Cycles of resource nationalism: Hegemonic struggle and the incorporation of Bolivia and Indonesia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars often see resource nationalism as either a strategy to protect national interests or an opportunistic tactic to take advantage of capitalist market upswings. However, resource nationalism is not solely a strategy for an oppressed or disadvantaged group to gain power or glean a greater share of a nation’s resource wealth. Examining the extractive peripheries of Bolivia and Indonesia at two distinct temporal junctures, we demonstrate how global power struggles affect both the possibilities for resource nationalism and the variegated forms it takes across time. Taking resource nationalism to be an action by state actors in extractive peripheries to gain both economically and politically and linking sites and moments of resource nationalism to world-systemic processes, we argue that resource nationalism is a cyclical process shaped by the strategies of hegemons and their challengers. In addition, we argue that resource nationalism tends to garner greater benefits for actors in extractive peripheries when ascending global powers provide them viable alternative markets for their raw materials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it