Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means*

被引:73
作者
Edler, Jakob [1 ,2 ]
Blind, Knut [1 ,3 ]
Kroll, Henning [1 ,4 ]
Schubert, Torben [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Fraunhofer Inst Syst & Innovat Res ISI, Breslauer Str 48, D-76139 Karlsruhe, Germany
[2] Univ Manchester, Manchester Inst Innovat Res, AMBS, Manchester, England
[3] Tech Univ Berlin, Chair Innovat Econ, Berlin, Germany
[4] Leibniz Univ Hannover, Inst Econ & Cultural Geog, Hannover, Germany
[5] Lund Univ, Ctr Innovat Res, CIRCLE, Lund, Sweden
关键词
Technology sovereignty; Geo; -politics; Transformation; Global trade; Policy rationale; STI; SYSTEMS; CHALLENGES; INDUSTRIAL; STATES; CHINA; POWER;
D O I
10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
In recent years, global technology-based competition has not only intensified, but become increasingly linked to a more comprehensive type of competition between different political and value systems. The globalist as-sumptions of the post-Cold War era that reliable mutually beneficial agreements could be reached with all na-tions, regardless of ideology, have been shattered. A previously less visible, mostly political, risk dimension has been brought to the fore by recent geopolitical and geo-economic developments. Against this background, the notion of technology sovereignty has gained prominence in national and international debates, cutting across and adding to established rationales of innovation policy. In this paper, we propose and justify a concise yet nuanced concept of technology sovereignty to contribute to and clarify this debate. In particular, we argue that technology sovereignty should be conceived as state-level agency within the international system, i.e. as sovereignty of governmental action, rather than (territorial) sovereignty over something. Against this background, we define technology sovereignty not as an end in itself, but as a means to achieving the central objectives of innovation policy -sustaining national competitiveness and building capacities for transformative policies. By doing so, we position ourselves between a naive globalist position which largely neglects the risks of collaboration and the promotion of near autarky which disregards the inevitable costs of creating national redundancies and reducing cooperative interdependencies. We finish by providing a set of policy suggestions to support technology sovereignty in line with our conceptual approach.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 101 条
[1]   After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order [J].
Acharya, Amitav .
ETHICS & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 2017, 31 (03) :271-285
[2]   Three characteristics of technology competition by IoT-driven digitization [J].
Ahn, Sang-Jin .
TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, 2020, 157
[3]   Spatialities of globalisation [J].
Amin, A .
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A, 2002, 34 (03) :385-399
[4]  
[Anonymous], Policy Framework for Investment
[5]  
[Anonymous], OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2021: Times of Crisis and Opportunity, DOI DOI 10.1787/75F79015-EN
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2001, GLOBAL NETW, DOI DOI 10.1111/1471-0374.00007
[7]  
Archibugi Daniele, 2021, Inter Econ, V56, P160, DOI 10.1007/s10272-021-0973-x
[8]  
Aussilloux V., 2020, EVOLUTIONS COMP INT
[9]  
Barton JohnH., 2006, The Evolution of the Trade Regime: Politics, Law
[10]  
Battilana J, 2009, INSTITUTIONAL WORK: ACTORS AND AGENCY IN INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES OF ORGANIZATIONS, P31, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511596605.002