When the copper party ends… can mining regions make the gains last? 

This topic will be discussed further by Dusan Paredes Araya at the 2026 OECD Conference of Mining Regions and Cities in Antofagasta, Chile, from 28 to 30 October. 

Copper booms do not last for ever. Prices rise, investment pours in and mining regions expand. Then the cycle turns. The obvious question for places that depend on mining is what remains when it does. 

Chile’s last copper supercycle, from 2003 to 2014, offers a useful perspective. Our work shows that in 2016, after the boom had ended, productivity in mining cities was still around 11% higher than in comparable non-mining cities. The gap was 13% in 2022, when copper prices were on the rise again. 

That matters now. Copper is once again in high demand, driven in part by the global energy transition. For mining regions, the opportunity is not simply to benefit while prices are high. It is to use the boom to build advantages that endure when conditions change. 

Where do the gains go? 

One reason this matters in Chile is the scale of long-distance commuting. Nearly half of those who work in Chile’s mining regions do not live there. Many are fly-in fly-out (FIFO) workers – flown in from distant parts of the country sometimes thousands of kilometres away – to work shifts that can run twenty days before they fly home again. Their wages are earned in the desert but may be spent where they live, far from the mine.  

The concern, familiar across mining economies, is intuitive: when the boom recedes, do the gains recede with it – or travel elsewhere with the workers? 

Our findings suggest this is not a zero-sum story. Mining regions retained a productivity advantage after the last copper supercycle, while non-mining areas also benefited indirectly. FIFO is one possible channel, as income earned in mining regions can support demand where workers live; trade, supply chains and fiscal transfers can spread the effects too. In other words, gains can spread without leaving mining regions empty-handed. 

From productivity to local prosperity 

This tempers an old verdict. Mineral wealth can still create problems related to rents, fiscal dependence, diversification and inequality. Our evidence does not settle that wider debate. It shows that, in productivity terms, a copper boom can leave a lasting advantage in the cities that host it. 

That leaves a further question for policy: how can that advantage be translated into broader local benefits? 

One implication is that mining regions need a greater ability to retain and reinvest part of the value they help generate. That can support investment in housing, public space and recreation, so that mining regions become places people choose to live rather than merely fly into. 

Housing is central to that challenge. A mining city may retain a productivity advantage without providing enough homes, services or amenities to attract families and improve local living standards. Pairing public budgets with private capital can help convert that productive strength into broader local benefits. 

The same applies to infrastructure, skills and local suppliers. Investments made during the boom can strengthen the wider economy and give regions more options when commodity conditions change. 

Making the next boom count 

The lesson travels well beyond Chile. Australia, Canada, Peru and Sweden all rely to varying degrees on commuting-based mining labour, and all face concerns that remote regions absorb the costs of extraction while the rewards settle elsewhere. 

The Chilean evidence suggests that this need not be a zero-sum story. Mining regions can retain a productivity edge while workers and wider economic links spread some of the benefits elsewhere. 

As copper demand rises again, the challenge is not only to capture the gains of the next boom, but to use them to leave mining regions in a stronger position when the cycle turns. 

---