Search

Begin New Search Topic Science and Technology Publication Year within 25 Years

611. Strategic Calculation: High-Performance Computing and Quantum Computing in Europe’s Quest for Technological Power

Author:
Alice Pannier
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
Computing power plays a key role in enabling machine learning, for scientific research, and in the military domain. Therefore, the race for computing power has become a key element of the US-China technological competition, and it is also a strategic priority for Europe. This study focuses on two complementary segments of computing: high-performance computing (HPC, also known as “supercomputing”), and quantum computing. HPC has for several decades been used in scientific research, meteorology, and the military. While states continue to drive the needs for massive computers, the field is also witnessing a diversification of uses in industry. Meanwhile, quantum computing is still at an experimental stage but has highly disruptive potential, as it promises to multiply computing power exponentially. As such, it has become a focal point for government, industry, and investors around the globe. In the global race, European countries are seeking to pool resources by encouraging the development of federated computing services, data infrastructures, and a local industry. Of course, Europe faces multiple challenges (the design and production of processors, energy consumption constraints, and scarce private investment) and risks (such as export restrictions and company takeovers). Yet, today, quantum computing does offer an opportunity to learn lessons from past developments in the field of classical computing, and to take the right actions early on, to reap the societal, economic and security benefits of this technology.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Data, Quantum Computers, Digital Sovereignty, and Supercomputers
Political Geography:
Europe

612. South Korea as a Fourth Industrial Revolution Middle Power?

Author:
Dongwoo Kim
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
This paper proposes a framework for conceptualizing middle powerism in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, using South Korea as an example. The paper argues that the systemic transformation of the Fourth Industrial Revolution has created new openings for middle powerism, and proposes 1) technology, 2) networks, and 3) governance as factors that could enable it. Then, South Korea’s capacities in each of these three areas, potential barriers, and ultimately Seoul’s capacity to act as a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” middle power are evaluated.
Topic:
International Relations, Economics, Science and Technology, Governance, Industrialization, and Middle Power
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea

613. Partnering for Africa’s digital future: Opportunities for the United States, South Korea, and India

Author:
Aleksandra Gadzala Tirziu
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Technological competition between the United States and China poses a special dilemma for African nations, whose prosperity depends on doing business with both Beijing and Washington. Although President Joe Biden is expected to assume a softer policy stance toward China—one couched in the language of human rights and liberal values, rather than power and strategic capabilities—competition will persist, driven by Beijing’s ambition to control the key technologies of the future. Rising US-China tensions may eventually force African nations to take sides. Speaking at the 2020 Munich Security Conference, then-US Defense Secretary Mark Esper warned allied nations that the use of Chinese company Huawei’s fifth-generation (5G) technology could compromise future intelligence cooperation with the United States. That’s a real problem for Africa because, together, Huawei and Chinese phone maker ZTE have built nearly 80 percent of Africa’s third-generation (3G) network infrastructure, while Huawei has built 70 percent of all fourth-generation (4G) networks and is competing to build all the future 5G networks in Africa. Chinese mobile-phone maker Transsion Holdings controls 64 percent of Africa’s feature phone market, and more than 40 percent of its smartphone market, and social media platforms such as TikTok and Vskit are fast becoming popular among Africa’s connected youth. For African leaders, disassociation from Beijing is becoming less and less feasible—or attractive. So too is closer alignment with the United States. Washington simply cannot match the large volumes of funding that Beijing extends to the continent. Recent conduct by leading US technology companies, including by Facebook and Google following the 2020 US presidential election, has additionally prompted a global pushback against US “big tech” that could make it harder for the US public and private sectors to compete and hold sway in African markets. Fortunately, there is a third way, both for African countries looking to avoid the crossfires of US-China competition, and for US policymakers seeking to bolster US competitiveness and influence in the region. The solution hinges on closer cooperation with emerging powers, notably South Korea and India, which have recently demonstrated their determination to better understand Africa’s challenges and prospects, and to figure out how their citizens could collaborate with African businesses and governments. For example, in his 2018 address to Uganda’s parliament, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi outlined “ten guiding principles for India-Africa engagement” that center on cooperation in digitalization, clean-energy technologies, and cybersecurity—a marked detour from the policies that have historically shaped India-Africa ties. South Korea-Africa relations under President Moon Jae-In have also entered a new phase, with an emphasis on commercial linkages and people-to-people collaboration. Both South Korea and India are rapidly expanding their technological capabilities, and their foreign policies also align well with US interests in the region, and vis-à-vis China. For Washington, cooperation with these emerging powers could keep the door open to US influence in Africa, and could help ensure that Beijing’s strategic foothold in the continent does not deepen. For African countries, such partnerships could help bypass the “either-or-ism” implicit in US-China competition, while encouraging greater diversity and agency in their foreign affairs. There is real opportunity for African states to realize the potential that such alliances could create, and to become significant multilateral actors, able to leverage their distinct assets and pursue their own interests. This report explores how.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Economy, Business, Space, and Innovation
Political Geography:
India, Korea, and Africa

614. Enhancing US-Japan cooperation on global supply chains

Author:
Miyeon Oh and James Hildebrand
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Mounting US-China tensions and the COVID-19 pandemic have led to growing calls in the United States and among its allies and partners, including Japan, to address the vulnerabilities in global supply chains critical to national security and economic competitiveness. Strategic uncertainty has led stakeholders to pose the following questions. What role should government play, and to what extent can, or should, governments require firms to operate more in line with national security interests? How can firms manage short-term and long-term risks to balance national security requirements and commercial interests? How should trusted partners be defined, and what is a desirable allied and multilateral approach to enhancing security and resilience of global high-tech supply chains? With new administrations in both the United States and Japan, the two countries have an opportunity to consider these questions and rethink coordination of their efforts to establish secure and resilient supply chains. This issue brief analyzes recent developments in US and Japanese supply-chain policy, explores the importance of closer coordination through case studies of the semiconductor and rare-earth minerals industries, and provides a set of recommendations for the Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Yoshihide Suga administrations to enhance US-Japan cooperation in the years ahead. These recommendations include actions to operationalize the April 2021 US-Japan Joint Leaders’ Statement by creating a bilateral interagency Supply Chain Steering Committee that includes sector-specific working groups to enhance public-private-partnerships in high-technology industries, and by expanding bilateral supply-chain cooperation into multilateral efforts through flexible and informal frameworks.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Bilateral Relations, Economy, Innovation, Trade, Defense Industry, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

615. The Special Role of US Nuclear Weapons

Author:
Matthew Kroenig
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
This issue brief is based on Dr. Matthew Kroenig’s written testimony at a hearing on “Nuclear Deterrence Policy and Strategy” before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, conducted on June 16, 2021. US nuclear weapons play a special role in underpinning international peace, global security, and the US-led, rules-based international system. The nuclear threat to the United States and its democratic allies is growing: nuclear-armed, revisionist, autocratic powers (Russia, China, and North Korea) are relying more on nuclear weapons in their strategies, and they are modernizing and expanding their arsenals. In this new issue brief, the Scowcroft Center’s Matthew Kroenig explains why the United States needs to retain a robust, flexible, and modernized nuclear force to meet its national security objectives.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, Missile Defense, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Iran, Asia, Korea, and United States of America

616. Nuclear priorities for the Biden administration

Author:
John Harvey and Robert Soofer
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
How can the administration of President Joseph R. Biden both address the deteriorating international security environment and follow through on campaign promises to reduce the role of nuclear weapons? Former nuclear deterrence policymakers John R. Harvey and Robert Soofer, from Democratic and Republican administrations, respectively, contend in this issue brief that the Biden administration can address the increasing nuclear threat to the United States, meet its commitment to reduce the role of nuclear weapons, and maintain bipartisan support for US nuclear policy.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, Nonproliferation, Missile Defense, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Iran, Asia, Korea, and United States of America

617. We Need to Talk Trade and Technology!

Author:
Lucian Cernat
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
“It’s May 3, 2021. Don’t forget to upgrade the embedded software in your shoes before you go for a run!” This may sound like a commercial for the 1986 Puma Smart Sneaker[1], the first running shoe with embedded sensors and software in its heel. It could also be an opening line from an old sci-fi movie describing a distant point in the future. Sci-fi movies have a great track record of predicting the future, from video calls[2] to self-driving cars[3]. The former is a dominant part of our daily professional routine these days. The latter is no longer science fiction[4]. So, what if the growing interplay between goods and services is not about the future but a good description of the present? Nowadays we live in a world of connected objects that rely on sophisticated embedded software. Recently, the Volkswagen’s CEO[5] admitted that the only way for VW to remain a successful car manufacturer is to become a successful software company. And while he may be the latest CEO to recognise the business irrelevance of such a goods-services distinction, he certainly is not the only one. Apple understood it well before many other companies when designing mobile phones and their underlying software ecosystem without having any production facilities. Now Apple wants to produce cars[6]. And so do several Chinese telecom giants, like ZTE[7] or Huawei[8]. And the list is longer: Amazon, Tencent, Google, Baidu. All these corporate announcements are another way of saying that mode 5 services[9] are going to be one of the most important ingredients of global competitiveness in many sectors. Car companies are right to get interested in software. Future autonomous and electric vehicles are primarily software-driven products compared to traditional cars. Already in 2010, the General Motors’ Volt car[10] was dubbed as one of the most sophisticated IT products, with over 10 million lines of software code and its own IP address. So, in the future, car manufacturers might need to do software in order to produce cars successfully. Surely, along complex global supply chains with many suppliers scattered around the world. These headline announcements from global manufacturing companies entering the software market and vice-versa, confirm a simple truth: in order to stay competitive, companies can no longer see themselves just as a manufacturing firm, or a services firm. And this simple truth goes beyond the automotive sector. Underpinning this radical shift is a series of digital disruptive technologies, affecting everything from product standards, industrial design, intellectual property, and investment decisions. Such technological developments are game changers for many traditional manufacturing sectors.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Digital Economy, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe

618. Subsidising Balkanisation: What China’s 3G Subsidies Teach us about 5G Open RAN

Author:
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Open RAN is increasingly becoming the answer to how to diversify 5G networks and beyond, especially in the light of a potential exclusion of China’s participation in western networks. In recent times, the US and Japan have jointly pledged $4.5 billion to support its development. Much – or perhaps entirety – of this support is predesignated for the O-RAN Alliance, a closed-door and private industry consortium. State interventionism is back – in a sector hereto characterised by open western markets and free competition. The public support currently pledged to the O-RAN consortium bear many resemblances to the Chinese government’s attempt to support TD-SCDMA, a unique standard for the Chinese market that was designed to support local vendors. Its use was a pre-condition for public subsidies for R&D or public procurement. As recent as 2020, the US Trade Representative reported on China’s standard-setting practices and subsidies as one of the world’s worst trade barriers. Those who advocate similar support in the West are either indifferent or nescient about how EU and US trade negotiators worked to address subsidies and opaque standard-setting. It is an open question whether the US and Japan will offer a level-playing field to European vendors – or non-O-RAN members who may develop their own Open RAN variants. Nowadays, Chinese scholars and senior officials openly talk of “TD-style innovation” as a disaster for the nation that delayed China’s rollout of 4G and plunged the economy into a performance and innovation lag. A key lesson for policymakers today is how vendors that cannot survive without subsidies will not optimise the organisation for innovation but public grant-seeking. This is an eerie warning for the 5G debate in some western capitals.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Digital Economy, 5G, and Subsidies
Political Geography:
China and Asia

619. China’s Public Procurement Protectionism and Europe’s Response: The Case of Medical Technology

Author:
Fredrik Erixon, Anna Guildea, Oscar Guinea, and Philipp Lamprecht
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
This paper concerns China’s market for medical technologies and how the Chinese state is assisting its own companies to gain greater sales at the expense of producers from Europe and other advanced manufacturing economies. The medical technology sector captures a variety of products, services and solutions which are essential to the provision of healthcare to citizens. Examples range from fairly simple technologies such as sticking platers, to complex ones, such as coronary stents, orthopaedics and pacemakers. In the last decades, Europe’s exports of medical devices to China have grown robustly. On the back of vibrant innovation, firms from Europe and elsewhere have not just followed the growth of Chinese demand for medical devices – they have also increased their share of Chinese imports. Now, however, this market is at risk of being gradually closed off for European firms as China doubles down on various policies that advantage local firms, while ultimately harming innovation and Chinese patients. China has recently introduced a new element in its industrial policy for its medical technology sector – a policy that builds on its long-term ‘made-in-China’ ambition to have local firms taking up the lion’s share of the market for medical devices by 2030. Beijing and provincial governments are using many different policies to provide support to the domestic industry and are in effect pursuing a policy for import substitution. Accessing the Chinese market for medical devices has never been easy but it has become increasingly challenging in recent years. Direct financial support, tax benefits, R&D support, local content requirements, opaque approval systems and other forms of advantages to domestic MedTech producers are now becoming major sources for the behaviour and development of the Chinese medical device market. China’s Fourteenth Five-Year Plan and the country’s new economic model of ‘dual circulation’ reinforces this trend. The Chinese market is becoming less open. Added to that is centralised state procurement – a new public procurement policy in China that was launched in 2019 for medical devices which has led to a grossly distorted procurement market. While this policy has reduced the price of medical devices in a drastic way, it has also paved the way for Chinese firms to take up a larger market share. This procurement policy is gradually squeezing European firms out of the Chinese market. Competition in China is becoming less fair. These policies follow a pattern. In several sectors, Chinese firms have grown their domestic market share through industrial subsidies and policies that restrict market access for foreign firms – or make it more difficult for foreign firms to compete in China. From their domestic market, these firms have then expanded abroad and taken a more prominent role outside of China. Backed by the Chinese state, these firms can squeeze market opportunities even more for otherwise-competitive European producers. Now this development is happening in the MedTech sector. It is urgent for Europe to respond to China’s procurement protectionism. MedTech manufacturers in Europe are often small and medium-sized enterprises, and they already struggle with getting into the Chinese market. China’s new procurement policy has also had a significant impact on Chinese imports of medical devices: a 1.3 billion euro trade deficit for China in medical technology products in 2019 turned into a 5.2 billion euro surplus in 2020. In Africa, Asia and Latin America, competitive European manufacturers are now confronted with competition from Chinese MedTech companies that have the backing of the Chinese state. The competitive distortions in the Chinese market now spill over to the global market – making European MedTech manufacturers even more disadvantaged. Europe should consider a case at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) against China’s policies which reduce European market presence for medical devices. Once agreed, a new International Procurement Initiative might be a useful instrument to wield pressure against the Chinese government to agree to free and fair competition. Europe can also negotiate with China – for instance in the framework of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) or through the new initiative on trade and health that Europe proposed to the Ottawa Group in 2020. These responses should focus both on remedying China’s current policy for growing its domestic medical technology industry by distorting its market and setting out the core policies and rules that should guide the future market for medical technologies. Fredrik Erixon and Anna Guildea are Director and Research Associate, respectively, at ECIPE. Oscar Guinea and Philipp Lamprecht are Senior Economists at ECIPE. The authors are grateful to a number of experts in the private sector and from the European Commission, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy in Germany, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology that have taken their time to share their knowledge with us.
Topic:
Health, Science and Technology, European Union, and Public Procurement
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Asia

620. From SMEs to Unicorns: What Role for Trade, Standards and New Tech?

Author:
Lucian Cernat
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The global economy has been shaped by important, disruptive technological changes in recent years. Many of these technologies have been instrumental in our global COVID-19 response and will become the new normal. Some of these technologies have been introduced by small firms, which grew spectacularly to become ‘unicorns’, with very high market value and global reach, setting new technological standards in their sectors. The future competitiveness of the EU economy depends on the interplay between firm size, technological progress and ability to use the opportunities offered by global markets. This paper looks at the role of trade policy in influencing this complex interplay and offers a few tentative conclusions and recommendations.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Economy, Trade, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe and Global Focus