What Technological Sovereignty Really Means
Redefining sovereignty in the age of global instability: the power to design, own and govern key technologies as the foundation of autonomy, resilience and global positioning
Author: Monica Bianco, Ecosystems Cooperation advisor -CRF Italy
Abstract
In an era defined by global instability, ecological urgency, and the fragility of interdependent supply chains, the concept of technological sovereignty has re-emerged as a strategic priority for the European Union and its member states. This article explores the meaning of technological sovereignty as a systemic and territorial capacity, embedded not only in industrial capabilities but also in institutions, culture, and knowledge infrastructures. We argue that technological sovereignty is essential for resilience, democratic autonomy, and the territorial localization of sustainability transitions. Drawing on the latest research in innovation studies, political economy, and regional development, we show that reclaiming sovereignty requires a profound reorientation of education, finance, governance, and enterprise models. It is not simply a matter of securing technologies, but of redesigning the socio-technical systems that enable societies to shape their own futures.
Introduction: Sovereignty Returns
The concept of sovereignty—once thought incompatible with globalization—has returned to the heart of European strategic discourse. The Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP), launched in 2023, is the EU’s first coordinated effort to explicitly promote technological sovereignty as a structural objective. The European Commission defines this as “the ability to make autonomous choices and to access and use critical technologies necessary for resilience and competitiveness” [1].
This shift reflects a growing recognition that technological dependence—on digital platforms, rare earths, semiconductors, or medical supply chains—poses structural risks not only to economic security but to democratic governance and societal cohesion. As Scholvin and Wigell argue, “sovereignty in the 21st century is not about isolation, but about the capacity to act deliberately within interdependence” [2].
From Dependency to Capacity: Defining Technological Sovereignty
We define technological sovereignty as the capability of a political-territorial system to autonomously design, develop, govern, and adapt critical technologies needed for its strategic objectives. This implies:
- Design capacity: the ability to define problems and develop solutions through engineering, prototyping, and systems thinking.
- Productive infrastructure: the means to manufacture, maintain, and scale key technologies within trusted or domestic systems.
- Institutional governance: strategic direction through planning, regulation, and mission-oriented investment.
- Cognitive and learning capacity: the embedded know-how and reflexivity to evolve and improve across cycles of innovation.
As Kattel and Mazzucato note, “sovereignty is not merely the possession of assets, but the ability to coordinate and direct innovation in line with collective missions” [3].
Territorial Sovereignty: A Distributed Infrastructure
Technological sovereignty is not solely a national affair. It is rooted in territories, in the dense and relational infrastructure of institutions, enterprises, schools, and public agencies that enable societies to generate and govern knowledge.
Rodrik and Sabel emphasize that “structural transformation is always place-based—it occurs where productive capabilities, governance, and learning interact” [4]. In many European regions, however, this capacity has eroded. The dismantling of applied engineering education, regional innovation agencies, and long-term planning has led to a decoupling between production and innovation.
This is not only an economic issue, but a political one. The loss of territorial control over technological pathways weakens local democracy and exposes regions to external volatility. As Barca observes, “effective development requires institutions that can translate global goals into local strategies” [5].
Cultural Transformation: From Efficiency to Directionality
One of the deepest challenges of sovereignty lies in cultural transformation. For decades, development policies have prioritized short-term competitiveness, efficiency, and integration into global value chains. Local actors were trained to follow—not lead.
Reclaiming sovereignty requires a redefinition of development: not as GDP growth, but as strategic capacity-building—the ability of territories to define missions, mobilize actors, and build optionality. This shift affects:
- Education: strengthening technical and engineering education, and linking it to real-world design challenges.
- Governance: restoring anticipatory planning and cross-sectoral coordination.
- Enterprise: shifting from subcontracting to innovation-driven business models.
- Innovation policy: favouring problem-solving over publication metrics.
As Andreoni argues, “productive development requires the co-evolution of institutions and capabilities—not just market incentives” [6].
Finance and Risk: The Missing Infrastructure
Another structural gap is finance. Sovereignty demands long-term, patient, and risk-tolerant capital. Yet most financial systems in Europe remain geared toward short-term returns, often in low-innovation sectors like real estate or logistics.
To reverse this, regions must develop mission-oriented financial tools:
- Public development banks and innovation funds.
- Cooperative and community finance institutions.
- Guarantees for experimental, pre-commercial R&D.
Lazonick and Mazzucato insist that “innovation ecosystems require not only scientific and productive assets, but also financial institutions that absorb uncertainty and distribute rewards collectively” [7].
Democratizing Sovereignty
Finally, technological sovereignty is not purely technical—it is inherently political. Decisions about which technologies to develop, which risks to accept, and which futures to pursue must be made collectively, not delegated to markets or distant bureaucracies.
Schot and Steinmueller argue for a shift toward transformative innovation policy, in which “directionality is co-constructed with civil society, regions, and users—not just imposed from above” [8]. Sovereignty without participation is technocracy; sovereignty with inclusion becomes strategic democracy.
Conclusion: Rebuilding from the Ground Up
Technological sovereignty is not a return to protectionism. It is a forward-looking infrastructure for resilience, autonomy, and inclusive transitions. Reclaiming it requires rebuilding territorial systems that can design, produce, and govern technology in line with collective missions. This is not only an industrial challenge, but a societal transformation. It calls for new educational priorities, new financial instruments, renewed public institutions, and above all, a new vision of what development means.
Only through such a systemic and democratic approach can Europe—and its territories—regain the capacity to shape their technological and ecological futures.
References
- European Commission (2023). Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform: Communication and Proposal. Brussels.
- Scholvin, S. & Wigell, M. (2022). Geo-economics in the Age of Strategic Interdependence. Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
- Kattel, R. & Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy and Dynamic Capabilities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5).
- Rodrik, D. & Sabel, C. (2019). Building a Good Jobs Economy. Project Syndicate.
- Barca, F. (2009). An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy. DG Regio.
- Andreoni, A. (2021). Industrial Capabilities and Structural Transformation. UNIDO Working Paper.
- Lazonick, W. & Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Risk-Reward Nexus: Innovation, Finance and Inclusive Growth. SPRU.
- Schot, J. & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three Frames for Innovation Policy. Research Policy, 47(9).
