{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01987353206865402, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007226738934056007, 'mean_word_length': 5.331428571428572, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Searching for Dutch Disease: Natural Resources and Industrial Growth

Our study employs a difference-in-differences technique to test two channels of Dutch disease effects predicted by the theory. First, if there is a deindustrialization in resource-rich countries, then the outflow of resources from the manufacturing sector should put industries with higher returns to scale at a disadvantage relative to industries with smaller returns to scale in resource-rich economies compared to resource-poor economies. And second, the more “open” an industry is to world trade, the more negatively it should be affected by appreciation of currency in a resource-rich economy compared to an economy poorer in resources. Empirical analysis of cross-country industrial growth data over 1980-2000 rejects these two hypotheses. Our results challenge the empirical relevance of the effects of Dutch disease in resource-rich economies and emphasize other channels of the resource curse phenomenon. We discuss several reasons why the theoretically appealing notion of Dutch disease could be overshadowed in real economies.