Scarcity

At the end of our last lecture, we were left to think again as to if we personally believe scarcity causes conflict. While taking a glance around the room, I realized the class was still split about half and half. It is hard for me to understand the half of the room that does not think scarcity causes conflict. Whether the conflict is non-violent or violent, whenever a group of people are competing for a scarce resource, conflict is bound to occur. Sometimes it is the simplest arguments that end up being the truest, and in this case I think the equation is clear: scarcity=conflict.

Homer Dixon's argument is the most compelling argument, and although his equation is not as simple as just scarcity leading to conflict it still lends the most logical perspective. Dixon believes that climate change leads to scarcity, and depending on the type of climate change can dictate different types of scarcity. Nonetheless, there are still arguments that go against Dixon. For example, Thiesen's reading came up with data that showed conflict such as civil war is not likely to be caused by scarcity. Nonetheless, I do not find his data to be compelling. I think by just using common sense it is easy to see that scarcity is going to cause conflict. For example, if there is one well filled with enough water to support 15 people and their are 20 people in a community it is doubtful that the people in the community are going to create a rotating schedule with who will be entitled to the water during what days. People tend to look out for themselves, and even if it means physically fighting for your share of water, there is no doubt in my mind that this would be the more plausible reaction to scarce water.

The other argument that could be made against scarcity is that abundance could actually pose a greater threat.This was seen in the Hendrix reading. When there was higher levels of rainfall there was a greater chance for violent conflict, but low levels of rainfall are more likely to cause nonviolent conflict. Nonetheless, Hendrix looked at a very specific variable and it is not a convincing argument to me because it doesn't look at the scarcity of a resource like oil or even the effects of deforestation. In order for Hendrix argument to be more compelling, he needs to look at how scarcity and abundance cause conflict on a larger scale than just rainfall.

Finally, another argument against Dixon would come from cornucopians. Cornucopians do not believe scarcity really leads to conflict because they have the opinion that humans will be able to keep up with the times and create technologies that make scarcity a non issue. I have the hardest time understanding this view. It is rare that I ever watch the news and see a report that says there is plenty on this earth and that we will learn to adjust to our situations. The largest criticism I have for this view is that even if technologies are created, that does not mean they will be equally distributed around the world. The United States may come up with techniques and ways to support a growing population therefore avoiding scarcity completely, but that does not mean that developing countries with rising populations will also be able to handle scarcity in the same way.  Although it would be nice to think that countries would share modern farming techniques or technologies for free, we live in a give and take world. Even if the United States or another country went in and gave another country help, just interfering with their farming practices to avoid scarcity or help alleviate scarcity could cause conflict. Not everyone likes international intervention, and it would undoubtedly cause local conflict.

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.

Neo-Malthusian Culture

by Jon Burnsky

Homer-Dixon makes the Neo-Malthusian claim that climate change causes different kinds of scarcity, which in turn causes conflict, and that combatting climate change will work its way down the chain to avert conflict. While the evidence for this link is not clearly established, it is worth thinking about. Criticisms of Homer-Dixon are either from Cornucopians or Promethians that claim scarcity is not worth worrying about because it doesn’t exist or will solve itself. A problem that comes along with these criticisms is that they can very easily lead to laziness and make people apathetic towards the real problem of actively solving climate change. Despite these criticisms and the lack of empirical evidence, people in general agree with Homer-Dixon because of the certain Western political culture, and this is displayed in popular culture.

            Many science fiction movies concern themselves with huge conflicts arising from resource competition or an ecological apocalypse. For instance, the more recent version of The Day the Earth Stood Still was about an alien invasion and attempted human extermination because of people’s lack of willingness to address their overuse of the planet. Habitable planets are scarce, and so the aliens wanted to preserve Earth. This is a greatly exaggerated and dramatized conflict, but in the end it is resolved by nations agreeing to cooperate in combating climate change, thus dealing with scarcity. Another movie, Elysium, dealt with a similar outlook. Resources and land had become scarce due to overpopulation, so a space station was constructed in which the wealthy could live and enjoy a relatively post-scarcity standard of living. In doing so there arose scarcity of people allowed to live in this space utopia, which created violent conflict between the have and have-nots. This too supposed that scarcity was a growing problem, and that even a Promethian response, building an artificial environment, would create scarcity itself and more conflict.

            Similarly, there was a TV show, Revolution, which I did not watch, but had to do with a sudden loss of all electric power supply throwing the world into anarchy. Through commercials, I gathered that one group had regained access to power and this led to war between competing factions over electricity. Another post apocalyptic TV show is The Walking Dead about life after a zombie outbreak. Practically every conflict in the show is rooted in the fact that there is a scarcity of secure locations, food, water, and guns. Multiple different groups are constantly at odds to secure as many resources as they can and in doing so entrench themselves in conflict.

            It seems as though Homer-Dixon’s argument of scarcity causing conflict holds in these theoretical future cases. The writers of these shows and movies seem to think so, and the viewers generally buy into the claims being made as well. Why then does it not hold consistently in real-world past case studies? Perhaps it is that the regions being studied have been in conflict anyway, and that his prediction would work in a developed democratic country. Or maybe it is that the evidence is not necessary at all to make Homer-Dixon’s claims right. Epictetus was a Roman Stoic philosopher who said that the logic and evidence behind a value-judgment claim is not as important as the judgment itself. So if Homer-Dixon’s claim that climate change causes scarcity which causes conflict will lead to nations collaborating on solving climate change, then it is a good claim regardless of its logical or empirical validity.

Perhaps in doing so, Homer-Dixon plays on the universal fear among Westerners that conflict will arise and pressures new technologies to be created. The same could be said about Malthus himself. It could be that fear caused by his predictions added the right amount of incentive to increase interest in innovating new ways to deal with scarcity. The Promethians could be correct in that the real causal chain is scarcity produces concern, which causes pressure to innovate. However, Promethians that claim this is no reason to worry are mistaken. The pessimism and concern of Neo-Malthusians is an integral part of the solution process, therefore Homer-Dixon’s claim is necessary for them to be correct.

There is a cultural norm to be pessimistic about scarcity. Homer-Dixon and mass society follow this norm, and only skeptic Cornucopians and Promethians do not. They use data to show that the claim may be baseless or even illogical. However, Homer-Dixon’s claim gives reason to fight for a good cause: combat climate change. In the end, is this not a necessary goal regardless of whether or not it causes conflict?

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.

                               

The Resource Curse

Fortune recently published an article entitled, “Another African resource curse? IEA says energy boom is not helping poorest.” The resource curse is something I remain skeptical about, and while this article brings about many valid points, I still believe other deep-rooted issues play more of a role in the poverty and corruption that plagues many countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

The facts of the article are definitely foreboding.  Over the past fives years, 30 percent of global oil and gas discoveries have been made in sub-Saharan Africa. Nonetheless, four out of five people in the region still use charcoal and firewood to cook their food due to a lack of electricity. It is frustrating to think that the people who live in those countries are not even using the resources that could be turned into electricity effectively, when they could also be using their resources to attract investors to boost their economy. While many may refer to this issue as a part of the curse, I think it has more to do with the government’s inability to create reforms and legislation that make using these resources easier. In the article, International Energy Agency Chief Economist Fatih Birol  said the two biggest issues Africa faces when it comes to their natural resources is lack of governance and investors. Lack of governance would definitely be an issue in the region with or without the presence of oil, and the economies in sub-Saharan Africa are not likely to be attracting anyone. These two issues are definitely connected, and without a strong government, a strong economy is unlikely to follow.

There is also an infrastructure issue that is effecting the regions ability to use its resources effectively. The article goes on to explain that there are also geothermal and other clean energy opportunities that could be used to attract investors to the area as well. But, the infrastructures in the region would first need to be updated in order to even begin attracting more investors. Again, while the article attributes this issue all to the resource curse, I see it as something completely different. The resources themselves are not causing a lack of investors; it is the lack of updated infrastructure. Either the government needs to start budgeting in order to update these infrastructures, or they could contract out to the private sector.  They could attract the private sector by offering them tax deductions for working at a lower cost.  

Most importantly, the countries in this region need to start focusing on helping themselves. The article also says that a recent study shows that $2 out of $3 in Africa is being used for export projects that are of not use to any Africans. This is a problem that goes far beyond the resource curse. The government needs to start prioritizing its own people before worrying about the goods that are being sent to other countries.  Again, the only way the government can force the private sector to invest more in companies that will help Africans is through incentives. Whether it is through tax reductions, or governments offering to give some funding to start up companies that will invest in technologies that will help Africans specifically, something needs to be done to force companies to care about the people in the countries they are working in.

Another effect of the resource curse is seen through corrupt governments. This is definitely seen in sub-Saharan Africa, where there are millions of dollars stolen in oil annually making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Governments are doing very little to stop the corruption, and it is possible that many government officials are even benefiting from the oil profits. In this case, resources are able to become a tool for the already powerful and corrupt to put the majority at an even greater disadvantage. But, the social standing of the citizens of these countries was not created by the resource curse, it was just made worse by the resource curse. This is the position I hold with the resource curse. Countries that are already unstable and have a lack of organization and government will become even more conflict ridden with the abundance of natural resources, but the resources themselves are not what causes the problem.

While the IEA report claims that if governments and policies do not change, these countries will continue down a path of civil war and corruption, the outlook is not all negative. If African countries do begin to attract investors and use their resources effectively, the IEA estimates the countries economies could be boosted by 30 percent by 2014.