Search

Begin New Search Topic Science and Technology Publication Year within 25 Years

801. Rethinking the U.S.-Mexico Border Immigration Enforcement System: A Policy Road Map

Author:
Doris Meissner
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
The immigration enforcement regime at the U.S.-Mexico border offers a vivid example of how existing policies, laws, and resource investments are markedly out of step with new migration realities and future needs. A border enforcement system designed to address the once-dominant flows of single adults from Mexico seeking to enter the United States illegally for work is ill prepared to deal with more complex mixed flows of families and unaccompanied children from Central America, some seeking humanitarian protection, others opportunity. Consistent with its world view of immigration as threat, the Trump administration has responded by shutting down any meaningful access to humanitarian protection and asylum, by invoking a public health authority to expel more than 205,000 arrivals during the COVID-19 pandemic, and by constructing hundreds of miles of border barriers. Yet these strategies cannot succeed over the long term, nor are they consistent with U.S. law and international agreements and principles on protection. In this road map, MPI Senior Fellow and former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner Doris Meissner outlines some of the steps to a more effective approach, one that builds on border management as an enduring function. Rather than a sole focus on thwarting illegal arrivals, successful border management requires cross-agency and cross-governmental collaboration that marries effective border security with fair, humane enforcement. This report is part of MPI’s multiyear Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy initiative, which is generating a big-picture, evidence-driven vision for the role immigration can and should play in America’s future. To learn more about the initiative and read related research, check out the initiative’s home page.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Immigration, Governance, Border Control, Asylum, and Deportation
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

802. At the Starting Gate: The Incoming Biden Administration’s Immigration Plans

Author:
Doris Meissner and Michelle Mittelstadt
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
President-elect Joe Biden pledged during the campaign to reverse some of the most restrictive immigration actions undertaken during Donald Trump’s four years in office, including family separation and a travel ban on nationals from majority-Muslim countries. He also vowed to temporarily halt deportations, reinstate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, increase refugee admissions, and halt construction of the border wall. This policy brief outlines some of the incoming administration’s top immigration priorities and examines challenges and opportunities ahead. Drawing on existing and forthcoming policy ideas from MPI’s Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy initiative, the brief sketches several proposals that could begin to shape a U.S. immigration system that advances the national interest going forward. The near-total shutdown of asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, for example, does not represent a long-term strategy nor is it consistent with longstanding U.S. values. Effective long-term solutions to deal with mixed flows of economic and humanitarian migrants entail processes to provide fair, efficient processing of asylum cases, including by having the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Asylum Division oversee the merits of border asylum cases to completion—an MPI recommendation the Biden campaign embraced. The brief, among other proposals, also recommends the creation of multiagency reception centers near the border for one-stop screening of arrivals and speedy turnover to the relevant agencies.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Infrastructure, Border Control, Employment, COVID-19, and Labor Market
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

803. Digital Inclusion in Mediated Peace Processes: How Technology Can Enhance Participation

Author:
Andreas T. Hirblinger
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
United States Institute of Peace
Abstract:
Inclusion in peace processes is conventionally understood in “offline” terms, such as being physically present at the negotiation table. However, digital technology can support a mediator’s efforts to integrate a broad variety of perspectives, interests, and needs into a peace process. This report explores the current and future practice of digital inclusion, giving a framework for understanding the possibilities and risks, and providing examples of practical ways digital technologies can contribute to mediated peace processes.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Negotiation, Peace, Participation, and Mediation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

804. North Korean Phone Money: Airtime Transfers as a Precursor to Mobile Payment System

Author:
Yonho Kim
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
United States Institute of Peace
Abstract:
More than one in five North Koreans have cell phones, and increasingly rely on them to conduct financial transactions. Many of these transactions involve trading cell phone airtime, or “phone money,” for goods and services, and even for offering bribes. This report examines the potential for airtime trading to evolve into a formal mobile money system, which could enhance market activity and stability while providing opportunities for the country to engage with the international community.
Topic:
Economics, Environment, Science and Technology, and Communications
Political Geography:
Asia and North Korea

805. Cyber War and Cyber Peace: Past and Future Cyber Clashes in the Middle East

Author:
Selena Larson, James Shires, and Thom Langford
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Middle East Institute (MEI)
Abstract:
Although the cyber domain is an emerging field of conflict, it is no longer a new frontier – many battles in cyberspace have been fought and it is imperative they be understood to begin imagining how the future of warfare online may look. As the United States, the Middle East, and policy community globally begin to consider how a Biden administration will approach conflict and cyber conflict in the region, this panel is an opportunity to study the history of cyber warfare in the Middle East as context for the policy challenges that will arise in the next four years. This panel is sponsored by SentinelOne, a cybersecurity solution encompassing AI-powered prevention, detection, response and hunting in a single autonomous platform.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Conflict, Non-Traditional Threats, and Cyberspace
Political Geography:
Middle East and United States of America

806. State-of-Play for Middle East Cybersecurity Leaders

Author:
Ron Peeters, Micah Loudermilk, Chris Kubecka, and Maya Horowitz
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Middle East Institute (MEI)
Abstract:
The cyber threat landscape and economic composition of the Middle East are unique. Operational technology threats are a critical risk in the region, both because of its heavily resource-based economies and its high reliance on electric and water infrastructure. This panel will explore the unique components of the cyber security landscape in the Middle East, and seek to determine the best practices for operational cyber security professionals working in the region. The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to welcome a group of industry experts to discuss cyber security challenges, opportunities, and courses of action facing companies in the Middle East. This panel is sponsored by Synack, a leading cyber security company who combines the world's most skilled and trusted ethical hackers with AI-enabled technology to create a scalable, effective security solution. What is the cyber threat environment like in the Middle East today? What types of threat actors and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) are most common? How does the environment differ from other regions of the world?
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Economy, Artificial Intelligence, and Industry
Political Geography:
Middle East

807. Open RAN: The Technology, its Politics and Europe’s Response

Author:
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama and Florian Forsthuber
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
This policy brief explores the implications of Open RAN concept and its technical and political developments in the mobile network industry. Open RAN is not necessarily a new technology in itself, but represents a combination of existing technologies, e.g. virtualisation, AI, commercial off-the-shelf parts and open interfaces. Its proponents promise more secure networks without ‘high-risk vendors’ but Open RAN could introduce new systemic risks that must be addressed due to its reliance on open source software. While the proponents also promise significantly reduced costs, it is still inconclusive whether Open RAN in itself reduces the total costs of deploying a 5G network. Economic evidence shows that the equipment market is a buyers’ market due to a higher concentration amongst operators. The number of vendors is less critical for prices than the relative power between buyers and sellers. The network equipment market is the only ICT segment where the EU manufacturers are still global leaders. If various industry consortiums call for subsidies, the EU has the commercial policy instruments to countervail against them. Some industry voices suggest that a certain Open RAN specification could replace existing global specifications under 3GPP. However, as today’s market condition is not caused by the 3GPP standardisation, a solution is not to be found through developing alternative technical specifications. 3GPP is also more comprehensive than RAN. Thus, the question is whether Europe should try to sustain one common global umbrella of standards – or see the world balkanise into national or regional standards from 6G and onward. For better or worse, there will be regional fragmentation. The EU industrial policy could be facing a reality where network standards are politicised for commercial reasons – to pave way for an indigenous industry – which is unrelated to national security objectives. Also, EU operators may not react well if Open RAN open the door for cloud services to encroach into the telecom market. In conclusion, Open RAN has a raison d’etre as a promising new concept, even if it does not solve any geopolitical gambits. However, the EU have little to gain from government interventions in the RAN segment, which is just one element of the mobile network market.
Topic:
International Political Economy, Science and Technology, Global Markets, Digital Economy, Industry, and Information Technology
Political Geography:
Europe

808. Europe’s Quest for Technology Sovereignty: Opportunities and Pitfalls

Author:
Fredrik Erixon and Matthias Bauer
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Covid-19 and its broader implications have highlighted the importance of Europe’s digital transformation to ensure Europeans’ social and economic well-being. It provides important new learnings about Europe’s quest for “technology sovereignty”. While the debate about technology sovereignty is timely, the precise meaning of sovereignty or autonomy in the realm of technologies remains ambiguous. It should be noted that the political discussions about European technology sovereignty emerged far before the outbreak of the Coronavirus. The European Commission’s recently updated industrial and digital policy strategies “institutionalised” different notions of sovereignty, reflecting perceptions that more EU action is needed to defend perceived European values and to secure Europe’s industrial competitiveness. Often the political rhetoric reflected perceptions that Europe is losing global economic clout and geopolitical influence. It was said that dependency on technological solutions, often originating abroad, would require a European industrial and regulatory response. Against this background, the Corona crisis provides two important lessons for EU technology policymaking. Firstly, during the crisis digital technologies and solutions made European citizens stronger. Technology kept Europe open for business despite the lock-down by enabling Europeans to work from home, receive essential home deliveries, home schooling, online deliveries and to use online payments, etc. In addition, Europe’s citizens became more sovereign with respect to accessing information and data that helped track and contain the spread of the virus. Secondly, the crisis tested Europe’s resilience and perceived dependency on (foreign) technology solutions. Early developments indicate that Member States’ homemade solutions did not fare better than existing European and international solutions. A few national and EU IT solutions failed while existing European and global solutions, from cloud infrastructure to communications, payments to streaming services, all continued to work well. Politically, however, the crisis could be used to justify more EU or national government interference in Europe’s digital transformation. Indeed, for some the debate about European technology sovereignty is largely about designing prescriptive policies, which paradoxically risk reducing Europeans’ access to the innovative technologies, products and services that helped Europe through the crisis. Policies taken into consideration include new subsidies to politically picked companies, or new rules and obligations for certain online business models. Policy-makers advocating for such policies tend to ignore critical insights from the Covid-19 crisis and failed industrial policy initiatives, including sunk public investments and protracted subsidies for industrial laggards. In a time of economic hardship, the EU and national governments should be wary of spending even more taxpayer money to replicate existing world-class technology solutions, that in most cases are used in combination with local technologies, with “Made in EU” services of inferior quality and reliability. Moreover, due to different levels of economic development and differences in regulatory cultures, prescriptive technology policies would exclude many Member States from utilising existing and new opportunities that arise from digitalisation, slowing down economic renewal and convergence. The EU cannot be considered a monolithic block that thrives on a unique set of prescriptive technology policies. Before the Corona pandemic, initiatives towards European technology sovereignty were mainly pushed by France and Germany, fed by concerns over their companies’ industrial strength in times of growing economic and geopolitical competition. Industrial and technology policies favoured by the EU’s two largest countries will have a disproportionately negative impact on Europe’s smaller open economies, whose companies and citizens could be deprived from cutting-edge technologies, new economic opportunities and partnerships on global markets, undermining these economies’ development and international competitiveness. Any EU-imposed technology protectionism along the lines suggested by some policy-makers in large EU Member States would leave the entire EU worse off. It would disproportionately hurt countries in Europe’s northern, eastern and southern countries more than the large countries whose economies are generally more diverse than Europe’s smaller Member States. It would, however, make sense for the EU to agree on a shared definition of “technology sovereignty”. Different interpretations could cause serious policy inconsistencies, undermining the effectiveness of EU and national economic policies. Anchored in technological openness, technology sovereignty can indeed be a useful ambition to let Europe’s highly diverse economies leapfrog by using existing technologies. To become more sovereign in a global economy, Europeans need to focus on becoming global leaders in economic innovation – not just in regulation. If anchored in mercantilist or protectionist ideas, technological sovereignty would make it harder for many Member States to access modern technologies, adopt new business models and attract foreign investment – with adverse implications on future global competitiveness, economic renewal and economic convergence. Policymaking towards a European technology sovereignty that benefits the greatest number of Europeans – not just a few politically selected “winners” – should aim for a regulatory environment in which technology companies and technology adopters can thrive across EU Member States’ national borders. The European Single Market has deteriorated in recent years and significantly during the crisis. The new von der Leyen Commission has now repeatedly called for a strengthening of the Single Market. Becoming a world leader in innovation requires a real Single Market in which companies can scale up, with as few hurdles as possible, and then compete globally. It should be supplemented by pro-competitive policies and incentives for research and investment. Brussels cannot set the global standards in technology policymaking alone. Europe’s policy-makers should aim for closer market integration and regulatory cooperation with trustworthy international partners such as the G7 or the larger group of the OECD countries. It is in the EU’s self-interest to advocate for a rules-based international order with open markets. International cooperation should be extended beyond trade to include cooperation on technology policies, e.g. artificial intelligence. Regulatory cooperation with allies such as the USA is essential to jointly set global standards that are based on shared values. Both the EU and the US have much more to gain if they prioritise such alignment, to advance a shared vision for a revamped open international trading system, in a world increasingly influenced by regimes with fundamentally different views on state intervention and human rights. Anchored in technological openness, the EU and the US can promote technology sovereignty that allows for development and renewal elsewhere in the world.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, International Political Economy, Science and Technology, Sovereignty, European Union, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and Global Focus

809. Don’t Throw Caution to the Wind: In the Green Energy Transition, Not All Critical Minerals Will Be Goldmines

Author:
Perrine Toledano, Martin Dietrich Brauch, Solina Kennedy, and Howard Mann
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Abstract:
he green energy transition will be exceedingly mineral intensive. Manufacturing solar panels, wind turbine and batteries to power cleaner energies is set to significantly increase the demand for co-called “critical” minerals. Such a forecast prompts high expectations in mineral-rich countries and suggests promising opportunities for developing countries. However, the projects to increase the primary extraction of critical minerals rest on bullish forecasts and uncertain terrain due to a number of factors explored in the paper that threaten to leave these investments obsolete and economically stranded.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Green Technology, Sustainability, and Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

810. Best Practices in Data Driven Development Planning in Mining Regions

Author:
Nicolas Maennling and Josefina Correa
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Abstract:
Strategic development planning has long been used by private and public sectors to guide actions that will lead to a determined goal in the medium- to long-term. The SDG framework has helped to create a common language of what development means, what the global objectives are by 2030, and how progress can be measured. With the world entering an era in which data is generated and used at an unprecedented scale, data and ICT systems should be used to better inform policy decision making and help evaluate progress to hold stakeholders accountable to their promises and performances. This report outlines how two mining projects in Chile are using planning and monitoring tools to advance development objectives beyond the mining-impacted areas. Several additional examples are showcased in the annex on how governments, companies, and civil society are using improved data accessibility and technological advances to help achieve and monitor their objectives.
Topic:
Development, Science and Technology, Sustainable Development Goals, and Mining
Political Geography:
South America and Chile