Resources: The Cause of Modern Warfare

RESOURCES: THE CAUSE OF MODERN WARFARE

By

Emily Fifer

Professor Endersby

PS 3000 Introduction to Political Research

October 8th, 2010

Abstract

Since the Cold War era Political Scientists have focused their research on natural resources and warfare. This article reviews the literature of 10 individual studies that cast light on the correlation between resource dependence and conflict. "Resources: The Cause of Modern Warfare" suggests that the 10 reviewed articles collectively associate natural resource dependence with conflict, whether civil or national. Due to the following discussed literature on the correlations between resource dependence and conflict, research on the topic will then be expanded to examine an untested hypothesis: countries that depend on the export of natural resources for economic growth and stability, have, and will, endure more armed conflicts than non resource producing countries.

The correlation between natural resource dependence and warfare has been an ongoing research development by Political Scientists since the post Cold War era. The economic literature on conflict ranges from research correlating population growth, resource dependence, and conflict, as well establishing relationships between primary commodity exports and civil war. However, contemporary research fails to correlate between natural resource dependence and the high rate of conflict occurrences, whether civil or national. Based on previous literature examining the correlations between natural resource dependence and warfare, the following hypothesis can be tested. Due to the fact that the control of natural resources is a major cause of past and present warfare, countries that depend on the export of natural resources for economic growth and stability, have, and will, endure more armed conflicts than non resource producing countries.

Resource Dependence, Population Growth, and Conflict

The economic literature on conflict can be traced back to Malthus. Malthus ([1798] 1970) believed that conflict over natural resources would occur as a result of population growth and environmental degradation. As an area becomes more and more populated, the physical and economic need for resource production increases. If the necessary needs for physical and economic survival are not provided in a timely and cost effective manner, conflict within a society will arise

Recent studies can be linked to the game theoretic model of Hirshleifer (1989). In Hirshleifer's game theoretic model, conflict was treated as a rational activity. His model was based on two facts: conflict occurs over the scarcity of renewable resources and those resources often lack well-defined property rights. After examining two rival societies that were both dependent on a single natural resource, Hirshleifer found that as the population of a society increased, their dependence on resources for physical and economic survival increased as well. Once a societies' need for resources increased, conflict between their rival societies increased due to resource competition. Hirshleifer found the correlation between conflict, population, and resources to be direct.

Up until the contemporary study of Reuveny and Mawell (2006), political scientific literature on conflict over renewable resources has, for the most part, abandoned the intricate dynamic relationship between population, natural resources, and conflict. Like the studies of many political scientists before them, their research was based off of the static game-theoretic conflict structure of Hirshleifer (1989). Maxwell and Reuveny's study was the first to establish dynamics into the works of Hirshleifer (1989). They disagreed with Hirshleifer's static study, arguing that his model lacked equations of motion for the rival populations. After introducing conflict dynamics into a model with two rival societies, each dependent on a single contested natural resource, the research of Reuveny and Maxwell found that societies fought over wealth not only for immediate gratification but also for the ability to invest their rewards to increase their own resource shares in the future. Those shares are then available for future productive and conflictive actions. Their study identified the correlation between conflict and resource control to be a continuous occurrence throughout time.

Resource Dependence and Civil War

Since the findings of Hirshleifer's (1989) game theoretic model, scholars have been studying the relationship between resource wealth and civil war. After examining 52 civil wars between the years of 1960 and 1999, Collier & Hoeffler (1998, 2002a) found that primary commodity exports are likely to increase the risk of civil war. Their research on civil wars suggests that a state's dependence on natural resources, measured as the ratio of primary commodity exports to GDP, has considerable influence on the possibility that a civil war will begin over the next five years. Their data suggests that resource dependence has a non-linear effect: it increases the probability of conflict until the resource exports-to-GDP ratio is 32%; exceeding this point reduces the probability of conflict. In a later study, Collier & Hoeffler (2002a) concluded that oil, as a primary commodity, is directly correlated to the onset of civil war, where lootable goods were linked to the duration of civil war.

After reviewing the research of Collier & Hoeffler (1998, 2002a), scholars such as Fearon & Laitin (2003), and Hegre (2002) tried to duplicate Collier & Hoeffler's findings on natural resources and civil war. Their results varied. Fearon & Laitin's study found that neither the share of primary commodity exports in GDP nor its square is remotely significant in their model (Fearon & Laitin, 2003: 87). After changing their database to cover the same years as Collier & Hoeffler, the coefficients on their primary commodity variables were beyond statistical significance. The research of Fearon & Laitin (2003) found