A new article I co-authored, “Dynamic Balances: American Power in the Age of Innovation,” was just published in the latest volume of The SAIS Review of International Affairs. The SAIS Review is the biannual journal of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, where my co-author Neil Shenai is a PhD Candidate. (PDF download here)

The article arrives at a timely moment, as President Obama just today called for a new American “Sputnik moment” demanding more investment in education and science. Last week, Secretary Chu similarly called for a new Sputnik moment with regards to clean energy technology.

Our article aims to challenge popular narratives on rising US-China power competition and offer a new theoretical framework for understanding the long-term advantage of leading states. We argue that contrary to popular conceptions, the primary source of state power in the modern international system is the state’s ability to generate and harness technological innovation for economic development. We position this interpretation within neorealist and neoclassical theories of great power dynamics and economic growth (respectively).

After establishing this theoretical framework, we examine the national innovation capacity of the U.S. and China, including general benchmarks of R&D, human capital, and technology scaling. We then perform a case study of the clean energy technology sector, reviewing some of the latest market and policy developments to benchmark energy innovation capacity. We find that China is improving its national innovation system but still lags significantly behind the United States.

We conclude with federal policy recommendations focused on the clean technology sector, and with a word of caution about overreacting to China’s latest development. In reality, we find that the U.S. is very likely to remain the world’s leading state for decades to come, and with careful management of U.S. innovation policy, the long-term potential for economic development and thus global leadership still tilts substantially toward the United States.

This analysis is by no means aimed at reducing the urgency for renewed federal investment in technology and education; to the contrary, the analysis supports the ever-growing evidence that such investments are foundational for U.S. global leadership. However, our leaders need a realistic analysis of our strengths and weaknesses in order to optimize the U.S. innovation system, and we hope the article adds to national discussion on this topic.