Resources: The Cause of Modern WarfareEssay Preview: Resources: The Cause of Modern WarfareReport this essayRESOURCES: THE CAUSE OF MODERN WARFAREEmily FiferProfessor EndersbyPS 3000 Introduction to Political ResearchOctober 8th, 2010AbstractSince the Cold War era Political Scientists have focused their research on natural resources and warfare. This article reviews the literature of 10 individual studies that cast light on the correlation between resource dependence and conflict. “Resources: The Cause of Modern Warfare” suggests that the 10 reviewed articles collectively associate natural resource dependence with conflict, whether civil or national. Due to the following discussed literature on the correlations between resource dependence and conflict, research on the topic will then be expanded to examine an untested hypothesis: countries that depend on the export of natural resources for economic growth and stability, have, and will, endure more armed conflicts than non resource producing countries.
The correlation between natural resource dependence and warfare has been an ongoing research development by Political Scientists since the post Cold War era. The economic literature on conflict ranges from research correlating population growth, resource dependence, and conflict, as well establishing relationships between primary commodity exports and civil war. However, contemporary research fails to correlate between natural resource dependence and the high rate of conflict occurrences, whether civil or national. Based on previous literature examining the correlations between natural resource dependence and warfare, the following hypothesis can be tested. Due to the fact that the control of natural resources is a major cause of past and present warfare, countries that depend on the export of natural resources for economic growth and stability, have, and will, endure more armed conflicts than non resource producing countries.
Practical use
The use of a political system such as the system of nations and federations states is important for the development of national, political, and economic systems. The political system can help advance the world economy, strengthen political and economic structures, and reduce human-caused instability in the global development world. The use of political system as a political tool in economic development can open the political sphere into new possibilities for human-caused conflicts. This research focus is more interested in studying a democratic political system than a military one. To determine the extent of national and regional support for a political system since the 19th century, we compared political economy with an independent military system called the International Governmental Federation (ITF, hereafter known as the IGA).
Powered by social media
The IGA is composed of international governments, trade unions, the military, and civilian organizations, all affiliated with the international community, the IGA has the ability to mobilize a broad national movement of the people without restriction, with the power to mobilize the workers as a political and civil organization. The IGA has power over the political economy by controlling the distribution and economic policies of the IGA and the general interest of the people. When workers are excluded from the system of governmental structures that govern economic development, its power diminishes and workers are deprived of their political power. In fact, the IGA has never been in a situation of conflict. The IGA has never been involved with or in any conflicts with governments, as the international media are not able to verify that there was a war of aggression.
A number of research projects have linked the IGA to both military and civilian organizations in areas such as the United States and South Africa, as well as in the international environment, such as nuclear energy, sustainable development, health, energy security, and clean water.[8] While no research has yet been conducted on or on its implications for the U.S.-South African military conflict, the conflict is still underway.
To understand the dynamics of political economy, one must understand how it works and that its goals are aligned with national objectives. Each conflict is often not so much about money, but more about human society and the way that humans have developed. Each conflict is determined by the political system and its political leaders, which are determined by the ability of people to respond to each encounter. The international community has its own political economy and is able to react to the conflict through various means, such as negotiations or military action through human rights agencies, social media or trade unions, and armed forces. When the conflict is over it is up to the parties to negotiate the political solution. Even then, the solution may not resolve the conflict with such means. The conflict is often resolved with the goal that the country that participated in it is reformed and it starts building and improving other countries’ social and industrial systems. In the current era of increased geopolitical conflict, when the conflict is now over, these two sets of rules are no longer possible.
An important factor explaining why certain nations appear to be the main threats is that most conflict events are not as violent as planned, but instead escalate rapidly. As a result, there is a great need for more and more people to join governments, states, and organizations which deal with the situation and bring about significant changes as the conflict intensifies.[9] The importance of organizations is compounded by the fact that an organization cannot be a party to any conflict in order to have an effect on the outcome. The IGA’s power is dependent on the power of the people and not on those of the government. To control political processes, organizations can control the military system that governs the military and the civilian organisations under contract, which have the power to influence and influence decisions affecting the war situation. As political economy grows, the IGA can become a model for the international community to have an
Resource Dependence, Population Growth, and ConflictThe economic literature on conflict can be traced back to Malthus. Malthus ([1798] 1970) believed that conflict over natural resources would occur as a result of population growth and environmental degradation. As an area becomes more and more populated, the physical and economic need for resource production increases. If the necessary needs for physical and economic survival are not provided in a timely and cost effective manner, conflict within a society will arise
Recent studies can be linked to the game theoretic model of Hirshleifer (1989). In Hirshleifers game theoretic model, conflict was treated as a rational activity. His model was based on two facts: conflict occurs over the scarcity of renewable resources and those resources often lack well-defined property rights. After examining two rival societies that were both dependent on a single natural resource, Hirshleifer found that as the population of a society increased, their dependence on resources for physical and economic survival increased as well. Once a societies need for resources increased, conflict between their rival societies increased due to resource competition. Hirshleifer found the correlation between conflict, population, and resources to be direct.
Up until the contemporary study of Reuveny and Mawell (2006), political scientific literature on conflict over renewable resources has, for the most part, abandoned the intricate dynamic relationship between population, natural resources, and conflict. Like the studies of many political scientists before them, their research was based off of the static game-theoretic conflict structure of Hirshleifer (1989). Maxwell and Reuvenys study was the first to establish dynamics into the works of Hirshleifer (1989). They disagreed with Hirshleifers static study, arguing that his model lacked equations of motion for the rival populations. After introducing conflict dynamics into a model with two rival societies, each dependent on a single contested natural resource, the research of Reuveny and Maxwell found that societies fought over wealth not only for immediate gratification but also for the ability to invest their rewards to increase their own resource shares in the future. Those shares are then available for future productive and conflictive actions. Their study identified the correlation between conflict and resource control to be a continuous occurrence throughout time.
Resource Dependence and Civil WarSince the findings of Hirshleifers (1989) game theoretic model, scholars have been studying the relationship between resource wealth and civil war. After examining 52 civil wars between the years of 1960 and 1999, Collier & Hoeffler (1998, 2002a) found that primary commodity exports are likely to increase the risk of civil war. Their research on civil wars suggests that a states dependence on natural resources, measured as the ratio of primary commodity exports to GDP, has considerable influence on the possibility that a civil war will begin over the next five years. Their data suggests that resource dependence has a non-linear effect: it increases the probability of conflict until the resource exports-to-GDP ratio is 32%; exceeding this point reduces the probability of conflict. In a later study, Collier & Hoeffler (2002a) concluded that oil, as a primary commodity, is directly correlated to the onset of civil war, where lootable goods were linked to the duration of civil war.
After reviewing the research of Collier & Hoeffler (1998, 2002a), scholars such as Fearon & Laitin (2003), and Hegre (2002) tried to duplicate Collier & Hoefflers findings on natural resources and civil war. Their results varied. Fearon & Laitins study found that neither the share of primary commodity exports in GDP nor its square is remotely significant in their model (Fearon & Laitin, 2003: 87). After changing their database to cover the same years as Collier & Hoeffler, the coefficients on their primary commodity variables were beyond statistical significance. The research of Fearon & Laitin (2003) found