『(Abstract)
Since the late 1990s, there has been a flood of research on natural
resources and civil war. This article reviews 14 recent cross-national
econometric studies, and many qualitative studies, that cast light
on the relationship between natural resources and civil war. It
suggests that collectively they imply four underlying regularities:
first, oil increases the likelihood of conflict, particularly
separatist conflict; second, ‘lootable’ commodities like gemstones
and drugs do not make conflict more likely to begin, but they
tend to lengthen existing conflicts; third, there is no apparent
link between legal agricultural commodities and civil war; and
finally, the association between primary commodities - a broad
category that includes both oil and agricultural goods - and the
onset of civil war is not robust. The first section discusses
the evidence for these four regularities and examines some theoretical
arguments that could explain them. The second section suggests
that some of the remaining inconsistencies among the econometric
studies may be caused by differences in the ways they code civil
wars and cope with missing data. The third section highlights
some further aspects of the resource - civil war relationship
that remain poorly understood.』
Introduction
Primary commodities and conflict
Oil and the onset of conflict
Gemstones, drugs, timber, and conflict
Agricultural commodities and conflict
How different civil war databases may produce different results
Some poorly understood issues
Why have quantitative studies produced varying results?
Has the role of natural resources changed over time?
What is the role of non-fuel minerals?
Which dimensions are dangerous?
How is the resource - civil war issue linked to the resource
curse?
What are the appropriate policy interventions?
Conclusion
References