Technological sovereignty and priorities of localization of production

TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 21 (no. 1),

The current trend of global development is the strengthening of economic and geopolitical influence of countries that control transnational digital infrastructure. The claims of the United States and China to dominate the global economy are a challenge not only for Russia, but also for other countries that are not devoid of ambitions. Achieving digital sovereignty figures is among the goals of the European Union. India is striving to overcome digital colonization, the technological hegemony of the West and China. The article presents how the European Union and India move towards technological sovereignty. Since this sovereignty differs from autarky, it is an urgent task to develop a policy of participation in global value chains. Findings provided by METRO model (an OECD tool for analyzing global markets) focus on a broad diversification of foreign economic relations. The results of the shock test of the countries by the COVID-19 pandemic show that, although the countries with the largest income per capita are characterized by a high level of foreign trade activity, it is not a guarantee of sustainable economic development. National economy can be strongly negatively affected by supply chain disruptions. To resist foreign pressure, Russia needs to control a number of macro technologies that will dominate in the XXI century. Such general-purpose technology as artificial intelligence is beginning to play a significant role at that.
Citation: Dementiev V.E. (2023). Technological sovereignty and priorities of localization of production. Terra Economicus 21(1), 6–18 (in Russian). DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2023-21-1-6-18

Keywords: technological sovereignty; digital sovereignty; localization of production; turbulence of economic development; macrotechnologies, artificial intelligence

JEL codes: F51, F52, F68, O5, P5

  • Балацкий Е.В. (2022). Россия в эпицентре геополитической турбулентности: накопление глобальных противоречий. Экономические и социальные перемены: факты, тенденции, прогноз 15(4), 42–59. [Balatsky, E. (2022). Russia in the epicenter of geopolitical turbulence: Accumulation of global contradictions. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast 15(4), 42–59 (in Russian)]. DOI: 10.15838/esc.2022.4.82.3
  • Дементьев В.Е. (2022). Перспективы России при цифровом доминировании Китая и США. Проблемы прогнозирования (4), 6–17. [Dementiev, V. (2022). Prospects of Russia under the digital dominance of China and the United States Forecasting problems (4), 6–17 (in Russian)]. DOI: 10.47711/0868-6351-193-6-17
  • Лосев А. (2018). Ядерная энергетика и технологический суверенитет. Атомный эксперт (2).[Losev, A. (2018). Nuclear power and technological sovereignty. Atomic Expert (2) (in Russian)]. http://atomicexpert.com/page2213466.html (accessed: September 11, 2022).
  • Львов Д.С. (ред.) (1999). Путь в XXI век: Стратегические проблемы и перспективы российской экономики. М.: Экономика. [Lvov, D. (ed.) (1999). The Path to the XXI Century: Strategic Problems and Prospects of the Russian Economy. Moscow: Ekonomika Publ. (in Russian)].
  • Сироткин O. (1998). Технологический облик России на рубеже XXI века. Экономист (4), 3–20.[Sirotkin, O. (1998). The technological appearance of Russia at the turn of the XXI century. Ekonomist (4), 3–20 (in Russian)].
  • Хейфец Б.А. (2020). Каким маршрутом пойдет Россия по одному непростому китайскому пути (Научный доклад). М: Институт экономики РАН, 62 c. [Heifetz, B. (2020). Which route will Russia take along one difficult Chinese path? (Scientific report). Moscow: Institute of Economics RAS, 62 p. (in Russian)].
  • Ahn, S.-J. (2020). Three characteristics of technology competition by IoT-driven digitization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 157, 120062. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120062
  • Arrighi, G. (1994). The Long Twentieth Century. Money, Power and the Origins of Our Time. New York: Verso.
  • Baldwin, R., Freeman, R. (2022). Risks and global supply chains: What we know and what we need to know. Annual Review of Economics 14, 153–180. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-economics-051420-113737
  • Beise, M. (2004). Lead markets: country-specific drivers of the global diffusion of innovations. Research Policy 33(6-7), 997–1018. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.03.003
  • Bhattacharya, J. (2010). Technology standards: A route to digital colonization. IETE Journal of Education 51(1), 9–21. DOI: 10.1080/09747338.2010.10876064
  • Braun, M., Hummel, P. (2022). Sovereign power: Artificial intelligence and Europe’s digital sovereignty. In: Contested Spatialities of Digital Sovereignty, Geopolitics, pp. 14–19. DOI: 10.1080/14650045.2022.2050070
  • Carlaw, K., Lipsey, R. (2011). Sustained endogenous growth driven by structured and evolving general purpose technologies. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 21(4), 563–593. DOI: 10.1007/s00191-010-0212-2
  • Caselli, F., Koren, M., Lisicky, M., Tenreyro, S. (2020). Diversification through trade. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135(1), 449–502. DOI: 10.1093/qje/qjz028
  • Christakis, T. (2020). European digital sovereignty: Successfully navigating between the ‘Brussels effect’ and Europe’s quest for strategic autonomy. SSRN Journal 7. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3748098
  • Claessen, E. (2020). Reshaping the internet – the impact of the securitisation of internet infrastructure on approaches to internet governance: The case of Russia and the EU. Journal of Cyber Policy 5(1), 140–157. DOI: 10.1080/23738871.2020.1728356
  • Creemers, R. (2020). China’s conception of cyber sovereignty. In: Broeders, D., Berg, B., van den (eds.) Governing Cyberspace: Behavior, Power and Diplomacy. Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 107–145.
  • Crespi, F., Caravella, S., Menghini, M., Salvatori, C. (2021). European technological sovereignty: An emerging framework for policy strategy. Intereconomics 56(6), 348–354. DOI: 10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6
  • Dementev, V. (2022). Prospects for Russia under the digital domination of China and the United States. Studies on Russian Economic Development 33(4), 359–366. DOI: 10.1134/S1075700722040037
  • Edler, J., Blind, K., Frietsch, R., Kimpeler, S., Kroll, H., Lerch, C., Reiss, T., Roth, F., Schubert, T., Schuler, J., Walz, R. (2020). Technology sovereignty. From demand to concept. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research. https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/publikationen/technology_sovereignty.pdf (accessed: 11.09.2022).
  • Edler, J., Blind, K., Kroll, H., Schubert, T. (2021). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy: Defining rationales, ends and means, Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers – Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis, № 70. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/236194 (accessed: 11.09.2022).
  • Floridi, L. (2021). The European legislation on AI: A brief analysis of its philosophical approach. Philosophy & Technology (34), 215–222. DOI: 10.1007/s13347-021-00460-9
  • Freeman, C., Louça, F. (2001). As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/0199251053.001.0001
  • Friedrichsen, M., Bisa, P. (2016). Einfuhrung – Analyse der digitalen Souveranitat auf funf Ebenen[Introduction – Analysis of digital sovereignty on five levels]. In: Friedrichsen, M., Bisa, P. (eds.)Digitale Souveranitat, s. 1–6. Springer Fachmedien.
  • Géry, A., Nicolai, F. (2022). Law enforcement and access to transborder evidence: The quest for the exercise of digital sovereignty? In: Glasze et al. Contested Spatialities of Digital Sovereignty, Geopolitics, pp. 23–27. DOI: 10.1080/14650045.2022.2050070
  • Gupta, S., Sony, R. (2021). Quest of data colonialism and cyber sovereignty: India’s strategic position in cyberspace. Legal Issues in the Digital Age (2), 68–81. DOI: 10.17323/2713-2749.2021.2.68.81
  • Hobbs, C. (2020). Europe’s digital sovereignty: From rulemaker to superpower in the age of US-China rivalry. London: European Council on Foreign Relations. https://ecfr.eu/publication/europe_digital_sovereignty_rulemaker_superpower_age_us_china_rivalry/ (accessed: 30.08.2022).
  • Inoue, H., Todo, Y. (2022). Propagation of Overseas Economic Shocks through Global Supply Chains: Firm-level evidence. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4183736
  • Joshi, M. (2019). China and Europe: Trade, technology and competition. ORF Occasional Paper № 194. https://www.orfonline.org/research/china-europe-trade-technology-competition-51115/ (accessed: 10.10.2022).
  • Kapczynski, A. (2020). The law of informational capitalism. Yale Law Journal 129(5), 1460–1515.
  • Lambach, D. (2020). The territorialization of cyberspace. International Studies Review 22(3), 482–506. DOI: doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz022
  • March, C., Schieferdecker, I. (2021). Technological sovereignty as ability, not autarky. CESifo Working Papers, 9139. Munic: CESifo. https://www.ce- sifo.org/en/publikationen/2021/working-paper/technological-sovereignty-ability- not-autarky (accessed: 12.09.2022).
  • Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union A problemsolving approach to fuel innovation-led growth. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/mazzucato_report_2018.pdf (accessed: 01.09.2022).
  • Mishra, D., Gupta, N., Dua, S., Agarwal, S. (2022). Globalise to localise. Exporting at scale and deepening the ecosystem are vital to higher domestic value addition in electronics. https://www.communicationstoday.co.in/globalise-to-localise-icrier/ (accessed: 27.10.2022).
  • OECD (2020). Shocks, risks and global value chains: insights from the OECD METRO model. https://www.oecd.org/trade/documents/shocks-risks-gvc-insights-oecd-metro-model.pdf (accessed: 15.10.2022).
  • Pasquale, F. (2016). Two narratives of platform capitalism. Yale Law & Policy Review 35(1), 309–319.
  • Pohle, J. (2020). Digital Sovereignty. A New Key Concept of Digital Policy in Germany and Europe. Berlin: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. https://www.kas.de/en/web/guest/single-title/-/content/digitale-souveraenitaet (accessed: 14.09.2022).
  • Renda, A. (2020). Artificial intelligence: Towards a pan-European strategy. In: Hobbs, C. (ed.) Europe’s Digital Sovereignty: From Rulemaker to Superpower in the Age of US-China Rivalry, pp. 54–62. https://ecfr.eu/publication/europe_digital_sovereignty_rulemaker_superpower_age_us_china_rivalry/ (accessed: 20.09.2022).
  • Shih, W. (2020). Is it time to rethink globalized supply chains? MIT Sloan Management Review 61(4), 1–3. 
  • SPMRF (2021). Technological sovereignty & India. A Paper by Working Group of SPMRF. https://www.spmrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Sovereignty-in-Tech-Paper-Final.pdf (accessed: 27.09.2022).
  • Winkler, J., Dammann, F. (2022). Digitally competent – digitally sovereign – digitally civic: Geopolitics of subject formation in the German context. In: Glasze et al. Contested Spatialities of Digital Sovereignty, Geopolitics, pp. 19–23. DOI: 10.1080/14650045.2022.2050070
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606