The Impact of Natural Resources on the Development of Countries

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Tehran University

2 Alzahra University

Abstract

Natural resources are expected to be the basis for development due to the economic, export value as well as the ability to become the raw materials of different industries. Therefore, the present study aims to study the effects of natural resources on the development of 12 countries that have different levels of development and various degrees of natural resource utilization in a comparative approach using several indicators. The final goals of this article is to reach theoretical conclusion about the impact of natural resources on the development of the countries. In the present study, qualitative comparative analysis method has been used as a means of quantitative and qualitative research and a powerful tool to analyze the causal complexities. Therefore, four phases of data fuzzy, formation of values table, a method to analyze the variables using complex causality and validation of the results of the research were considered. From the viewpoint of the horizons, the research is of a longitudinal nature, since, unlike a cross sectional study that is unique to a specific time period, in this research, the main themes have been considered over 150 years. Overall research results show that many countries, while having natural resources, have not achieved development due to the low level of other indicators. Few countries such as the United States have reached a higher level of development, using natural resources and benefiting from other indicators, such as literacy and democracy. Oil as one of the natural resources in the second study period has had a significant impact on development, but in the third period, the role of industrialization and import of energy resources in combination with efficient and effective government management justifies the development model of countries through the level of literacy and democracy. In sum, natural resources, if aligned with the level of technology, provide a higher level of development, otherwise it will reduce developmental dependence and economic rent.
Extended Abstract
1-Introduction
Natural resources are expected to be the basis for development due to the economic, export value as well as the ability to become the raw materials of different industries. However, resource review shows that the abundance of natural resources does not always lead to economic growth and there is a controversy among the researchers. Opponents will argue for reasons such as job mitigation, the ineffectiveness of the national government through government enlargement, economic rents, and the struggle of political groups and supporters of supplying production and financial needs.
Therefore, the present study aims to study the effects of natural resources on the development of 12 countries (Iran, Brazil, Russia, China, Egypt, South Korea, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, Malaysia, India, Turkey) that have different levels of development and various degrees of natural resource utilization in a comparative approach using several indicators. In addition this comparison has been done over three periods to examine the role of time and technology.
2-Materials and Methods
In the present study, qualitative comparative analysis method has been used as a means of quantitative and qualitative research and a powerful tool to analyze the causal complexities. As a result, four phases of data fuzzy, formation of values table, a method for analyzing variables using complex causality and validation of the results of the research were considered. From the viewpoint of the horizons, the research is of a longitudinal nature, since, unlike a cross sectional study that is unique to a specific time period, in this research, the main themes have been considered over 150 years. Indicators used include forest per capita, agricultural land per capita, renewable water per capita, farmers' talent, democracy, literacy rate, GDP per capita, energy resources and natural resources rents. Part of the required data was extracted from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) site and some others by historical studies. The data were selected for the 12 targeted countries, with the distribution of the appropriate size and area of the planet, as well as cultural, political and economic varieties.
3-Results and Discussion
The results of the first period (1900-1850) show that a combination of democracy, GDP per capita, literacy, high agricultural potential, forest per capita (low), renewable water per capita (low) and agricultural land per capita (low), the basis for development The United States and the United Kingdom.
In this period, due to the fact that oil had no effect on the economies of the countries, it was not used in modeling. In the second period (1900-1950), although the developed model is the same for both countries, the level of development of the United States is higher than the United Kingdom due to the higher level of natural resources and the availability of oil resources. The UK has also increased its development through looting other countries' natural resources. In the course of this period, Japan has begun the development and has reached the level of development at the end of the period, but its development model is unlike the other two countries. In the third period (1950-2000) by the end of colonialism and independence, the process of industrialization of societies began by importing of energy resources. The development model is included democracy (high), literacy (high), energy resources (low) and natural resources rents (low). Unlike other countries, the Russian development model is not included, but it is not analyzed as the model coverage is less than 0.7.
4-Conclusion
Overall research results show that many countries, while having natural resources, have not achieved development due to the low level of other indicators. Few countries such as the United States have reached a higher level of development, using natural resources and benefiting from other indicators, such as literacy and democracy. Oil, as one of the natural resources in the second study period (1900-1950), has had a significant impact on development, but in the third period, the role of industrialization and import of energy resources in combination with efficient and effective government management justifies the development model of countries through the level of literacy and democracy. In sum, natural resources, if aligned with the level of technology, provide a higher level of development, otherwise it will reduce developmental dependence and economic rent.
 

Keywords


ابراهیمی، محسن؛ سالاریان، محمد؛ حاجی میرزایی، محمدعلی (1387) بررسی مکانیسم‎های اثرگذاری درآمدهای نفتی بر رشد اقتصادی کشورهای صادرکنندة نفت از دیدگاه بلای منابع طبیعی، مطالعات اقتصاد انرژی، 16، صص. 156-131.
بهبودی، داود؛ اصغرپور، حسین؛ ممی‌پور، سیاب (1388) بررسی فراوانی منابع طبیعی، سرمایة انسانی و رشد اقتصادی در کشورهای صادرکنندة نفت، پژوهش‌های اقتصادی ایران، 11 (40)، صص. 147-125.
ریگین، چارلز (1394) روش تطبیقی (فراسوی راهبردهای کمّی و کیفی)، انتشارات آگه، تهران.
سام‌دلیری، کاظم (1393) روش‌شناسی کیفی جامعه‌شناسی تاریخی و تطبیقی-تاریخی، چاپ اوّل، جامعه‌شناسان، تهران.
شاه‌آبادی، ابوالفضل؛ صادقی، حامد (1392) مقایسة اثر وفور منابع طبیعی بر رشد اقتصادی ایران و نروژ، مدل‌سازی اقتصادی، 2 (22)، صص. 43-21.
غیاثوند، ابوالفضل؛ صبوری، فاطمه (1390) رابطه حکمرانی و رشد اقتصادی در کشورهای دارای منابع معدنی. فصلنامه علوم اقتصادی، 5 (11)، صص. 134-113.
کریم‌زاده، مصطفی؛ نصراللهی، خدیجه؛ صمدی، سعید؛ دلالی اصفهانی، رحیم؛ فخار، مجید (1388) بررسی بیماری هلندی در اقتصاد ایران: تأثیرگذاری رابطة مبادله بر ساختار سرمایه‌گذاری، اقتصاد مقداری، 6 (4)، صص. 172-147.
مهرآرا، محسن؛ ابریشمی، حمید؛ زمانزاده، حمید (1390) تفسیری از فرضیه نفرین منابع در کشورهای صادرکننده نفت: تکانه‌های مثبت نفتی از چه سطح آستانه‌ای برای رشد اقتصادی مضر است؟، فصلنامه مطالعات اقتصاد انرژی، 28، صص. 134- 119.
میرهاشمی دهنوی، محمد (1394) بررسی اثر فراوانی منابع طبیعی بر رشد اقتصادی کشورهای صادرکنندة منابع طبیعی با رویکرد نظریة فشار بزرگ، اقتصاد منابع طبیعی، 4 (9)، صص. 18-3.
نظری، محسن؛ مبارک، اصغر (1389) وفور منابع طبیعی، بیماری هلندی و رشد اقتصادی در کشورهای نفتی، مطالعات اقتصاد انرژی، 27، صص. 68-47.
Auty, R. M. (1993) Sustaining Development in Mineral Economies: The Resource Curse Thesis, Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Auty, R. M. (1997) Natural Resource Endowment, the State and Development Strategy, International Development, 9 (4), pp. 651-663.
Basedau, M., Lay, J. (2009) Resource Curse or Rentier Peace? The Ambiguous Effects of Oil Wealth and Oil Dependence on Violent Conflict, Peace Research, 46 (6), pp. 757-776.
Betz, M. R., Partridge, M. D., Farren, M., Lobao, L. (2015) Coal Mining, Economic Development, and the Natural Resources Curse, Energy Economics, 50, pp. 105-116.
Bhattacharyya, S., Hodler, R. (2010) Natural Resources, Democracy and Corruption, European Economic Review, 54(4), pp. 608-621.
Blomstrom, M., Meller, P. (1990) Trayectorias Divergentes, Cieplan-Hachette
Busse, M., Gröning, S. (2013) The Resource Curse Revisited: Governance and Natural Resources, Public choice, 154 (1-2), pp. 1-20.
Centre for Global Economic History (2017) Online Text Retrieved 18 May 2017, from www.cgeh.nl.
Collier, P., Hoeffler, A. E. (1998) On the Economic Causes of Civil War, Oxford Economic Papers, 50, pp.73-563.
Dunning, T. (2005) Resource Dependence, Economic Performance, and Political Stability, Conflict Resolution, 49 (4), pp. 451-482.
Fiss, C. (2011) Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research, Academy of Management Journal, 54 (2), pp. 393-420.
Freedom House. (2017) Online Text Retrieved 15 January 2017, from freedomhouse.org
Gylfason, T., Gylfi, Z. (2002) Natural Resources and Economic Growth: the Role of Investment, Working Papers, Central Bank of Chile.
Hanushek, E. A., Jackson, J. E. (2013) Statistical Methods for Social Scientists, Academic Press, New York.
Hirschman, A. O. (1958) The Strategy of Economic Development, New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
International Monetary Fund. (2016) Online Text Retrieved 10 January 2016, from www.imf.org.
Knight, M., Norman, L., Delano, V. (1996) The Peace Dividend: Military Spending and Economic Growth, IMF Staff Papers, 43(1), PP. 1-37.
Lane, P., Tornell, A. (1995) Power Concentration and Growth, Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper, 1720.
Larsen, E. R. (2005) Are Rich Countries Immune to the Resource Curse? Evidence from Norway’s Management of its Oil Riches, Resources Policy, 30, pp. 75-86.
Lucas, S. R., Szatrowski, A. (2014) Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Critical Perspective, Sociological Methodology, 44 (1), PP. 1-79.
Masue, O. S., Swai, I. L., Anasel, M. G. (2013) The Qualitative-Quantitative'Disparities' in Social Science Research: What Does Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) Brings in to Bridge the Gap?,Asian Social Science, 9 (10), pp.211-221.
Meier, G. M. (2002) Leading Issues in Economic Development, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84 (4), pp.1181-1183.
Oomes, N., Kalcheva, K. (2007) Diagnosing Dutch Disease: Does Russia have the Symptoms?, BOFIT Discussion Papers, 7, pp. 5-40.
Ortega, C. J., Gregorio. D. (2005) The relative richness of the poor? Natural resources, human capital and economic growth, World Bank Working Paper Series, No. 3484.
Papyrakis, E., Gerlagh, R. (2004) The Resource Curse Hypothesis and its Transmission Channels, Comparative Economics, 32, pp.181-193.
Papyrakis, E., Gerlagh, R. (2006) Resource Windfalls, Investment and Long-Term Income, Resources Policy, 31 (2), pp. 117-128.
Rihoux, B., Ragin, C. C. (2008) Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, Sage Publications.
Robinson, J., Torvik, R., Verdier, T. (2006) Political Foundations of the Resource Curse, Development Economics, 79, pp. 447-468.
Sachs, J. D., Warner, A. M. (1997) Natural Resources Abundance AND Economic Growth, Center for International Development and Harvard Institute for International Development.
Seers, D. (1964) The Mechanism of an Open Petroleum Economy, Social and Economic Studies, 13, pp. 233-242.
The Polity (2016). Online Text Retrieved 14 May 2016, from www.hbs.edu.
The World Bank (2017). Online Text Retrieved 7 June 2017, from www.worldbank.org.
Torvik, R. (2001) Natural Resources, Rent Seeking and Welfare, Development Economics, 67, pp. 455-470.
Uprichard, E. (2013) Sampling: Bridging Probability and Non-Probability Designs,International Journal of Social Research Methodology,16 (1),pp.1-11.
Watkins, G. C. (2006) Oil Scarcity: What Have the Past Three Decades Revealed?, Energy Policy, 34 (5), PP. 508-514.
Williamson, O. E. (2000) The Institutional Economics; Taking Stock, Looking Ahead, Economic Literature, 38 (3), pp. 595-613.
World Economic Forum (2017) Online Text Retrieved 03 July 2017, from www.weforum.org.