The evolving global order, intense geopolitical competition, and anxiety over supply chain vulnerabilities in this century have led to urgent concerns over supply chain resilience as well as national security. Amidst these upheavals, governments across the globe are making substantial efforts to reaffirm control over strategic sectors, especially in the field of critical minerals. Notably, lithium has become strategically highly important owing to its use in lithium–ion batteries for technologies aimed at decarbonization, including electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy storage systems. The demand for lithium in EV production is expected to grow atleast 7.6-fold in the present decade.
This emerging trend has put a focus on Latin American nations with abundant lithium resources, including Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, and Mexico. As a result, all these countries are comprehensively reassessing their lithium governance strategies. While Chile prioritizes combining private investment with strategic oversight, Argentina and Brazil maintain decentralized and market-oriented approaches. In contrast, Bolivia and Mexico are inclined to adopt a radical state-led model, encompassing a fiscal regime with policies that directly influence production and largely rhetorical nationalization, respectively. These highly divergent paths pursued by different nations raise the question: What explains variants in resource nationalism in Latin America's lithium industry despite shared structural incentives and favorable external conditions for state intervention?
In a new study, researcher Seungho Lee, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Spanish and Latin American Studies at Jeonbuk National University, has addressed this question via a two-stage decision-making framework. His findings were made available online on 5 June 2025 and have been published in Volume 24 of the journal The Extractive Industries and Society on 1 December 2025.
Dr. Lee highlights the major findings of his work. "First, global commodity price cycles and strategic competition create external pressures and opportunities for state intervention, the effects of which are mediated by the industrial maturity of each country's lithium sector. Second, domestic political settlements ultimately determine the extent and form of state involvement."
The findings of this study carry important implications for external actors who want to engage in the Latin American lithium sector. They underscore the importance for multinational firms and foreign governments of recognizing the complex and heterogeneous nature of lithium governance regimes across the region. Engagement strategies should be calibrated both to external conditions and the level of industrial maturity, and to the political settlements that shape each country's lithium sector—both at the national and subnational levels.
"Given lithium's strategic importance and the geographic concentration of its reserves and production, global demand for the mineral is expected to continue rising.In this context, the present work provides a useful starting point for examining how states navigate the interplay between external pressures and domestic structural constraints in governing lithium industries," concludes Dr. Lee.
