Institutions and
Resources in Conflict
We have discussed a number of
theories over the past few weeks that make claims about the relationship
between resources and conflict, but few sufficiently account for the role of
institutions. The honeypot argument claims that abundance of resources leads to
conflict and the scarcity argument asserts that scarcity of resources leads to
conflict. Though there is evidence for each of these, domestic factors and the
effectiveness of institutions is not controlled for, making the supposed causal
relationship questionable (Theisen 814). I side with Theisen on this matter and
believe that domestic institutions and the strength of a state are much more
relevant predictors of conflict than are the abundance or scarcity of a resource.
I noted in discussion on Wednesday that many people found the argument of
Theisen the most convincing. However, when backing their opinions, almost
everyone specified that strong democratic institutions were the key to
effective resource control and avoidance of conflict. This emphasis on
democracy from the class struck me as interesting and I found myself recalling
information about "benevolent authoritarianism" from a previous
course I took, GVPT282: Politics of the Developing World. I agree with Theisen
that institutional stability itself is very important in environmental
conflict, but I believe that the type of institution, democratic or not, is not
of as much importance as my fellow classmates seemed to believe.
We seem to have been conditioned
throughout our political science courses to believe that democratic
institutions such as the ones we have in the U.S. are the most effective
institutions regardless of the circumstances. However, there are often
overlooked benefits of a "benevolent authoritarianism" in which a
government is more authoritarian than democratic yet still implements policies
that benefit the population. These benefits include the ability to implement
big projects and make efficient decisions without opposition (GVPT282 notes).
We can use Singapore as a case study to see how effective institutions, though
undemocratic, can produce positive effects for society, lessen conflict, and
improve the status of the environment. Freedom House classifies Singapore as
"partly free" for various reasons. The People’s Action Party (PAP)
dominates the political process, the media, and the courts. Domestic media is
owned by organizations linked to the government and public assemblies are
controlled by the police (Freedom House). Despite these undemocratic practices
of Singapore, it is ranked 4 out of 178 on the Environmental Performance Index,
which ranks how states perform on high-priority environmental issues (EPI).
Singapore is ranked 1st on the index in the categories of health impacts, water
and sanitation, water resources, and agriculture. An example of a policy
implemented by the Singaporean government is the 20% discount given by the
National Park Board for certain wedding venues if couples can prove that they
have taken a minimum of 8 environmentally-friendly procedures for their wedding
(CNN). The United States is ranked by Freedom House as "free" with
the best possible ratings in all three of the categories including freedom
rating, civil liberties, and political rights (Freedom House). Though the
United States has strong democratic institutions, it is ranked 33 out of 178 on
the EPI. The ratings of both the U.S. and Singapore are relatively high, suggesting
that the strong institutions in both states contribute to success in the
environmental realm. However, the data does seem to suggest that it is the
policies and actions of the institutions that matter, not the level of
democracy.
Though the scarcity and honeypot
theories are backed by certain cases, the missing link is the role of
institutions. Institutions can intervene before conflict due to competition or
greed begins in a state. Conflict over resources is not tied solely to the
resource, but to other domestic factors such as whether states have the
institutions and infrastructure to effectively control and distribute the
resource. Further, strong institutions whether democratic, anocratic, or
authoritarian, can be effective in regulating resources. Comparing the
environmental success in Singapore with that of the United States proves that
the type of the regimes and institutions does not have as much weight as the
policies themselves in solving environmental issues and preventing conflict.
Sources:
GVPT282
Notes
http://epi.yale.edu/
https://freedomhouse.org/
http://travel.cnn.com/singapore/none/12-reasons-why-singapore-greenest-city-914640
Jess, I think your analysis you provide in your post on the role of institutions is really interesting and insightful. With the knowledge that the role of institutions is central in determining how conflict over resources will develop, what sort of solution do you think is best to help alleviate this conflict?
ReplyDeleteJess,
ReplyDeleteIn echoing Mandi's point, I think you presented a really interesting argument, contrary to what we might typically think about democratic institutions and their effectiveness. In my post I, too, argued the importance of institutions in determining prospects for conflict amid an abundance of resources, so I definitely agree with you that institutions must not be ignored.
I understand the argument you made about "benevolent authoritarianism", but I wonder about the downsides of this institution, especially relation to abundant or scarce resources. I argued that transparency in democracies can act as a deterrent for corrupt behavior and can hold leaders accountable for their action (or inaction), so in the case of resource abundance or scarcity, how would leaders be held accountable if they did not effectively manage resources or simply usurped the resources for their own gain? How do you think this would change the prospects for dealing with conflict amid resource abundance or scarcity?
Good question, Mandi. I believe that effective regulation through strong institutions is the key to ensuring that conflict over resources does not occur. However, once an institution is corrupt, reform is not an easy task. I believe that international bodies such as the UN and the World Bank are actors that can hold governments accountable and implement policies to increase transparency and decrease corruption.
ReplyDeleteMonique, you bring up a valid point and I agree that transparency in democracies deters corrupt behavior from leaders. While the case of Singapore is a testament to the possible effectiveness of a benevolent authoritarian regime, it is likely an exception rather than a rule. It does seem much more likely that the leaders of true democracies will act responsibly with regard to resources and that authoritarian leaders will fall into corrupt practices. However, I argue that despite the type of a regime, policies themselves are what determine whether or not conflict over resources will occur.