>>43300903It can be. In Russia, it wouldn't have changed the development because Russia already had a diversified economy by the time it developed significant oil extraction. Russia developed industry that needed oil, and they started extracting the oil.
It can be dangerous when it goes the other way around. Theoretically it should be simple for an oil rich nation to reinvest into it's own economy but a few things block this:
One is that the money you're dependent on comes from outside your country. If you're the president of Angola, you don't get your budget from Angolan taxpayers. You get your budget from French taxpayers, buying your oil.
As a result, you have the most minimal interest in keeping your taxpayers happy.This isn't even EBUL WESTERN CONSPIRACY shit. This is just a fact: Government is a profit driven enterprise. Some nations invest in their populace to get a good return. When you got oil, your returns on that seems pretty shitty.
Second, with economic diversity comes political diversity, which is threatening to your rule. Even dictatorships have to function by trying to make as many people happy as possible. And because of the limits of their economy, they have to use diverse tools to go about it.
When you have a resource based economy though, you don't need that kind of shit. You can just throw your money at whatever the fuck the problem is.
Dubai has so much oil money that their cops drive around in fucking Ferraris. Imagine what America would be like if the president could just throw Ferraris at any political disagreement. But by buying all these factions off, they stop genuinely petitioning for their needs, and start petitioning for patronage. There's no permanent investment, just effemeral bribes. Venezuala had a policy of subsidizing gasoline for it's citizens. It was something like 6 cents to the gallon. Why make people happy by growing the economy when you can make them happy by throwing around some slush funds?
