【英文】ITIF：美国全球数字经济大战略（62页）

This is important because too many experts, pundits, and policymakers in the United States  persist in believing that China can never catch up technologically and as such never be a  technological threat to the United States. They believe that because they hold that there is only  one “recipe” for innovation success, and that this is the Washington Consensus model of free  markets, IP rights, and limited government. This is why Zachary Karabell wrote in The  Washington Post, “Chinese firms excel at copying but not yet at creating. As a result, smart  foreign companies realize that the lasting solution is innovation, not courts and lawyers.”21 Kerry  Brown, a professor at Kings College London, wrote,  The Chinese government under Xi can pour all the money they want into vast research and  development parks, churning out any number of world class engineers and computer  programmers. Even with all of this effort, however, China is likely to produce few world  class innovative companies. 

The fundamental structural problem is that the role of the  state and government in China is still very strong … The system that China currently has  still rewards conformity.Europe has responded to America’s digital leadership with concern, even alarm. Many EU  policymakers regularly call out U.S. technology “colonization” and call for “digital sovereignty” against (U.S.) “dominant platforms.”24 The French Minister for Economic Affairs went so far as  to call U.S. “big tech” companies an “adversary of the state”25 These reactions are not new. Since the 1960s, Europe has viewed U.S. IT leadership with alarm.  As French economic journalist Jean Jacques Servan-Schreiber wrote in his 1968 bestseller, The  American Challenge, “One by one, U.S. corporations capture those sectors of the economy most  technologically advanced, most adaptable to change, and with the highest growth rates.”26 Like  today, Europeans characterized the challenge in dire terms: “a seizure of power,” “invasion,”  “domination,” “counterattack,” and “industrial helotry.”