Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Natural resources and rural poverty: A closer look

Natural resources and rural poverty: A closer look Abstract The review by Humphrey et al. (1993) is arguably the most important effort to date to advance our understanding of poverty in resource‐dependent communities—one that is likely to be remembered as pivotal, not just because it brings together four highly diverse theoretical perspectives, but because its clarity will facilitate the recognition of important gaps and of the need for empirical testing. All four of the perspectives appear to have important weaknesses, although the weaknesses appear not to be due so much to the efforts of Humphrey et al. as to the fact that social scientists have often overlooked biophysical variables in the past. For the future, there is a need for more systematic empirical analysis, including a more explicit focus on the characteristics of natural resource activities. In particular, attention needs to be devoted to (1) long‐term declines in both extractive and “linked”; employment; (2) the high levels of volatility that characterize world commodity markets; and (3) the tendency for social science expectations about natural resources, like many other forms of “social construction,”; to be based on untested assumptions that may have grown out of past experiences, but that are not based on careful analysis of long‐term trends, and that may prove inadequate as a guide to the future. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Society & Natural Resources Taylor & Francis

Natural resources and rural poverty: A closer look

Natural resources and rural poverty: A closer look

Society & Natural Resources , Volume 7 (1): 18 – Jan 1, 1994

Abstract

Abstract The review by Humphrey et al. (1993) is arguably the most important effort to date to advance our understanding of poverty in resource‐dependent communities—one that is likely to be remembered as pivotal, not just because it brings together four highly diverse theoretical perspectives, but because its clarity will facilitate the recognition of important gaps and of the need for empirical testing. All four of the perspectives appear to have important weaknesses, although the weaknesses appear not to be due so much to the efforts of Humphrey et al. as to the fact that social scientists have often overlooked biophysical variables in the past. For the future, there is a need for more systematic empirical analysis, including a more explicit focus on the characteristics of natural resource activities. In particular, attention needs to be devoted to (1) long‐term declines in both extractive and “linked”; employment; (2) the high levels of volatility that characterize world commodity markets; and (3) the tendency for social science expectations about natural resources, like many other forms of “social construction,”; to be based on untested assumptions that may have grown out of past experiences, but that are not based on careful analysis of long‐term trends, and that may prove inadequate as a guide to the future.

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/natural-resources-and-rural-poverty-a-closer-look-hn2A1RmfS1

References (38)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
1521-0723
eISSN
0894-1920
DOI
10.1080/08941929409380841
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract The review by Humphrey et al. (1993) is arguably the most important effort to date to advance our understanding of poverty in resource‐dependent communities—one that is likely to be remembered as pivotal, not just because it brings together four highly diverse theoretical perspectives, but because its clarity will facilitate the recognition of important gaps and of the need for empirical testing. All four of the perspectives appear to have important weaknesses, although the weaknesses appear not to be due so much to the efforts of Humphrey et al. as to the fact that social scientists have often overlooked biophysical variables in the past. For the future, there is a need for more systematic empirical analysis, including a more explicit focus on the characteristics of natural resource activities. In particular, attention needs to be devoted to (1) long‐term declines in both extractive and “linked”; employment; (2) the high levels of volatility that characterize world commodity markets; and (3) the tendency for social science expectations about natural resources, like many other forms of “social construction,”; to be based on untested assumptions that may have grown out of past experiences, but that are not based on careful analysis of long‐term trends, and that may prove inadequate as a guide to the future.

Journal

Society & Natural ResourcesTaylor & Francis

Published: Jan 1, 1994

Keywords: Adaptation; human capital; instability; logging; mining; oil and gas; specialization

There are no references for this article.