We may also see a rise in post-materialist values as the population becomes wealthier, since “after a period of sharply rising economic and physical security, one would expect to find substantial differences [in] value priorities, […] for example, post-materialists […] are markedly more tolerant of homosexuality”[6]. This could erode the extent to which the population would be morally willing to accept such bribes, regardless of magnitude. Subsequently, economic development might lead to the demise of such a regime. An additional economic explanation could be the ‘resource curse’, which suggests that countries “with abundant reserves of non-renewable mineral resources, such as Nigerian oil [and] DRC gold […] produce less diversified and less competitive economies, more income inequality [and] heightened danger of state capture and rent-seeking by ruling elites”[25]. This is because the revenue streams in these countries are so concentrated to the elites and ruling classes, providing only menial low-paid labour to politically-insignificant lower classes. Moreover, since they are primary-product-export dependent, manufacturing industries develop overseas where economies of scales are subsequently built; diminishing the ability of local entrepreneurs to set up competing businesses and increase their wealth. The likelihood of a democratic transition is therefore low, since “democracy is expected to increase redistribution and reduce inequality”[26]; something which is not in the interest of the elite ruling classes. Moreover, economic crises can have a large role to play in mobilising a population against the elites and causing the fall of a non-democratic government. Although the elites do have “the monopoly over large scale violence, […] states in crisis can […] slide […] into even more instability”[7], particularly if a popular revolution is supported by a large proportion of the population, or, as in the case of Syria, the “improving […] economic conditions of the large Syrian refugee communities in neighbouring countries [provide] economic alternatives to joining armed groups”[8]; decreasing the state’s military stronghold over its population.>