the participants of the AAAE, CSAE, EAAE conferences and LICOS seminar series and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. This study was financed with Methusalem Funding, DOE-B9549-Meth/08/01 and by The European Commission, Joint Research Centre D.4, Seville. The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission's behalf may be held responsible for the use, which may be made of the information contained therein.

In line with the rising interest in harnessing natural resource revenues for economic and human development through productive government investments, this paper aims to address an important blind spot in our understanding of the "resource curse" by contributing innovative insights on how natural resource wealth impacts government priorities and expenditure practices. Using a large panel dataset of 140 countries covering the period from 1995 to 2009, we find an adverse effect of resource dependence on public education expenditures relative to GDP that is robust to controlling for a range of additional covariates. Furthermore, our findings indicate that this resource curse effect on the government prioritization of education mainly stems from point-source natural resources. These results are of particular importance for the sustainable management of natural resource wealth in developing countries, as they could achieve especially high returns by investing resource revenues in public goods such as education. While this paper underlines the importance of institutions and government accountability, our findings also raise questions on the role of the private sector as a partner in development, as the extractives industry could consider increasing funding for education through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives.

This paper extends the concept of the resource curse by studying whether and through which transmission channels natural resource wealth affects social spending. Even though the availability of vast natural capital reserves has commonly been linked to the neglect of human development, most of the literature has continued to focus on economic performance. This paper is the first to empirically investigate the link between natural resource wealth and public health expenditures in light of the hypothesis that resource wealth as a source of unearned state income enhances state autonomy and increases volatility, which leads to policies that fail to prioritize human development. Using a large panel dataset of world countries covering the period from 1995 to 2009, we find a robust, significant inverse relationship between natural resource dependence, and even abundance, and public health spending over time. The effect remains significant after controlling for state autonomy, volatility, and other factors.These findings have implications for national authorities as well as the extractive industry. Governments should be made accountable for natural resource wealth and correct taxation could provide additional resources, earmarked for health. The extractive industry could increase their investments in sustainable Corporate Social Responsibility operations, specifically in the health sector.

This paper reviews available cross-disciplinary evidence on how culture affects food security. We discuss the impact of culture on all four dimensions (availability, access and choice, utilization, and stability). Although there is large heterogeneity in the size and breadth of available evidence, with research often biased toward high-come countries, it is clear that how and why we obtain, process, prepare, and eat food is influenced by culture in various ways. In addition, gender, family, and decision-making power play a critical role in the impact of culture. The dynamics of culture as well as the magnitude and relative importance of cultural effects in the context of food security are still poorly understood. Nevertheless, there remains ample scope for improving food security policy by taking culture better into account.

There is rising concern that the ongoing wave of urbanization will have profound effects on eating patterns and increase the risk of nutrition-related non-communicable diseases. Yet, our understanding of urbanization as a driver of food consumption remains limited and primarily based upon research designs that fail to disentangle the effect of living in an urban environment from other socioeconomic disparities. Data from the Tanzania National Panel Survey, which tracked out-migrating respondents, allow us to compare individuals' dietary patterns before and after they relocated from rural to urban areas and assess whether those changes differ from household members who stayed behind or moved to a different rural area. We find that individuals who relocated to urban areas experience a much more pronounced shift away from the consumption of traditional staples, and towards more high-sugar, conveniently consumed and prepared foods. Contrary to what is often claimed in the literature, living in an urban environment is not found to contribute positively to the intake of protein-rich foods, nor to diet diversity. Though we do not find a strong association with weight gain, these changes in eating patterns represent a clear nutritional concern regarding the potential longer-term impacts of urbanization. Our results however also indicate that the growth of unhealthy food consumption with urbanization is largely linked to rising incomes. As such, health concerns over diets can be expected to spread rapidly to less-urbanized areas as well, as soon as income growth takes off there. Our findings clearly call for more in-depth research that may help to improve health and food and nutrition security as well as correctly predict food demand and adapt trade, agricultural and development policies.

This paper reviews available cross-disciplinary evidence on how culture affects food security. We discuss the impact of culture on all four dimensions (availability, access and choice, utilization, and stability). Although there is large heterogeneity in the size and breadth of available evidence, with research often biased toward high-come countries, it is clear that how and why we obtain, process, prepare, and eat food is influenced by culture in various ways. In addition, gender, family, and decision-making power play a critical role in the impact of culture. The dynamics of culture as well as the magnitude and relative importance of cultural effects in the context of food security are still poorly understood. Nevertheless, there remains ample scope for improving food security policy by taking culture better into account.

No abstract

Spirits represent around 50% of global alcohol consumption. This sector is much less studied than other alcoholic beverages such as wine or beer. This paper reviews the economic history of spirits and analyzes recent trends in the spirits markets. The technology to produce spirits is more complex than for wine or beer. Distillation was known in ancient Chinese, Indian, Greek, and Egyptian societies, but it took innovations by the Arabs to distill alcohol. Initially, this alcohol was used for medicinal purposes. Only in the Middle Ages did spirits become a widespread drink. The Industrial Revolution created a large consumer market and reduced the cost of spirits, contributing to excess consumption and alcoholism. Governments have intervened extensively in spirits markets to reduce excessive consumption and to raise taxes. There have been significant changes in spirits consumption and trade over time. Over the past 50 years, the share of spirits in global alcohol consumption increased from around 30% to around 50%. In the past decades, there was strong growth in emerging markets, including in China and India. Recent developments in the spirits industry include premiumization, the growth of craft spirits, and the introduction of terroir for spirits. (JEL Classifications: L51, L66, N40, Q11, Q18)