Several studies have attempted to unravel mechanisms on why natural resources are linked to armed conflict but no coherent picture has yet emerged. This article seeks to address this puzzle by concentrating on the issue of how rebel access to natural resources affects conflict.
It uses new data on gemstone and hydrocarbon localities throughout the world and controls for the spatial and temporal overlap of resources and conflict. The results show that the location of resources is crucial to their impact on conflict duration.
Key findings:
- Conflicts over government last on average five years but secessionist conflicts last for more than nine years. Democracies tend to fight longer wars; one explanation could be that they are less likely to use overly brutal methods to bring a rebellion to an end. Immediately after a conflict starts, the probability of peace increases for the first two years, as time passes, peace becomes less likely.
- Rebel access to resources crucially shapes armed civil conflict. Access to gemstones or hydrocarbons doubles the conflict duration. If oil reserves are located in the conflict area, the conflict is predicted to last longer than a conflict without oil reserves inside the conflict zone. Secondary diamonds and gemstones increase conflict duration; however, primary diamonds are only weakly related to conflict. Production is not necessary for the adverse effect on duration; it is enough that hydrocarbon fields are located in the conflict region. Therefore, it seems that duration is lengthened not necessarily only by the financing available to rebels but also by the promise of future revenue flows originating from the region. Rebels are willing to engage in long conflicts even when they are not able to exploit the resource base during the conflict if the future prize is large enough, they may also be able to sell future extraction rights – “booty futures” – to finance the conflict. Rebels may also be able to raise money from oil companies through extortion, as in Colombia. As Nigeria shows, oil production is potentially lootable and a good revenue source. It may be a better financing source than previously assumed. This link between hydrocarbons and duration is totally new.
- At the country level, resources have no effect on duration. Results imply that the prolonging effect of resources works through resources’ effect on rebel movements and their viability rather than through their effect on the economy, political institutions, and state capacity. If the impact of resource revenues on conflict operates only through their effect on government and other state institutions, we would expect the country-level measures for resources to have a similar effect on conflict duration as that of the conflict-level measures. Results show that these have no effect on conflict duration. Therefore, resources matter for conflict duration only when they are located inside the conflict area, implying that the prolonging effect of natural resources mainly works through their effect on rebel movements.
- Analysis suggests that only onshore oil production increases the risk of conflict onset. As there is no reason to expect that revenues from onshore and offshore oil production should affect the state differently, this implies that onshore oil production is salient for conflict through its impact on rebel movements. Conflict onset analysis reveals also that a country with secondary diamond production has a 40% higher risk of conflict onset.
