Development outcomes, resource abundance, and the transmission through inequality
Introduction
The natural resource curse hypothesis originally formulated by Gelb (1988) and Auty (1993) has spurred a voluminous literature on the development effects of resource abundance. Consistently with the traditional view in policy circles, this literature has mainly focused on monetary aspects of development, such as the level and growth rate of per-capita income. In recent times, however, the interest of policymakers in non-monetary outcomes has increased, thus strengthening the need for a better understanding of how resource abundance affects “human” development. Against this background, the purpose of the paper is to investigate the following hypotheses: (i) the abundance of natural resources makes income distribution within a country more unequal and (ii) higher income inequality worsens human development outcomes for the average individual in a country. The estimation of a system of equations using cross-sectional data for the period 1970–2010 confirms that resource abundance negatively affects human development via its effect on income inequality.
Pioneering studies by Sachs and Warner, 1997, Sachs and Warner, 1999, Gylfason et al. (1999), and Gylfason (2001) document a statistically significant inverse relationship between the size of the resource sector and economic growth. Since then, the conventional wisdom is that natural resources are a curse. Several subsequent papers have tried to uncover the mechanism underlying this curse. Leite and Weidmann (1999), Ross (2001), Sala-i-Martin and Subramanian (2003), Isham et al. (2005), Mavrotas et al. (2006), Boschini et al. (2007), and Vicente (2010) show that the adverse effect of abundant resources on the quality of governance and policymaking is what causes slower growth. Sachs and Warner (2001), Papyrakis and Gerlagh (2004), and Gylfason (2008) provide evidence that the resource sector crowds-out other engines of economic growth. Harvey et al. (2010) suggest that the negative effect of natural resources on growth arises from the secular decline in the terms of trade suffered by resource dependent economies. Van der Ploeg and Poelhekke (2011) provide evidence that the main effect of resource abundance is to increase growth volatility, which in turn reduces the long-term average rate of growth. Finally, a number of papers (Collier and Hoeffler, 2005, Olsson, 2007, Blattman and Miguel, 2010, Janus, 2012) link resource abundance to increased likelihood of civil war and social unrest, which in turn hinder long term growth prospects.
The conventional wisdom however does not go unchallenged. Stijns (2005), Gylfason and Zoega (2006), Brunnschweiler (2008), Brunnschweiler and Bulte (2008), Alexeev and Conrad (2009) show that the evidence of a “resource curse” is not robust to changes in the specification of the econometric model and/or the empirical definition of resource abundance. A growing body of evidence also suggests that resources are not necessarily good or bad per se, but that their effect depends on factors like the strength of domestic institutions and quality of economic policy management (e.g. Mehlum et al., 2006, Snyder, 2006, Arezki and van der Ploeg, 2011), the degree of ethnic fragmentation in a country (Hodler, 2006), the effectiveness of checks and balances or the type of institutional arrangements (Andersen and Aslaksen, 2008, Collier and Hoeffler, 2009), and the quality of the disease environment (Carmignani and Chowdhury, 2012).
Within this broad research programme, there are only a handful of papers that specifically look at the impact of resource abundance on human development. Bulte et al. (2005) find that resource abundance indirectly affects measures of human welfare via its effect on the quality of institutions. After controlling for this indirect effect, they find no evidence of any direct effect. Costantini and Monni (2008) show that the adverse effect of resource abundance on human development is transmitted through both weaker institutions and reduced economic growth. In his discussion of crowding-out effects, Gylfason (2008) emphasizes the negative relationship between natural capital and social capital, thus implying that natural resources hinder social development. Finally, Carmignani and Avom (2010) provide evidence of a negative effect of primary commodity export dependence on social outcomes.
In line with previous contributions, this paper studies the human development impact of resource abundance while controlling for the effect of per-capita income on human development. This means that the analysis focuses on the direct effect of resource abundance on human development and the indirect effects transmitted through channels other than per-capita income. In particular, the paper considers a transmission channel that the literature has so far neglected: income inequality. In fact, the idea that resource abundance causes inequality is not new (see Leamer et al., 1999, Gylfason and Zoega, 2003). What is new is the investigation of how the inequality effect of resource abundance influences human development. In this regard, the paper argues and empirically demonstrates that even if natural resources had no effect on per-capita income (or growth), their adverse effect on income distribution would still result in a human development curse.1
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the hypotheses on the role of resource abundance in the human development process. Section 3 presents the empirical approach, with specific attention to the measurement of resource abundance. Estimation results are discussed in Section 4 and Section 5 concludes. Appendix A contains a detailed description of variables and data sources.
Section snippets
Resource abundance, income distribution, and human development
The association between average per-capita income and indicators of human development is not perfect, but generally very strong. This suggests that one obvious way in which resource abundance can affect human development is through its effect on per-capita income. However, as discussed in the introduction, the relationship between resource abundance and per-capita income is rather controversial. At the same time, there is a considerable amount of literature, especially in the field of health
Empirical model and data
The empirical test of the two hypotheses put forward in the previous section involves the estimation of a system of equations. This in turn requires a number of methodological choices that are discussed in this section.
Baseline and extended system
Table 1 reports estimates of the baseline system of Eqs. (1), (2). In columns I and II the system is estimated by OLS applied equation-by-equation. All the coefficients have the expected sign and many pass the zero restriction test at the 5% or 1% confidence level. The two hypotheses formulated in Section 2 receive some significant support. In Eq. (1), resource abundance increases inequality. In Eq. (2), higher inequality reduces human development. Taken together, these two results indicate
Conclusion
This paper studies the effect of resource abundance on human development in light of two complementary hypotheses: (i) resource abundance increases the inequality of income distribution within a country and (ii) higher income inequality reduces human development. The estimation of a system of equations yields some significant support to these two hypotheses, thus confirming the existence of an “inequality channel” in the transmission of the effect of resource abundance on human development. In
Acknowledgements
Helpful comments from Chris Fleming, John Forster, the editor Daan van Soest, three anonymous referees, and participants in seminars at Griffith University and the University of Queensland are gratefully acknowledged. Hamish Clift provided excellent research assistance.
References (84)
- et al.
Constitutions and the resource curse
Journal of Development Economics
(2008) - et al.
Natural resource, democracy, and corruption
European Economic Review
(2010) Cursing the blessings? Natural resource abundance, institutions, and economic growth
World Development
(2008)- et al.
The resource curse revisited and revised: a tale of paradoxes and red herrings
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
(2008) - et al.
Resource intensity, institutions, and development
World Development
(2005) The distributive effects of institutional quality when governments stability is endogenous
European Journal of Political Economy
(2009)- et al.
The social development effects of primary commodity export dependence
Ecological Economics
(2010) - et al.
Testing the neocon agenda: democracy in resource-rich societies
European Economic Review
(2009) - et al.
Environment, human development, and economic growth
Ecological Economics
(2008) Inequality does cause underdevelopment: insights from a new instrument
Journal of Development Economics
(2007)
The impact of public spending on health: does money matter?
Social Science and Medicine
Natural resources, education and economic development
European Economic Review
National infant mortality rates in relation to gross national product and distribution of income
The Lancet
The curse of natural resources in fractionalized countries
European Economic Review
Natural resource extraction and civil conflict
Journal of Development Economics
Does natural resource abundance increase Latin American income inequality?
Journal of Development Economics
Conflict diamonds
Journal of Development Economics
The resource curse hypothesis and its transmission channels
Journal of Comparative Economics
The big push, natural resources booms and growth
Journal of Development Economics
The curse of natural resources
European Economic Review
Natural resource abundance and economic growth revisited
Resource Policy
The punget smell of “red herrings”: subsoil assets, rents, volatility and the resource curse
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
Does oil corrupt? Evidence from a natural resource experiment in West Africa
Journal of Development Economics
Income inequality and population health: a review and explanation of the evidence
Social Science and Medicine
The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation
American Economic Review
Introduction to Modern Economic Growth
The elusive course of oil
The Review of Economics and Statistics
Do natural resources depress income per-capita
Review of Development Economics
Sustaining Development in Mineral Economies: The Resource Curse Thesis
New tools and new tests in comparative political economy: the Database of Political Institutions
World Bank Economic Review
Metals or management? Explaining Africa's recent economic growth performance
American Economic Review
Civil war
Journal of Economic Literature
Commentary: The Preston Curve 30 years on: still sparking fires
International Journal of Epidemiology
Resource curse or not: a question of appropriability
Scandinavian Journal Economics
Oil and gas: a blessing for the few. Hydrocarbons and inequality within regions in Russia
Europe-Asia Studies
The geographical dimension of the development effects of natural resources
Environmental and Resource Economics
Contract intensive money: contract enforcement, property rights, and economic performance
Journal of Economic Growth
Resource rents, governance and conflict
Journal of Conflict Resolution
Natural resource abundance and economic growth
Land Economics
Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war
American Political Science Review
Oil Windfalls: Blessing or Curse?
Do institutions cause growth?
Journal of Economic Growth
Cited by (76)
Has Kyrgyzstan suffered from a resource curse?
2024, Extractive Industries and SocietyDoes corruption starve Africa? The mitigating effect of political distribution of power
2024, Journal of Policy ModelingDo natural resources lead to a curse or blessing in terms of income inequality?
2024, Resources PolicyIs the discovery of oil a blessing or curse in the era of climate change?
2023, Resources Policy