Homer-Dixon believes
that scarcity if the root of conflict, to say that the lack of resources and
goods is what causes conflict. Homer-Dixon ignores the real root of all these
conflicts, which is actually competition. The thing that Homer-Dixon does not
address here is what exactly Homer-Dixon means by the word scarcity, he does
not accurately define the word. Scarcity
is a good or resource that is in short supply, or simply a shortage. Homer-Dixon
does not really define or delve into this idea which is where the whole problem
with his theory arises. Is scarcity an abundant resource that can’t be reached?
Or is it a resource that is actually in short supply? Other factors such as
government structure, monopolies, technology, etc show up and can actually be
the reason why something is scarce or simply hard to find. Homer-Dixon fails to
even properly define the word scarcity and misses the true root of conflicts,
competition.
Homer-Dixon’s argument
of scarcity continues to fall apart when you examine all of the other factors
that show up when you examine his data sets. Homer-Dixon completely ignores
things such as labor control, politics, prestige, revenge, cultural
differences, and countless others. His theory of scarcity and conflict may be
linked, but he chooses to make scarcity the main or only reason when at best it
falls under the umbrella of competition or is just a factor among countless
others. It can also be noted that every single state looked at by Homer-Dixon
was already in a state of conflict when examined, which Homer-Dixon claimed was
stated by conflict. As stated before, Homer-Dixon ignores the other factors
that could cause conflict in these states and fails to see how the idea of
competition is the root cause of many of these conflicts.
Competition is a much
more logical reason than scarcity since it can actually be defined and can
exclude outside factors. Scarcity itself leaves too many holes in its argument
such as the aforementioned technology, government structure, and business
monopolies, among others. The real reason why these conflicts starts is because
of competition since it shows up in every single type of state from rich to
poor, democratic to authoritarian, and abundance to actual scarce resources.
The truth is that there is not a concrete answer as to what causes these
conflicts since things like cultural history, economic status, privilege,
politics, and labor control all come into play. Scarcity can be one of these
factors but not the main or only one as stated by Homer-Dixon. Even so,
competition would be a much better fit for this idea.
Competition will always be prevalent in society no matter
what. Even if a resource is abundant and there is more than enough to go
around, there will still be competition. States, actors, and corporations will
always want to possess the most of whatever resource or good is available.
Things like access points to the resource, amount of the resource, and
technology are extremely prevalent when discussing scarcity, but not with
competition. Competition allows more factors to be taken into account or
excluded and is a much better fit for why conflicts stat, rather than scarcity.
Competition fits into any society, state, actor, or government regardless of
political ideology, scarcity, abundance, wealth, labor control, or any other
factor. Scarcity is not properly defined by Homer-Dixon and his support for his
argument is full of holes. Scarcity cannot be easily defined as shown by
Homer-Dixon, but competition can and is full of much more testable hypothesis
and data.
I am not saying that
environmental scarcity cannot be a cause of conflict, but it is not properly
explained by Homer-Dixon. Homer-Dixon does not acknowledge that his definition
of scarcity is completely undefined which can leave the reader confused. Also, competition
can cause scarcity of a resource if it is overused, (e.x. tragedy of the
commons), or it can be a result of scarcity since competition can arise when a
resource is in short supply. Competition shows up in every single type of
state, government, country, corporation, colony or area of abundance or
scarcity. Competition is an idea that permeates every single aspect of society.
It is one of the things that make up human nature. It is the kind of things
that ignores wealth, poverty, upbringing, and location. Since competition shows
up everywhere, is more easily definable, and isn't a theory broken up by
factors that hurt the scarcity argument, it is a much better fit for why
environmental conflict starts. Homer-Dixon fails to properly define the term
scarcity and his research supporting the theory itself ignores other factors
that can be more localized and better show why conflict starts. Competition is
a much better theory and properly shows why environmental conflict begins.
Sources
Peluso and Watts, “”Violent Environments” VE,
Ch.1, p.1-30
Hartmann, “Will the Circle Be Unbroken: A
Critique of the Project on Environment, Population, and
Security”. VE, Ch.2
I agree that competition can be the root of many issues related to conflict and instability. However, there has to be another underlining actor that causes conflict and instability. Like you said, competition occurs in every market, society, and government. So why is that these developing nations suffer from violent conflict while developed nations do not - or suffer from different types of conflict. We in the United States have a great deal of competition, yet we do not struggle with violent and bloody civil wars. Yes, competition is a factor when it comes to conflict in developing nations but there has to be another reason. Is it tradition, regime type, etc.? In my opinion, I believe that its tradition and cultural values. We as developed nations have had a much longer history of acclimating to capitalism and democracy while these developing nations are still struggling with their authoritarian regimes. Yes, the fact that they have scarce or abundant resources may cause disagreements and conflict but I am sure we time and education things will evolve and conflict will lessen.
ReplyDeleteI think it has to do with the other factors that I mentioned. Things such as cultural diversity, wealth gap, labor control, and probably most importantly government structure come into play. Probably the two biggest are the cultural values you mentioned and government structure. These developing countries usually have very strong traditional cultures along with weak and/or corrupt government, which doesn't allow them to properly manage their country. Competition is everywhere but the lack of a strong government and strong traditional cultures are what in my opinion cause the conflicts in developing nations.
DeleteYea, I agree. I would never say that I think that these nations should do away with there cultural values, but they need to learn to adapt with the world's globalizing and diversifying markets. Adapting does not mean that they will loose their traditions, it just means that keep up with times. Tons of cultures in the developed world stay true themselves and thrive even through our progressive society. They do not have to get rid of their moral traditions they just need to adopt stable western institutions or at least test out different types of institutions. Honestly, while I do believe that tradition and regime type are huge factors that influence conflict and instability - it really shouldn't be an excuse. These governments need to stop their greed and corruption and start educating their people how to integrate western institutions into their daily culture. How these governments should go about this integration? To be honest, I have no idea and obviously developed and developing states are not sure either. Do you have any idea - realistic or idealistic?
ReplyDeleteEva, I agree with you that there must be on a top-down level a change in perception to the West. The governments, not the entire population, typically do not want the same things as these governments do. The greed and corruption that motivates many regimes does not help the citizens of the country, which further exacerbates internal strife. It may be up to outside intervention such as the UN or another stable government to employ sanctions or embargos if certain norms are not met.
DeleteCompetition can be a cause of conflict, as you stated it can be argued to be human nature, and it can lead to worsened conflict in developed countries due to weak governance. However, do you think competition may help lead to innovation? Does the competition leading to innovation argument pertain mostly to developed nations?
ReplyDeleteI think it definitely only pertains to developed nations. When involved in competition in developed nations it is based around who can more efficiently extract and turns these resources into goods. In developing nations the competition is usually based around simply acquiring these resources, thus there are no reasons to innovate. In developed nations, everyone essentially already has their "stronghold" or footprint. With this, actors are in competition as to who can make the most out of what they have and this leads to innovation.
DeleteI think that the logic you used in your argument makes very appealing claims; my question is, then, because of this seemingly inherent tie between competition and conflict, to what extent will conflict permeate developing markets, as they move away from the issue of scarcity and towards that of outright competition? And do you feel that conflict because of competition, at least as you addressed it in your post, results in violence as frequently as scarcity-based issues, or exists more commonly as something like corporational-institutional failure to agree?
Delete