IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v47y2023i1s0308596122001616.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological sovereignty of the EU in advanced 5G mobile communications: An empirical approach

Author

Listed:
  • da Ponte, Aureliano
  • Leon, Gonzalo
  • Alvarez, Isabel

Abstract

Two key issues within the debate around ‘technological sovereignty’ in the European Union are (i) access by countries and firms to enabling and emerging technologies and (ii) how strategic dependencies can be managed in order to preserve competitive positions in global value chains. In this paper, we present and discuss a multidimensional synthetic metric – the Technological Sovereignty Index (TSI) – to provide a global measure that captures the degree of exposure to specific technologies by a country (or group of countries) as well as the vulnerabilities that may be present. The paper validates the TSI by examining the EU's position (until 2021) within the global value chain of advanced 5G mobile communications, focusing on the hardware and component segments. Our findings reveal a weak degree of technological sovereignty due to (i) the shortage of specialized human capital in the EU and (ii) outsourcing trends in the relevant segments; however, untapped capabilities may exist that could partially offset strategic shortcomings.

Suggested Citation

  • da Ponte, Aureliano & Leon, Gonzalo & Alvarez, Isabel, 2023. "Technological sovereignty of the EU in advanced 5G mobile communications: An empirical approach," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:47:y:2023:i:1:s0308596122001616
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596122001616
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102459?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    2. BEKKERS Rudi & HENKEL Joachim & MAS TUR Elena & VAN DER VORST Tommy & DRIESSE Menno & KANG Byeongwoo & MARTINELLI Arianna & MAAS Wim & NIJHOF Bram & RAITERI Emilio & TEUBNER Lisa, 2020. "Pilot study for essentiality assessment of Standard Essential Patents," JRC Research Reports JRC119894, Joint Research Centre.
    3. Edler, Jakob & Blind, Knut & Kroll, Henning & Schubert, Torben, 2021. "Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy: Defining rationales, ends and means," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 70, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    4. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Teece, David J., 2018. "Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1367-1387.
    6. Edler, Jakob & Blind, Knut & Frietsch, Rainer & Kimpeler, Simone & Kroll, Henning & Lerch, Christian & Reiss, Thomas & Roth, Florian & Schubert, Torben & Schuler, Johanna & Walz, Rainer, 2020. "Technology sovereignty: From demand to concept [Technologiesouveränität: Von der Forderung zum Konzept]," Perspectives – Policy Briefs 02 / 2020, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    7. Carl Shapiro, 2006. "Prior User Rights," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 92-96, May.
    8. Mary M. Crossan & Marina Apaydin, 2010. "A Multi‐Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(6), pages 1154-1191, September.
    9. Olga Petricevic & David J Teece, 2019. "The structural reshaping of globalization: Implications for strategic sectors, profiting from innovation, and the multinational enterprise," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(9), pages 1487-1512, December.
    10. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Faisal Aqlan & Sarah S. Lam, 2015. "Supply chain risk modelling and mitigation," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(18), pages 5640-5656, September.
    12. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    13. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2009. "Another Look At The Relationship Between Innovation Proxies," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 252-269, September.
    14. Pierre Mohnen & Bronwyn Hall, 2013. "Innovation and Productivity: An Update," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 47-65, June.
    15. Robert J. W. Tijssen & Jos J. Winnink, 2018. "Capturing ‘R&D excellence’: indicators, international statistics, and innovative universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 687-699, February.
    16. Kerstin J. Schaefer, 2020. "Catching up by hiring: The case of Huawei," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(9), pages 1500-1515, December.
    17. Grupp, Hariolf & Schubert, Torben, 2010. "Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 67-78, February.
    18. Robles-Carrillo, Margarita, 2021. "European Union policy on 5G: Context, scope and limits," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8).
    19. Emma Brandon-Jones & Brian Squire & Chad W. Autry & Kenneth J. Petersen, 2014. "A Contingent Resource-Based Perspective of Supply Chain Resilience and Robustness," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 50(3), pages 55-73, July.
    20. Cartwright, Madison, 2020. "Internationalising state power through the internet: Google, Huawei and geopolitical struggle," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18.
    21. Clifford Bekar & Kenneth Carlaw & Richard Lipsey, 2018. "General purpose technologies in theory, application and controversy: a review," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 1005-1033, December.
    22. Rühlig, Tim & Seaman, John & Voelsen, Daniel, 2019. "5G and the US-China tech rivalry: A test for Europe's future in the digital age. How can Europe shift back from back foot to front foot?," SWP Comments 29/2019, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
    23. Mendonça, Sandro & Damásio, Bruno & Charlita de Freitas, Luciano & Oliveira, Luís & Cichy, Marcin & Nicita, António, 2022. "The rise of 5G technologies and systems: A quantitative analysis of knowledge production," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4).
    24. Cohen, Wesley M. & Goto, Akira & Nagata, Akiya & Nelson, Richard R. & Walsh, John P., 2002. "R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1349-1367, December.
    25. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
    26. Teubner, Lisa K. & Henkel, Joachim & Bekkers, Rudi, 2021. "Industry consortia in mobile telecommunications standards setting: Purpose, organization and diversity," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3).
    27. Luuk Klomp & George Van Leeuwen, 2001. "Linking Innovation and Firm Performance: A New Approach," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 343-364.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Svetlana Rastvortseva & Elena Kameneva, 2024. "Development of national specialization in 5G technologies within the European Union," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Heikkilä, Jussi & Rissanen, Julius & Ali-Vehmas, Timo, 2023. "Coopetition, standardization and general purpose technologies: A framework and an application," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4).
    2. Kroll, Henning & Berghäuser, Hendrik & Blind, Knut & Neuhäusler, Peter & Scheifele, Fabian & Thielmann, Axel & Wydra, Sven, 2022. "Schlüsseltechnologien," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 7-2022, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    3. Max Nathan & Anna Rosso, 2017. "Innovative events," Development Working Papers 429, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano, revised 08 Apr 2019.
    4. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    5. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    6. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    7. Jaan Masso & Amaresh K Tiwari, 2021. "Productivity Implications Of R&D, Innovation And Capital Accumulation For Incumbents And Entrants: The Case Of Estonia," University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper Series 130, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia).
    8. Michael A. Verba, 2022. "Growth and innovation in the presence of knowledge and R&D accumulation dynamics," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 485-510, August.
    9. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2001. "Specialized technology suppliers, international spillovers and investment: evidence from the chemical industry," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 31-54, June.
    10. Gustavo Crespi & Elena Arias-Ortiz & Ezequiel Tacsir & Fernando Vargas & Pluvia Zuñiga, 2014. "Innovation for economic performance: the case of Latin American firms," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 4(1), pages 31-50, June.
    11. Elif Bascavusoglu-Moreau & Qian Cher Li, 2013. "Knowledge Spillovers & Sources of Knowledge in the Manufacturing Sector: Literature Review & Empirical Evidence for the UK," Working Papers wp451, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    12. Francesco Venturini & Ana Rincon-Aznar & Dr Michela Vecchi, 2013. "ICT as a general purpose technology: spillovers, absorptive capacity and productivity performance," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 416, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    13. James Adams, 2006. "Learning, internal research, and spillovers," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 5-36.
    14. Mariacristina Piva & Massimiliano Tani & Marco Vivarelli, 2018. "Business visits, knowledge diffusion and productivity," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 31(4), pages 1321-1338, October.
    15. Grazia Cecere & Sascha Rexhäuser & Patrick Schulte, 2019. "From less promising to green? Technological opportunities and their role in (green) ICT innovation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 45-63, January.
    16. Westerberg, Hans Seerar, 2014. "The Return to R&D and Seller-buyer Interactions: A Quantile Regression Approach," Ratio Working Papers 231, The Ratio Institute.
    17. Sohaib S. Hassan & Konrad Meisner & Kevin Krause & Levan Bzhalava & Petra Moog, 2024. "Is digitalization a source of innovation? Exploring the role of digital diffusion in SME innovation performance," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(4), pages 1469-1491, April.
    18. Ardito, Lorenzo & Ernst, Holger & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2020. "The interplay between technology characteristics, R&D internationalisation, and new product introduction: Empirical evidence from the energy conservation sector," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 96.
    19. Spyros Arvanitis & Florian Seliger & Martin Woerter, 2020. "Knowledge Spillovers, Competition and Innovation Success," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 82(5), pages 1017-1041, October.
    20. Piva, Mariacristina & Tani, Massimiliano & Vivarelli, Marco, 2017. "Labour mobility through business visits as a way to foster productivity," MERIT Working Papers 2017-004, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:47:y:2023:i:1:s0308596122001616. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.