Search

Begin New Search Topic Strategic Competition

221. Building Infrastructure in Real Time: Avoiding Regulatory Paralysis

Author:
Committee for Economic Development of the Conference Board
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Conference Board
Abstract:
The physical infrastructure base of the US economy, once an advantage in global competition, has become a liability. This problem has multiple causes, several of which CED has addressed in recent policy statements, and our nation’s elected policymakers are now taking up the need for additional funding. But the nation needs not only adequate funding but also a more-efficient regulatory process for our infrastructure investment—choosing the right projects, with the minimum delay, and executing them at the least possible cost. Regulatory paralysis is one of the causes of our infrastructure shortfall. It needs attention if we are going to spend our tax dollars on infrastructure wisely and efficiently so that the US economy remains globally competitive. Streamlining regulatory procedures, promoting competition, and cutting red tape across federal, state, and local governments are key to increasing investment, decreasing cost, and maximizing efficiency. Business as usual will not suffice. It takes too long and costs too much to deliver infrastructure projects, preventing us from achieving the advancements and improvements that a future-focused, competitive economy requires. CED has consistently advocated “smart regulation,” subjecting new regulations to rigorous cost-benefit analysis and reviewing existing regulations for continuing cost effectiveness to enhance efficiency and achieve quicker execution, greater benefits, and lower costs. With long delays between project conception and execution, and often multiple layers of jurisdiction and review, a smart regulation approach could ensure that the rules governing review and permitting of projects address all important concerns and ensure that net benefits are maximized over time at all levels of government on a comprehensive and timely basis.
Topic:
Economics, Infrastructure, Governance, Regulation, Business, Economic Policy, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

222. Global Supply Chains: Compete, Don’t Retreat

Author:
Committee for Economic Development of the Conference Board
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Conference Board
Abstract:
For decades, global supply chains have become increasingly integral to the US economy and have been embraced by business and successive US Administrations because they increase efficiency and US competitiveness. But over the past several years, criticism has grown beyond the argument that US jobs are being exported to include concern about a more hostile and competitive global landscape.1 Then the COVID-19 pandemic struck, and lockdowns were imposed. Production in general was disrupted, shutting down suppliers and interrupting transportation channels; foreign governments closed their borders or hoarded crucial supplies for their own peoples.2 Prominently, lifesaving supplies—including personal protective equipment (PPE) and pharmaceutical production commodities, often sourced from abroad—were in short supply, putting frontline health care workers at even greater risk and complicating vaccine distribution.3 And then, as the pandemic began to ease and demand for goods increased, the enormous container ship Ever Given was grounded in the Suez Canal for six days, bringing much of goods transport around the world to a grinding halt and raising fears of even greater supply chain bottlenecks and commercial chaos.4 This truly unprecedented turn of events has exposed challenges to US reliance on global supply chains. Critics of the “offshoring” of jobs have assigned much of the economic and even the human pain of the pandemic to unwise and excessive dependence on global supply chains that include countries with “command” economies rather than free-market ones, or hostile nations that are unreliable sources of essential goods. The pandemic has also raised national security concerns about the reliability and resiliency of global supply chains, and businesses have been forced into workarounds of their own practices. Given the size of China’s economy, its extensive role in global supply chains, its growing military strength, and the growing tensions in its bilateral US relationship, China is at the nexus of these major concerns about supply chain resilience. The new administration has responded to this turmoil with a series of policy directives,5 studies on the subject,6 and legislative proposals under active consideration in Congress covering both short-term and medium-term responses, including a twenty-first century industrial strategy—which would be a major change of US policy direction. Global trade in materials, tools, components, and services deserves an immediate assessment of both security and economic needs for the long term.7 Security with prosperity must be the goal, and the nation must fully comprehend the bigger picture to achieve that outcome. This brief will put the role of global supply chains in the US and the world economy in perspective. It will offer recommendations to manage the economic and security challenges of global supply chains in the postpandemic economy to ensure that the US remains an innovative and competitive global leader.
Topic:
Economy, Trade, Strategic Competition, COVID-19, Commerce, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

223. Three Dilemmas Facing the Indo-Pacific’s Regional Order

Author:
Arzan Tarapore
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
For decades, an international order delivered security and prosperity to the Indo-Pacific. The order was based on U.S. military hegemony and alliances that preserved the strategic status quo and multilateral cooperation that enabled economic development and growth. That order is now under strain. The COVID-19 pandemic is challenging the order’s founding principles, prompting some regional states to limit their interdependency in certain sensitive sectors under the guise of supply chain resilience. The pandemic was not the first challenge to test the order; serious threats began to emerge over a decade ago, with the global financial crisis of 2008, and were sharply exacerbated by China’s economic rise and strategic revisionism, which threatens U.S. military and economic primacy and the territorial status quo. The United States, India, and like-minded middle-power partners from the Indo-Pacific and Europe have struggled to respond effectively. The other contributions in this series on navigating U.S.-China competition in the Indo-Pacific show how these states have sought to recover from the pandemic while also answering structural threats of revisionism and economic headwinds from decoupling, protectionism and changing integration patterns. Cutting across those specific policy issues are three overarching dilemmas that each state will be forced to resolve when making policy. How policymakers navigate these dilemmas will define the policy settings of their regional strategy.
Topic:
Security, Economic Growth, Multilateralism, Regional Integration, Economic Development, Strategic Competition, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
China, Europe, South Asia, India, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

224. European Middle Powers in the Indo-Pacific amid GreatPower Strategic Competition

Author:
Nilanthi Samaranayake
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
European middle powers are not typically part of U.S. discussions of the Indo-Pacific. However, in an era of growing strategic competition, they are collectively and individually expressing stronger equities in the stability of the region. In May 2021, for example, the United Kingdom’s aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth set sail for the first time on a tour that will take it to various locations, including to the Indo-Pacific region. The Dutch frigate HNLMS Evertsen, as well as a U.S. destroyer and aircraft, are also part of the carrier strike group. Thus, now is a good moment to step back and reflect on the role of European middle powers in the Indo-Pacific amid the backdrop of great-power, strategic competition. The Netherlands, Germany, and France have recently published strategy documents focused on the Indo-Pacific. The Netherlands’ document released in November 2020 discussed concerns about upholding the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the South China Sea and the need for the European Union to take a more vocal stance on stability in this region. Germany published a similar document in September 2020 in which it emphasized its deep economic interests in the Indo-Pacific “rules-based international order.” Earlier, France led thinking about evolving regional dynamics in 2018. Through the publication of France’s Defense Strategy in the Indo-Pacific and France and Security in the Indo-Pacific documents in 2019, France expressed its concerns about the impact of China’s activities in the East and South China Sea on regional stability. These issues have also been raised through NATO, which has been grappling with the belief that “China does not share our values” and the implications for alliance security and the international rules-based order.
Topic:
Power Politics, Strategic Competition, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Germany, Netherlands, and Indo-Pacific

225. Digital Services as a Tool for Creating Competitive Advantage in the Banking Sector in North Macedonia

Author:
Viktorija Stojkovski and Blagoj Nenovski
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:
Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:
In the last few years participants of the banking sector in North Macedonia are facing big competition as a result of the increased innovations between these participants. The only way for banks to stay relevant with their operations is to create a sustainable competitive advantage. For an organization to hold out in a competitive environment, it needs to develop competitive strategies. One of the aspects of creating a competitive advantage in the banking sector is creating digital services. These services have a high impact on the banking sector and enable banks to have a competitive advantage in different manners. In addition to a theoretical approach to creating a competitive advantage in the banking sector, we conducted empirical research on how banks in North Macedonia create competitive advantage by offering digital services. This paper aims to describe the end-users attitude on digital banking services as well as the bank’s strategies on creating a competitive advantage by offering digital banking services.
Topic:
Digital Economy, Strategic Competition, Banking, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Europe and North Macedonia

226. Turkish-Russian Relations: A Puzzle that Shakes the Middle East

Author:
Remi Daniel
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies
Abstract:
In this issue of Turkeyscope, Remi Daniel discusses several contemporary trends in the Russian-Turkish relationship. The dynamics of competition and cooperation between these two states affect the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and North Africa in profound ways.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
Russia, Central Asia, Turkey, Middle East, Eastern Europe, and North Africa

227. U.S. Geopolitics and Nuclear Deterrence in the Era of Great Power Competitions

Author:
Peter Rudolf
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Political Science Quarterly
Institution:
Academy of Political Science
Abstract:
PETER RUDOLF argues that in the new era of great power competitions the United States is faced with the question of whether to seek some form of geopolitical accommodation based on de facto spheres of influence and buffer zones or to push ahead with strategic rivalries overshadowed by the risk of a military conflict with a nuclear dimension.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Power Politics, Geopolitics, Deterrence, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

228. Policy or Pique? Trump and the Turn to Great Power Competition

Author:
Deborah Welch Larson
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Political Science Quarterly
Institution:
Academy of Political Science
Abstract:
DEBORAH WELCH LARSON analyzes Donald Trump’s policy toward China and Russia and the return of great power competition. She argues that Trump’s personalization of foreign policy undermined his trade war with China, and efforts to improve relations with Russia and that the Joe Biden administration will continue to compete but seek cooperation in areas of shared interests.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Power Politics, Trade Wars, Donald Trump, Strategic Competition, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, Asia, North America, and United States of America

229. Journal of Advanced Military Studies: Special Issue on Strategic Culture

Author:
Ali Parchami, Ofer Fridman, Neil Munro, W. A. Rivera, Evan Kerrane, Matthew Brummer, Eitan Oren, Katie C. Finlinson, Mark Briskey, Ben Connable, Benjamin Potter, Emilee Matheson, Jeffrey Taylor, and Dr. Jose de Arimateia da Cruz
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
An ironic feature of U.S. strategic culture is a rather distinctive disinterest in the study of our own or others’ strategic cultures. The U.S. security institutions find themselves energized about cultural study during irregular conflicts in which the cost of cultural ignorance is made plain, but they persist in under developing the ability to apply that same cultural acumen to great power conflict and key relationships with allies. During the last 100 years of fighting, U.S. defense institutions have repeated a pattern of investing in cultural study during short bursts of counterinsurgency fighting and then abandoning it along with its lessons learned at the termination of conflict. As a consequence, U.S. planning efforts—including those now being designed for future great power conflict—suffer from an unnecessarily narrow optic and fail to account for the full range of perspectives and plausible courses of action considered by an adversary. America’s allies know it and are frustrated by it. More importantly, U.S. adversaries know it and plan to exploit it. The study of strategic culture accounts for the ways in which the culture of a group, whether it be the constructed culture of a nascent terrorist organization or the enduring culture of a nation, impacts thinking and decision making regarding defensive and offensive approaches to security. Within a complex state like Russia or China, one must account for sweeping national narratives that cultivate collective mentalities and impact decision making but must also include the internal cultures of key organizations within the nation’s security community. These organizations often develop distinctive identities, values, perceptions, and habits of practice that can be consequential in moments when the organization’s leaders wield instruments of state power. In the first section of this special edition of the Journal of Advanced Military Studies (JAMS) on strategic culture, Drs. Ali Parchami, Ofer Fridman, Neil Munro, W. A. Rivera, and Major Evan Kerrane provide strategic culture profiles on key U.S. adversaries: Iran, Russia, and China. Their work reflects the complexity involved in identifying and analyzing the narratives and drivers that compete for dominance across these three strategic culture landscapes. Acquainting ourselves with the multivariate and often-contested internal constructs that produce the behavior of our adversaries helps expand our own thinking about the range of possible and plausible competitive strategies we are likely to see from them. The second section of this issue highlights the utility of understanding not only U.S. adversaries but also American allies and partners. Drs. Matthew Brummer and Eitan Oren examine the effort by Japan’s military leaders to shift their own strategic culture through an influence campaign aimed at altering domestic perceptions concerning the appropriate role for the military and thereby expanding its ability to more actively cooperate with the United States in maintaining peace and stability in Asia. Whether they are successful has direct implications for U.S. alliance constructs in the Pacific and the action that might be reasonably expected from Japan should U.S. conflict with China become kinetic. Katie C. Finlinson offers analysis that benefits U.S. deterrence and nonproliferation efforts. She employs a two-tiered research approach— leveraging both strategic culture and analysis of national role conception—as a useful framework for assessing the propensity of the United Arab Emirates to consider weaponizing civilian nuclear knowledge and infrastructure. Finlinson offers an approach repeatable for other potential over-the-horizon states and demonstrates the interplay between a state’s strategic culture and powerful exogenous factors—like security assurances from the United States and potential nuclear acquisition by Iran—in determining outcomes. Finally, Dr. Mark Briskey offers a look at the aspects of Pakistan’s strategic culture that exist as an outgrowth of its army’s most formative historic experiences and have resulted in deeply entrenched perceptions of self, of key adversaries, and perceptions of the past that must be understood by Western partners seeking Pakistan’s cooperation and partnership in the region. Our third section offers a close look at the ways in which cultural analysis can illuminate policy options on particularly difficult problem sets. One of these is assessing will to fight on the part of both allies and adversaries. Dr. Ben Connable recommends a diagnostic tool developed and trialed by the Rand Corporation that demonstrates promise in advancing the ability of defense institutions to anticipate will to fight in kinetic conflicts but also will to act in consequential ways by great powers engaged in strategic competition. Benjamin Potter, Emilee Matheson, and Jeffrey Taylor follow with applications of the Cultural Topography Framework, an approach to cultural data assessment and application that benefits from the insights supplied by the sort of comprehensive strategic culture profiles offered in section one of this issue and translates these into actionable intelligence against discrete problem sets. Their work, respectively, illuminates policy options for containing a potentially escalatory situation in Transnistria, decreasing violence and looting through a more effective reintegration strategy for former members of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa, and reexamining the value of technological advances in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which may be having a deleterious impact on its deterrence strategy. The special issue concludes with a review essay by Dr. José de Arimatéia da Cruz, which offers readers critical analysis of three volumes of strategic culture scholarship. The articles collected for the special issue demonstrate a range of ways in which the study of strategic culture delivers critical insights to policy planners and strategists. Understanding other great powers on their own terms—the identities they seek to establish or defend, the values that inform their policies, the norms of strategic competition or warfighting that they deem acceptable and effective, and the worldview they espouse (whether an accurate fit with objective realities or not)—prepares policy makers to craft plans and strategies in ways that are tailored for maximum advantage vis-à-vis a particular adversary. Given the steady shutdown of cultural inquiry labs and training facilities across the U.S. defense and security community, it is worth issuing a stern reminder that the advantage of knowing one’s enemy is far more consequential when engaged in great power conflict than in the irregular conflicts in which U.S. institutions have learned its worth. This issue of JAMS is provided as a resource to both reinforce that point and supply a wealth of initial material in advancing it.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, War, History, Power Politics, Realism, Strategic Competition, Resistance, Identity, and Strategic Culture
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Russia, Japan, Iran, Middle East, India, United Arab Emirates, and United States of America

230. Technological Competition: Can the EU Compete with China?

Author:
Francesca Ghiretti
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
The debate on technological development and the unfolding fourth technological revolution tends to neglect the role of the EU, relegating it to follower status. The leadership positions are occupied by the US and China, who compete with one another for technological supremacy. Yet, despite lagging behind in some areas, the EU is better placed than is often assumed and still stands a chance of guaranteeing the delivery of a technological revolution that is not only environmentally but also socially sustainable. This is critical in proposing a model of technological development alternative to that of China, in particular, and especially in such sectors as artificial intelligence, supercomputing and digital skills. Study produced as part of the project “La geopolitica del digitale”, March 2021.
Topic:
Politics, Science and Technology, European Union, Institutions, Strategic Competition, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Asia