Search

Begin New Search Topic Semiconductors Political Geography United States of America

11. Reshuffling Value Chains - South Korea as a Case Study

Author:
Françoise Nicolas
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
Despite all the talks about the reshuffling of value-chains and the trend to a form of industrial “Desinicization” (or decoupling/disengagement from China), the example of South Korea does not vindicate such assertions. The expansion of Korean direct investment in neighboring countries such as China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) remains a reality and it has not changed in any fundamental way over the past two decades. South Korean companies’ decisions to locate in one country rather than another are still very much based on cost factors, even if security considerations are increasingly factored in. Similarly, reshoring, which has been high on the South Korean government’s agenda for a long time, remains a marginal phenomenon for South Korean companies, despite the incentives provided. Rather than the relocation of production (in the form of reshoring or nearshoring) South Korean companies have turned to more unexpected options, such as the development of complementarity-based partnerships or vertically-integrated production networks with commodity suppliers, as in the case of the production of rare earth-based magnets. Such a strategy is likely to become more popular in the future, as it nicely combines economic and security considerations. Without a doubt, due to the highly politicized nature of the technology involved, the semiconductor industry is the one undergoing the most significant changes. In a context of rising Sino-US rivalry, the US has ramped up pressures on China with far-reaching consequences, leading South Korean semiconductor companies (with the support of the government) to engage in a strategy combining relocation to the US and onshoring in South Korea. While the economic logic is likely to prevail in most sectors thus limiting the scope for supply chain reshuffling, the examples of the semiconductor and rare earth-based magnets suggest that important changes can still be expected in the future in industries that are deemed strategic.
Topic:
Foreign Direct Investment, Supply Chains, Value Chains, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

12. United States–China semiconductor standoff: A supply chain under stress

Author:
Jeremy Mark and Dexter Tiff Roberts
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
In August 2022, the US Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act, a law that approves subsidies and tax breaks to help jump-start the renewed production on American soil of advanced semiconductors.1 Just two months later, the Joe Biden administration issued wide-ranging restrictions on the export to China of chips and chip-making technology to undercut that country’s ability to manufacture the same class of integrated circuits.2 Taken together with a steady stream of Biden administration prohibitions on technology sales to key Chinese companies, the US initiatives represent a profound turn toward competition with China in the high-tech realm.3 They also highlight an effort to restructure the complex, multinational supply chains centered on East Asia that manufacture hundreds of billions of dollars of semiconductors a year. As such, the Biden administration has set in motion a process that could alter the business strategies—and fortunes—of homegrown and foreign-invested semiconductor companies based in China, world-leading chipmakers in Taiwan and South Korea, and suppliers around the world that provide the industry with the machinery and myriad inputs that fuel chip production. The Biden administration insists that its restrictions on sales to China are intended only to limit China’s ability to produce the cutting-edge chips that can feed into the development of weapons and other strategically important technologies—and not to cripple its semiconductor industry. But the current state of play of sanctions and support for US-based semiconductor production, including by Taiwanese and Korean chipmakers, is not the endpoint in this process. Rather, the momentum to constrain Beijing’s semiconductor program is likely to continue in the coming months, at the very least with additional restrictions on Chinese companies and government-linked entities, and unprecedented bureaucratic scrutiny of American venture-capital and equity-financing flows to China. That amounts to more bad news for corporate leaders in Asia, North America, and Europe who have spent the past generation building a globe-spanning semiconductor industry that has faced few barriers to expansion. As US restrictions mount, and sales of certain technologies to China flag, the once-unimaginable process of reorienting semiconductor supply chains will become an ever-present reality. The CHIPS and Science Act already is becoming an important factor in corporate strategy, providing incentives for Taiwanese, Korean, and American companies to make big bets on new factories in places like New York, Ohio, Texas, and Arizona—witness Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company’s (TSMC’s) recent decision to build a second factory in Phoenix.4 This paper explores the potential implications of US semiconductor policy for the global semiconductor supply chains and the competition for primacy in an industry that is constantly changing the face of the global economy and one that has implications for global security in all its dimensions. It begins by examining the policies put in place by the Biden administration, and then discusses the changes taking place across the industry, with a focus on Asia.
Topic:
Economy, Business, Supply Chains, Semiconductors, and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

13. China’s Semiconductors Reflections on Sources and Solutions to an Expensive Problem

Author:
Jonathan Liebenau
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
The semiconductor industry has been a renewed topic of political debate for over three years. Due to recent US sanctions on the most advanced semiconductors, the industry has quickly become another flashpoint in the competition between the US and China to dominate the 21st century’s strategic technologies. In this Strategic Update, Dr Jonathan Liebenau explains the development of the semiconductor industry in the context of China’s rise to become an increasingly capable technology power. China’s sustained efforts in industrial policy to cultivate a domestic innovation system coincided with Western firms’ offshoring strategies since the 1990s, transforming China into a large producer and consumer of semiconductors. While Taiwan and the West retained cutting edge chip design capabilities, Chinese firms such as Huawei and Hikvision have become competitive providers of mobile phones, surveillance equipment and related infrastructure services. Despite Washington and its partners’ conviction to constrain in China’s technological prowess, industrial policy initiatives such as the CHIPS Act will face an uphill battle when it comes to bringing manufacturing capacity back to Western economies. In this context, the UK must combine short term incentives with a longer-term strategic vision to remain competitive in one of the 21st century’s key strategic arenas.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Sanctions, Strategic Competition, Production, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

14. Increasing supply chain risks and Implications for Korea

Author:
Won Seok Choi and Hyoungmin Han
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This study starts by highlighting how geopolitical factors, such as the US-China conflict and the Russia-Ukraine war, are reshaping global supply chains. The US-China conflict, marked by tariff wars and policy shifts, particularly affects key sectors like semiconductors and batteries. These conflicts reveal vulnerabilities in supply chains concentrated in specific countries and have been exacerbated by external factors like the COVID-19 pandemic. From these results, it suggests strategies for Korea in response to these global supply chain changes. These include stabilizing supply chain cooperation with the U.S. and China, strengthening connections with emerging countries, and forming multilateral or bilateral supply chain alliances.
Topic:
Conflict, Supply Chains, Semiconductors, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
China, South Korea, and United States of America

15. How to Curb Investments in Chinese Technology: Initiatives and Debates in the United States

Author:
Mathilde Velliet
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
In a continuation of U.S. efforts to slow China's development and acquisition of strategic technologies, Washington has imposed new restrictions on American investment in Chinese technology sectors such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum, and semiconductors. On August 9, 2023, President Biden issued an unprecedented executive order, announcing notification requirements and prohibitions for U.S. tech investments in China. Three sectors are targeted: semiconductors, quantum information technology, and artificial intelligence. Washington’s main concern is that these investments are accompanied by technology transfers and “intangible benefits” contributing to the development of Chinese military capabilities. This concern, first voiced in the 1980s, has received a heightened political response since 2018. Considering the emerging consensus in Congress and the multiplication of bills, further measures are likely to be adopted in the coming months. The European Union and certain Member States are beginning to reflect on the consequences of U.S. measures, and on the relevance of adopting their own tools to control investment in China.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Investment, Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Computers, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America

16. How US chip controls on China benefit and cost Korean firms

Author:
Martin Chorzempa
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
Export controls have become one of the most contentious battlegrounds in US-China technology competition. US semiconductor export controls aimed at China, however, have also embroiled allies such as South Korea. These controls largely do not affect Korean firms' chip sales to China, but Korean firms are vulnerable because they have large chip production facilities in China, which make around 40 percent of the memory chips for these firms. Those facilities in China rely on access to semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME) or servicing from not only the United States but also other countries that have imposed controls on exporting advanced SME to China. Although the United States is unlikely to shut off access to the technology needed to keep the plants running for the foreseeable future, it has signaled that it will not allow new technology needed to upgrade those facilities, so they will become uncompetitive over the next few years and will need to be shuttered or sold off. For future production, Korean firms will need to build new facilities at great (albeit subsidized) expense, amortizing the sunk costs of operations in China over the coming years. At the same time, the controls have created significant benefits for Korean firms by shutting off Chinese competition for their memory businesses. Yet benefiting from the tensions between superpowers comes with serious risks. Firms and governments must deal with much greater uncertainty and evaluate the risk of their dependence on both the United States and China.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Business, Exports, Manufacturing, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, South Korea, and United States of America

17. Despite disruptions, US-China trade is likely to grow

Author:
Megan Hogan and Gary Clyde Hufbauer
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
The United States and China hit record trade levels in 2022, despite a prickly relationship, suggesting that calls for severe or even total economic decoupling between the world’s two economic superpowers may be ill-advised, say Hogan and Hufbauer. The dollar value of US-China trade grew significantly between 2019 and 2022, notwithstanding declines in trade flows of certain products such as semiconductors and aircraft due to the trade war. The persistence and even growth of the two countries’ total trade despite political and economic disputes reflects the mutual benefit that private firms see in this commercial relationship. The authors conclude that partial decoupling between the United States and China has not, so far, redrawn the world trade map. Nor does it seem likely to do so on an aggregate trade basis between now and 2025.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Trade Policy, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

18. Chipping Away: Assessing and addressing the labor market gap facing the US semiconductor industry

Author:
Dan Martin and Hamilton Galloway
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Oxford Economics
Abstract:
Thanks in large part to enactment of the landmark 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, a significant share of expected new chip manufacturing capacity and R&D is expected to be located in the US. We project the semiconductor industry’s US-based workforce will grow by nearly 115,000 jobs by 2030, from approximately 345,000 jobs today to approximately 460,000 jobs by the end of the decade. We estimate that roughly 67,000, or 58%, of these new jobs risk going unfilled at current degree completion rates. Of the unfilled jobs: 39% will be technicians, most of whom have two-year degrees or less; 35% will be computer scientists, or engineers with four-year degrees; and 26% will be engineers at the master’s or PhD level. For the US economy as a whole, we estimate that 3.85 million additional jobs in these three technical fields will be created by the end of 2030. Of those, 1.4 million jobs risk going unfilled unless the pipeline for such workers is expanded. To address the skills gap facing the broader economy and the semiconductor industry, we present three core recommendations to strengthen the US technical workforce: Strengthen support for regional partnerships and programs aimed at growing the pipeline for skilled technicians for semiconductor manufacturing and other advanced manufacturing sectors. Grow the domestic STEM pipeline for engineers and computer scientists vital to the semiconductor industry and other sectors that are critical to the future economy. Retain and attract more international advanced degree students within the US economy.
Topic:
Economics, Science and Technology, Regulation, Manufacturing, Labor Market, Workforce, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

19. Friend-shoring in the Indo-Pacific

Author:
Akhil Ramesh and Rob York
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine highlight the challenges of increased economic interconnectedness with adversarial states. The shortages in critical sectors such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and other industries significant for technological advancement in the fourth industrial revolution have revealed the importance of select supply chains to the American public and the broader global community. As the strategic competition between the US and China accelerates, understanding of their importance will only grow. The Biden administration, to its credit, realized early on the importance of four critical sectors for the future of US supply chain security: pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, large-scale batteries, and semiconductors. Alarmingly, through the research presented here by Akhil Ramesh and myself, we see that the People’s Republic of China has deeply embedded itself in three of these four sectors, and still seeks to strengthen its position in the fourth (semiconductors). Also, one of the recurring problems highlighted in this research is the tendency of the administration to consider the job done once it sources a critical technology from somewhere other than China—not realizing that the PRC serves as a source for that country elsewhere in the supply chain.
Topic:
Pharmaceuticals, Supply Chains, Semiconductors, Batteries, and Critical Minerals
Political Geography:
United States of America and Indo-Pacific

20. Semiconductors Are Not a Reason to Defend Taiwan

Author:
Christopher McCallion
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
Taiwan’s dominance in advanced semiconductor manufacturing and rising U.S.-China tensions have produced alarm that a Chinese invasion or blockade of Taiwan could cause a major disruption of the global semiconductor supply chain. This has led some to claim that the U.S. should defend Taiwan in order to maintain its supply of advanced chips. Fears that China could seize Taiwan’s chip-manufacturing capacity and leapfrog the U.S. technologically are overblown. Interdependence cuts both ways; if China invaded Taiwan, it would be cut off from the vital inputs controlled by the U.S. or its allies, and therefore unable to resume chip production under new management. Others fear Taiwanese chips could be disrupted during a Chinese blockade or a protracted conflict and tend to recommend bolstering U.S. capabilities to deter China. However, there are strong reasons to doubt the U.S. can ultimately deter Beijing if it feels that force is its only option for national reunification. Further efforts by the U.S. to deter China may only present Beijing with a closing window, encouraging it to use force before its prospects worsen, and precipitating the very conflict the U.S. seeks to prevent; a war between the U.S. and China would be exponentially costlier than any potential semiconductor supply shock resulting from a cross-strait invasion. Instead, the U.S. should seek to dial down the temperature with Beijing in order to maintain the political and territorial status quo and buy the time needed to diversify its own semiconductor supplies by onshoring or “allyshoring” chip manufacturing. The U.S. should therefore avoid provoking Beijing unnecessarily, and reaffirm the substance of the One China Policy while seeking to develop a longer-term settlement with Beijing over the future of the region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Manufacturing, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, and United States of America