Natural Resource Abundance And Economic Growth Revisited

By J. Stijns. 2005

552 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Data on energy and mineral reserves suggest that natural resource abundance has not been a significant structural determinant of economic growth between 1970 and 1989. The story behind the effect of natural resources on economic growth is a complex one that typical growth regressions do not capture well. Preliminary evidence suggests that natural resources may affect economic growth through both “positive” and “negative channels.” Potential reverse causality running from these “channels” to fuel and mineral reserves further complicates the analysis. I conjecture that, as economic historians suggest, the ability of a country to exploit its resource base depends critically on the nature of the learning process involved.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/339f9184a064380ff04a36fe2622edf30f71a2b0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

Citations in the corpus

Why do some resource-abundant countries succeed while others do not? (2009, background): “Stijns, 2005, and Brunnschweiler and Bulte, 2008), the measures used are not exogenous and are likely to bias the estimates of resource abundance: the countries with the longest period as industrialized and with the best institutions may have explored and found more of their reserves than other cou”
Resource abundance and economic growth in the United States (2007, background): “In a similar context, Manzano and Rigobon (2003) and Stijns (2005) contest the significance of the statistical association between resource abundance and economic growth.”
The Resource Curse: A Statistical Mirage? (2015, background): “van der Ploeg and Poelhekke (2010) argue that the measure of resource abundance used by Brunnschweiler and Bulte is endogenous.”
Commodity Price Volatility and the Sources of Growth (2012, unknown): “In addition, Stijns (2005), using data from the same period as Sachs and Warner (1995), finds no correlation of oil and mineral reserves with growth between 1970 and 1989 and concludes that natural resource abundance has not been a structural determinant of growth.”
Rule of Law and the Resource Curse: Abundance Versus Intensity (2009, background): “3 Stijns (2005) provides an empirical accounting of possible direct stock effects on growth; his effort is hampered, however, by his use of current reserves data rather than historic information, which raises the possibility of significant endogeneity problems.”
Trade structure and growth (2003, background): “Papua New Guinea, Malawi, Nicaragua, Togo, among others, now appear as high value cases while Finland and Singapore have fallen among the lower value cases.”
Dutch Disease Scare in Kazakhstan: Is it real? (2008, unknown): “bergo, 1999; Kronenberg, 2004; Papyrakis and Gerlagh, 2004; Stijns, 2005 ).”
Resource Rents, Redistribution, and Halving Global Poverty: The Resource Dividend (2011, background): “Stijns (2005) finds that there is no statistical association between measures of reserves of mineral resources and slow growth in the 1970s and 1980s, but this does not contradict the Sachs and Warner finding that high levels of production or export of natural resources are, on average, bad for…”