Am sensing RESOURCE CURSE THESIS is @ work in mother Ghana, therefore we need to take a clue frm this and reverse it for de betterment of our dear country!!!!!!!: The resource curse (also known as the paradox of plenty) refers to the paradox that countries and regions with an abundance of natural resources, specifically point-source non-renewable resources like minerals and fuels, tend to have less economic growth and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. This is hypothesized to happen for many different reasons, including a decline in the competitiveness of other economic sectors (caused by appreciation of the real exchange rate as resource revenues enter an economy), volatility of revenues from the natural resource sector due to exposure to global commodity market swings, government mismanagement of resources, or weak, ineffectual, unstable or corrupt institutions (possibly due to the easily diverted actual or anticipated revenue stream from extractive activities). Resource curse thesis The idea that natural resources might be more an economic curse than a blessing began to emerge in the 1980s. In this light, the term resource curse thesis was first used by Richard Auty in 1993 to describe how countries rich in natural resources were unable to use that wealth to boost their economies and how, counter-intuitively, these countries had lower economic growth than countries without an abundance of natural resources.[1] Numerous studies, including one by Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner, have shown a link between natural resource abundance and poor economic growth.[2] This disconnect between natural resource wealth and economic growth can be seen by looking at an example from the oil-producing countries. From 1965-1998, in the OPEC countries, gross national product per capita growth decreased on average by 1.3%, while in the rest of the developing world, per capita growth was on average 2.2%.[3] Some argue that financial flows from foreign aid can provoke effects that are similar to the resource curse.[4] Negative effects and causes Conflict Natural resources can, and often do, provoke conflicts within societies (Collier 2007), as different groups and factions fight for their share. Sometimes these emerge openly as separatist conflicts in regions where the resources are produced (such as in Angolas oil-rich Cabinda province) but often the conflicts occur in more hidden forms, such as fights between different government ministries or departments for access to budgetary allocations. This tends to erode governments abilities to function effectively[ ]. There are several main types of relationships between natural resources and armed conflicts. First, resource curse effects can undermine the quality of governance and economic performances, thereby increasing the vulnerability of countries to conflicts (the resource curse argument). Second, conflicts can occur over the control and exploitation of resources and the allocation of their revenues (the resource war argument). Third, access to resource revenues by belligerents can prolong conflicts (the conflict resource argument).[5] According to one academic study, a country that is otherwise typical but has primary commodity exports around 25% of GDP has a 33% risk of conflict, but when exports are 5% of GDP the chance of conflict drops to 6%.[6][7] Taxation See also: Rentier state In many economies that are not resource-dependent, governments tax citizens, who demand efficient and responsive government in return[ ]. This bargain establishes a political relationship between rulers and subjects. In countries whose economies are dominated by natural resources, however, rulers dont need to tax their citizens because they have a guaranteed source of income from natural resources [8] So this relationship between rulers and subjects breaks down. In addition, those benefiting from mineral resource wealth may perceive an effective and watchful civil service and civil society as a threat to the benefits that they enjoy, and they may take steps to thwart them. As a result, citizens are often poorly served by their rulers,[9] and if the citizens complain, money from the natural resources enables governments to pay for armed forces to keep the citizens in check. Countries whose economies are dominated by resource extraction industries tend to be more repressive, corrupt and badly-managed. Dutch disease: Is an economic phenomenon in which the revenues from natural resource exports damage a nations productive economic sectors by causing an increase of the real exchange rate and wage increase. This makes tradable sectors, notably agriculture and manufacturing, less competitive in world markets. The increasing national revenue will often result in higher government spending (health, welfare, military) that increases the real exchange rate and raises wages. The decrease in the sectors exposed to international competition and consequently even greater dependence on natural resource revenue leaves the economy extremely vulnerable to price changes in the natural resource[ ]. Also, since productivity generally increases faster in the manufacturing sector, the economy will lose out on some of those productivity gains. Revenue volatility Prices for some natural resources are subject to wide fluctuation; for example crude oil prices rose from around $10/barrel in 1998/1999 to over $140/barrel in 2008. When government revenues are dominated by inflows from natural resources (for example, oil and diamonds accounted for 99.3%[11] of Angolas exports in 2005), this volatility can play havoc with government planning. Abrupt changes in economic realities that result from this often provoke widespread breaking of contracts, and this erodes the rule of law. Excessive borrowing Since governments expect more income in the future, they start accumulating debt[ ], even though they are receiving natural resource revenues as well. This is encouraged, since, if the real exchange rate increases, through capital inflows or the Dutch disease, this makes the interest payments on the debt cheaper. In addition, the countrys natural resources act as collateral leading to more credit. However, if the natural resources prices begin to fall, and if the real exchange rate falls, a government would have less money with which to pay a relatively more expensive debt. For example, many oil-rich countries like Nigeria and Venezuela saw rapid expansions of their debt burdens during the 1970s oil boom; however, when oil prices fell in the 1980s, bankers stopped lending to them and many of them fell into arrears, triggering penalty interest charges that made their debts grow even more. Corruption In resource-rich countries, it is often easier to maintain authority through allocating resources to favoured constituents than through growth-oriented economic policies and a level, well-regulated playing field. Huge flows of money from natural resources fuel this political corruption. The government has less need to build up the institutional infrastructure to regulate and tax a productive economy outside the resource sector, so the economy may remain undeveloped.[12] The presence of offshore tax havens provide widespread opportunities for corrupt politicians to hide their wealth. Lack of diversification and enclave effects Economic diversification may be neglected by authorities or delayed in the light of the temporary high profitability of the limited natural resources. The attempts at diversification that do occur are often grand public works projects which may be misguided or mismanaged. However, even if the authorities try to diversify the economy, this is made difficult because the resource extraction is vastly more lucrative and out-competes other industry. Successful natural resource exporting countries often become more dependent on extractive industries over time. While the resource sectors tend to provide large financial revenues, they often provide relatively few jobs, and tend to operate as enclaves with few forward and backward connections to the rest of the economy. Human resources In many poor countries, natural resource industries tend to pay far higher salaries than what would be available elsewhere in the economy[ ]. This tends to attract the best talent from both private and government sectors, so damaging these sectors by depriving them of their best skilled personnel. Another possible effect of the resource curse is the crowding out of human capital; countries that rely on natural resource exports may tend to neglect education because they see no immediate need for it. Resource-poor economies like Taiwan or South Korea, by contrast, spent enormous efforts on education, and this contributed in part to their economic success (see East Asian Tigers). Other researchers, however, dispute this conclusion; they argue that natural resources generate easily taxable rents that more often than not result in increased spending on education.[13] Liberty and democracy It has also been argued that one can correlate rises and falls in the price of petroleum with rises and falls in the implementation of human rights in major oil-producing countries.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 16:20:43 +0000