Scarcity and Conflict Don't Mix

I disagree with the theory that resource scarcity causes conflict. More specifically, I agree with the critiques against Homer-Dixon, precisely his selection in cases. His case selection is very exclusive and deals primarily with countries that dealt with conflict. Due to this fact, I found it interesting to find three distinct countries who have scarcities, but however no conflicts.

A major natural resource that is sufficient to all life is water. As much as water is a natural resource it is not a renewable resource. Thus, exploitation of water or limited water as a resource can lead to a country experiencing stress.  Three countries that face water stress are Barbados, Singapore, and Qatar. These countries have shown high levels of baseline water stress, which leads to farmers, domestic and industrial users becoming more vulnerable to scarcity.

Even with this scarcity, these countries have yet to experience real turmoil. Barbados, located near South American and majority of African decent has not had any conflicts (that I could at least find). There were no localized problems, civil wars, or coup d’états. Singapore located in South East Asia, with a heavy Chinese population and little land mass has not experienced any conflict either; along with Qatar located in Western Asia, which consists of plains and land covered in sand.

More specifically if we look at Singapore it is a highly dense country with no freshwater lakes or aquifers. However, the country has been able to manage its water to keep everything stable. Singapore has invested in technology and international agreements. Creating four major ways that it sustains water: through local catchment, imports, highly purified reclaim, and desalinated. 40% of Singapore’s water comes from an agreement with Malaysia. These management plans have allowed for Singapore to bypass conflicts, along with other countries. If these countries are able to manage water scarcity without any conflicts, then scarcity clearly cannot play too big of a role.

With this being said, I agree that countries that have conflicts are caused by other factors (Thiessen). Some of these other factors would include prestige, politics, revenge, land control, or ethnic issues. For example, corruption, hunger, health concerns, and rebels have been the main cause of issues in African countries. GDP per capita, income, population density, distribution of resources, and institutions as well are all means to cause conflict. Instead of focusing on scarcity as the main source, the variables listed above are potentially bigger factors that cause harm to a country.

A countries government should be able to find a way to mend scarcity like Singapore, Qatar, and Barbados. If a countries government is too unstable to solve this problem, then it seems more than likely that there are other factors within the government that are causing for instability. The instability within a government overall, is likely to cause for localized conflict. Scarcity is just one factor that can potentially harm a country, but if it’s resolved properly then it should not be a major factor. Focusing on the elites who are in charge—if they cannot solve the problem then that’s really where the conflict begins.

A link to graphs/ article which shows water stressed countries 

http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/12/world’s-36-most-water-stressed-countries