Document Library

Key Text What Do We Know About Natural Resources and Civil War?

Author: M Ross
Date: 2003
Size: 50 pages (174 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

What is the relationship between natural resources and violent conflict? What causal mechanisms produce these outcomes? This study by the University of California reviews recent cross-national econometric and qualitative studies. It suggests that collectively they imply four underlying regularities in the relationship between natural resources and civil war. There is a wealth of data on causal links in specific conflicts but it is difficult to generalise. There are plausible theories behind each of the patterns, though efforts to test them are still in their infancy.

Since the late 1990s, there has been a flood of research on natural resources and civil war. There is little agreement on the validity of the resource-civil war correlation. Quantitative studies of natural resources and civil war have been shadowed by concerns about misspecification. The natural resource-civil war correlation could be spurious: both civil war and resource dependence might be independently caused by some unmeasured third variable, such as the weak rule of law. Several studies have emphasised that we still know little about the processes that tie natural resources to conflict. Observers often claim that resources have "fuelled" a given conflict but are vague about how this occurred. General, cross-national studies often suggest causal mechanisms but provide little evidence to back them up.

The process of resource extraction sometimes leads to low-level violence but these low-level conflicts rarely lead to larger civil wars. Resource rents may increase the desire of nascent rebels to capture the state, but not their ability to do so or even to initiate a civil war. Rebel groups often face credit constraints: just because the value of victory is high does not mean rebels can raise more money for arms and men. A resource-rich government may also be better able to suppress rebellions. Oil dependence and non-fuel mineral dependence tend to increase government spending on the military.

The weight of the evidence available so far suggests several regularities. Not every cross-national study fits these regularities. Nevertheless, they are the strongest findings to emerge so far from this rapidly growing field:

Oil dependence appears linked to the initiation of conflict, but not conflict duration.
There is some evidence that oil dependence (and possibly mineral dependence) is more strongly associated with separatist conflicts than other types of conflicts.
Gemstones, opium, coca, cannabis, and other lootable goods are not linked to the initiation of conflict, but they do seem to lengthen pre-existing wars.
Timber's role remains untested.
There is no statistical evidence and very little case study evidence linking agricultural commodities to either the initiation or the duration of civil war.
The claim that primary commodities are associated with the onset of civil war is not robust.

Some of the differences in quantitative studies are due to variations in the ways databases code civil wars. Reconciling these findings would help identify which of the resource-conflict relationships are truly robust. Research that contributes to better policies is needed. This includes:

Well reasoned arguments about what can and should be done to sever the link between commodities and conflict must be systematically tested.
A comprehensive study of how civil wars in resource-exporting states may be linked to other elements in the resource curse.
Testing how the physical qualities of a resource, and its geographic location, influence the likelihood it will produce conflict.

Access full text: available online

Source: Ross, M., 2003, 'What Do We Know About Natural Resources and Civil War?', University of California, Los Angeles