Talk:Resource curse

message: I am removing this brief subsection because it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Do the People's and Governments goals and motivations always diverge? Who is your source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.87.24 (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Tug of War between People and Government"

message: I proposed a merger of this page with Rentier state on September 19th, 2005; no dissenting comments were made, so I merged in content from that page today, September 27th, 2005. The rentier state edit history and talk page can be found at its original page. MC MasterChef 08:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with [[Rentier state]]

message: This page and the Dutch Disease page definitely need to be merged. Also, the pages ought to be completely redone. For an economics topic, it's rather econ-lite; something I would like fixed.  But I'm new to this whole editing process, so if anyone would help contribute to this project, let me know. Thanks. --Geoff 23:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the merger tags from this article.  Dutch disease is NOT the same thing as the resource curse.  I think the merger is the result of confusion of the terms and will only cause more confusion.  Both have to do with resources creating problems, but dutch disease is usually a sudden shock to the economy caused by resource exports raising currency values.  The resource curse is the paradoxical lack of growth in countries with strong natural resources.  Dutch disease is one mechanism which might contribute to this lack of growth. I think this article does a good job of illustrating the differences.  Dutch disease is listed as one of three explanations for the resource curse. If someone still wants to pursue merging, put the tags back up, but I really don't think it's a good idea tom merge.--Bkwillwm 18:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me.--Bkwillwm 05:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page revamp, <strike>merger with Dutch Disease</strike> 

message: It's important to note that the resource curse is primarily an economic concept, although one could say that there are some political economy effects in there, also. It is not really a political science topic since the effect that natural resources has on democracy is not really part of the natural resource curse, even though there may be a connection between the two in some countries. If someone can show a source in which Zakaria or others are specifically calling this connection a "resource curse", then I think it has a place in the article as an extended definition of the resource curse, and mentioned as such. Also, I'm proposing that we unmerge rentier states and resource curse.
;If it hasn't already been done, I support the motion to separate rentier state and resource cures...though, it looks like it's been done.  MikeNM 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  defining resource curse 

message: I removed the following sentence from the "Government Complacency" section:
Some have suggested that a more effective mechanism than state monopoly would be to simply distribute revenues from state-controlled natural resources evenly among the population, as is done in the oil-rich U.S. state of Alaska.
This is passive-voice POV weasel-wordery. Who has "suggested" this? Why do they have any credibility? The section is about the effect of the Resource Curse on governments; what does "state monopoly" have to do with anything? Are you suggesting only state monopolies can be complacent?
A comparison between the effects of resource incomes in Alaska and Nigeria would be very useful. However, the quote is a poor way of doing it since the Alaska Permanent Fund  is a "state monopoly" and Nigeria's oil industry is private enterprise. -- Corvus 14:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Government Complacency

message: I have just begun to take an interest in this article, but will be contributing a great deal more in the future. A lot has been contributed by Timothy Kirkpatrick since these topics were last discussed, and so I am creating a new discussion section.
First, I propose that the page is reorganized. The causes are all muddled up with effects (grouped together by negative?). More needs to be done to separate out the different theoretical perspectives. It seems to me that we should start the article with the empirical research that has been done that launched the 'resource curse thesis' into mainstream acceptance. Then the article can be organized around the theoretical battle over what causes resource curse, how, and what each paradigm implies for alleviating the curse. 
Second, I propose introducing and citing the perspective that resource curses are really hierarchical power relations between states. Theorists of colonialism and imperialism have written extensively on this, and it needs to be in this article. Deleriamour 08:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Revamp 

message: A suggested article: Resource competition.  --Wassermann 07:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested article 

message: The threadbare section on "Liberty and Democracy" is just a simple statement with no supporting facts or even arguments. Please add to this section or consider removing it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.35.7.254 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a supporting source. If wanting more details it can be read.Ultramarine (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The references being mentioned *aren't* peer-reviewed research, they're "working papers". --Blogjack (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more supporting data 

message: A list of countries believed to be resource cursed would be nice we could start with the OPEC nations and Russia any more suggestions?24.22.49.209 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A list of countries

message: Just FYI: Ross Douthat, a columnist for the New York Times, just linked to the article.  -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Resource curse is not believed to be systematic, but frequent. Yug (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliment 

message: ===The "resource curse" hypothesis===
In recent decades researchers have considered a link between the natural resource abundance of a country and adverse consequences for economic growth and government functioning. This trend seems especially common for countries with 'point source' minerals such as mines and oil fields, which create large profits for few people. Compared to agricultural resources, which offer diffuse development requiring large quantities of workers and distributing the benefits more widely, point source minerals have the potential to stifle the socioeconomic development of a nation.MRE, p0-3
Evidence has been provided by Sachs & Warner, 2001 that establishes: 
Taylor notes that China's blind support of the African elite in a resource-abundant country may worsen the 'resource curses', by encouraging elites to tighten their control resources and damage other economic sectors. Such arrangements may be in the short term interest of Beijing, who often want to keep importing low cost raw materials from abroad, and manufacture them in China.COD, p951-952
The notion of a “curse” may be misleading, as countries do have choice, and the development of natural resources sector is shaped by a host of government policies. Wright & Czelusta note 6 relevant policy issues: 
# infrastructure of public knowledge (e.g., geological surveys); 
# engineering education; 
# systems of exploration concessions and property rights for mineral resources; 
# export and import controls; 
# supporting infrastructure (such as transportation); 
# targeted taxes or royalties.MRE, p3 
Chinese investments focus on infrastructure, the 5th point. The remaining five, however, are largely in the hands of African elites.
African fishermen complain of Chinese industrialised fishing, coming as close as one nautical miles off the coast, depleting fish stocks, and interfering with villagers' fishing nets for whom fishing is the main income source. Western pro-Forest NGO complains of Chinese specific disdain for environment.
For book source, look in China in Africa article. Yug (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content from [[China in Africa]] 

message: In recent decades researchers have considered a link between the natural resource abundance of a country and adverse consequences for economic growth and government functioning. This trend seems especially common for countries with 'point source' minerals such as mines and oil fields, which create large profits for few people. Compared to agricultural resources, which offer diffuse development requiring large quantities of workers and distributing the benefits more widely, point source minerals have the potential to stifle the socioeconomic development of a nation.MRE, p0-3
Evidence has been provided by Sachs & Warner, 2001 that establishes: 
Taylor notes that China's blind support of the African elite in a resource-abundant country may worsen the 'resource curses', by encouraging elites to tighten their control resources and damage other economic sectors. Such arrangements may be in the short term interest of Beijing, who often want to keep importing low cost raw materials from abroad, and manufacture them in China.COD, p951-952
The notion of a “curse” may be misleading, as countries do have choice, and the development of natural resources sector is shaped by a host of government policies. Wright & Czelusta note 6 relevant policy issues: 
# infrastructure of public knowledge (e.g., geological surveys); 
# engineering education; 
# systems of exploration concessions and property rights for mineral resources; 
# export and import controls; 
# supporting infrastructure (such as transportation); 
# targeted taxes or royalties.MRE, p3 
Chinese investments focus on infrastructure, the 5th point. The remaining five, however, are largely in the hands of African elites.
African fishermen complain of Chinese industrialised fishing, coming as close as one nautical miles off the coast, depleting fish stocks, and interfering with villagers' fishing nets for whom fishing is the main income source. Western pro-Forest NGO complains of Chinese specific disdain for environment.
|}
For book source, look in China in Africa article. Yug (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The "resource curse" hypothesis

message: As part of WP:WCC efforts, I checked the references/sources of this article. The two one below could not be confirmed:
* Resource Curse, by Leif Wenar, (Policy Innovations, Spring (2007) (Original link found)
* Djoumessi, Didier T. (2009),The Political Impacts of the Sino_U.S. Oil competition in Africa: An International Political     Explanation of the Resource Curse in African Petro-States, London, Adonis and Abbey Publishers Ltd. (Added by User:195.24.193.130 on 26 May 2010)
Please could one of the original contributors specify these citations. --bender235 (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconfirmed sources 

message: There is a link in the references whose target has dissapeared.  Someone who has more time should look into Wikipedia:Link_rot and fix it.
Also, is bbl really the abbreviation of barrel?  Barrel only has one b!  If it is the correct abbreviation, that's fine, but I just wanted to make sure.
  עבד יהוה   talk 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link rot and weird abbreviation 

message: This segment seems very biased to me, as it mentions Iraq’s invasion of Iran and Kuwait, Libya’s repeated incursions into Chad in the 1970s and 1980s, "Iran’s long-standing pattern of hostility and conflict" (Which pattern exactly? Are those whom it is hostile against not hostile to it?); Venezuela’s mobilization for war against Colombia in 2008 (didn't the Colombian government do a great deal to provoke that?). However, it fails to mention the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs) 10:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: International war and conflict

message: A weak article, lacking a logical thread. It is true that there are mineral-rich countries which suffer bad governance, and it is useful to describe how this occurs. However, to ascribe bad governance to mineral wealth is patently false, since there are all too many mineral-free countries in the same unhappy boat. And you also have to account for mineral-rich countries like Norway and Australia, which must come high on any list of good governance. I would suggest that the article explores how some countries have used revenues from mineral exports to improve present and future quality of life for their citizens while others have not. Since unsubstantiated generalisations weaken the case, it is vital to name names.
--Clifford Mill (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconvincing 

message: This section is longwinded and the material under the subheadings overlaps
I propose splitting this section into "Political Effects" and "Economic Effects", each incorporating the existing subheadings but aiming to offer an intro summary and tighter integration
-Political effects  would  comprise Conflicts, Rentier State and Corruption subheads)
-Economic effects would cover lack of diversification (and human resources), "Dutch Disease", volatility and possibly borrowing)
Any objections? Or better ideas>  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtellett (talk • contribs) 00:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative effects and causes 

message: The last few edits by mlross1234 were an improvment but the user screwed up the citations somewhat. The Sachs and Warner 1995 article and the Venables 2016 article need to be added back and cited correctly. I'm too much of a novice to be able to fix it on my own without screwing things up even more! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the citations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Resource curse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028175200/http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/49806 to http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/49806
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928105035/http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/dae/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe1145.pdf to http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/dae/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe1145.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Resource curse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170413071104/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17139768/mafia.pdf to https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17139768/mafia.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813080817/http://www2.ids.ac.uk/gdr/cfs/pdfs/pb34.pdf to http://www.ids.ac.uk/gdr/cfs/pdfs/PB34.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: this section starts with: <<The IMF classifies 51 countries as “resource-rich.” These are countries which derive at least 20% of exports or 20% of fiscal revenue from nonrenewable natural resources. >>
this kind of statement needs to be supported by a source (with inline citation) not only because it is necessary by encyclopedical standards but, also because the cited IMF classification may in the future (or may have already) be subject to change. is impossible to judge for the reader without aforementioned sourcing whether it is an official IMF position on the subject or whether it has ever been one.
also while at it: this IS NOT a measure of a country's economy being resource-RICH, but of it being resource-DEPENDENT. imagine the same country, like same amount of oil, or gold, but in one example have nothing else, and in another example having a lucrative, say, software industry - now in first case it is resource rich, and in second it is not, by the quoted definition. doesnt make much sense. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  economic effects section 

message: I suggest that the definition of resource curse in the article must be supported by an article or two, and cited. Without a scholarly article to support the definition of the resource curse, it seems to be a generalized claim that the article makes about what the resource curse is. 
Vicentiagyau (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for definition of resource curse 

message: Editors of this article may be able to help resolve a (one-sided) debate at talk:Tragedy of the commons#"Serves as a pretext" (bold, revert, discuss). It needs someone who has access to a paper published at Natural Resources Forum; Aug2005, Vol. 29 Issue 3, p233-242 [Wiley]. Wikimedia Library only has access to the abstract. Thank you if you can. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed at talk:tragedy of the commons 

message: I propose merging Petro-aggression into Resource curse. I think the content can easily be explained in the context of the resource curse, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I 100% approve, please go ahead with it. MurrayScience (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

text: @MurrayScience these are two different things: Petro-Aggression includes an understanding that oil states are also more aggressive, while the resource curse tends to focus on colonialism, Sadads (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Or if we were to merge it, the better article would be Petrostate, Sadads (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

text: * Support merge. In my view, Petro-Aggression belongs to the theory of Resource curse, while Petrostate is not a theory but a category. Agnerf (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The level of constant thin criticism and lack interconnected nuance makes this article read as a right wing economic opinion piece. It's not simply that resources lead to poverty clearly their is resource wealth involved in a financially successful country, that's always a factor. It's that combined with a relationship formed between countries, often drawn along racial, cultural, and ancestral lines  that determine what countries are aligned together and what countries are viewed as a threat or rather target, it makes logical sense for countries to impose power on those that are the greatest threats to them economically. 2607:FEA8:BDE0:1931:DC24:464A:8C70:BAC (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads as an Opinion Piece