摘要：Within confict studies, the potential infuence of a country’s natural resources on the onset of
violent internal conficts has been regarded with great interest and fervor for the past decade. While some
scholars posit that such a variable has no signifcant effect on confict, others believe that resources can explain
-- and sometimes predict -- the emergence of violence. This paper will compare the later group’s two dominant
hypotheses, both linking resources to confict: the resource scarcity (or “shrinking pie”) hypothesis and the
resource abundance (or “honey pot”) hypothesis. It will be argued that despite the intended efforts of the
proponents of the resource abundance hypothesis to falsify the resource scarcity hypothesis, such attempts
largely fail. More fundamentally, it will also be shown why there is more room for complementarity rather than
competition between the two hypotheses, as their respective explanatory power relies on different types of
resources.
Loading...
