Search

Begin New Search Topic European Union Political Geography United States of America

11. 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

12. Not yet Trump-proof: an evaluation of the European Commission’s emerging policy platform

Author:
Heather Grabbe and Jeromin Zettelmeyer
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The economic strategy being defined by the 2024-2029 European Commission seems to follow the prescriptions on innovation and single market reform, and the expansive approach to industrial policy, set out by Mario Draghi in his September 2024 report on European Union competitiveness, with two important differences. First, the Commission stops short of calling for World Trade Organisation-prohibited subsidies – this is welcome. Second, the Commission proposes a new state aid framework for national industrial policy rather than expansion of EU-level public investment funding. This runs the risk of weakening the single market and harming competition, with the unintended consequence of protecting incumbents and inhibiting structural change. In terms of specific policies, on defence, the Commission is right to face up to the challenge of defining an EU procurement mechanism that offers sufficient speed and cost advantages to justify large-scale funding. On economic security and international partnerships, the Commission is right to take a broader approach than a foreign economic policy focused only on supply chains. What is lacking is a much greater commitment to providing support for climate mitigation in developing countries. The second Trump presidency creates risks for the Commission strategy. President Trump has gone further than expected in threatening territorial expansion and with the speed, aggression and disregard for the rule of law with which he has started to implement his policies. These factors will complicate the EU-United States relationship. The best defence against both Trump and the competitive and security threats posed by China is to accelerate policies that address the EU’s structural weaknesses: raising productivity growth, defence capacity and economic security. Economic security, in turn, requires more resilient trade relationships, less financial dependence on the US and an improved standing with emerging market and developing economies. The EU should also seize the opportunity offered by the shift in US policy from subsidies to deregulation. While the EU should not race Trump to the bottom on environmental or financial deregulation, it should rapidly improve its own regulatory framework while building on its core strengths: human capital and the rule of law. Unlike tariff wars or discriminatory subsidies, a competition to provide a good business environment is not a zero-sum game.
Topic:
Security, Economics, Industrial Policy, Budget, European Union, Digital Economy, Trade Policy, Donald Trump, Sustainability, European Commission, and Energy
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

13. The State of EU-US Digital and Energy Cooperation

Author:
Federica Marconi, Wolfgang Münchau, and Irene Paviotti
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
In a time of rapid technological advancements and changing energy paradigms, the European Union and the United States are trying to coordinate their efforts to navigate the complexities of an ever-evolving landscape. Transatlantic dialogues and cooperative endeavours are key mechanisms for mitigating tensions and fostering a common assessment of the opportunities and risks arising from these advancements. Critical in this regard are the problems of governance emanating from technological development and its consequences in the digital sphere as well as the delicate balance between security, competitiveness and environmental targets in the energy dimension.
Topic:
Climate Change, International Cooperation, Political Economy, Governance, European Union, Transatlantic Relations, Digital Policy, and Energy
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

14. EU's “Open Strategic Autonomy” and its Implications for Korea

Author:
Youngook Jang
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This brief explores the shifting global trade landscape characterized by weakening globalization and rising protectionism, exacerbated by events such as the US-China trade disputes, COVID-19 pandemic, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It discusses how these factors have prompted a trend towards 'Open Strategic Autonomy' (OSA) in the European Union (EU), as evidenced by newly suggested industrial and trade policies. The EU's experiences during the pandemic and energy dependence on Russia have emphasized the need for resilient supply chains. The analysis draws from Jang et al. (2023) to examine how the EU's OSA has evolved in response to these changes, offering insights for policy implications for Korea.
Topic:
European Union, Trade, Supply Chains, Strategic Autonomy, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

15. Climate action: Implications for factor market reallocation

Author:
Robert Z. Lawrence
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
This paper considers climate policies, not from the perspective of their environmental impacts, but rather their likely effects on labor and investments. While the aggregate impact of the green transition on jobs and investment may be modest, it will require significant reallocation of labor and capital within and across industries. Although the green transition brings new opportunities for employment and investment in renewable technologies, many workers and communities tied to the fossil fuel industry may not benefit from these advances due to skills mismatch and geographic constraints. Both the United States and the European Union acknowledge the importance of achieving “climate justice” and “leaving no one behind” in their decarbonization efforts. However, current policies and resources in the United States may fall short, with inadequate assistance reaching too many communities and a narrow focus on green jobs. In Europe, while the Just Transition Fund complements existing programs, effective implementation of place-based policies remains challenging due to the need for specific, localized responses.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Labor Issues, European Union, and Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

16. Calling on the EU-US Trade and Technology Council: How to Deliver for the Planet and the Economy

Author:
Oscar Guinea, Vanika Sharma, Philipp Lamprecht, Dyuti Pandya, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
This Policy Brief proposes the establishment of an agreement on conformity assessment between the EU and the US that covers machinery and electrical equipment. The initiative aims to increase the number of European and US conformity assessment bodies authorized to test and certify EU and US machinery and electrical equipment for exports into each other’s markets, without recognizing the equivalency or otherwise altering the product requirements in regulation, standards, or other normative documents on either side. While this study focuses on the economic effects of an agreement on conformity assessment that includes machinery and electrical equipment, the scope of such an agreement could potentially be extended to several additional product categories, particularly those that are subject to requirements for mandatory third-party conformity assessment in both the EU and the US. The increase in the number of conformity assessment bodies is expected to reduce the costs and the time required to demonstrate conformity. If this policy succeeds as expected in achieving a reduction in trade costs between 2 and 6 percent, US exports to the EU are projected to increase between US$ 11 billion and US$ 32.5 billion while EU exports to the US are estimated to grow by between US$ 13.8 billion and US$ 42.2 billion. In percentage terms, US firms are anticipated to experience a larger increase in exports of machinery and electrical equipment than their EU counterparts. The increase in trade flows as a result of this agreement is estimated to be larger than the rise in trade flows achieved in other Free Trade Agreements signed by the EU or the US. Moreover, as an increasing number of EU regulations begin to mandate third-party conformity assessment, US firms will increasingly benefit from this agreement when exporting to the EU. Given China’s status as the largest supplier of machinery and electrical equipment to both the EU and the US, the implementation of an EU-US agreement on conformity assessment would not only improve conditions for transatlantic trade but also lead to reduced trade dependence for the EU and the US on China. The reduction in trade costs between the EU and the US on machinery and electrical equipment due to the agreement could lower Chinese exports to the EU and the US by between US$ 6.5 billion and US$ 19.4 billion. Importantly, machinery and electrical equipment are crucial inputs for some of the key technologies in which the EU and the US Administrations have identified trade dependencies on China. However, in contrast with other policies aimed at reducing reliance on Chinese imports, an agreement on conformity assessment for machinery and electrical equipment will not require public subsidies or impose any financial burden on taxpayers. This agreement also has the potential to benefit the environment. Machinery and electrical equipment are essential inputs for green technologies. Therefore, a reduction in the cost and time of conformity assessment in these industries will accelerate the adoption of green technologies. An agreement on conformity assessment between the EU and the US covering green goods and clean technologies could increase transatlantic exports between US$ 3.1 billion and US$ 9.2 billion. While this increase in exports is significant, broadening the scope of the agreement to include the entirety of machinery and electrical equipment, rather than just a subset, is projected to lead to trade effects eight times larger. Moreover, as green technologies rapidly evolve, an agreement on conformity assessment has the potential to serve as a dynamic instrument that evolves to accommodate future regulatory and economic developments on climate and the environment on both sides of the Atlantic.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Economy, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

17. Openness as Strength: The Win-Win in EU-US Digital Services Trade

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Dyuti Pandya, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The discourse surrounding the EU’s supposed over-reliance on digital services imports from non-EU countries, particularly the US, has been a recurrent topic among some political circles. However, this viewpoint tends to oversimplify and misrepresent the nuanced and complex reality of the EU’s status within the global Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector and digitally enabled trade. A thorough analysis of trade data and trends clearly illustrates that the EU’s engagement with foreign (non-EU) digital services, notably from the US, represents a strategic economic advantage, bolstering Europe’s competitiveness and fostering productivity growth. Below we underline the critical importance of openness to foreign innovation and technology diffusion for the EU’s economic future.
Topic:
European Union, Digital Economy, Strategic Competition, Imports, and Productivity
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

18. ICT Beyond Borders: The Integral Role of US Tech in Europe’s Digital Economy

Author:
Matthias Bauer and Dyuti Pandya
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Contrary to political assertions about the vulnerability of digital services provided by non-EU companies, the strong presence and sunk costs associated with US tech companies’ investments in data centres, skilled workforce development, and research facilities in Europe act as significant barriers to exit, highlighting the inherent symbiosis between US tech investments and Europe’s digital and non-digital sectors. These investments underscore a mutual inter-dependency that strengthens European economies, making the notion of “sudden cessation” of digital services by US companies implausible. Corporate data show a significant investment gap of approximately USD 1.36 trillion between US and EU ICT companies, attributing a competitive edge to US firms due to their heavy investment in ICT, cloud solutions, and R&D. Forecasted increases in ICT investments by US corporations outline a benchmark beyond reach for EU businesses. The notion of EU firms aligning with this growth path is rather fantastical, as it would call for immense government investment, ultimately draining financial resources from essential public services, such as healthcare, housing, and environmental policies. Substantial ICT investments across EU Member States together with a long-term commitment to the European market present an opportunity for the EU to leverage US continuous technological advancements, underscoring the potential for transatlantic collaboration to drive the EU’s digital transformation and innovation. EU-US partnerships not only fuel the EU’s digital transformation but also align with shared political values, reinforcing the significance of transatlantic collaboration in shaping a competitive and innovative digital future.
Topic:
Communications, European Union, Digital Economy, Investment, and Information Technology
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

19. Time to Rethink Export Controls for Strengthened US-EU Cooperation and Global Trade Rules

Author:
Matthias Bauer and Dyuti Pandya
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The escalation of broad export controls by the US, under the guise of national security and the aim to curb technological transfers to potential adversaries,[1] marks a new epoch of bureaucratic oversight. The US push for broad export controls also underscores a critical juncture in US-EU relations and global trade rules. Broad export restrictions not only challenge the very foundation of free trade but also contribute to the erosion of Western technology leadership.[2] Unilateral export controls may start strong but eventually lose effectiveness and become counterproductive,[3] pushing non-US companies, particularly in the semiconductor sector, to find alternatives to US components.
Topic:
International Cooperation, European Union, Regulation, Exports, Trade, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

20. Keeping Up with the US: Why Europe’s Productivity Is Falling Behind

Author:
Fredrik Erixon, Oscar Guinea, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The European Union stands at a crossroads. For decades, the EU’s productivity growth has consistently lagged the United States, leading to slower growth in living standards and decline in global economic power. While short-term factors like the strong US fiscal expansion have widened the gap in nominal GDP growth in recent years, the fact is that Europe has trailed the US economic development for several decades and the root of the problem lies in deeper structural issues within the European economy. Four major forces fuel this productivity divide. Firstly, the EU’s investment in research and development (R&D) pales in comparison to the U.S., leading to fewer patents and a slower pace of technology-fuelled innovation. Secondly, Europe trails America in the stock and growth of intangible capital investments, which are crucial for adopting and diffusing new technologies that drive productivity. Thirdly, the EU market exhibits slower business creation and destruction compared to the US. This rigidity hinders the flow of resources towards the most productive firms. Lastly, despite boasting higher levels of trade openness, the EU attracts less Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) than the US, curbing its access to cutting-edge global technologies and expertise. To close the gap, European policymakers should implement a comprehensive strategy for faster productivity growth. The first step is turning up the dial on R&D spending, targeting 4-5 percent of GDP by 2040. Next, Europe should prioritise investments in intangible assets and lay down the digital infrastructure that will underpin future growth. Revitalising the single market is also crucial: reducing internal and external market barriers for services, the primary vehicle for trading intangible assets. Moreover, the EU should foster a market environment that encourages entrepreneurship and facilitate the entry and exit of firms so resources cascade towards the most productive sectors. By harnessing the strengths of the single market and implementing these recommendations, European policymakers can propel the EU towards a more competitive and prosperous future.
Topic:
Markets, European Union, Productivity, and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America