Contention and Ambiguity: Mining and the Possibilities of Development

Abstract

The last decade and a half has witnessed a dramatic growth in mining activity in many developing countries. This article reviews these recent trends and describes the debates and conflicts they have triggered. The authors review evidence regarding debates on the resource curse and the possibility of an extraction-led pathway to development. They then describe the different types of resistance and social mobilization that have greeted mineral expansion at a range of geographical scales, and consider how far these protests have changed the relationships between mining and political economic change. The conclusions address how far such protests might contribute to an 'escape' from the resource curse, and consider implications for research and policy agendas.

Social impact assessment, social justice and scales of knowledge: exploring the emerging mining industry in Solomon Islands

“…These trends have resulted in a globalisation of social policy, planning and regulation (Hall and Midgley, 2004), where the mining industry, along with its subsequent stream of impacts, is increasingly regulated by international and private sector actors, rather than by the host country or local communities. However, despite the multiplicity of policies and planning frameworks guiding the global mining industry, evidence suggests mining activity continues to cause significant adverse social impacts, and to a lesser extent, some benefits for local communities (Pegg, 2006;Bebbington et al, 2008b;Esteves, 2008;O'Faircheallaigh, 2015a;UNDP, 2014), suggesting a disconnect between policy at the international scale and its application at the local scale.…”

“…For example, the World Bank Group encouraged countries to commit to extractive industry growth as a development strategy (Bebbington et al, 2008b), particularly supporting extraction-led development in low-and middle-income countries on the grounds that large-scale industrial mining can contribute both directly and indirectly to poverty reduction (Weber-Fahr, 2002). In April 2017, the World Bank updated their strategic goal for the extractive industries, including:…”

“…The modernist logic underpinning extractivism assumes that mineral extraction and its exportation should contribute to development by increasing employment and economic growth, and thus reduce poverty. However, as stressed by Bebbington et al (2008b), there is ambiguity in the relationship between the extractive industries and development. Much academic literature has centred on this ambiguity, such as the phenomenon of the resource curse 23 , the role of mining in instigating violence and conflict (notable scholars include Watts, 1983;Nixon, 2011), and how mining alleviates or exacerbates poverty at local and national scales (Lahonne, 2002;Pegg, 2006;Gamu et al, 2015).…”

“…Indigenous peoples contesting mining projects is well reported in the academic literature in Latin America (key works include: Bebbington et al, 2008a: Bebbington et al, 2008bEscobar, 2010;Dietz and Engels, 2017 Ballard and Banks, 2003;Bebbington et al, 2008a;Gilberthorpe, 2013;O'Fairchealligh, 2013), many questions remain outstanding.…”

“…Specifically, they declared that "company-community conflict can arise because change is experienced differently by different stakeholders and can be inequitable or incompatible with community members' values and interests" (Davis and Franks, 2014: p. 11). Several scholars have also pointed out that the very meaning of 'development' can often lead to conflict between mining companies and local, often indigenous, communities (Bebbington et al, 2008b;Kemp, 2011).…”