Abundance and Conflict

            In class we were asked the question: what leads to more conflict, abundance or scarcity? While the class was not unanimous on their viewpoint, I strongly believe that abundance poses far more of a threat especially when it is a nonrenewable resource. While the whole idea of abundance causing conflict goes against the basic economic principle “more is preferred to less”, when you actually start to dissect the topic you understand why this is possible and how it could be detrimental to a state and even more so than scarcity.

            To begin with scarcity causes conflict for obvious reasons. In these situations there are limited resources that people are not getting enough of whether it be clean water, food, land, etc. Because abundance is the opposite of scarcity many people view it as a positive attribute. However we know what due to greed and inequality this abundance may lead to extreme conflict. This is also known as the “honey pot” theory and can be seen as parallel to the resource curse.

            I believe that abundance can cause more conflict than scarcity for several reasons. For one, abundance naturally leads to more inequality. Often times a few people capture these resources, and thus all the wealth, and control the rest of the state. This resource curse leads to inevitable inequality and can lead to violent conflict. It allows enables economic growth and recovery. In states with scarcity, there is still a divide between rich and poor but often times this gap is comparatively smaller. Another reason is that often times in states with scarcity the people are too weak to fight so there is less conflict. Evidence can be seen of this in Hendrix’s and Salehyan’s research journal “Climate Change, Rainfall and Social Conflict in Africa”. As we discussed in class, they saw conflict rose when deviations from normal rainfall were higher. They also found that conflict was greater in years with more rainfall (or abundance). They thought this could be explained by the fact that actors are less likely to attempt violent action when there is less water because it would be harder for them to attack. During these times “people may be more concerned with survival rather than fighting” (Hendrix and Salehyan, p. 45).

            In order to more vividly illustrate how abundance can cause tremendous conflict, I think it is necessary to look at examples of countries that are facing this. One of the most prominent examples is the oil abundance in the Middle East. As we have talked about before, the resource curse has lead countries of the Middle East, like Iraq, to be undeveloped and plagued with corruption. The country as a whole is dependent on the export of oil. The state is the base for many terrorist organizations, including ISIS. Another country that has a nonrenewable abundance is Sierra Leone with their diamonds. The mining of these diamonds has been noted to cause civil war and instability in this country. Additionally the money that is made from mining disproportionately goes to corrupt officials and private companies, instead of the public. While it is important to understand that these countries may often also have scarcity, the primary driving force of their economy is based around their perspective abundance.

            If you look at this compared to countries that don’t have much abundance but have a lot of scarcity, like India, we see a totally different dynamic. Although India is dealing with food and water shortages, it does not have high levels of violence in comparison to the Middle East and Sierra Leone. In conclusion, in my opinion it seems like some of the most violent countries have the issue of resource abundance. Some may argue that this may be due to other factors, like political institutions. However I stand on the side of caution with this argument because political institutions are also thought to be influenced by the types of resources a country possesses.