National strategies for securing a stable supply of rare earths in different world regions

E. Barteková*, R. Kemp

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


The rising imbalance between increased demand for minerals and their tighter supply has resulted in growing concerns about their criticality. This has in turn stimulated both resource-rich and resource-poor countries to take an active role in implementing mineral strategies. The present paper explains why different world regions responded differently to the global problem of securing stable supply of critical minerals, in particular of rare earths. The paper is based on a comparative political economy framework and examines the extent to which distinct national policy styles, national interests, resource endowment and historical experience in tackling supply risk shaped the different policy choices. The overall findings show that despite their similar objectives, strategies undertaken by various regions tend to differ in their foci. Whereas Europe opts for a policy dialogue with resource-rich countries, Japan and the United States have a more hands-on approach in research and development initiatives. Australia's and China's policies instead, focus on development of domestic mining activities and on resource protection.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)153-164
Number of pages12
JournalResources Policy
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2016

JEL classifications

  • o13 - "Economic Development: Agriculture; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Other Primary Products"


  • Comparative political economy
  • Mineral criticality
  • National policy styles
  • Rare earths
  • Criticality (nuclear fission)
  • Developing countries
  • Minerals
  • Natural resources
  • Critical minerals
  • Historical experience
  • National policies
  • National strategies
  • Political economy
  • Research and development
  • Resource endowments
  • Resource protection

Cite this