Oil and Civil Conflict : Can Public Spending Have a Mitigation Effect?

This paper explores the conditions under which public spending could minimize violent conflict related to oil wealth. Previous work on the resource curse suggests that oil can lead to violent conflict because it increases the value of the state as a prize or because it undermines the state’s bureaucratic penetration. On the other hand, the rentier state literature has long argued that oil might provide states with resources to deliver public and private goods, and stabilize political regimes. The empirical evidence to settle these conflicting predictions is limited. This paper argues that the effect of oil on civil conflict is conditional on the size of government expenditure and the allocation of government spending for welfare or the military. To test these hypotheses, logit models of conflict onset are used and a global sample of 148 countries from 1960 to 2009 is examined. Higher levels of military spending are found to be associated with lower risks of both minor and major conflict onset in countries rich in oil and gas. By contrast, in countries with little oil or gas resources, increases in military spending are associated with a higher risk of conflict. Welfare expenditure is associated with a lower risk of small-scale conflict, irrespective of the level of oil revenue. However, general government spending does not appear to have any robust mitigating effects. Consistent with the focus in the more recent literature to disentangle the average effect of natural resources, these results nuance the conditions under which there may be a resource curse. The results point to what governments can do with resource revenues to mitigate conflict risk.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bodea, Cristina, Higashijima, Masaaki, Singh, Raju Jan
Format: Journal Article biblioteca
Language:en_US
Published: Elsevier 2015-10-22
Subjects:civil conflict, natural resources, oil, public spending, military spending, welfare spending,
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/10986/23675
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id dig-okr-1098623675
record_format koha
spelling dig-okr-10986236752021-04-23T14:04:16Z Oil and Civil Conflict : Can Public Spending Have a Mitigation Effect? Bodea, Cristina Higashijima, Masaaki Singh, Raju Jan civil conflict natural resources oil public spending military spending welfare spending This paper explores the conditions under which public spending could minimize violent conflict related to oil wealth. Previous work on the resource curse suggests that oil can lead to violent conflict because it increases the value of the state as a prize or because it undermines the state’s bureaucratic penetration. On the other hand, the rentier state literature has long argued that oil might provide states with resources to deliver public and private goods, and stabilize political regimes. The empirical evidence to settle these conflicting predictions is limited. This paper argues that the effect of oil on civil conflict is conditional on the size of government expenditure and the allocation of government spending for welfare or the military. To test these hypotheses, logit models of conflict onset are used and a global sample of 148 countries from 1960 to 2009 is examined. Higher levels of military spending are found to be associated with lower risks of both minor and major conflict onset in countries rich in oil and gas. By contrast, in countries with little oil or gas resources, increases in military spending are associated with a higher risk of conflict. Welfare expenditure is associated with a lower risk of small-scale conflict, irrespective of the level of oil revenue. However, general government spending does not appear to have any robust mitigating effects. Consistent with the focus in the more recent literature to disentangle the average effect of natural resources, these results nuance the conditions under which there may be a resource curse. The results point to what governments can do with resource revenues to mitigate conflict risk. 2016-01-19T21:03:52Z 2016-01-19T21:03:52Z 2015-10-22 Journal Article World Development 0305-750X http://hdl.handle.net/10986/23675 en_US CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IGO http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/igo World Bank Elsevier Publications & Research :: Journal Article Publications & Research
institution Banco Mundial
collection DSpace
country Estados Unidos
countrycode US
component Bibliográfico
access En linea
databasecode dig-okr
tag biblioteca
region America del Norte
libraryname Biblioteca del Banco Mundial
language en_US
topic civil conflict
natural resources
oil
public spending
military spending
welfare spending
civil conflict
natural resources
oil
public spending
military spending
welfare spending
spellingShingle civil conflict
natural resources
oil
public spending
military spending
welfare spending
civil conflict
natural resources
oil
public spending
military spending
welfare spending
Bodea, Cristina
Higashijima, Masaaki
Singh, Raju Jan
Oil and Civil Conflict : Can Public Spending Have a Mitigation Effect?
description This paper explores the conditions under which public spending could minimize violent conflict related to oil wealth. Previous work on the resource curse suggests that oil can lead to violent conflict because it increases the value of the state as a prize or because it undermines the state’s bureaucratic penetration. On the other hand, the rentier state literature has long argued that oil might provide states with resources to deliver public and private goods, and stabilize political regimes. The empirical evidence to settle these conflicting predictions is limited. This paper argues that the effect of oil on civil conflict is conditional on the size of government expenditure and the allocation of government spending for welfare or the military. To test these hypotheses, logit models of conflict onset are used and a global sample of 148 countries from 1960 to 2009 is examined. Higher levels of military spending are found to be associated with lower risks of both minor and major conflict onset in countries rich in oil and gas. By contrast, in countries with little oil or gas resources, increases in military spending are associated with a higher risk of conflict. Welfare expenditure is associated with a lower risk of small-scale conflict, irrespective of the level of oil revenue. However, general government spending does not appear to have any robust mitigating effects. Consistent with the focus in the more recent literature to disentangle the average effect of natural resources, these results nuance the conditions under which there may be a resource curse. The results point to what governments can do with resource revenues to mitigate conflict risk.
format Journal Article
topic_facet civil conflict
natural resources
oil
public spending
military spending
welfare spending
author Bodea, Cristina
Higashijima, Masaaki
Singh, Raju Jan
author_facet Bodea, Cristina
Higashijima, Masaaki
Singh, Raju Jan
author_sort Bodea, Cristina
title Oil and Civil Conflict : Can Public Spending Have a Mitigation Effect?
title_short Oil and Civil Conflict : Can Public Spending Have a Mitigation Effect?
title_full Oil and Civil Conflict : Can Public Spending Have a Mitigation Effect?
title_fullStr Oil and Civil Conflict : Can Public Spending Have a Mitigation Effect?
title_full_unstemmed Oil and Civil Conflict : Can Public Spending Have a Mitigation Effect?
title_sort oil and civil conflict : can public spending have a mitigation effect?
publisher Elsevier
publishDate 2015-10-22
url http://hdl.handle.net/10986/23675
work_keys_str_mv AT bodeacristina oilandcivilconflictcanpublicspendinghaveamitigationeffect
AT higashijimamasaaki oilandcivilconflictcanpublicspendinghaveamitigationeffect
AT singhrajujan oilandcivilconflictcanpublicspendinghaveamitigationeffect
_version_ 1756574248678195200