Regulating foreign direct investment to achieve technological sovereignty in the European Union
https://doi.org/10.18184/2079-4665.2025.16.1.167-182
Abstract
Purpose: is to assess the European Union's approach to strengthening technological sovereignty through the instruments of regulation of foreign direct investment (FDI) policy.
Methods: the study involved general scientific methods, including analysis, synthesis and comparison. Tables were used to systematize the presentation of the results. A graphical method was used to visualize the measurements.
Results: based on the analysis of economic, political and organizational factors that hinder ensuring technological sovereignty, the problems of regulating the general policy of the European Union in the field of foreign direct investment are identified. An assessment of the instruments is carried out. The weaknesses of the EU approach to regulating direct investment are shown to strengthen the Union's technological sovereignty.
Conclusions and Relevance: the study found that the current EU approach to FDI policy and the instruments used within it have insufficient impact on strengthening European technological sovereignty. To be more effective in attracting and distributing funding for strategically important projects, the EU focuses on promoting framework programs. However, the key barrier here is the limited overall budget. The political agenda of the EU aims to diversify partners, but their range is limited by national security considerations, which is unlikely to contribute to actual diversification. European control over mergers and acquisitions will probably reduce this type of investment to a minimum, but the construction of industrial enterprises, infrastructure facilities and other FDI that contribute to both the actual development of the host country and bring benefits to the investor are generally welcomed. Given the new conditions for FDI, one should not expect a large number of incoming investment flows to the EU, but their benefit for strengthening technological sovereignty will be greater.
About the Author
A. A. Makarova
Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations of Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Anna A. Makarova, Junior Research Fellow, Section for the Foreign Economic Policy, Department of Global Economic Problems and Foreign Economic Policy
Moscow
Competing Interests:
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Sidorova E., Sidorov A. EU strategic autonomy in the economy. International Trends. 2023; 21(3(74)):119–142. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ijspan. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2023.21.3.74.7 (In Russ.)
2. Broeders D., Cristiano F., Kaminska M. In search of digital sovereignty and strategic autonomy: normative power Europe to the test of its geopolitical ambitions. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 2023; 61(5):1261– 1280. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.1346 (In Eng.)
3. Seidl T., Schmitz L. Moving on to not fall behind? Technological sovereignty and the ‘geo-dirigiste’turn in EU industrial policy. Journal of European Public Policy. 2023; 31(8):2147–2174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2248204 (In Eng.)
4. Mügge D. EU AI sovereignty: for whom, to what end, and to whose benefit? Journal of European Public Policy. 2024; 31(8):2200–2225. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2024.2318475 (In Eng.)
5. Bora S.I., Schramm L. Toward a more ‘sovereign’ Europe? Domestic, bilateral, and European factors to explain France’s (growing) influence on EU politics, 2017–2022. French Politics. 2023; 21:3–24. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-022-00203-y (In Eng.)
6. Ha L.T. Impacts of digital business on global value chain participation in European countries. AI & Society. 2024; 39:1039–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01524-w (In Eng.)
7. Bora S.I. ‘A Sovereign Europe’? Strategic use of discourse at the service of French economic interests in EU politics (2017–2022). JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 2023; 61(5):1281–1297. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13463 (In Eng.)
8. Quaglia L., Verdun A. The COVID-19 pandemic and the European Union: politics, policies and institutions. Journal of European Public Policy. 2023; 30(4):599–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.2141305 (In Eng.)
9. Farghali M., Osman A.I., Mohamed I.M.A., Chen Zh., Chen L., Ihara I., Yapet P.-S., Rooney D.W. Strategies to save energy in the context of the energy crisis: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters. 2023; 21:2003–2039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01591-5 (In Eng.)
10. Brodny J., Tutak M. Assessing the energy security of European Union countries from two perspectives – a new integrated approach based on MCDM methods. Applied Energy. 2023; 347:121443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121443 (In Eng.)
11. Ivanova N.A., Dorozhkina E.G., Elistratova N.N. Investment security as a component of the economic security system. Fundamental and applied research studies of the economics cooperative sector. 2022; (1):122–128. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/hshztb. https://doi.org/10.37984/2076-9288-2022-1-122-128 (In Russ.)
12. Danilin I.V., Sidorova E.A. The concept of technological sovereignty in the transforming world. Journal of the New Economic Association. 2024; (3(64)): 238–243. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/mbbqwd. https://doi.org/10.31737/22212264_2024_3_238-243 (In Russ.)
13. Samuels R.J. Rich nation, strong army: national security and the technological transformation of Japan. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994. 455 p. URL: https://archive.org/details/richnationstrong0000samu (accessed: 28.05.2024) (In Eng.)
14. Buti M., Fabbrini S. Next generation EU and the future of economic governance: towards a paradigm change or just a big one-off? Journal of European Public Policy. 2023; 30(4):676–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.2141303 (In Eng.)
15. Reich R. The rise of techno-nationalism. The Atlantic. 1987; (5):63–70. URL: https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1987/05/259-5/132615158.pdf (accessed: 28.05.2024) (In Eng.)
16. Crespi F., Caravella S., Menghini M., Salvatori C. European technological sovereignty: an emerging framework for policy strategy. Intereconomics. 2021; 56:348–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6 (In Eng.)
17. Afontsev S.A. Theoretical dimensions of economic sovereignty. Journal of the New Economic Association. 2024; (3(64)):218–224. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/cpovcr. https://doi.org/10.31737/22212264_2024_3_218-224 (In Russ.)
18. Van Manen H., Gehrke T., Thompson J., Sweijs T. Taming techno-nationalism: a policy agenda. Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS), 2021. 131 p. URL: https://hcss.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Taming-TechnoNationalism-Sept.-2021.pdf (accessed: 25.04.2024) (In Eng.)
19. Arbatova N.K. Will European Union become a global power center? World Eсonomy and International Relations. 2020; 64(6):51–65. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/bxuaik. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-6-51-65 (In Russ.)
20. Bradford A. Exporting standards: the externalization of the EU's regulatory power via markets. International Review of Law and Economics. 2015; 42:158–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2014.09.004 (In Eng.)
21. Dikaios G. EU Climate diplomacy towards the IMO and ICAO. Springer Nature, 2024. 244 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51123-3 (In Eng.)
22. Li W., Chen J. From brussels effect to gravity assists: understanding the evolution of the GDPR-inspired personal information protection law in China. Computer Law & Security Review. 2024; 54:105994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105994 (In Eng.)
23. Park S.A. Shifted paradigm in technonationalism in the 21st century: The influence of global value chain (GVC) and US-China competition on international politics and global commerce – a case study of Japan's semiconductor industry. Asia and the Global Economy. 2023; 3(2):100063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aglobe.2023.100063 (In Eng.)
24. Hirst P., Thompson G. Globalization and the future of the nation state. Economy and society. 1995; 24(3):408– 442. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085149500000017 (In Eng.)
25. Meyer K.E. Perspectives on multinational enterprises in emerging economies. Journal of international business studies. 2004; 35:259–276. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400084 (In Eng.)
26. Luo Y. Illusions of techno-nationalism. Journal of international business studies. 2022; 53:550–567. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00468-5 (In Eng.)
27. Babynina L. Flexible integration in the EU: classification and problems of institutionalization. World Eсonomy and International Relations. 2010; (6):31–37. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/mqdlnt. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2010-6-31-37 (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Makarova A.A. Regulating foreign direct investment to achieve technological sovereignty in the European Union. MIR (Modernization. Innovation. Research). 2025;16(1):167-182. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18184/2079-4665.2025.16.1.167-182
Views:
263
Email this article 