Dubai is fueled by oil money, something that China doesn't have a lot of (relative to their population size). You can explain a lot by looking at the oil money to population ratio of various polities. The ebb and flow of the balance sheets of Texas, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Venezuela and Norway all have a lot to do with the price of oil and their local production. In many places around the world, successful socialism means oil production, and failed socialism means failures in oil production. Government-owned oil reserves allow countries to "cheat" the taxes-versus-services dilemma, but that never lasts for long. Presently Saudi Arabia is feeling the pressure of decline and may not be able to pay their people to be happy for much longer. Venezuela is practically collapsing right now, and it all started when they had a series of oil production disasters that crippled their national reserves. Texas and Norway might be better prepared, because they have been investing the money, Texas in roads and education and Norway in their country in general.
The "middle of nowhere" location isn't just one city, but also a hub near the border of Kazakhstan which has been booming from abundant natural gas resources backed by a low population to land area density, and other useful exports such as a third of the world's uranium extraction.
But gas isn't as ubiquitous as oil and it's probably never going to be. Oil consumed everything in the last century and now even if it declines significantly chances are it will be replaced in certain markets by other energy sources. Gas doesn't have much opportunities for growth. And the same can be said about uranium and it's future. Sure it's not going to be completely phased away in the near future but even if the world is suddenly going to make a turn to nuclear it only makes sense that newer technologies will be used.
The Texas government uses their mineral rights to fund roads and schools that they otherwise wouldn't be able to pay for with their 0% state income tax. Although Texas is not very socialist, maybe 0.1%, it would have to be even less socialist if you took away the minerals without allowing the tax rate to go up.
