Abstract
Technological development dynamics underscore the relevance of a comparative analysis of national priorities in science and innovation. The article identifies and typologizes promising technologies enshrined in the development strategies of 19 countries: technological leaders—the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Canada, Australia, Spain, and Italy—and countries of the Global South—Brazil, India, China, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. It tests two hypotheses: whether a universal “core” of promising technologies exists and whether stable groups of countries with similar innovation profiles emerge. The empirical base comprises two to five strategic documents for each country, dating from 2018 to 2026. The analysis employs frequency, semantic, and content analysis; calculation of the Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) index across 12 thematic sections and 86 subsections; and k-means clustering.
The analysis confirmed both hypotheses: despite a shared core of priorities, countries differ in their modes of strategic concentration, forming several types of profiles. Although the study is limited to declared rather than actual outcomes, its contribution lies in the systematic comparison of the strategies of advanced economies and Global South countries, the identification of specialization models, and the development of conceptual approaches to assessing technological sovereignty in a multipolar world.
References
Гребенюк А.Ю., Пикалова А.Г., Соколов А.В., Шашнов С.А., Кайво-ойя Я. (2016) Выбор приоритетов в сфере науки и инноваций в странах ЕС и Российской Федерации: лучшая практика, М.: НИУ ВШЭ.
Шашнов С., Позняк А. (2011) Научно-технологические приоритеты для модернизации российской экономики. Форсайт, 5(2), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459X.2011.2.48.56.
Aghion P., Jones B.F., Jones C.I. (2017) Artificial Intelligence and Economic Growth (NBER Working Paper No. 23928), Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23928
Balassa B. (1965) Trade liberalisation and «revealed» comparative advantage. The Manchester School, 33(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x
Bernsdorf J., Ramos-Erpenbeck P., Wignjosaputro A., Klueting L., Heinrichs G. (2026) Lists of critical and sensitive technologies: Scope, purpose and intended audience, Bonn: German Aerospace Center (DLR).
Cheng Y., Cao Y., Xiao Y., Dai T. (2025) Research on identification and selection practice methods of national critical technologies. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 40(5), 923–934. https://doi.org/10.3724/j.issn.1000-3045.20241120005
Diercks G., Larsen H., Steward F. (2019) Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm. Research Policy, 48(4), 880–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.028
Dortmans P., Nicholson J., Yeung J., Black J., Dewaele L., Knack A. (2022) Prioritising Critical Technologies of National Interest in Australia. Developing an Analytical Approach, Canberra: Rand Australia.
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), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765
Ergas H. (1987) Does technology policy matter? In: Technology and Global Industry: Companies and Nations in the World Economy (eds. B. Guile, H. Brooks), Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, pp. 191–280.
Foray D. (2023) Innovation policy and directionality — A case for policy engineering, Seville: EC Joint Research Center.
Freeman C. (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan, London: Frances Pinter.
Freeman C. (1995) The «National System of Innovation» in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309
GINC (2024) Defining Critical Technology: A Comparative Framework Analysis, Washington, D.C.: Global Institute for National Capacity. https://www.ginc.org/defining-critical-technology-a-comparative-framework-analysis/
Lee K. (2019) The art of economic catch-up: Barriers, detours and leapfrogging in innovation systems, Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
Lundvall B.A. (2010) National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning (vol. 1), London: Anthem Press.
March C., Schieferdecker I. (2023) Technological sovereignty as ability, not autarky. International Studies Review, 25(2), 012. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad012
Mazzucato M. (2018) Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034
Nelson R.R. (1993) National innovation systems: A comparative analysis, Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
OECD (2023) OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2023: Enabling transitions in times of disruption, Paris: OECD.
OECD (2024) OECD agenda for transformative science, technology and innovation policies, Paris: OECD.
OECD (2025) OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2025, Paris: OECD.
Rosenbach E., Baltussen L., Crane E., Kessler E., Kolodziej L., Lee E., Meyer A., Tong C.Y. Tran B., Wehn D. (2025) Critical and emerging technologies index, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Schot J., Steinmueller W.E. (2018) Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
Sokolova A., Grebenyuk A., Sokolov A. (2018) Twenty years of S&T priority setting in Russia: Lessons learned. Foresight, 20(5), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-04-2018-0033
Vovchenko N.G., Andreeva O.V., Dmitrieva V.D., Kaptsova V.S., Terziev V.K. (2023) Technological, Economic, and Social Changes: The Role of End-to-End Technologies. In: Technological Trends in the AI Economy: International Review and Ways of Adaptation (eds. E.N. Makarenko, N.G. Vovchenko, E.N. Tishchenko), Singapore: Springer, pp. 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7411-3_2
Wagner C.S., Popper S.W. (2003) Identifying critical technologies in the United States: A review of the federal effort. Journal of Forecasting, 22(2–3), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/for.854
WEF (2025) Technology Convergence Report, Geneva: World Economic Forum (WEF).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.