[Editor's Note] Since the issue of economic growth and development has aroused widespread concern, economists have been devoted to exploring various factors and conditions related to economic growth, that is, the source of growth. Natural resources or natural endowments, material capital, technological progress, public order and laws, and even beliefs and values have all been revealed and placed in a prominent position. Among them, natural resources, as a necessary input for material production activities, have become an important material basis for economic development, and countries with relatively rich resources usually contain greater development potential. The history of economic development since modern times shows that natural resources did play a key role in the initial accumulation of a country's national wealth. For example, the rapid industrialization of the United States, Australia, Canada and Scandinavia is inseparable from their rich natural resources. Since 1980s, the fact that more and more resource-rich countries have fallen into the growth trap has aroused deep thoughts of economists. Empirical data show that the economic growth rate of resource-rich countries is slow or even stagnant for a long time. From 1965 to 1998, the per capita GNP of low-and middle-income countries in the world increased by 2.2% annually, while that of OPEC countries decreased by 1.3% in the same period. Among the 65 countries with relatively rich resources in the world, only four countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Botswana) have an annual per capita GNP growth rate of 4%( 1970~ 1998), while the per capita GNP growth rate of some East Asian economies with scarce resources (China, Hongkong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan Province Province of China) has exceeded that of developed countries. International economists put forward a proper term: resource curse, that is, rich natural resources have not brought good luck to the country, but are linked together, such as extremely unequal income distribution, rampant corruption and rent-seeking activities, serious shortage of human capital investment and frequent civil strife. A similar situation is extremely prominent in some countries in Africa and Latin America. China is known as a country rich in resources, but in the actual economic operation process, we find that the cost we have to pay for exploiting resources, especially the social cost, is far higher than the income we get. 《》 is a summary of the literature about "resource curse", but it is still instructive to read. How can resources become a curse? It has become one of the important discoveries of development economics in recent 20 years that international economists study the drag of abundant natural resources on the national economy. Why do resource-rich countries grow more slowly than resource-poor countries? Why do resource-rich countries have more unequal income, low investment in human capital, and even frequent civil strife and wars? Since 1990s, exploring the mystery of resource curse has become one of the focuses of development economics. On the issue of explaining the resource curse, international academic circles have formed many different views, some focus on the long-term deterioration of the terms of trade of resource-exporting countries, some focus on the changes in domestic economic structure caused by the export of natural resources, which leads to the decline of international competitiveness, and some think that it is caused by income inequality and serious shortage of human capital investment. Theory of terms of trade. The economic theory that first mentioned or involved the resource curse was the structuralist school in the field of development economics in the late 1950s. Economists such as Reavis and Singer believe that commodity exporting countries will inevitably suffer the fate of deteriorating terms of trade. These commodities basically lack the price elasticity of income and demand, which will lead to the widening gap between rich industrialized countries and poor commodity exporting countries. Some economists have noticed that the drastic fluctuation of international primary product market prices will create problems for the government, while the drastic fluctuation of export commodity prices will often greatly affect the government's fiscal revenue, and then affect a country's macroeconomic policy. In addition, they also believe that the development of the resource sector cannot promote or even hinder the development of other sectors. Because most natural resources departments are in the hands of multinational giants, these departments are similar to economic enclaves in developed countries, and there is basically no "forward connection" or "backward connection" in natural resources mining departments. This makes the development of natural resources stand out from the crowd, but it has no driving effect on other departments, which will eventually drag down the whole national economy. Dutch disease. In the 1960s, a large amount of natural gas was discovered in the North Sea of the Netherlands. With the exploitation and export of natural gas, the Dutch guilder has become strong, but the competitiveness of non-oil exports has declined. People call this syndrome "Dutch disease". Dutch disease is manifested in the gradual decline of manufacturing industry in developing countries rich in natural resources. The manufacturing industry undertakes the mission of technological innovation, organizational change, and even training entrepreneurs, while the natural resources mining sector lacks linkage effect and externalities, and the requirements for human capital are quite low. So once the manufacturing industry declines, brain drain is an inevitable trend. Careful observation of Dutch disease shows that the Dutch disease model can not fully explain the resource curse of developing countries. The theoretical assumption of Dutch disease model is that there is full employment and fixed capital before the prosperity of resource export, which is undoubtedly not in line with the actual situation of developing countries. In developing countries, there is an absolute surplus of labor and a serious shortage of capital. Dutch disease analysis believes that due to the surplus labor force in developing countries, the unexpected prosperity of the resource sector will turn the surplus labor force into a prosperous resource industry, but at the same time it will not raise the wage level of manufacturing industry. Therefore, the rising labor cost mentioned in the resource transfer effect may not exist. In addition, if most of the intermediate products of the manufacturing industry in developing countries need to be imported, if the exchange rate appreciates, the domestic manufacturing industry may not lose its competitiveness, instead of the collapse of the manufacturing industry as the Dutch disease model says. However, the value of Dutch disease analysis lies in that it emphasizes the decisive role of local manufacturing industry in the economic growth of developing countries, which coincides with the resource transfer effect they put forward and the view that some scholars later thought that outstanding talents would turn to high-paying departments, which led to the slowdown of national economic growth. Insufficient investment in human capital and income inequality. Studies at the national and enterprise levels provide sufficient evidence that education should be regarded as an investment. Human capital theory includes endogenous growth theory, which predicts that the difference of education investment will lead to the difference of labor productivity in various countries. In addition, investment in education can also reduce income inequality, thus increasing the economic growth rate. Investment in women's education will also reduce the fertility rate, improve children's health, and contribute to a country's long-term economic growth. Recently, many economists have tried to explain the resource curse from this perspective, that is, to explore why resource-rich countries lack enthusiasm for education investment. The results show that the demand for high-quality labor in resource-rich countries is seriously insufficient. From property rights to rent seeking, corruption and civil war. From the 1950s to the mid-1970s, many resource departments in developing countries were nationalized, but such a state-owned system could not solve the property rights problem of resource departments. A typical weakness is that the definition of property rights cannot be based on laws and regulations. When the implementation of property rights is facing difficulties, there will be more insurmountable obstacles to the development of manufacturing industry. But this property right dilemma does not hinder the development of resource industry, because the short-term return rate of resource industry is high enough to attract investment. And the return of this investment even needs the realization of private property rights. When the rent of resources is high enough and the implementation of state property rights faces legal obstacles or operational difficulties, large-scale rent-seeking activities and civil strife are inevitable. It is generally believed that abundant natural resources will increase the risk of civil war in a country, because the emergence of civil war is closely related to funds. After the end of the cold war, separatists could not get financial support from the former superpowers, which made it easy for them to turn their attention to some natural resources with high rents. It should also be pointed out that the export of many natural resources was relatively unaffected by the civil war. So there will be such a strange phenomenon: on the one hand, the civil war is in full swing, and on the other hand, the transactions around natural resources are orderly. However, other sectors, such as manufacturing and services (tourism), are not so lucky. They often suffered a devastating blow in the civil war and were not easy to recover after the war. Even if the civil war stops, both sides will soon find that the national economy and people's livelihood are more dependent on the natural resources department than before the civil war, which once again laid the groundwork for the civil war. How can resources not be a curse? As far as how to avoid the resource curse is concerned, there are two issues that must be considered: one is what kind of policy to adopt, and the other is why such a policy should be adopted. In the analysis of natural resource curse in academic circles, some policy suggestions on how to avoid resource curse are also put forward. Leave natural resources underground. This view seems too extreme to be regarded as a serious policy proposal. Oxfam, its founder, believes that the speed of natural resource development must be carefully weighed against the resulting socio-economic consequences. According to the viewpoint of traditional engineering or project economics, it is in line with the principle of efficiency to emphasize speed in the exploitation and development of natural resources. Obviously, the slowdown in resource development will reduce the present value of resources. When the price of resources increases with time, the owner can expect the resources to increase with the income of capital. If the income growth rate of resource capital is equal to the interest rate of other property, the owner will have no preference to leave the resource underground or exploit it, and the resource exploitation will be carried out at the optimal speed. However, considering the resource curse hypothesis, the centralized export and development of natural resources will make the national economy more fragile. The slowdown of resource development projects will give a country more opportunities and greater ability to adjust the income flow that follows. Obviously, a slow and steady income flow is easier to manage than a fast and huge income flow. The corresponding resource transfer effect and crowding-out effect brought by Dutch disease will also become slight. In this regard, the successful practices of Britain and Norway provide useful reference. Diversification. Another way to solve the resource curse is to reduce dependence on the resource sector, that is, to promote industrial diversification. Oti believes that the single industry is an important reason for the poor economic performance of resource-rich countries. Although diversification is recognized by almost all economists as a good way to solve the resource curse, it is not easy to implement it successfully. Since 1970s, oil exporting countries have invested their huge oil export income in promoting industrial diversification, but the result is disappointing. In addition to the Dutch disease mentioned above, the reason lies in the deliberate pursuit of government-led diversification and the neglect of the cultivation of spontaneous market forces. These so-called diversification are often monopolized by the government, which provides a large number of opportunities for government funds to rent for some departments, and naturally it is inefficient and competitive, but it limits the development space of promising private investment. Although the government also plays an important role, truly effective diversification comes from private sector investment. In addition, while encouraging diversification, the government is required to implement an open export-oriented trade policy, which is conducive to the growth of domestic private industries and the formation of manufacturing competitiveness. Income freeze, stability and resource fund. Reasonable macroeconomic policy, especially fiscal policy, is an important means to solve the resource curse. In resource-exporting countries, huge export income translates into a substantial increase in fiscal revenue. The government is often carried away by such a "good situation" and hastily launches some projects with huge costs and long cycle, which often leads to the expansion of domestic total demand. Once the price of resources falls involuntarily, the government quickly falls into a financial crisis, and the contraction of demand causes the national economy to fluctuate greatly, which is extremely unfavorable to the growth of the national economy. This requires the government to prevent the income from resource export from turning into an increase in total demand, which can be achieved by setting up a resource fund. Resource-based funds can be used for both overseas investment and stable income. The specific method is to set a resource price for the purpose of stabilizing government budget revenue and expenditure. If the international market price exceeds this price, the fund income will increase to prevent the increased income from becoming budget expenditure; If it is lower than this price, part of the fund's income will enter the government budget to stabilize the budget expenditure. In empirical research, there are successful cases of resource funds, such as Chile and Indonesia, and also failed countries, such as Venezuela. In addition, in 2002, Devlin and Lewen studied the data of 7 1 countries from 1970 to 2000, and found that resource funds can reduce government expenditure and increase investment rate. However, some economists question that resource funds may actually worsen fiscal discipline and lead to soft budget constraints, because this method of setting up resource funds actually leaves the government with a back door when the pressure of fiscal expenditure increases. Political reform. Some economists also advocate that we should pay attention to the political system reform of resource-rich countries. In terms of political system reform, some economists advocate the implementation of democratic system. However, the economic development in the 50 years after the war has actually proved that if we proceed from the simple goal of economic growth, the democratic system cannot show its superiority, and it is not really a necessary condition for economic development. The problem is that if a country's income and wealth are seriously divided, it is quite difficult to make a democratic system work successfully. Modern social choice theory points out the theoretical defects of democratic system. The serious differentiation of income often leads to sharp opposition of interests. The implementation of democracy often makes the government a redistribution machine, which is not conducive to economic growth. However, if we do not introduce democracy and continue to maintain the rule of oligarchs and elites, resources and wealth will continue to be concentrated in the hands of a few people, and income inequality will continue to worsen. This is really a dilemma. Another part of economists focus on eliminating corruption and rent-seeking behavior in political reform, demanding that government expenditure and related resource income items be more transparent, and the public should participate more in government decision-making, so as to prevent government departments and officials from abusing resource income to harm people's interests. For example, in 2003, Transparency International launched a campaign to require multinational oil companies to disclose their payments to oil-producing governments or national oil companies and their uses. Cook Kulefut, UK Chairman of Transparency International, pointed out: "This will help people in oil-producing countries such as Nigeria, Angola, Iraq, Indonesia and Kazakhstan and their civil society organizations understand their income situation. In this way, they have the right to supervise whether their government uses the national budget to increase public services and goods, and prevent these wealth from being squandered on ineffective face-saving projects or simply transferred to politicians' overseas bank accounts. "At present, the research on resource curse is in the ascendant. The latest research attempts to study the transmission mechanism of resource curse by discussing the quality of natural resource system. Because there are some developed countries with the same rich resources in the world, such as the United States, Australia, Canada, Norway and so on. It is puzzling that some resource-rich developing countries, such as Malaysia and Botswana, have successfully maintained long-term high-level economic growth. At present, people think that natural resource endowment and natural resource system will affect economic development, and the difference of development path and system quality will affect long-term economic performance.