This article is about economic development, and – particularly – about the curse of natural resources.

Bee Movie is a film released in 2007, which tells the life story of Barry Benson, a bumblebee who recently graduated from Hexagon Honex Industries University and who, like any graduate, is highly qualified to have a career in the honey industry.

In the story, Barry discovers that in the world outside the honeycomb, humans sell honey, doing business with something that is not theirs; after which he decides to carry out an investigation.

This is how he arrives at the Melosa Farm, where beekeeping is practiced by stunning the bees with a humidifier to remove the product. After the discovery, he decides with the help of Vanessa, a new human friend, to sue the humans for the sale of the syrup. He wins the trial, and gets the humans to return all the honey stolen from the bees.

Legal and economic conflicts are often used by screenwriters to develop the main plot of their stories. Although the main story rarely addresses only these types of topics, they are used as a fundamental part of the conflict. So much so that the idea of ​​an ancient economist can be appropriated by Barry to solve a dilemma that seemed complex.

What is presented as an originality is nothing more than a remake of an old theory that, as usual, is usually simplified to the extreme and presents a partial vision of the matter.

In this case, the central problem of the film is that, having too much honey, the bees stop producing. The positive shock brings disastrous consequences for the environment and people; but also for the bees, who become fat, lazy, bored and lead meaningless lives.

From when the boy calmed down by watching a movie; and how we stayed next to him, watching her

The reader may already be wondering, what does all of the above have to do with economics?

Well, for those children who have the fortune (or misfortune) of having a relative and/or guardian who is an economist, the film presents a very clear nod to a problem that Latin American countries have in common, which is usually called: Curse of Natural Resources, O well, Dutch Disease.

Strictly speaking, they are two different concepts, but they have in common that they try to explain why those countries that receive better resources “as if from the sky,” progress less in the long term. Perhaps the most compelling example of this phenomenon in history is the situation of Spain after the discovery of America.

While the crown benefited from silver mining in the colonies, the core development of the second expansion of Western civilization radiated from England, from 1440 to 1690.

In the film something similar happens: when the bees are showered with wealth like never before in the life of the honeycomb, that is, they are provided out of nowhere with a significant stock of honey, their economy stagnates. There are many theories with different justifications that try to explain why this phenomenon happens.

The one that best fits the story of the film has to do with one of the many versions of the natural resource curse. It explains that people who are blessed by natural resources tend to put in less effort, because they do not need it.

This ends up affecting their culture and leads them to technological backwardness. In the long run, the story ends in economic backwardness, since while others improve, they stagnate.

But the most interesting theory is undoubtedly that of the dutch disease. A much less obvious concept and with an impact that is not so long-term.

This concept takes its name from a curious fact observed in Holland, and that the Argentine economist Marcelo Diamand had noted prior to the widespread use of that name; but that went unnoticed for a time, given that writings in Spanish are not very accessible to the mainstream economic.

At the beginning of the 60s, significant gas reserves were discovered in the Netherlands, which quickly led to the exploitation of this resource and the subsequent inflow of foreign currency.

However, what promised great development possibilities for the economy ended up generating less industrial activity. The increase in exports led the exchange rate to appreciate, reducing the competitiveness of the economy as a whole.

Seen another way, higher income from gas exports increased the demand for internal services and motivated greater demand for labor in the non-tradable sectors (and the hydrocarbon producing sector, obviously). As a consequence, the industry's wage costs increased and it became more difficult for it to compete in the international market.

El effect It is very interesting: the industry is still as productive as ever, but it can no longer compete. Because? Because an even more productive sector appears that competes for its resources. Something similar happens in Latin American economies.

The enormous productivity of the primary sector due to the fertile land of our continent generates large foreign exchange earnings, appreciates the exchange rate and makes the industry less competitive. Thus, it becomes very difficult for the industry in countries with more natural resources to compete on costs.

Solutions for these types of problems have been explored in several ways. The implementation of export rights to the most productive resources (or directly their nationalization) is one of them.

However, as Bresser Pereira (2008) warns, for these to be truly effective it is necessary that the resources obtained by the state are not spent immediately. If this were not the way, it is the government itself that would end up driving an appreciation of the currency.

Another option is to invest these resources fallen from the sky in some type of stabilization fund, as Norway currently does since the discovery of oil in the North Sea. However... it is not clear what should be done later with these accumulated funds (The Barry Benson story does not seem to provide clues to finding the solution either).

The Dutch disease problem has attracted the attention of Latin American economists, since it is a feasible explanation of the problems that the region has encountered in promoting industrial development. In the case of countries like Japan or Korea, which do not have significant natural resources, the exchange rate adjusts to the level of productivity of the industry.

On the other hand, in our agro-export economies, the exchange rate that balances the entry and exit of foreign currency is relatively lower than that of the rest of the economy, since primary exports provide a significant entry of dollars. Thus, even if we had the same company, with the same size and the same employees as in Korea, it would not be able to compete, because the costs valued in dollars would be too high.

However, a point that is usually absent in classroom discussions, or even in the journalistic media, is the following; Why would we seek to solve the Dutch disease? Ultimately, the problem arises because salaries in dollars are too high. But why would we want to fix that?

There are various answers, but they are all based on some argument that explains that what is good in the short term is not good in the long term. Most economists agree that some measure against the disease must be taken when the appreciation is temporary.

E.g., if suddenly the price of a commodity rises to exorbitant levels, it may not be a great idea to allow wages to rise until the industry is dismantled. If prices fall in the future, we will be left without both sources of income, and we all know that a company that melts down cannot be rebuilt overnight.

This theory may be applicable to the economy of bees. They received a one-time capital income (honey), which - for the moment - is left over, but will not be repeated in the future.

What will happen after two generations of bees that do not go out to collect honey?

Some economists go further and advocate attacking the problem, even when it is not temporary. This is because they believe that the remaining activities of the economy have some special condition that will cause them to have greater growth potential in the long term.

There are many ways to justify it, but anyone who wants to make an argument to remedy the Dutch disease should make it clear on what basis.

For example: Do you believe that the prices of the commodities Will they show a negative trend over time? Or that the affected sectors present some type of externality that will increase productivity?

In this sense, the arguments in favor of the indispensable need for a industrial development, have fallen into extreme simplification. In the current context, the industry that seeks to be competitive in product-quality will probably be intensive in technology and capital, and not in massive employment.

On the other hand, an industry that seeks to be competitive in prices and intensive in labor, can hardly compete with economies with low labor costs, due to the lack of protection that foreign workers have in terms of rights. If this is the general context, the argument should not be taken as simplified or obvious.

In this regard, the work of Reinert (2002) sheds light on the implications of this dilemma. It explains why in the long term it may be better to opt for some activities than others.

On the other hand, it makes clear what costs must be assumed in terms of productivity for a country, when industries that have all the characteristics of any are protected. commodity and that do not generate additional benefits in the long term: if this is what is promoted, one would be giving up current salary... for nothing.

Of course, the dilemma remains: what to do with work, especially unskilled work? But understand, it must be evaluated in the light of an analysis, not an extremely simplified statement.

As has been seen, both in economics and in the film, there are many reasons why a “blessing” of natural resources can actually end up harming the country.

On the surface, they present themselves as a paradox, as when we find it difficult to understand how a country with as many resources as the Argentina, you may be hungry or poor. The concepts of natural resource curse and Dutch disease may shed some light on this matter.

Of course, understanding the causes of an economic phenomenon does not imply its justification, much less its normalization.

On the contrary, it allows us to have a diagnosis of a complex problem, much more difficult to solve than it seems, and where even the remedy - no matter how well-intentioned - can even end up being worse than the disease.