Search

Begin New Search Topic Science and Technology Publication Year within 3 Years

21. EU Export of Regulatory Overreach: The Case of the Digital Markets Act (DMA)

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Dyuti Pandya, and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) exemplifies the “Brussels Effect,” extending the EU’s regulatory influence beyond its borders and shaping global digital competition policies. While intended to curb the market power of large technology platforms and promote fair competition, its broad, rigid, and pre-emptive approach risks stifling technological development, deterring investment, and creating legal uncertainty, particularly in emerging markets still building digital infrastructure and seeking to attract foreign investment. Large technology firms play a pivotal role in global economic development, driving innovation, infrastructure upgrading, and consumer welfare. However, increasing regulatory scrutiny, particularly under DMA-like frameworks, could inadvertently harm the very markets they help grow by imposing compliance burdens that hinder business expansion and technology diffusion. Countries with weaker institutions and regulatory capacity – such as India, Brazil, South Africa, and other emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) like Indonesia – could face greater risks of regulatory capture, corruption, and enforcement challenges if they replicate the EU’s approach without adapting it to their economic realities (Section 2). A key concern with the DMA is the departure from traditional case-by-case enforcement in competition policy, instead relying on broad, pre-emptive obligations based on ambiguous concepts such as fairness and contestability. This shift reduces legal certainty, increases the risk of inconsistent enforcement, and may inhibit dynamic competition, which is essential for innovation-driven sectors like fintech, e-commerce, ICT, and edtech. By prioritising static over dynamic competition, the DMA could impede technological progress, limiting consumer choice and long-term economic benefits (Section 3). The global adoption of DMA-like regulations risks further regulatory fragmentation and may create unintended consequences, particularly in emerging economies where regulatory frameworks, institutional quality, and market structures differ significantly from the EU. Broad prohibitions on business practices, such as self-preferencing and data-sharing, could limit opportunities for local firms to scale internationally, weaken cybersecurity protections, and reduce incentives for large technology firms to invest in these regions (Section 4). To ensure proportionate and effective competition enforcement, governments outside the EU should prioritise regulatory flexibility and case-by-case assessments over broad, static restrictions. OECD best practices on competition policy emphasise clear objectives, legal certainty, and regulatory proportionality, ensuring that competition enforcement supports, rather than stifles, innovation and investment (Section 5). Moreover, the risks of corruption and regulatory overreach in developing countries make broad ex-ante regulations especially problematic. Excessive discretionary power granted to local authorities could increase the risk of politically motivated enforcement, deter foreign investment, and undermine long-term economic growth. A more effective approach would be to strengthen institutional frameworks, enhance transparency, and adopt supply-side policies that support technology neutrality, free trade, and economic freedom.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Regulation, Digital Markets Act (DMA), and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

22. Radical novelties in critical technologies and spillovers: how do China, the US and the EU fare?

Author:
Alicia Garcia-Herrero, Michal Krystyanczuk, and Robin Schindowski
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Critical technologies including artificial intelligence, semiconductors and quantum computing are attracting attention because of their indispensable nature and their role in national security strategies. We compare China, the United States and the European Union in these technologies and their subfields. We use large language models (LLMs) to identify which patents in these technologies can be considered most groundbreaking (not patented before) and worth replicating. These are ‘radical novelties.’ We find that the US clearly dominates quantum. Chinese and EU progress is similar. The US does slightly better than China in AI with clear dominance in generative AI, but China stands out in some important subfields, such as aerial vehicle technology. China dominates in a larger number of semiconductor fields but not in the highest value added, which is related to design. In a second step we assess how quickly radical novelties in these three technologies are transferred from one economic area to another and within each economic area. We find that the fastest transmission overall is for AI. The EU is by far the slowest in replicating radical novelties from the US and China, while the US and China tend to replicate European novel patents relatively quickly. Radical novelties are also replicated quickly between China and the US which is surprising given US controls on exports of critical technologies to China. Our findings are concerning for Europe because it does not produce enough critical patents in these technologies and because it is slower in replicating patents from the US and China.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Economy, Trade, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

23. Which companies are ahead in frontier innovation on critical technologies? Comparing China, the European Union and the United States

Author:
Alicia Garcia-Herrero, Michal Krystyanczuk, and Robin Schindowski
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Competition in critical technologies is attracting increasing attention not only because of the foundational nature of these technologies for other types of innovation, but also because of their role in the United States national security strategy. In this paper, we look into which entities in China, the European Union and the US innovate at the technology frontier in the three most important critical technologies – artificial intelligence, quantum computing and semiconductors – based on identification of the most radical novel patents in these technologies and their subsectors. Working with these pathbreaking patents, we look into the origin of the companies that file the largest numbers of them. US innovators dominate the innovation frontier for quantum computing and, to a lesser extent, AI, with Chinese innovators doing better in semiconductors. European innovators lag in all, but perform relatively better in quantum computing, in which they rank similarly to Chinese innovators. Furthermore, the innovation ecosystem is quite different across geographies. In the US, tech companies top the rankings of critical novelties and are highly concentrated: as many as three companies are in the top rankings of all of the three critical technologies. Frontier innovators in the field in which the EU competes most equally – quantum – are mostly research centres and not companies. China lies somewhat in between in all three domains.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Innovation, Artificial Intelligence, Semiconductors, and Quantum Computing
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America

24. Reinforcing EU merger control against the risks of acquisitions by big tech

Author:
Mario Mariniello
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Since 2000, online platforms that are now within the scope of the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), have bought nearly 700 small, promising companies worldwide. However, only 19 of their attempted acquisitions were notified to the European Commission, the authority exercising merger control over deals with a substantive EU connection. In the other cases, the acquired target’s turnover did not meet the conditions for merger notification. These acquisitions have happened in the context of digital markets becoming increasingly concentrated, leading to speculation that concentration levels might have been lower had some of those acquisitions not taken place. The harm that the concentration of market power in a handful of American digital companies may cause is magnified by the current position of the United States, which aims to shield platforms from regulatory enforcement. Acquisitions of small companies may have pro- or anti-competitive effects. Established market players may buy startups to become more competitive or to supply a higher quality product or service, ultimately benefitting final users. Mergers may also incentivise innovation and attract venture capital. However, incumbents might also acquire small companies with strategic, anti-competitive objectives. They might want to stop challengers to their market power from emerging in the future. Or they might acquire small companies to prevent competitors from relying on the target’s supply to complement their competing products. Moreover, competition authorities struggle to make accurate predictions about the evolution of competitive dynamics in new and complex markets, such as digital markets. Authorities thus may be unable to take the correct decision, even if the merger is notified. Responding to these issues hinges on amending the DMA. The European Commission should be empowered to scrutinise any acquisition performed by the large platforms within the DMA scope (currently, the DMA requires these platforms to inform the Commission of any intended concentration, but envisages no other action). Moreover, the burden of proving that the merger is not harmful should be shifted to the large platforms. This would leverage market players’ knowledge to help increase the accuracy of merger decisions in a highly dynamic and uncertain environment.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Microeconomics, Big Tech, European Commission, and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

25. How DeepSeek has changed artificial intelligence and what it means for Europe

Author:
Bertin Martens
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
By mid-2024, artificial intelligence large language models (LLMs) were running into diminishing returns to scale in training data and computational capacity. LLM training began to shift away from costly pre-training to cheaper fine-tuning and allowing LLMs to ‘reason’ for longer before replying to questions. Fine-tuning uses chain-of-thought (CoT) training data that includes questions and the logical steps to reach correct answers. This increases the efficiency of learning for smaller AI models, such as DeepSeek. CoT data can be extracted from large ‘teacher’ LLMs to train small ‘student’ models. These changes shift the cost structure of AI models from high pre-training costs to lower fine-tuning costs for model developers and more inference costs for users. While smaller models are cheaper to use, a positive AI demand effect is likely to exceed the negative price effect. Price competition between models will increase, resulting in tighter margins for AI firms. Specialised models can still fetch premium prices. Cheaper LLMs are an opportunity for European Union companies to catch up in building smaller AI models and applications on top of LLMs. Increased demand for AI services will require more investment in computing infrastructure, including in the EU. Investing in large LLMs and the corresponding hyperscale infrastructure is riskier, especially as price competition between models increases. Knowledge extraction between AI models puts pressure on model developers to protect their investments against free-riding by others. It also creates a dilemma for policymakers: should they favour free-riding to promote competition and innovation, or should they clamp down and reinforce monopoly rents to stimulate investment in AI models? Past policy will not be an appropriate response in a world that offers vastly expanded opportunities for knowledge pooling and innovation at lower cost.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Economic Policy, Microeconomics, Innovation, Artificial Intelligence, Large Language Models (LLMs), and DeepSeek
Political Geography:
Europe

26. The Future of Work(ers) in the Age of Technological Revolution

Author:
Andrés César
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Distributive, Labor and Social Studies (CEDLAS)
Abstract:
This chapter reviews key literature on the determinants and implications of technological change associated with the Third and Fourth Industrial Revolutions, which have spread globally since the late 20th century, and presents descriptive evidence. The main conclusion is that while technological progress has not significantly threatened overall employment opportunities, it has clearly contributed to rising income inequality. Consequently, a future devoid of employment is not anticipated, although the prospects for equality remain uncertain. I argue that to maximize the benefits of technological advancement, education must evolve in tandem with technology, equipping individuals to work alongside new innovations throughout their lives. This would enable workers to fully leverage automation of routine tasks and augmentation of abstract and cognitive tasks, fostering teamwork, problem-solving, flexibility, creativity, and social intelligence. Furthermore, productivity growth driven by technological progress is likely to increase demand for both traditional and new goods and services, generate income gains that increase demand for quality, accelerate structural change, and exert pressure on resource utilization.
Topic:
Education, Science and Technology, Income Distribution, Jobs, Technological Revolution, and Resource Utilization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

27. Transatlantic Cooperation on Semiconductors: A US Perspective

Author:
Julia Tréhu
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
Semiconductors are essential for the global economy, but recent supply chain disruptions and geopolitical tensions have highlighted new risks, leading to new policy approaches. US semiconductor strategy centres around three objectives. First, the funding provided through the CHIPS and Science Act is part of a larger push to strengthen domestic industry and manufacturing. Second, the US seeks to deny strategic adversaries of key technology through export controls. And third, it aims to secure the supply chains for critical technologies. The European and American semiconductor sectors are already tightly intertwined, and further coordination has occurred through forums like the Trade and Technology Council. But challenges remain, including the risk of a subsidy race. Further transatlantic cooperation on key aspects of these new industrial policies can ensure the realisation of shared objectives for a more resilient semiconductor sector.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Economic Policy, Transatlantic Relations, Industry, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

28. Chips: EU’s Ambition in a Transatlantic Technology Bridge

Author:
Nicola Bilotta
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
Semiconductors are vital building blocks of digital technologies. In line with its aspiration for strategic autonomy, the EU has recognised vulnerabilities in its chip supply chain, which heavily relies on foreign firms. The intricate relationship between economic security and open trade underlies the EU’s quest to bolster its domestic capacity while enhancing connections with key global partners. Despite the challenges of finding a policy balance, fostering transatlantic cooperation in the semiconductor domains remains a key ambition. To cultivate a more balanced and effective partnership with the US, the EU should capitalise on its comparative advantages to amplify and fortify its strategic positioning in the global supply chain.
Topic:
International Political Economy, Science and Technology, Governance, European Union, Transatlantic Relations, and Industry
Political Geography:
Europe

29. Leaving No One Behind: Inclusive Fintech for Remittances

Author:
Ravenna Shost
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Remittances are an important source of support for migrants’ families, communities, and origin countries. However, the remittance industry has long been dominated by a few players whose services have high transaction costs, blunting the development benefits of these money transfers. By easing access to financial services, mainly via mobile phones, some countries and development actors hope that financial technology (or fintech) will change this status quo. Many believe that such technologies—namely mobile money and cryptocurrencies—hold the potential to boost migrants’ inclusion in financial systems and enhance the development benefits of remittances. Yet, many obstacles remain to widening these digital tools’ reach and usability, and safeguards are needed to protect users against new risks. This report explores the growing use of digital financial services for international remittances, including changes during the pandemic and a look at gendered aspects of these technologies’ impacts. The analysis draws, in part, on insights from expert interviews as well as focus groups conducted in Nigeria and Sri Lanka with users and nonusers of digital remittance services. The report results from a multiyear research partnership between MPI and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation’s Thematic Section Migration and Forced Displacement to support the development of global solutions for migration-related challenges.
Topic:
Development, Migration, Science and Technology, Finance, and Remittances
Political Geography:
Global Focus

30. Emerging Technologies and Terrorism: An American Perspective

Author:
Susan Sim, Eric Hartunian, and Paul J. Milas
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
In a world where technology is rapidly advancing and available to the masses, companies and policymakers face a daunting reality—non-state actors are using innovation for sinister purposes. While artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous systems promise enhanced threat detection, terrorist groups are exploiting these tools for recruitment and attacks. The future is concerning as AI becomes more widespread and autonomous systems and augmented reality redefine society. A groundbreaking report is born from a collaboration between NATO COE-DAT and the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. This book unveils a grim forecast that terrorists are poised to exploit advances in artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, augmented reality, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. The line between reality and fiction blurs in the age of rapid technological evolution, urging governments, industries, and academia to unite in crafting ethical frameworks and regulations. As geopolitical tides shift, NATO stresses national responsibility in combating terrorism and advocating for collective strength against the looming specter of technology-driven threats. However, questions linger. Can regulatory frameworks keep pace with technological innovation? Will industry prioritize ethical considerations over profit margins?
Topic:
Agriculture, Science and Technology, Terrorism, Biosecurity, Artificial Intelligence, Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, and Nanoweaponry
Political Geography:
Global Focus