Does Scarcity Cause Conflict

Does Scarcity Cause Conflict

Scarcity is an issue that has been hotly debated with some claiming that it will be the downfall of democracy and others stating that human ingenuity will meet any challenge and deny any downfall. The most correct response to such a debate would be to say that the effects of scarcity are dependent upon the intensity of the scarcity, the range of the scarcity (local, regional, global) the market conditions in the area (healthy or struggling), the availability of substitutes for the scarce commodity, whether the scarce commodity is renewable or not, the strength of the government trying to cope with the scarcity, the characteristics of the populations (cultural traits, demography, religious history, history of conflicts, list goes on), and no doubt many other factors as well which will all contribute to what we call the environmental conditions surrounding the situation.

                According to the Hendrix reading scarcity can increase the likelihood of conflicts breaking out and he performed a study on rainfall patterns to help provide support for his theory. In contrast the Theisen reading claimed that civil wars were not likely to be created by scarcity and that other factors like characteristics of the government and poverty were more likely the causes of the conflicts.

                I feel that the problem with using statistical analysis to evaluate the impacts of scarcity is that it fails to capture the subtle effects scarcity can often have. Furthermore, it is possible to come to completely different conclusions simply because scarcity or conflict are defined differently in different studies or scenarios. If we treat conflict as the incidence of civil war like Theisen does we will of course see less conflict because it requires a lot of pressure to create a civil war as opposed to more tame forms of conflict like a riot, protest, or even domestic violence. Furthermore, if we decide that every minor deprivation of a commodity constitutes a situation of scarcity we will overestimate the occurrence of scarcity and it will appear as though the effects are minor. This can help explain the different conclusions that Theisen and Hendrix came to as Hendrix looked at smaller conflicts whereas Theisen looked at civil wars which meant that Hendrix was more likely to find a correlation than Theisen.

                Rather than relying on statistics to decide how important scarcity is I feel it is better to rely on a more logical approach that uses intuition, observation, critical analysis, while avoiding the number games that statistics force us to play. All statistics are wrong anyway according to both of my stat professors. Let us consider two examples.

                A person enters a supermarket in the United States and they are out of chocolate milk (absolute local scarcity). There is a substitute (chocolate soy milk). There are also abundant other drink options that are cheap and within easy reach. There is a woman with a grocery basket that has a jug of chocolate milk (unequal distribution of a scarce resource). The store’s owner is not available to handle to situation. So what will the person do? Your first thought (I hope) is it depends on the person. Perhaps the person will offer the woman more money than the milk is worth to acquire it (economic solution/bargaining). Maybe they wait till she is preoccupied and snatch it from the cart (non-violent conflict). The person could just go to another store that has chocolate milk (relocation/displacement). They could drink something else (substitute). They could also punch the lady in the face and take the milk (resort to violent conflict). Since we are in the U.S. it is likely that conflict will not be the chosen solution if the person is acting rationally (it may be awesome but it is still just chocolate milk) because there are security cameras that would make it very difficult to escape legal retribution for initiating the conflict.

                A person enters a supermarket in the United States and they are out of almost everything and so is every other supermarket (absolute widespread scarcity of all commodities that are necessary for survival). There is not enough food/water for everyone in the store, substitutes are not available, no more food/water is going to be delivered in the near future (too long to go without). There are some people who are leaving the store who have food (unequal distribution of resources). So what will the person do? The answer is now less obvious. No doubt you are wondering how this predicament came to be, well do to climate change (or just very bad luck) a hurricane hit New Orleans (again) and the levies failed (again) but hurricanes have also simultaneously (within a few days of each other) devastated other places as well like Miami, New York City, and Ocean City. Thus, the aid that is available is insufficient because too many places are in trouble. Thus, the population of New Orleans that failed to evacuate in time is left with no access to the formal market, and no rule of law. This changes the equation and leads to a different logical conclusion than the tamer incidence of scarcity previously discussed. Substitution, bargaining, and relocation are no longer options because substitutes are unavailable, resources are too scarce to create a market, and there is nowhere to go that has more resources. The only options left are deprivation (no access to food, shelter, water, and security, which could well lead to death), theft which can provide access to food, and water, and violent conflict which can provide for all needs (as long as the person is the winner). Furthermore, collective action is impossible because there is absolute scarcity meaning that if all resources are shared equally everyone will die from deprivation. Thus, it is likely that many people will be killed and violent conflict will occur in this situation.

                So even in a Country as wealthy, stable, and democratic as the United States it is not impossible to think of a scenario where scarcity can create violence. It depends on the environment which has many aspects, it depends on the person which in turn depends on many factors, and it depends on the nature of the commodity that is scarce.