A New Paradigm: Technology Policies

It has been discussed for some time that Europe, the world's prosperous region, is lagging behind in artificial intelligence technologies. 

In a speech on November 18, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde stated: “We are going through a period of rapid technological change, driven in particular by advances in digital innovation. And unlike in the past, Europe is no longer at the forefront of progress. Our productivity growth, the fundamental driver of our long-term prosperity, is diverging from that of the United States.”

In this article, I will attempt to evaluate how Europe reached this stage. 

As we know, industrial revolutions consist of four major stages that have fundamentally changed production processes in human history. The First Industrial Revolution (Industry 1.0) began in the late 18th and early 19th centuries with the discovery and use of steam power. The emergence of mechanical production systems, along with innovations such as power looms and steam engines, accelerated the transition from an agrarian society to an industrial society. This process increased production speed, led to the establishment of factories, and accelerated urbanization. Europe was in a dominant position during this period. It was the center of innovation, efficiency, and development in the world. 

The Second Industrial Revolution (Industry 2.0) began in the late 19th century with the use of electrical energy and the development of mass production techniques. Thanks to the integration of electricity into production processes and innovations like the assembly line, production costs decreased while productivity increased. With the growth of the steel and chemical industries, the industry developed rapidly, and significant progress was made in transportation and communication technologies such as the telegraph and telephone. During this period, the consumer society was strengthened by increased production and cheaper products. However, perhaps what Europe overlooked during this process was that it was gradually losing its central role from the first revolution to the United States.

It was not just that Edison and Ford were of U.S. origin; scientific research, particularly in the field of communication, also played a significant role in the new continent becoming the center of this revolution. For example, Jewish scientists who fled Germany after World War I paved the way for scientific research to increase productivity in production through university-industry collaborations in the U.S., while the concepts and theories they introduced formed the sociological and intellectual infrastructure of this technological efficiency. The emergence of sociology as a science during this period is not coincidental in this sense. Similarly, while economics can be seen as a product of the first industrial revolution, business and management science can be considered an output of the second industrial revolution. 

The Third Industrial Revolution (Industry 3.0) began in the second half of the 20th century with the integration of digital technology into production processes. The proliferation of computers and the introduction of automation and robotic systems into production enabled more precise and efficient production processes. With the development of electronic systems, information technologies gained great importance, and globalization accelerated.

During this period, the information economy (digital economy) rose alongside the digital revolution. In other words, the understanding of economics, which was one of the most important scientific fields in Europe's possession, began to undergo a change. It is possible to define this period as a time when information and communication technologies reached their peak. Europe, perhaps due to the “sluggishness” that comes with being a union, could not keep up with the development during this period either. For example, firms such as Nokia, Ericsson, Philips, Siemens, and SAP could not compete with companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Samsung, and Sony. This period was also a process in which Far Eastern countries, especially Japan, showed significant progress. 

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0) began in the 21st century with the integration of the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence, big data, and cyber-physical systems into production processes. With technologies such as smart factories, autonomous systems, and cloud computing, the physical and digital worlds have become more integrated than ever before. This revolution has provided firms with significant opportunities to rapidly adapt to consumer demands by enabling customizable, sustainable, and flexible production processes.

It is easy to say that the Covid-19 process forced countries to rapidly implement technologies that might otherwise have been introduced ten or twenty years later. At this point, the European Union, rightly considering ethical and sociological concerns, has adopted a more regulatory and rule-setting stance compared to the rest of the world. The US and China, in particular, are moving very quickly in this regard with a 'let's do it first, then fix the mistakes' mentality. Europe lags behind the US and China in terms of efficiency, and even behind countries like South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam in some key areas such as semiconductor technologies. Especially since studies on artificial intelligence and quantum technology require massive capital investment, Europe's cumbersome bureaucracy poses a significant obstacle in this regard. 

The US attracts both talented people and ideas from around the world, as well as venture capital investments, by prioritizing areas such as 3nm-precision graphics processors, quantum computers, lithium batteries, blockchain, and fintech. China, on the other hand, implements these investments within the framework of state policy. These are not areas that an aging European population can handle. In the same speech, Lagarde says: 'Europe is falling behind in the new technologies that will drive future growth. While the impact of artificial intelligence on growth is still uncertain, estimates suggest it could be transformative. However, the EU is caught in what is called a 'middle-technology trap.' We have mostly specialized in technologies developed in the last century. Only four of the world's top fifty technology companies are European.' 

Trump's election as president and the announcement that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will advise the newly established 'Department of Government Efficiency' (DOGE) can also be interpreted as a solution found by the US to increase productivity and agility by reducing bureaucracy in these areas. It has been stated that the purpose of this new entity is to 'dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies.' I do not think it is a coincidence that the name of the 'department' is the same as the cryptocurrency DOGE, owned by Elon Musk. 

These technologies, especially artificial intelligence, require large investment capital. In my opinion, it is highly probable that the cooperation between Trump and Musk, which began with them conducting election propaganda activities together, will move to the next stage of sourcing some of this capital from cryptocurrencies. The fact that Bitcoin has risen to around $100,000 while the world economy is in a very bad state and wars are ongoing may be a sign of this. 

While these things are happening in the world, I think there is much we need to do regarding technology policies in Turkey. Since we missed all the industrial revolutions to date, it is highly likely that we will remain distant from this fourth revolution as well. Therefore, we need to plan studies on what we should do in both the technological and sociological fields regarding topics such as artificial intelligence, graphics processors, quantum computers, lithium batteries, blockchain, and fintech. I would like to emphasize the term 'sociological field' again to explain what I mean. All these 'new' technologies I mentioned will have a direct and widespread impact on individuals and society, unlike any technology before. These technologies can be used to influence individuals one by one, while also being able to influence the thoughts, tastes, and choices of societies.

We must work and produce policies to ensure these effects are constructive. We must work on what needs to be done to minimize their destructive and devastating effects. At this point, there is a great need for scientists and social scientists to work together and develop mixed methods. For example, without understanding the general attitude of university students toward artificial intelligence technologies and without conducting a 'situation assessment,' adding artificial intelligence courses and content to our education curriculum will be nothing more than following a trend or 'everyone else did it, so let's do it too' to save face. There is a great need for sociological research in this area. Studies to be conducted in such a hybrid field, known as 'Computational Social Sciences,' will provide the analytical data necessary to guide Turkey's technology policies. 

Indeed, today Industry 4.0 continues its evolution with the Industry 5.0 phase, which aims to bring a human-centric approach to industry. Our goal should be to ensure that this sentence is not just an empty statement. A human-centric approach does not mean an understanding where humans are at the center and everything in nature is offered for human use. It means developing technology based on the fact that humans are also a part of nature and even the universe. We can all more or less guess what might happen otherwise: 'the third world war being fought with sticks and stones.'