Document Library

Mineral-Resource Abundance and Violent Political Conflict: A Critical Assessment of the Rentier State Model

Author: J DiJohn
Date: 2003
Size: 20 pages (114 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

How useful is the idea of a 'resource curse' in understanding the causes of conflict in low and middle-income countries? This paper from the Crisis States Programme at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) critically examines this argument on both methodological and empirical grounds. It finds little convincing evidence that mineral abundance in itself causes conflict, and argues that the most influential models of conflict offer only a superficial understanding of the causes of conflict in poor economies.

Since the end of the Cold War, interest in analysing conflict in low and middle-income countries has expanded exponentially. One of the most influential propositions is the resource curse argument - the idea that abundance of natural resources causes poor growth, and raises the incidence, intensity and duration of conflict. The main argument used to explain the mechanisms through which resource abundance generates negative outcomes is the rentier state model, based on the theory that large levels of natural resource rents relative to income generate disproportionate levels of rent-seeking. These supposedly increase the level of distributive conflicts, which increases both the incidence of civil war and levels of corruption.

There is little convincing evidence that mineral abundance in itself causes conflict, though there is some evidence that once a conflict is underway, some types of natural resources may facilitate the prolongation of war.

• Simplistic and deterministic theories of resource abundance, as proposed by the rentier state model, do not adequately capture the range and interaction of factors involved in conflict.
• However, the rentier state model is useful in bringing issues of the source of taxation and resource mobilisation back into a discussion of state capacity and accountability.
• Politics and policy have been a decisive factor to the trajectory of mineral-dominant economies. The significance and intensity of ethnic, regional and/or religious cleavages is contingent on political party organisation, co-optation and other strategies.
• Correlation does not demonstrate causality. Both civil war and mineral resource dependence might be independently caused by some missing variable, such as weak rule of law, poor macroeconomic management, or corruption.
• It is possible that war may prevent an economy from becoming more resource abundant in the first place.
• There is a neglect of the effect of prior wars as a cause of conflict.

The most influential models of conflict provide only a superficial understanding of conflict in poor economies. More effective intervention in humanitarian emergencies will require an account of the causes of conflict that moves beyond determinism, based on:

• Caution when using econometric studies as the focal point of policy-making concerning political violence.
• A case study and comparative approach, to shed light on historically specific processes of conflict in a given society.
• Asking the question why natural resources are used in ways that sustain economic growth in some countries and not in others.
• An understanding of how past government policies affect the processes of growth and diversification of mineral-dominant economies.
• An understanding of the political economy dynamics of regional war zones that transcend the nation-state.
• Attention to the patterns of the arms trade and the extent to which changing patterns of production and distribution of arms in the post-Cold War period exacerbate ongoing conflicts in mineral dependent and more diversified economies.

Access full text: available online

Source: DiJohn, J., 2003, 'Mineral-Resource Abundance and Violent Political Conflict: A Critical Assessment of the Rentier State Model' Crisis States Working Paper No. 20, Development Studies Institute, London School of Economics, London
Author: London School of Economics (LSE), http://www.lse.ac.uk/