| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
128869
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article reviews the existing theoretical arguments and empirical findings linking renewable and non-renewable natural resources to the onset, intensity, and duration of intrastate as well as interstate armed conflict. Renewable resources are supposedly connected to conflict via scarcity, while non-renewable resources are hypothesized to lead to conflict via resource abundance. Based upon our analysis of these two streams in the literature, it turns out that the empirical support for the resource scarcity argument is rather weak. However, the authors obtain some evidence that resource abundance is likely to be associated with conflict. The article concludes that further research should generate improved data on low-intensity forms of conflict as well as resource scarcity and abundance at subnational and international levels, and use more homogenous empirical designs to analyze these data. Such analyses should pay particular attention to interactive effects and endogeneity issues in the resource-conflict relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
104439
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article provides a critical survey of the resource curse-the idea that mineral and fuel abundance generates negative developmental outcomes in less developed countries. In particular, it examines the idea that mineral and fuel abundance generates growth-restricting forms of state intervention, extraordinarily large degrees of rent seeking, and corruption, which are generally argued to be negative in terms of the developmental outcomes they generate. The analysis surveys the Dutch disease, rentier state, and rent-seeking versions of the resource curse and finds they have significant shortcomings in terms of theory and evidence. It also identifies some decisive factors that help determine the blessing threshold-below which the risk of a resource curse may be very high-in mineral and fuel abundant developing countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|