Dare to Speak: Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise (I)
Section 5.
Over-all impact of Islam on a nation’s economy and development
So far, we have seen the many individual components of Shari’ah that impact a nation’s economy, but we have not looked at their aggregate affects. To appreciate Islam’s over-all impact, review Table 2, which ranks nations according to their per-capita GDPs. [1] &[2] a
Table 2: GDP per capita by country (Source: CIA: The World Factbook 2006) (Red=Free Democracy, Blue=Struggling Democracy, Black=Islamic plurality/majority) | |||||||
Rank Country | GDP – per capita | Net oil export (million bbl/day) | Net oil exp. per capita | Rank Country | GDP – per capita | Net oil export (million bbl/day) | Net oil exp. per capita |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Luxembourg | $55,600 (2005) | 72. Algeria | $7,200 (2005) | 1.1 (2005) | 11 bbl/yr | ||
2. U.A.E. | $43,400 (2005) | 2.5 (2004) | 350 bbl/yr | 72. Panama | $7,200 (2005) | ||
3. Norway | $42,300 (2005) | 3.4 (2001) | 270 bbl/yr | 72. Ukraine | $7,200 (2005) | ||
4. U.S.A. | $41,800 (2005) | 75. North Cyprus | $7,135 (2004) | ||||
5. Ireland | $41,000 (2005) | 76. Dominican Republic | $7,000 (2005) | ||||
6. Iceland | $35,600 (2005) | 76. Namibia | $7,000 (2005) | ||||
7. Denmark | $34,600 (2005) | 0.14 (2001) | 11 bbl/yr | 78. Belize | $6,800 (2005) | ||
8. Canada | $34,000 (2005) | 0.60 (2004) | 7 bbl/yr | 78. Bosnia&Herzegovina | $6,800 (2005) | ||
9. Austria | $32,700 (2005) | 78. Gabon | $6,800 (2005) | ||||
10. Switzerland | $32,300 (2005) | 81. Lebanon | $6,200 (2005) | ||||
11. Australia | $31,900 (2005) | 82. Peru | $5,900 (2005) | ||||
12. Japan | $31,500 (2005) | 83. The Philippines | $5,100 (2005) | ||||
13. Belgium | $31,400 (2005) | 84. Albania | $4,900 (2005) | ||||
14. Finland | $30,900 (2005) | 84. Paraguay | $4,900 (2005) | ||||
15. Netherlands | $30,500 (2005) | 86. Azerbaijan | $4,800 (2005) | ||||
16. United Kingdom | $30,300 (2005) | 0.40 (2003) | 4 bbl/yr | 87. El Salvador | $4,700 (2005) | ||
17. France | $29,900 (2005) | 87. Guatemala | $4,700 (2005) | ||||
18. Germany | $29,800 (2005) | 87. Jordan | $4,700 (2005) | ||||
18. Sweden | $29,800 (2005) | 90. Guyana | $4,600 (2005) | ||||
20. Italy | $29,200 (2005) | 91. Armenia | $4,500 (2005) | ||||
21. Hong Kong | $28,800 (2004) | 92. Jamaica | $4,400 (2005) | ||||
22. Singapore | $28,100 (2005) | 93. Ecuador | $4,300 (2005) | 0.39 (2004) | 11 bbl/yr | ||
23. Taiwan | $27,600 (2005) | 93. Sri Lank | $4,300 (2005) | ||||
24. Qatar | $27,400 (2005) | 0.76 (2005) | 310 bbl/yr | 95. Morocco | $4,200 (2005) | ||
25. Spain | $25,500 (2005) | 96. Suriname *** | $4,100 (2005) *** | ||||
26. New Zealand | $25,200 (2005) | 97. Egypt | $3,900 (2005) | ||||
27. Israel | $24,600(2005) | 97. Maldives | $3,900 (2005) | ||||
28. Brunei | $23,600 (2005) | 0.19 (2005) | 180 bbl/yr | 97. Syria | $3,900 (2002) | ||
29. Bahrain | $23,000 (2005) | 0.16 (2005) | 84 bbl/yr | 100. Indonesia | $3,600 (2005) | ||
30. Greece | $22,200 (2005) | 101. Iraq | $3,400 (2005) | 1.4 (2005) | 18 bbl/yr | ||
31. Rep. of Cyprus | $21,600 (2005) | 102. Georgia | $3,300 (2005) | ||||
31. Slovenia | $21,600 (2005) | 102. India | $3,300 (2005) | ||||
33. South Korea | $20,400 (2005) | 104. Honduras | $2,900 (2005) | ||||
34. Malta | $19,900 (2005) | 104. Nicaragua | $2,900 (2005) | ||||
35. Czech Republic | $19,500 (2005) | 106. Bolivia | $2,800 (2005) | ||||
36. Portugal | $19,300 (2005) | 107. Papua New Guinea | $2,600 (2005) | ||||
37. Kuwait | $19,200 (2005) | 2.1 (2005) | 320 bbl/yr | 108. Ghana *** | $2,500 (2005) *** | ||
38. The Bahamas | $18,900 (2005) | 109. Pakistan | $2,400 (2005) | ||||
39. Barbados | $17,000 (2005) | 110. Mauritania | $2,200 (2005) | ||||
40. Trinidad & Tobago | $16,700 (2005) | 0.12 (2005) | 40 bbl/yr | 111. Bangladesh | $2,100 (2005) | ||
41. Estonia | $16,400 (2005) | 111. Kyrgyzstan | $2,100 (2005) | ||||
42. Hungary | $16,100 (2005) | 111. Sudan | $2,100 (2005) | 0.28 (2004) | 4 bbl/yr | ||
42. Slovakia | $16,100 (2005) | 114. Guinea | $2,000 (2005) | ||||
44. Lithuania | $13,700 (2005) | 115. The Gambia | $1,900 (2005) | ||||
45. Poland | $13,300 (2005) | 115. Mongolia | $1,900 (2005) | ||||
46. Latvia | $13,200 (2005) | 117. Moldova | $1,800 (2005) | ||||
46. Oman | $13,200 (2005) | 0.72 (2004) | 84 bbl/yr | 117. Senegal | $1,800 (2005) | ||
48. Argentina | $13,100 (2005) | 0.29 (2005) | 4 bbl/yr | 117. Uzbekistan | $1,800 (2005) | ||
48. Mauritius | $13,100 (2005) | 120. Cote d’Ivoire | $1,600 (2005) | ||||
50. Saudi Arabia | $12,800 (2005) | 7.9 (2003) | 110 bbl/yr | 121. Chad | $1,500 (2005) | 0.22 (2005) | 7 bbl/yr |
51. Malaysia | $12,100 (2005) | 0.23 (2003) | 4 bbl/yr | 121. Rwanda | $1,500 (2005) | ||
52. South Africa | $12,000 (2005) | 123. Nigeria | $1,400 (2005) | 2.1 (2005) | 7 bbl/yr | ||
53. Croatia | $11,600 (2005) | 124. Burkina Faso | $1,300 (2005) | ||||
54. Libya | $11,400 (2005) | 1.4 (2005) | 88 bbl/yr | 124. Djibouti | $1,300 (2002) | ||
55. Chile | $11,300 (2005) | 124. Mozambique*** | $1,300 (2005) *** | ||||
56. Costa Rica | $11,100 (2005) | 127. Mali | $1,200 (2005) | ||||
56. Russia | $11,100 (2005) | 5.1 (2004) | 15 bbl/yr | 127. Tajikistan | $1,200 (2005) | ||
58. Botswana | $10,000 (2005) | 129. Benin*** | $1,100 (2005) *** | ||||
58. Mexico | $10,000 (2004) | 1.7 (2004) | 7 bbl/yr | 129. Eritrea | $1,000 (2005) | ||
60. Bulgaria | $9,600 (2005) | 131. Ethiopia | $900 (2005) | ||||
60. Uruguay | $9,600 (2005) | 131. Niger | $900 (2005) | ||||
62. Brazil | $8,400 (2005) | 131. Palest. Territories | $900 (2003) | ||||
63. Iran | $8,300 (2005) | 2.5 (2004) | 15 bbl/yr | 134. Yemen | $900 (2005) | 0.31 (2005) | 4 bbl/yr |
63. Thailand | $8,300 (2005) | 134. Zambia*** | $900 (2005) *** | ||||
63. Tunisia | $8,300 (2005) | 136. Afghanistan | $800 (2005) | ||||
66. Kazakhstan | $8,200 (2005) | 0.84 (2003) | 22 bbl/yr | 136. Guinea-Bissau | $800 (2005) | ||
66. Romania | $8,200 (2005) | 136. Sierra Leone | $800 (2004) | ||||
66. Turkey | $8,200 (2005) | 139. Tanzania | $700 (2005) | ||||
69. Turkmenistan | $8,000 (2005) | 0.12 (2003) | 7 bbl/yr | 140. Comoros | $600 (2005) | ||
70. Colombia | $7,900 (2005) | 0.24 (2005) | 4 bbl/yr | 140. Malawi*** | $600 (2005) *** | ||
71. Macedonia | $7,800 (2005) | 140. Somalia | $600 (2005) | ||||
*** Country which, while not having a Muslim majority or plurality, is at least 20% Muslim.Side-by-side comparisons: Compare the per-capita GDP of the Republic of Cyprus (#32) vs. North Cyprus (#76), and Singapore (#21) vs. Malaysia (#52), and Israel (#28) vs. the Palestinian Territories (#130), and India (#103) vs. Pakistan (#110) and Bangladesh (#112). These comparisons reveal how Islam has affected countries with otherwise similar physical environments or heritages. |
Now that there is more than one table, you may wish to compare how particular nations perform according to various rankings. To do this, refer to Table 5, which is the last table in this section. It lists countries alphabetically, and shows each country’s ranking according to each index. The messages of Table 2 are clear and dramatic:
- The nations with Islamic pluralities are generally the least productive and poorest. In fact, the least prosperous Free Democracy (Costa Rica, #56) has a higher GDP per capita than the most prosperous non-oil producing Islamic nation (Tunisia, #63).
- The only Islamic nations that perform well have vast oil resources. These nations depend on Western inventions for both the demand for oil and the means to extract it. A tell-tale sign of their technological dependence is the fact that Iran, a nation of 69 million people, and a major exporter of oil, must import its gasoline. This is because Iran has no major oil refineries. Similarly, a tell-tale sign of the prosperous Islamic nations’ dependence on the West can be seen in the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), where surging oil prices raised its GDP per capita from $25,200 in 2004[3] to $43,400 in 2005. This surge lifted their ranking from #24 to #2. The U.A.E. exports nearly 1 barrel of oil for every man, woman, and child every day. In fact, if one estimated that oil sold for an average of $60 per barrel in 2005, revenues from oil exports alone would have been $21,000 per capita. Kuwait provides an even more extreme example. If one again assumed that oil sold for an average of $60 per barrel of oil in 2005, the value of its per capita oil export would be $19,200 – exactly the same as its GDP per capita. Essentially, the citizens of Kuwait produce nothing of value except oil extracted from the ground.
- Islamic nations without oil resources are more than slightly poorer than Free Democracies. The differences are stark, often more than an order of magnitude. In fact, the average per-capita income of a non-oil exporting Islamic nation is about $2,820, while the average per-capita income of a non-oil exporting Free Democracy is about $25,200. [4]
Of particular interest are the following five sets of nations (See also Table 2):
Original political entity | Democratic Nations | Islamic Nations (see note) | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | Malaysian Federation (Break-up: 1965) | # 22: Singapore ($28,100) | #51: Malaysia ($12,100) |
2. | British Mandate of Palestine (Independence: 1948) | #27: Israel ($24,600) | #131: Palestinian Terr. ($900) |
3. | Cyprus (Division: 1974) | #31: Rep. of Cyprus ($21,600) | #75: North Cyprus ($7,135) |
4. | European Soviet Satellite Nations (Dissolution: 1989) | #31: Slovenia ($21,600) #35: Czech Republic ($19,500) #42: Hungary ($16,100) #42: Slovakia ($16,100) #45: Poland ($13,300) #53: Croatia ($11,600) #60: Bulgaria ($9,600) #66: Romania ($8,200) #71: Macedonia ($7,800) | #78: Bosnia&Herzegovina ($6,800) #84: Albania ($4,900) |
5. | British India (Independence: 1947) | #102: India ($3,300) | #109: Pakistan ($2,400) #111: Bangladesh ($2,100) |
These nations are called Islamic Nations because they have Muslim majorities; hence their Muslim citizens have the power to legislate Shari’ah through democratic or other means. |
Until recent decades, each set of nations was joined together politically. However, after just a few decades of separation, their GDPs per capita have diverged sharply. In 2006:
- Singapore’s was more than double Malaysia’s.
- Israel’s was twenty-three times that of the Palestinian Territories.
- The Republic of Cypress’s was triple North Cyprus’s.
- All of the democracies (both Free and struggling) that were once European Soviet satellites were either significantly higher than any of those with Muslim majorities. (Note: The one former European Soviet satellite not listed in either column is Serbia, which is 19% Muslim and is still reeling from the brutal war waged by defeated ruler Slobodan Milosevic against the Muslim-majority province of Kosovo.)
- India’s was nearly 40% above Pakistan’s, and nearly 60% above Bangladesh’s.
These differences recall the contrasts between West Germany and Communist East Germany, Taiwan and Maoist China, and South Korea and Communist North Korea during the contest between Free Democracy and Communism. The ranking of GDPs per capita shows another disturbing pattern, which indicates that Islam does not need a plurality to impact a nation’s productivity. In fact, a Muslim population of as little as 20% appeared capable of driving a nation’s productivity to the low end of the scale. In fact, all 20 of this list’s bottom performers had Muslim populations of 20% or more. Similarly, of the eleven nations being considered for loan forgiveness by the World Bank in 2006, [5] six of them – Comoros, Cote d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Somalia, and Sudan – have Muslim majorities. In addition, Liberia and Togo, two nations also being considered for loan forgiveness, but are too unstable or dictatorial to be included in this study’s tables, have 20% Muslim populations. And the Central African Republic, one of the three remaining countries being considered for loan forgiveness, which is also too unstable to be included in this study’s tables, has a Muslim population of 15%.[6]In other words, only two out of the eleven nations being considered for loan forgiveness do not have substantial Muslim populations. How could Islam have such an impact, even when only 20% (or less) of a nation’s population is Muslim? While each such nation listed in this study’s tables (Benin, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Suriname, and Zambia) has its own unique story, common themes are:
- High levels of corruption
- Political instability
- Financial turmoil
These themes are all characteristic of Islamic nations not blessed with vast natural resources. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the presence of a substantial Islamic minority may significantly damage the political and economic environment of a nation, even when Muslims do not have majority power. For a third perspective, consider the Human Development Index (HDI), [7] calculated by the U.N. for each of its member nations. U.N. researchers base their HDI on a combination of factors: GDP per capita, life expectancy, adult literacy rate, and school enrollment. Table 3 shows the ranks of nations according to their HDI scores, and reveals a dramatic difference between Islamic nations and Free Democracies. In fact, the results in this table are just as stark as those in Table 2: The highest-ranking Islamic nation is Brunei, at #32, and the highest-ranking Islamic nation that is not an oil-exporter is Bosnia-Herzegovina, at #60. This table also shows, once again, how non-Islamic nations with significant Muslim populations are adversely affected. Of the 25 most undeveloped nations in this study, 24 had Muslim populations of 20% or more. This group of 24 Muslim-influenced nations does not include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, which were too unstable for the UN researchers to study. There is another issue that is just as important to a nation as its prosperity, and that is its future prosperity. To help policy-makers understand the likely effects of their economic policies on future prosperity, The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal have joined together to create what they call the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF). This index ranks nations according to their business environments, based on policies regarding trade, taxes, money supply, banking regulations, business regulations, property rights, and wage and price controls. [8] These factors indicate whether nations are moving toward greater or less prosperity in the future. Table 4 ranks nations according to their IEFs. [9] While looking at these rankings, note that the study puts countries into four categories: Free, Mostly Free, Mostly Unfree, and Repressed. The table below shows that all of the Free Democracies were either Free or Mostly Free, while none of the Islamic nations were Free, and the vast majority were either Mostly Unfree, Repressed, or unstudiable:
Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) | Classification | Number of Free Democracies | Number of Islamic Nations (see note) |
---|---|---|---|
1 – 1.99 | Free | 20 | 0 |
2 – 2.99 | Mostly Free | 23 | 8 |
3 – 3.99 | Mostly Unfree | 0 | 32 |
4 – 5 | Repressed | 0 | 4 |
Researchers could not/did not study | 0 | 10 |
From these results, we can expect that the gap in GDP per capita between Free Democracies and Islamic nations will continue to widen. Note that all six of the non-Islamic nations with Muslim populations of 20% or more were in the Mostly Unfree category. If these nations had been included with the other Islamic nations in the above summary, the number of Muslim-influenced nations in the Mostly Unfree category would have been 38 instead of 32.
Table 3: UN Human Development Index 2005 (Red=Free Democracy, Blue=Struggling Democracy, Black=Islamic plurality/majority) | |||||||
Rank | Country | Human Dev. Index (HDI) | Oil | Rank | Country | Human Dev. Index (HDI) | Oil |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Norway | 0.963 | YES | 69 | Lebanon | 0.759 | |
2 | Iceland | 0.956 | 72 | The Philippines | 0.758 | ||
3 | Australia | 0.955 | 73 | Paraguay | 0.755 | ||
4 | Canada | 0.949 | YES | 73. *** | Suriname*** | 0.755*** | |
4 | Luxembourg | 0.949 | 75 | Jordan | 0.753 | ||
4 | Sweden | 0.949 | 75 | Tunisia | 0.753 | ||
7 | Switzerland | 0.947 | 77 | Belize | 0.753 | ||
8 | Ireland | 0.946 | 78 | Sri Lanka | 0.751 | ||
9 | Belgium | 0.945 | 79 | Turkey | 0.75 | ||
10 | USA | 0.944 | 80 | Dominican Republic | 0.749 | ||
11 | Japan | 0.943 | 81 | Maldives | 0.745 | ||
11 | Netherlands | 0.943 | 82 | Jamaica | 0.738 | ||
13 | Denmark | 0.941 | YES | 82 | Turkmenistan | 0.738 | YES |
13 | Finland | 0.941 | 84 | Iran | 0.736 | YES | |
15 | United Kingdom | 0.939 | YES | 85 | Georgia | 0.732 | |
16 | France | 0.938 | 86 | Azerbaijan | 0.729 | ||
17 | Austria | 0.936 | 87 | Palest. Territories | 0.729 | ||
18 | Italy | 0.934 | 88 | Algeria | 0.722 | YES | |
19 | New Zealand | 0.933 | 88 | El Salvador | 0.722 | ||
20 | Germany | 0.93 | 90 | Syria | 0.721 | ||
21 | Spain | 0.928 | 91 | Guyana | 0.72 | ||
22 | Israel | 0.915 | 92 | Kyrgyzstan | 0.702 | ||
23 | Greece | 0.912 | 93 | Indonesia | 0.697 | ||
24 | Singapore | 0.907 | 94 | Uzbekistan | 0.694 | ||
25 | Portugal | 0.904 | 95 | Nicaragua | 0.69 | ||
25 | Slovenia | 0.904 | 96 | Bolivia | 0.687 | ||
27 | South Korea | 0.901 | 97 | Mongolia | 0.679 | ||
28 | Republic of Cyprus | 0.891 | 98 | Moldova | 0.671 | ||
29 | Barbados | 0.878 | 99 | Honduras | 0.667 | ||
30 | Czech Republic | 0.874 | 100 | Guatemala | 0.663 | ||
31 | Malta | 0.867 | 101 | Egypt | 0.659 | ||
32 | Brunei | 0.866 | YES | 102 | South Africa | 0.658 | |
33 | Argentina | 0.863 | YES | 103 | Tajikistan | 0.652 | |
34 | Hungary | 0.862 | 104 | Gabon | 0.635 | ||
35 | Poland | 0.858 | 105 | Morocco | 0.631 | ||
36 | Chile | 0.854 | 106 | Namibia | 0.627 | ||
37 | Estonia | 0.853 | 107 | India | 0.602 | ||
38 | Lithuania | 0.852 | 108 | Botswana | 0.565 | ||
39 | Qatar | 0.849 | YES | 109 | Comoros | 0.547 | |
39 | Slovakia | 0.849 | 110 | Pakistan | 0.527 | ||
39 | U.A.E. | 0.849 | YES | 111 | Papua New Guinea | 0.523 | |
42 | Bahrain | 0.846 | YES | 112 | Bangladesh | 0.52 | |
43 | Kuwait | 0.844 | YES | 112. *** | Ghana*** | 0.520 *** | |
44 | Croatia | 0.841 | 114 | Sudan | 0.512 | YES | |
45 | Uruguay | 0.84 | 115 | Djibouti | 0.495 | ||
46 | Costa Rica | 0.838 | 116 | Yemen | 0.489 | YES | |
47 | Latvia | 0.836 | 117 | Mauritania | 0.477 | ||
48 | The Bahamas | 0.832 | 118 | The Gambia | 0.47 | ||
49 | Mexico | 0.814 | YES | 119 | Guinea | 0.466 | |
50 | Bulgaria | 0.808 | 120 | Senegal | 0.458 | ||
51 | Panama | 0.804 | 121 | Nigeria | 0.453 | YES | |
52 | Trinidad & Tobago | 0.801 | YES | 122 | Rwanda | 0.45 | |
53 | Libya | 0.799 | YES | 123 | Eritrea | 0.444 | |
54 | Macedonia | 0.797 | 124. *** | Benin*** | 0.431*** | ||
55 | Malaysia | 0.796 | YES | 125 | Cote d’Ivoire | 0.42 | |
56 | Russia | 0.795 | YES | 126 | Tanzania | 0.418 | |
57 | Brazil | 0.792 | 127. *** | Malawi*** | 0.404*** | ||
57 | Romania | 0.792 | 128. *** | Zambia*** | 0.394*** | ||
59 | Mauritius | 0.791 | 129. *** | Mozambique*** | 0.379*** | ||
60 | Bosnia & Herzegovina | 0.786 | 130 | Ethiopia | 0.367 | ||
61 | Colombia | 0.785 | YES | 131 | Guinea-Bissau | 0.348 | |
62 | Oman | 0.781 | YES | 132 | Chad | 0.341 | |
63 | Albania | 0.78 | 133 | Mali | 0.333 | ||
64 | Thailand | 0.778 | 134 | Burkina Faso | 0.317 | ||
65 | Saudi Arabia | 0.772 | YES | 135 | Sierra Leone | 0.298 | |
66 | Ukraine | 0.766 | 136 | Niger | 0.281 | ||
67 | Peru | 0.762 | 0 | Afghanistan | SEE NOTE | ||
68 | Kazakhstan | 0.761 | YES | 0 | Iraq | SEE NOTE | |
69 | Armenia | 0.759 | 0 | Somalia | SEE NOTE | ||
69 | Ecuador | 0.759 | YES | ||||
**** Country which, while not having a Muslim majority or plurality, is at least 20% Muslim.NOTE: The UN’s Report excluded North Cyprus, Taiwan, and Hong Kong because it does not recognize them as independent entitites. For Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, UN researchers were unable to gather the data for their studies. For this reason, these three nations are shown at the bottom of this ranking. |
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5:
[1] The per-capita GDP of a nation represents the average productivity of its citizens.
[2] Source CIA World Factbook, 2006. See https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/.
[3] Source: CIA: The World Factbook, 2005.
[4] These averages were computed by averaging the per-capita incomes of each country, to an accuracy of three significant figures.
[5] Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative – List of Ring-Fenced Countries that Meet the Income and Indebtedness Criteria at end-2004, by the Staffs of the World Bank and the IMF, approved by Danny Leipziger and Mark Allen, International Development Association and International Monetary Fund, April 11, 2006, page 6. This document can be found at http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2006/041106.pdf.
[6] The reason 20% was used, instead of 15%, as the criterion in this study is that there were not enough nations with a 15% Muslim population to say that a 15% criterion was statistically valid.
[7] United Nations Human Development Report 2005, United Nations Development Program, 2006, available at http://hdr.undp.org/reports/.
[8] To find out more about how these factors are used to develop a nation’s IEF, see http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/downloads.cfm#methodology.
[9] Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/.
Recent Comments