Search

Begin New Search Topic Innovation Political Geography United States of America

41. Platform mergers and antitrust

Author:
Geoffrey Parker, Georgios Petropoulos, and Marshall Van Alstyne
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Platform ecosystems rely on economies of scale, data-driven economies of scope, high quality algorithmic systems, and strong network effects that frequently promote winner-takes-most markets. Some platform firms have grown rapidly and their merger and acquisition strategies have been very important factors in their growth. Big platforms’ market dominance has generated competition concerns that are difficult to assess with current merger policy tools. We examine the acquisition strategies of the five major US firms—Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft—since their inception. We discuss the main merger and acquisition theories of harm that can restrict market competition and reduce consumer welfare. To address competition concerns about acquisitions in big platform ecosystems we develop a four step proposal that incorporates: (1) a new ex-ante regulatory framework, (2) an update of the conditions under which the notification of mergers should be compulsory and the burden of proof should be reversed, (3) differential regulatory priorities in investigating horizontal versus vertical acquisitions, and (4) an update of competition enforcement tools to increase visibility into market data and trends.
Topic:
Markets, Digital Economy, Internet, Economy, and Innovation
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

42. Powering Innovation: A Strategic Approach to America’s Advanced Battery Technology

Author:
Nadia Schadlow, Arthur Herman, and Brayden Helwig
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
Changing consumer preferences and government policies point toward widespread future adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). Advanced lithium batteries are the primary power source for EVs. Unfortunately, China dominates today’s battery supply chain, from the extraction and processing of critical minerals like lithium to the production, packaging, and recycling of battery cells. In today’s era of great power competition, control of the supply chains for advanced technologies such as lithium batteries will have a direct impact on national power. Advanced battery technology will go a long way toward determining economic leadership in the EV market. The automobile industry is one of America’s largest manufacturing sectors and accounts for some 3% of US GDP. But EVs and advanced batteries also have important military applications. EVs will function as mobile energy nodes on the battlefield, providing power for unmanned systems, communication links, electromagnetic warfare systems and more. These capabilities will help the US military conduct more decentralized operations in contested regions.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Innovation, and Batteries
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

43. Will the Biden Administration Support Global US Leadership in the Innovative Medicines Industry?

Author:
Thomas J. Duesterberg
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
Given the historically unprecedented speed with which the US pharmaceutical industry has developed COVID-19 vaccines—3 of the 4 first products likely to be approved for marketing are almost certainly from US firms—it would seem appropriate for a renewed sense of confidence, support and even acclaim for the economic model that lies behind this success. Instead, the sector remains under pressure to lower prices and protections for its patented products, both in the United States and globally. It is worth noting that the entire world benefits from the new medical advances in treating the worst pandemic in at least 50 years. Instead, President Trump has continued to criticize the industry for its pricing model for newly developed drugs, while countries such as India, Pakistan, and Brazil call for breaching of the patent shield for the new vaccines (and recent treatments such as those for HIV and Hepatitis C), and developed countries in Europe, East Asia, as well as Canada, persist in questioning the medical value of the new medicines to their citizens.1 To add to the current uncertainty about US leadership, there is ever-increasing competition from China in terms of basic science and pharmaceutical products. The Chinese national goal of self-sufficiency in these two fields has resulted in a huge increase in research and development funding and purchases of leading biotechnology firms in the United States and Europe. At the same time, China’s global market share in generic drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) is steadily growing. Chinese government funding for research in these fields has grown by 20 percent annually since 2008. The incoming Biden administration is calling for new pricing models and the use of compulsory licensing for some new products, especially those related to the new virus pandemics. Compulsory licensing allows a government to license entities other than the patent holder to produce and sell patented products without the patent holder’s permission. If the economic and scientific model which promotes constant advances in medicines and new treatments is to survive, the current domestic ecosystem for research and development ought to be strengthened, instead of being undermined by reducing private sector incentives and weakening the protection of intellectual property (IP). Additionally, ways to address the problem with other countries enjoying a “free ride” at the expense of US consumers and public health systems, need to be considered.
Topic:
Health Care Policy, Manufacturing, Innovation, Vaccine, COVID-19, Medicine, and Pharmaceuticals
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

44. Directions of Innovation Policy: Contrasting Views of China and the US

Author:
Anna Jaguaribe and Kamila Aben Athar
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Brazilian Center for International Relations (CEBRI)
Abstract:
At the 24th China Analysis Group Meeting, experts analyzed the contrasting views of innovation policies in China and in the United States. The 14th five-year plan continues most of the economic efforts that characterized the last decade while also challenging some certain well-established elements. Internet development is still the dominant focus, but we can also observe the shift towards a service-based economy and high investment in infrastructure. According to the participants, one of the most relevant differences between the US and China is the way non-state actors are connected to the national government. American innovation efforts heavily feature research groups and private corporations having an active role, while in China the government puts up barriers that distort the market and influence it more directly. The tension between the two countries is stronger than ever and the new Biden administration brings a new set of uncertainties to the table, but at the same time, both China and the US are heavily dependent on each other economically. China’s efforts to expand its influence worldwide by negotiating with multiple countries will most likely exacerbate the conflict and talks regarding a decoupling, which currently seems unlikable.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Markets, Infrastructure, and Innovation
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

45. Enabling US Government Participation in Pull Mechanisms for Social Impact Innovation: A Survey of Federal Authorities, Budgetary Barriers, and Potential Solutions

Author:
Steven Kosiak and Rachel Silverman
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
United States government support for scientific and technological research and development (R&D)—across sectors including but not limited to energy, agriculture, and health—has the potential to save lives, reduce global poverty, and help address the most pressing global challenges. Traditionally, the US government has funded most R&D via grants and contracts (“push” funding), directly subsidizing and defraying the up-front R&D costs. An alternative approach—“pull” funding—would use the promise of future sales and/or other revenue to indirectly justify up-front expenditures in R&D, thereby “pulling” innovations to market. Despite several theoretical and practical advantages of “pull” funding, US government use of this approach has thus far been limited, in part due to regulatory and legal barriers. Yet across the entirety of the US government, there are nonetheless creative and interesting approaches to support innovation which include pull elements. To help the US government make broader use of pull approaches, this policy paper surveys the ways in which US government authorities, budgetary rules, and procurement approaches either facilitate or constrain use of pull mechanisms to support R&D. It specifically focused on the budgetary “scoring” issues that can affect, and sometimes hinder, the use of such mechanisms. It concludes with a discussion of potential legislative changes and workarounds to budgetary scoring challenges that might facilitate expanded use of these mechanisms.
Topic:
Governance, Budget, Innovation, and Research and Development
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

46. The US Strategy for Short-Term Military Artificial Intelligence Development (2020-2030)

Author:
Daniel Barreiros and Italo Barreto Poty
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
This article analyses the US Department of Defense initiative formalized in the Summary of the 2018 Department of Defense Artificial Intelligence Strategy. The conclusion is that the US emphasis on the use of artificial intelligence to expand C4ISR capabilities (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance) and the denunciation of “ethical risks’’ involving Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) are narrative strategies aimed at dealing in the short term with the inability of the US technology agencies to master autonomous military platform technologies and with the Russian resolve on the development of these lethal autonomous military platforms.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Development, Military Strategy, Innovation, Artificial Intelligence, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

47. Enhancing US-Japan cooperation on global supply chains

Author:
Miyeon Oh and James Hildebrand
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Mounting US-China tensions and the COVID-19 pandemic have led to growing calls in the United States and among its allies and partners, including Japan, to address the vulnerabilities in global supply chains critical to national security and economic competitiveness. Strategic uncertainty has led stakeholders to pose the following questions. What role should government play, and to what extent can, or should, governments require firms to operate more in line with national security interests? How can firms manage short-term and long-term risks to balance national security requirements and commercial interests? How should trusted partners be defined, and what is a desirable allied and multilateral approach to enhancing security and resilience of global high-tech supply chains? With new administrations in both the United States and Japan, the two countries have an opportunity to consider these questions and rethink coordination of their efforts to establish secure and resilient supply chains. This issue brief analyzes recent developments in US and Japanese supply-chain policy, explores the importance of closer coordination through case studies of the semiconductor and rare-earth minerals industries, and provides a set of recommendations for the Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Yoshihide Suga administrations to enhance US-Japan cooperation in the years ahead. These recommendations include actions to operationalize the April 2021 US-Japan Joint Leaders’ Statement by creating a bilateral interagency Supply Chain Steering Committee that includes sector-specific working groups to enhance public-private-partnerships in high-technology industries, and by expanding bilateral supply-chain cooperation into multilateral efforts through flexible and informal frameworks.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Bilateral Relations, Economy, Innovation, Trade, Defense Industry, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

48. Why the U.S. Should Prioritize Security in Its 5G Roll Out

Author:
James Lee
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
5G technology promises to transform practically every sphere of life, from smartphones and self-driving cars, to remote surgery and virtual reality. Policies related to the rollout of 5G in the United States have tended to focus on mitigating security risks, but does protecting security come at the cost of expanding U.S. global influence—or does it simply cost too much? This policy brief by IGCC postdoctoral research associate James Lee analyzes the three main criteria for deciding what a “good” 5G policy should look like—security, global influence, and efficiency— and recommends that the United States’ 5G strategy prioritize security first, influence second, and efficiency third.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Science and Technology, International Security, Innovation, Strategic Competition, 5G, and Power
Political Geography:
China, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

49. A Crucial Link: Using Intellectual Property to Inform Global Supply Chain Policy

Author:
Philip C. Rogers
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with trade tensions and technological competition between the United States and China, have severely disrupted global supply chains. As businesses and policymakers grapple with “building back better” in a tense trade environment, they face the dilemma of balancing the traditional benefits of global production with the security demands of new geopolitical realities. This policy brief, part of a series on great power competition, highlights the productive role that intellectual property (IP) can play in navigating supply chain disruptions resulting from great power competition in a post-pandemic world. Rather than reinforcing the vicious cycle of techno-nationalist confrontation, it is possible for businesses and policymakers to promote virtuous cycles of competition with a more robust focus on intellectual property. Specifically, businesses and policymakers can look to IP licensing and allocation of rights to play a key role in tariff mitigation strategies and supply chain restructuring. At the same time, competitive pressures can lead to enhanced IP regimes in China and other economies, which argues for a more nuanced discussion of supply chains beyond physical relocation and economic decoupling.
Topic:
National Security, Intellectual Property/Copyright, Innovation, Strategic Competition, COVID-19, Supply Chains, and Geoeconomics
Political Geography:
China, Global Focus, and United States of America

50. Getting Schooled: The Role of Universities in Attracting Immigrant Entrepreneurs

Author:
Natee Amornsiripanitch, Paul A. Gompers, George Hu, and Kaushik Vasudevan
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Immigrants play a vital role in innovation activities and entrepreneurship. Given the substantial contribution of immigrants in these areas, a set of natural questions arise: What are the pathways that high‐​skilled immigrants take to arrive in the United States, and how has the importance of these pathways changed over time? What are important institutions that serve as gatekeepers for high‐​skilled immigrants, and do they affect the types of immigrant founders that come to the United States? Do certain parts of the United States benefit disproportionately from high‐​skilled immigration, and if so, what are some factors that contribute to these benefits? The answers to these questions have important implications for designing immigration policy and regulation, which have become increasingly acrimonious topics in public discourse. They also have important implications for firms and universities that recruit talent from abroad and for the communities that hope to promote vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Topic:
Entrepreneurship, Immigrants, Innovation, Higher Education, and Startup
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America