Book Review: Natural Resource-Based Development in Africa: Panacea or Pandora’s Box?

With the question “Panacea or Pandora’s Box?”, editors Nathan Andrews, J. Andrew Grant, and Jesse Salah Ovadia examine a narrow dichotomy with respect to a hugely variable region, but ultimately demonstrate that choosing one is not possible. Africa’s natural resources do offer a hypothetical remedy (a panacea) to its historical, political, and sociological ills. However, the volume’s contributors highlight that the continent’s geographical wealth also creates considerable challenges, or a “Pandora’s Box.” The recognition of this false dichotomy is evident through each chapter. Generally, the book addresses land use in Africa. It largely considers mineral mining and also acknowledges oil and gas and agricultural ventures. In their introduction, Andrews, Grant, Ovadia, and Adam Sneyd stress the (re)evolving agenda of natural resources governance in Africa. While they recognise a “rejuvenated push,” because many hoped natural resources would be a “boon for Africa’s development,” the editors acknowledge the limited value of proposed governance initiatives that potentially add layers of complexity for the continent’s development. The second section of the book addresses governance and its changing focus with respect to land use and extraction in mineral, oil and gas, and farming operations. Chapters in this section speak to the social conflicts created by these economic ventures. Authors discuss the extraction industries’ notions of legitimacy, their contentious histories, and the need for social license renewal. In sum, authors consider the competing necessities of exploration, extraction, and farming. They weigh these with the disconnect between expectations and reality for many stakeholders. For example, Abigail Efua Hilson addresses powerful corporate influences and the accusation that “multinational corporations take advantage of weak monitoring systems” by governments. Perception plays a significant role as governments, corporations, stakeholders, and communities present competing claims of legitimacy to each other.