National oil companies and international oil companies in the Middle East: Under the shadow of government and the resource nationalism cycle
National oil companies and international oil companies in the Middle East: Under the shadow of government and the resource nationalism cycle
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/jwelb/jwn004
复制
发表时间：
2008-05
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Stevens
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Stevens
本文认为，资源民族主义的周期性。正如标题所示，重点是中东的石油生产。强调中东的原因是显而易见的。它一直主导着全球石油储备，近年来冲突超过了其公平份额。这个问题很重要，因为它决定了该地区将其地质转化为全球石油市场石油供应的能力和意愿。图1显示了自1951年以来中东出口在全球能源市场中的重要性。这个问题也很重要，因为它影响到该区域将其资源转化为发展的能力，即增长、创造就业和减轻其人民的贫穷。一个关键问题是如何定义“资源民族主义”。鉴于最近兴趣的复苏，有许多不同的定义和解释。国际能源论坛最近将其定义为“希望充分利用其天赋资源的国家”（中东经济调查（MEES），2006年，49，第39页）。MEES的Bill Farren-Price将其描述为“生产国已采取行动，以最大限度地提高目前石油和天然气生产的收入，同时改变未来产出的投资条件”（MEES，2006年，49，第37页）。另一种说法是，这只是雷·弗农的“过时的交易”（弗农，1971）的一种表达，即一旦发现石油，投资投入开发，相对的议价能力转向有利于东道国政府，然后东道国政府试图通过改变原始合同的条款来增加其财政收入。另一种观点认为，这只是对美国（以及其石油公司）和/或经济全球化的政治反感。本文使用了一个简单的定义。“资源民族主义”被认为有两个组成部分-限制私营国际石油公司（IOC）的业务和主张对自然资源开发的更大的国家控制。这
This paper considers the cyclical nature of resource nationalism. As the title suggests, the focus is on the oil production in the Middle East. The reason for the emphasis on the Middle East is obvious. It has always dominated the global oil reserves and has in recent years had more than its fair share of conflict. This issue matters because it determines the ability and willingness of the region to convert its geology into supplies of oil for the global oil market. Fig. 1 illustrates the importance of the Middle East exports in the global energy markets since 1951. The issue also matters because it affects the ability of the region to convert its resources into development meaning growth, employment creation and the alleviation of poverty for its own people. A key issue concerns how ‘resource nationalism’ is defined. Given the recent revival of interest, there are a multitude of different definitions and interpretations. The International Energy Forum has recently defined it ‘‘nations wanting to make the most of their endowment’’ (Middle East Economic Survey (MEES), 2006, 49, p 39). Bill Farren-Price of MEES described it as a situation where the ‘‘producer countries have moved to maximize revenue from present oil and gas production while altering the terms of investment for future output’’ (MEES, 2006, 49, p 37). Another version is that it is simply an expression of Ray Vernon’s ‘obsolescing bargain’ (Vernon, 1971) whereby once oil was discovered and the investment sunk in development, relative bargaining power switches in favour of the host government which then tries to increase its fiscal take by changing the terms of the original contract. Yet another alternative view is that it is simply a political antipathy to the USA (and by implications its oil companies) and/or economic globalization. In this paper, a simple definition is used. ‘Resource nationalism’ is assumed to have two components – limiting the operations of private international oil companies (IOCs) and asserting a greater national control over natural resource development. This