RICHARD M. AUTY
In recent decades the resource-abundant developing countries have underperformed when compared with the resource-deficient developing countries (Ranis 1991 ; Lal and Myint 1996 ; Sachs and Warner 1995 shows that between 1960 and 1990 the per capita incomes of the resource-poor countries grew at rates two to three times faster than those of the resource-abundant countries and that the gap in the growth rates widened significantly since the 1970s. Although there is reason to expect that crop-led growth in resource-abundant countries is inherently slower than the manufacturing-led growth of resource-deficient countries (Mellor 1995), the difference in the growth rates is greater than would be expected. Moreover, the mineral-driven resource-abundant countries have been among the weakest performers. Yet the mineral economies have the potential for rapid growth because most of them also have ample cropland (Table 1.1 , column 3) so that mineral exports further enhance their capacity both to invest and to import compared with the non-mineral economies.
The disappointing performance of the resource-abundant countries appears to be robust with regard to differences in the classification of the natural resource endowment. This is just as well because there is as yet no consensus on the measurement of resource abundance. Some studies have used single indicators, such as dependence on primary product exports (Sachs and Warner 1995), per capita land area (Wood and Berge 1997) and labour force in the primary sector (Gylfason et al. 1999); whereas others have used dual indices such as export orientation, and population size (Syrquin and Chenery 1989). Gylfason, Wood and Berge, and Sachs and Warner all conclude that there is little evidence that the basic findings are sensitive to the classification system used. Table 1.1 uses two criteria to measure the resource endowment, namely, per capita cropland and country size, measured in terms of absolute GDP. 1