Aspirations towards technological sovereignty increasingly pervade the political debate. Yet, an ambiguous definition leaves the exact goal of those aspirations and the policies to fulfill them unclear. This leaves room for partly particularly negative interpretations, such as equating the concept with a strive for autarky, nationalism, and the roll-back of globalization. We develop a competence-based definition of technological sovereignty, which puts innovation policy at the core of fulfilling sovereignty aspirations. Moreover, we show how our definition realigns technological sovereignty with international cooperation and trade. Two case studies illustrate how innovation policy might be used to achieve technological sovereignty.
Abstract Aspirations toward technological sovereignty increasingly pervade the political debate. Yet, an ambiguous definition leaves the exact goal of those aspirations and the policies to fulfil them unclear. This opens the door for vested interests who benefit from misinterpreting the goal, e.g., as a strive for autarky, nationalism, and the rollback of globalization. To close this gap, we show how certain key technologies challenge state sovereignty as conventionally understood. By interpreting technological sovereignty in this light, we develop a competence-based definition, which puts innovation policy at the core of fulfilling sovereignty aspirations. Moreover, we establish the important role of international cooperation and trade to enhance technological sovereignty understood as ability. Hence, autarky would be detrimental rather than helpful to technological sovereignty. Two case studies illustrate how innovation policy helps to achieve technological sovereignty.
The COVID-19 crisis has revealed the deep technological and production dependencies of the EU on third countries in sectors deemed as particularly strategic and has thus fuelled the debate on (the lack of) European technological sovereignty in critical fields. This article argues that in the light of a renewed interest in relaunching a European industrial policy, technological sovereignty considerations must be fully incorporated into policy objectives and instruments.
The COVID-19 crisis has revealed the deep technological and production dependencies of the EU on third countries in sectors deemed as particularly strategic and has thus fuelled the debate on (the lack of) European technological sovereignty in critical fields. This article argues that in the light of a renewed interest in relaunching a European industrial policy, technological sovereignty considerations must be fully incorporated into policy objectives and instruments.
Introduction. The article analyzes the scientific, political and social directions of technology development using artificial intelligence in the context of the global digital race. The strategies for achieving technological sovereignty, adopted by the largest countries of the world, and the place and role of artificial intelligence in them are analyzed. Special attention is paid to the analysis of statistical indicators of the achievements of the world's leading states in the field of digital technologies. The scientific, political, economic, regulatory and social resources of the Russian Federation are also being explored, allowing them to become one of the global leaders in digital and technological development.Methodology and sources. The theoretical and methodological base of the study were the classical socio-economic concepts of technological and innovative development (K. Marx, T. Veblein, J. Schumpeter etc.). In the practical part of the study, we used such methods as analysis of documents (reports of the Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation and the Competence Center of the NTI "Artificial Intelligence" of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, analytics from the the Russian International Affairs Council, Oxford Insights, Tortoise etc.) and comparative analysis. The empirical base was data from an analysis of the experience of China, the United States, India and the Russian Federation in developing their own strategies for the development of artificial intelligence technologies.Results and discussion. As a result of the study, we were able to trace how the active actions of the world's largest countries in the conceptualization of steps to develop artificial intelligence are reflected in the construction of the state's technological sovereignty. The analysis made it possible to describe the Russian model of supporting the development of technologies using artificial intelligence as a "Moscow consensus", characterized by a social orientation of the results.Conclusion. In the structure of technological sovereignty, artificial intelligence plays an important role as a strategic component that contributes to the achievement of digital sovereignty. In the foreseeable future, the critical impact of the dependence of Russia's scientific and technological development on imported solutions and other external factors is obvious, which requires a thorough examination of the situation and a public discussion of any actions for the transition of Russian industry to Industry 4.0. At the same time, it is important to realize that the prospects for technologies using AI are vague without political decisions and financial support.
The EU does not suffer from a lack of ambition on digital policy. From 'strategic autonomy' to 'technological sovereignty', European leaders like to portray the EU as a geopolitical heavyweight on digital. In practice, however, the European digital single market continues to be exposed to many of the fundamental challenges that have plagued it since its inception. The ongoing European effort to draft the global rulebook on tech regulation remains a laudable endeavour, but this has contributed little to boosting the competitiveness of the European digital sector. Many European tech companies still struggle to offer their services outside of national borders and expand their reach to a genuinely European customer base. The EU must tackle inconsistent regulations, close infrastructure gaps, promote investment, and facilitate secure, yet speedy data flows. These issues are integral to helping to turn the digital single market into a tech hub for global business. This article puts forward a number of policy proposals for upgrading the European digital agenda as one of the main conduits for ensuring European economic growth and improved global standing.
The paper is devoted to the study of conceptual differences in the interpretation of the concept – «technological sovereignty». In recent years, many states have proclaimed the achievement of technological sovereignty as a strategic priority and one of the goals of long-term development. At the same time, in the scientific literature on this topic, in the presence of review publications and case studies, there is a lack of analysis of conceptual differences. In strategic documents, state concepts and public discourse, the articulation of the concept of «sovereignty» in the technological sphere varies from a variant close to autarky in meaning to a policy of maintaining a competitive environment and diversifying foreign suppliers of critical technologies. As a methodological basis for the study, we chose the concept of problematics developed within the framework of the French tradition of historical epistemology (J. Martin, L. Althusser, D. Lecourt). Its toolkit makes it possible to explicate the internal structure and interconnection of concepts within the framework of individual interpretations and the logic of justification strategies in public policy. On the example of the European Union, a new interpretation of sovereignty as an agency was demonstrated, in addition, its connection with the postulates of German ordoliberalism was investigated. The cases of Brazil and India represent two different models for justifying the policy of technological sovereignty in the context of understanding center-periphery relations in the global economy and postcolonialism.
