Search

Begin New Search Topic Innovation Political Geography United States of America

51. The challenge to US hegemony and the “Gilpin Dilemma”

Author:
Giorgio Romano Schutte
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI)
Institution:
Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (IBRI)
Abstract:
This article makes a comparison between the challenges faced by the US to maintain its hegemonic position at the end of the 1970s and in the 2010s. To do so we review Robert Gilpin’s writing during the first period. He suggested the US had three options: 1) a defensive protectionist reaction 2) fragmentation of the international system 3) a new wave of innovation, (“rejuvenation”). It is argued that the Reagan administration was able to establish support for the third option. We argue the US is now faced with the same dilemma again, but with a different kind of challenger: China.
Topic:
Foreign Direct Investment, Hegemony, Conflict, and Innovation
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

52. Coordination Failure: Risks of US-China competition in space

Author:
Gidon Gautel
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
The 2020s will see a flurry of space activity, with both national and commercial programs picking up pace. Both the United States and China hold strong ambitions in telecommunications, lunar exploration, and beyond. However, currently fraught relations between the superpowers are unlikely to improve and may yet deteriorate further. On the one hand, competition between both countries may drive space activities and foster technological innovation. On the other, as both superpowers expand their activities in space, geopolitical tensions may increase the risk of harmful dynamics that could endanger the sustainable rollout of future programs. In this Strategic Update, Gidon Gautel seeks to outline and call attention to two high-risk flash points arising from the development of the US and China’s national space programmes and industries.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Space, Innovation, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

53. Time for a New National Innovation System for Security and Prosperity

Author:
Robert D. Atkinson
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
In his 1989 classic The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Paul Kennedy wrote, “To be a Great Power—by definition, a state capable of holding its own against any other nation—demands a flourishing economic base.” Kennedy should have added, “an economic (and technology) base that is flourishing more than its competitors.” If that is the sine qua non of being a great power, the United States faces significant challenges and is at risk of losing its 75-year great power status. If the United States is to stay ahead of China militarily and technologically, it will need to essentially put in place a new national innovation (and production) system, because the current one suffers from serious shortcomings. After World War II, the United States created the world’s best innovation system (for example, the rules, incentives, funding, institutions, and relationships that support innovation and production). Once we won the cold war, U.S. leaders let it languish and shrink, while in turn embracing market fundamentalism (a belief that government should play a minimal role in supporting innovation) as the overarching economic policy doctrine that limits American freedom of movement to this day. Now facing a multi-decade great power conflict with China, it is time for the establishment of a revised and renewed U.S. national innovation system.1
Topic:
Security, National Security, Innovation, and Prosperity
Political Geography:
China, Global Focus, and United States of America

54. U.S.-China Technological Rivalry and Its Implications for Korea

Author:
Wonho Yeon
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
Recent developments in advanced technology are changing the concept of hegemonic competition. The key feature of technologies in the 4th Industrial Revolution is dual-use. Emerging technologies such as 5G, AI, big data, robotics, aerospace, supercomputers, and quantum computer-related technologies can be used for both civilian and military purposes. The more you invest in the development of advanced technologies, the closer you will be to economic and military hegemony. Therefore, it is no wonder that the U.S. harbors great concerns facing the rise of China in these advanced technologies. To estimate and compare the innovation productivity of the U.S. and that of China, this study constructs a structural estimation model in which each country produces international patents using R&D expenditures and R&D researchers. Empirical results have presented novel findings indicating that China’s innovation productivity has surpassed that of the U.S. since 2015. At the same time we can observe that the U.S. has the world’s largest intellectual property surplus and keeps expanding it, while China’s intellectual property deficit has been growing every year. Given the two contradictory facts - China’s high innovation productivity and low intellectual property balance - we can conclude that China is strong at “innovation” but weak at “invention.” Knowing this, the U.S. eventually began to target this vulnerability. This is the U.S.’ Tech-Decoupling strategy. To achieve U.S.-China tech decoupling, the U.S. has been strengthening trade and investment sanctions against China. In specific, the U.S. has been utilizing the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), Section 889 of the 2019 National Defense Authority Act, and the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). In return, China is responding to the U.S. sanctions with the new “Long March” strategy rather than a tit-for-tat strategy. In other words, China has been setting long-term aims and responding to the U.S. sanctions by improving institutional arrangements, refining industrial policies, and developing its own technologies such as “Dual-circulation strategy” and “New Infrastructure Plan.” Ironically, increasing pressure from the U.S. is expected to further strengthen China’s R&D capabilities in advanced technology and accelerate its competitiveness in emerging industries. With the onset of the 4th Industrial Revolution, China is rapidly closing the quality gap and technology gap in major industries where Korea has a comparative advantage. If Korea does not adequately respond to changes, it may be difficult to maintain a comparative advantage over China. Thus, now that U.S.-China tensions are intensifying, Korea is facing a pivotal moment in determining the future path of its economy.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Sanctions, Investment, Innovation, Trade, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, Korea, and United States of America

55. The U.S. Economy in a Polycentric World: Prospects for Preserving Its Position

Author:
V. Supyan
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
THE U.S., as a leader in innovation, is among the top-ranked countries in the world, according to key indicators for both economic development and global economic relations. For years, even decades, there was no doubt about the economic and geopolitical leadership of the U.S. However, in spite of remaining a leader in key economic areas, the U.S. is no longer so indisputably dominant in all respects, as the 21st century world is becoming increasingly polycentric.
Topic:
Hegemony, Leadership, Innovation, and Economic Development
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

56. Journal of Advanced Military Studies: Spring 2020

Author:
Donald M. Bishop, Valerie Jackson, Christopher Davis, Evan N. Polisar, Kerry K. Gershaneck, Troy E. Mitchell, James R. R. Van Eerden, Rosario M. Simonetti, Paolo Tripodi, David E. McCullin, Christopher Whyte, and Jeannie L. Johnson
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
In 2010, MCU Press published the first issue of this journal, formerly known as Marine Corps University Journal, to serve as the bridge between the military Services and the professional military educators, strategists, and historians within the greater Department of Defense community. During the ensuing years, the press and the journal have evolved to offer innovative and active content that continues to serve as a forum for interdisciplinary discussion of national security and international relations issues and how they impact the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and the U.S. Marine Corps. Now, 10 years later, we see the need to evolve and offer a wider base for those conversations to take place. To celebrate this 10-year anniversary and to reflect the journal’s change in focus over time, the journal has been renamed the Journal of Advanced Military Studies (JAMS) to honor the constant innovation of our content, our authors, and the topics we present to our readers. JAMS will continue to offer readers thematic, biannual issues that encourage and continue the debates happening across Marine Corps University, the Services, and the Department of Defense. It is no coincidence then that this issue of JAMS focuses on innovation and the future of warfare. Each of the articles presented offers the readers a deep dive into a historical, current, or forward-looking perspective on innovation and the military Services. As with any discussion of the military and abstract concepts such as innovation, we must first set the parameters of our discussion. For many readers, the term innovation evokes thoughts of technology, shiny gadgets, and artificial intelligence. While innovation is not necessarily synonymous with technology, it is certainly a challenge to say what in fact it is—a thing, a concept, an action, the people involved, or all of the above. The experts may not agree on what innovation is, but they can agree that it requires change or transformation to be successful. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War compares the nature of warfare to that of water for “just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions.” More contemporary agents of innovation include military theorists such as Earl H. Ellis, John R. Boyd, Michael D. Wyly, and John F. Schmitt. Lieutenant Colonel Earl Ellis’s work on Advanced Base Operations in Micronesia (Operation Plan 712) in 1921 clearly demonstrated his ability to forecast the future needs for amphibious warfare in the Pacific two decades prior to World War II. Though most readers will recognize former Air Force colonel John R. Boyd for his observe-orient-decide-act (OODA) decision-making loop, his more innovative work may well be seen in the energy maneuverability (E-M) theory, a mathematical study of fighter aviation. Then-major Wyly was tasked with reforming the Marine Corps concept of maneuver warfare in the wake of the Vietnam War. The work of Wyly, Boyd, and William S. Lind would serve as the foundation for Warfighting, Marine Corp Doctrinal Publication (MCDP) 1, that was later formally written by then-captain John Schmitt, along with several other doctrinal publications, including Ground Combat Operations, Campaigning, Command and Control, Planning, Expeditionary Operations, and a revision of Warfighting. The articles in this issue of JAMS continue the discussion fostered by these innovative pathfinders. Our introductory section from the Brute Krulak Center for Innovation and Creativity discusses the conception and creation of the center and some of its most innovative programs, including the award-winning Destination Unknown graphic novel and the center’s first essay contest, the U.S. Marine Corps Postmortem, and offers insight from Marine Corps leaders who consider both success and failure as critical measures for the strength of an organization. For example, Lieutenant General Loretta E. Reynolds contemplates how the Corps “must find a way to manage today’s risks while constantly readying ourselves for the emerging challenges of the future fight.”
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Counterinsurgency, Culture, Armed Forces, Authoritarianism, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Geopolitics, History, Surveillance, Think Tanks, Propaganda, Innovation, Armed Conflict, and Game Theory
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Haiti, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

57. Assuring Taiwan’s Innovation Future

Author:
Evan A. Feigenbaum
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Innovation has been a source of comparative advantage for Taiwan historically. It has also been an important basis for U.S. firms, investors, and government to support Taiwan’s development while expanding mutually beneficial linkages. Yet, both Taiwan’s innovation advantage and the prospect of jointly developed, technologically disruptive collaborations face challenges. For one, Taiwan’s technology ecosystem has been hollowed out in recent decades as personal computing (PC), component systems, and mobile device manufacturing moved across the Taiwan Strait to mainland China. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s innovation ecosystem has struggled to foster subsequent generations of startups to replace these losses in electronics manufacturing. Despite a freewheeling startup culture, internationalization has been a persistent challenge for Taiwan-based firms. Technological change and political challenges from Beijing present additional risks to Taiwan’s innovation future. In this context, it is essential that Taiwan get back to basics if it is to assure its innovation advantage. One piece of this will involve taking a hard look at the domestic policy environment in Taiwan to ensure a steady pipeline of next-generation engineering talent. Yet Taiwan also needs to address several structural and policy factors that, over the last decade, have eroded its enviable innovation advantage.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Partnerships, Investment, and Innovation
Political Geography:
Taiwan and United States of America

58. Government as the First Investor in Biopharmaceutical Innovation: Evidence From New Drug Approvals 2010–2019

Author:
Ekaterina Cleary, Matthew J. Jackson, and Fred D. Ledley
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
The discovery and development of new medicines classically involves a linear process of basic biomedical research to uncover potential targets for drug action, followed by applied, or translational, research to identify candidate products and establish their effectiveness and safety. This Working Paper describes the public sector contribution to that process by tracing funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) related to published research on each of the 356 new drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from 2010-2019 as well as research on their 218 biological targets. Specifically, we describe the timelines of clinical development for these products and proxy measures of their importance, including designations as first-inclass or expedited approvals. We model the maturation of basic research on the biological targets for drugs to determine the initiation and established points of this research, and demonstrate that none of the 232 products modelled were approved before this enabling research passed the established point. This body of essential research comprised 2 million publications, of which 409 thousand were supported by 317 thousand Funding Years of NIH Project support totaling $156 billion. Research on the 356 drugs comprised 229 thousand publications, of which 36 thousand were supported by 42 thousand Funding Years of NIH Project support totaling $31 billion. Overall, NIH funding contributed to research associated with every new drug approved from 2010-2019, totaling $187 billion. This funding supported investigator-initiated Research Projects, Cooperative Agreements for government-led research on topics of particular importance, as well as Research Program Projects and Centers and training to support the research infrastructure. This NIH funding also produced 22 thousand patents, which provided marketing exclusivity for 27 (8.6%) of the drugs approved 2010-2019. These data demonstrate the essential role of public sector-funded basic research in drug discovery and development, as well as the scale and character of this funding. It also demonstrates the limited mechanisms available for recognizing the value created by these early investments and ensuring appropriate public returns. This analysis demonstrates the importance of sustained public investment in basic biomedical science as well as the need for policy innovations that fully realize the value of public sector investments in pharmaceutical innovation that ensure that these investments yield meaningful improvements in health.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Research, Public Policy, Innovation, State Funding, Pharmaceuticals, and Funding
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

59. Artificial Intelligence, Technological Warfare and Changes in the World Order: China, USA and Brazil

Author:
Tatiana Rosito, Gabriel de Barros Torres, Ronaldo Lemos, and Yan Li
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Brazilian Center for International Relations (CEBRI)
Abstract:
China is consolidating its leadership position in the development and implementation of global artificial intelligence (AI) and Brazil needs to establish structures that promote domestic science and innovation - including the adoption of 5G - in order to advance from being a great consumer of technology to being a “producer of innovation”. The document points out that the development of AI requires national efforts on different fronts - from data governance to training of human capital, which translates into greater difficulties for emerging countries such as Brazil.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Innovation, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
China, Asia, Brazil, South America, North America, and United States of America

60. Quantum Computing’s Cyber-Threat to National Security

Author:
Steve Grobman
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Quantum computing has the potential to bring tremendous advancements to science, including biology, chemistry, physics, and many other disciplines. The practical application will empower a stronger defense against future pandemics similar to COVID-19, not only in the acceleration of the development of vaccines and treatments, but also in optimizing currently unsolvable logistics problems such as how to deliver and route vaccines. In computer science, the “traveling salesman problem” shows it is impractical to find the optimal shortest path to visit cities once the list grows to even a few dozen. This same challenge in delivering vaccines to rural areas during a pandemic is exactly the type of problem that quantum computing will be well suited to solve.
Topic:
Security, National Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Innovation, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Quantum Computers
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America