Democracy Resource curse

research shows oil wealth lowers levels of democracy , strengthens autocratic rule. according michael ross, 1 type of resource has been consistently correlated less democracy , worse institutions: petroleum, key variable in vast majority of studies identify type of curse. 2014 meta-analysis confirms negative impact of oil wealth on democratization. 2016 study challenges conventional academic wisdom on relationship between oil , authoritarianism. 2016 study finds resource windfalls have no political impact on democracies , entrenched authoritarian regimes, exacerbate autocratic nature of moderately authoritarian regimes. third 2016 study finds while accurate resource richness has adverse impact on prospects of democracy, relationship has held since 1970s. 2017 study found presence of multinational oil companies increases likelihood of state repression. 2017 study found presence of oil reduced likelihood democracy established after breakdown of authoritarian regime.

there 2 ways oil wealth might negatively affect democratization. first oil strengthens authoritarian regimes, making transitions democracy less likely. second oil wealth weakens democracies. research supports first theory mixed on second.

both pathways might result ability of oil-rich states provide citizens combination of generous benefits , low taxes. in many economies not resource-dependent, governments tax citizens, demand efficient , responsive government in return. bargain establishes political relationship between rulers , subjects. in countries economies dominated natural resources, however, rulers don t need tax citizens because have guaranteed source of income natural resources. because country s citizens aren t being taxed, have less incentive watchful how government spends money. in addition, benefiting mineral resource wealth may perceive effective , watchful civil service , civil society threat benefits enjoy, , may take steps thwart them. result, citizens poorly served rulers, , if citizens complain, money natural resources enables governments pay armed forces keep citizens in check. has been argued rises , falls in price of petroleum correlate rises , falls in implementation of human rights in major oil-producing countries.

corrupt members of national governments may collude resource extraction companies override own laws , ignore objections made indigenous inhabitants. united states senate foreign relations committee report entitled petroleum , poverty paradox states often, oil money should go nation’s poor ends in pockets of rich, or may squandered on grand palaces , massive showcase projects instead of being invested productively . 2016 study finds mining in africa substantially increases corruption; individual within 50 kilometers of opened mine 33% more have paid bribe past year person living within 50 kilometers of mines open in future. former pay bribes permits more frequently, , perceive local councilors more corrupt.

the center global development argues governance in resource rich states improved government making universal, transparent, , regular payments of oil revenues citizens, , attempting reclaim through tax system, argue fuel public demand government transparent , accountable in management of natural resource revenues , in delivery of public services.

one study finds oil producing states dependent on exports usa exhibit lower human rights performance exporting china . authors argue stems fact relationships oil producers formed decades ago, before human rights became part of foreign policy agenda.

one study finds resource wealth in authoritarian states lower probability of adopting freedom of information (foi) laws. however, democracies resource-rich more resource-poor democracies adopt foi laws.

one study looking @ oil wealth in colombia found when price of oil rises, legislators affiliated right-wing paramilitary groups win office more in oil-producing municipalities. consistent use of force gain power, positive price shocks induce increase in paramilitary violence , reduce electoral competition: fewer candidates run office, , winners elected wider vote margin. ultimately, fewer centrist legislators elected office, , there diminished representation @ center.