The recent announcement of the new Saudi Arabia’s plan to drastically decrease the role of oil in the economy and to diversify the governmental revenues has received wide coverage in media. Two famous newspapers, New York Times and The Economist also issued the articles covering the topic. Ben Hubbard in the New York Times article “Saudi Prince Shares Plan to Cut Oil Dependency and Energize the Economy” provides a detailed information about Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s economic plan to reform Saudi economy, while The Economist’s article “Beyond Oil: Change in Saudi Arabia” is a brief account of the same event. The two articles have the same topic of coverage and share some of the views on the Prince’s economic plan, but they treat the personality of the prince, as well as the possible outcomes of the reform in a different way.
First of all, both articles emphasize the importance of the plan and explain its essence, as well as economic and social implications. Hubbard mentions that the reforms “seek to steer the Arab world’s largest economy” (Hubbard), while The Economist’s article points out that the plan has a capacity to become “the biggest shake-up since oil was discovered in the kingdom” (“Beyond Oil”). It means that both publications acknowledge the role the plan may play in the improvement of the country’s economy. The two articles explain how the plan has to work, dwelling upon the decreasing of oil dependence and investing in private sector, and provide some factual data on revenues and the plan’s presentation by Prince Mohammed.
The articles differ in the attitudes toward the personality of Prince Mohammed and his capabilities to implement the plan he has proposed. Hubbard positively evaluates the efforts of the Prince to change the economy. He mentions “the meteoric rise of the prince” and calls him “the kingdom’s most dynamic official” (Hubbard). The article in New York Times also overviews his overall activity in Saudi politics and evaluates Mohammed bin Salman’s chances to become a king. On the other hand, the article in The Economist has negative tone in evaluating the persona of the prince. The publication states that the prince is infamous for his lack of patience, but not for the capabilities to bring the plan and the reforms it requires to life.
The two articles also have different attitudes towards the outcomes of the plan. New York Times publication treats the outcomes optimistically, taking into account the positive view of the reform in media and its attention to social issues in general. The Economist concentrates on the factors that can prevent the plan from success, partially the prince’s policy and current political situation. On the other hand, Hubbard provided experts’ opinion on the topic that analyzes the implications the implementation of the plan may have and the obstacles the government will have to face to achieve its goals. The publications also treat the call to permit women to drive differently, as The Economist openly ridicules such a situation saying that allowing woman to drive “really would be radical” (“Beyond Oil”), while Hubbard simply acknowledges the fact that the plan does not consider such possibility.
All in all, both articles provide an account of the recent event, and present different visions of it. While both publications concentrate on objective coverage of the story, they differ in the amount of the details they provide, the way they treat the persona of the prince and possible outcomes of the economic plan, as well as the attitudes towards the issue in general. Both negative and positive evaluations allow seeing the problem from multiple angles.
Works Cited
“Beyond Oil: Change in Saudi Arabia” The Economist Espresso 25 Apr. 2016. Web.
Hubbard, Ben. “Saudi Prince Shares Plan to Cut Oil Dependency and Energize the Economy” New York Times 25 Apr. 2016. Web.
