Most people believe that rich natural resources make a country rich. Fertile lands and abundant mineral wealth are seen as a natural endowment, available to support an abundant life. They also give a ready-made advantage in trade, since food, timber, metals, and energy are universal means to life. Even today many countries prohibit private ownership (as opposed to private exploitation) of their natural resources. This is the case in Russia, where oil and minerals are still owned by the state, though private companies are given leases of various lengths to turn them into usable commodities.
Yet the theory that countries with plentiful natural resources enjoy a head-start in the race for prosperity is not borne out by experience. Historically, it has been countries with relatively poor natural endowments that have developed faster, leading economists to talk about a "resource curse." Great Britain, the pioneer of the Industrial Revolution, had plenty of coal and iron, but not much else in the way of natural resources.
More recently, the "miracle" countries of East Asia have been relatively or absolutely resource poor. Hong Kong, a barren rock off the coast of China, is the best example, but Japan, the pioneer "miracle" economy, was poorly endowed. East Asia's spectacular growth has been fuelled by the export of labor-intensive manufactures, not by the export of commodities. Data on real GDP per head show that developing countries with few natural resources grew two to three times faster between 1960 and 1990 than countries with abundant natural resources. Nigeria and Venezuela are examples of countries ruined by an abundance of oil.
Why should this be so? In an important recent book, Martin Wolf explains why. Natural resources tend to corrupt politics, turning it into a battle to seize control over the incomes produced by the resources. This has been true of much of Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. They generate unstable terms of trade, because the prices of natural resources or agricultural commodities fluctuate widely. They produce a high real exchange rate that hinders development of internationally competitive manufacturing.
By contrast, a country that exports manufactures is less likely to face protectionist pressures. Manufactures also offer a natural ladder up the chain of comparative advantage, whereas countries specializing in natural resource exports will find it harder to shift to higher value-added products. This brings out the fundamental point that countries with few natural resources have more incentive to develop their human capital and the institutions and practices of a market economy. Making things requires, and generates, more skill than extracting them.
Can Russia escape the "resource curse"? The Soviets were basically right in their perception that the path to development lay through manufacturing and not natural resources. But their development strategies were designed to serve the needs of their own command economy not the world market. The result was a tragedy of industrial mis-development which has thrown postcommunist Russia back on its natural resource base. Today it has a second chance for a balanced development.
In this it has two advantages over other resource-rich countries. First, the Kremlin is not controlled by the oligarchs. If it did nothing else, the prosecution of Yukos has made this clear. This gives a chance of avoiding the destructive, redistributionist politics of most resource-rich countries, which alternate between rule by corrupt landlords and business elites and populist uprisings against them.
Secondly, a crucial inheritance from communist times is a high level of scientific and technical education. The challenge is to apply this human capital to the production of goods and services for the world market. This was the burden of a speech given by Economic Development Minister German Gref a few weeks ago. If this can be done, there is no reason Russia should not be able to follow in the economic footsteps of West.
Robert Skidelsky is the author of the three-volume biography, "John Maynard Keynes." This article first appeared in Vedomosti, and in English in Tuesday's edition of The Wall Street Journal.
Yet the theory that countries with plentiful natural resources enjoy a head-start in the race for prosperity is not borne out by experience. Historically, it has been countries with relatively poor natural endowments that have developed faster, leading economists to talk about a "resource curse." Great Britain, the pioneer of the Industrial Revolution, had plenty of coal and iron, but not much else in the way of natural resources.
More recently, the "miracle" countries of East Asia have been relatively or absolutely resource poor. Hong Kong, a barren rock off the coast of China, is the best example, but Japan, the pioneer "miracle" economy, was poorly endowed. East Asia's spectacular growth has been fuelled by the export of labor-intensive manufactures, not by the export of commodities. Data on real GDP per head show that developing countries with few natural resources grew two to three times faster between 1960 and 1990 than countries with abundant natural resources. Nigeria and Venezuela are examples of countries ruined by an abundance of oil.
Why should this be so? In an important recent book, Martin Wolf explains why. Natural resources tend to corrupt politics, turning it into a battle to seize control over the incomes produced by the resources. This has been true of much of Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. They generate unstable terms of trade, because the prices of natural resources or agricultural commodities fluctuate widely. They produce a high real exchange rate that hinders development of internationally competitive manufacturing.
By contrast, a country that exports manufactures is less likely to face protectionist pressures. Manufactures also offer a natural ladder up the chain of comparative advantage, whereas countries specializing in natural resource exports will find it harder to shift to higher value-added products. This brings out the fundamental point that countries with few natural resources have more incentive to develop their human capital and the institutions and practices of a market economy. Making things requires, and generates, more skill than extracting them.
Can Russia escape the "resource curse"? The Soviets were basically right in their perception that the path to development lay through manufacturing and not natural resources. But their development strategies were designed to serve the needs of their own command economy not the world market. The result was a tragedy of industrial mis-development which has thrown postcommunist Russia back on its natural resource base. Today it has a second chance for a balanced development.
In this it has two advantages over other resource-rich countries. First, the Kremlin is not controlled by the oligarchs. If it did nothing else, the prosecution of Yukos has made this clear. This gives a chance of avoiding the destructive, redistributionist politics of most resource-rich countries, which alternate between rule by corrupt landlords and business elites and populist uprisings against them.
Secondly, a crucial inheritance from communist times is a high level of scientific and technical education. The challenge is to apply this human capital to the production of goods and services for the world market. This was the burden of a speech given by Economic Development Minister German Gref a few weeks ago. If this can be done, there is no reason Russia should not be able to follow in the economic footsteps of West.
Robert Skidelsky is the author of the three-volume biography, "John Maynard Keynes." This article first appeared in Vedomosti, and in English in Tuesday's edition of The Wall Street Journal.
A Message from The Moscow Times:
Dear readers,
We are facing unprecedented challenges. Russia's Prosecutor General's Office has designated The Moscow Times as an "undesirable" organization, criminalizing our work and putting our staff at risk of prosecution. This follows our earlier unjust labeling as a "foreign agent."
These actions are direct attempts to silence independent journalism in Russia. The authorities claim our work "discredits the decisions of the Russian leadership." We see things differently: we strive to provide accurate, unbiased reporting on Russia.
We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. But to continue our work, we need your help.
Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $2. It's quick to set up, and every contribution makes a significant impact.
By supporting The Moscow Times, you're defending open, independent journalism in the face of repression. Thank you for standing with us.
Not ready to support today?
Remind me later.
Remind me later.
×
Remind me next month
Thank you! Your reminder is set.
We will send you one reminder email a month from now. For details on the personal data we collect and how it is used, please see our Privacy Policy.