| 关键矿产战略国际比较——历史演进与工具选择 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 葛建平,刘佳琦.关键矿产战略国际比较——历史演进与工具选择[J].资源科学,2020,42(8):1464-1476. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 葛建平 刘佳琦 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 中国地质大学（北京）经济管理学院,北京100083 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 国家自然科学基金项目(71774149) |
| |
| 摘 要： | 关键矿产安全是国家社会经济发展和国防建设的重要保障,关键矿产战略是实现资源安全的必要路径。世界主要国家均制定了关键矿产战略举措,中国相关矿产需求量大、供需结构性矛盾突出,制定关键矿产战略尤为迫切。本文基于澳大利亚、日本、欧盟、美国4个国家（地区）2006—2019年关键矿产的政策文本,从关键矿产战略的国际背景、制定依据、历史演进与政策工具选择角度开展比较研究,提出主要国家关键矿产战略的演进规律、驱动因素以及工具选择依据。研究发现：4个国家（地区）“关键性”指标选择均包含供应风险,并根据国情选取了经济重要性、可操作性等不同的指标;同时,4个国家（地区）关键矿产相关政策文本数量稳步上升,美国、日本、欧盟政策关注点不断系统化,且定期更新与完善关键矿产清单;4个国家（地区）主要选择规制型政策工具,以经济激励型政策工具为辅,社会型政策工具作用日渐增强。在此基础上,建议中国在建立关键矿产目录的基础上,通过完善矿产储备体系、促进替代和回收技术研发、实施“资源外交”等举措,制定合理有效的关键矿产战略。
|
| 关 键 词： | 关键矿产 供应风险 资源安全 国际比较 历史演进 政策工具 |
| 收稿时间： | 2020-02-19 |
| 修稿时间： | 2020-04-29 |
International comparison of critical mineral strategies: Historical evolution and tool selection |
| |
| GE Jianping,LIU Jiaqi.International comparison of critical mineral strategies: Historical evolution and tool selection[J].Resources Science,2020,42(8):1464-1476. |
| |
| Authors: | GE Jianping LIU Jiaqi |
| |
| Institution: | School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China |
| |
| Abstract: | Security of critical minerals is an important guarantee for national socioeconomic development and national defense system construction. Developing a strategy for critical minerals is a necessary measure for ensuring resource security. Many countries in the world have formulated strategic measures for critical minerals. China has a large demand for related metal minerals and structural contradictions between supply and demand are outstanding, therefore it is particularly urgent to formulate national critical mineral strategies. In light of the policy texts of critical minerals in Australia, Japan, the European Union, and the United States from 2006 to 2019, this study conducted a comparative study from the perspectives of the international background, formulation basis, historical change, and policy policy tool selection of critical mineral strategies,put forward the main national critical mineral strategies evolution rule, driving factors and tool selection basis. The study found that “criticality” indicators in the four countries (regions) all include supply risks, and other indicators such as economic importance and operability were selected according to national conditions; the number of critical minerals related policy texts in the four countries (regions) steadily increased. The policy focus of the United States, Japan, and the European Union continues to be systematic, and the list of critical minerals is constantly updated and improved. The policy tools used are mainly regulatory tools, economic incentive tools play an auxiliary role, and the role of social policy tools is becoming increasingly prominent. On the basis of analyzing the patterns of change, driving factors, and policy tools and strategies of critical minerals in these countries, it is recommended that China, while establishing a catalogue of critical minerals, should improve the mineral reserve system, promote research and development of substitution and recovery technologies, and implement a “resource diplomacy” and other measures to build a reasonable and effective strategy for critical minerals. |
| |
| Keywords: | critical minerals supply risk resource security international comparison historical evolution policy tools |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《资源科学》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《资源科学》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
