2022-01-19-ITIF-计算机芯片与薯片_美国战略性产业政策的案例（英）_16页_235kb

分析总结：Computer Chips vs. Potato Chips: The Case for a U.S. Strategic-Industry Policy

核心主题

文章 argues that in the face of China's rise and global geopolitical competition, the United States needs a strategic-industry policy to bolster production and innovation in technologically advanced sectors, such as semiconductors, AI, and biotechnology. The author dismisses the outdated "potato chips vs. computer chips" analogy, emphasizing the critical difference between industries that are vital for national security and those that are not.

关键要旨

• Global competition is intensifying, and the U.S. cannot assuredly rely on domestic capabilities or secure foreign supplies in strategically important industries.
• Strategic-industry policy is essential for economic and national security, as generic competitiveness policies are insufficient.
• This policy involves identifying key sectors, monitoring capabilities, and implementing targeted interventions without favoring U.S. firms over allies or arbitrarily picking winners.
• It should combine market-based approaches for non-strategic sectors with strategic guidance for critical industries to address supply chain vulnerabilities and China's unfair practices.

主要论点

• Author critiques the free-market approach, highlighting the risks of over-reliance on foreign supply chains (e.g., semiconductors), which can be exploited for national security or economic leverage.
• The article draws historical parallels, noting that past assumptions of market-driven globalization are unrealistic due to China's assertive actions, like those in Made in China 2025.
• It advocates for a "dual economy" framework: using free-market principles for most sectors, but targeted government policies for strategic industries, including direct funding, incentives, and alliances.

结论

The piece concludes that failing to adopt such a policy risks U.S. economic and military disadvantages, urging policymakers to embrace a nuanced approach that acknowledges the necessity of intervention in critical technologies. Criticisms, such as "picking winners" or policy failures in history, are rebutted by emphasizing the urgency of modern challenges.