Is the incidence of Conflict and an abundance of Natural Resources in African States correlated with Economic Growth?

Table of Contents (Jump to)

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Aims and Objectives

1.2 Overview

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 The “Resource Curse” economic theory

2.1.1 The African Link

2.2 The causes of the “Resource Curse”

2.2.1. The “crowding out” cause

2.2.2. Quality of institutions

2.2.3. The “Dutch Disease” model

2.2.4 Other theoretical economic arguments

2.3 Civil war and economic growth

2.4 Natural resources role in Civil war

Chapter 3: Influence of natural resources on economic growth

3.1 The cause of “the resource curse”

3.2 Is “the recourse curse” relevant to Africa?

3.3 Other influential factors

Chapter 4: The role of conflict

Chapter 5: Empirical evidence

Chapter 6: Conclusion

References

During the course of the past two or three decades many economists and academics have been endeavouring to discover why a proliferation of natural resources, which is normally considered to be a wealth generating sources often have an adverse effect upon emerging economies, slowing rather than increasing the pace of development (Rodriguez and Sachs 1999, p.277 and Isham et al 2005, p.1). Other studies, concentrating particularly upon emerging nations is areas such as the African continent, have also claimed that there is a link between the proliferation of natural resources and political unrest and conflicts, which manifest themselves in “civil wars” (DiJohn 2002, p.1).

A number of theories have been advanced in an effort to offer an explanation for this phenomenon. These include the “resource curse” theoretic model promoted by Gelb (1988) and Sachs and Warner (1997); the “rent-seeking” and “Dutch Disease” models referred to in research carried out by Torvik (2001 and 2002) and DiJohn (2002), whilst others link the causes more directly to the institutions and political conditions pertaining to the individual nation (Mehlum et al 2005 and Isham et al 2005). However, other researches have suggested that such models should be treated with caution. For example, Stijins (2005, p.3), suggest that earlier “resource curse” models have limitations, and this view is echoed in the works of Rosser (2007, p.39) and others.

Home

There have been similar divisions across the academic divide regarding the link between the level and treatment of natural resources and the propensity for civil unrest and violence, which culminates in most cases in civil wars. Whilst many observers view the cause of this unrest as being linked to natural resources and the political environment (Keen 2005, p.12) and the “difference in quality of institutions” (Mehlum et al 2005, p.3), others, including Rosser (2007, p.40), suggest that the level of strategic importance of the location of the individual nation may also be a determining factor, if not in the causality of civil war then in its potential longevity and likelihood of its reoccurrence. In addition, as Collier (2003, p.6), the globally perception held in many areas, that “nothing can be done” to end such disputes, add to the problem.