Abstract

Every day consumers use and purchase products whose supply chains begin with natural resources in countries plagued by widespread human rights deficits. Many economists and political scientists argue that there is a resource curse: those countries which possess valuable natural resources, especially oil, natural gas, and minerals, are prone to authoritarianism, civil war, and economic mismanagement. The combination of these two empirical facts—that consumers indirectly purchase resources from countries plagued with human rights abuses, and that these abuses are systematically correlated with dependence on natural resource exports—has recently led philosophers to argue that consumers, corporations, and the governments that represent them bear some moral responsibility for human rights deficits in resource exporting countries. I agree. However, analyses of the resource curse rarely mention gender. This masks the gendered aspects of the harms that result from the natural resource trade. First, there is a high correlation between dependence on natural resource exports and gender inequality. Second, the commonly recognized resource curses—of authoritarianism, civil war, and economic mismanagement --result in gender specific harms. If these empirical assertions are correct, consumers, corporations, and the governments that represent them bear some moral responsibility for the foreseeable, avoidable gender-specific injustice that many women and some men suffer as a result of the resource curse. After reviewing the causal and moral links between natural resources and gender inequality, I consider a range of proposed reforms to the resource curse, and argue that integrating gender into these reforms will help create enabling conditions for women’s rights movements to move from the resource ‘curse’ to opportunity and equality.