Lithium-rich African countries would benefit from aggressively localizing refining and pursuing mine ownership structures that eliminate informational asymmetries vis-á-vis multinational companies.
Great piece. I’d emphasize that the more difficult, more important questions for such states aren’t technical but political: less about the optimal sectoral industrial or fiscal policy and more about sustaining a stable, credible domestic political compact. It won’t matter how smart your policy programme is if your opponents, electoral or otherwise, can expect greater material gains from neutralizing it at another’s behest than going along with it. Conversely, a government and elite secure in its position would easily generate good policy ideas (many of which are obvious and have been implemented before elsewhere) and would quickly recover from any blunders. You’ve spoken of ‘water-carriers’ in positions of power: their continued existence isn’t primarily because of ignorance in their base but is rather a structural inevitability arising from the inherent weakness of their states. Put simply, anyone who isn’t beholden to powerful interests gets replaced by someone who is.
So it seems to me the most immediate priorities for these governments should be defusing any ethnic, religious or class tensions, buying off or otherwise eliminating any potential rabble-rousers, expanding the military’s funding and capabilities, rapidly indigenizing basic arms production, keeping its leadership professional and accountable, but still content. In short, make it so that working through the established power structure is a better option than attempting to get round it. Only then will they have the leverage to extract the concessions necessary for knowledge transfer, domestic processing, and a greater share of the revenue.
Could there be a role for organized labor to accomplish (1) structuring ownership to eliminate informational asymmetries between states and multinationals?
Great piece. I’d emphasize that the more difficult, more important questions for such states aren’t technical but political: less about the optimal sectoral industrial or fiscal policy and more about sustaining a stable, credible domestic political compact. It won’t matter how smart your policy programme is if your opponents, electoral or otherwise, can expect greater material gains from neutralizing it at another’s behest than going along with it. Conversely, a government and elite secure in its position would easily generate good policy ideas (many of which are obvious and have been implemented before elsewhere) and would quickly recover from any blunders. You’ve spoken of ‘water-carriers’ in positions of power: their continued existence isn’t primarily because of ignorance in their base but is rather a structural inevitability arising from the inherent weakness of their states. Put simply, anyone who isn’t beholden to powerful interests gets replaced by someone who is.
So it seems to me the most immediate priorities for these governments should be defusing any ethnic, religious or class tensions, buying off or otherwise eliminating any potential rabble-rousers, expanding the military’s funding and capabilities, rapidly indigenizing basic arms production, keeping its leadership professional and accountable, but still content. In short, make it so that working through the established power structure is a better option than attempting to get round it. Only then will they have the leverage to extract the concessions necessary for knowledge transfer, domestic processing, and a greater share of the revenue.
Could there be a role for organized labor to accomplish (1) structuring ownership to eliminate informational asymmetries between states and multinationals?
A miner told me he invests in Australia because of 'third world royalties and first world property rights'.