Premium
Canada’s dependence on natural capital wealth: Was Innis wrong?
Author(s) -
Olewiler Nancy
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
canadian journal of economics/revue canadienne d'économique
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.773
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 1540-5982
pISSN - 0008-4085
DOI - 10.1111/caje.12295
Subject(s) - natural resource , economics , externality , natural resource economics , natural capital , boom , stock (firearms) , argument (complex analysis) , resource (disambiguation) , distribution (mathematics) , development economics , public economics , ecology , political science , geography , microeconomics , law , computer network , biochemistry , chemistry , mathematical analysis , mathematics , archaeology , ecosystem , environmental engineering , computer science , ecosystem services , biology , engineering
Abstract Canada has abundant natural resources—its stock of natural capital wealth. A recurring debate in the literature is whether resource rich countries benefit in the form of higher sustained growth rates or not from the export of their natural resources. Canada's Harold Innis wrote extensively on this subject over 80 years ago and argued for the “no” side in the debate. Was he was right or wrong? I begin with the foundations of natural resource theory then turn to empirical work in recent decades. I agree with the literature that Canada overall has benefited from the export of its natural resources, but question whether that can continue given the focus on short term growth and the failure to account for the social costs of resource extraction and use—the environmental externalities that degrade and reduce stocks of natural capital. These externalities increasingly threaten our water and land resources and without more effective policy, the ability of resources to sustain growth and well‐being is questionable. Was Innis wrong? Yes in that the evidence supports the counter argument—resources have helped Canada become a developed economy with relatively high incomes and sustained growth rates. Innis was right that the uneven distribution of resources causes different impacts regionally especially during booms and busts and recognized the need to find substitutes for declining and degrading resource stocks. But Innis, like many after him, focused more on the intrinsic features of natural resources than policy to address the social costs of their development, a legacy that leaves us in a precarious position today.