Berlin: Der Ressourcenfluch: Rohstoffexporte als Krisenfaktor

<b>Addressing the “Resource Curse”<br> Solutions from oil exporting countries.</b><br><br>Recently, the so- called “resource curse” syndrome has gained a great deal of prominence in development studies, economics, and public debate. We have long been familiar with the basic problem: Many countries endowed with substantial natural wealth, especially mineral resources, appear to reap few gains from it. Instead of economic development supported by exploitation of natural resources, these countries experience continued underdevelopment, corruption, political instability, and/or even civil war. This paradox has been termed the “resource curse.”<br> In the past, the problem has frequently been explained in terms of exchange rate and trade balance problems. This is the “Dutch disease,” referring to Holland’s experience in the natural gas boom of the 1960s. However, recent debates go far beyond mere economic explanations. Obviously, there is a link between resource exploitation, multinational companies, corruption, fragile institutions and lack of good governance, especially in the “weak states” of the Global South.<br><br> The “resource curse” has affected countries with a wide range of resources. In recent years, diamonds and tantalite have received much attention in connection with the wars in Sierra Leone and Congo. However, the most prominent and long-lasting cases still are to be found among the oil-exporting economies. Here, the argument goes, states receive a major share of their revenues from oil rents paid by multinational corporations. They thereby run a high risk of neglecting other sectors of their economy; of fuelling corruption and nepotism; and of destabilizing the very institutional framework of the state. Over the years, Nigeria has become synonymous with corruption and economic mismanagement; and Angola’s oil has financed two decades of civil war. With the current expansion of oil production in Western and Central Africa, in the Caucasus and some other areas of the world, even more countries that are striving to speed up their development by funds generated from oil risk falling victim to the “resource curse” syndrome. As we gain a broader recognition of the “resource curse” paradox, various ideas have emerged about how to deal with it. They go beyond mainstream approaches to issues of underdevelopment and poverty, such as the PRSP process which considers only the expenditure side of government activity. Suggestions to address the “resource curse” focus on efforts to increase transparency in government revenue and spending, as a necessary precondition and first step toward establishing functioning institutions. The ‘Publish What You Pay’ campaign started in 2002, encouraging multinational oil companies to disclose their royalty payments to host governments. Concurrently, civil-society organizations demand budget transparency and monitor spending on the national level. In the case of the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project, such initiatives integrate stakeholders on the national level and international institutions such as the World Bank, the latter being involved in financing the project. In many other countries, however, few initiatives appear to be under way yet. Other suggestions are being debated in addition to measures aiming at greater transparency of government revenue and spending. One calls for the use of “future funds” to reserve parts of current oil revenues for future use. Another goes so far as to propose the distribution of oil revenues directly to the people themselves, who – as some economists believe – would put the money to more sensible use than their governments.<br><br> <a href="http://www.boell.de/downloads/vkal4 /oelkonferenz_flyer.pdf" target="_blank">download flyer (PDF, 1,4 MB)</a>