Talk:Resource curse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Merger with Rentier state
I proposed a merger of this page with Rentier state on September 19th, 2005; no dissenting comments were made, so I merged in content from that page today, September 27th, 2005. The rentier state edit history and talk page can be found at its original page. MC MasterChef 08:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thomas L. Friedman
This article warranted a mention of Fareed Zakaria (as it should), but I think a mention of Tom Friedman might belong as well. Then again, maybe going down that path would result in an inclusion of everyone who's said or written anything on the topic.
[edit] Page revamp, merger with Dutch Disease
This page and the Dutch Disease page definitely need to be merged. Also, the pages ought to be completely redone. For an economics topic, it's rather econ-lite; something I would like fixed. But I'm new to this whole editing process, so if anyone would help contribute to this project, let me know. Thanks. --Geoff 23:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm removing the merger tags from this article. Dutch disease is NOT the same thing as the resource curse. I think the merger is the result of confusion of the terms and will only cause more confusion. Both have to do with resources creating problems, but dutch disease is usually a sudden shock to the economy caused by resource exports raising currency values. The resource curse is the paradoxical lack of growth in countries with strong natural resources. Dutch disease is one mechanism which might contribute to this lack of growth. I think this article does a good job of illustrating the differences. Dutch disease is listed as one of three explanations for the resource curse. If someone still wants to pursue merging, put the tags back up, but I really don't think it's a good idea tom merge.--Bkwillwm 18:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Right, the resource curse and dutch disease are not the same thing; Dutch disease is part of the resource curse, however. Rethinking it, they probably should remain separate articles, and only briefly mention Dutch Disease in the resource curse article. I don't think it possible to completely separate the two. Alright? --Geoff 02:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me.--Bkwillwm 05:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Before I start making changes to this article, I'm just gonna list my issues with it as it is, and hope everyone agrees with me/is will to help with the improvements. There is a general lack of organization. There's already a good list of the causes of the resource curse, but the problem here is that not much of anything is cited. There should be examples of where it has occured and policy solutions to it. Also, similarly to Dutch Disease, perhaps Rentier State should have its own article. Although it is relevant to the article and could certainly be mentioned here, the full explanation of the term, I think would be best elsewhere, since they are distinctly different. Any thoughts? comments? Please let me know. --Geoff 03:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] defining resource curse
It's important to note that the resource curse is primarily an economic concept, although one could say that there are some political economy effects in there, also. It is not really a political science topic since the effect that natural resources has on democracy is not really part of the natural resource curse, even though there may be a connection between the two in some countries. If someone can show a source in which Zakaria or others are specifically calling this connection a "resource curse", then I think it has a place in the article as an extended definition of the resource curse, and mentioned as such. Also, I'm proposing that we unmerge rentier states and resource curse.
- If it hasn't already been done, I support the motion to separate rentier state and resource cures...though, it looks like it's been done. MikeNM 22
- 36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Government Complacency
I removed the following sentence from the "Government Complacency" section:
Some have suggested that a more effective mechanism than state monopoly would be to simply distribute revenues from state-controlled natural resources evenly among the population, as is done in the oil-rich U.S. state of Alaska.
This is passive-voice POV weasel-wordery. Who has "suggested" this? Why do they have any credibility? The section is about the effect of the Resource Curse on governments; what does "state monopoly" have to do with anything? Are you suggesting only state monopolies can be complacent?
A comparison between the effects of resource incomes in Alaska and Nigeria would be very useful. However, the quote is a poor way of doing it since the Alaska Permanent Fund is a "state monopoly" and Nigeria's oil industry is private enterprise. -- Corvus 14:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Revamp
I have just begun to take an interest in this article, but will be contributing a great deal more in the future. A lot has been contributed by Timothy Kirkpatrick since these topics were last discussed, and so I am creating a new discussion section.
First, I propose that the page is reorganized. The causes are all muddled up with effects (grouped together by negative?). More needs to be done to separate out the different theoretical perspectives. It seems to me that we should start the article with the empirical research that has been done that launched the 'resource curse thesis' into mainstream acceptance. Then the article can be organized around the theoretical battle over what causes resource curse, how, and what each paradigm implies for alleviating the curse.
Second, I propose introducing and citing the perspective that resource curses are really hierarchical power relations between states. Theorists of colonialism and imperialism have written extensively on this, and it needs to be in this article. Deleriamour 08:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
