4 ms·
You're making a good point. However it's not "exactly because of that", the Wikipedia article also states: > Most experts believe the resource curse is not uni
by blumomo 8y ago
You're making a good point. However it's not "exactly because of that", the Wikipedia article also states:
> Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or inevitable, but affects certain types of countries or regions under certain conditions.
It's not only the natural richness. So let's look into all of the conditions. And who establishes those conditions (see my questions above).
- quickthrower2 8y agoAlaska is a counterexample
- bengaluru 8y agoNorway seems to have done fine
- chongli 8y agoNorway did well because its resources didn't exist, from a technological standpoint, for most of human history. The country was already highly developed and functioning as a cohesive culture for millennia before the North Sea oil had begun to be commercially exploited. This foundation allowed the population to assert some political influence in the development of the resource. Africa, on the other hand, is a very different story. Tropical diseases, terrain, and other features of the continent have made it difficult to form stable, cohesive nations. Now you throw in the discovery of resources and only an elite have the power to exploit them.