Promoting Downstream Processing: Resource Nationalism or Industrial Policy?

Olle Ostensson (Lead / Corresponding author)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The article aims to provide a critical overview of the arguments used in the debate about policies to promote downstream processing of minerals, particularly coercive policies such as export taxes or bans. It reviews some of the possible reasons why downstream processing of minerals does not always take place in the country where they are mined, including asymmetry of market power, tariff escalation, scale factors, availability of inputs, closeness to market, and business environment. The costs (in terms of lost exports of unprocessed exports) and benefits (in terms of increased processing) of coercive further processing policies are discussed, using as an example Indonesia’s ban on exports of unprocessed minerals from 2014 to 2016. It is concluded that there are few if any examples of successful use of taxes or restrictions on unprocessed productsto promote downstream processing.Existing evidence appearsto showthatthe severity and duration of the downturn in exports of unprocessed products surprised governments and that few governments even attempt to estimate either the negative or the positive impacts in any systematic manner. It would probably be more productive in most cases to instead emphasize industrial policies that focus on removing constraints and bottlenecks that stand in the way of the economy reaching its full potential, including those relating to skills, credit, energy supply, transport infrastructure, and inappropriate regulation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)205-212
Number of pages8
JournalMineral Economics
Volume32
Issue number2
Early online date14 Feb 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2019

Fingerprint

industrial policy
nationalism
resource
resources
ban
taxes
mineral
market
energy supply
market power
escalation
asymmetry
Indonesia
credit
infrastructure
regulation
economy
costs
cost
evidence

Keywords

  • Downstream processing
  • Export constraints
  • Export taxes
  • Industrial policy
  • Mineral processing
  • Mining
  • Resource nationalism

Cite this

Ostensson, Olle. / Promoting Downstream Processing : Resource Nationalism or Industrial Policy?. In: Mineral Economics. 2019 ; Vol. 32, No. 2. pp. 205-212.
@article{e66e30c7e85949fab91ccb4c222870ba,
title = "Promoting Downstream Processing: Resource Nationalism or Industrial Policy?",
abstract = "The article aims to provide a critical overview of the arguments used in the debate about policies to promote downstream processing of minerals, particularly coercive policies such as export taxes or bans. It reviews some of the possible reasons why downstream processing of minerals does not always take place in the country where they are mined, including asymmetry of market power, tariff escalation, scale factors, availability of inputs, closeness to market, and business environment. The costs (in terms of lost exports of unprocessed exports) and benefits (in terms of increased processing) of coercive further processing policies are discussed, using as an example Indonesia’s ban on exports of unprocessed minerals from 2014 to 2016. It is concluded that there are few if any examples of successful use of taxes or restrictions on unprocessed productsto promote downstream processing.Existing evidence appearsto showthatthe severity and duration of the downturn in exports of unprocessed products surprised governments and that few governments even attempt to estimate either the negative or the positive impacts in any systematic manner. It would probably be more productive in most cases to instead emphasize industrial policies that focus on removing constraints and bottlenecks that stand in the way of the economy reaching its full potential, including those relating to skills, credit, energy supply, transport infrastructure, and inappropriate regulation.",
keywords = "Downstream processing, Export constraints, Export taxes, Industrial policy, Mineral processing, Mining, Resource nationalism",
author = "Olle Ostensson",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1007/s13563-019-00170-x",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "205--212",
journal = "Mineral Economics",
issn = "2191-2203",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "2",

}

Promoting Downstream Processing : Resource Nationalism or Industrial Policy? / Ostensson, Olle (Lead / Corresponding author).

In: Mineral Economics, Vol. 32, No. 2, 07.2019, p. 205-212.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Promoting Downstream Processing

T2 - Resource Nationalism or Industrial Policy?

AU - Ostensson, Olle

PY - 2019/7

Y1 - 2019/7

N2 - The article aims to provide a critical overview of the arguments used in the debate about policies to promote downstream processing of minerals, particularly coercive policies such as export taxes or bans. It reviews some of the possible reasons why downstream processing of minerals does not always take place in the country where they are mined, including asymmetry of market power, tariff escalation, scale factors, availability of inputs, closeness to market, and business environment. The costs (in terms of lost exports of unprocessed exports) and benefits (in terms of increased processing) of coercive further processing policies are discussed, using as an example Indonesia’s ban on exports of unprocessed minerals from 2014 to 2016. It is concluded that there are few if any examples of successful use of taxes or restrictions on unprocessed productsto promote downstream processing.Existing evidence appearsto showthatthe severity and duration of the downturn in exports of unprocessed products surprised governments and that few governments even attempt to estimate either the negative or the positive impacts in any systematic manner. It would probably be more productive in most cases to instead emphasize industrial policies that focus on removing constraints and bottlenecks that stand in the way of the economy reaching its full potential, including those relating to skills, credit, energy supply, transport infrastructure, and inappropriate regulation.

AB - The article aims to provide a critical overview of the arguments used in the debate about policies to promote downstream processing of minerals, particularly coercive policies such as export taxes or bans. It reviews some of the possible reasons why downstream processing of minerals does not always take place in the country where they are mined, including asymmetry of market power, tariff escalation, scale factors, availability of inputs, closeness to market, and business environment. The costs (in terms of lost exports of unprocessed exports) and benefits (in terms of increased processing) of coercive further processing policies are discussed, using as an example Indonesia’s ban on exports of unprocessed minerals from 2014 to 2016. It is concluded that there are few if any examples of successful use of taxes or restrictions on unprocessed productsto promote downstream processing.Existing evidence appearsto showthatthe severity and duration of the downturn in exports of unprocessed products surprised governments and that few governments even attempt to estimate either the negative or the positive impacts in any systematic manner. It would probably be more productive in most cases to instead emphasize industrial policies that focus on removing constraints and bottlenecks that stand in the way of the economy reaching its full potential, including those relating to skills, credit, energy supply, transport infrastructure, and inappropriate regulation.

KW - Downstream processing

KW - Export constraints

KW - Export taxes

KW - Industrial policy

KW - Mineral processing

KW - Mining

KW - Resource nationalism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067877821&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s13563-019-00170-x

DO - 10.1007/s13563-019-00170-x

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 205

EP - 212

JO - Mineral Economics

JF - Mineral Economics

SN - 2191-2203

IS - 2

ER -