Natural Resources and Civil Conflict
Transcript of Natural Resources and Civil Conflict
Natural Resources and Civil Conflict: An Analysis of Existing Literature
Lejla Delic
Ottawa, Ontario April 14th, 2015
1
ABSTRACT
There is a currently a growing literature investigating the relationship between natural resources and civil conflict. The general question of this strain of research seeks to answer whether natural resource abundance relates to the propensity for conflict or to economic growth. This paper is a review of existing literature of three empirical works undertaken to provide better-specified characteristics of this relationship. The main specific question that is addressed in this paper is whether there is a relationship between natural resources and the associated severity of civil conflict, while specifically focusing on the mechanisms that link natural resources to conflict, the location of resources relative to rebel groups, and the types of natural resources. The methods used by the authors for their different analyses range from the switching regression model, the Weibull distribution model and a standard logit model. It is argued that literature should move away from focus on the recurring rebel greed hypothesis underlying the relationship between natural resources and conflict. Specifically, other mechanisms that could be explain the effects of natural resources on violence. Another finding in response to this argument holds that the relationship is largely driven by rebel groups’ incentives and opportunities when considering the location of resources and rebel access. Finally, when specifying the type of natural resource, with respect to the ease of its expropriation, a strong link between diamonds, a very lootable resource, and conflict onset is established.
2
1. Introduction
There is a currently a growing literature investigating the relationship between natural
resources and civil conflict. The general question of this strain of research seeks to answer
whether natural resource abundance relates to the propensity for conflict or to economic growth.
It is often argued that the wealth arising from natural resources is an explanation for inclination
towards civil conflict, and that rebels may gain power over the resources through extortion or
appropriation and cause conflict as a result of this. The underlying argument here is that rebel
groups are presented with opportunities to fund their activities through the rents natural resources
provide, or through the money they extort from firms or institutions in power of those resources.
This paper is a review of existing literature of three empirical works undertaken to provide
better-specified characteristics of this relationship. The main question addressed in this paper is
whether there is a relationship between natural resources and the associated severity of civil
conflict. This is done by specifically focusing on all the possible mechanisms that link natural
resources to conflict, not just on the motivation of greedy rebels. In addition, the physical
location of resources relative to rebel movements is considered when trying to characterize the
relationship between natural resources and conflict, as well as the types of natural resources. In
this paper’s context, the types of resources are either lootable or non-lootable,
The methods used by the authors for their different analyses include the switching regression
model when examining the varying effects of rival mechanisms, the Weibull distribution model
for considering the impact of location and rebel access to natural resources, and a standard logit
model when splitting up the effects lootable and non-lootable resources have on conflict.
The main findings of the selected papers, in a way, build upon each other. Humphreys
(2005) argues that existing literature should move away from focus on the recurring rebel greed
3
hypothesis underlying the relationship between natural resources and conflict, stating that
conflict relating to natural resources does not necessarily imply that it is driven by rebel greed or
motivation. Specifically, he provides and discusses other mechanisms that could explain the
effects of natural resources on violence, such as the status of state strength and capacity, or
grievances caused by natural resources. In addition, he holds that policy implications and
reforms would be improved with literature findings that suggest changes in how states manage
their revenues and maintain their relations with the public.
In her research, Lujala (2010) responds to this argument and holds that the relationship is
largely driven by rebel groups’ incentives and opportunities, especially when considering the
location of resources and rebel access. She finds that the location of natural resources is critical,
and specifically that when resources are located inside a region with conflict, the duration of
conflict doubles. Finally, when specifying the type of natural resource, with respect to the ease of
its expropriation, Lujala, Gleditsch and Gilmore find strong link between diamonds, a very
lootable resource, and conflict onset is established. Noting that secondary diamonds are
considered lootable resources, whereas primary diamonds are considered non-lootable, they also
find that primary diamonds do not have this same effect on conflict.
The paper is divided into three sections. The following section provides a review of the three
empirical works chosen for this paper. The first subsection discusses a paper that examines rival
mechanisms that underlie the relationship between natural resources and the propensity for
conflict. The second subsection considers the role of location of natural resources and rebel
access to them when determining the effect of natural resources on conflict. The third subsection
considers different types of natural resources, namely those of lootable and non-lootable nature,
and their opposing effects on conflict. This third section concludes the paper.
4
2. Literature Review
This section will provide a review of the three papers chosen for this analysis. The authors
of all three works seek to better identify the characteristics of the link between natural resources
and civil conflict. The first subsection will discuss a paper by Macartan Humphreys, who holds
that the mainstream rebel greed hypothesis is not sufficient in describing the relationship, and
that other mechanisms and factors need to be considered. The second subsection discusses Païvi
Lujala’s rebuttal to this argument, holding that greed and motivation by rebels is indeed crucial
to the relationship between natural resources and conflict, especially when considering the
location of natural resources relative to rebel groups. The final subsection will discuss research
conducted by Lujala, Gleditsch and Gilmore that analyzes the link as well by disaggregating
diamonds into their lootable and non-lootable forms, specifically, secondary and primary
diamonds.
2.1. “Natural Resources, Conflict and Conflict Resolution: Uncovering the Mechanisms”
In his research, Humphreys identifies and discusses other mechanisms that underlie the link
between natural resources and violence, arguing that the recurring rebel greed mechanism is but
one of many that could explain the link. In addition to identifying the mechanisms, Humphreys
implements different methodologies for identifying which of the rival mechanisms would apply
to which situation. He underlines the importance of considering other mechanisms besides rebel
greed, noting that “until the different mechanisms are understood, advice of conflict scholars will
be of limited use” (Humphreys, 2005, page 509).
Humphreys considers an African sample for one of his tests and uses a global sample for the
remainder. These samples include countries that have relatively little natural resource abundance,
but have experienced longer duration of conflicts, such as in Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Somalia;
5
the samples also include countries that are abundant in natural resources but have experienced
relatively shorter conflict duration, such as in Nigeria, Yemen and Croatia (Humphreys, 2005,
page 531).
Contrary to previous studies examining the link between natural resources and conflict,
Humphreys (2005) argues that there are at least six other mechanisms that could explain the link
(page 510). He defines them as follows. The first is the greedy rebels mechanism, whereby rebel
movements can take place to either “benefit from resources independent of the state,” or because
“natural resources increase the prize of capturing the state” (page 511). The greedy outsiders
mechanism may occur when neighboring states are motivated to “engage in or foster civil
conflicts” (page 511). The grievance mechanism may be as a result of unequal distribution of
wealth and gains, or whereby those that are forced to migrate due to resource extraction
experience grievance because of their loss of land rights (page 511). The feasibility mechanism
is defined as the occurrence when rebel movements that have begun for reasons other than
natural resources are financed by natural resource appropriation. The weak states mechanism
argues that state structures may be weaker in countries with natural resource dependence
(Humphreys, 2005, page 512). Specifically, Humphreys he describes the effect as coming from
both the state and society sides of the link; citizens who have less information or power over
their government have less incentive to monitor its activity, whereas governments “that rely on
natural resources rather than taxation have weakened incentives to create strong bureaucratic
institutions,” leading to states such as oil dependent ones being “more likely to have weak
structures because they have less need for intrusive bureaucracies to raise revenues” (page 513).
Finally, the sparse networks mechanism signifies that countries with economic fragmentation,
whereby there are difference enclaves of production, have a higher risk of conflict (page 513).
6
Humphreys further argues that “internal trade is associated with greater levels of social
cohesion,” and that “dense trade networks reduce conflict risks” (page 513).
This main data used in this research was collected on the lootable resource in question,
diamonds, as well as oil, which is a less less lootable, but still appropriable, resource. His new
diamond data is more fine-grain than that used in previous literature, and although it did not
report whether the diamond was primary or secondary, the dataset provides specific quantities
for Humphreys to use in his research. It also does not solely rely on export data, as it includes
“information gathered from actors in the industry and mining corporation” (page 523).
Secondary diamonds are considered more lootable than primary diamonds, as secondary
diamonds are generally found above ground, or very close to the surface, whereas primary
diamonds are less easy to find and exploit. The data was taken from three different datasets:
Mining Annual Reviews, Metals and Minerals Annual Review, and the Diamond Registry. The
data used for oil production and reserves, taken from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy
and BP Statistical Review of World Oil Industry, allows for Humphreys to distinguish between
oil that has not yet been extracted and oil that has been produced in the past. In addition, the
dataset excludes oil re-exports as to allow for differentiation between oil extraction, which
provides rents, and “the more oil processing sector” (page 523). Finally, Humphreys (2005) uses
the recorded share of agricultural value in national income as a rough measure of economic
structures (page 523).
The methodology used by Humphreys (2005) differs among his tests. He differentiated
between “Type B” and “Type A” mechanisms “in which rival mechanisms relate to each other”
(page 518). He explains that “Type B” situations arise when many mechanisms may be applied
but that have opposing effects on the outcome of interest, disaggregating the dependent and
7
independent variables allows for more precise distinguishing between initially unobservable
effects. An example of this is breaking a conflict variable into three variants, whereby the
conflict persists, ends with a military victory for either side, or ends through negotiation (page
520). “Type A” situations occur when there are two possible ways in which the independent
variable can be linked to the dependent variable, but that both cannot simultaneously occur.
There are two methods that follows: either constructing an interactive term with a third variable
if it is known that the independent variable has an impact on the dependent variable through the
third variable; the second method is proceeding with the switching regressions method “to
determine the individual characteristics of each rival mechanism” (page 521).
This subsection will now present Humphrey’s findings. When testing for whether state
strength plays a role in the link between lootable resources and conflict, Humphreys constructs
three proxies as measures for state strength and weakness. These can be seen, separated into
three columns, for each of the three natural resource measures in Table I. Instability is a measure
of political instability, measured by whether a state has experience a large change in political
institution over the past three years. Strong is a measure of instability and anocracy, taking a
value of 1 of the state is a democracy or dictatorship, and 0 if otherwise (Humphreys, 2005, page
527). The Weberian variable measures whether the state has a monopoly over the legal use of
force within a region.
As seen in Table I, both Instability and Strong generally enter significantly into the models.
The interaction term, however, is insignificant across the table with the exception of oil
production. Focusing on Models I, II and III, it can be seen that there is weak evidence that oil
production has a harmful impact across all three measures of state strength, but specifically for
weak states. This effect is not observed for the other two resources measures.
8
Humphreys concludes that the sparse networks mechanism is supported in place of the rebel
greed mechanism, as production enters significantly into the tests. This signifies that natural
resource production in the past has an impact on civil conflict, whereas the mere existence of
resource reserves, which are potential for future production and gains, do not have that same
impact. In performing another test, he finds evidence of the sparse netoworks, specifying a
relationship between primary commodities that is motivated in part by agricultural resource
dependence. In addition, when testing for the link between natural resources and the length and
duration of wars, he finds that natural resource wars tend to be shorter than other wars, and that
they tend to end with a military victory for either side than by negotiation. He adds that there is
no evidence that natural resources obstruct or aid negotiation means in terms of conflict, and that
“external actors have no incentives to work to bring wars to a close when natural resource
supplies are threatened” (Humphreys, 2005, page 508). This finding combined with the previous
finding comes into direct opposition with the argument that rebels will prolong conflict if they
have sufficient motivation and opportunity to do so.
Humphreys argues that existing and leading research has conducted tests on the relationship
between natural resources and conflict without accounting for mechanisms besides rebel greed
that underlie the correlations. His paper provides the rival mechanisms as well as the tests and
methods required to differentiate between them when testing for the outcome. He notes that
although his findings provide preferred explanations than literature that focuses on the rebel
greed mechanism, “the tests still suffer from severe data and specification issues” (Humphreys,
2005, page 534). In order to obtain even more precise results, as well as to be able to test all the
mechanisms, more fine-grain data and better measures for the indicators are required.
9
In terms of policy implications, Humphreys’ finding of strong support for the weak states
mechanism, as well as that natural resources have an especially harmful effect on already weak
states, underlines the important of policy priority redirection; he suggests that initiatives such as
better focus on proper management of resource extraction processes, as well as on “better usage
of resource revenues controlled by states” (page 534). In terms of policies that could lessen the
grievance mechanism, Humphreys (2005) suggests that governments better inform the public
about the revenue expenditures and allow for public oversight of these expenditures (page 534).
Finally, after finding support that resource wars generaly end with a victory for one military side
rather than negotiation, Humphreys suggests that “policy responses should focus on establishing
criteria for determining what regimes should be supported”, as the results “supported one-sided
military interventions” in resource wars (page 535).
2.2. “The Spoils of Nature: Armed Civil Conflict and Rebel Access to Natural Resources”
Païvi Lujala seeks to further investigate the link between natural resources and conflict.
Given the results in Humphrey (2005), Lujala considers the location of natural resources,
specifically hydrocarbon and gemstone production and reserves, as well as the role of rebel
access to these resources as a new method not found in existing literature. She argues that if the
rebel greed mechanism did not play an important role in the relationship between natural
resources and conflict, and that other mechanisms were the only valid explanations, then
accounting for rebel access to natural resources would not make a difference.
The author conducts her study in the time period 1946 to 2003, looking at a minimum of 252
conflicts. Her data considers 885 onshore and 379 offshore regions of hydrocarbon (crude oil and
natural gas) production and reserves found in 111 countries. 98 of these countries had oil, gas or
10
both present. Her diamond dataset allows her to use more than 1,000 diamond deposits
worldwide.
The theory behind Lujala’s research is that natural resources and their link to conflict is
general explained by two different methods. The first argues that relatively lootable natural
resources, such as diamonds, may provide rebel movements with the motivation and opportunity
to finance their activities and raise the odds of their success. The other stream argues that the link
between natural resource abundance and conflict is attributable to weak states and poor
governing choices. Lujala (2010) notes that existing literature is based on these two hypotheses,
and that advocates of both sides generally use the same indicators and measures in estimating
their models, which she considers a weakness of existing literature (page 15).
Referring back to the theory found in Humphreys (2005), this paper presents the same
alternative mechanisms that could possibly explain the link between natural resources and
conflict. However, Lujala (2010) holds that, for example, if the weak states mechanism was truly
an explanation for the harmful effects of natural resources on peace, then the “relative location of
resources should not matter” (page 16). She hypothesizes that the only occasion in which there
will be an effect of natural resources on conflict is if those resources are located in a conflict
zone; “those located outside the conflict zone should have a different or no effect on conflict”
(page 17).
Lujala’s research uses three main types and sources of data. She uses the PETRODATA
dataset for her crude oil and natural gas reserves data, which collects from regions worldwide.
This dataset allows the author to account and control for the spatial and temporal overlap of
resources and conflict (page 18). For the duration analysis, she uses the dataset to construct sec
conflict-specific dummies, and for onset analysis, she constructs dummies that coded at the
11
country level. When testing the more lootable resource of the two, Lujala uses the DIADATA
dataset to construct dummy variables for secondary diamond production, primary diamond
production, as well as a gemstone production dummy. These are all coded at the conflict and
country level (page 19).
In terms of Lujala’s dependent variables, she constructs two, both using the UCDP/PRIO
Armed Civil Conflict dataset. The benefit of this dataset is that is “has a relatively low inclusion
rate, implying that low-intensity conflicts are included as well” (Lujala, 2010, page 19). For her
duration analysis, she collects data on 252 conflicts. For onset analysis, she is able to collect 238
conflicts; several conflicts are excluded from the second analysis, as there were cases where a
conflict would begin in the same year as another conflict in a given country (page 19). Her
control variables ranged from income level, logged population, social fractionalization, level of
democratization and regions with rough terrain or forest cover.
The methodology used in this paper followed a continuous probability distribution, namely
the Weibull distribution. This method is preferred to its alternative, the Cox model, as it “reports
the most conservative coefficients” (Lujala, 2010, page 21).
Table II in the Appendix presents Lujala’s results for the bivariate duration analysis of
armed civil conflict. From the first row, it is clear that conflict duration is more than doubled in
conflict areas consisting of oil reserves relative to conflict areas without oil reserves. Considering
oil production, conflict is again increased by a factor of about 1.8 in regions that have conflict
relative to regions with no conflict. Gas reserves also have an adverse effect on conflict in
conflict areas, but the same effect is not found for oil production. This may be explained by the
fact that rebels may count this as future value that they work towards expropriating. Another
finding from Table II is that both secondary diamond and gemstone production increase conflict
12
duration, whereas primary diamonds do not enter significantly. This may be explained by the fact
that primary diamonds are not considered lootable given the difficulty of their expropriation.
When secondary diamonds and gemstones are combined into one variable, their effect is even
larger and more statistically significant.
Table III presents Lujala’s findings for the duration of armed conflict. When including
dummies for hydrocarbon reserves, as well as secondary diamonds and gemstones, the results
follow closely those of Table II. The effects of the resources is highly significant and more than
doubles conflict duration. Model 1 also includes certain control variables, such as rough terrain
regions, forest cover, and rainy season, all which enter significantly into the model. The
argument here is that these measures “benefit rebels by providing them with hiding places and
causing natural breaks in fighting” (Lujala, 2010, 23). Model 2 includes a measure for intensity,
which accounts for conflicts that cause relatively high causality rates, which entered significantly
into the model as well. Model 3 includes the level of democracy, which entered significantly and
suggests that “democracies tend to fight longer wars,” and that a possible explanation for this is
that they are “less likely to use overly brutal methods to bring a rebellion to an end” (page 23).
Model 4 seeks to determine the effect on secondary diamonds separately, and finds that is it
statistically significant. This makes sense, as secondary diamonds are relatively more lootable
than other resources. In model 5, hydrocarbon production loses its significance, whereas the
effect of reserves on conflict duration still holds. Model 6 tests the effect of oil reserves
specifically, and finds a weaker, but still present effect on conflict duration. Lujala (2010) holds
that the mere presence of gas and oil may lengthen conflict duration and that production is
clearly not necessary for the effect. Model 7 shows that the effect of oil production is still
present, but very weak. Model 8 accounts for the fact that there may be an effect being picked up
13
by resource rich countries that generally tend to have longer conflict duration (page 23). By
testing all the dummies at the country level, it is shown that the effect of the resources on conflict
duration is only present when the resources are in conflict regions, which supports the argument
that “rebels prolong conflict duration through their movements” (page 23).
Finally, Table III presents Lujala’s findings on onset analysis, where she distinguishes
between onshore and offshore regions when considering the difference in risk of conflict onset.
Model 9 shows that the democracy enters significantly into the analysis, and specifically that
“the most democratic and autocratic countries are likely to experience conflict” (page 24). Other
control variables that enter significantly are linguistic fractionalization, mountainous region, and
secondary diamond production. Specifically, countries with secondary diamond production
increase the risk of conflict onset by a factor of almost 1.5. Model 10 introduces the oil
production dummy, and finds that the effect is substantial and statistically significant. This
translates to oil production also increasing the risk of conflict onset by a factor of almost 1.5.
Model 11 seeks to differentiate between onshore and offshore production regions, and yields
results that suggest that the only effect is observed in onshore production; offshore production
suggests no effect on conflict onset. Lujala notes then that rebels rarely have access to offshore
production regions, and that “the only way in which offshore production can influence conflict
onset” is by means of its effects on state institutions, or by the weak state mechanism (page 24).
Models 12 and 13 account for former British and French colonies dummies, which then cause the
oil variables to lose their significance (page 24).
In conclusion, Lujala uses a new method to better characterize the relationship between
natural resources and conflict. She does this by considering how the location of natural resources
and rebel access affect both conflict onset and duration. Her results suggest that resources that
14
are located within actual conflict zones cause conflict duration to be doubled. When testing the
variables at the country level, the effects disappeared, strengthening her hypothesis that the effect
is only present in conflict regions. She also finds that production is not necessary for an effect of
resources on duration to be present, and that the mere presence of reserves is enough to make an
impact. For Lujala’s onset analysis, she found that only onshore production had a harmful effect
on conflict onset, also through its rebel movements. Countries with secondary diamond
production are also at a higher risk of conflict onset. These results suggest that rebel motivations
and greed are more prominent as mechanisms underlying the link between natural resources and
conflict than are other mechanisms that work through state or political institutions.
2.3. “A Diamond Curse? Civil War and a Lootable Resource”
This final study, conducted by Lujala, Gleditsch and Gilmore (2005), also examine the
relationship between natural resources and civil war, but do so by looking at the specific type of
natural resource in question. The authors consider one key resource, diamonds, as they have
“emerged as a prominent factor in explanations of civil war” (page 538). The authors apply a
new method not seen before in previous literature, and disaggregate the resource into its lootable
and non-lootable form, secondary diamonds and primary diamonds, respectively. As mentioned
earlier, the argument that secondary diamonds are lootable than are primary diamonds is due to
their relative location to the surface, and thus the ease at which they can be extracted.
For their research, the authors considered the time period of 1945-1999. The considered
regions with diamond discoveries and production as provided to them by the dataset they
selected. This narrows their research down to 25 countries with primary diamond discoveries, 17
of which are producers. In addition, the authors use another 32 countries that have reported
secondary diamond discoveries, 26 of which are producers.
15
As with Lujala (2010), the theory behind this paper lies in the rebel greed hypothesis. The
authors note, “the general argument has been that abundant natural resources provide a pool in
which rebels can acquire a stake to finance their warfare” (page 539). Referring to the three
factor model of rebellion, which was largely inspired by Gurr in 1970, Lujala, Gleditsch and
Gilmore (2005) note that rebels movements are decided based on motivation, opportunity and
identity; specifically, the rebels need to feel either grievance or greed, need to be free of barriers
to achieve their goal, and they need a common identity for group formation (page 539). In
addition, previous scholars have suggested that “natural resource abundance may increase the
risk of conflict onset,” mainly because “rebels can loot primary product commodities to finance
their fighting” (page 540). Lujala, Gleditsch and Gilmore (2005) also note that in 2002, Addison,
Le Billon and Murshed found that the relationship between natural resources to conflict is
dependent on the lootability of the resource (page 541).
The authors hypothesize that a country producing diamonds is more prone to civil war
outbreak. This hypothesis has two variants: primary diamonds do not affect the risk of civil war
onset, whereas secondary diamonds cause the risk to be higher. Another hypothesis the authors
make that countries with secondary diamonds are associated with a higher incidence of conflict,
whereas countries with primary diamonds are associated with a lower incidence of conflict. A
third hypothesis is that “the presence of secondary diamonds is positively associated with the
onset and incidence of civil war in countries with high ethnic fractionalization” (Lujala,
Gleditsch & Gilmore, 2005, page 545). The fourth is that poorer countries experience a stronger
effect of secondary diamond mining on their risk of civil war than do relatively richer countries.
Lujala, Gleditsch and Gilmore (2005) used the DIADATA dataset to collect their
information on diamonds. The dataset includes 23 countries across the world, and as mentioned
16
earlier, the data is divided into primary or secondary diamonds, and the data also includes
geographic coordinates (page 546). The authors also note that they exclude countries that have
sporadic diamond occurrences, such as in Nigeria.
The methodology used by Lujala, Gleditsch and Gilmore is taken from a previous study by
Fearon and Laitin in 2003, which studied the onset of civil war in relation to natural resources.
The authors use a logit model, which is modeled as the following:
y* = β0+β1x1+β2x2+β3x3+ε
Whereby the dependent variable, y*, indicates whether or not there was a war. It takes
value 1 if there was, 0 if not. β1 includes the diamond dummies; β2 includes various control
variables; β3 includes a set of variables to control for time dependence; ε is the associated error
term. The control variables in this paper are also taken from Fearon and Laitin (2003): income
per capita, logged population, rough terrain, petroleum abundance, recent independence,
instability, ethnicity, control for time dependence, and the number of years of peace before onset
of conflict.
When conducting a bivariate analysis between civil war onset and diamond presence and
production, the authors constructed six dummy variables. This can be seen in Table 5 of the
appendix. One was for aggregated diamond presence, the second for aggregated diamond
production, the third for primary diamond presence, the fourth for primary diamond production,
the fifth for secondary diamond presence and the sixth for secondary diamond production. They
found that the aggregated dummy variable entered significantly, translating to all diamond
production and presence contributes to civil war onset. However, primary diamonds are no
longer significant after disaggregation, and only secondary diamonds remain highly significant.
17
This confirms the authors’ hypothesis that only secondary diamonds have an impact on the risk
of civil war, and that primary diamonds do not.
When testing for the onset and incidence of all civil war, the authors initially find that
higher income levels decrease the likelihood of conflict onset, whereas a larger population size,
mountainous terrain, dependence on oil exports and political instability all have an adverse effect
on conflict. Ethnic and religious fractionalization does not enter significantly into the model. The
authors report that there is no relationship found between aggregated or disaggregated diamond
production and the onset overall, they argue that this is an issue related to the selection of the
dependent variable. When testing for conflict persistence, the authors now find that the dummy
for ethnic fractionalization now becomes significant. When adding an interaction term that
combines secondary diamond production and ethnic fractionalization, the term yields a
significant result. This result suggests that “secondary diamond production in ethnically
heterogenous countries tends to lead to more persistent conflicts while in more homogenous
countries it does not (page 552). This confirms the hypothesis linking secondary diamonds to
conflict in countries with ethnic fractionalization.
In their third regression, when testing for the onset and incidence of ethnic civil war, as
noted above, it is suggested that secondary diamonds are associated with conflict in ethnically
heterogenous countries. In this analysis, religious fractionalization is no longer significant, but
the rough terrain and instability measures enter significantly. When testing the aggregated
diamond variable, it resulted insignificant; when disaggregating, primary diamonds remained
insignificant, while secondary diamonds entered significantly. The authors also tested the effect
of diamond production on poor countries relative to rich countries. They found that poor
countries are at risk of conflict if they have secondary diamond production, but that the “effect
18
evaporates when an interaction term for secondary diamond production and ethnic
fractionalization is added” (page 553). In poor countries, there is no impact made by the
production of primary diamonds on the incidence of conflict. In addition, it is noted by the
authors that primary diamond production decreases the risk of ethnic conflict onset. In general
though, the authors find that the production of secondary diamonds increases the probability of
the incidence of ethnic war by more than 200%, while the production of primary diamonds
decreases the probability by 80% (page 556).
Finally, the authors note that they cannot “neglect the possibility that the diamond
dummies are picking up an Africa effect,” whereby more than half the countries with diamond
deposits or production are located in Africa, which is overrepresented when it comes to conflict
(page 558). When running their analysis with a dummy for sub Saharan Africa, the results
remain robust. Another sensitivity analysis conducted is to control for the possible effects of
colonialism; when the authors include dummies for British and French colonies, the results
remain robust as well.
In conclusion, Lujala, Gleditsch and Gilmore (2005) find that the type of resource matters
when conducting analysis on the relationship between natural resources and civil conflict. They
found substantial support for a strong link between secondary diamonds to civil conflict, but no
support linking primary diamonds to conflict. This is in accordance with the idea that secondary
diamonds are more lootable as compared to primary diamonds. In addition, the authors found
that the presence of diamond deposits does not have nearly as big of an effect as the actual
production of the resource—again, this effect differs between primary and secondary diamonds.
This paper highlights the importance of disaggregating natural resources with respect to their
lootability, as to avoid obtaining biased results (page 559).
19
3. Discussion and Conclusions
The three empirical works reviewed in this paper all aimed to better specify the
relationship between natural resources and the propensity for conflict onset and duration. The
study by Humphreys (2005) directed focus away from the common rebel greed hypothesis,
by aiming to shed light on several other possible mechanisms that underlie the link between
natural resources and conflict. Although he was unable to test all the mechanisms and
although there were data and methodology issues, he provided sufficient evidence that the
consideration of other mechanisms could prove to benefit conflict scholars in their search for
answers regarding relationships such as this one. Further, Humphreys notes that research
undertaken with several mechanisms in mind could lead to more promising and effect policy
reforms and other changes in government that reduce grievances and conflict in general.
The second paper was in a way a rebuttal to Humphrey’s analysis. Lujala (2010) accepted
that there may be other mechanisms at work, but specified that if certain factors were
controlled for, such as the location of lootable resources and rebel access to them, then the
true effect could be seen. If other rival mechanisms were truly the appropriate explanations
for why conflict occurs in resource abundant countries, and not the rebel greed hypothesis,
then there would be no observable effect in tests considering location of resources and rebel
access. Her research, however, provides results supporting that location and rebel access are
crucial in identifying a link between natural resources and conflict. Furthermore, she finds
that production of natural resources is not necessary for conflict to arise; the mere presence
of oil reserves or gemstones underground is enough to prolong conflict.
Finally, Lujala (2005) looks at the relationship once again, this time focusing on the type
of resource with respect to its lootability degree. Lujala, Gleditsch and Gilmore (2005)
20
disaggregate the diamond resource into its lootable and non-lootable form, namely,
secondary diamonds and primary diamonds. They find that, in accordance with their
hypotheses, that secondary diamonds are associated with conflict, whether they are produced
or simply discovered underground. In contrast, primary diamonds do not have that effect. In
fact, primary diamonds have a softening effect on conflict in some cases, whereby the results
suggest that secondary diamonds almost always have an adverse effect on conflict. What is
interesting is the finding in Lujala, Gleditsch and Gilmore (2005) that the presence of
diamond deposits does not have nearly as big of an effect as the actual production of the
resource. This follows what is found in Humphreys, who argues that reserves of natural
resources do not provoke conflict by means of rebel greed. However, a few years later in her
2010 study, Lujala disproved this by showing that the mere presence of oil reserves and
gemstones was enough to lengthen conflict duration and that production was not necessary.
As noted by the authors themselves, conducting further research while using more fine-
grained data, better measures for variables and indicators, and disaggregating variables into
logical forms would help provide more significant, thorough and reliable results. This would
help research by providing clear results, as opposed to the ambiguous findings currently
found in existing literature.
21
4. Appendix
Table I: The Political Economy of Extraction (Global Sample)
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IXa
Measure of natural resources Oil Production (Per Capita) Oil Reserves (Per Capita) Diamonds Production (Per Capita) Measure of Strengths/Weaknesses Instability Strongb Weberian Instability Strongb Weberian Instability Strongb Weberian
Natural Resources 2.415 8.537 -89.911 0.336 0.956 1.603 1.11 0.937 3,204.00
(3.94)*** (3.36)*** (1.70)* (5.67)*** (1.25) (0.16) (4.27)*** (3.19)*** (.)
Strengths/Weaknesses 0.595 -0.466 -0.056 0.646 -0.51 -0.051 0.618 -0.517 -0.047
(2.39)** (1.67)* (0.72) (2.57)** (1.80)* (0.66) (2.49)** (1.85)* (0.55)
Interaction Term 10.978 -5.313 18.572 0.974 -0.588 1.368 -0.004 0.543 -800.649
(1.82)* (1.93)* (1.93)* (0.43) (0.76) (1.24) (0.01) (1.27) (.)
Observations 5,170 5,167 1,339 5,170 5,167 1,339 5,170 5,167 1,339 a. Computational problems encountered in estimating equation IX. b. “Strong” is given by (1-Instability)x(1-Anocracy) *Significant at 10%. **Significant at 5%.***Significant at 1%. Source: Humphreys, Macartan (2005) ‘Natural Resources, Conflict and Conflict Resolution: Uncovering the Mechanisms,’ The Journal of Conflict Resolution 49, 508-537
Table II: Bivariate duration of analysis of armed civil conflict, 1946-2001 Independent Variable Time ratio p-value Oil reserves, conflict zone 2.171 0.009* Oil production, conflict zone 1.790 0.082* Gas reserves, conflict zone 1.687 0.044* Hydrocarbon reserves, conflict zone 2.556 0.001* Hydrocarbon production, conflict zone 1.752 0.088* Secondary diamond production, conflict zone 1.939 0.017* Gemstone production, conflict zone 4.667 0.000* All gemstones, conflict zone2 3.164 0.000* *p<0.1 2‘All gemstones’ variable does not include primary diamonds Source: Lujala, Päivi (2010) ‘The spoils of nature: Armed civil conflict and rebel access to natural resources,’ Journal of Peace Research 47, 15-28
22
Table III: Duration of armed civil conflict, 1946-2001 Independent variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ln Mountainous terrain conflict zone
1.124 (2.20) 0.028*
1.104 (2.22) 0.027*
1.092 (1.88) 0.060*
1.099 (1.99) 0.046*
1.096 (1.99) 0.056*
1.092 (1.91) 0.056*
1.094 (1.98) 0.048*
1.120 (2.46) 0.014*
ln Forest cover, conflict zone
0.928 (1.43) 0.152
0.899 (1.95) 0.051*
0.889 (2.04) 0.041*
0.898 (1.88) 0.060*
0.887 (2.12) 0.034*
0.885 (2.13) 0.033*
0.885 (2.18) 0.029*
0.892 (1.90) 0.057*
Rainy season, conflict zone
1.915 (1.91) 0.056*
1.806 (1.83) 0.067*
1.548 (1.38) 0.168*
1.897 (1.97) 0.049*
1.697 (1.64) 0.102*
1.615 (1.48) 0.140*
1.703 (1.65) 0.100*
1.883 (1.87) 0.061*
Intensity 3.506 (4.58) 0.000*
3.709 (4.47) 0.000*
4.125 (5.50) 0.000*
3.755 (5.33) 0.000*
3.815 (5.39) 0.000*
3.781 (5.38) 0.000*
4.123 (5.27) 0.000*
Democracy (lag) 1.050 (1.99) 0.047*
1.052 (2.06) 0.039*
1.049 (1.97) 0.049*
1.051 (2.02) 0.044*
1.050 (2.02) 0.043*
1.050 (2.13) 0.034*
All gemstones2, conflict zone
2.632 (3.65) 0.000*
3.149 (4.49) 0.000*
2.938 (4.34) 0000*
2.937 (4.21) 0.000*
2.884 (4.22) 0.000*
2.934 (4.24) 0.000*
Secondary diamonds, conflict zone
2.400 (3.21) 0.001*
Hydrocarbon reserves, conflict zone
2.357 (3.21) 0.001*
2.059 (2.66) 0.008*
2.013 (2.60) 0.009*
2.028 (2.61) 0.009*
Oil reserves, conflict zone
1.798 (2.07) 0.038*
Oil production, conflict zone
1.679 (1.66) 0.096*
*p<0.1 2‘All gemstones’ variable does not include primary diamonds Source: Lujala, Päivi (2010) ‘The spoils of nature: Armed civil conflict and rebel access to natural resources,’ Journal of Peace Research 47, 15-28
23
Table IV: Onset of armed civil conflict, 1946-2003
*p<0.1 2‘All gemstones’ variable does not include primary diamonds Source: Lujala, Päivi (2010) ‘The spoils of nature: Armed civil conflict and rebel access to natural resources,’ Journal of Peace Research 47, 15-28
Table V: Bivariate analysis of Civil War Onset by Presence of Diamonds and Production Coefficient p-value Diamonds present in country 0.453
(0.208) 0.030
Diamond production in country (0.461) (0.218)
0.035
Secondary diamonds present (0.574) (0.208)
0.006
Secondary diamond production 0.581 (0.219)
0.008
NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses. Source: Lujala, Päivi (2005) ‘A Diamond Curse? Civil War and a Lootable Resource,’ The Journal of Conflict Resolution 49, 538-562
Independent variables 9 10 11 12 13 ln Population size 1.223
(3.92) 0.000*
1.149 (2.29) 0.022*
1.148 (2.38) 0.017*
1.162 (2.45) 0.014*
1.160 (2.53) 0.011*
ln GDP per capita (lag) 0.827 (1.45) 0.147
0.777 (2.00) 0.046*
0.773 (1.96) 0.051*
0.736 (2.59) 0.010*
0.731 (2.59) 0.010*
Democracy score squared (lag)
0.993 (3.10) 0.002*
0.993 (3.17) 0.002*
0.993 (3.17) 0.002*
0.993 (3.15) 0.002*
0.993 (3.19) 0.001*
Linguistic fractionalization
2.806 (3.23) 0.001*
3.106 (3.77) 0.000*
3.067 (3.72) 0.000*
3.283 (4.03) 0.000*
3.256 (3.99) 0.000*
ln Mountainous terrain 1.128 (3.06) 0.002*
1.129 (3.18) 0.001*
1.126 (3.12) 0.002*
1.125 (2.97) 0.003*
1.122 (2.94) 0.003*
Secondary diamonds 1.473 (1.94) 0.053*
1.443 (1.96) 0.050*
1.452 (1.96) 0.049*
1.555 (2.27) 0.023*
1.565 (2.26) 0.024*
Oil production 1.503 (2.20) 0.028*
1.401 (1.73) 0.083*
Onshore oil production
1.488 (1.93) 0.053*
24
5. Bibliography
Lujala, Päivi (2010) ‘The spoils of nature: Armed civil conflict and rebel access to natural resources,’ Journal of Peace Research 47, 15-28
Lujala, Päivi (2005) ‘A Diamond Curse? Civil War and a Lootable Resource,’ The Journal of Conflict Resolution 49, 538-562
Humphreys, Macartan (2005) ‘Natural Resources, Conflict and Conflict Resolution: Uncovering the Mechanisms,’ The Journal of Conflict Resolution 49, 508-537