1 Introduction

Resource curse is any negative political and or socio-economic outcome emanating from the exploitation of natural resources (Auty, 1993; Ross, 2015). Precisely, resource curse is the situation whereby a natural resource abundant country fails to use its resources to achieve sustained universal socio-economic development and peace for its citizens. Resource curse is mostly evident through poor economic performance, lack of government accountabilityFootnote 1 and natural resource conflict (Aslaksen, 2010; Ross, 2015; Rosser, 2006). Over the years, scholars have investigated the manifestations of the resource curse in many natural resource abundant countries (Auty, 1993, 2001b; Collier & Hoeffler, 2004; Omeje, 2008; Ross, 2001, 2012; Sachs & Warner, 1995). These studies have contributed significantly to our understanding of the resource curse but there are a few loose ends that need to be tied to guide the many developing countries that are increasingly becoming oil and gas exporters in order to minimise the resource curse (Ross, 2015).

We know that the quality of existing institution determines, to a large extent, whether a resource abundant country will experience or escape resource curse (Mehlum et al., 2006; Robinson et al., 2006; Wantchekon, 2002). Although resource wealth can breakdown institutional quality (Bulte et al., 2005; Knack, 2009), it does so only when the pre-existing ones were already weak (Tornell & Lane, 1999; Wiens, 2014). Institutional quality has been measured by both objective and subjective indicators of rule of law, government efficiency, provision of public goods, the share of the shadow economy and rate of murder (Kennedy & Tiede, 2013; Polterovich et al., 2010; Samadi & Alipourian, 2021). Yet, Nigeria with abundant oil and natural gas and practicing some level of rule of law is saddled with both resource conflict and poor economic development and growth (Esu, 2017; Mähler, 2012). Therefore, we need to locate the specific institutional conditions that tend to precipitate the resource curse to develop effective antidote to the menace.

Moreover, resource curse or blessing is often measured by macroeconomic indicators such as GDP, economic growth and financial development. Impressive macroeconomic indicators do not always translate in the livelihood of ordinary citizens. So, the question is, resource blessing for who? To fringe communities which are immediately and directly affected by environmental challenges posed by resource extraction and to many ordinary citizens, impressive macroeconomic indicators may be meaningless or useless unless they reflect positively in their lives. I doubt if communities that have been deprived of fresh surface water through gold mining in Ghana will classify gold’s contribution to GDP and financial development or the performance of multinational extractive firms on the stock market as resource blessing. Until now, some of the specific institutional conditions that could determine whether natural resource windfall will inure to the benefit of local people and ordinary citizens have been neglected or crowded-out by several indices for analysing broad institutions such as rule of law, provision of public goods, the share of the shadow economy, and rate of murder and other political and economic institutions (Kennedy & Tiede, 2013; Samadi & Alipourian, 2021). I have reviewed the resource curse literature and put forward some specific indices that can be considered in analysing institutional quality of natural resource abundant countries. These are the planning tradition that the country employs to manage and distribute the windfall of resource; existence of a binding long-term national development plan; and binding regulations to address potential or actual socio-economic and environmental impact of the exploitation of natural resources. I argue that broad-based planning tradition like the agonistic paradigm and a binding national development plan can act as institutional barriers to minimise discretionary distribution of resource windfall. In addition, adherence to clearly defined laws that ensure a fair distribution of resource windfall to local people or resource-fringe regions, and strict environmental regulations could minimise grievance-induced natural conflict which is an aspect of resource curse. Therefore, this article enhances knowledge on resource curse by suggesting specific institutional indices that could be included in analysing institutional quality of natural resource abundant countries. This is done with the conviction that if most individuals benefit from natural resource extraction, then collectively, it is resource blessing unlike impressive GDP figures which may not translate in the livelihood of the masses.

The next section discusses the mechanisms for poor economic performance and resource conflict in resource-endowed countries. Section 3 discusses how quality institutions contribute to reducing the resource curse menace. Section 4 is the main contribution of this article and where the specific institutional conditions which play critical roles on the resource curse are discussed. Finally, the concluding remarks are presented in Sect. 5.

2 The resource curse mechanisms

2.1 Poor economic performance

Life in all forms and at all places throughout time requires natural resources to exist, develop or grow. It would be expected that countries with abundant known natural resources would leapfrog in growth and development than natural resource-stricken ones following classical economists’ observations of the positive role of natural resources in national development (Asif et al., 2020; Esu, 2017). Ironically, many macro-scale studies found an inverse relationship between natural resources abundance or wealth and economic development in many countries (Atkinson & Hamilton, 2003; Auty, 2001a; Gylfason et al., 1999; Lamb et al., 2009; Neumayer, 2004; Sachs & Warner, 1995). This negative relationship is called “the paradox of plenty” (Karl, 1997). The paradox of plenty often emanates from economic mismanagement, natural resource dependence, lack of competent human capital and lack of government accountability, rent-seeking, clientelism and corruption (Duruji & Dibia, 2017; Pérez & Claveria, 2020).

Slower economic development and growth in many natural resource abundant countries emanate from economic mismanagement (Pérez & Claveria, 2020; Van der Ploeg, 2011). Behaviourists argue that natural resource abundance undermines critical thinking and make policy-makers to take myopic economic decisions and engage in overspending of the windfall (Brollo et al., 2013; Karl, 1997; Ross, 2012). It is argued further that abundant natural resource is associated with wishful thinking among policy-makers, and that people get over-exuberant and too optimistic of economic growth and development, leading to excessive and sometimes, unnecessary spending (Krause, 1995; Mitra, 1994). Torvik (2009) posits that overspending correlates significantly with poor economic performance and has observed that resource cursed countries have higher propensity to overspend. At best, overspending contributes to a depletion of the national fiscal reserve and at worse, it leads to national debt and economic turmoil when resource windfall reduces or diminishes (Bazzi & Blattman, 2013; Collier & Hoeffler, 2012; Wiens, 2014). Clearly, economic mismanagement is a major cause of resource curse. Natural resource extraction poses cost to the environment and or the source of livelihood of many people. So, where resource windfall is mismanaged, ecological and socio-economic conditions tend to worsen and it would have been better if the natural resources are left untapped. In such cases, natural resource become a curse to many people.

Another explanation for poor economic performance in many resource abundant countries is that a large amount of rent can lure policy makers to take over-burdened responsibility for the citizenry (Brautigam et al., 2008; Morrison, 2009; Rosser, 2006). Large amount of “unearned” revenue from abundant natural resource can entice governments to focus on distributive policies with less attention to domestic revenue mobilisation and collaboration with the private sector for economic diversification (Auty, 2001b, c; Brautigam et al., 2008; Chaudhry, 1994; Karl, 1997; Moore, 2004; Morrison, 2009). Where distribution of natural resource windfall dominate national policy, state accountability is usually compromised as cared-for populace often assume that they derive their subsistence from the state’s natural resource revenue and are less likely to demand disclosure of detailed revenue expenditure and economic prudence (Brautigam et al., 2008; Duruji & Dibia, 2017; Moore, 2004; Ross, 2004a). A compromised government accountability would enable only a few people to enjoy full benefit of the resource windfall at the detriment of the masses.

Moreover, over dependence on natural resources contributes to poor economic development (Van der Ploeg, 2011). Generally, when natural resource contributes at least 20–25% of government or export earning, it is classified as a resource-dependent country (Hailu & Kipgen, 2017). Some countries tend to trivialise the volatility of natural resource prices on the global market and rely almost entirely on windfall for economic development. Dependence on natural resources exposes the economy to external price shocks that often militate against effective economic planning (Bazzi & Blattman, 2013; Collier & Hoeffler, 2012; Van der Ploeg, 2011). Although Nigeria manages democratic transitions to escape political conflict due to the slow but progressive improvement in several institutions and through a strategic political alliance (Amundsen, 2017), the economy is still highly oil-dependent and that is a major reason why the country is generally classified as resource cursedand that is a major reason why the country is generally classified as resource cursed (Hailu & Kipgen, 2017).

In addition, many countries lack the required bureaucratic capacity to manage the rapid inflow of large resource windfalls (Ross, 2012). Since natural resources are gifts of nature and do not always require higher level of critical thinking to obtain large amounts of resource windfall when they are abundant and of high-value, there could be less incentive for investing in human capital in order to make effective economic decisions (Besley & Persson, 2010; Brollo et al., 2013; Pérez & Claveria, 2020; Ross, 2001). More so, natural resource abundance tends to discourage investment in education since their extraction can provide higher income to people with even low or no formal educational background (Gylfason et al., 1999; Pérez & Claveria, 2020; Zolnikov, 2020). Limited or lack education will result in lack of intellectual acumen to manage windfall and provide socio-economic opportunities for the benefit of the citizenry.

Rent seeking, or rent grabbing, is another reason for poor economic performance in many natural resource abundant countries (Busse & Groning, 2013; Duruji & Dibia, 2017; Ross, 2001, 2015). Rent seeking or rent grabbing is where political elites and policy-makers capture natural resource revenue at the detriment of universal economic development (Karl, 1997). Rent seekers spend natural resource revenue to gain or maintain power at the expense of the well-being of the majority of the people (Ascher, 1999; Duruji & Dibia, 2017; Robinson et al., 2006). In a rent seeking economy, the country becomes a predatory state where a few people benefit from natural resources revenue through patronage networks at the detriment of the masses (Gould & Winters, 2012; Stevens & Dietsche, 2008). In some cases, public officials destroy mechanisms (institutions) that can prevent them from arrogating natural resource rents (Brollo et al., 2013).

Furthermore, clientelism and corruption also retard economic development and growth in many natural resource abundant countries (Duruji & Dibia, 2017; Esu, 2017; Offiong, 1997; Pérez & Claveria, 2020). Clientelism is where political leaders provides lucrative public sector jobs to earn public support but, since the private sector is more efficient, total productivity becomes low (Robinson et al., 2006; Wantchekon, 2002; Wiens, 2014). Besides, corruption, which is driven by ‘moral impurities’, is a key factor hindering economic performance in many resource abundant countries (Adams et al., 2019; Farooq et al., 2013; Pérez & Claveria, 2020). Corrupt public officials in many resource abundant countries divert state resource windfalls into their private foreign accounts without the citizenry noticing since resource wealth “accrue from foreign sources directly to government coffers” (Ahmadov, 2014: 1241) or they receive kickbacks from extractive companies to the detriment of national economic development (Brollo et al., 2013; Caselli & Michaels, 2013; Zhu & Wu, 2014).

Further, natural resources abundance tends to benefit people who are already wealthy and well connected, thereby reinforcing existing power relations to the disadvantaged of the general public (Broad, 1995; Pérez & Claveria, 2020). Many resource-endowed countries are vulnerable to the voracity effect where increase in natural resource windfall increases the propensity of discretional distribution to powerful groups in the country (Tornell & Lane, 1999). Comparative studies between Latin America and East Asia show that natural resource abundance led to existence of powerful groups in Latin America whereas no such resource-controlling group exist in East Asia (Auty, 1995; Mahon Jr., 1992). Thus, natural resource abundance could lead to social and political dominance of powerful groups (elites) to the disadvantage of the larger population in the country (Pérez & Claveria, 2020).

Another reason why some natural resource abundant countries record poor economic performance is that they fail to channel windfall for financial development. Ideally, natural resource windfall should contribute to financial development through improvement in financial institutions and financial markets (Li et al., 2021). For instance, natural resource rents should make capital available for banks to operate effectively and be in capacity to provide loans for production and economic development (Asif et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2021; Mohammed et al., 2020). Also, extractive industries could obtain capital from the financial market for production to accelerate economic development for individual with a cumulative effect on the national economy (Moradbeigi & Law, 2017; Yıldırım et al., 2020; Ali et al., 2022a). Unfortunately, corruption, clientelism, and rent-seeking inhibit financial development or lead to financial resource curse in many countries. Financial resource curse is where there is immature financial system or lack of credit facilities for production to stimulate economic growth (Beck, 2011; Ali et al., 2022a). For example, China is struggling to enhance financial development with natural resources windfall because the private sector has limited access to credit, and development is concentrated in regions with natural resources (Ahmed, 2020; Asif et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2020). In Malaysia too, oil windfall has insignificant impact on financial development because the banks engage in non-productive sectors (Ali et al., 2022a, b; Badeeb et al., 2016). Moreover, many resource-rich countries lack monetary policy required to address resource windfall-induced inflation which affect private sector investment (Asif et al., 2020; Shahbaz et al., 2018). Besides, when natural resource windfall causes increase in real exchange or new natural resource projects are saddled with corruption allegations, banks may not offer loans to those companies or people will not invest in their shares, which will negatively affect financial development and economic growth (Ahmed, 2020; Khan et al., 2020a, b, c; Lakshmi et al., 2021).

2.2 Natural resource conflict

Armed conflict over natural resources is a manifestation of resource curse (Ross, 2015). Unfortunately, “the general picture emerging from existing studies shows that the empirical evidence supports a relationship between resource wealth and conflict” (Koubi et al., 2014, p. 233). Two broad explanations for the causal links between natural resource abundance and conflict onset are the greed and the grievance schools of thought (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004).Footnote 2

The greed school of thought argues that resource abundance incites rebels to instigate secessionist movement or fight for autonomyFootnote 3 of the region with abundant resource in order to control and exploit the deposits (Berdal & Malone, 2000; Brown & Keating, 2015; Collier & Hoeffler, 2004, 2005; Collier et al., 2009; McNeish, 2011; Ross, 2012). The greed mechanism is particularly prevalent in regions where the abundant natural resources are lootableFootnote 4 and widespread, making it difficult for central governments to have effective control over the resources (Le Billon, 2001, 2009; Lujala, 2010; Ross, 2004b). Moreover, lootable resources like alluvial gold and alluvial diamond provide money for rebel to fund and prolong civil war (Bellows & Miguel, 2009; Collier & Hoeffler, 2012; Lujala, 2009, 2010).

The grievance school of thought states that natural resource conflict occurs when the cost and benefit of natural resource extraction are unfairly distributed (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004; Frynas & Wood, 2001; Hilson, 2002). Since natural resource extraction usually cause environmental problems such as land degradation and water pollution (Aboka et al., 2018; Chukwuka et al., 2018), grievance-induced conflict often occurs when resource communities are marginalised or when they do not receive what they perceive as fair share of the resource windfall (Basedau & Richter, 2014; Duruji & Dibia, 2017; Østby et al., 2009). In many cases, resource extraction enhances environmental degradation which affects other livelihood activities like crop farming. So, where resource communities are not duly compensated or local people are not employed in the extraction of the resources when they have the required skills, they tend to have course to agitate and sometimes, to wage war against the extraction companies or the government (Boege & Franks, 2012; Brown & Keating, 2015; Le Billon, 2006; Mähler, 2012; Østby et al., 2009; Regan, 2003; Schilling et al., 2018). Ross (2004b: 41) observed that “resource wealth increases the probability of civil war by causing grievances over insufficiently compensated land expropriation, environmental degradation, inadequate job opportunities, and labour migration”.

Research on how the wealth of natural resource instigates conflict is inconclusive. Some scholars found no effect of abundance natural resources or primary commodity export and the onset of civil war (Fearon, 2004, 2005; Fearon & Laitin, 2003; Koubi et al., 2014; Thies, 2010). Others reported that the risk of conflict diminishes with a sustained increase in the natural resource wealth if the central government spends it on the security services or engages in large-scale distribution (welfare state) to buy of or suppress agitations of the people (Basedau & Lay, 2009; Collier et al., 2009).

According to Samset (2009), there is lack of consensus on how natural resource abundance causes conflict because the studies were conducted in different time periods and scholars have used different methods. It has been observed that diamond and oil cause more conflicts now than before (Lujala et al., 2005; Ross, 2006). Also, location accounts for the difference in the findings as offshore oil extraction has no effect on conflict onset but onshore extraction does (Cotet & Tsui, 2013; Lujala, 2010; Ross, 2012, 2015).

3 The role of institutions

Institutions are acceptable practices and procedures that remove doubts and guide our daily activities (North, 1990; Samadi & Alipourian, 2021). Resource curse is often explained by institutional failure (Li et al., 2021). The institutional failure hypothesis posits that a major intervening factor that determines whether a country will achieve a sustained universal socio-economic development and growth with abundant natural resource revenue or not is the quality of existing institutions (Bulte et al., 2005; Koubi et al., 2014; Li et al., 2021; Mehlum et al., 2006; Stevens & Dietsche, 2008; Wiens, 2014). Strong institutions ensure rule of law, minimise corruption, create investment-friendly environment and contribute to economic diversification to reduce the resource curse (Atkinson & Hamilton, 2003; Henry, 2019; Mehlum et al., 2006; Menaldo, 2016). Where quality institutions are lacking, especially in resource abundant developing countries, the resource curse becomes inevitable (Badeeb et al., 2017; Dou et al., 2022).

Mehlum et al. (2006) found that countries with strong and producer friendly institutions usually achieve economic development and growth and those with weak or grabbing institutions often experience the resource curse. Also, the resource curse is more prevalent in democratic presidential (presidentialism) than in democratic parliamentarian countries (Andersen & Aslaksen, 2008). “While presidentialism may be more of a ‘one man show’ that can be captured by special interests, parliamentary regimes (parliamentarianism) with their continuous vote of confidence and broader representation in the making of policy, may be better suited to putting proceeds from resources into productive use” (Torvik, 2009: 247).

Further, lack of strong or restrictive political and economic institutions breed misappropriation of natural resource windfall by policy-makers and political elites which slowdown economic development (Brollo et al., 2013; Tornell & Lane, 1999; Wiens, 2014). Also, policy-makers and political elites may become over-exuberant and formulate myopic distributive policies if there are no strong institution that limits their power or could ensure that comprehensive economic decisions are taken (Ross, 2012; Tornell & Lane, 1999; Wiens, 2014). Further, when political leaders have unrestricted institution over national budget, they tend to focus on technologies that would enable them to suppress or annihilate agitations at the detriment of prudent economic development (Basedau & Lay, 2009; Collier et al., 2009; Wantchekon, 2002).

Robinson et al. (2006) also opined that it is only strong economic and political institutions that can prevent political elites from arrogating natural resource revenue to themselves and their cronies. Natural resource abundance could benefit only the wealthy and well-connected people when there are ineffective institutions to distribute natural resource revenue equitably (Gizelis & Wooden, 2010). According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD (2016), lack of clearly defined laws on the distribution of natural resource wealth contributes to conflict onset. Al Moumin (2012) also found that ambiguous formulation of regulations on who owns natural resource, how it should be managed and how revenue should be distributed contributed to oil conflict in Iraq. If people resort to violent conflict to address conflicting interest, then relevant institutions are week (Sandbu, 2012) or non-existent.

Further, it is usually in countries with strong institutions that the engagement of transnational corporations in the extractive sector can yield sustainable economic development (Pérez & Claveria, 2020). Transnational extractive corporations tend to prioritise profit over ethics when the host country has weak institutions (Adams et al., 2019; Pérez & Claveria, 2020). In countries with weak institutions, transnational corporations can avoid taxes to deprive the country of revenues and extract resources irresponsibly without adherence to international regulations and cause serious environmental degradation which increases the risk of conflicts in host communities (Conde & Le Billon, 2017; Kolk & Lenfant, 2010; Pérez & Claveria, 2020; Schilling et al., 2018). Also, given that transnational corporations are business and profit oriented, where there are no institutions to ensure that they employ local people, they will engage the cost-effective employee. This is where local content policies become very crucial. Local content policy/institutions are important for knowledge transfer and competent development but they must be complimented with innovation policy (Andersen et al., 2015). For instance, Ghana has a local content policy in which transnational oil companies are required to engage local suppliers and progressively employ Ghanaians in their engineering departments. However, without strong innovation policy and commitment to training and to develop the skills required, some transnational corporations cannot find qualified local people to employ so they continue to import workers. Thus, local content institution without accompanying innovation policies is impotent (Andersen et al., 2015). On the other hand, the existence of quality institution and political will led to education and training which spurred innovations in effective and efficient natural resource exploitation and management in Norway (Fagerberg et al., 2009).

Knowledge on how natural resource windfall and financial development influence each other is at its formative stage as the results from studies are dependent on the indicators and analytical models employedFootnote 5 (Ali et al., 2022a, b; Solarin et al., 2021). However, quality institutions seem to play critical roles in enabling some countries to channel natural resource rents into developing financial market, financial institutions and the overall financial development of some countries (Ali et al., 2022a, b). Developed financial sector (both the stock market and banks) can attract savings and finance the development and exploitation of natural resources (Ali et al., 2022a, b; Shahbaz et al., 2018). Quality institution impacts banking development positively and efficient stock market is a conduit through which natural resource windfall leads to resource blessing and economic growth (Ali et al., 2022a, b). Quality institutions that control corruption and contract enforcement encourage investment in the banking sector and provision of loans to extractive companies for production (Ali et al., 2022a, b). Quality and stable institutions enhance stock market development and encourage capitalisation of the financial market (Ali et al., 2022a, b; Khan et al., 2020a). Khan et al. (2020b) found that inadequate institutional quality in 87 Emerging and Developing Economies, natural resource rent impacts negatively on Financial development in those countries. And particularly for Pakistan, if institutional quality goes below a threshold of 3.097, natural resource will have negative impact on financial development (Khan et al., 2020c).

Characteristic of the countries that have positive impact of natural resource on their financial development is the existence of, or the strive for, quality institutions in those economies (Li et al., 2021; Shahbaz et al., 2018). It is estimated that a percentage increase in natural resource windfall will cause more than a percentage improvement in the stock market and over a quadruple improvement in overall financial development to cause a multiplier effect on the Malaysian economy if quality of institutions is enhanced (Ali et al., 2022a, b). Although studies on natural resource windfall and financial development are still emerging, countries with developed financial institutions and markets tend to overcome the resource curse by channelling natural resource rents to productive sectors of their economies (Gokmenoglu & Rustamov, 2019; Law & Moradbeigi, 2017; Moradbeigi & Law, 2017).

Further, using the two-step dynamic system of the Generalised Methods of Moments approach, Ali et al. (2022b) found that natural resource windfall affects the stock market in G-7 countries significantly in the presence of quality institution. Given that the stock market is sensitive to abrupt changes such as political shock and unexpected policies, it is less surprising that the G-7 countries with very strong, matured and stable institutions has efficiently channelled natural resource rents into the financial market to the access of the private sector, which, in turn, has created positive feedback in their economies (Ali et al., 2022a, b).

The role of institutions in containing the resource curse in resource abundant countries is path-dependent. If a country has strong institutions before it discovers a natural resource, it is likely to escape the resource curse than a country that had weak institutions (Wiens, 2014). Resource wealth even disintegrates institutional quality when pre-existing ones are weak and unrestrictive (Knack, 2009; Wiens, 2014). As such, weak institution is a major mechanism for poor economic performance, financial resource curse and conflict in many natural resource abundant countries.

Having discussed the mechanisms through which poor economic performance manifests and the role of quality institutions in facilitating economic growth and financial development, I now turn to some specific institutional conditions that seem to precipitate resource curse.

4 Some specific conditions under which the resource curse tends to occur

4.1 Neglect or lack of broad-based planning

One of the conditions under which the resource curse occurs is when centralised planning strategy is used to management natural resources (Grzybowski, 2012; Lachapelle et al., 2003). The “traditional planning processes that emphasise technical analysis and limit citizen involvement often create tensions between citizens and agencies in the form of inaction, distrust, litigation, and occasionally even threats and violence” (Lachapelle & McCool, 2005: 279). The expert-oriented centralised planning strategy such as rational planning that excludes the public in making decisions on natural resources which often fails to cover public interest fully, contributed to resource conflict in Bolivia (Perreault, 2008; Schilling-Vacaflor, 2012) in the Philippines (Rovillos et al., 2005) and in South America (Hoyos, 2015) and does not ensure government accountability. These empirical findings provide evidence that centralised planning contributes to the resource curse. Consequently, participatory resource management has been recommended to minimise the incidence of resource-related conflicts (Hoyos, 2015; Humphreys et al., 2007).

Given that conflict usually occurs when people have competing values (Galtung, 1965; Souleimanov, 2013), collaborative planning with resource users and the public is crucial for obtaining social licence and to achieve a compromise to reduce natural resource conflict (Healey, 1992; Hoyos, 2015; Lachapelle & McCool, 2005; Lane, 2005; Lyytimäki & Peltonen, 2016; Scheidel et al., 2020). Moreover, “when people are listened to, paid attention to, treated politely and with respect, the legitimacy for the final decisions is [often] increased” (Zachrisson, 2004: 24). Involving the public to take decisions that affect them encourages deliberative democracy and enhances the legitimacy of the process (Jones, 2007; Mouffe, 2000; Zachrisson, 2004).

One of the planning strategies which includes and allows the public to express their concerns without being misconstrued as enemies is known as agonistic planning (Bäcklund & Mäntysalo, 2010; Mouffe, 2000; Pløger, 2004). According to Hillier (2003), agonistic planning enables the public to contest over resources which in many cases lead to satisfactory distribution of natural resource benefits. Agonistic planning offers the arena for people to present their interests and ideas which contributes to a comprehensive and inclusive final decisions (Flyvbjerg & Richardson, 2002; Mouat et al., 2013; Mouffe, 2000) which could minimise the occurrence of natural resource conflict. Thus, agonistic planning pre-empts and resolves conflicts and offers a platform to the public to exercise their democratic right by taking part in deciding the things that affect them (Flyvbjerg & Richardson, 2002).

Also, broad-based planning is required to do environmental impact assessment to minimise grievances associated with environmental degradation that is usually exacerbated by resource extraction. This is crucial because:

“when resource companies claim to respect local law, this often means that they undertake environmental impact assessments primarily as administrative tasks designed to secure the necessary permits, not as tools for understanding the physical and social environment into which they are entering” (Shankleman, 2012: 53)

Therefore, it is less likely that in-depth understanding of the political and social environments of natural resource-rich areas would be achieved without involving local people in planning and assessing potential environmental impacts.

More so, transparency in the extractive sector is an important factor that contributes to ensuring judicious use of natural resource windfall (Corrigan, 2014; Kasekende et al., 2016; Rich & Warner, 2012; Rustad et al., 2012, 2017) to minimise clientelism, corruption and rent grabbing. The need for transparency has led to the institutionalisation of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) and the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme as well as major transparency policies in North America and Europe (Ross, 2015). The fourth principle of EITI “recognises that a public understanding of government revenues and expenditure over time could help public debate and inform the choice of appropriate and realistic options for sustainable development” (EITI, 2016: 10). However, transparency alone cannot eliminate corruption (Adams et al., 2019; Kolstad & Wiig, 2009). Publishing contract deals, receipts and expenditure of resource revenue between extractive industries and governments alone may not strengthen public trust in governments’ efforts at transparency and accountability. It is through active public engagement in making decisions on natural resource management and revenue utilisation that will enhance transparency and accountability and national development (EITI, 2016; Kolstad & Wiig, 2009; Rustad et al., 2017). Thus, transparency can be achieved through broad-based planning and decision-making approach.

4.2 Lack of a binding long-term national development policy

One of the institutional conditions under which the resource curse occurs is when there is no binding long-term nationally developed development plan or policy.Footnote 6 As a case in point, Nigeria operates a federal government (parliamentary) system and rule of law, and despite the assumption that the resource curse is less prevalent in democratic parliamentarian countries (Andersen & Aslaksen, 2008; Torvik, 2009), it has failed to escape the resource curse (Duruji & Dibia, 2017; Esu, 2017; Mähler, 2012). Nigeria is experiencing resource curse partly because political parties usually govern the country based on their manifestoes and campaign promises and abandon landmark developmental projects initiated by their predecessors (Duruji & Dibia, 2017). Both past and the incumbent administrations could be ‘providing public goods’ but the lack of continuity prevents Nigeria from reaping the full benefit of the oil wealth invested in those projects.

If governments can abandon developmental projects started by their predecessors, then, either those projects were not sanctioned by law or there are no laws that bind incumbent governments to continue those projects. The seeming lack of a binding national development agenda presents an opportunity for politicians to govern the country with party manifesto and therefore, it is not surprising that developmental projects initiated by past administrations are often abandoned since the incumbent administration also has its campaign promises that it must accomplish. It is not uncommon for politicians to use natural resource windfalls to provide unproductive jobs to fulfil campaign promises mainly in areas that they have massive electoral support (Ascher, 1999; Duruji & Dibia, 2017; Gould & Winters, 2012; Robinson et al., 2006) when there are no binding national development plan leading geographically unbalanced economic development. Tornell and Lane (1999) theorised that in an economy of many groups, rulers tend to distribute natural resource windfall in a way that will benefit them or to the powerful group. Thus, the lack of a binding national development plan (restrictive institution) to ensure equity in development, could enable rulers (politicians) to engage in discretionary distribution of natural resource windfall to the disadvantage of the weaker groups in the economy. When local people are disadvantaged and feel marginalised, natural resource conflict may ensue in the host community (Basedau & Richter, 2014; Conde & Le Billon, 2017; Østby et al., 2009).

4.3 Unfair or lack of natural resource benefit distribution regulation

Resource conflict occurs when the benefits from natural resource extraction are unfairly distributed or when resource extraction poses socio-economic threat to host communities (Duruji & Dibia, 2017; Miguel et al., 2004; Østby et al., 2009; Ross, 2004b). Unfortunately, many resource abundant countries assign an insignificant percentage of natural resource windfall to the regions where the resources are being extracted for development. For example, the Nigerian central government now transfers only 13 percent of the oil revenue to the oil producing Niger Delta states which is seen as inadequate to address the environmental degradation and to accelerate socio-economic development in those states (Duruji & Dibia, 2017). Also, although Ghana is not classified as a resource cursed country yet, the mineral royalties distribution regulation assigns only 0.5 percent of total mineral revenues to mining communities which is woefully inadequate to address mining-related challenges thereby, rendering such communities poor, underdeveloped and environmentally degraded (Adimazoya, 2013; Lujala & Narh, 2020; Standing, 2014). Unfair distribution of natural resource windfall to producing regions breeds grievances and resistance which fuel conflicts (Duruji & Dibia, 2017).

Also, lack of adequate regulation on how local people should be compensated for land appropriation for mining or oil production purposes can cause resource curse. Economic hardship and resource conflict may occur in resource abundant regions when compensations packages to enhance individual livelihood are based on a discretionary and/or a myopic quantification of the benefits local people derive from their natural environment (Ogwang et al., 2018). For instance, if a-one-time payment (compensation event) to landowners or local people is based on a quantification of annual agricultural yield for a major crop for expropriating their farm land for resource extraction without taking into consideration the fact that smallholder farmers usually practice mixed cropping which earns the more income, grievance-induced resistance or conflict may occur later when their livelihood conditions worsen. Such is the case in Albertine Graben region of Uganda where each household that would be affected by oil exploration was offered $300 lump sum to relocate and people who could not buy land elsewhere with that amount due to price hikes are already agitating and settling in the nearby forest which is likely to cause environmental degradation (Ogwang et al., 2018). On the other hand, if compensations packages are based on a carefully enacted regulations and are paid periodically (compensation stream), the risk of conflict may decrease (Sandbu, 2012). Thus, whereas a compensation event could lead to resource conflict, compensation stream could improve the livelihood of local people and reduce the risks of resource curse.

Further, resistance and conflict often occur when local people are not employed in the extraction of their natural resources (Boege & Franks, 2012; Brown & Keating, 2015; Mähler, 2012). Naturally, natural resource conflicts are prevalent, more severe and last longer in resource extracting regions (Conde & Le Billon, 2017; Lujala, 2009, 2010; Maystadt et al., 2014). Where there are no regulations that require that jobs are provided for host communities, extractive companies, especially the transnational ones, will not be obliged to recruit local people. When income levels decreases, there is higher propensity for the onset of conflict (Miguel et al., 2004) and as resource extraction usually cause environmental degradation and threat to livelihood in host communities (Chukwuka et al., 2018), non-employment of local people causes resistance to the central government or the extraction companies (Brown & Keating, 2015; Conde & Le Billon, 2017; Ross, 2004b; Schilling et al., 2018).

4.4 Lack of strict environmental regulation

Natural resource exploration and production disturb the ecosystem (Chukwuka et al., 2018) and so, environmental management is fraught with divergent problem of finding a balance between economic success and ecological protection (Stead & Stead, 2000; van Niekerk, 2020). Since extractive companies are business entities with the aim of making profit, they, especially the transnational ones, tend to neglect environmental ethics in countries with weak institutions (Pérez & Claveria, 2020). The neglect of the environment by resource extraction companies causes violent conflict in many natural resource abundant countries (Conde & Le Billon, 2017; Regan, 2018; Ross, 2004b).

Countries with weak environmental institution tend to record serious environmental degradation resulting from resource extraction. Nigeria, for example, has weak institutions (Esu, 2017) and has recorded environmental degradation through oil production (Jack et al., 2016; Kadafa, 2012). Since 1960, more than 1.5 tonnes of oil has been spilled into the ecosystem of the Niger Delta (Kadafa, 2012) of which 50% and 21% of the spillage were due to corrosion of oil pipes and oil production processes respectively, contributing to loss of mangrove and habitat for biodiversity (Jack et al., 2016). Oil spillage can occur accidentally but hardly in countries with strict environmental regulation that oil would be extracted and transported through corroded pipes. Gas flaring also contributes to global warming and loss of agricultural yields, thereby posing significant threat to local livelihood (Chukwuka et al., 2018; Jack et al., 2016). Thus, lack of strict environmental regulations contributes to resource curse.

Despite the incidence of the resource curse in many countries, Botswana and Norway are among the few countries that have achieved massive economic development and growth with the exploitation of their natural resource (Humphreys, 2005; Iimi, 2007; McNeish, 2011). Many countries have used quality institutions to control resource curse. For instance, in a developing country like Ghana, after the discovery of oil, the country has taken pragmatic steps to formulate policies to ensure safe extraction of oil and efficient and transparent use of the windfall. Although the policies are work-in-progress, they are shielding Ghana against resource curse (Henri, 2019). Also, emerging economies like the BRIC countries have use quality institutions to avoid resource curse (Hussain et al., 2020). Despite the existence of resource curse in Western China (Zhang & Brouwer, 2020), the analysis of a panel data from 80 counties in Guangxi Province has shown that mineral extraction has contributed to a vicious cycle of livelihood improvement, economic development, financial increase and infrastructure improvement in China (Dou et al., 2022). In developed countries too, quality institutions stimulate overall development with natural resource windfall (Li et al., 2021; Shahbaz et al., 2018). Thus, institutional quality is a common denominator in developing, emerging and developed economies that have or are striving to escape the resource curse.

5 Conclusion

To measure institutional qualities, many indices have been used as proxies for rule of law, government efficiency, market efficiency and rate of murder, which sometimes overshadow critical indices that actually drive the resource curse. This article identifies some specific indices for analysing institutional quality in natural resource abundant countries. The article argues that where expert-oriented, narrow-based planning strategy is employed in managing natural resource, and or in the absence of a binding long-term national development plan, the onset of resource curse is inevitable. These institutional conditions encourage government unaccountability as they do not restrict policy makers against discretionary distribution of natural resource windfall, rent seeking, clientelism and corruption which contribute to poor economic development and growth. Also, inadequate regulations for a fair distribution of natural resource benefit and lack of strict environmental regulation tend to precipitate grievance-induced resource conflict and environmental degradation to invite the resource curse. Therefore, in analysing institutional quality, existing planning models, availability of binding development policy, windfall distribution and strict environmental regulations should equality be considered.

The result is useful as it provides some critical pathways in which countries could enhance their institutions and minimise the resource curse. Natural resource abundant countries can adopt broad based planning paradigm to minimise grievances and environmental injustices. They can also develop a binding long-term development plans to ensure continuity of developmental initiatives. Additionally, they need to enact regulations to control clientelism, corruption and rent grabbing as well as to ensure fair distribution of resource windfall, compensation streams, and employment. These should not just be drafted, they must be binding.