Why we need more criticality experts from mineral-producing countries: analysis of the geopolitical provincialization of critical minerals assessments

Abstract This study examines the evolving study of mineral criticality and highlights a key gap: the limited involvement of experts from mineral-producing countries (MPCs), especially in the Global South. Bibliometric analysis of 101 critical minerals assessments and methodologies shows that the current criticality field of study reflects a narrow set of industrial priorities and risk perceptions, often framing MPCs’ development goals as supply chain risks. This phenomenon is referred to as ‘criticality provincialization’ in this paper. Findings suggest that mineral-consuming countries (MCCs) such as China and some Global North nations are moving away from country-agnostic criticality assessments and successfully localising the subject to their own realities. Together, they demonstrate that criticality is an important tool for asserting or defending a country’s manufacturing and industrial interests. The study reveals that the expert imbalance sustains foresight-driven policy in MCCs and reactive policy in MPCs, leading to long-term resource dependencies. Findings show that criticality designations typically exist parallel to a short-lived 3–5-year window of windfall resource rents for MPCs, which incentivises expanding mining operations but often fail to enable the development of downstream sectors. The study concludes that MPCs should adopt criticality as a field of study within mineral economics, build local expertise, and localise the concept to their own strategic, economic, and development priorities.