4.7 Article

Testing natural resource curse hypothesis amidst geopolitical risk: Global evidence using novel Fourier augmented ARDL approach

Journal

RESOURCES POLICY
Volume 88, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104317

Keywords

Natural resources; Geopolitics; Fourier augmented ARDL; Natural Resources; Curse

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study conducts an empirical analysis at the global level to examine the impact of natural resources and geopolitical risk on the resource curse hypothesis. The findings suggest that while natural resources promote economic growth, the interaction with geopolitical risk hinders it.
Amid global and geopolitical conflicts and other related scenarios, the role of natural resources abundance on present and future economic growth and development remains a question of importance. A plethora of literature has already explored the validity of the natural resource curse hypothesis, however, the analysis at the global level remains disregarded. On top of this, the role of geopolitical risk in the natural resource curse framework is also ignored in the prior literature. Hence, this study attempts to test the resource curse hypothesis amidst geopolitical risk by using global data. We adopt the novel Fourier augmented autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach for robust empirical analysis. The findings claim that natural resources promote economic growth, thus, invalidating the resource curse hypothesis. However, the interaction of natural resources and geopolitical risk hinders economic growth, thus validating the natural resource curse hypothesis as induced by geopolitical conflicts. Moreover, the findings show that capital stock and technological innovation promote global economic output. These findings suggest that proactive measures that potentially minimize geopolitical risk are vital for the prevention of the natural resource curse.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available