In talking about resources and conflict we have come across two different models for the relationship between the two. The two models are diametrically opposed. One identifies scarcity as the basis of conflict, while the other identifies abundance as the cause. This blog post serves as an overview of the main opinions we have read representing each camp and the concepts associated with them. At the end it will highlight an interesting distinction between the camps which Hendrix and Salehyan suggest can reconcile them.
Those in the scarcity camp theorize that competition over scarce resources is what leads to conflict. However, Thomas Homer-Dixon argues that there is not simply a straight line from scarcity to conflict. Rather, there are two mechanisms that result from resource scarcity and those mechanisms are what eventually lead to conflict. First, he describes ecological marginalization. This is a process through which people living in resource-poor areas are driven to relocate to other areas with similar scarcity. As resources dry up in the first area, they move to other resource-poor areas, which ends up putting more stress on the few resources available and causing tension between populations. Second, Homer-Dixon describes the concept of resource capture. This is when one group captures the resource for themselves, denying access to others. This can obviously lead to resentment and conflict from disempowered groups.
Colin Kahl represents the abundance camp with his Honey-Pot Theory. The theory states that areas that are rich in resources cause conflict as many groups try to gain access to and control the resource for themselves. The underlying motive that drives this model is greed. Those in the abundance camp also make reference to the related concept of resource curse. Resource curse refers to the negative impacts resource rich areas can feel from their ostensible windfalls. First, governments in such areas may let their economies become too reliant on their single resource, which leaves them vulnerable to volatile markets. Second, if governments are able to collect revenue primarily from a resource they control, they are less dependent on taxes from the populace and therefore less accountable to the people. In a similar vein, a government with more resources and less accountability can become rife with corruption.
As we have seen, there are two distinct and opposing models of conflict. One emphasizes scarcity and the other abundance as the basis of conflict. The positions are antithetical by definition, and it is hard to see a way to reconcile the two views. Hendrix and Salehyan, however, posit a very interesting way to see both views as correct.
Hendrix and Salehyan’s article “Climate change, rainfall, and social conflict in Africa” offers a way of viewing in a way so they are both correct. They suggest that the two camps can be reconciled by noting that the arguments from the scarcity camp focus on basic needs like food and water while arguments from the abundance camp are dealing with “lucrative commodities” like gems and oil.
One way to test whether Hendrix and Salehyan’s suggestion holds weight is to see whether each camp’s argument still makes sense when referring to the other camp’s resources. Is it intuitively true that a scarcity of commodities like gems and oil can cause conflict in the same way that a scarcity of food and water does? It seems that it would depend on exactly what resource was being discussed. Gemstones and oil, the two commodities specifically mentioned by Hendrix and Salehyan, serve wildly different purposes, and their scarcity would provoke different reactions. It seems clear that a scarcity of gemstones would not cause the same type of conflict that a scarcity of oil would produce, as oil is a modern necessity and gemstones a luxury.
Looking to the abundance camp, is it intuitively true that an abundance of food and water could cause conflict the way abundance of oil or gemstones could? The type of conflict we see associated with abundance theory, which is motivated by greed and leads to resource curse, does not seem to follow. For one thing, while gemstones or oil may only be found in certain parts of the world, food and water can be produced anywhere and their production is not limited in the same way it is for certain commodities.
The arguments of the scarcity camp don’t necessarily fall apart when addressing resources other than basic needs. However, the scarcity model’s utility seems to depend on exactly what resource is being talked about. On the other hand, the arguments of the abundance camp seem to hold true only for commodities, and not for basic needs. While the separation between the two is not necessarily as clear cut as Hendrix and Salehyan make it out to be, their suggestion for how to reconcile the two camps succeeds in a limited sense. It certainly provides another way to view the divide between the scarcity and abundance models.
No comments:
Post a Comment