Given the recent attention paid to the concept, a number of studies have investigated the intricacies of the resource curse. This essay will therefore examine whether the resource curse theory is convincing. To what extent can it explain phenomena relating to lack of development and economic growth? Given the vastness of the literature covering the resource curse, the essay will attempt to establish some order by presenting the most significant empirical findings, followed by an account of economics-based, institutional and anthropological understandings of the phenomenon. It will be argued that the resource curse concept is perhaps a misguided attempt to provide a heuristic device in order to understand broader development challenges. While institutions are indeed a crucial component determining the effects resource dependence can have on societal welfare, a deeper anthropological account highlights some of the gaps inherent in subscribing to the idea of a curse.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. What do we mean when we say resource curse?
3. It’s the economy, stupid!
4. Institutions, Institutions, Institutions
5. Anthropologists to Save the Day
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay examines the validity of the resource curse theory by analyzing its historical development and the transition from purely economic perspectives to institutional and anthropological frameworks. It aims to determine whether the negative impact of natural resource abundance on development is a causal phenomenon or a consequence of broader socio-political and historical factors.
- The evolution of the resource curse concept in economic literature.
- Economic explanations including Dutch Disease and price volatility.
- The central role of institutions in mediating resource-led development.
- The critique of quantitative macro-level analysis.
- Anthropological perspectives on local social and economic organization.
Excerpt from the Book
It’s the economy, stupid!
Early iterations of the resource curse focused very much on economics. Prebisch (1950) and Singer (1950) had both made attempts to explain the structural impediments to resource-led growth due to declining terms of trade. However, the most fashionable explanation for the resource curse was the Dutch Disease. Through the combined ramifications of two phenomena, the resource movement effect (Davis and Tilton, 2005) and the spending effect (Corden and Neary, 1982), economic growth is retarded. Other industries are displaced and inflation is rampant. The lack of economic diversification can lead to significant problems (Murshed and Serino, 2011). However, the validity of the Dutch Disease explanation has been challenged. Van der Ploeg (2011) points out that the most significant implication of abundance is to increase price volatility, reducing long-term growth. Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that resource dependence erodes human capital (Gylfason, 2001). There are further problems associated with excessive growth of debt (Sarr et al., 2011) and reduced investment and savings rates (Atkinson and Hamilton, 2003). In summary, Papyrakis and Gerlagh (2004) find that the indirect detrimental effects of natural resources on growth outweigh the direct beneficial effects (see also e.g. Collier and Goderis, 2007, for a discussion on short-term versus long-term gains).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the growing academic interest in the resource curse and sets the scope for examining whether the theory is a convincing explanation for development challenges.
2. What do we mean when we say resource curse?: Discusses the linguistic paradox and the historical transition in the economic view of natural resources from a potential "blessing" to a "curse".
3. It’s the economy, stupid!: Explores early economic explanations for the curse, such as the Dutch Disease, and summarizes findings on price volatility and the erosion of human capital.
4. Institutions, Institutions, Institutions: Analyzes how institutional frameworks act as mediating factors, highlighting the role of rent-seeking and "grabber-friendly" versus "producer-friendly" institutions.
5. Anthropologists to Save the Day: Argues that macro-level economic and institutional studies often miss local complexities and suggests an anthropological approach to understand socio-cultural impacts.
6. Conclusion: Summarizes the three perspectives and concludes that a more balanced, qualitative methodology is needed to better understand the intricacies of development.
Keywords
Resource curse, development economics, Dutch Disease, institutions, rent-seeking, natural resources, economic growth, anthropology, extraction, governance, human capital, price volatility, socio-economic disadvantage, colonial history, qualitative analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this work?
The work provides a critical examination of the "resource curse" theory, questioning its validity and exploring how different academic perspectives (economic, institutional, and anthropological) explain the challenges faced by resource-rich countries.
What are the central themes discussed in the paper?
Key themes include the evolution of economic theory regarding natural resources, the impact of the Dutch Disease, the crucial role of institutional quality in economic performance, and the limitations of quantitative macro-level analysis.
What is the primary objective of the research?
The primary goal is to evaluate whether the resource curse is a robust causal theory or a flawed heuristic, ultimately arguing for a more nuanced and balanced methodological approach to development studies.
Which scientific methods are primarily utilized?
The essay utilizes a literature-based review and critical analysis, synthesizing empirical findings from economics, institutional theory, and anthropology to compare different approaches to the subject.
What is covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body systematically progresses from early economic models like the Dutch Disease to institutional explanations of rent-seeking and governance, and finally to a critique of macro-level analysis through an anthropological lens.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Core keywords include resource curse, institutions, rent-seeking, Dutch Disease, economic development, and anthropological perspectives.
How does the author define the "resource curse"?
The author references definitions describing it as the socio-economic disadvantage, political disruption, and ecological damage resulting from extractive industries, while highlighting the paradox that resource abundance should theoretically lead to growth.
Why does the author advocate for an anthropological perspective?
The author argues that economics and institutional analysis often overlook local social realities, suggesting that anthropology can help understand how resource extraction disrupts local practices, kinship, and traditional societal structures.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Tim Pfefferle (Autor:in), 2016, Resource Endowments and Underdevelopment. Is the Resource Curse Theory Convincing?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/335978
