni Islamists connected to
al-Qaeda, and Ba'athists can be expected to use this exclusion as a
pretext for agitation against the Iraqi Government Council and its
pro-American successor.
Iraq's challenge is to educate the
political and technocrat classes, and the elites in general, on the
dangers of high taxation and unbridled expenditure. Macroeconomic
instability and a negative investment climate can be as damaging in
the long term to a national economy as corruption.
Institutional
Development and Controls
As Terry Lynn Karl wrote:
When states do not have to depend on
domestic taxation to finance development, governments are not
forced to formulate their goals and objectives and the scrutiny of
citizens who pay the bills.... Excessive centralization, remoteness
from local conditions, and lack of accountability stem from this
financial independence.
Under Saddam, Iraq was a good case in
point. The dictator and the Ba'ath elites in Baghdad made all the
economic decisions, such as nationalizing oil assets and using
revenues to pay for the military, including programs to build
weapons of mass destruction.
In
post-Saddam Iraq, institutional controls on the revenue stream are
vital. These should include creation of competent and independent
central fiscal and budgetary bodies; a strong police force,
including organized and white-collar crime divisions to prevent oil
smuggling; and a tax collection agency sophisticated enough to
prevent and investigate tax evasion. Such services need to be
strong enough to stand up to the Iraqi national oil company and the
international oil companies, which will handle an increasing number
of exploration and extraction projects.
Since the Iraqi state most likely will
remain weak and fractious after the U.S. transfers sovereignty on
July 1, 2004, it should divest itself from providing most
nonessential services, which can be delivered by the privatized
non-government sector. Market demand, not government programs, is
more likely to reflect the needs of the Iraqi people. Since
government revenues can be generated up-front from privatization,
keeping tax rates low (around the current 15 percent) is
advisable.
The
government can shift provision of services to the private sector
while building a constitutional barrier to keep budget deficit
spending below a certain level, such as 3 percent of GDP. Such a
safeguard would keep the budget within reasonable limits, make the
Iraqi dinar more stable, and instill both fiscal and budgetary
discipline among the elite. Without such discipline, the state will
attempt to use expenditures to buy its legitimacy.
Given the fragility of the Iraqi
state--the combined result of Saddam's regime, the current
conflict, and deep ethno-religious fissures--state dependence on
oil revenues should be avoided. As in many other countries that
have experienced cyclical oil wealth, windfall oil revenues can be
stored in non-dinar, off-shore accounts--an Iraqi oil fund.
What Should Be Done
The
Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council
should:
- Initiate a broad
public debate about development of the rule of law and property
rights, including mineral rights. This debate should
include Western economists, Iraqi officials, and the public and
should cover the future of oil production, taxation, and the
distribution of income. As part of the debate, the CPA and IGC
should conduct a comprehensive public campaign aimed at
privatization of oil and gas industry assets and reserves, as well
as broad institutional reform. Many Iraqi officials and other
members of police and media elites are not aware of the
macroeconomic factors that support privatization, keeping the oil
revenue out of government's hands, and instituting publicly
accountable and transparent decision-making processes on oil
production.
- Bolster property
rights and the rule of law, including enabling legislation
and regulations on oil and gas production that allow private
ownership of all productive assets and minerals. This includes
fostering an independent judiciary, training judges to handle
complicated civil litigation such as energy law, and allowing
international arbitration, including enforcement of arbitral
awards.
- Conduct a
comprehensive audit of state-of-the art techniques of oil
privatization, revenue generation, and management. This
information should then be disseminated to the Iraqi political
leadership, management of the oil and financial sectors, and
broader elites. U.S. institutions (e.g., the CPA and U.S. Agency
for International Development), major oil companies, nonprofit
organizations, the IMF, and the World Bank should all be involved
in this undertaking.
- Ensure that the
privatization process is transparent and perceived as
being conducted in the interests of the Iraqi people.
- Develop
safeguards to prevent smuggling and diversion of oil and refined
products from "well to wheel" and create a law enforcement
climate in which the diversion for private use and theft of crude
oil, refined products, or revenue is reported, prosecuted, and
punished.
- Improve revenue
collection, such as taxation of oil sales, by establishing
independent audit procedures, supporting public supervision by bona
fide NGOs, and developing an independent media.
- Assist in
creation of a national, private, professionally and independently
managed oil fund. A modified version of the Alaska
arrangement, allowing for direct deposits of revenues into the
private bank accounts of the Iraqi people, would go a long way
toward legitimizing the future Iraqi government and privatization
of oil assets.
- Develop
political legitimacy and transparency of oil revenue
expenditure through open budgetary and legislative
processes. As part of the open budgetary process, budgetary drafts
prepared by legislative and governmental budgetary offices should
be publicly available and discussed openly in the legislature
before the final vote. Budget-watching indigenous NGOs should be
allowed to participate in such discussions, thus enhancing the
development of civil society in Iraq. Once the security situation
improves, both the government and non-government sectors should be
provided international technical assistance on budgetary
issues.
Oil Revenue Management and International
Energy Security
A
private and transparently managed oil and gas sector is vital to
global energy security and thus in the national interest of the
United States. Returning Iraq to the international oil markets is
important for the Iraqi people, the United States and other Western
countries, and the global economy. This would provide locally
generated revenue to finance post-war reconstruction, provide an
additional 2 million-4 million barrels per day to the oil market,
and relieve the U.S. of the financial burden of Iraqi
reconstruction.
Iraq's output prior to the Gulf War was
3.5 million barrels per day, while the oil discovery rates (50
percent to 75 percent) on new projects in the 1990s were among the
highest in the world. Given Iraq's own output projections, it may
be capable of pumping as much as 6 million barrels (by 2010) to 7
million barrels (by 2020) per day--more than double current
production levels. In view of demand projections, especially
increased demand from the large Asian economies such as India and
China, the global market can easily absorb such an increase. The
U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts that oil
consumption in Asia will grow by 55 percent from 2003 to 2025 and
that natural gas consumption will increase by 100 percent.
Generating, accounting for, managing, and
expending this revenue for the Iraqi people is a huge
responsibility that is complicated by the state-owned and
state-managed infrastructure, poorly defined property rights,
absence of a functioning legal system, a shattered public service,
lack of consensus on how to own and exploit the oil reserves, and
the large number of Iraqi poor with pressing needs.
Privatization should be undertaken only
after a public education campaign and a good-faith effort to build
a consensus among the Iraqis that private ownership of industrial
assets, including commodities, is economically more efficient than
a government-owned system.
Oil
revenue from Iraqi oil should be transparently managed, adequately
taxed, and protected from government abuse and corruption. To
facilitate this process, creating a professionally managed oil fund
should be seriously considered. Such a fund would protect oil
revenues from the long hands of the Iraqi politicians. As in the
Alaska model, part of the revenue should be distributed directly to
the bank accounts of every Iraqi.
These are only some of the answers and
challenges facing state oil revenue management. Those tasked with
solving these problems owe the people of Iraq their best efforts
not to repeat the abuses of the past.
Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Research Fellow
in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security
in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International
Studies at The Heritage Foundation. This paper is based in part on
a paper presented by the author at the Seminar on Public Policy of
Oil Finance and Revenues Management, CSIS/Baker Institute, in
Washington, D.C., on November 20, 2003. The author would like to
thank Heritage Foundation research assistant Will Schirano for his
asssistance in preparing this paper. He is also grateful to his
colleagues Marc A. Miles and James Phillips for their helpful
comments.