SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

TERRA ECONOMICUS

  • Home
  • Issues
  • 2023
  • No 4
  • Technological sovereignty: From conceptual contradiction to practical implementation

Technological sovereignty: From conceptual contradiction to practical implementation


TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 21 (no. 4),

Technological sovereignty is on the agenda of both analytical perspectives and academic discussions. Current literature promotes the idea that the framework of technological sovereignty should be clearly separated from the model of economic autarky; it is argued that technological sovereignty is essentially a cooperative strategy, but with elements of state control. However, the return of state agency in the realignment of global technological chains inevitably extends the practices of technological protectionism and the blockfragmentation of international trade. This contradiction, we argue, follows the paradox of classical sovereignty. In this paper we consider both the conceptual foundations of technological sovereignty and the more practical aspects of ensuring it. At the conceptual level, we note that technological sovereignty is emerging in different countries in response to the proliferation of technological platforms that have become an unexpected source of extraterritorial institutional influence. This brings us to the problem of practical analysis of technological platforms, associated technology chains and the selection of key elements that should be supported by domestic R&D platforms. Criteria for selecting such elements may include the degree of commoditization and the minimum scale of implementation. As an example of an emerging tradition, we analyze the technology chain in the mobile telecommunications equipment sector. We find that securing technological sovereignty is inherently reactive in nature. It is associated with a failure of economic efficiency in the short run, but allows to reduce the risks of extraterritorial institutional influence in the long run.
Citation: Gareev T.R. (2023). Technological sovereignty: From conceptual contradiction to practical implementation. Terra Economicus 21(4), 38–54 (in Russian). DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2023-21- 4-38-54


Keywords: technological sovereignty; technological platform; commoditization; localization; international trade; technology policy; technology chain; extraterritorial institutional influence

JEL codes: F50, F63, O33, O38

References:
  • Агамбен Д. (2011). Homo sacer. Суверенная власть и голая жизнь. М.: Европа. [Agamben, D.(2011). Homo sacer. Sovereign Power or Bare Life. Moscow: Evropa Publ. (in Russian)].
  • Грейф А. (2013). Институты и путь к современной экономике. Уроки средневековой торговли. М.: ВШЭ. [Greif, A. (2013). Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy Lessons from Medieval Trade. Moscow: HSE Publishing House (in Russian)].
  • Дементьев В.Е. (2023). Технологический суверенитет и приоритеты локализации производства. Terra Economicus 21(1), 6–18. [Dementiev, V. (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
  • Портер М. (2003). Конкуренция. М.: Вильямс. [Porter, M. (2003). Competition. Moscow: Williams Publishing House (in Russian)].
  • Родрик Д. (2014). Парадокс глобализации: демократия и будущее мировой экономики. М.: Изд-во Института Гайдара. [Rodrik, D. (2014). The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House (in Russian)].
  • Abonamah, A., Tariq, M., Shilbayeh, S. (2021). On the commoditization of artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology 12, 696346. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.696346
  • Chan, T., Dhar, R., Putsis, W. (2015). The technological conundrum: How rapidly advancing technology can lead to commoditization. Customer Needs and Solutions 2, 119–132. DOI: 10.1007/s40547-015-0047-y
  • Chang, H.-J. (2007). Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. Bloomsbury Press.
  • Chang, H.-J. (1993). The political economy of industrial policy in Korea. Cambridge Journal of Economics 17(2), 131–157. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23599704
  • Crespi, F., Caravella, S., Menghini, M. et al. (2021). European technological sovereignty: An emerging framework for policy strategy. Intereconomics 56, 348–354. DOI: 10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6
  • Dezhina, I., Nafikova, T., Gareev, T., Ponomarev, A. (2020). Tax incentives for supporting competitiveness of telecommunication manufacturers. Foresight and STI Governance 14(2), 51–62. DOI: 10.17323/2500-2597.2020.2.51.62
  • Dowrick, S., DeLong, B. (2003). Globalization and convergence. In: Bordo, M., Taylor, A., Williamson, J. (eds.) Globalization in Historical Perspective. University of Chicago Press, ch. 4.
  • Dunning, J. (1977). Trade, Location of Economic Activity and the MNE: A Search for an Eclectic Approach / The International Allocation of Economic Activity. London: MacMillan.
  • Edler, J., Blind, K., Kroll, H., Schubert, T. (2023). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy 52(6), 104765. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765
  • Gareev, T. (2018). Platform markets: Their place in the theory of mesoeconomic system, development and a challenge to spatial studies. Baltic Region 10(2), 26–38. DOI: 10.5922/2079-8555-2018-2-2
  • Ghironi, F., Kim, D., Ozhan, G. (2023). International economic sanctions and third-country effects. Staff Working Paper 2023-46. Bank of Canada. DOI: 10.34989/swp-2023-46
  • Irwin, D. (1996). The US-Japan semiconductor trade conflict. In: Krueger, A. (ed.) The Political Economy of Trade Protection. University of Chicago Press. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c8717/c8717.pdf (accessed on June 19, 2023).
  • Kobrin, S. (1999). The architecture of globalization: State sovereignty in a networked global economy. In: Dunning, J. (ed.) Governments, Globalization, and International Business. Oxford: Oxford Academic Book, pp. 146–172. DOI: 10.1093/0198296053.003.0006
  • Krugman, P. (1979). Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade. Journal of International Economics 9(4), 469–479. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1996(79)90017-5
  • Krugman, P., Obstfeld, M., Melitz, M. (2023). International Economics: Theory and Policy. Pearson.
  • Kuttner, R. (1990). Managed trade and economic sovereignty. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 37(4), 37–53. DOI: 10.2307/1173771
  • March, C., Schieferdecker, I. (2023). Technological sovereignty as ability, not autarky. International Studies Review 25(2). DOI: 10.1093/isr/viad012
  • Maurer, T., Morgus, R., Skierka, I., Hohmann, M. (2015). Technological Sovereignty: Missing the Point? Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Cyber Conflict. https://www.ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/Art-04-Technological-Sovereignity-Missing-the-Point.pdf (accessed on July 31, 2023).
  • Norman, C. (1976). USA: High technology protectionism. Nature 260, 568. DOI: 10.1038/260568a0
  • Perritt, H. (1998). The Internet as a threat to sovereignty? Thoughts on the Internet’s role in strengthening national and global governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 5(2-4). https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol5/iss2/4 (accessed on September 6, 2023).
  • Reimann, M., Schilke, O., Thomas, J. (2010). Toward an understanding of industry commoditization: Its nature and role in evolving marketing competition. International Journal of Research in Marketing 27(2), 188–197. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.10.001
  • Rochet, J., Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association 4, 990–1029. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40005175
  • Shih, W. (2018). Why high-tech commoditization is accelerating. MIT Sloan Management Review 59(4), 53–58. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/why-high-tech-commoditization-is-accelerating (accessed on July 30, 2023).
  • Skinner, Q. (2010). The sovereign state: A genealogy. In: Kalmo, H., Skinner, Q. (eds.) Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present and Future of a Contested Concept. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–46. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511675928.002
  • Wriston, W. (1988). Technology and sovereignty. Foreign Affairs 67(2), 63–75. DOI: 10.2307/20043773
  • Yang, C.-H., Huang, C.-H. (2005). R&D, size and firm growth in Taiwan’s electronics industry. Small Business Economics 25(5), 477–487. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40229448
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606