Post 4 - Scarcity and Abundance in the Shrimp Industry

The authors of Violent Environments suggest that the price volatility of the shrimp market, combined with disputes over property rights, is what leads to the violent conflicts that occur in conjunction with shrimping. They argue that the high value of shrimp, not scarcity as Homer-Dixon would say, leads to violence. However, I would argue that the high value of shrimp is a result of scarcity. Goods are more valuable when they are limited. When a commodity is difficult or expensive to produce, the cost of each additional unit will be higher than if the resource was abundant. Therefore, I conclude that the global scarcity coupled with local abundance of shrimp is what leads to the price instability that can cause conflict.

The price volatility of shrimp was evident in the summer of 2013. The authors mentioned ecological instability as another issue facing shrimp farming, as the farms more easily facilitate disease between the fish. This was the case last year, when many farms in Southeast Asia were seeing dwindling stocks due to disease. The situation was extreme, as it was considered an acute shortage. As a result of the disease limiting the amount of shrimp available to be sold on the market, prices were the highest they had ever been. In this instance it is clear that the market price for shrimp was directly impacted by scarcity. Southeast Asia is the foremost producer of exported shrimp, and as diseases persist in wiping out their available stocks, the prices will continue to rise. (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/16/news/economy/shrimp-prices/)

Though I agree with the authors that ecological and price instability play a key role in the conflicts seen over shrimp farming, the underlying cause is scarcity. Shrimp are not universally scarce. However, they thrive in specific climates and are therefore not readily available globally. In climates where edible species of shrimp live, the stocks are abundant. This local abundance feeds into the abundance argument as an explanation for conflict. Southeast Asia is endowed with large shrimp stocks. The lack of industry and environmental regulations, coupled with the abundance of a high value commodity, can lead to intense competition and violence. On a regional level, the abundance argument makes sense, though if shrimp were abundant globally the price volatility seen on the market currently would not exist.

I believe the abundance argument, in almost any context, is only feasible when coupled with scarcity. Abundance is only problematic if the good that is abundant, say oil in the Middle East, is geographically isolated. Without global scarcity increasing demand and prices, abundance would not lead to over-competition and conflict. However, as seen in the shrimping industry, it is clear that the availability of a commodity in one region coupled with the increasing demand from areas without that resource leads to high prices and therefore the possibility of conflict.