ABSTRACT
Marshall, 2001; Schloss, 2002) in countries suffering from the ‘resource curse.’ In addition, the governments are authoritarian (Wantchekon and Lam, 1999; Ross, 2001; de Soysa, 2002). Other studies have linked at least one of these phenomena to the incidence of civil war (DeNardo, 1985; Muller and Weede, 1990; Reno, 1995; Hegre et al., 2001; Collier and Hoeffler, 2002; Elbadawi and Sambanis, 2002; Fearon and Laitin, 2003; Le Billon, 2003). One study (Varisco, 2010) argued that there is an interrelationship between armed conflict and natural resources. Although this interrelationship is not direct or straightforward, Varisco concluded that armed conflict has a strong link with natural resources, particularly oil. The focus of these researchers on the impact of natural resources on military spending is illuminating and strengthens the thesis of the ‘resource curse.’ The MENA countries certainly have governing issues such as corruption, as well as high poverty rates and economic and social disparities. We argue that, in the case of MENA, there are several reasons linking high military
spending and natural resource endowments. First, according to Ross (2004), states that depend heavily on the export of oil, gemstones, and minerals tend to suffer from a variety of problems, including slow economic growth, high poverty rates, high corruption levels, and authoritarian governance. Though Ross does not mention high military spending, we believe that it is one of the manifestations of the ‘resource curse.’ Second, countries that are highly dependent on revenue from natural resources may lead to governments whose hold on power depends more on keeping control of the revenue-generating infrastructure than on promoting the general economic development of the public (Perlo-Freeman and Brauner, 2012). Thus, the military may acquire greater significance as the guarantor of regime survival. In MENA, most of the regimes and leadership are embedded within the military establishment, and the revolving door between military and business interests has kept military spending at high levels. Additional support for the idea that high levels of resource revenue dependency may
also lead to high levels of military spending and arms purchases are listed in SIPRI, 2010, including the fact that natural resources provide a direct source of foreign currency revenue that can be used to fund ‘potentially controversial expenditures’ such as large foreign arms purchases, and, unlike taxes, does not carry a high political cost. In many MENA-region and other developing countries, recent increases in oil revenues have also been accompanied by rapid increases in military spending and arms imports (SIPRI, 2010). Natural resources can also be a source of international tension and conflict. Such conflict
inevitably leads to and justifies higher military spending. Moreover, even in countries where conflict does not exist, an increase in military spending can be justified by the desire to protect the natural resources from internal or external enemies, real or imagined (SIPRI, 2010). For example, Brazil increased its defense spending in response to the growing need to protect the Brazilian borders, the Amazon rainforest, and massive offshore oil discoveries (Ribeiro and Prada, 2012). Finally, revenues from natural resources often lack transparency and accountability, which may lead to large off-budget military spending and corrupt arms purchases (Perlo-Freeman and Brauner, 2012).
