New analysis tests whether oil shapes the likelihood and intensity of militarized interstate disputes between pairs of states from 1946 to 2001.
🔎 Dyadic Analysis of Oil and Conflict (1946–2001)
- Uses dyadic-level data spanning 1946–2001 and estimates logistic regressions to link oil variables to dispute involvement and initiation.
- Oil indicators examined include:
- oil production
- oil reserves
- oil exports
- oil dependence
- relative measures such as per-capita oil production
📈 Key Findings
- Absolute oil abundance and oil dependence increase the risk that a dyad becomes involved in a militarized interstate dispute.
- Oil production, oil reserves, oil dependence, and oil exports are associated with a higher risk of initiating conflict.
- Countries with large oil reserves are more frequently the targets of military actions.
- The presence of large oil deposits is linked to greater intensity in international disputes.
- Relative measures of oil wealth (for example, per-capita oil production) do not affect countries’ dispute proneness.
🤔 Likely Mechanisms Behind These Patterns
- Increased militarization tied to oil wealth
- Internationalization of intrastate violence
- Strategic behavior by an oil-dependent international community
- So-called "classical resource wars"
- Findings point away from domestic political mechanisms associated with the rentier state as the primary explanation
🧭 Why It Matters
This evidence suggests the hard power of oil operates at the interstate level: absolute resource abundance and dependence, rather than relative per-capita measures or solely domestic rentier dynamics, raise both the likelihood and intensity of militarized disputes. The results shift attention toward international and strategic channels when assessing how natural resources shape conflict.
