Reviewing the definition of the natural resource curse and analysing its occurence post-1990
- Authors: Mwansa, Mumamba Chitumwa
- Date: 2014
- Subjects: Resource curse , Natural resources -- Management , Economic development , National income
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: vital:1100 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1013243
- Description: That countries with high natural resource abundance should experience slower economic growth than those with low resource abundance seems contrary to what would be expected, considering the developmental head-start such resources afford. Yet Sachs and Warner (1997) found that economies with a high share of natural resource exports in national income in 1970 tended to experience slower economic growth in the two decades that followed. This finding, that natural resources are a “curse” rather than a blessing, has become generally accepted. This thesis sought to test whether the conclusion drawn from their data – that higher natural resource abundance leads to slower economic growth – is still correct. It sought to test their findings first by correcting for their use of resource intensity (natural resources share of exports) as a proxy for abundance. Using measures of resource abundance for 1995 as a proxy for abundance in previous decades, it was found that higher resource abundance was not associated with lower economic growth in the 1970s and 1980s. This finding is contrary to that of Sachs and Warner (1997, 2001). Secondly, this thesis tested whether the natural resource curse effect was still present for the period 1995–2010. This was done by observing the effect of both resource abundance and resource intensity on economic growth during 1995–2010. In both cases no resource curse effect was found, for this more recent period. The resource curse had disappeared regardless of whether one uses Sachs and Warner’s (1997, 2001) measure of resource intensity or a measure of resource abundance. Natural resources should therefore no longer be considered a “curse”. In explaining the difference for the impact of resource intensity between the 1970-90 period measured by Sachs and Warner (1997, 2001) and the more recent period 1995-2010 it was found that the Dutch Disease effect has decreased significantly since the 1970s and 1980s. This could partly explain why the resource curse has disappeared when measured in terms of resource intensity. Thus it was concluded that the natural resource curse existed in the period 1970-90 only when measured in terms of resource intensity but not when measured relative to resource abundance. The negative effects of natural resources on economic growth have disappeared in terms of both resource intensity and resource abundance in the more recent time period.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2014
- Authors: Mwansa, Mumamba Chitumwa
- Date: 2014
- Subjects: Resource curse , Natural resources -- Management , Economic development , National income
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: vital:1100 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1013243
- Description: That countries with high natural resource abundance should experience slower economic growth than those with low resource abundance seems contrary to what would be expected, considering the developmental head-start such resources afford. Yet Sachs and Warner (1997) found that economies with a high share of natural resource exports in national income in 1970 tended to experience slower economic growth in the two decades that followed. This finding, that natural resources are a “curse” rather than a blessing, has become generally accepted. This thesis sought to test whether the conclusion drawn from their data – that higher natural resource abundance leads to slower economic growth – is still correct. It sought to test their findings first by correcting for their use of resource intensity (natural resources share of exports) as a proxy for abundance. Using measures of resource abundance for 1995 as a proxy for abundance in previous decades, it was found that higher resource abundance was not associated with lower economic growth in the 1970s and 1980s. This finding is contrary to that of Sachs and Warner (1997, 2001). Secondly, this thesis tested whether the natural resource curse effect was still present for the period 1995–2010. This was done by observing the effect of both resource abundance and resource intensity on economic growth during 1995–2010. In both cases no resource curse effect was found, for this more recent period. The resource curse had disappeared regardless of whether one uses Sachs and Warner’s (1997, 2001) measure of resource intensity or a measure of resource abundance. Natural resources should therefore no longer be considered a “curse”. In explaining the difference for the impact of resource intensity between the 1970-90 period measured by Sachs and Warner (1997, 2001) and the more recent period 1995-2010 it was found that the Dutch Disease effect has decreased significantly since the 1970s and 1980s. This could partly explain why the resource curse has disappeared when measured in terms of resource intensity. Thus it was concluded that the natural resource curse existed in the period 1970-90 only when measured in terms of resource intensity but not when measured relative to resource abundance. The negative effects of natural resources on economic growth have disappeared in terms of both resource intensity and resource abundance in the more recent time period.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2014
Local economic development: disseminating global best practices to affect futuristic thinking in SA
- Authors: Perks, Sandra
- Subjects: Economic development , Economic development -- South Africa , f-sa
- Language: English
- Type: text , Lectures
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/20966 , vital:29423
- Description: The aim of Local Economic Development (LED) is to ensure that the economy of a community, region or country grows faster than the population, so that there can be surplus resources for future expansion (Rucker, Kinnett & Barbash 2012). This suggests that LED is more than economic development at local level. LED is often not viewed from an economic perspective but from a political perspective. Birkhölzer (2005:3) outlines four possible political LED viewpoints. The first perspective is “development from above” with an authoritarian state dictating to regional government and local authorities. This perspective has been proven flawed when political or economic turbulences occur. The second perspective is “development from outside” with reliance on outside investors to bring into the country the necessary resources, mostly funding. This perspective is risky from a sustainability point of view. The third perspective is the “wait and see” where migration occurs if there are problems. This perspective is equally flawed as it is becoming increasingly difficult to migrate because it is so costly, and also finding the right place to go can prove to be problematic. The last perspective is the “development from within” where people play a key role, and do not rely on government or the economy to serve their needs or solve their problems; this points to self-sufficiency.
- Full Text:
- Authors: Perks, Sandra
- Subjects: Economic development , Economic development -- South Africa , f-sa
- Language: English
- Type: text , Lectures
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/20966 , vital:29423
- Description: The aim of Local Economic Development (LED) is to ensure that the economy of a community, region or country grows faster than the population, so that there can be surplus resources for future expansion (Rucker, Kinnett & Barbash 2012). This suggests that LED is more than economic development at local level. LED is often not viewed from an economic perspective but from a political perspective. Birkhölzer (2005:3) outlines four possible political LED viewpoints. The first perspective is “development from above” with an authoritarian state dictating to regional government and local authorities. This perspective has been proven flawed when political or economic turbulences occur. The second perspective is “development from outside” with reliance on outside investors to bring into the country the necessary resources, mostly funding. This perspective is risky from a sustainability point of view. The third perspective is the “wait and see” where migration occurs if there are problems. This perspective is equally flawed as it is becoming increasingly difficult to migrate because it is so costly, and also finding the right place to go can prove to be problematic. The last perspective is the “development from within” where people play a key role, and do not rely on government or the economy to serve their needs or solve their problems; this points to self-sufficiency.
- Full Text:
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »