The uneven distribution of oil caused significant strengths and weakness for both

importing and exporting countries. Oil created a major shift in economic practices
for the Middle East nations that could export it, but it also fueled a need for cheap
labor that would work the dangerous jobs in the oil fields. These nations supported
their social and economic development off the revenue that oil exportation produced.
It also set in motion other economic shifts in power. Once considered backwater,
Gulf nations that had access to water routes opened ports that exported land locked oil
reserves. Countries that did not export oil exported the labor to work the oil fields;
Egypt, Jordan, and Yemen provided for the bulk of these migrant workers (James
Gelvin, 2011, p. 263). These migrant workers would have a lasting effect on both
nations, not just on the economies and politics, but on the domestic make-up of the
family structure.

With money comes modernization; as we have seen before with social policies
as citizens become more modern they become more aware and demanded more from
their governments. One such problem was the balance between Westernization and
Traditionalism (Gelvin, 2011, p. 264). Each region balanced these aspects different as
their domestic policies either depended on the ruling party currently in power. This
would also have profound effect on civil rights.

Just as American women filled the labor vacuumed left by men during the
World Wars, women in those Middle Eastern countries exporting labor fulfilled the
traditional roles men would have. Women in Egypt especially benefitted from labor
exportation as they found more liberal, even feminist, roles in their communities and
nation (Gelvin, 2011, p. 264). Men would send home remittances that fueled their
home economies, but it came at a price. These practices of migrant labor created a
lower class of citizens, especially in the Kuwaiti towns of Fuhayhil, Jahrah, Hawalli
and Kaifan (Gelvin, 2011, p. 264), in-which the labor force would often become
targets of discrimination. This of course is not unlike what many may feel about
migrant workers here in the United States today. Despite only seeking a chance to
improve or provide for their families they would also become a political chess piece
for those countries that imported labor.

After the 1991 invasion of Iraq many Kuwait and Saudi Arabia kicked out their
migrant workers in response to Egypt, Yemen and Palestinian support for Iraq
(Gelvin, 2011, p. 263). As these workers left the revenues they would send home
stopped which resulted in domestic economic difficulties at home.

If there are any true winners they would be the few OPEC controlling nations
during the 1960s and 70s. Still they only had a short run before their cartel practices
backfired as oil production in Alaska and North Atlantic become more feasible. James
Gelvin (2011) provides the statistic in that, Whereas OPEC nations once accounted
for about three-quarters of the worlds supply of oil, they currently produce only about
40 percent (p. 260).

Reference

Gelvin, J. L. (2011). The Modern Middle East: A History. (3 rd ed.). Oxford, New
York: Oxford University Press, Inc

The wealth generated by exportation of money by migrant

workers brought about significant changes in the life style of the
people. However, politics played a big role in the oil producing
countries. Western nations were keen to have a hold on them and
this gave rise to tussle and competition. The situation changes
once oil deposits were discovered in Alaska and North America.
The few OPEC countries lost their clout and power to
manipulate oil prices. Even the invasion of Iraq made migrant
workers leave the countries and cause economic hardship for
themselves and their families.