economic diversification thesis

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Browse content in A - General Economics and Teaching
• Browse content in A1 - General Economics
• A12 - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines
• A14 - Sociology of Economics
• Browse content in B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches
• Browse content in B4 - Economic Methodology
• B41 - Economic Methodology
• Browse content in C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
• Browse content in C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
• C18 - Methodological Issues: General
• Browse content in C2 - Single Equation Models; Single Variables
• C21 - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions
• Browse content in C3 - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables
• C38 - Classification Methods; Cluster Analysis; Principal Components; Factor Models
• Browse content in C5 - Econometric Modeling
• C59 - Other
• Browse content in C8 - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs
• C80 - General
• C81 - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
• C83 - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
• Browse content in C9 - Design of Experiments
• C93 - Field Experiments
• Browse content in D - Microeconomics
• Browse content in D0 - General
• D02 - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
• D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
• D04 - Microeconomic Policy: Formulation; Implementation, and Evaluation
• Browse content in D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics
• D10 - General
• D12 - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
• D14 - Household Saving; Personal Finance
• Browse content in D2 - Production and Organizations
• D22 - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
• D24 - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
• Browse content in D3 - Distribution
• D31 - Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions
• Browse content in D6 - Welfare Economics
• D61 - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
• D62 - Externalities
• D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
• Browse content in D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
• D72 - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
• D73 - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
• D74 - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
• Browse content in D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
• D83 - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
• D85 - Network Formation and Analysis: Theory
• D86 - Economics of Contract: Theory
• Browse content in D9 - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics
• D91 - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
• D92 - Intertemporal Firm Choice, Investment, Capacity, and Financing
• Browse content in E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Browse content in E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy
• E23 - Production
• E24 - Employment; Unemployment; Wages; Intergenerational Income Distribution; Aggregate Human Capital; Aggregate Labor Productivity
• Browse content in E4 - Money and Interest Rates
• E42 - Monetary Systems; Standards; Regimes; Government and the Monetary System; Payment Systems
• Browse content in E5 - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit
• E52 - Monetary Policy
• E58 - Central Banks and Their Policies
• Browse content in E6 - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook
• E60 - General
• E61 - Policy Objectives; Policy Designs and Consistency; Policy Coordination
• E62 - Fiscal Policy
• E65 - Studies of Particular Policy Episodes
• Browse content in F - International Economics
• Browse content in F0 - General
• F01 - Global Outlook
• Browse content in F1 - Trade
• F10 - General
• F11 - Neoclassical Models of Trade
• F13 - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
• F14 - Empirical Studies of Trade
• F15 - Economic Integration
• F19 - Other
• Browse content in F2 - International Factor Movements and International Business
• F21 - International Investment; Long-Term Capital Movements
• F22 - International Migration
• F23 - Multinational Firms; International Business
• Browse content in F3 - International Finance
• F32 - Current Account Adjustment; Short-Term Capital Movements
• F34 - International Lending and Debt Problems
• F35 - Foreign Aid
• F36 - Financial Aspects of Economic Integration
• Browse content in F4 - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance
• F41 - Open Economy Macroeconomics
• F42 - International Policy Coordination and Transmission
• F43 - Economic Growth of Open Economies
• Browse content in F5 - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy
• F50 - General
• F52 - National Security; Economic Nationalism
• F53 - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations
• F55 - International Institutional Arrangements
• Browse content in F6 - Economic Impacts of Globalization
• F61 - Microeconomic Impacts
• F63 - Economic Development
• F66 - Labor
• Browse content in G - Financial Economics
• Browse content in G0 - General
• G01 - Financial Crises
• Browse content in G1 - General Financial Markets
• G10 - General
• G15 - International Financial Markets
• G18 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in G2 - Financial Institutions and Services
• G20 - General
• G21 - Banks; Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
• G22 - Insurance; Insurance Companies; Actuarial Studies
• G23 - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors
• G28 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in G3 - Corporate Finance and Governance
• G32 - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
• G33 - Bankruptcy; Liquidation
• G38 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in H - Public Economics
• Browse content in H1 - Structure and Scope of Government
• H11 - Structure, Scope, and Performance of Government
• Browse content in H2 - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
• H20 - General
• H23 - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
• H25 - Business Taxes and Subsidies
• H26 - Tax Evasion and Avoidance
• H27 - Other Sources of Revenue
• Browse content in H3 - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents
• H31 - Household
• Browse content in H4 - Publicly Provided Goods
• H41 - Public Goods
• H43 - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
• Browse content in H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
• H52 - Government Expenditures and Education
• H53 - Government Expenditures and Welfare Programs
• H54 - Infrastructures; Other Public Investment and Capital Stock
• H55 - Social Security and Public Pensions
• H56 - National Security and War
• H57 - Procurement
• Browse content in H6 - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt
• H60 - General
• H61 - Budget; Budget Systems
• Browse content in H7 - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations
• H71 - State and Local Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
• H75 - State and Local Government: Health; Education; Welfare; Public Pensions
• H77 - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism; Secession
• Browse content in H8 - Miscellaneous Issues
• H83 - Public Administration; Public Sector Accounting and Audits
• H84 - Disaster Aid
• Browse content in I - Health, Education, and Welfare
• Browse content in I0 - General
• I00 - General
• Browse content in I1 - Health
• I10 - General
• I12 - Health Behavior
• I15 - Health and Economic Development
• I18 - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
• Browse content in I2 - Education and Research Institutions
• I20 - General
• I21 - Analysis of Education
• I22 - Educational Finance; Financial Aid
• I24 - Education and Inequality
• I25 - Education and Economic Development
• I28 - Government Policy
• Browse content in I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty
• I30 - General
• I31 - General Welfare
• I32 - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
• I38 - Government Policy; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
• Browse content in J - Labor and Demographic Economics
• Browse content in J0 - General
• J01 - Labor Economics: General
• J08 - Labor Economics Policies
• Browse content in J1 - Demographic Economics
• J10 - General
• J11 - Demographic Trends, Macroeconomic Effects, and Forecasts
• J12 - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure; Domestic Abuse
• J13 - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
• J15 - Economics of Minorities, Races, Indigenous Peoples, and Immigrants; Non-labor Discrimination
• J16 - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
• J17 - Value of Life; Forgone Income
• J18 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J2 - Demand and Supply of Labor
• J21 - Labor Force and Employment, Size, and Structure
• J22 - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
• J23 - Labor Demand
• J24 - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
• J26 - Retirement; Retirement Policies
• J28 - Safety; Job Satisfaction; Related Public Policy
• Browse content in J3 - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs
• J38 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J4 - Particular Labor Markets
• J48 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J5 - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining
• J58 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J6 - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers
• J61 - Geographic Labor Mobility; Immigrant Workers
• J62 - Job, Occupational, and Intergenerational Mobility
• J63 - Turnover; Vacancies; Layoffs
• J68 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J8 - Labor Standards: National and International
• J88 - Public Policy
• Browse content in K - Law and Economics
• Browse content in K2 - Regulation and Business Law
• K23 - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
• Browse content in K3 - Other Substantive Areas of Law
• K34 - Tax Law
• Browse content in K4 - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior
• K40 - General
• K42 - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
• Browse content in L - Industrial Organization
• Browse content in L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
• L11 - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
• L14 - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation; Networks
• L16 - Industrial Organization and Macroeconomics: Industrial Structure and Structural Change; Industrial Price Indices
• Browse content in L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
• L20 - General
• L23 - Organization of Production
• L25 - Firm Performance: Size, Diversification, and Scope
• L26 - Entrepreneurship
• Browse content in L3 - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise
• L33 - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprises and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out
• Browse content in L5 - Regulation and Industrial Policy
• L51 - Economics of Regulation
• L52 - Industrial Policy; Sectoral Planning Methods
• Browse content in L9 - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities
• L94 - Electric Utilities
• L97 - Utilities: General
• L98 - Government Policy
• Browse content in M - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics
• Browse content in M5 - Personnel Economics
• M53 - Training
• Browse content in N - Economic History
• Browse content in N3 - Labor and Consumers, Demography, Education, Health, Welfare, Income, Wealth, Religion, and Philanthropy
• N35 - Asia including Middle East
• Browse content in N5 - Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment, and Extractive Industries
• N55 - Asia including Middle East
• N57 - Africa; Oceania
• Browse content in N7 - Transport, Trade, Energy, Technology, and Other Services
• N77 - Africa; Oceania
• Browse content in O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth
• Browse content in O1 - Economic Development
• O10 - General
• O11 - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
• O12 - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
• O13 - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Other Primary Products
• O14 - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology
• O15 - Human Resources; Human Development; Income Distribution; Migration
• O16 - Financial Markets; Saving and Capital Investment; Corporate Finance and Governance
• O17 - Formal and Informal Sectors; Shadow Economy; Institutional Arrangements
• O18 - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
• O19 - International Linkages to Development; Role of International Organizations
• Browse content in O2 - Development Planning and Policy
• O20 - General
• O22 - Project Analysis
• O23 - Fiscal and Monetary Policy in Development
• O24 - Trade Policy; Factor Movement Policy; Foreign Exchange Policy
• O25 - Industrial Policy
• Browse content in O3 - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
• O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
• O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
• O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
• O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
• O38 - Government Policy
• Browse content in O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity
• O40 - General
• O41 - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models
• O43 - Institutions and Growth
• O47 - Empirical Studies of Economic Growth; Aggregate Productivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence
• Browse content in O5 - Economywide Country Studies
• O55 - Africa
• O57 - Comparative Studies of Countries
• Browse content in P - Economic Systems
• Browse content in P1 - Capitalist Systems
• P14 - Property Rights
• Browse content in P2 - Socialist Systems and Transitional Economies
• P26 - Political Economy; Property Rights
• Browse content in P3 - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions
• P30 - General
• Browse content in P4 - Other Economic Systems
• P43 - Public Economics; Financial Economics
• P48 - Political Economy; Legal Institutions; Property Rights; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Regional Studies
• Browse content in Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
• Browse content in Q0 - General
• Q01 - Sustainable Development
• Browse content in Q1 - Agriculture
• Q10 - General
• Q12 - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
• Q13 - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
• Q14 - Agricultural Finance
• Q15 - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
• Q16 - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
• Q17 - Agriculture in International Trade
• Q18 - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy
• Browse content in Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation
• Q25 - Water
• Browse content in Q3 - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
• Q33 - Resource Booms
• Browse content in Q4 - Energy
• Q43 - Energy and the Macroeconomy
• Browse content in Q5 - Environmental Economics
• Q51 - Valuation of Environmental Effects
• Q52 - Pollution Control Adoption Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
• Q54 - Climate; Natural Disasters; Global Warming
• Q56 - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
• Q57 - Ecological Economics: Ecosystem Services; Biodiversity Conservation; Bioeconomics; Industrial Ecology
• Q58 - Government Policy
• Browse content in R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics
• Browse content in R1 - General Regional Economics
• R11 - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes
• R12 - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity
• R13 - General Equilibrium and Welfare Economic Analysis of Regional Economies
• R14 - Land Use Patterns
• Browse content in R2 - Household Analysis
• R20 - General
• R23 - Regional Migration; Regional Labor Markets; Population; Neighborhood Characteristics
• R28 - Government Policy
• Browse content in R3 - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location
• R38 - Government Policy
• Browse content in R4 - Transportation Economics
• R40 - General
• R41 - Transportation: Demand, Supply, and Congestion; Travel Time; Safety and Accidents; Transportation Noise
• R48 - Government Pricing and Policy
• Browse content in R5 - Regional Government Analysis
• R52 - Land Use and Other Regulations
• Browse content in Y - Miscellaneous Categories
• Y8 - Related Disciplines
• Browse content in Z - Other Special Topics
• Browse content in Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology
• Z13 - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Social and Economic Stratification
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access
• About The World Bank Research Observer
• About the World Bank
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, current evidence on resources and diversification, measuring resource wealth and economic diversification, economic diversification performance of resource-rich countries, competitive capabilities for diversification, case studies of successful diversifiers.

• < Previous

What Drives Successful Economic Diversification in Resource-Rich Countries?

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Addisu A Lashitew, Michael L Ross, Eric Werker, What Drives Successful Economic Diversification in Resource-Rich Countries?, The World Bank Research Observer , Volume 36, Issue 2, August 2021, Pages 164–196, https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkaa001

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The “resource curse” is often understood to imply poor growth in the non-resource sectors of the economy, but research into the diversification performance of resource-rich countries is limited. This paper surveys recent evidence and identifies empirical patterns in the economic diversification of resource-rich countries. Diversification is measured using the growth of per capita non-resource (manufacturing and services) sectors in domestic and export markets, which has a cleaner interpretation than competing measures. This measure is used to evaluate the long-term diversification of countries that started off as resource-dependent, and to rank countries according to their performance. We then identify policy-relevant correlates of diversification at the national level, including the acquisition of human capital, public and intellectual capital, and firm dynamism. More resource-dependent countries appear to perform worse on measures of human capital and intellectual capital, but more resource-abundant countries perform better on public capital and human capital accumulation. We examine the mechanisms behind diversification performance through in-depth case studies of Oman, Laos, and Indonesia, and conclude by identifying policy lessons and future research directions.

Although an extensive body of the “resource curse” literature has examined the multifaceted relationship between natural resources and economic development ( Van der Ploeg 2011 ; Ross 2013 ; Venables 2016 ), the topic of economic diversification specifically has received much less attention. One of the most pronounced manifestations of resource wealth is a low level of economic diversification, as natural resources assume a dominant place in export income and government revenues ( Ross 2017 ; Bahar and Santos 2018 ). This low level of economic diversification can be harmful, as the concentration of economic activities around natural resources makes resource-rich countries vulnerable to economic shocks related to volatile commodity prices and resource stock depletion ( Devlin and Titman 2004 ; Van der Ploeg and Poelhekke 2009 ; Venables 2016 ). Reliance on extractive industries that are heavy in regulatory rents can also stymie the development of political and market institutions that promote broad-based growth ( Pritchett, Sen, and Werker 2017 ).

To policymakers in resource-rich countries, the most fundamental challenge of resource-led development is how to turn a resource in the ground into physical and human capital that can be used to provide prosperity for their citizens ( Morrison 2010 ). The best measure of economic diversification that corresponds to success in that metric is growth in the non-resource side of the economy. Consider the examples of Canada and the Republic of Congo. According to World Bank data, the two countries have the same levels of natural resource endowment, with resource rents per capita of around USD 1,200 as of 2014. GDP per capita in Canada, however, is nearly eight times higher than that of the Republic of Congo. As both countries started off as highly resource-dependent countries, the relevant policy question is how Canada managed to diversify away from natural resources and develop a highly productive non-resource sector while the Republic of Congo has failed to do so.

Unfortunately, current research is primarily concerned with documenting the effects of natural resources on aggregate outcomes such as GDP per capita (growth; Van der Ploeg 2011 ). This is surprising, since pioneering theoretical work into the so-called Dutch Disease had concluded that resource booms crowded out tradeable non-resource sectors through increased input prices and currency appreciation ( Corden and Neary 1982 ). In empirical terms, the failure to distinguish between resource and non-resource sectors could also lead to a spurious conclusion since the negative association between resources and GDP could reflect underperformance of the resource sector itself ( James 2015 ). In terms of practice, the dearth of systematic research into the drivers of diversification in resource-rich countries has limited the relevance of academic findings for policy-making. While the need to reduce resource dependence is widely advocated (e.g., Gelb 2010 ; IMF 2016 ), the means to achieve it are less clearly articulated ( Ross 2017 ).

The purpose of this paper is not to resolve the resource curse debate or determine whether natural resources raise or lower GDP. Rather, we have four interlinked goals. First, we aim to measure the rate of growth of non-resource economic activity in countries that are resource-rich, and second, we rank countries in the order of their success in these measures. Third, we identify a set of country-level “competitive capabilities” that can be used, in theory, to drive non-resource growth, and we examine whether the more successful diversifiers have indeed performed better in developing these capabilities. Finally, we conduct case studies on the three top diversifiers, as identified by our measure, and explore the extent to which the development of competitive capabilities seems to have contributed to economic diversification.

In order to measure economic diversification performance in resource-rich countries, we first need to define each of those concepts and select variables to measure them. This is done following our critical assessment of the literature in the next section. We use three measures of resource wealth : for data availability, our primary measure is the export share of natural resource commodities including oil, gas, coal and minerals, but excluding agricultural commodities. The other measures are the share of resource rents in GDP and resource rents per capita. Our measure of economic diversification performance is the growth rate of per capita value added of manufacturing and services, and we also look at export growth for the same sectors.

We then report the results of the measurement and rankings exercise. Defining 42 countries as resource-rich based on their export share of resources in the 1970s, we examine their economic diversification performance over the period of 1981–2014. As it turns out, these countries have achieved moderate success in registering non-resource growth. We do not find any correlation between the level of resource wealth in the 1970s and non-resource growth in subsequent years within that sample. When we consider the full sample that includes resource-poor countries, we find suggestive evidence that resource-rich countries have registered slower average growth in service value added and exports.

The next section explores policy-related factors that may have enabled successful diversification. Drawing on the related development economics literature, we identify national-level “competitive capabilities” that are potential ingredients in successful economic diversification: human capital attainment, public and intellectual capital development, and business capacity development ( Djankov et al. 2002 ; Schwab and Sala-i-Martin 2017 ). Compared to other outcomes of interest, competitive capabilities are informative as they are more likely to be driven by policy interventions, and thus hint at the way resource wealth affects intermediate policy variables that drive economic diversification.

We find that resource wealth is positively associated with some competitive capabilities (e.g., stock of infrastructure per person), but negatively correlated with others (e.g., some measures of human capital attainment, R&D and innovation performance, and financial access). Moreover, this relationship depends on the way resource wealth is measured. Resource dependence (the share of resources in exports or GDP) is often negatively associated with competitive capabilities, whereas resource abundance (resource rents per person) has positive associations with some competitive capabilities. We also find that the most successful diversifiers do not have uniformly high levels of competitive capabilities, and this is particularly the case for extremely resource-dependent countries. In these countries, something other than excellence in competitive capabilities must be enabling diversification.

We select three countries—Oman, Laos, and Indonesia—that registered the highest level of manufacturing value added growth for a closer investigation. The case study into the diversification performance of Oman revealed that diversification success remains elusive among extremely resource dependent countries. Although Oman registered double-digit manufacturing growth rates for decades (which was the fastest in our sample) its manufacturing sector today contributes to only 10% of its GDP. The experiences of Indonesia and, to a lesser extent, Laos, suggest that active diversification policies can yield fruitful results under favorable conditions that include access to markets and foreign technologies.

These results shed light on the broad patterns of diversification performance in resource-rich countries. They also reveal that resource dependence could have uneven effects on manufacturing and service growth, highlighting the importance of using disaggregated data to identify heterogeneous sectoral effects. The examination of competitive capabilities and the case studies indicate the varied diversification experiences of countries. More importantly, highly resource (oil)-dependent countries are uniquely characterized by limited diversification success even when non-resource growth rates are high, and for failing to build competitiveness capabilities given their income levels. Relatively successful diversification in other less resource-dependent countries has been stimulated by different internal and external drivers, and builds on natural endowments (e.g., agribusiness and labor-intensive manufacturing in Indonesia). Countries also leverage different types of competitiveness policies and capabilities, with no single success “formula” emerging from the sample.

If a lack of diversification increases a country's vulnerability to the “resource curse,” it follows that understanding the diversification performance of resource-rich countries is central to the question of how to mitigate the resource curse ( Van der Ploeg and Poelhekke 2009 ; Collier and Goderis 2012 ; Sala-i-Martin and Subramanian 2013 ). Economic diversification in and of itself may be an important policy target as it can temper the boom-and-bust cycle of resource-rich economies, which follows global commodity price cycles. The resource curse literature, however, lacks consensus on the extent to which natural resources undermine economic diversification. There are at least four potential challenges that have inhibited the emergence of a clear answer on the relationship between resources and economic diversification.

The first difficulty is due to measurement challenges since resource and non-resource sectors exhibit significant overlap. The vast majority of current research focuses on GDP per capita growth, which includes resource and non-resource sectors that respond differently to resource windfalls. Aggregate GDP data is thus unable to capture heterogeneous responses between tradable and non-tradable goods in the presence of Dutch Diseases ( Corden and Neary 1982 ). Moreover, since GDP includes resource-related activities, the negative relationship between resource wealth and GDP per capita could simply reflect declining terms of trade for commodities, or volatile commodity prices ( James 2015 ). Establishing the relationship between resources and diversification, therefore, requires a closer investigation into the performance of non-resource sectors. This can be challenging since semi-processed natural resources are often classified as manufactured goods, while “non-resource” service activities often include activities that are parts of the extractive value chain. In addition to these measurement challenge, the strong inter-linkage between resource and non-resource activities means that carefully designed identification strategies are required to arrive at robust conclusions.

The second issue that limits our ability to measure resource and non-resource growth is price correction. Commodity prices exhibit significant boom-and-bust dynamics, which necessitates making appropriate price corrections. Since overall price levels in resource-rich countries generally follow resource commodity prices, nominal non-resource output will appear high in periods of commodity price boom, and low in periods of commodity price bust even when its real value is unchanged. For total GDP, correction can be made using GDP deflators from sources such as the International Comparison Program of the World Bank. Unfortunately, sectoral deflators are not available for making different adjustments for resource and non-resource sectors. Researchers using sectoral data thus have to contend with using aggregate GDP deflators, which is also the approach we follow in our analysis. This can introduce systematic measurement bias in periods of commodity boom and bust since the aggregate deflator will understate price changes in resource sectors, and overstate price changes in non-resource sectors.

Third, the nature of the relationship between non-resource growth and resource wealth could depend on the time period and horizon considered. The relationship, for example, has been generally non-negative during periods of commodity price booms in the 1970s, and more recently since the early 2000s ( James 2015 ; Venables 2016 ). Some argue that high resource revenues in themselves can be beneficial, and the negative impact on economic performance is due to the volatility of commodity prices ( Van der Ploeg and Poelhekke 2009 ; Collier and Goderis 2012 ). Using rich census data from the United States, Allcott and Keniston (2017) report that resource booms are associated with higher growth of employment and wages in manufacturing sectors among affected counties. Manufacturing output expanded due to linkages with locally traded sectors, although highly-tradable manufacturing subsectors contracted during booms. An explicit focus on commodity price cycle and the time lag after resource discoveries could thus be important for understanding the effect of resource windfalls on economic diversification.

A fourth challenge in establishing a causal link between resource wealth and economic diversification performance is the multiplicity of channels that could link the two, which include political, institutional, and economic channels. Frankel (2012) identifies six possible channels for the resource curse: (i) long-term trends in world prices; (ii) price volatility; (iii) permanent crowding out of manufacturing; (iv) autocratic/oligarchic institutions; (v) anarchic institutions and potential civil wars; and (vi) cyclical Dutch Disease that elicits the expansion of the non-traded sector. Collier and Goderis (2012) list the following routes: Dutch Disease, governance, conflict, excessive borrowing, inequality, volatility, and lack of education. To overcome identification challenges researchers have increasingly relied on instrumental variable-based approaches that use exogenous sources of variation in resource wealth on economic performance ( Brunnschweiler 2008 ; Brunnschweiler and Bulte 2008 , 2009 ; Collier and Goderis 2012 ). More recently, researchers (e.g., Smith 2015 ) are adopting (quasi-) experimental approaches for identification purposes ( Van Der Ploeg and Poelhekke 2017 ). In light of these multifaceted complications that limit establishing causal relationships, this study takes a more pragmatic approach of analyzing diversification patterns and their drivers across countries and over time.

Resource Wealth

The measurement of what constitutes resources has been evolving with time in the resource curse literature, with the earlier studies ( Sachs and Warner 1995 , 1997 ) treating all primary products such as agricultural commodities as resources. Subsequent research has narrowed the focus on extracted (as opposed to produced, as in agricultural commodities) resources, with a particular distinction made between “point source” and “diffused” resources ( Isham et al. 2005 ). While diffused resources, including most agricultural commodities, are hard to centrally control, point resources such as minerals, oil and alluvial diamond are considered easier to control, trade, and appropriate ( Boschini, Pettersson, and Roine 2007 ). Moreover, minerals and hydrocarbons are exhaustible, and thus fit logically into the goal of diversification so that economic activity can continue after the resource has been depleted; agriculture, being renewable, is not a concern from that perspective. In line with this, our measures of resource wealth are based on the production of major, exhaustible, “point source” resources—namely oil, gas, coal, and minerals.

Researchers whose primary focus is the developmental challenges of the resource curse often use measures that reflect a country's reliance on natural resources for its export revenue or economic output (e.g., Sachs and Warner 1995 ; Stevens and Diestche 2008 ; Venables 2016 ). 1 We follow a comparable approach and measure resource wealth using the contribution of resources (i.e., oil, gas, coal, and minerals) in total merchandise exports over the period 1971–1980. This indicator reflects the economic significance of resources, which makes it the most relevant measure given the study's focus on diversification away from resource-based economic activities. To identify resource-rich countries, we use a minimum threshold of 25% of resource shares in export revenues in the period 1971–1980, which resulted in 42 resource-rich countries. 2 The full list and description of the variables in the paper is provided in table S1 in the supplementary online appendix (available with this article at The World Bank Research Observer website).

Our baseline analysis is thus based on a measure of resource dependence that gauges the importance of resources in total merchandise exports. This measure has been criticized for introducing selection bias since the share of resources in exports will be greater in low-income countries with different underlying institutional and economic structures ( Brunnschweiler and Bulte 2008 ). More recent studies have, therefore, started to use resource abundance , which is calculated as resource revenues or rents per capita (e.g., Alexeev and Conrad 2009 ; Ross 2017 ). To address the potential caveat of relying on a single measure, we report two additional measures of resource wealth. The first is the share of resource rents (from oil, gas, coal, and minerals) in total GDP, which is taken from the World Bank's Adjusted Net Savings database. The last alternative measure is resource rents per capita, which is also based on resource rent data from the World Bank's Adjusted Net Savings database. Both alternative measures are based on average values over the period 1976–1980. We use the export-based indicator as our preferred measure since it has greater country coverage in the 1970s and is less likely to suffer from measurement problems. Finally, the supplementary online material reports two additional measures of resource dependence that include agricultural commodities, as discussed in the next section. To make our nomenclature clear, we refer to any of these three measures as measures of “resource wealth.” When we are specifically referring to the share of resources in exports or GDP, we denote that as “resource dependence,” and when we are specifically referring to the level of resources per capita we call it “resource abundance.”

Resources constitute, on average, 65.3% of export revenues and 16.5% of GDP, and resource rents amount to some $7,600 per capita, across our sample of 42 resource-rich countries (see table S2). Since there is a big difference in what diversification might look like between countries with 25% of exports being natural resources and those close to 100%, we divide the countries into three groups. We identified 13 moderately resource-rich countries (export share of resources: 25%–50%), 13 highly resource-rich countries (export share of resources: 51%–85%), and 16 extremely resource-rich countries (export share of resources: >85%). 3 Among the extremely resource-rich countries, Saudi Arabia, Zambia, Venezuela, and Oman top the list, with resources contributing to at least 95% of their export revenues in the years 1971–1980; Bahrain was at the bottom at 85%. The group of highly resource-rich countries ranged from Mauritania at 83% down to Angola, at 55%. For the moderately resource-rich countries, Tunisia was the most dependent at 49% and Canada and Senegal were at the bottom of the group with just 26% of export revenues coming from natural resources.

Although the two alternative measures of resource wealth—the share of resource rents in GDP and resource rents per person—are significantly correlated with the baseline measure ( table 2 ), they depict a somewhat different picture of the relative levels of resource dependence. While resource rents constituted nearly half of the GDP of Saudi Arabia and Oman in the period 1976–1980, their contribution was much smaller in extremely resource-rich countries like Zambia (12%) and Venezuela (18%). The average contribution of resource rent in the GDP of extremely resource-rich countries was 25%, while the equivalent in highly and moderately resource-rich countries was 13% and 6%, respectively. In poorer countries, non-resource GDP is large even when the share of exports in resources is significantly high, suggesting the lack of globally-competitive firms outside the resource sector. Per capita resource rents are notably different among countries with comparably high levels of resource dependence. Resource rent per capita in Saudi Arabia, for example, was nearly 130 times higher than in Zambia, though resource exports constituted nearly all merchandise exports in both countries. Relative measures of resource dependence, therefore, can mask substantial absolute differences in resource abundance.

Economic Diversification

There are three approaches for measuring economic diversification: variety-based, quality-based, and output-based. Variety-based measures gauge the diversity of economic activities regardless of their quality, which is closer to the literal meaning of diversification (see Cadot, Carrere, and Strauss-Kahn 2013 ; Ross 2017 ; Bahar and Santos 2018 ). Quality-based measures of diversification are related to the concept of structural change ( McMillan, Rodrik, and Verduzco-Gallo 2014 ) and consider the shift of production toward economic activities that offer greater value addition and/or competitive advantage. Output-based measures consider changes in non-resource economic production regardless of its composition.

Variety-based and quality-based measures of diversification have some theoretical appeal, but require large and disaggregated datasets ( Ahmadov 2014 ). Available sources of domestic sectoral data suffer from uneven coverage and poor quality, limiting analysis at an international level. Measuring quality-based measures of export diversification further requires unit-level input-output data, and involves econometric specifications with restrictive assumptions. Finally, variety-based measures have the additional limitation of being influenced by exogenous changes. For example, export concentration could appear to improve when resource exports decline either due to resource depletion or price fall.

Despite its simplicity, an output-based measure of non-resource economic activity has not been utilized to measure economic diversification in resource-rich countries. 4 This is an important omission given the measurement challenge and data quality limitations of the other diversification measures as well as some further advantages of output-based measures. This study attempts to fill in this gap by using the growth of manufacturing and services sectors, measured according to their domestic and export performance. This is in line with a large body of research that expounds the importance of these sectors for employment creation, structural change, and technological convergence (e.g., see Rodrik (2013) for manufacturing and Eichengreen and Gupta 2011 for services).

Unfortunately, measurement problems are not absent with output-based measures of diversification either. These sectors include activities that are highly resource intensive. For example, manufacturing includes ISIC division 23, which includes the manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products, and division 24, which consists of the manufacture of chemicals and chemical products. Services include the public sector, which may be financed with resource revenues. Our reliance on these sectors is due to the need for comparable, national account data to assess diversification performance across countries. Cross-country data on domestic value added in the non-resource sector is not broadly available at a finer level of detail. Nonetheless, the use of value added rather than gross output provides a measure of diversification that is consistent with its theoretical meaning since it only captures the economic value added through refining and other processing activities. Moreover, for our three case study countries, we present more disaggregated data at the subsector level that can address this caveat.

For our ranking exercise, which we describe in the next section, we prefer manufacturing value added growth rates, which are less likely to be tainted with resource revenues than services. Yet looking at both manufacturing and services together is likely to be informative, given the potentially outsized role of the service sector in the presence of Dutch Disease. In addition, we analyze the growth in exports of both manufacturing and services, which may be better able to capture the strength of globally-competitive non-resource economic activity. We prefer value added (total domestic economic activity) to exports for the ranking exercise for two reasons. One, unlike gross exports, value added subtracts out the cost of intermediate goods, which in some industries might constitute a massive share of the total gross output that could lead to biased measurement. Secondly, production writ large (as captured by value added) is important for employment and wealth creation, whether the product is sold in domestic or foreign markets. Production, rather than exports per se, is what generates employment and prosperity. For example, countries like the United States and Japan have a very low share of exports to GDP; China is struggling to generate more of its own home-grown demand. Thus, there is nothing wrong when resource-rich countries grow by expanding their domestic economies, and this phenomenon goes unobserved when restricting the focus to export-based measures of diversification alone.

All of the growth rates in value added and exports are calculated on a per-capita basis using value added and exports in constant prices. For example, manufacturing value added per capita is equivalent to manufacturing value added in constant prices divided by the number of manufacturing workers, multiplied by the share of the population working in the sector. This value added rate increases either when the per worker productivity increases, or when the sector's employment share rises, both of which are good for a resource-rich country trying to diversify. The measure is meant to represent the opportunity of potential employment in manufacturing in a similar way that resource rents per capita measure resource income available for citizens.

As a descriptive exercise, we analyze country-level performance in economic diversification according to the output-based measures described in the previous section among the 42 countries that started off as resource rich. We then look within the sample and examine whether greater resource wealth is correlated with better or worse subsequent performance in economic diversification.

Within each country group based on resource wealth, we rank countries based on their average manufacturing value added growth.  Table 1 reports the four best performers within each of the above three categories based on manufacturing value added per capita growth rate (the full set of countries is available in table S2). The table also reports performance on the other three measures of output-based diversification for those countries: growth in manufacturing exports, and growth in services value added and exports. The average growth rate of manufacturing value added per capita across the whole sample of resource-rich countries between 1981–2014 was 2.6%. The fastest manufacturing growth rate was registered in Oman (10.9%), followed by Laos (9.3%), Indonesia (8.6%), Egypt (6.4%), and Malaysia (5.9%). These five countries also registered consistently higher growth rates than their peer countries in almost all non-resource economic activities. Angola (−6.7%) and Syria (−6.4%) came out at the bottom of the list (table S2 in the supplementary online material).

Highly Successful Diversifiers among Country Groups with Varying Levels of Resource Wealth

Source : Authors’ calculations based on data from the World Development Indicators, IMF, and WTO databases. Note : The ranking of countries and the identification of best diversifiers is based on the annualized average growth rate of manufacturing value added per capita over the period 1981–2014. The best performers are selected from a sample of 42 resource-rich countries listed in Table S2 in the supplementary online material. GDP per capita (i.e., per working population) and its growth rate are measured in PPP prices that are comparable across countries over the period 1981–2014. The remaining variables are measured in constant prices comparable over time. The average of each of the groups is for the whole group, not just the best performers listed on this table. a Growth rate of manufacturing exports for Laos based on 2010–2014, the only period covered by WTO, our data source. b The equality of means is statistically tested using standard t -tests. Asterisk * indicates p -values <0.10, while ** indicates p -values <0.05.

The best diversifiers identified in  table 1 include nearly all of the fastest-growing countries in the sample based on GDP per capita growth. Our list also includes all three countries that Venables (2016) identified as best performing resource-rich countries—namely, Botswana, Malaysia, and Chile. Comparing across country groups, we note that extremely resource-rich countries differ from the remaining groups for registering subpar GDP per capita growth (average 0.7%), but relatively higher manufacturing value added growth (average 2.9%) and manufacturing export growth (average 7.2%). Their service value added and exports also grew at close to the overall average. Given their relatively low initial levels of diversification, this could reflect the relative ease of achieving high growth rates from a very low base. The decent diversification performance in extremely resource-rich countries could thus be due to what Gerschenkron (1962) referred to as the advantage of “backwardness,” where numerous profitable opportunities for growth exist in these sectors, which may be quickly exploited.

Table 2 reveals that none of the measures of resource wealth has a significant and negative correlation with manufacturing and service growth. In fact, most of the correlations are positive, and one is even statistically significant (resource rents as a share of GDP and the growth in service exports per capita), though that is about what one would expect as a matter of chance. Within the relatively homogenous sample of resource-rich countries, therefore, there is no prima facie evidence that resource wealth is associated with lower levels of non-resource growth. However, this does not amount to ruling out the possibility of a resource curse since it could also be argued that these countries should have exploited their resources to achieve above-normal growth rates.

Correlation between Resource Wealth (1970s) and Non-resource Growth (1981–2014)

Source : Authors’ calculations based on data from the World Development Indicators, IMF, WTO, and the World Bank's Adjusted Net Savings databases. Note : The figures outside parentheses are pair-wise Pearson correlation coefficients, and those within parentheses indicate their p -values. GDP per capita is an average value from 1981–2014. The measurement and data sources of variables are given in table S1. The results in this table and all other tables in this paper are based on the sample of 42 resource-rich countries listed in table S2.

The bottom row of  table 1 compares the growth performance of the 42 resource-rich countries with the rest of the world. For manufacturing, resource-rich countries registered lower per capita value-added growth (by one percentage point) and greater per capita export growth (by three percentage points), although neither of these differences is statistically significant. However, resource-rich countries have significantly lower levels of services growth, which is lower by 1.4 percentage points for per capita value added, and by almost two percentage points for per capita exports. These results are consistent with reports of declining service GDP shares in highly resource-rich countries ( Diop, Marotta, and de Melo 2012 ), and suggest that the manifestations of Dutch Disease could extend to services in an increasingly globalized world where trade in services is becoming paramount. In addition to a slow-growing and volatile resource sector discussed by James (2015) , an underperforming service sector could thus be a drag on GDP growth in resource-rich countries. We replicated the correlation results of  table 2 using the full sample of countries to corroborate these results (see table S3.2 in the supplementary online material). The growth of service value added and exports is negatively and significantly correlated with resource dependence. Manufacturing value added growth, on the other hand, has no correlation with any of the resource wealth measures.

There are three plausible explanations for this result. First, developing a modern service sector could require comparatively higher levels of human capital, innovation, and private sector credit, which are likely to be missing in resource-rich countries. Indeed, all of these capabilities have a positive and significant correlation with service growth but are not correlated with manufacturing growth. Second, the service sector could be more prone to the vagaries of volatile commodity prices than manufacturing. If commodity price busts erode short-term growth gains in the services sector, the sector will achieve slower long-run performance. This effect could be compounded by labor reallocation processes that lead to unproductive service sectors in resource-rich economies ( Kuralbayeva and Stefanski 2013 ). Finally, it is possible that manufacturing contains a greater share of resource-related activities compared to services, which could erase its negative relationship with resources. This is less likely since resource dependence does not show a significant correlation with the growth of manufacturing value added or exports, which come from very different data sources. In contrast, the relationship between resources and service growth is consistently negative for value added and export, although these data also come from different sources. The first two explanations are thus more likely to underpin the negative relationship between service sector growth and resource dependence.

As discussed in the measurement section, the baseline measures of resource wealth cover “point source” natural resources that are prone to elite capture and misappropriation ( Isham et al. 2005 ; Boschini, Pettersson, and Roine 2007 ). Moreover, the non-renewability of natural resources means that weaning dependence on them is a necessity that can be delayed but not avoided, while diversifying away from agriculture might not be either feasible or desirable in many countries that have a comparative advantage in it. However, agricultural commodities and other natural resources share many similarities, including co-movements in their price cycles, which makes it important to check for a potential role of agriculture in the relationship between resources and non-resource growth. Table S3.1 in the supplementary online material replicates  table 2 by including two additional measures of resource dependence: the export share of natural resources plus agriculture, and the export share of agriculture. To be consistent with the baseline analysis, both are measured using averages over 1971–1980, using data for agricultural exports from the World Development Indicators database. The augmented measure of resource dependence that includes natural resources and agriculture has no significant correlation with non-resource growth, which is consistent with the baseline analysis. Agriculture, on the other hand, has a positive and significant correlation with the growth of service value added, and service exports, potentially reflecting structural change through agribusiness-related value-adding services. These results suggest that agricultural dependence has a distinct, positive association with non-resource growth, although this effect is swamped by the effect of natural resources when an aggregate measure is used.

This section discusses the performance of resource-rich countries in terms of a few major intermediary and final development outcomes, which we refer to as “competitive capabilities.” We draw the term “competitive capabilities” from the business strategy and development literatures, which emphasize the strategic use of policy and organizational resources to advance competitiveness (e.g., McEvily and Zaheer 1999 ; Rothaermel 2017 ). At a macro-level, competitive capabilities constitute policy outcomes that can enhance the value adding ability of an economy and thus advance its competitive advantage ( Porter 1990 ). Such capabilities are consciously built by policy makers to achieve long-term growth and higher levels of prosperity for their citizens by developing productive capacity and designing competitive business environments ( Schwab and Sala-i-Martin 2017 ). We thus see competitive capabilities as the proximate or immediate determinants of private sector performance and competitiveness, and focus on three broad categories as discussed below.

Human capital development. This includes a measure of human development index (HDI), a measure of human capital index (HCI), and tertiary education enrollment rate (TERT). Human capital is considered to be an important driver of economic growth and diversification that enables economic upgrading to greater value adding activities with higher skill requirements ( Barro 2001 ; Bulte, Damania, and Deacon 2005 ; Stijn 2006 ).

Public and intellectual capital development. This includes expenditures in research and development as a share of GDP (R&D) to measure investment in fundamental scientific knowledge; patent application rate (PATENT) to measure overall innovation performance, and public infrastructure per capita (INFR) to capture aggregate investments in public service provision. Public infrastructure in the form of roads, railways, ports and public utilities is a fundamental input for economic growth ( Bhattacharyya and Collier 2013 ). Likewise, developing intellectual capital and innovativeness enhances value upgrading and diversification by increasing domestic capacity to create new technologies, or the absorptive capacity to assimilate imported technologies ( Schwab and Sala-i-Martin 2017 ).

Business capacity development. This specifically covers credit access (CREDIT), support for entrepreneurship and small business development (ENTP), and per capita new firm entry (ENTRY) to measure business dynamism. Favorable capabilities in business capacity development support the growth of a dynamic and competitive business ecosystem that facilitates new venture creation and greater productivity growth ( Djankov et al. 2002 ; Claessens 2006 ; Schwab and Sala-i-Martin 2017 ). The measurement and data source of each of these indicators is summarized in table S1 in the supplementary online material.

Although some of these measures can be seen as eventual development outcomes in themselves, they can be more generally considered to be competitive capabilities that constitute immediate determinants of economic growth and diversification ( Djankov et al. 2002 ). The advantage of focusing on competitive capabilities is that they are amenable to change through policy interventions, which makes them accessible mechanisms for improving economic diversification. By contrast, fundamental institutional constructs such as democracy that have been the objects of interest in the literature evolve very slowly ( Van der Ploeg 2011 ), and thus are less accessible for policy manipulation ( Morrison 2010 ). Looking into competitive capabilities thus offers an alternative to investigating direct measures of diversification performance (such as non-resource sector growth), which pose more serious methodological and measurement challenges. We choose to cover a broad set of competitive capabilities due to the diverse income level among resource-rich countries, which could lead to varying needs for capabilities to enable diversification.

Resource abundance can undermine the development of competitiveness policies for two reasons. First, resource revenues could undercut the need for implementing potentially painful reforms for boosting competitiveness in the non-resource sector ( Bhattacharyya and Hodler 2014 ). Following resource discoveries, (non) state social groups or business interests that benefit from the resource boom can stand behind the status quo and sabotage reforms, leading to protectionist laws that favor rent-capture but limit the expansion of the non-resource sector and undermine economic diversification ( Pritchett, Sen, and Werker 2017 ). Second, resource revenues could induce adverse political economic effects that directly undermine competitiveness. For example, Williams (2011) shows that resource-dependent countries tend to have less transparent governments, and Brollo et al. (2013) report that increased financial transfers from Brazil's federal government to municipal governments led to greater corruption. Busse and Gröning (2013) find that natural resources led to significantly higher corruption, and some degree of erosion in bureaucratic quality. The combination of reduced policy attention to non-extractive sectors, and the weakening of competitiveness could suffocate non-resource growth.

Is Resource Wealth Correlated with Weaker Competitive Capabilities?

Table 3 reports the correlation between our measures of competitive capabilities and the three measures of resource wealth for the sample of 42 countries that started off as resource rich in the 1970s. The correlations between these three measures and the indicators of human capital development are mixed, suggesting that the relationships are sensitive to the measurement of variables ( Stijn 2006 ). Resource rent per capita, or resource abundance, is positively and significantly correlated with the human development index (HDI), which contradicts the negative relationship between resource intensity and HDI reported in Bulte, Damania, and Deacon (2005) . The other export-based measures of resource dependence are significantly and negatively correlated with human capital index (HCI), and tertiary education enrollment rates (TERT), while the GDP-based measure of resource dependence is significantly and negatively correlated with TERT. These correlations appear to support Gylfason (2001) , who found that resource dependence is associated with significantly less investment in human capital accumulation.

Correlation between Resource Wealth (1970s) and Competitive Capabilities (1981–2014)

Source : Authors’ calculations based on data from multiple sources. Note : Significance levels are given in parentheses. The results in this table and all other tables in this paper are based on the sample of 42 resource-rich countries listed in table S2.

Public capital per person is positively and significantly correlated with the share of resource rents in GDP and resource rents per capita. This conflicts with the negative relationship between resource rents and public investment per capita reported by Bhattacharyya and Collier (2013) . The conflicting results potentially reflect the use of panel econometric analysis in their study, or sample differences since their data excludes oil-rich Middle Eastern countries that have relatively high levels of public capital stock. Both measures of resource dependence are significantly and negatively correlated with R&D expenditure, while the export-based measure is also negatively correlated with innovation output. Resource dependent countries thus appear to be investing significantly less on research and development, and consequently achieving less innovation output.

The relationship between resource dependence and measures of business capacity development is rather mixed. Greater resource exports appear to be associated with lower private sector credit access, confirming the findings of Bhattacharyya and Hodler (2014) . On the other hand, resource rents per capita are associated with significantly higher new business entry rates. This contradicts Farzanegan (2014) and Majbouri (2016) , who found negative relationships between resource rents and entrepreneurship performance. The difference between these studies could be a result of sample composition or model specification since both studies use samples of oil- and gas-producing countries in a dynamic panel set up. While we use broad measures of resources in a sample of resource-rich countries, Farzanegan (2014) focuses on oil rents as a share of GDP in 65 countries, and Majbouri (2016) focuses on oil and gas rents per capital in a sample of 50 countries, including those producing negligible amounts.  Table 3 does not reveal any significant correlation between resource wealth and entrepreneurship support, suggesting that the significant correlation with firm entry is more likely an anomaly.

The significance of the correlations between resource dependence and competitive capabilities remain unchanged when we consider an extended measure of resource dependence that includes agricultural exports (see table S4.1 of the supplementary online material). Agricultural exports in itself is not significantly correlated with any measure of competitive capabilities among resource-rich countries, but it is negatively correlated with most measures when the full sample is considered (table S4.2). Across the full sample, therefore, agricultural export dependence is associated with more non-resource growth but reduced competitive capabilities, which is distinct from the relationship found for other natural resource exports. In sum, we conclude that the nature of association between resources and competitive capabilities depends on the way resource wealth is measured and the type of capability considered. More particularly, resource abundance is not negatively correlated with any measures of competitive capabilities, whereas resource dependence is negatively correlated with a number of competitive capabilities.

We now return to our descriptive exercise to see the actual realizations of competitive capabilities across countries.  Table 4 reports the average value of competitiveness indicators by country groups, and individual values for the successful diversifiers identified in  table 1 . The data for the full sample of countries is reported in table S5 in the supplementary online material. We start by comparing the average level of competitive capabilities among the three groups of countries. Average income in extremely resource-rich countries is close to $56,000, whereas average income in highly and moderately resource-rich countries is $9,500 and $35,000, respectively (in PPP prices, see table S2). Given their level of income, we would expect that extremely resource-rich countries (i.e., Group I) would have, on average, the highest levels of competitive capabilities, followed by moderately and highly resource-rich countries (Group III and Group II, respectively).

Competitive Capabilities in Successfully Diversified Resource-rich Economies

Source : Authors’ calculations based on data from multiple sources. Note : The average of each of the groups is for the whole group, not just the best performers listed on this table. Table S1 in the supplementary online material discusses the measurement of all variables, and detailed values per country are reported in table S5.

However,  table 4 reveals that extremely resource-rich countries are no better than moderately resource-rich countries in terms of the three measures of human capital development. In fact, they perform worse in terms of average tertiary enrollment rates (2.4 vs. 3.7), reflecting the negative correlations between human capital and resources reported in  table 2 . Likewise, extremely resource-rich countries fare much worse than moderately resource-rich countries in terms of R&D expenditure, patent application, and private sector credit; the only two capabilities in which they register better performance are public capital and firm entry rate. While extremely resource-rich countries have significantly higher income levels and public capital, they either lag behind or fail to excel in most measures of competitive capabilities. 5 Notably high-income level that is not accompanied by competitiveness capabilities is unique to the extremely resource-rich countries. For example, comparisons between the average levels of competitive capabilities between highly and moderately resource-rich countries (i.e., between Group II and Group III) reveals that the latter have consistently higher competitive capabilities in all areas, which is in line with their higher income levels. Thus, extreme resource wealth appears to raise GDP per capita without the development of competitive capabilities that are essential for sustaining non-resource growth, a result consistent with Dutch Disease resulting in high incomes but low productivity in non-tradable sectors.

Do Successful Diversifiers have Greater Competitive Capabilities?

We now compare the competitive capabilities of the successful diversifiers listed in  table 4 with their peer countries in order to assess whether diversification success is associated with greater competitive capabilities.  Figure 1 plots competitive capabilities against GDP per capita to assist in these comparisons. Among the best diversifiers in Group I, Nigeria stands out for its low levels of competitive capabilities, which may reflect its significantly lower income level relative to the other successful diversifiers (Oman, Suriname, and Saudi Arabia). However, all of the four successful diversifiers have HDI levels that are below what would be predicted from their income level. Data for human capital (HCI) is available only for Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, and their performance too is far below the line of prediction. The more complete data for tertiary education enrollment rate (TERT) confirms that the four diversifiers perform far worse than what their income would predict. Saudi Arabia has the highest tertiary enrollment rate among successful diversifiers in this group (3.1), but its performance compared to its income peers is only half as large (5.8 in Norway and 6.5 in Australia). In this group, therefore, it does not appear that non-resource growth has been accompanied by human capital accumulation.

Scatter Plot and Linear Regression Fit of Competitive Capabilities against GDP per Capita

Source : Authors’ calculations based on data from multiple sources. Note : Extremely resource-rich countries are represented by black hollow circles, highly resource-rich countries by blue triangles, and moderately resource-rich countries by red diamonds. GDP per capita is calculated as total GDP in PPP per working population.

The same observation transpires when we consider intellectual capital since none of the best diversifiers have better R&D expenditure and patent application rates than their peers. The two best diversifiers for which we have R&D and patent data, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, perform far worse than what we would predict from their levels of income ( figure 1 , middle panel). Manufacturing growth in these countries, therefore, could not have been in knowledge-intensive, high-tech industries. Public capital accumulation is an exception, since Oman and Saudi Arabia have significantly higher public capital stock per person than their peers. All of the best diversifiers except Suriname also have public capital levels higher than would be predicted from their income levels. In terms of the three indicators of business capacity development, the best diversifying countries in Group I are again lagging behind the group average, as well as from what we would predict given their income. A good example is firm entry rate, which is less than 1.2 per 1,000 individuals in all successful diversifiers, which is far lower than the average of 2.5 per 1,000 across the full sample. We thus conclude that greater diversification performance in extremely resource-rich countries is not accompanied by improvements in competitive capabilities in terms human and intellectual capital, as well as business capacity development.

Among the best diversifiers in Group II, Laos stands out for lagging behind the other countries. This should not be surprising considering that its average per capita GDP at the time was only one-half the level of Indonesia's, one-third of Peru's, and nearly one-sixth of Chile's. On the other hand, Chile has consistently higher levels of competitive capabilities than its peers—the only country to do so among successful diversifiers in Group I and Group II. Although Chile's strong performance is in part due to its relatively high level of GDP per capita, it outperforms countries with similar income levels in all measures of human capital development, and two measures of business capacity development (i.e., CREDIT & ENTRY). Chile performs at least as well as its income peers in other areas except in terms of public capital and R&D expenditure. The country's relatively consistent above-average performance in competitive capabilities suggests the presence of systematic policy efforts to enhance economic competitiveness. Peru closely follows Chile, performing better than its income level would predict for all measures of human capital, although it lags behind in terms of business capacity development (particularly CREDIT & ENTP), R&D expenditure, and physical infrastructure. The performance of Indonesia is more mixed, with a slightly better than average human development index, financial access, and entrepreneurship support, but lower than average R&D expenditure, patent application, and firm entry rate. Compared to highly resource-rich countries, countries in Group II thus exhibit more varied levels of competitive capabilities, ranging from very high (Chile), decent (Peru), mixed (Indonesia), to low (Laos).

Among the successful diversifiers in Group III, Norway stands out for having the highest levels of competitive capabilities. Norway, along with other high-income countries (Canada and Australia) have higher levels of competitive capabilities for their income levels in almost all areas (two minor exceptions are public capital and entrepreneurship support, see figure 1 ). Among the remaining three successful diversifiers, Malaysia has consistently high competitive capabilities compared to its peers. Malaysia has exceptionally high levels of financial access (108%), R&D expenditure, and entrepreneurship support for its income level, and has also decent levels of human development index. Entrepreneurship support in Malaysia is higher than in Norway (2.9 vs. 2.6) although entry rates are smaller than the group average. Egypt and Tunisia lag behind their peers in most measures of competitive capabilities with a few exceptions (e.g., above-average tertiary enrollment rate of 4% in Egypt, and also relatively higher financial access of 64% in Tunisia).

To conclude, these results suggest that some successful diversifiers have better competitive capabilities that seem to have underpinned their success, while this is not the case for many others. Very few of the successful diversifiers have uniformly high competitive capabilities. Among successful diversifiers, Chile, Norway, and Malaysia have relatively better competitive capabilities in most areas. Diversification is not associated with greater competitive capabilities in extremely resource-rich countries. Although these countries have very high income and well-developed public infrastructure, their competitive capabilities are below the sample average, and far lower than their income predicts. The decoupling between competitive capabilities and non-resource growth in these countries suggests that diversification might have resulted from other processes, such as state-owned enterprises or the use of imported technologies.

This section details the process of economic transformation in three countries that registered the fastest per capita manufacturing value added growth: Oman (10.9%), Laos (9.3%), and Indonesia (8.6%). The contribution of resources to export revenues in Oman, Laos, and Indonesia in the 1970s was 95%, 76%, and 67%, respectively (table S2). The three cases thus cover countries from moderate to extremely high levels of resource dependence. In each case study, we examine the drivers of economic diversification as well as the potential role (or not) of competitive capabilities in human, public, and intellectual capital, and business capacity development.

Oman is a small country in the Arabian Peninsula with a total population of 4.5 million as of 2017. Only 55% of the population (2.5 million) was composed of Omanis, the remaining 2 million being immigrant “guest” workers. As an absolute sultanate (monarchy), Oman has no independent parties that run for elections. Oman's GDP per person as of 2010 was $45,334 in parity prices ($14,000 in nominal prices), which is the fourth highest in the region after Qatar ($125,140), Kuwait ($75,200), and UAE ($57,600; all in parity prices). Since the start of petroleum extraction in 1967, Oman's economy has been dominated by resource export revenues. Oil and gas production per capita is one of the highest in the region but does not reach the levels of Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait (figure S1), which has created a sharper policy focus towards diversification. Oman is not a member of OPEC, which gives it greater freedom to adjust its own production in response to market conditions. Petroleum Development Oman (PDO), which is owned by the government (60%) and foreign interests (mainly Shell), has been in charge of extraction activities since 1967. Gas production started in 2000, which is also evident from the export revenues in figure S4.

At the start of oil production in 1967, all oil revenues went directly to government accounts. With the explosion of oil revenues during 1978–81, the government decided to put aside parts of resource revenues into a sovereign wealth fund, which led to the establishment of the State General Reserve Fund (SGRF) in 1980. Although the proportion of gross public oil revenues flowing into the reserve fund was initially quite high, reaching 24.3% in 1981, it subsequently declined in the late 1980s due to increasing withdrawals to finance a government deficit. To limit the decline of the SGRF, a new Contingency Fund was established in 1991 to specifically finance public sector deficits from accumulated oil revenues. Another financial vehicle called the Oman Investment Fund was established in 2006 to invest oil revenues on domestic and international assets including private equity, real estate, infrastructure, and equities.

Oman has undergone large-scale infrastructural development and a massive expansion of health, educational, and other governmental services through a successive of development plans in the 1970s and 1980s, which were financed by public revenues from oil production ( World Bank 1994 ). This is also apparent in our data, where its level of public capital is slightly higher than its peer countries in terms of income. The country started as a predominantly agricultural country in the 1960s, and became increasingly oil dependent in the 1970s. Natural resources contributed to an average of 95% of export revenues in the 1970s, which has remained more or less unchanged to this day (figure S4). Figure S3 reveals that the service sector became more important during the oil glut of the 1980s, contributing more to the economy than oil and gas until the most recent oil boom that started around 2000.

Since the 2000s, manufacturing witnessed significant expansion from a very low base. Nominal manufacturing value added increased 80-fold from $69.5 million in 1981 to $5.6 billion in 2014—an annual growth rate of about 14%. The sector's contribution to GDP, however, remained less than 10%, which is the same level as in developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. The continued dominance of resource-based manufactured exports (see figure S4) suggests that processed petroleum and gas products constituted an important part of this growth. Oman has not succeeded in improving its competitiveness capabilities as it performs far worse than its peers, with the exception of HDI and public capital, where its performance is slightly higher than its income would predict ( figure 1 ). The country particularly lags far behind its income peers in tertiary education enrollment, R&D expenditure, credit access, and new firm entry rates, all of which are crucial for enabling diversification in a high-income country like Oman.

The lack of diversification and the excessive fiscal dependence on oil revenues has put Oman at the mercy of oil prices. Following the oil price decline that started in 2014, oil receipts covered only 70% of government revenues, leading to a fiscal deficit of 16.5% of GDP in 2015 and 20.3% of GDP in 2016 ( World Bank 2017 ). Although the country has accumulated estimated resource revenue savings of $38 billion, the World Bank predicts that the public debt will rise significantly to over 50% of GDP by 2020 from just 5% in 2014. As a response, in 2016 the government initiated a national diversification program called “Tanfeedh” to increase the share of the local work force and reduce unemployment rates. ILO data shows that Oman faces a high unemployment rate of about 20%, while unemployment among the youth has reached 50% ( World Bank 2017 )—a pressing problem in a country where about 40% of the population is younger than 25. The country's diversification program seeks to address this by increasing private sector participation, focusing on logistics, manufacturing, and tourism. However, Omanis appear to prefer public-sector jobs where the pay is higher, working hours are shorter, and tenures more stable, sometimes waiting for as long as three years to get a public sector job ( World Bank 2017 ). Diversification efforts also include unpopular policies such as the removal of electricity subsidies and an increase in the corporate tax rate from 12% to 15%, which took place in 2017, and a levy of 5% VAT, which is scheduled for 2021.

The Lao People's Democratic Republic is a landlocked country of 6.8 million inhabitants (2016) in Southeast Asia, bordered by Myanmar, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand. Its income per person is $7,900 in parity prices and $2,700 in nominal terms (both 2018 estimates). Laos is a one-party socialist republic, having been ruled by the Lao People's Revolutionary Party since 1975. The country has followed an ambitious growth strategy that exploits its strategic location straddling large countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, and China. These fast-growing economies also provide an important market for the country's extractive sectors that produce raw materials like metal ores and wood products.

After a decade of socialist policies, the country introduced a new policy framework in the mid-1980s, which resulted in the gradual opening of the economy. The government lifted price controls, unified exchange rates, opened the country to foreign trade and investment, and allowed for private agriculture and manufacturing. Laos has also actively pursued regional economic integration in South East Asia, having joined the ASEAN Free Trade Area in 1997 and the WTO in 2013. As shown in figure S6 in the supplementary online material, natural resources had a greater contribution to exports in the 1970s, which fell significantly in the 1980s before rising again after the 1990s. Hydro power exports to Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, and Myanmar contributed to 30% of the country's export revenues in 2016. By 2010, mining (mainly copper ore) contributed slightly less than half of export revenues, and textiles and construction equipment contributed to about 40% of export revenues, the balance being covered by agricultural and timber products.

Laos’ economy grew rapidly from a low base since the 1990s. This rapid growth has been driven by FDI and regional integration, heavy government investment, and increasing exploitation of the country's resource wealth. During 2003–2013, for example, GDP more than doubled and employment increased by 20% (around 500,000 jobs) bringing total employment to about 3.1 million ( World Bank 2016 ). The share of agriculture declined significantly, which was accompanied by an expansion of services and industrial sectors (figure S5). Agriculture, however, continued to employ 64% of the population in 2013, which was a significant decline from 73% a decade earlier ( World Bank 2016 ). Natural resources and manufacturing each make a small contribution of about 10 percentage points to GDP. The contribution of mining picked up only after 2003, following a hike of FDI to exploit reserves of gold, copper, and zinc.

Laos’ manufacturing sector now attracts significant FDI, which is enticed by low labor costs, political stability, and a cheap energy supply. Most of the FDI originates from neighboring countries, and ends up in one of the country's 10 special industry zones ( World Bank 2016 ). Increasingly, however, Laos has been able to attract a number of multinational companies, including Nikon, Essilor, Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Polycom, which resulted in rapid growth in the assembly and equipment parts sectors. The export of equipment parts (such as camera parts) has emerged and increased from a low base in 2013 to about $300 million in 2015. While production relies on imported intermediate inputs to a significant degree, the growth of the sector points to the potential of Laos to effectively participate in regional and global value chains. Laos’ competitive capabilities in terms of intellectual capital and business capacity development is low even for its level of income ( figure 1 ), reflecting that diversification has been fueled by imported capital and technology. Further diversification into more sophisticated sectors with the help of a home-grown non-resource sector, however, will require significant improvements in the country's competitive capabilities.

Indonesia's economy is the fourth largest in east Asia after China, Japan, and South Korea. Average GDP per capita for 2017 is estimated at $13,120 in parity prices, and $4,100 in nominal prices. Being the fourth most populous country in the world (261 million), Indonesia has a sizeable GDP and is a member of the G20 club of countries. After full independence from The Netherlands in 1949, Indonesia went through the authoritarian regimes of Sukarno (1945–1967) and Suharto (1968–1998) before adopting a democratic system of government in 1998. Suharto is credited for masterminding Indonesia's economic rise ( Temple 2003 ), but was forced out of office following the Asian financial crisis in 1997. The financial crisis triggered an exodus of capital from Indonesia, and led to a fall of GDP by 13%, exposing significant corruption and lax regulation in the country's financial systems ( Temple 2003 ).

Indonesia's natural resource endowments are diverse, with oil and gas constituting approximately 40% of resource revenues ( Elias and Noone 2011 ). Oil and gas development is implemented by a state-owned enterprise (Pertamina) as well as by multinational companies. Unlike Malaysia's Petronas, which has succeeded in becoming a competitive and global energy company, Pertamina has suffered from long-standing mismanagement and corruption. Domestic energy consumption has continued to rise while production has been falling, making Indonesia a net energy importer since the early 2000s. Other commodities in which Indonesia is a major global producer include tin (27% of global extraction in 2009), nickel (15% of global extraction in 2009), copper (6% of global production in 2009), and coal (4% of global production in 2010) ( Elias and Noone 2011 ). In spite of this, the contribution of natural resources to GDP is less than 10% in recent years.

The Indonesian government initiated broad-based reforms in the 1980s in response to the collapse of oil prices. Major policy changes included a banking sector reform to ease entry barriers and remove credit subsidies; outsourcing the inefficient customs office; and a gradual reduction of import tariffs and dismantlement of non-tariff trade barriers ( Temple 2003 ). These changes triggered a dramatic increase in the growth of manufacturing exports and a marked improvement in the TFP performance of the manufacturing sector ( Temple 2003 ). Between 1983 and 1992, the share of manufactures in merchandise exports rose from 7% to 50%, although this could also be related to the reversal of the Dutch Disease due to the decline of oil prices. The state played an active developmental role by channeling oil revenues towards social projects (agriculture, education, and infrastructure), and by supporting the development of capital-intensive industries ( Temple 2003 ). By 1996, Indonesia's poverty rate had dropped to around 11% from 45% in 1970, and life expectancy increased by nearly 20 years in the same period. Real GDP increased six-fold in the period 1981–2015, with the contribution of manufacturing rising significantly. Similarly, the share of the population living in urban areas increased from 17% to 53% over this period.

Services and industry sectors as well as manufacturing play an increasing role in Indonesia's economy, while agriculture and resource-related activities are declining (see figure S7). Figure S8 corroborates that resource-based exports are declining but still important, while increasing diversification is apparent from the expansion of the “other” export category. Although manufacturing is on a declining trend from its peak before the 1997 Asian financial crisis (27% of GDP and 60% exports), Indonesia remains one of the most manufacturing-intensive resource-rich countries. Compared to the rest of the region, Indonesia's manufacturing has focused on food, tobacco, and textiles rather than elaborately transformed manufactured goods ( Elias and Noone 2011 ). The country's relative diversification success, therefore, seems to be driven by exploiting the “low-hanging fruit” of its comparative advantage in light manufacturing and agribusiness ( Gelb 2010 ). This also explains why Indonesia's performance in terms of various competitiveness capabilities are for the most part modest for its income level ( figure 1 ).

The case studies have revealed a number of insights into economic diversification success in resource-rich countries. First, the results indicate the structural challenges that extremely resource-rich countries face in extracting themselves from resource dependence. The example of Oman shows that high growth rates that appear to indicate successful diversification do not necessarily imply a significant change in the economic structure of a country that started as extremely resource dependent. Manufacturing and other non-resource sectors have been lagging so far behind the resource-based economy that, even after growing at double-digit rates for decades, their contribution to GDP remains limited. As a result, Oman's economy remains at the mercy of oil price shocks.

Second, the results suggest a decoupling between relative diversification performance on the one hand and the development of competitive capabilities on the other. This decoupling is particularly stark in extremely resource endowed countries like Oman that were able to achieve comparatively faster diversification without building their competitive capabilities. By comparison, diversification performance appears to be more successful in countries where resources have moderate economic importance and are also diverse, especially in Indonesia and to some extent in Laos. Yet success in Laos came in part from enclaving competitiveness in special economic zones.

Third, external market conditions have often been used to initiate diversification in resource-rich countries. In Laos, the economic rise of neighboring countries provided opportunities for regional integration, which increased non-traditional income sources such as hydro-power exports, as well as a window of opportunity for attracting FDI. In Indonesia, plummeting oil prices in the 1980s provided an opportunity for economic reforms that ignited growth in the non-resource sector. Whereas Indonesia had a domestic economy with sufficient demand to enable the development of a domestic manufacturing base, Laos relied on regional and international markets for its manufacturing production.

The imperative for economic diversification in resource-rich countries remains strong, given highly volatile commodity prices and the low employment potential of extractive sectors. The International Monetary Fund, for example, calls for “greater economic diversification [which] would unlock job-creating growth, [and] increase resilience to oil price volatility” ( IMF 2016 ). Achieving diversification, however, remains a major challenge ( Diop, Marotta, and de Melo 2012 ), and the academic literature offers little guidance on the issue ( Ross 2017 ). This study has sought to bridge this gap by providing a rich account of the patterns of diversification, and their policy correlates, in resource-rich economies. In our sample of 42 countries, which were the most resource dependent in the 1970s, we fail to identify negative relationships between various measures of resource wealth and non-resource sectoral growth. When all countries are considered, we find a negative correlation between resource dependence and the growth of service value added and exports. These results cannot be causally interpreted considering various measurement and identification challenges.

The paper subsequently identified the best performing resource-rich countries based on their manufacturing value added growth. We characterized their performance in terms of a broad range of competitive capabilities, more specifically covering human capital attainment, public and intellectual capital development, and business capacity development. Through in-depth investigation of the most successful diversifier countries in our sample, namely Oman, Laos, and Indonesia, we examined the potential mechanism between developing competitive capabilities and achieving economic diversification.

Improvements in diversification were not often accompanied by stronger competitive capabilities, especially among extremely resource-rich countries. Among other relatively successful diversifiers, Chile and Norway, and to some extent Malaysia, have improved their competitive capabilities in most areas. The case study of Oman showed that true diversification remains elusive for one extremely resource-dependent, oil-producing country. In spite of the rapid expansion of manufacturing from a small base, which grew at the fastest rate in our sample, the country remains heavily dependent on oil revenues, and manufacturing (including processed oil, gas, and minerals) contributes merely 10% of GDP.

Finally, the relationship between resource wealth and competitive capabilities depends on the way resource wealth is measured and the type of capability considered. In our subsample of resource-rich countries, resource dependence exhibits a negative correlation with a number of competitive capabilities (i.e., certain measures of human capital attainment, R&D expenditure, innovation output, and financial access), while resource abundance is positively correlated with some competitive capabilities. These results are correlational and thus only suggestive, but are in line with prior evidence that the way resource wealth is measured affects research findings in important ways ( Brunnschweiler and Bulte 2008 ; Alexeev and Conrad 2009 ; Smith 2015 ).

Given the attention paid to diversification as a policy priority for resource-dependent countries ( Gelb 2010 ; Diop, Marotta, and de Melo 2012 ), the results point to the need for further research. First, the exceptional diversification challenge in extremely resource-dependent countries suggests a potentially non-monotonic relationship between resource dependence and structural transformation. A potential alternative explanation is that petroleum-producing countries, which dominate the extremely resource-dependent group of countries, face a more serious diversification challenge either because of the difficulty to create backward and forward linkages ( Hausmann and Klinger 2006 ) or because of unique rent appropriation dynamics (cf. Ross 2015 ). In contrast, our descriptive results suggest that mineral-rich countries, especially those endowed with diverse resources such as Indonesia, Laos, and Malaysia, were comparatively more successful in building their capabilities and/or achieving diversification. Future research can explore possible explanations such as the mitigation of commodity price risks in countries with diversified resource portfolios and the potential role of growth-friendly rent appropriation dynamics in countries with diverse or moderate levels of resource wealth. Second, while manufacturing and service growth can provide a complementary measure of economic diversification that better approximates welfare gains than product mix per se, it nonetheless suffers from certain data limitations. Since these measures could also capture natural resource-driven activities like petroleum refining, there is a need for further research with more disaggregated measures. Finally, the lack of a clear association between most measures of competitive capabilities and non-resource growth invites further inquiry into the conditions under which competitive capabilities become important drivers of (non-resource) growth.

Addisu Lashitew is research fellow at the Global Economy and Development program of Brookings Institution, and can be reached at [email protected] . Michael Ross is a professor at the Department of Political Science, University of California Los Angeles, and can be reached at [email protected] . Eric Werker (corresponding author) is a professor at the Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, and can be reached at [email protected] . This work was supported by a research grant from UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) through the Effective States and Inclusive Development (ESID) research center, which is led by the University of Manchester (Grant Number PO5013). A supplementary online appendix is available with this article at The World Bank Research Observer website.

The IMF classifies countries as resource-rich when they generate at least 20% of their merchandise exports or government revenues from oil, gas, or minerals. Using data for 2006–2010, the International Monetary Fund (IMF; 2012) identified 51 resource-dependent countries, home to 1.4 billion people. Venables (2016) uses a subset of 29 low and lower-middle income countries from the IMF list for his analysis.

This list excludes countries with a population of less than half a million, namely: Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Bermuda, Brunei Darussalam, Cayman Islands, Greenland, New Caledonia, and Virgin Islands. These countries have peculiar economic structures as a result of being small islands (leading to major tourism and fisheries sectors), and in many cases because they are tax havens. Guyana, Libya, and Papua New Guinea were also excluded from our analysis because of lack of data for non-resource sectors, although they qualified as resource-rich according to our criterion.

Although we did not have resource export data for Botswana and Iraq in the 1970s, we followed IMF (2012) and classified them as highly and extremely resource-rich countries, respectively, based on their export resource dependence in subsequent years.

To our knowledge, the only exception is James (2015) , who finds that the growth rate of the non-resource sector (manufacturing and services) closely follows the growth of total GDP, which in turn appears to move in tandem with commodity price cycles.

Average income per capita and infrastructure capital stock per capita (both in log form) have a very high and significant correlation (coefficient = 0.85).

Ahmadov A. K. 2014 . “Blocking the Pathway out of the Resource Curse: What Hinders Diversification in Resource-rich Developing Countries?” Global Economic Governance (GEG) Working Paper No. 98, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK .

Alexeev M. , Conrad R. . 2009 . “The Elusive Curse of Oil.” Review of Economics and Statistics 91 ( 3 ): 586 – 98 .

Google Scholar

Allcott H. , Keniston D. . 2017 . “Dutch Disease or Agglomeration? The Local Economic Effects of Natural Resource Booms in Modern America.” Review of Economic Studies 85 ( 2 ): 695 – 731 .

Bahar D. , Santos M. A. . 2018 . “One More Resource Curse: Dutch Disease and Export Concentration.” Journal of Development Economics 132 : 102 – 14 .

Barro R. J. 2001 . “Human Capital and Growth.” American Economic Review 91 ( 2 ): 12 – 7 .

Bhattacharyya S. , Collier P. . 2013 . “Public Capital in Resource Rich Economies: Is There a Curse?” Oxford Economic Papers 66 ( 1 ): 1 – 24 .

Bhattacharyya S. , Hodler R. . 2014 . “Do Natural Resource Revenues Hinder Financial Development? The Role of Political Institutions.” World Development 57 : 101 – 13 .

Boschini A. D. , Pettersson J. , Roine J. . 2007 . “Resource Curse or Not: A Question of Appropriability.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 109 ( 3 ): 593 – 617 .

Brollo F. , Nannicini T. , Perotti R. , Tabellini G. . 2013 . “The Political Resource Curse.” American Economic Review 103 ( 5 ): 1759 – 96 .

Brunnschweiler C. N. 2008 . “Cursing the Blessings? Natural Resource Abundance, Institutions, and Economic Growth.” World Development 36 ( 3 ): 399 – 419 .

Brunnschweiler C. N. , Bulte E. H. . 2008 . “The Resource Curse Revisited and Revised: A Tale of Paradoxes and Red Herrings.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55 ( 3 ): 248 – 64 .

Brunnschweiler C. N. , Bulte E. H. . 2009 . “Natural Resources and Violent Conflict: Resource Abundance, Dependence, and the Onset of Civil Wars.” Oxford Economic Papers 61 ( 4 ): 651 – 74 .

Bulte E. H. , Damania R. , Deacon R. T. . 2005 . “Resource Intensity, Institutions, and Development.” World Development 33 ( 7 ): 1029 – 44 .

Busse M. , Gröning S. . 2013 . “The Resource Curse Revisited: Governance and Natural Resources.” Public Choice 154 ( 1–2 ): 1 – 20 .

Cadot O. , Carrere C. , Strauss‐Kahn V. . 2013 . “Trade Diversification, Income, and Growth: What Do We Know? ” Journal of Economic Surveys 27 ( 4 ): 790 – 812 .

Claessens S. 2006 . “Access to Financial Services: A Review of the Issues and Public Policy Objectives.” World Bank Research Observer 21 ( 2 ): 207 – 40 .

Collier P. , Goderis B. . 2012 . “Commodity Prices and Growth: An Empirical Investigation.” European Economic Review 56 ( 6 ): 1241 – 60 .

Corden W. M. , Neary J. P. . 1982 . “Booming Sector and De-industrialisation in a Small Open Economy.” Economic Journal 92 ( 368 ): 825 – 48 .

Devlin J. , Titman S. . 2004 . “Managing Oil Price Risk in Developing Countries.” World Bank Research Observer 19 ( 1 ): 119 – 39 .

Diop N. , Marotta D. , de Melo J. , eds. 2012 . Natural Resource Abundance, Growth, and Diversification in The Middle East and North Africa: The Effects of Natural Resources and The Role of Policies . Washington, DC : The World Bank .

Google Preview

Djankov S. , La Porta R. , Lopez-de-Silanes F. , Shleifer A. . 2002 . “The Regulation of Entry.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 ( 1 ): 1 – 37 .

Eichengreen B. , Gupta P. . 2011 . “The Two Waves of Service-sector Growth.” Oxford Economic Papers 65 ( 1 ): 96 – 123 .

Elias S. , Noone C. . 2011 . “The Growth and Development of the Indonesian Economy.” Reserve Bank of Australia memo. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2011/dec/pdf/bu-1211-4.pdf .

Farzanegan M. R. 2014 . “Can Oil-rich Countries Encourage Entrepreneurship?” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 26 ( 9–10 ): 706 – 25 .

Feenstra R. C. , Inklaar R. , Timmer M. P. . 2015 . “The Next Generation of the Penn World Table.” American Economic Review 105 ( 10 ): 3150 – 82 .

Frankel J. A. 2012 . “The Natural Resource Curse: A Survey of Diagnoses and Some Prescriptions.” Kennedy School of Government Working Paper Series RWP12-014, Harvard University, Boston, MA .

Gelb A. 2010 . “Economic Diversification in Resource Rich Countries.” Research report for a seminar organized by the Central Bank of Algeria and the IMF Institute in Algiers, 4–5 November 2010 .

Gerschenkron A. 1962 . Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective: A Book of Essays (No. 330.947 G381 ). Cambridge, MA : Belknap Press of Harvard University Press .

Gylfason T. 2001 . “Natural Resources, Education, and Economic Development.” European Economic Review 45 ( 4–6 ): 847 – 59 .

Hausmann R. , Klinger R. . 2006 . “Structural Transformation and Patterns of Comparative Advantage in the Product Space.” CID Working Paper No. 128, Harvard University, Boston, MA .

International Monetary Fund (IMF) . 2012 . “Macroeconomic Policy Frameworks for Resource Rich Developing Countries—Background Paper 1—Supplement 1.” Washington, DC: IMF .

International Monetary Fund (IMF) . 2016 . “Economic Diversification in Oil-exporting Arab Countries.” Report for the annual meeting of Arab ministers of finance. https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2016/042916.pdf .

International Monetary Fund (IMF) . 2017 . “Estimating Public, Private, and PPP Capital Stocks.” (Accessed on April 25, 2018) , https://www.imf.org/external/np/fad/publicinvestment/data/info122216.pdf .

Isham J. , Woolcook M. , Pritchett L. , Busby G. . 2005 . “The Varieties of Resource Experience: Natural Resource Export Structures and the Political Economy of Economic Growth.” World Bank Economic Review 19 : 141 – 74 .

James A. 2015 . “The Resource Curse: A Statistical Mirage? ” Journal of Development Economics 114 : 55 – 63 .

Kuralbayeva K. , Stefanski R. . 2013 . “Windfalls, Structural Transformation and Specialization.” Journal of International Economics 90 ( 2 ): 273 – 301 .

Loungani M. P. , Mishra M. S. , Papageorgiou M. C. , Wang K. . 2017 . “World Trade in Services: Evidence from a New Dataset.” International Monetary Fund Working Paper No. 17/77 , Washington, DC: USA .

Majbouri M. 2016 . “Oil and Entrepreneurship.” Energy Policy 94 : 10 – 15 .

McEvily B. , Zaheer A. . 1999 . “Bridging Ties: A Source of Firm Heterogeneity in Competitive Capabilities.” Strategic Management Journal 20 ( 12 ): 1133 – 56 .

McMillan M. , Rodrik D. , Verduzco-Gallo Í. . 2014 . “Globalization, Structural Change, and Productivity Growth, with an Update on Africa.” World Development 63 : 11 – 32 .

Morrison K. M. 2010 . “What Can We Learn about the “Resource Curse” from Foreign Aid? ” World Bank Research Observer 27 ( 1 ): 52 – 73 .

Porter M. E. 1990 . The Competitive Advantage of Nations . New York : Free Press .

Pritchett L. , Sen K. , Werker E. , eds. 2017 . Deals and Development: The Political Dynamics of Growth Episodes . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Rodrik D. 2013 . “Unconditional Convergence in Manufacturing.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 128 ( 1 ): 165 – 204 .

Ross M. L. 2013 . “The Politics of the Resource Curse: A Review.” In The Handbook on the Politics of Development , edited by Lancaster C. , van de Walle N. . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Ross M. L. . 2015 . “What have We Learned about the Resource Curse? ” Annual Review of Political Science 18 : 239 – 59 .

Ross M. L. . 2017 . “What Do We Know about Economic Diversification in Oil-producing Countries?” https://ssrn.com/abstract=3048585 .

Ross M. L. , Mahdavi P. . 2015 . “Oil and Gas Data, 1932–2014.” (Harvard Dataverse, accessed April 6, 2018), https://doi.org/10.7910/dvn/ztpw0y .

Rothaermel F. T. 2017 . Strategic Management . New York : McGraw-Hill Education .

Sachs J. D. , Warner A. M. . 1995 . “Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth.” NBER Working Paper No. w5398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA .

Sachs J. D. , Warner A. M. . 1997 . “Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth.” In Leading Issues in Economic Development , edited by Meier G. , Rauch J. . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Sala-i-Martin X. , Subramanian A. . 2013 . “Addressing the Natural Resource Curse: An Illustration from Nigeria.” Journal of African Economies 22 ( 4 ): 570 – 615 .

Schwab K. , Sala-i-Martin X. . 2017 . The Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018 . Geneva : The World Economic Forum .

Smith B. 2015 . “The Resource Curse Exorcised: Evidence from a Panel of Countries.” Journal of Development Economics 116 : 57 – 73 .

Stevens P. , Dietsche E. . 2008 . “Resource Curse: An Analysis of Causes, Experiences and Possible Ways Forward.” Energy Policy 36 ( 1 ): 56 – 65 .

Stijns J. P. 2006 . “Natural Resource Abundance and Human Capital Accumulation.” World Development 34 ( 6 ): 1060 – 83 .

Temple J. 2003 . “Growing into Trouble: Indonesia after 1966.” In In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth , edited by Rodrik D. . Princeton: Princeton University Press .

Van der Ploeg F. 2011 . “Natural Resources: Curse or Blessing? ” Journal of Economic Literature 49 ( 2 ): 366 – 420 .

Van der Ploeg F. , Poelhekke S. . 2009 . “Volatility and the Natural Resource Curse.” Oxford Economic Papers 61 ( 4 ): 727 – 60 .

Van der Ploeg F. , Poelhekke S. . 2017 . “The Impact of Natural Resources: Survey of Recent Quantitative Evidence.” Journal of Development Studies 53 ( 2 ): 205 – 16 .

Venables A. J. 2016 . “Using Natural Resources for Development: Why has it Proven so Difficult? ” Journal of Economic Perspectives 30 ( 1 ): 161 – 84 .

Williams A. 2011 . “Shining a Light on the Resource Curse: An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship between Natural Resources, Transparency, and Economic Growth.” World Development 39 ( 4 ): 490 – 505 .

World Bank . 1994 . “Sultanate of Oman Sustainable Growth and Economic Diversification.” Report No. 12199-OM. documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/356361468759307912/pdf/multi0page.pdf .

World Bank . 2016 . “Lao Economic Monitor May 2016.” http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/515521468197368035/pdf/AUS17628-WP-OUO-9-Lao-Economic-Monitor-May-2016-has-been-approved-P157829.pdf .

World Bank . 2017 . “Oman Economic Outlook.” pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/261771507055178589/MEM-Oct2017-Oman-ENG.pdf .

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1564-6971
• Print ISSN 0257-3032
• Copyright © 2024 World Bank
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Natural Resources Curse and Economic Diversification in GCC Countries

• First Online: 27 October 2020

Cite this chapter

• Sami Ben Mim 3 &
• Mohamed Sami Ben Ali 4  

Part of the book series: Gulf Studies ((GS,volume 1))

805 Accesses

6 Citations

Numerous countries in the world enjoy huge natural resources but display relatively low economic development indicators. That is, their natural wealth is rather cursing and not blessing. This paper develop the natural resources curse theory in reference to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Results reveal that GCC countries have a persistent high share of resource-revenues in GDP. These high revenues allowed GCC countries to increase dramatically the life standards of their citizens and to reduce significantly their unemployment rates. However, reliance on natural resources contributed to deter investment in physical and human capital. Empirical results also reveal that the solution lies in a broader diversification of the production structure. Diversification should accelerate the investment in human and physical capital to boost the long-term growth and to meet the needs of the private sector. Moreover, upgrading the existent infrastructure is a necessary condition for the success of diversification strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

The endogeneity problem stems from the correlation between the lagged dependent variable and the error term. The Arrelano and Bond estimator deals with this problem by estimating the model in first differences and by using the second and higher lags of the independent variables as instruments.

We execute Fisher tests to verify the significance of country and period effects. The statistics associated to these tests are reported with the estimation results.

The index was calculated for the years where data relative to the three sectors was available. We have considered a more detailed decomposition of GDP, but data unavailability led to a dramatic decrease in the number of observations.

Adams, D., Adams, K., Ullah, S., & Ullah, F. (2019). Globalisation, governance, accountability and the natural resource ‘curse’: Implications for socio-economic growth of oil-rich developing countries. Resources Policy, 61 (6), 128–140.

Article   Google Scholar  

Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 58, 277–297.

Atkinson, G., & Hamilton, K. (2003). Savings, growth and the resource curse hypothesis. World Development, 31 (11), 1793–1807.

Auty, R. M. (1993). Sustaining development in mineral economies: The resource curse thesis . London and New York: Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Ben Ali, M. S., Cockx, L., & Francken, N. (2016). The Middle East and North Africa: Cursed by Natural resources? In Ben Ali, M. S. (Eds.), Economic development in the Middle East and North Africa: Challenges and prospects. Palgrave/Springer, pp. 71–93.

Beutel, J. (2019). Economic diversification and sustainable development of gulf cooperation countries. Oxford Energy Forum, ISSUE, 118, 14–18.

Blanco, L., & Grier, R. (2012). Natural resource dependence and the accumulation of physical and human capital in Latin America. Resources Policy, 37 (3), 281–295.

Callen, M. T., Cherif, R., Hasanov, F., Hegazy, M. A., & Khandelwal, P. (2014). Economic diversification in the GCC: Past, present, and future . International Monetary Fund.

Carmignani, F., & Avom, D. (2010). The social development effects of primary commodity export dependence. Ecological Economics, 70 (2), 317–330.

De Soysa, I., & Gizelis, T. I. (2013). The natural resource curse and the spread of HIV/AIDS, 1990–2008. Social Science and Medicine, 77 (1), 90–96.

Deacon, R. T., & Rode, A. (2015). Rent seeking and the resource curse. In Companion to the political economy of rent seeking . Edward Elgar Publishing, p. 227.

Deacon, R. T. (2011). The political economy of the natural resource curse: a survey of theory and evidence. Foundations and Trends® in Microeconomics, 7 (2), 111–208.

Elheddad, M. (2016). Natural resources and FDI in GCC Countries. International Journal of Business and Social Research., 06, 12–22.

ESCWA (Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia). (2001). Economic diversification in the oil-producing countries: The case of the Gulf Cooperation Council Economies . New York: United Nations, ESCWA.

Gylfason, T. (2001). Natural resources, education, and economic development. European Economic Review, 45 (4–6), 847–859.

Hvidt, M. (2013). Economic diversification in GCC countries: Past record and future trends . Research Paper 27, Kuwait Programme on Development, Governance and Globalisation in the Gulf States, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.

International Monetary Fund. (2011). Regional economic outlook update: Middle East and Central Asia . Washington, D.C: International Monetary Fund.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues . World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430.

Lane, P. R., & Tornell, A. (1999). The voracity effect. American Economic Review, 89 (1), 22–46, March.

Mehlum, H., Moene, K., & Torvik, R. (2006). Institutions and the resource curse. Econ. J., 116 (508), 1–20.

Mishrif, A. (2018). Introduction to Economic Diversification in the GCC Region. In Mishrif A. and Al Balushi Y. (dir.), Economic Diversification in the Gulf Region, Vol. I (pp. 1–26). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.

Papyrakis, E., & Gerlagh, R. (2004). The resource curse hypothesis and its transmission channels. Journal of Comparative Economics, 32 (1), 181–193.

Sachs, J. D. and Warner, A. M. (1995). Natural resource abundance and economic growth . NBER Working Paper, No. 5398. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. M. (1997). Sources of slow growth in African economies. Journal of African Economies, 6 (3), 335–376.

Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. M. (2001). Natural resources and economic development: The curse of natural resources. European EconomicReview, 45 (4–6), 827–838.

Shao, S., & Yang, L. (2014). Natural resource dependence, human capital accumulation, and economic growth: A combined explanation for the resource curse and the resource blessing. Energy Policy, 74 (1), 632–642.

Stijns, J. P. (2006). Natural resource abundance and human capital accumulation. World Development, 34 (6), 1060–1083.

Tiba, S., & Frikha, M. (2019). The controversy of the resource curse and the environment in the SDGs background: the African context. Resources Policy, 62 (8), 437–452.

Venables, A. (2016). Using natural resources for development: Why has it proven so difficult? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30, 161–184.

Vogelsang, T. J., & Perron, P. (1998). Additional tests for a unit root allowing the possibility of breaks in the trend function. International Economic Review, 39, 1073–1100.

World Bank. (2018). The Jobs Agenda for the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries. World Bank Other Operational Studies 2974. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.

World Bank. (2018). World Development Indicators, Washington, D.C.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Université de Sousse, IHEC, LaREMFiQ, BP n° 40, 4054, Sousse, Tunisia

Sami Ben Mim

College of Business and Economics, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Mohamed Sami Ben Ali

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Sami Ben Ali .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Héla Miniaoui

See Graphs  7 , 8 and 9 .

Natural resources rents (% of GDP) and secondary school enrollment by country

Natural resources rents and domestic general government health expenditure (% of GDP) by country

Natural resources rents and gross capital formation (% of GDP) by country

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Ben Mim, S., Ben Ali, M.S. (2020). Natural Resources Curse and Economic Diversification in GCC Countries. In: Miniaoui, H. (eds) Economic Development in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries. Gulf Studies, vol 1. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6058-3_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6058-3_1

Published : 27 October 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-15-6057-6

Online ISBN : 978-981-15-6058-3

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Economics and Finance (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Environment
• Road to Net Zero
• Art & Design
• Film & TV
• Music & On-stage
• Pop Culture
• Fashion & Beauty
• Home & Garden
• Things to do
• Combat Sports
• Horse Racing
• Beyond the Headlines
• Trending Middle East
• Business Extra
• Culture Bites
• Year of Elections
• Pocketful of Dirhams
• Books of My Life
• Iraq: 20 Years On

IMF projects faster UAE growth this year on economic diversification boost

Fund says real gdp is set to grow by 4% annually, driven by both the oil and non-oil sectors.

The Emirates is expected to register growth in tourism, construction, manufacturing and financial services. Victor Besa / The National

A rise in investment and the UAE’s efforts to boost the non-oil economy are driving a broad-based economic expansion that is set to outpace the International Monetary Fund’s previous estimates.

The overall real gross domestic product of the Arab world’s second-largest economy is expected to expand by an annual 4 per cent in 2024, the fund said on Monday at the conclusion of an article IV consultation with the country.

The latest projection by the IMF is 0.5 percentage points higher than the 3.5 per cent GDP growth it had estimated in its World Economic Outlook report in April.

“Economic growth in the UAE is broad-based, led by robust activity in the tourism, construction, manufacturing and financial services sectors,” IMF mission chief Ali Al-Eyd said.

“Foreign demand for real estate, increased bilateral and multilateral ties, and the UAE’s safe haven status continue to drive rapid growth in housing prices and an increase in rents, while adding to ample domestic liquidity.”

The country's oil economy is also expected to expand this year, driven by relatively higher crude prices and a rise in production under the UAE’s Opec+ quota boost, the fund said.

The economy of the Emirates rebounded strongly from the slowdown caused by Covid-19, growing by 7.9 per cent in 2022 , the most in 11 years, to Dh1.62 trillion ($441 billion) at constant prices. It has maintained a robust growth momentum since.

It is estimated to have grown by 3.1 per cent in 2023, driven by strong non-oil economic sector expansion, according to data from the UAE Central Bank.

The IMF’s latest 2024 growth forecast is slightly lower than the Central Bank's estimate of 4.2 per cent.

Minister of Economy Abdulla bin Touq expects the country’s economy to expand by 5 per cent this year.

The country's non-oil sector, which accounts for about 73 per cent of GDP, will underpin growth this year and the next, he told state news agency Wam in February.

The government's policy measures aimed at economic diversification and expanding the country’s industrial base will also continue to boost growth, Mr bin Touq said at the time.

The UAE is pursuing several economic initiatives, including Operation 300bn, a programme to position the country as an industrial centre by 2031 through efforts to increase the industrial sector’s GDP contribution to Dh300bn by 2031, from Dh133 billion in 2021.

Last year, the UAE achieved 30 per cent of the strategy’s target as the industrial sector’s contribution to GDP hit Dh197 billion.

The IMF said that fiscal and external surpluses are expected to remain high in the UAE this year.

The budget surplus is projected to be about 5 per cent of GDP while public debt is on track to decline further to 30 per cent of GDP.

“The current account surplus is projected at around 10 per cent of GDP in 2024,” Mr Al-Eyd said.

“Capital spending is expected to meet ongoing infrastructure needs, and the introduction of the corporate income tax will support non-hydrocarbon revenue with its full implementation in the coming years.”

The economic outlook remains subject to external risks, including geopolitical headwinds in the region, global growth concerns and commodity market volatility.

“However, the UAE’s large public financial buffers help mitigate risks, while accelerated public and private investment and structural reforms, including to meet more ambitious climate goals and develop low-carbon and renewable energy and technology, could spur growth more than expected,” Mr Al-Eyd said.

Energy This Week

Expert analysis on oil & gas renewables and clean energy

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

Advertisement

Supported by

Kuwaiti Emir Suspends Parliament, Citing Political Tumult

The country’s ruler also suspended several constitutional articles, raising concerns that he could diminish political freedoms in one of the Middle East’s few semi-democratic states.

• Share full article

By Vivian Nereim

The emir of Kuwait announced on Friday that he would suspend the elected Parliament for up to four years, stoking fears that he could move to dismantle one of the Middle East’s last semi-democratic political systems.

“I will not permit for democracy to be exploited to destroy the state,” the emir, Sheikh Mishal Al Ahmed Al Sabah, said in a televised speech, declaring that a recent period of political turmoil required “hard decisions to save the country.”

The emir also suspended several articles of the Constitution and said that the transitional period would be used to review “all aspects of the democratic process” in Kuwait, an oil-rich state along the Persian Gulf. During the suspension, the emir and the cabinet will take over the 50-member Parliament’s legislative powers.

The decisions came a month after elections in which Kuwaitis chose a new Parliament, and its members had not yet begun their new session. While Kuwait’s Parliament has frequently been dissolved in favor of new elections — most recently by Sheikh Mishal in February — a parliamentary suspension has happened only twice in Kuwaiti history, in 1976 and 1986.

“This is a serious setback for democracy in the Middle East,” said Michael Herb, a political science professor at Georgia State University. “This suspension of the Parliament threatens to make Kuwait as authoritarian as the other Gulf monarchies.”

There is still hope that the country could take a different path, he added; after both past suspensions, Parliament was eventually restored.

In Kuwait, frequent deadlocks between Parliament and the executive branch have led to political turmoil, which has intensified over the past five years. The country has experienced much parliamentary turnover and frequent cabinet resignations , and officials have had little time to execute their agendas. Kuwait has also lagged behind the rest of the hydrocarbon-rich Gulf in infrastructure development and economic diversification.

Kuwait is far from a full democracy: Its ruler is a hereditary monarch, and political parties are illegal. But across a Middle Eastern region where many states are becoming more repressive , Kuwait represents a rare alternative, scholars say, nurturing elements of democracy even after Arab Spring uprisings were crushed more than a decade ago and countries including Tunisia and Egypt began to march back toward authoritarianism.

Kuwait’s Parliament is significantly more powerful than the largely symbolic assemblies in neighboring monarchies like Saudi Arabia. Its members have the right to publicly interrogate cabinet ministers; wield influence over the state budget; and approve the emir’s appointment of a new crown prince, the heir to the throne.

In his speech on Friday, Sheikh Mishal, who came to power in December after the death of the former emir , lamented that the national wealth had been “wasted.”

“The interests of Kuwait’s people come above all else and are entrusted to us, and we need to maintain and protect them,” he said.

He referred to unspecified political actors “exceeding their bounds” and complained that “some, unfortunately, have interfered with the heart of the emir’s purviews and meddled in his choice of a crown prince.”

The position of crown prince — the next ruler in waiting — is currently vacant, and Sheikh Mishal must appoint one. He did not clarify who was meddling. And it was not clear why Parliament would be suspended for up to four years. But four years is the typical parliamentary term.

Some Kuwaitis expressed optimism about the potential for the suspension to break the country’s political stalemate, giving the government space to execute its agenda unobstructed.

“Important policies such as the national budget have been delayed and hampered owing to dysfunctional politics,” said Clemens Chay, a research fellow in the Middle East Institute at the National University of Singapore.

But the emir’s speech also stoked fears that he would curb Kuwaitis’ relative political freedoms.

“To our brothers in Kuwait: If you need any help to find ways to live, survive and persist underneath an authoritarian regime without public freedoms, your neighbors in the rest of the Gulf countries have lengthy experience with this,” Sultan Alamer, a Saudi political science scholar who lives in the United States, wrote on X, the social media platform. “We’re in this together.”

Sean Yom, an associate professor of political science at Temple University, said that he worried how domestic dissent would now be treated.

“What happens to political critics and opposition blocs if they no longer have Parliament, which has always embodied the pluralism of Kuwaiti society?” he asked.

Mr. Yom pointed out that the next few years would most likely bring constitutional amendments, the dilution of Parliament’s powers and the crucial appointment of a crown prince; Sheikh Mishal is 83.

Bader Al-Saif, an assistant professor of history at Kuwait University, said that the main challenge would be salvaging the system through constitutional amendments while maintaining Kuwait’s “relative openness.”

“The government will be under much more scrutiny as there’s no Parliament to blame,” he said.

Vivian Nereim is the lead reporter for The Times covering the countries of the Arabian Peninsula. She is based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. More about Vivian Nereim