Collier And Hoeffler Argument Analysis

Theoretically speaking, it could be that circumstances like Horizontal inequalities where the prevailing regime plot to keep resource-rich underdeveloped communities or regions marginalised; and that these same condition also create other domestic pressures – economic, socio-political, or increased tension of another nature – which result in heightened risk of conflict. Assuming the two events are causally linked, there is no reason why causality should run in only one direction. For example, just as resource dependence could create conflict; it may be that conflict leads to greater natural resource dependency (Ibid).
Taking a longer outlook, there are several examples in history of countries which flourished as a result of natural resource exploitation, without suffering violent conflict (Namibia and South Africa etc), thus, posing more fundamental questions about the appropriateness of this type of quantitative analysis of conflict by the works of Collier & Hoeffler. …show more content…
Though probability analysis does not explain why this should be so in many cases. Based on Collier and Hoeffler’s model, a country that has no or very little “primary commodity” exports run a low risk of violent conflict. Yet one only has to consider Rwanda and Somalia, who had very low “primary commodity” dependence of 2.4% and 3.3% respectively in 2000, to appreciate the limitations of this