000			01967nab|a22003137a|4500
999			_c62336 _d62328
001			62336
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20240826224818.0
008			200722s2016||||xxk|||p|op||||00||0|eng|d
022			_a0305-750X
024	8		_ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.07.016
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041			_aeng
100	1		_aHavranek, T. _914895
245	1	0	_aNatural resources and economic growth : _ba meta-analysis
260			_aOxford (United Kingdom) : _bElsevier, _c2016.
500			_aPeer review
520			_aAn important question in development studies is how natural resources richness affects long-term economic growth. No consensus answer, however, has yet emerged, with approximately 40% of empirical papers finding a negative effect, 40% finding no effect, and 20% finding a positive effect. Does the literature taken together imply the existence of the so-called natural resource curse? In a quantitative survey of 605 estimates reported in 43 studies, we find that overall support for the resource curse hypothesis is weak when potential publication bias and method heterogeneity are taken into account. Our results also suggest that four aspects of study design are especially effective in explaining the differences in results across studies: (1) controlling for institutional quality, (2) controlling for the level of investment activity, (3) distinguishing between different types of natural resources, and (4) differentiating between resource dependence and abundance.
546			_aText in English
650		7	_aNatural resources _2AGROVOC _97608
650		7	_aEconomic growth _2AGROVOC _96448
650		7	_aInstitutions _2AGROVOC _99896
650		7	_aPublications _2AGROVOC _914312
650		0	_aAnalysis _gAGROVOC _927824
700	1		_914896 _aHorvath, R.
700	1		_914897 _aZeynalov, A.
773	0		_dOxford (United Kingdom) : Elsevier, 2016. _x0305-750X _gv. 88, p. 134-151 _tWorld Development _w444788
942			_cJA _n0 _2ddc