Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The academic literature has revamped its interest in economic statecraft, geoeconomics, geopoliticization of trade and technology sectors, and in the role of value chains as vectors for exerting control over critical technologies. However, there has been less reflection on state-market relations in the production of technological innovation and on the evolution of government business relations. Four recent books address these two important issues from different angles. Mazzucato and Mallaby's books focus on the right mix of state and market needed to stimulate technological innovation, and they do so from opposite perspectives. Chen and Ripley's books look, respectively, at the rise of Tencent as one of China's major big tech companies and the rise of SpaceX as a key private player in the traditionally state-led US space market. These two books are therefore of interest to gauge the evolving relations between government and private businesses in two key areas of current geopolitical competition, the digital and the space sectors. The aim of this review essay is not only to briefly summarize the content of these books and their strengths and weaknesses, but also to use them as a starting point to reflect on the mix of state and market in the production of innovation, and on government-businesses relations in digital markets.

Abstract5G networks are at the center of geopolitical competition. The United States has denounced market leader Huawei's ability to break into allies' sensitive networks and it has tried to convince Europeans to ban the Chinese group from their 5G markets. How are European governments and industries reacting to 5G politicization? This article argues that government‐industry interactions in the handling of politically salient issues are mediated by the country's political system. In executive‐dominated countries, the government would centralize policymaking. In parliament‐dominated countries, the government would delegate politically salient issues to the industry to bypass diffuse power‐sharing and fragmented coalition‐building. The article adds that political economy acts as an intervening variable. In public governance ecosystems, governments and industries interact through informal coordination; in private governance ecosystems, the two actors rely on formal contracting. The empirical analysis focuses on British, Dutch, French, and Italian reactions to 5G politicization, yielding favorable results to the hypotheses.

The European Defence Agency (EDA), thanks to the adoption of a large number of strategic documents and its expertise in the formulation of collaborative projects, has become a crucial player in the European defence field. However, the role of the EDA and the everyday practices of the people that work in and collaborate with the Agency remain to be studied systematically. No empirical studies have been conducted to assess the EDA 'hybrid' way of working that includes European, governmental and non-governmental experts. The article argues that the EDA is at the core of an emerging transgovernmental network of European defence experts and professionals, that are able to share best practices, 'know how' and develop common norms of communication. This transgovernmental network of experts is generating a process of informal socialization among defence practitioners, it is shaping Member States' defence planning in research and technology (R&T) activities and, in general, it is legitimizing the role of EDA in the broader EU institutional context.