The traditional view is to place natural resources on the input side of a production function and measure its contribution to output and standard of living and general welfare gains. But your use of the term "exploitation" brings skepticism to that view. It requires one to address how natural resources are transformed into capital goods for producing more capital goods for future growth and consumption goods for people’s standard of living. This view tends to split ideologies into orthodox models that use only technical relationships of production such as productivity of capital, productivity of labor, capital-labor ratio etc.,  and Marxian models that uses departments.

It boils down to time frames and beneficiaries. If the current stock of resources are depleted in such a way that it provides a steady stream of benefits to current beneficiaries and posterity.History might want to record this as an economic transformation.This can be at the cost to the native resources or a nation's "colonies"- tilting the scales towards certain stakeholders/developmental epochs. In the long run conservation doesn't help the countries sitting on those resources. While it may postpone detrimental effects to nations lobbying for it. Yet being liberal with resource exploitation may benefit a few for a relatively short time, with a hefty opportunity cost associated with a forfeited golden era of prosperity for the majority. Proxies of interest to gauge the efficiency and welfare of the economic transformation should center on such things as: accessibility to health care and education, besides the institutional safeguards such as the rule of law. This will ensure the resilience of the most " convertible" of capital- human capital. Competitive countries deficient in natural resources tended to have these three secret ingredients going for them:health, education & law. Their less prudent counterparts who are/were rich in natural resources tended to have squandered and forfeited these three pearls of great price for gains in resource exploitation.

It comes down to competition and what position in the economic strata countries that are exploiting natural resources occupy. The market, when set free, will always provide a balance based on economics. Look energy as an example. Middle east oil dominated for decades, and now, technology, demand for energy to grow developing economies, plus correct price, shifted the balance to US. The only way to upset this natural equilibrium is when the politics and gov. policies get in the way and mess things up. 

Natural resource exploitation in principle should be beneficial to African countries by bringing in the highly needed foreign  exchange. However there is a risk of appreciation of the domestic currency which in turn will render imports cheaper and makes exports of the said country notably manufactured products more difficult(Dutch disease syndrom). The way forward is for natural resource exporting countries to swiftly diversify their economy so as to reduce dependency on natural resource exports which itself is very unstable in terms of commodity prices

Thank you all for your answers.

Lall B. Ramrattan. You are right. However, my purpose is not to identify how output is affected by changes in the quantities of an input (natural resources), regardless if it is considered a capital good or not. Neither using the Marxian approach (or rather the Sraffa-Okishio approach), where you have departments, an answer can come up since these departments are not agriculture, industry etc. and you need to analyse the sectoral evolution to figure out if there is economic transformation (in terms increasing agricultural productivity and industrialisation.

Shian-Loong Bernard Lew. The problems that you highlight are precisely some of the problems put forward by analysts who take an institutional approach. So maybe you mean that institutional change can be a proxy for transformation? I am skeptical though, regarding the importance of rule of law. Look at China: growth and developmental success without a clear rule of law.

Nick Poulios. I am afraid that precisely the way of taking advantage in a given country of natural resource exploitation is doing industrial policy and using the revenues to increase the standards of human development. And that includes a developmental state. In my humble opinions things get messed up when governments disappear, look at what has happened in Africa during the structural adjusment years (1985-2000).

Rayner Tabetando. The description that you give of the 'Dutch disease' is correct in my view, but as you rightly point out, it is a static approach that neglects the possibility of public policies to diversify the economy and escape from the Dutch disease trap.

adding to what has been already said above by the colleagues, I would suggest to take into considerations that natural resources, in particular if easily lootable (such as gold and diamond) they may indirectly hinder development perspective (especially in Africa) by increasing the likelihood of developing a/o sustaining episodes of civil wars and raising the severity of such wars

Thanks Mario for your contribution. Your point of view is underpinned by the rational choice approach, which in my opinion is quite limited to analyse African civil wars. As put in the question, this point of view is the popular Collier-Hoeffler approach. It is a too simplistic approach in my view, because enrichment opportunities do not directly lead to war. Ideology and agency play a significant role in explaining conflicts (see Cristopher Cramer). Take for instance the Sierra Leone conflict. Diamond exploitation explains the durability of the conflict, but not the onset, which is derived from a political conflict. Diamond exploitation commences after the onset of the war (see Bulte). So the war is not about enrichment or natural resources.

I positively agree the question. Definitely it happens so. Recently; we have a good example after loss of millions of life, property, livestock's due to natural disaster, we need to re built rapidly to fulfill basic need of the victims. If we are not rich for   renewable natural resources we wont be survive further but we have natural resources which is a part of development, part of economy.

Similarly; if we construct long roads, large bridges; if we exploit the natural resources in the influence zone; the bridge and road not to be long due to flooding and runoff.

So; i agree the above agreement with justification my opinion.

Most of the answers given seem to be from the perspective of conventional (e.g. neoclassical) economics.  Although good points are sometimes made, from the perspective of BioPhysical economics (a new discipline gaining steam -- Springer will have a new Journal on that soon)) exploitation is the proper word: That is what we do when we do development -- we exploit resources.  This of course can develop wealth for many or the few, but by pumping up the economy we also usually pump up the expectations AND the population.   Frequently the original resources are exploited (gold, petroleum, soils, fish etc)  until they are too thin or depleted to be worth exploiting more.  Then the nation either turns to the exploitation of something else (if they are lucky) or face seriously declining standards of living.  This concept was originally developed by Toole for the State of Montana:  Beavers, then gold, the silver, the copper, then Eastern dry land farming (the soils blew away) then Forests.  The original rich resources are all gone.  Ecuador is but one of many national examples: there were exploitation cycles of wild fish and shrimp, then the better soils, then farmed fish, and now oil.   Each goes boom and bust, but always the population and need for something else to exploit continues to grow.  Increasingly energy-intensive methods can keep agriculture going, but at large cost.  What will Ecuador do when the oil boom fails due to exploitation and depletion, which appears happening now? What will West African countries do as they go on the downside of their Hubbert Curve for oil, as most are starting now?   These are questions not well answered within conventional economics.     

I tend to agree with Dr. Hall's assessment.  Natural resource exploitation has long been tied to dependency theory, which points out how the center exploits the periphery and leads, in the long run, to its underdevelopment.

Charlie Hall has provided the best answer to date -- From the perspective of Latin America and Mexico (from where I hail) Natural Resources Exploitation is necessarily harmful... there is NO getting around it.  Generally the resources are exported or badly used locally (petroleum in Mexico) and controlled by international cartels which cannot possibly attend to the welfare of the people.  The investments do not contribute to satisfying basic needs (generally siphoning them off) or creating quality employment. They lead to distorted productive structures and social unraveling.  For an analysis in the context of forestry policies in mexico, see: Barkin and Fuente, “Community Forest Management: Can the green economy contribute to environmental justice?”, Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 37(3):200-210, 2013,  (ISSN: 1477-8947). DOI: 10.1111/1477-8947.12010

Thank you all for your answers, comments and contributions.

Ramesh Prasad Bhatt. You are right since in the conventional economic analysis, the biophysical environment is barely taken into account. Anyhow, in my view a rational and sustainable exploitation of natural resources can be a driving force for development in poor countries. It is certainly a developmentalist view, and we know that developmentalism has brought many ecological distress in the past. Yet, I think that to deliver developmental outcomes to growing needs in developing countries, they need to take advantage of their natural resources endowments. For

Charles A S Hall. I really appreciate your points on Biophysics, which mak us aware about the consequences of exploiting natural resources without taking into account the limits. You also make us aware about depleting resources without having developed alternative sources of wealth. This idea takes me to the need of a developmental state with enough capabilities to take adavantage of natural resources wealth to diversify the economy and drive the transition to a low-carbon economy without diminishing the standard of living of the population.

Thanks for your answers.

Tamar Diana Wilson. Dependency theory stresses that because of structural reasons, the center exploits the perifphery and this relationship blocks development in the periphery and at the same time fosters development in the centre. There can be some 'dependency' reasons in the question and in the starting point of many developing countries, especially in Africa, with weak institutions. Yet, in my opinion dependency is not destiny, look at Asian countries. Thus, a developmental state can drive away from this dependency pattern and build a diversified economy using industrial policy tools.

Thanks again for your answers, they all are really insightful.

David Barkin. I disagree with your point of view. When you say that 'there is NO getting around it', you are putting forward the idea that harmful consequences of natural resources exploitation are destiny. In my view, when it comes to social sciences, there's nothing unavoidable by using centralised decisions. I mean that it is not a God's job, it is a human construct, so it can be constructed in a different way.

Provided we implement the guidelines of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), then the exploitation of natural resources should benefit the host contry and associated communities. Of much bigger concern are endemic corruption, poverty and climate change. Ensuring that development contributes to a sustainable reduction in poverty is the challenge for developing and developed countries alike, and for the organisations which seek to profit from development.