The shallow pro market idealism that too often colors the Economist's analysis is hard to swallow. Give me the confidence to pronounce: 'If Arab rulers want citizens to pay their way, they will need to start earning their consent' in a complex and unstable region. As thou they can see the consequences of complex change. The ghosts of the dead in Libya, Syria and Egypt (remember that brief flame of democracy) should be a constant presence in the author's mind.
Not exactly sure your critique (maybe I'm misunderstanding?). The gist I get from the article is that many Arab states have dependend on oil to stablize their economies/internal politics and fund their way of life, and that while some of these states had plans to diversify the current cheap oil makes the execution of that plan more complicated. In addition (something I learned from this article) the economies in the region are connected in ways which may make possibile instability amplified due to migrant workers/tourism.
The quote you picked out might not be a great take, but I think it's referring to the potential large (and growing) gap between the ruling class and normal citizens which could seed dissent.
The critique is that the Economist has a single solution to all complex problems and is confident to wave that wand even thou the reality - in most such transitions - is enormous, disastrous instability and war. It utterly ignores the hand of empire in the affairs of the petro states and their repeated failed interventions to prop up the leaders that fake democratic reform while chopping up journalists.
It is analysis governed by imagination and thus is hardly worth detailed consideration.
Eh, what do expect from the Economist? They write as if they just read something about the topic and now after 2 paragraphs came to the conclusion on how the world should be updated. That's their style.
