Orthodox neoclassical theory views natural resources as a potential source of income and emphasizes the positive role of natural resources in economic development. Despite the potentially beneficial impact of natural resource wealth on economic prosperity, empirical research has shown that economies rich in natural resources tend to grow at a slower rate than those lacking them. This paradox of abundance has been a conceptual conundrum for many, but empirical evidence has given rise to the hypothesis of a natural resource curse. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay Standard trade theory suggests that the transfer of resources from regions of relative abundance to regions of relative scarcity has the potential to improve efficiency and increase well-being. Yet welfare comparisons are complicated by dynamic factors, the exhaustibility of natural resources, and widespread market failures such as imperfectly competitive markets. For example, more rapid depletion may result from free trade in fish that suffers from a problem of open access and poorly defined property rights. In this case, the standard outcome of welfare gains from free trade could collapse, at least for one country. The theory emphasizes that policy interventions in natural resource sectors can be justified on welfare grounds by the specific characteristics of natural resources. Several studies have established a negative impact of natural resource endowment on economic growth. Others have gone further by questioning the reasons for this paradox. However, few have addressed the resource curse in the context of trade. In this study, I will attempt to analyze the relationship between the abundance of natural resources and openness to trade. Trade in natural resources represents a growing share of global trade and a growing share of policymaker attention. Given the economic, environmental and political implications of natural resources, this article asks how to design rules that can promote mutual gains from resource trade. It provides recommendations for export policy and domestic policy. The objective is to study the relationship between natural resource endowments and openness to trade. Using regression analysis, the study tests the impact that natural resource endowments can have on the probability that a country is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), as well as the impact on a country's broader trade regime. . Based on empirical evidence of the resource curse and the hypothesis that trade openness has a positive effect on economic growth, this study hypothesizes that countries rich in fuels and minerals pursue less trade policies liberal and that this could be an important channel for the resource curse. Natural resources are natural substances considered valuable in their relatively unmodified form. The value of a natural resource depends on the quantity of material available and the demand for a certain material. Demand is determined by its usefulness for production. A product is generally considered a natural resource when the primary activities associated with it are extraction and purification, as opposed to creation. Thus, the extractionOil, mining, forestry, hunting and fishing are generally considered natural resource industries, while agriculture is not. The total value of global trade in natural resources was $3.7 trillion in 2008, accounting for almost 24% of global merchandise trade. This value increased more than sixfold between 1998 and 2008, mainly due to the constant rise in fuel and mineral prices, while the volume of trade in natural resources has remained fairly stable over the past decade. However, this report integrates agriculture into the concept. of natural resource endowment by providing samples of agriculture, forestry and fisheries with the primary products of agriculture as specified in the World Development Indicators of the World Bank. As we will see, adding agriculture on the other hand will add benefits. Trade in natural resources represents a growing share of global trade and a growing share of policymaker attention. Increasing global population and economic conditions are generating tensions that are increasing consumer demand for seafood, forests, fuels and mining, generating debates over environmental policies and impacts on growth. . One of the problems that most industrial economies face is the conflict between the growing demand for natural resources. resources and their scarcity. It seems in fact that tensions have increased, especially with the rebound from the recession in the global economy. Fears that resource-poor countries have limited access to supplies and that these resource-rich areas are underexploited could cause trade disputes or worse. All of this raises an important question: how can we appropriately develop laws that promote sharing of benefits from resource trade? Over the past two decades, the natural resource curse, that is, the discovery that economic development in countries with a surplus natural resource management continues to be poorly executed. In the interwar period, Latin America first attracted attention on an academic basis following the global crash of commodity markets in many Latin American economies. During the postwar period, resource skepticism persisted and was eventually articulated in the Presbisch-Singer study: which argued that the terms and conditions of trade between primary and imported commodities appeared to deteriorate with time. Exporters of primary products, generally developed countries, are now increasingly able to import for a given export value. Resource narratives, particularly those of Sachs and Warner, as well as those of Gylfasón et al., were founded in the late 20th century and went beyond the projections of structuralism, which turned out to be a scientific reality according to which natural resources had been cursed by the evolution of commodity prices. Support for the resource curse is “not infallible, but rather strong” according to Sachs and Warner. The author casually asserts that there is virtually no overlap between a number of countries with high GDP per capita and endowed with significant natural resources. Very resource-rich countries like Nigeria, Mexico and Venezuela, or the oil-rich Persian Gulf states, are not experiencing rapid and sustained economic growth. Previous experiments support this informal conclusion. For example, Gleason and, 45(4-6), 827-838.