tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4867230308159901547.post5345671737430701041..comments2012-01-31T18:04:00.128ZLee Crawfurdhttps://profiles.google.com/109979018066013885027noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4867230308159901547.post-43387433609509213522012-01-31T18:04:00.129Z2012-01-31T18:04:00.129ZThat is all true. I think I just struggle with the phrase "can South Sudan survive as a viable state," particularly the word viable. What exactly does that mean? Yes there is weak governance in South Sudan, yes that will continue for the foreseeable future, and yes there has basically always been weak governance in South Sudan. "Survive as a viable state" is just too vague - what precisely is it trying to say?rovingbanditnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4867230308159901547.post-19231542401351313702012-01-31T11:19:26.648Z2012-01-31T11:19:26.648ZFair question but here's another. How will the state survive and finance its own government if the oil pipeline is allowed to flow empty? In penury unless it gets enormous amounts of help (breeding dependence) from outside. Apart from supply and demand, and opportunity cost, you need also to consider basic budget management (not Merkozy's; Mancur Olson's will do). The South Sudan state needs to get far further down the path of revenue diversification (like having customs posts on its northern borders which collect regular tariff revenues and return them to a central treasury) before it can forgo the luxury of crude oil exports. Even surviving as what you call a weak state requires some revenues for defence and to run the rudiments of government.Adrainnoreply@blogger.com