IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/ibrief/ib-25-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Strategic Game of Rare Earths: Why China May Only Be in Favor of Temporary Export Restrictions

Author

Listed:
  • Nguemgaing, Hélène
  • Kannan, Sangita
  • Spiller, Beia

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Toman, Michael A.

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

In April 2025, China imposed export controls on seven rare earth elements (REEs) and related embedded products to all countries (Jackson et al. 2025), intensifying an already critical debate over the security and resilience of global supply chains. The Chinese announced that exporters must apply for licenses to sell these materials overseas, a move widely seen as a strategic maneuver. The restriction, though not an outright ban, introduces review mechanisms that complicate export logistics and international procurement. The elements subject to the restrictions include scandium, yttrium, samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, and lutetium. These materials are classified as medium and heavy rare earths, known for their magnetic, optical, and catalytic properties. Each plays a specific and often irreplaceable role in a range of high-tech and strategic sectors.These restrictions came at a time when trade tensions were escalating between the United States and China and sent ripple effects through industries that rely on rare earths for advanced manufacturing, defense, clean energy, and digital infrastructure. In June 2025, a framework for a trade deal was agreed upon between the United States and China, which was expected to ease export restrictions of rare earth products (Miao and Feng 2025). Despite the trade deal, it is important to note that the licensing system to obtain approvals from China still holds good for rare earth and related product exports. Though it is too early to state the effects of the trade deal on exports of rare earth products for all sectors, it is being reported that exports to the United States surged in June 2025 compared to May (Reuters 2025), though approvals for western companies are taking longer and there is increased scrutiny (Emont et al. 2025).China dominates the entire rare earths value chain. With China mining over 60 percent and processing over 80 percent of the world’s rare earths (REIA, 2025; Baskaran, 2024), and producing around 90 percent of the world’s high-performance rare earth magnets (Bradsher 2025), significant global dependence on a single country for these materials creates both economic vulnerabilities and strategic concerns. This article explores the implications of the current restrictions, the industrial relevance of the targeted elements, and how the situation can be understood through the lens of game theory. Specifically, our lens on this issue provides an understanding of why China reversed course in terms of restricting exports of rare earth products.

Suggested Citation

  • Nguemgaing, Hélène & Kannan, Sangita & Spiller, Beia & Toman, Michael A., 2025. "The Strategic Game of Rare Earths: Why China May Only Be in Favor of Temporary Export Restrictions," RFF Issue Briefs 25-12, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:ibrief:ib-25-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/5055/IB_25-12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drew Fudenberg & Eric Maskin, 2008. "The Folk Theorem In Repeated Games With Discounting Or With Incomplete Information," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine (ed.), A Long-Run Collaboration On Long-Run Games, chapter 11, pages 209-230, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janvier D. Nkurunziza, 2005. "Reputation and Credit without Collateral in Africa`s Formal Banking," Economics Series Working Papers WPS/2005-02, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    2. Xue, Licun, 2002. "Stable agreements in infinitely repeated games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 165-176, March.
    3. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Satoru Takahashi, 2008. "Perfect public equilibrium when players are patient," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine (ed.), A Long-Run Collaboration On Long-Run Games, chapter 16, pages 345-367, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. repec:cdl:compol:qt9pt7p9bm is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Seok-ju Cho & John Duggan, 2015. "A folk theorem for the one-dimensional spatial bargaining model," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(4), pages 933-948, November.
    6. Kimmo Berg & Gijs Schoenmakers, 2017. "Construction of Subgame-Perfect Mixed-Strategy Equilibria in Repeated Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-14, November.
    7. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    8. Leonardo Becchetti & Pierluigi Conzo & Alessandro Romeo, 2014. "Violence, trust, and trustworthiness: evidence from a Nairobi slum," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 283-305, January.
    9. Sylvain Béal, 2010. "Perceptron versus automaton in the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 183-204, August.
    10. Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Bowles, Samuel & Gintis, Herbert, 2006. "Mutual Monitoring in Teams: Theory and Experimental Evidence on the Importance of Reciprocity," IZA Discussion Papers 2106, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Abito, Jose Miguel & Chen, Cuicui, 2023. "A partial identification framework for dynamic games," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    12. Mehmet Barlo & Guilherme Carmona, 2007. "One - memory in repeated games," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp500, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    13. Minzyuk, Larysa, 2010. "The development of non-monetary means of payment," MPRA Paper 28167, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2010.
    14. Ghidoni, Riccardo & Suetens, Sigrid, 2019. "Empirical Evidence on Repeated Sequential Games," Other publications TiSEM ff3a441f-e196-4e45-ba59-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Nicolas Vieille, 2010. "Recursive Methods in Discounted Stochastic Games: An Algorithm for - 1 and a Folk Theorem," Post-Print hal-00543616, HAL.
    16. Ambrus, Attila & Pathak, Parag A., 2011. "Cooperation over finite horizons: A theory and experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 500-512.
    17. Yuval Heller & Eyal Winter, 2020. "Biased-Belief Equilibrium," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 1-40, May.
    18. Haufler, Andreas & Schjelderup, Guttorm, 2004. "Tacit collusion and international commodity taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 577-600, March.
    19. Miyagawa, Eiichi & Miyahara, Yasuyuki & Sekiguchi, Tadashi, 2008. "The folk theorem for repeated games with observation costs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 192-221, March.
    20. Chari, V V & Kehoe, Patrick J, 1990. "Sustainable Plans," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 783-802, August.
    21. Marie Laclau & Tristan Tomala, 2016. "Repeated games with public information revisited," PSE Working Papers hal-01285326, HAL.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:ibrief:ib-25-12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.