Print

Print


I do not share Terry L. Karl's analysis below, nor the theory of
so-called "resource curse" for that matter, but it is one that needs
to be taken into account.  What might a historical materialist
analysis of oil-led development look like? -- Yoshie

<http://cddrl.stanford.edu/publications/oilled_development_social_political_and_economic_consequences/>
Oil-Led Development: Social, Political, and Economic Consequences
Working Paper
Author:
Terry L. Karl
Published by
CDDRL Working Papers,  January 2007

Proponents of oil-led development believe that countries lucky enough
to have "black gold" can base their development on this resource. They
point to the potential benefits from enhanced economic growth and the
creation of jobs, increased government revenues to finance poverty
alleviation, the transfer of technology, the improvement of
infrastructure and the encouragement of related industries. But the
experience of almost all oil-exporting countries to date illustrates
few of these benefits. To the contrary, the consequences of oil-led
development tend to be negative, including slower than expected
growth, barriers to economic diversification, poor social welfare
performance, and high levels of poverty, inequality and unemployment.
Furthermore, countries dependent on oil as their major resource for
development are characterized by exceptionally poor governance and
high corruption, a culture of rent-seeking, often devastating
economic, health and environmental consequences at the local level,
and high incidences of conflict and war. In sum, countries that depend
on oil for their livelihood eventually become among the most
economically troubled, the most authoritarian, and the most
conflict-ridden in the world.

Download
<http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21537/No_80_Terry_Karl_-_Effects_of_Oil_Development.pdf>
--
Yoshie