Search

Begin New Search Topic European Union Political Geography North America

11. Openness as Strength: The Win-Win in EU-US Digital Services Trade

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Dyuti Pandya, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The discourse surrounding the EU’s supposed over-reliance on digital services imports from non-EU countries, particularly the US, has been a recurrent topic among some political circles. However, this viewpoint tends to oversimplify and misrepresent the nuanced and complex reality of the EU’s status within the global Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector and digitally enabled trade. A thorough analysis of trade data and trends clearly illustrates that the EU’s engagement with foreign (non-EU) digital services, notably from the US, represents a strategic economic advantage, bolstering Europe’s competitiveness and fostering productivity growth. Below we underline the critical importance of openness to foreign innovation and technology diffusion for the EU’s economic future.
Topic:
European Union, Digital Economy, Strategic Competition, Imports, and Productivity
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

12. ICT Beyond Borders: The Integral Role of US Tech in Europe’s Digital Economy

Author:
Matthias Bauer and Dyuti Pandya
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Contrary to political assertions about the vulnerability of digital services provided by non-EU companies, the strong presence and sunk costs associated with US tech companies’ investments in data centres, skilled workforce development, and research facilities in Europe act as significant barriers to exit, highlighting the inherent symbiosis between US tech investments and Europe’s digital and non-digital sectors. These investments underscore a mutual inter-dependency that strengthens European economies, making the notion of “sudden cessation” of digital services by US companies implausible. Corporate data show a significant investment gap of approximately USD 1.36 trillion between US and EU ICT companies, attributing a competitive edge to US firms due to their heavy investment in ICT, cloud solutions, and R&D. Forecasted increases in ICT investments by US corporations outline a benchmark beyond reach for EU businesses. The notion of EU firms aligning with this growth path is rather fantastical, as it would call for immense government investment, ultimately draining financial resources from essential public services, such as healthcare, housing, and environmental policies. Substantial ICT investments across EU Member States together with a long-term commitment to the European market present an opportunity for the EU to leverage US continuous technological advancements, underscoring the potential for transatlantic collaboration to drive the EU’s digital transformation and innovation. EU-US partnerships not only fuel the EU’s digital transformation but also align with shared political values, reinforcing the significance of transatlantic collaboration in shaping a competitive and innovative digital future.
Topic:
Communications, European Union, Digital Economy, Investment, and Information Technology
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

13. Keeping Up with the US: Why Europe’s Productivity Is Falling Behind

Author:
Fredrik Erixon, Oscar Guinea, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The European Union stands at a crossroads. For decades, the EU’s productivity growth has consistently lagged the United States, leading to slower growth in living standards and decline in global economic power. While short-term factors like the strong US fiscal expansion have widened the gap in nominal GDP growth in recent years, the fact is that Europe has trailed the US economic development for several decades and the root of the problem lies in deeper structural issues within the European economy. Four major forces fuel this productivity divide. Firstly, the EU’s investment in research and development (R&D) pales in comparison to the U.S., leading to fewer patents and a slower pace of technology-fuelled innovation. Secondly, Europe trails America in the stock and growth of intangible capital investments, which are crucial for adopting and diffusing new technologies that drive productivity. Thirdly, the EU market exhibits slower business creation and destruction compared to the US. This rigidity hinders the flow of resources towards the most productive firms. Lastly, despite boasting higher levels of trade openness, the EU attracts less Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) than the US, curbing its access to cutting-edge global technologies and expertise. To close the gap, European policymakers should implement a comprehensive strategy for faster productivity growth. The first step is turning up the dial on R&D spending, targeting 4-5 percent of GDP by 2040. Next, Europe should prioritise investments in intangible assets and lay down the digital infrastructure that will underpin future growth. Revitalising the single market is also crucial: reducing internal and external market barriers for services, the primary vehicle for trading intangible assets. Moreover, the EU should foster a market environment that encourages entrepreneurship and facilitate the entry and exit of firms so resources cascade towards the most productive sectors. By harnessing the strengths of the single market and implementing these recommendations, European policymakers can propel the EU towards a more competitive and prosperous future.
Topic:
Markets, European Union, Productivity, and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

14. Europe and NATO: Mountains Ahead

Author:
W. Robert Pearson
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
The European Union has been an unprecedented success of diplomacy and cooperation. In the European mind, there has always been a dream to reconnect the broken parts left behind with the fall of the Roman Empire. For fifteen centuries, the tool for this project was warfare and political domination by one country or another. These measures failed in chaos and catastrophe. The last – the greatest conflict the world had ever seen – inspired Europeans to begin to rebuild the continent on an entirely different foundation. The European Union emerged and with it the NATO alliance, forming a link of transatlantic security that has held together with triumphs, divisions, and similar but separate interests for 75 years. The EU has become a major moral voice globally. In environmental protection, health diplomacy, internet privacy protection, financial data protection, anti-trust actions, the peaceful use of space, careful husbandry of marine resources and areas, and support for sustainable and resilient life for humans, among other commitments, Europe has offered outstanding leadership and contributions that are evident and admired.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, European Union, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe and North America

15. Digital legislation: convergence or divergence of models? A comparative look at the European Union, China and the United States

Author:
Aifang Ma
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
In 1964, when the Canadian pioneer of media studies, Marshall McLuhan, argued that media is an extension of man, he did not foresee that future media, at the beginning of the 21st century, would produce increasingly pernicious effects[1]. While media have indeed extended human capacities, they have also shown to be generators of complicated social and ethical problems. In the same year philosopher, Herbert Marcuse, who analysed relations between Man and Machine from a deeply pessimistic viewpoint. His predictions seem to be corroborated by what we are now experiencing: the easy life made possible by technological progress has progressively gnawed into the individual critical reasoning. Instead of imposing their control over technologies, human beings are increasingly at their mercy. The domination of technology over individuals is all the stronger, since it seems harmless and is pleasant to use. In this context, the regulation of digital technologies[2] is flourishing in autocracies and democracies alike. Its importance goes far beyond the need of authoritarian regimes to cut off the transmission of destabilising content. It is universal since digital technologies set common challenges to national governments: illegal collection of users’ personal data, precarious working conditions for gig workers, monopolistic practices of large platforms, threats to human dignity and domestic security. These problems are causing trouble to all governments around the world. This article aims to be pragmatic. Beyond differences in political regime, it studies the regulatory approaches of the three largest digital economies in the world: China, the United States, and the European Union. The three models can potentially hinder or stimulate the development of digital technologies without necessarily opposing each other.
Topic:
European Union, Media, Legislation, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

16. The European Union between the United States and China: should we choose between equidistance and following?

Author:
Philippe Etienne
Publication Date:
10-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
The competition between the world's two major powers structures all international relations and influences the choices made by all other countries. The latter fear the consequences of tensions between the two giants and, in the main, want to avoid having to choose. But the problem is not the same everywhere. To put it simply, China benefits in the "global South" from a certain hostility towards the West, while the United States can play on the fear aroused by the emergence of Chinese power, which no longer hesitates to resort to power relations, especially in Eastern Asia[1]. Against this backdrop, Europe is in a delicate situation. It must contend with its assimilation to the United States as being part of the “West” which is increasingly rejected. Although it shares much with its American ally, particularly the values of democracy and security arrangements, it does not always have the same interests as the United States and must preserve its room for manoeuvre if it is not to be dragged into decisions in which it has no part. Before examining how the European Union is facing up to this challenge, and how it should behave in the future, the driving forces and prospects of the Sino-American rivalry require exploration.
Topic:
International Relations, Globalization, European Union, Global South, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

17. Empires of Exceptionalism: Lessons from the EU AI Act and Attempts at AI Legislation in California

Author:
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama and Claudia Lozano
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The EU AI Act, which passed after three years of negotiations and much ambivalence, sets a comprehensive regulatory framework that reflects the European Union’s unique needs that are not translatable to other jurisdictions. The proposed bill in California (SB 1047) illustrates this case in point. The bill could potentially mislead the public into thinking that AI is already under effective regulatory control. Lawmakers must recognize that the EU differs from other systems. The EU AI Act is not only shaped by the desire to slow down global AI development, allowing Europe to catch up with rivals like the US and China: The EU lacks an enforceable constitution, and the Act prohibits its governments to impose social scoring and discriminatory measures. SB 1047 only addressed humanity-ending disasters and had unclear practical value. Meanwhile, the EU AI Act was passed into law to prevent internal competition and Europe’s history of authoritarianism. Existing laws in California and the EU already regulate most AI use cases. In addition, the EU AI Act reviews existing regulations to ensure they are still fit for purpose, something California failed to do in SB 1047. A critical takeaway is to examine existing obligations or executive powers (including enforcement agencies and public funding) to achieve the desired policy objectives. The diverging outcomes of the two laws show the importance of avoiding mismatches between policy objectives and legislative scope. AI regulation cannot substitute for other policy objectives, like privacy and antitrust. Also, lawmakers must weigh the cost of failed regulation against the risks of non-regulation. California did not see any immediate costs of inaction, whereas delayed action by the EU might have led to the fragmentation of its internal market. Also, given its collective decision-making, the EU can escape accountability for policy failures due to premature laws in a way the leaders in other political systems cannot.
Topic:
European Union, Digital Economy, Legislation, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Europe, California, North America, and United States of America

18. Military capabilities affected by climate change: An analysis of China, Russia and the United States

Author:
Adaja Stoetman, Dick Zandee, Ties Dams, Niels Drost, and Louise Van Schaik
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of the present and the future. Rising temperatures and sea levels, as well as extreme weather events are manifestations of climate change that also influence military capabilities. Increased attention for the climate change-security nexus is visible both at the national and the international level: nationally through the incorporation of climate change in security strategies and internationally through incorporation in important strategic documents such as the EU’s Strategic Compass and NATO’s Strategic Concept. Given its transnational nature, governments around the world have a shared responsibility to face climate change. A particular role is laid down for the global powers, China, Russia and the United States, given their position in the world. It is, however, questionable whether the global powers’ interests align. They differ in their approaches to address climate change, and even more so in their views on how it affects the armed forces. China and particularly Russia are more reluctant towards depicting climate change as a matter of international security. This is for example visible in international forums, such as the UN Security Council. In contrast, in the US, support for climate action is subject to political preferences, but climate related security risks are widely recognised within the defence establishment. This report reviews various aspects of the relationship between climate and security, with a particular focus on the military. It discusses the role of climate change in a country’s security and defence strategy and, vice versa, the changing tasks and deployment of the armed forces in response to climate change, the effects of climate change on military infrastructure, and measures to realise a greener defence sector.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, European Union, and Military
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

19. Digital Sovereignty: European Policies, American Dilemmas

Author:
Mathilde Velliet
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
European digital sovereignty has been made a priority by Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission. Due to the privileged position of American companies in the European market, Brussels’ efforts towards digital sovereignty (on privacy, antitrust, data sovereignty, etc.) are closely scrutinized by American policymakers. They often view European initiatives as “protectionist” and unfairly targeting U.S. companies. However, the American vision of European digital sovereignty has evolved in recent years under the influence of two main factors. On the one hand, awareness of the problematic effects and practices of platforms has led to a consensus on the need for reform in the digital sector. On the other hand, technological competition with China has been elevated to a priority. This vision remains fraught with contradictions, along inter-party, intra-party, inter-agency, state-federal, and issue-based fault lines. Washington’s position on anti-monopolistic practices is an illuminating example, characterized by a double discourse between a desire to reform the U.S. digital sector domestically and active diplomacy to dilute these efforts at the European level. Nonetheless, several American actors – particularly in the legislative branch – are seeking to learn from the successes and flaws of European regulations for American reform projects, such as on platform regulation or privacy. The China factor reinforces the ambiguity of the U.S.’ position. It creates new opportunities for cooperation in the face of perceived common vulnerabilities (infrastructure security, inbound investments, etc.) and autocratic definitions of digital sovereignty. However, it also raises tension and misunderstanding on the American side towards European reforms that often target American companies more than Chinese ones. Lastly, while American and European companies have adapted to the need for digital sovereignty through a range of technical and commercial solutions, the temptation of a maximalist definition of European sovereignty continues to create major stumbling blocks, particularly on the cloud.
Topic:
European Union, Regulation, Cloud Computing, Digital Sovereignty, and Data Governance
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

20. Industrial policy for electric vehicle supply chains and the US-EU fight over the Inflation Reduction Act

Author:
Chad P. Bown
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 provoked a transatlantic trade spat. After the law was passed, the Biden administration addressed some of the concerns raised by the European Union by writing controversial rules to implement the legislation. These regulations are expected to have complex effects that, in some instances, may offset the intended impact of other provisions in the original legislation. This paper examines how the law, its implementing regulations, policy decisions on leasing, as well as potential critical minerals agreements all have the potential to affect the electric vehicle (EV) supply chain. The EV case study showcases the political-economic complications involved in US and EU attempts to cooperate over clean energy transition policy to address the global externality of carbon dioxide emissions. EVs are but one example of the challenge facing partners with integrated supply chains and similar levels of economic development that share concerns about climate change, rising inequality, workers, other social issues, and democracy itself. The EV conflict laid bare the differing US and EU prioritization of these issues relative to economic efficiency, World Trade Organization rules, the approach to nonmarket economies, and national security vulnerabilities that arise from depending on an authoritarian regime such as China for import sourcing of critical inputs.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, International Trade and Finance, European Union, Supply Chains, and Electric Vehicles
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America