Countries rich in natural resources constitute both growth losers and growth winners. We claim that the main reason for these diverging experiences is differences in the quality of institutions. More natural resources push aggregate income down, when institutions are grabber friendly, while more resources raise income, when institutions are producer friendly. We test this theory building on Sachs and Warner's influential works on the resource curse. Our main hypothesis: that institutions are decisive for the resource curse, is confirmed. Our results are in sharp contrast to the claim by Sachs and Warner that institutions do not play a role.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Find related papers by JEL classification: O4 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General F43 - International Economics - - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance - - - Economic Growth of Open Economies
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Skaperdas, S., 2000.
"Warlord Competition,"
Papers
00-01-20, California Irvine - School of Social Sciences.
Other versions:
Skaperdas, Stergios, 2001.
"Warlord Competition,"
Working Papers
UNU-WIDER Research Paper , World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
[Downloadable!]
Aaron Tornell & Philip R. Lane, 1999.
"The Voracity Effect,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 22-46, March.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.) This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.