Why do countries invest in geological investigations for minerals? A comparative analysis of contrasting outcomes in Ghana and Rwanda

IF 3.4 2区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
Gerald E. Arhin , Pritish Behuria
{"title":"Why do countries invest in geological investigations for minerals? A comparative analysis of contrasting outcomes in Ghana and Rwanda","authors":"Gerald E. Arhin ,&nbsp;Pritish Behuria","doi":"10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Several resource-rich developing countries still have insufficient knowledge of their domestic mineral deposits and have not made sufficient investments in geological surveys. The political geography literature has highlighted how geological investigations form part of a government’s repertoire to extend three-dimensional control over territories. Yet there are few studies – particularly, of African countries – that examine why some countries may invest in geological surveys more than others. This paper adopts a political economy lens to investigate why the Rwandan government has invested more than the Ghanaian government in geological surveys. We combine insights from political settlements analysis (PSA) and the political geography literature to unpack the political economy dynamics underpinning the decisions to invest in geological mapping. Our findings suggest that Ghanaian politics has been characterised by consistent competition between political parties, which have hindered the capacity of ruling elites to maximise control over their territories through prioritising geological mapping. In contrast, Rwanda’s cohesive ruling party has prioritised investing in geological surveys because maximising control over territory is central to preserving its rule. The Rwandan case also highlights how goals of maximising control over subterranean territory, which require long-term investments, are hindered because of conflicting priorities. Instead, Rwanda’s structural vulnerabilities, as well as the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front’s material incentives and conflicting ideological goals, result in the prioritisation of trading DRC’s minerals rather than investing in its own domestic minerals sector.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12497,"journal":{"name":"Geoforum","volume":"163 ","pages":"Article 104300"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoforum","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718525001009","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Several resource-rich developing countries still have insufficient knowledge of their domestic mineral deposits and have not made sufficient investments in geological surveys. The political geography literature has highlighted how geological investigations form part of a government’s repertoire to extend three-dimensional control over territories. Yet there are few studies – particularly, of African countries – that examine why some countries may invest in geological surveys more than others. This paper adopts a political economy lens to investigate why the Rwandan government has invested more than the Ghanaian government in geological surveys. We combine insights from political settlements analysis (PSA) and the political geography literature to unpack the political economy dynamics underpinning the decisions to invest in geological mapping. Our findings suggest that Ghanaian politics has been characterised by consistent competition between political parties, which have hindered the capacity of ruling elites to maximise control over their territories through prioritising geological mapping. In contrast, Rwanda’s cohesive ruling party has prioritised investing in geological surveys because maximising control over territory is central to preserving its rule. The Rwandan case also highlights how goals of maximising control over subterranean territory, which require long-term investments, are hindered because of conflicting priorities. Instead, Rwanda’s structural vulnerabilities, as well as the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front’s material incentives and conflicting ideological goals, result in the prioritisation of trading DRC’s minerals rather than investing in its own domestic minerals sector.
为什么各国要投资矿产地质调查?加纳和卢旺达对比结果的比较分析
几个资源丰富的发展中国家对其国内矿藏的了解仍然不足,在地质调查方面也没有作出足够的投资。政治地理学文献强调了地质调查如何成为政府扩展领土三维控制的手段之一。然而,很少有研究——特别是针对非洲国家的研究——检验为什么一些国家可能比其他国家更多地投资于地质调查。本文采用政治经济学的视角来研究为什么卢旺达政府在地质调查上的投入比加纳政府多。我们将政治解决分析(PSA)和政治地理文献的见解结合起来,揭示了支持投资地质测绘决策的政治经济动态。我们的研究结果表明,加纳政治的特点是政党之间的持续竞争,这阻碍了统治精英通过优先进行地质测绘来最大限度地控制其领土的能力。相比之下,卢旺达团结一致的执政党优先投资于地质调查,因为最大限度地控制领土是维护其统治的核心。卢旺达的案例还突显出,由于优先事项相互冲突,对地下领土控制最大化的目标(这需要长期投资)受到了阻碍。相反,卢旺达的结构性脆弱性,以及执政的卢旺达爱国阵线(Rwanda Patriotic Front)的物质激励和相互冲突的意识形态目标,导致该国优先考虑贸易刚果(金)的矿产,而不是投资本国的矿产部门。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Geoforum
Geoforum GEOGRAPHY-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
201
期刊介绍: Geoforum is an international, inter-disciplinary journal, global in outlook, and integrative in approach. The broad focus of Geoforum is the organisation of economic, political, social and environmental systems through space and over time. Areas of study range from the analysis of the global political economy and environment, through national systems of regulation and governance, to urban and regional development, local economic and urban planning and resources management. The journal also includes a Critical Review section which features critical assessments of research in all the above areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信