Since the reform and opening-up, national policies in the field of geological exploration have consistently been... “ Fragmentation ” Status. Not only does a non-organic integration between central and local policies inherently exist vertically, but also a nonsystematic structure—comprising sector-specific policies, industrial policies, and departmental policies—is conspicuously evident horizontally.

Since the reform and opening-up, national policies in the field of geological exploration have consistently been... “ Fragmentation ” Status. Not only does the vertical alignment between central and local policies inherently lack organic integration, but horizontally, there is also a clear lack of systematic coordination among sector-specific policies, industrial policies, and departmental policies. The root cause lies in the insufficient and precise understanding—across political, academic, and industrial circles—of these sector-specific, industrial, and departmental policies. As a result, both macro- and micro-level governance suffer from ambiguities in thinking, unclear responsibilities, and undefined approaches to some extent. At present, the development and reform of the geological exploration industry and its workforce are at a critical turning point. A deep understanding of the connotations and extensions of these three policy systems will undoubtedly have a positive and far-reaching impact on advancing the development and reform of the geological exploration industry.

　 　I. Analysis of the Core Meanings and Extensions of Industry Policies, Industrial Policies, and Departmental Policies

　　The fundamental reason why it is urgently necessary to clarify the connotations and extensions of industry policy, industrial policy, and sectoral policy lies in the fact that many insiders and outsiders, though familiar with these three concepts, have consistently limited their understanding to questions of which is bigger or smaller, or broader or narrower—without truly grasping their essence or defining them accurately. Of course, this situation has its objective reasons. After all, industry policy and industrial policy both address the same overarching system; the differences in their connotations and extensions stem from the different perspectives and focal points adopted by observers. In contrast, sectoral policy deals with subsystems within that larger system—and, to put it vividly, it assumes the role of... “ Special Mission ” of the “ Development Zone ” or “ Protected area ” Therefore, the three major policies are bound to exhibit similarities or overlaps in many aspects. To effectively grasp the fundamental ideas and methods for discerning their intrinsic meanings and broader implications, we must first understand their unique underlying principles.

　　-- Industry policy originated in the late stages of primitive society, during the initial period when labor was socially divided into specialized roles. The seeds of industry policy began to sprout at the very dawn of class society. At its core, industry policy targets production relations, with its central focus being the division and collaboration of labor among workers. The objects of regulation are the various elements of production relations—essentially, a human-made policy system. Industry policy consists of two interrelated systems: an internal system and an external system. The internal system regulates the rights, responsibilities, and interests among all actors within the industry; the external system governs the interests involving industries that are related to or adjacent to the focal industry. The underlying principle is to promote the realization of ideal, absolutely equitable goals through practical, relatively fair management practices. The practical, fair measures aim to stimulate the industry’s vitality and efficiency, while the ideal, equitable goal seeks to ensure the overall harmony and sustainability of the industry.

　　-- Industrial policy. The concept of industry originated in the intervention by rulers in socially organized production following the emergence of the state; however, it was not until the 1970s that the term "industrial policy" came into widespread use. Modern industrial policy is built upon a market economy system and serves as a necessary complement to address market imperfections. The fundamental object of industrial policy is productive forces, and its regulatory targets encompass all elements of these forces. The overarching goal of industrial policy is to promote the development of productive forces within a particular industry. The central focus lies in managing the inputs and outputs of industries, as well as investments and returns. The core content of industrial policy is reflected in two main aspects: the managerial level and the technical level. At the managerial level, industrial policy facilitates the integration of a given industry with upstream and downstream sectors through strategic planning. At the technical level, industrial policy ensures that product specifications meet societal demands. Industrial policy can further be subdivided into various types, including structural policy, organizational policy, technological policy, and spatial layout policy, among others.

　　-- Departmental policies. The term "department" originally refers to a comprehensive organizational and administrative structure. Departmental policies, therefore, constitute a relatively self-contained system—based on the same industry or related sectors—that employs quasi-administrative powers as its regulatory tool. They serve as a vital bridge and link between macroeconomics and microeconomics. In other words, departmental policies themselves are an important component of both industrial policies and sector-specific policies. Although the concept of departmental policies exists in countries with various forms of ownership, it is undoubtedly a management concept with particularly strong Chinese characteristics. Its most essential feature is the relatively independent interests of specific groups. As market economies continue to develop, the concept of “departmental economy” has tended to become less prominent; however, large enterprises or corporate groups within certain industries still exhibit certain characteristics of departmental economies. Indeed, even in developed market economies, many large corporations perform some of the industry-management functions that have been delegated to them. Thus, the overlap between departmental policies and sector-specific policies is not only inevitable but also entirely reasonable. In summary, the essence of departmental policies lies in two key aspects: first, achieving adaptability between small and large systems; and second, pursuing efficiency within the small system itself.

　　Generally speaking, the basic characteristics of industry policies are: “ Equality ” From the central government to local authorities, it is imperative that... “ All the way to the end ” , achieve “ A nationwide coordinated effort. ” Because even the smallest issue related to production relations is still a major one. For example: “ Household Contract Responsibility System ” Matters of this kind have always been set by the central authorities; we cannot choose different models based on the varying conditions of individual provinces, cities, and counties. The fundamental characteristic of industrial policy is... “ Open ” In the horizontal direction, it can be further developed as needed into things such as: “ Concepts and topics such as sunrise industries, sunset industries, knowledge-intensive industries, labor-intensive industries, and capital-intensive industries. Vertically, at all management levels—from the central government to local authorities—each can leverage its own unique resource advantages. “ The Eight Immortals each displayed their unique magical powers. ” And the basic characteristics of departmental policies are: “ Closed ”。

　　Overall, industrial policies serve as the guiding force, sector-specific policies provide the safeguard, and departmental policies act as the supplementary support. Simply put, sector-specific policies focus on... “ person ” Industry policy governs... “ thing ” , the departmental policy governs “ matter ” The important theoretical foundation of industrial policy is political economy; the important theoretical foundation of sectoral policy is development economics; and the important theoretical foundation of departmental policy is managerial economics. Industrial policy seeks to achieve a balance of interests; sectoral policy aims at strategic objectives; and departmental policy focuses on efficiency and functionality. The fundamental purpose of industrial policy is to facilitate the achievement of sectoral policy goals, while departmental policy generally serves as a crucial means of implementing both industrial and sectoral policies. “ Gripping device ” The three major policy systems all fall under the intermediate-level framework, serving the macroeconomy while also guiding the microeconomy. In today’s modern economic and social environment, sector policies and industrial policies have already begun to move onto a path of legalization, whereas departmental policies remain in a state of dynamic adjustment.

　 　II. Main bottlenecks in geological exploration industry policies, industrial policies, and departmental policies

　　To this day, the formulation of the three major policy systems still hasn't escaped the influence of the planned economy era. “ From a single source. ” the well-worn rut. It is precisely because of the lack of clear division of responsibilities and mutual checks and balances among policy systems that various policy systems end up overlapping and coexisting in a fragmented manner.

　　-- Industry policies. During the planned economy era, the geological exploration sector did not have industry-wide policies in the full sense of the term. Under the historical conditions at the time, government agencies only needed to regulate the balance of interests between practitioners in the geological exploration industry and those in other industries—not to mediate relations among various groups within the industry itself. For example, by introducing field allowance policies, the government compensated and incentivized practitioners; this limited form of adjustment was also implemented through departmental policies. In a sense, the departmental policies of that era were tantamount to—or even equivalent to—industry policies. In the last decade of the previous century, public-interest and commercial geological exploration teams began to differentiate themselves. Then, during the first decade of this century, as geological exploration enterprises with diverse economic components sprang up on a large scale, the practicality and urgency of formulating industry-wide policies started drawing attention from both inside and outside the industry. The focus shifted to the conflicts between public-interest teams and commercial teams, as well as the contradictions between geological exploration entities operating under the official system and those operating outside it. Currently, the most pressing issue is: What exactly should be the reform of the state-owned geological exploration system? “ A hundred flowers bloom. ” , or “ Unification of the realm ” Since there is no nationwide unified... “ Industry Reform Guiding Document ” The state-owned geological exploration teams that have already been localized are now presenting... “ One province, one policy. ” Trends, to a certain extent, are related to “ Industry Policy ” conflicts with the fundamental principles; if this continues, it will not only hinder the progress of reform but also likely leave behind new historical legacies.

　　-- Industrial policy. From the very outset of the founding of New China, government departments formulated relatively clear and detailed industrial policies. 1956 In that year, Chairman Mao Zedong pointed out: “ The Geological Department is the reconnaissance unit for underground conditions. If its work isn't done properly, one horse blocking the way can prevent ten thousand horses from moving forward—so we need to start preparing a five-year plan ahead of schedule. ” This is a vivid, artistically rendered interpretation—by a great statesman—of the early Republic’s geological exploration industry policy. Compared with other industrial policies, the formulation of geological exploration industry policy involves a relatively high degree of complexity for the following reasons: First, there is a mismatch between market demand and product supply. Given the long production cycle of geological exploration, if exploration efforts are deployed solely in response to market signals and one waits until projects are completed, the situation could shift from a shortage of supply to an oversupply in the market. Second, there is a disconnect between product production and actual supply. For instance, when planning to achieve a breakthrough in the exploration of a particular mineral resource, the outcome might unexpectedly reveal that the region is actually devoid of that mineral—but instead yield entirely different, unforeseen discoveries. In short, the development of industrial policy must be forward-looking and strategic; it should, at the very least, have a前瞻性 horizon of more than ten years. To put it more precisely, enterprises guided solely by market demand signals will find it difficult to adapt effectively to the demands of market competition and survival. Therefore, government agencies must step in and provide guidance through industrial policy.

　　About the Author: Meng Qi

　　Abstract for a long time , In the field of geological exploration The connotations and extensions of industrial policies, sectoral policies, and industry policies lack precise definitions. , resulting in the policy formulation and implementation process " Fragmentation " Obvious , There is a certain degree of underperformance, overstepping, and failure to meet expectations. In response to this, , Industry Policies should emphasize unity. ; Industrial policies should emphasize diversity. ; Departmental policies should emphasize adaptability. ,