« Previous |
1 - 10 of 274
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Biopower: Securing American Leadership in Biotechnology
- Author:
- Vivek Chilukuri and Hannah Kelley
- Publication Date:
- 01-2025
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
- Abstract:
- The biorevolution is upon us. Converging breakthroughs in biological sequencing, engineering biology, and machine learning are ushering in an almost science fiction–like world in which humans can manipulate and even design the building blocks of life with increasing sophistication—for good or ill. In this world, cutting-edge biotechnologies will create organs, capture carbon emissions, restore polluted environments, tailor medicines to a person’s genes, and replace vulnerable supply chains for food, fuel, fabrics, and firepower with domestic biobased alternatives. According to one estimate, existing biotechnologies could have a direct economic impact of $4 trillion a year for the next 20 years.1 As innovation continues, the ceiling could be far higher. If next-generation biotechnologies hold great promise, they also come with gathering perils from new bioweapons, intrusive biosurveillance, and the race for biotechnology breakthroughs without adequate safeguards for public health, the environment, and democratic values. For policymakers, the question is not whether the biorevolution has transformative power, but which nation will responsibly harness that power to unlock new tools for defense, health, manufacturing, food security, environmental remediation, and the fight against climate change. No country is better positioned to lead the biorevolution than the United States, but it requires that policymakers act now with swift, ambitious, and far-sighted steps to secure America’s place as the global biopower. The United States enters the biorevolution with formidable tailwinds—an unrivaled innovation ecosystem, world-leading research institutes, unmatched private investment, talent, and a global network of democratic partners and allies. Recent federal investments and an emerging policy framework have fortified U.S. leadership. But in this fast-moving field, settling for gradual progress will guarantee falling behind as competitors like China race to eclipse the United States with ambitions to scale up their biotechnology research, innovation, talent, and infrastructure. To secure America’s place as the global biopower, the Trump administration and Congress should accelerate U.S. tailwinds through greater investment in biotechnology research and infrastructure, especially in sectors beyond health and medicine; expand the pipeline of biotalent; and lead globally to drive biotechnology norms, standards-setting, and responsible adoption. At the same time, policymakers must navigate headwinds that could imperil further progress—specifically, an underdeveloped national biomanufacturing infrastructure; insufficient public and private investment that flows overwhelmingly to biotechnology research and development (R&D) in the health and medical sectors; a lack of uniform federal standards, definitions, and codes; a morass of conflicting policies and regulations; inaccessible and insecure biodata; and low public awareness and trust in emerging and ethically fraught biotechnology applications. This report outlines several recommendations to shore up America’s position as the preeminent biopower, including an investment of $20 billion in new federal funding. Policymakers should view this level of investment as the floor of what it will require to secure U.S. biotechnology leadership. Cutting-edge biotechnologies will create organs, capture carbon emissions, restore polluted environments, tailor medicines to a person’s genes, and replace vulnerable supply chains for food, fuel, fabrics, and firepower with domestic biobased alternatives. Regardless of what U.S. policymakers do, countries around the world are moving swiftly to embrace the biorevolution. The United Kingdom (UK) is driving innovation by concentrating and sharing its biodata through the UK Biobank, which houses the fully sequenced genetic codes of 500,000 people.2 France has invested roughly $9.5 billion through Innovation Santé 2030 to drive biomedical research.3 Japan has committed $3 billion to promote its biotechnology ecosystem.4 South Korea is carving out a niche in digital biotechnology and aims to transition 30 percent of its manufacturing industry to biomanufacturing within a decade.5 If any nation can surpass the United States as the global biopower, it will be China. In its most recent five-year plans, Beijing made explicit its ambition to become a biotechnology “superpower.” It is well on its way. China’s biotechnology leadership has surged on the back of significant public investment, long-term policy prioritization, a massive domestic market, decades of largely unrestricted capital flows, and the amassing of biodata through licit and illicit means.6 China’s concerted biotechnology push has already paid dividends: its scholars rank second in the world for authoring biomedical papers, and the country leads high-impact research in biofuels and biomanufacturing. China’s high-impact research in synthetic biology is more than triple that of the United States, posing a high risk of monopolization.7 Today, China is a global biomanufacturing powerhouse that exports roughly 40 percent of the world’s active pharmaceutical ingredients.8 Now, China aspires to move up the biotechnology value chain with a renewed push to support start-ups, integrate its vast biodata with cutting-edge machine learning tools, and dominate emerging markets for biotechnology with “national champions” such as BGI Group and WuXi Biologics, as it did with Huawei and 5G. China’s ambition to close the gap with the United States should inspire action from policymakers to secure and extend America’s lead. To that end, this report outlines a series of immediate and longer-term recommendations in six key areas for leaders in policymaking and industry.
- Topic:
- Leadership, Innovation, and Biotechnology
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
3. Models of Industrial Policy: Driving Innovation and Economic Growth
- Author:
- Andrea Dugo, Fredrik Erixon, and Oscar Guinea
- Publication Date:
- 05-2025
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
- Abstract:
- Europe’s approach to industrial policy has undergone a dramatic transformation in recent years, with state aid reaching 1.4 per cent of GDP in 2022, levels unseen since the early 1990s. While advocates of substantial state aid argue that this intervention is necessary to maintain competitiveness in a world where the US and China are implementing large-scale industrial strategies, the effectiveness of this approach remains contested. This paper critically examines the evolution of EU industrial policy, contrasting it with alternative models adopted globally and within Europe itself. While EU economic strategies since the 1980s had focused mainly on horizontal policies such as market liberalisation, competition enforcement and support to Research and Development (R&D), recent developments have shifted towards a more interventionist stance. This shift has largely been driven by crises – the financial crisis of 2008, the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical tensions, and the energy transition – which have prompted calls for greater state involvement in shaping industrial outcomes. However, this paper shows that, while industrial policy can support good economic development, it is not a determinant of economic success. All successful economies have pursued industrial policy, but so have all unsuccessful ones. This suggests that industrial policy, in and of itself, is not a determinant of economic growth and competitiveness. The effectiveness of industrial policy depends on its design, its ability to avoid market distortions, and its capacity to stimulate genuine private-sector investment rather than crowding it out. The revival of industrial policy in the EU – best exemplified by a series of high-level reports, including the Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi Reports of 2024 – signals a shift towards an industrial strategy that embraces state aid as a central tool for economic restructuring. Unlike earlier EU economic strategies that prioritised the deepening of the Single Market as the best form of industrial policy, recent proposals advocate for a relaxation of state aid rules to enable greater public subsidies for European industries. The rationale is that the EU must respond to global competitors who are no longer playing by the rules of free trade. As documented in this study, across a diverse range of EU countries, sectors, and policy targets, the prevailing industrial policy model in Europe consistently prioritises a selection of incumbent firms over the private sector as a whole, direct grants over other policy instruments, middle-technology sectors over high-tech ones. This paper argues that such an approach will not generate the desired outcome and assesses its shortcomings to encourage careful review by policymakers before Europe embarks on more of the same. In search of other policy solutions, this paper contrasts the broad European model of industrial policy with other approaches, particularly those of the US, South Korea, Switzerland, and Ireland, which offer, in different fields, alternative frameworks for fostering industrial competitiveness. These models are attractive because they respond to specific and growing problems in the EU economy that public policy can help to alleviate: low levels of investment, declining inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), lagging R&D-based innovation, and problems supplying industry with adequate human capital.
- Topic:
- Industrial Policy, European Union, Economic Growth, and Innovation
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
4. Strengthening the Supply-Side Innovation in EU Telecommunications
- Author:
- Fredrik Erixon, Oscar Guinea, and Dyuti Pandya
- Publication Date:
- 06-2025
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
- Abstract:
- The telecommunications sector is central to the EU’s competitiveness, not only providing the infrastructure that underpins digital connectivity but also serving as a key driver of innovation. Recent EU reports already highlight the persistent structural challenges faced by the EU telecommunication sector: market fragmentation, low investment levels, divergent spectrum policies, and an urgent need to bolster digital sovereignty. However, a critical dimension in this discussion often receives far less attention: the supply of the underlying technologies that power telecommunications infrastructure. In this domain, EU companies remain competitive. In 2023, 27 EU-headquartered firms were among the world’s top 2,000 R&D spenders in telecommunications, accounting for 16 percent of global sectoral investment. These figures underscore that, while Europe may lag in investment and infrastructure, it still holds strategic leadership in telecom innovation and technology development. Central to Europe’s success are standard development organisations (SDOs), technical standards, and Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). SDOs provide collaborative forums where companies jointly develop technical standards that ensure interoperability, reduce fragmentation and foster innovation. Complementing this, SEPs protect the innovations embedded within these standards, granting European companies vital licensing revenues that sustain their research efforts. This system is particularly important for EU firms, which tend to be smaller than their global competitors; it enables them to specialise in cutting-edge technology development and commercialise their innovations globally without needing to dominate manufacturing or end-user markets. As competitiveness in telecommunications increasingly depends on the pace and adoption of innovation, the EU faces both a challenge and an opportunity. European firms have the potential not only to supply critical technologies but to drive breakthroughs in connectivity which are linked to the development of other technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) or quantum technologies. However, to stay competitive, the EU must reinforce its position on the supply side, where its companies still operate at the technological frontier.
- Topic:
- Economics, European Union, Digital Economy, Innovation, and Supply and Demand
- Political Geography:
- Europe
5. 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
6. Will China’s economy follow the same path as Japan’s?
- Author:
- Alicia Garcia-Herrero and Jianwei Xu
- Publication Date:
- 02-2025
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Bruegel
- Abstract:
- Since the bursting of China’s real-estate bubble in mid-2021, there has been a growing concern that the Chinese economy could end up like that of Japan in the early 1990s. Some structural patterns are strikingly similar: low private consumption over a long period, especially when compared to the rest of the world, and an excessively high savings ratio, though China’s imbalances now are even larger that Japan’s were then. Initial policy responses to the bursting of their respective bubbles have also been similar. Both China now and Japan then were initially hesitant to ease monetary and fiscal policies, and opted to expand manufacturing, with an eye on external demand, supported by more research and development expenditure. In both cases, the outcomes were stubborn trade surpluses and a mercantilist attitude to their growth problems, leading to the United States taking protectionist measures. China also seems to be following Japan’s offshoring of production to mitigate the impact of protectionism. The main difference, though, is that China now is a poorer country than Japan was then, with still more convergence opportunities ahead. China is also a much bigger military and geopolitical contender than Japan ever was. China’s geopolitical weight is behind the US technological containment of China, but also gives China more room for manoeuvre globally, especially in the Global South. It remains unclear – though globally significant – whether China will be able to deviate from the path followed by Japan in the 1980s and 1990s.
- Topic:
- Industrial Policy, Geopolitics, Economy, Economic Growth, Innovation, and Real Estate
- Political Geography:
- Japan, China, and Asia
7. 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
8. With the 2024 Mexican election looming, here are two major recommendations for the next president
- Author:
- Ignacia Ulloa Peters, Martin Cassinelli, Maria Fernanda Bozmoski, and Charlene Aguilera
- Publication Date:
- 05-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Atlantic Council
- Abstract:
- Countries representing half the world’s population are voting in 2024. On June 2, just over five months before Election Day in the United States, Mexican voters will set a historic milestone with the election of the country’s first female president. Over the course of her six-year term, Mexico’s new president will face enormous challenges—internally and in the country’s relationship with the United States. But, like never before, there is also a unique opportunity to strengthen the commercial and economic ties that bind the two countries and reimagine how our shared border could better serve our shared interests. Although the United States and Mexico have long been economically intertwined, in 2023, Mexico became the United States’ most important trading partner. Now more than ever, with great geopolitical headwinds, the commercial ties that bind our two countries will be increasingly critical to advancing US economic interests globally. Here, greater border efficiency will yield economic gains alongside improvements in our shared security. The Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, in partnership with internal and external colleagues and partners, sought to envision the future of two key aspects of the US-Mexico relationship: commercial flows and investment. With extensive feedback and numerous consultations with border stakeholders, including business owners, truck drivers, port operators, civilians, and local and federal elected officials, we sought out fresh perspectives and actionable recommendations. Our goal with this report is to spark dialogue among policymakers, business leaders, and civil society in both countries on the urgent need to address the immediate challenges of border efficiency and investment attraction over the next Mexican president’s term while paving the way for a more prosperous and secure future in our countries. The Rio Grande and its surrounding towns are more than a physical barrier separating the United States and Mexico. Rather, they are a vibrant artery of commerce, migration, and cultural exchange. Livelihoods depend on our border, but inefficiencies prevent us from maximizing the possible economic opportunities and achieving the necessary security gains. The pages that follow build on previous center findings and emphasize the need for a nuanced approach to foreign investment, infrastructure development, and security measures that prioritize efficiency and our national interests. This publication also seeks to bring the human dimension to the forefront. Public policy, after all, should reflect how to improve everyday lives. We consolidate the stories of real people affected by the US-Mexico border daily. The combined stories we have gathered over the last two years remind us of the impact of policy decisions. That reminder is particularly poignant with the 2024 elections on both sides of the border. Indeed, we stand on the cusp of a new chapter in our shared history. This report is a call to action for visionary leadership and bold, pragmatic solutions to the complex issues facing the United States and Mexico. We urge policymakers to embrace policies and strategies that address immediate challenges while laying the groundwork for both an even more inclusive and prosperous future. Let’s seize this unique moment in time.
- Topic:
- Elections, Economy, Innovation, Trade, and Domestic Policy
- Political Geography:
- Latin America, North America, and Mexico
9. The Quantum Race: U.S.-Chinese Competition for Leadership in Quantum Technologies
- Author:
- Juljan Krause
- Publication Date:
- 02-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
- Abstract:
- Quantum computing is poised to unleash innovation across various sectors, from materials science to pharmaceutical and medical research, finance, logistics, and even climate change management. Quantum computing also has the potential to provide the backbone for future artificial intelligence and autonomous systems that cannot be realized with digital hardware alone, while quantum communication can strengthen security in cyberspace. For these reasons, quantum technologies feature prominently in the emerging technologies race between the United States and China. In this policy brief, IGCC postdoctoral fellow Juljan Krause analyzes China’s advances in quantum communication, which aim to signal China’s technological leadership while protecting Chinese communications from foreign surveillance. He argues that Chinese leadership in quantum communication will have strategic repercussions, particularly as it is likely to give China’s efforts to shape global industry standards additional momentum. Even if quantum communication has no immediate military implications, policymakers should consider how the technology could embolden China further.
- Topic:
- Industrial Policy, Science and Technology, Innovation, and Quantum Computers
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, and Indo-Pacific
10. Blockchain and Energy Understanding Opportunities and Challenges
- Author:
- Nicola De Blasio and Charles Hua
- Publication Date:
- 02-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
- Abstract:
- The transition to a decarbonized, decentralized, and digitized energy future will unlock new business, policy, and technology models with the associated opportunities and challenges. Innovative technologies like blockchain, a shared, decentralized, and immutable digital ledger system that processes, validates, and manages digital transactions based on algorithmic consensus protocols, may enable this transition. Potential blockchain applications in energy range from enhanced distributed energy resources and peer-to-peer energy trading regimes to more robust grid management and smart energy contracts. There has been significant hype around blockchain’s potential impact in shaping economic and energy systems. Yet, it is essential to separate signal from noise and assess blockchain’s potential impact. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis by identifying key use cases and then addressing which key characteristics blockchain technologies need to bring to fruition to support them. It also proposes an analytical framework to evaluate the potential impact of eight applications based on four key criteria: feasibility, maturity, scalability, and value additivity.
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, Innovation, Blockchain, Decarbonization, Energy, and Geoeconomics
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus