Well, obviously. It's not only the availability of resources that matter, but it's the goals of the people who are in control. If a country is rich with natural resources, but those in control are all corrupt and are only thinking about themselves instead of thinking about the country and its people, they will obviously not be able to make the economy stable because they won't use the resources in the right way, and the resources won't be able to do anything in such a country. But, if a country has good leaders but lower resources, they can still have a more stable economy because the ones in control will use the available resources in the best way possible so that the country can benefit from them. The examples you gave clearly prove my point. Nigeria is a country that is so full of corruption, and in a country where leaders are corrupt, even if there are a lot of natural resources, those resources won't be able to bring stability in their economy, because the leaders will use the resources only for their own benefits and filling their own pockets so that they can live luxurious lives now and in the future with their families once they retire. This happens in a lot of countries, I won't name them, but we know there are so many third-world countries where this happens.
Well, obviously. It's not only the availability of resources that matter, but it's the goals of the people who are in control. If a country is rich with natural resources, but those in control are all corrupt and are only thinking about themselves instead of thinking about the country and its people, they will obviously not be able to make the economy stable because they won't use the resources in the right way, and the resources won't be able to do anything in such a country. But, if a country has good leaders but lower resources, they can still have a more stable economy because the ones in control will use the available resources in the best way possible so that the country can benefit from them. The examples you gave clearly prove my point. Nigeria is a country that is so full of corruption, and in a country where leaders are corrupt, even if there are a lot of natural resources, those resources won't be able to bring stability in their economy, because the leaders will use the resources only for their own benefits and filling their own pockets so that they can live luxurious lives now and in the future with their families once they retire. This happens in a lot of countries, I won't name them, but we know there are so many third-world countries where this happens.

Well, obviously. It's not only the availability of resources that matter, but it's the goals of the people who are in control. If a country is rich with natural resources, but those in control are all corrupt and are only thinking about themselves instead of thinking about the country and its people, they will obviously not be able to make the economy stable because they won't use the resources in the right way, and the resources won't be able to do anything in such a country. But, if a country has good leaders but lower resources, they can still have a more stable economy because the ones in control will use the available resources in the best way possible so that the country can benefit from them. The examples you gave clearly prove my point. Nigeria is a country that is so full of corruption, and in a country where leaders are corrupt, even if there are a lot of natural resources, those resources won't be able to bring stability in their economy, because the leaders will use the resources only for their own benefits and filling their own pockets so that they can live luxurious lives now and in the future with their families once they retire. This happens in a lot of countries, I won't name them, but we know there are so many third-world countries where this happens.

Well, obviously. It's not only the availability of resources that matter, but it's the goals of the people who are in control. If a country is rich with natural resources, but those in control are all corrupt and are only thinking about themselves instead of thinking about the country and its people, they will obviously not be able to make the economy stable because they won't use the resources in the right way, and the resources won't be able to do anything in such a country. But, if a country has good leaders but lower resources, they can still have a more stable economy because the ones in control will use the available resources in the best way possible so that the country can benefit from them. The examples you gave clearly prove my point. Nigeria is a country that is so full of corruption, and in a country where leaders are corrupt, even if there are a lot of natural resources, those resources won't be able to bring stability in their economy, because the leaders will use the resources only for their own benefits and filling their own pockets so that they can live luxurious lives now and in the future with their families once they retire. This happens in a lot of countries, I won't name them, but we know there are so many third-world countries where this happens.