Technological lag of the European Union: Catchy slogan or a fact?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24136/cxy.2026.003Keywords:
innovation, competitiveness, European Union, United States, ChinaAbstract
Motivation: In recent years, the global race for technological leadership has intensified, with the United States and China consolidating their positions as frontrunners. In contrast, the European Union (EU) is often portrayed in public debate as technologically lagging behind its global counterparts. This view has gained prominence in political discourse and strategic policy discussions. The notion of a ‘technological lag’ has evolved into a widely repeated slogan. However, the validity of this claim has not been sufficiently tested through comparative data analysis. Understanding whether the EU truly faces a technological disadvantage is crucial for shaping its innovation policies and enhancing its competitiveness in the global economy.
Aim: The aim of this study is to critically assess the position of the European Union (that is, indicated by the EU’s member states) in the global technological competition in 2025 by evaluating its innovation performance relative to that of the United States and China.
Materials and methods: The research is based on a comparative analysis of secondary data from international reports and databases, including WIPO, IMD, the World Bank, the WTO, and strategic policy papers. To capture the current outlook for 2025, the latest available editions, i.e. from 2020, were selected. Key innovation indicators were also considered to emphasise the focus on the technological aspect of this study.
Results: The EU is not technologically lagging overall; however, it faces significant challenges in key future-oriented sectors, primarily due to internal disparities among member states. The EU maintains a strong position in robotics and automation, but does not fully exploit its digitalisation potential, falling behind in regulatory frameworks. The EU faces challenges in commercialising and scaling innovations. Despite the high ranking of EU universities and research institutions, the EU struggles to translate this potential into the market. Implementing changes may enable Europe to effectively compete with the USA and China in the digital era.
Downloads
References
Balassa, B. (1976). Types of economic integration. Economic Integration: Worldwide, Regional, Sectoral: Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the International Economic Association held in Budapest (pp. 17–40). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Draghi, M. (2024a). The future of European competitiveness. Part A: competitiveness strategy for Europe. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/97e481fd-2dc3-412d-be4c-f152a8232961_en?filename=The%20future%20of%20European%20competitiveness%20_%20A%20competitiveness%20strategy%20for%20Europe.pdf.
Draghi, M. (2024b). The future of European competitiveness. Part B: In-depth analysis and recommendations. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/ec1409c1-d4b4-4882-8bdd-3519f86bbb92_en?filename=The%20future%20of%20European%20competitiveness_%20In-depth%20analysis%20and%20recommendations_0.pdf.
European Commission. (2020). Critical materials for strategic technologies and sectors in the EU — a foresight study. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/CRMs_for_Strategic_Technologies_and_Sectors_in_the_EU_2020.pdf.
European Council. (2025). EU single market. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/deeper-single-market/#benefits.
Eurostat. (2023). R&D expenditure. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=R%26D_expenditure.
IMD. (2024). World Digital Competitiveness Ranking. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://www.imd.org/centers/wcc/world-competitiveness-center/rankings/world-digital-competitiveness-ranking.
Letta, E. (2024). Much more than a market — Speed, Security, Solidarity Empowering the Single Market to deliver a sustainable future and prosperity for all EU Citizens. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/ny3j24sm/much-more-than-a-market-report-by-enrico-letta.pdf.
Mahler, T. (2024). Smart robotics in the EU legal framework: The role of the machinery regulation. Oslo Law Review, 11(1), 1–18.
Miller, C. (2023). Wielka wojna o chipy. Jak USA i Chiny walczą o technologiczną dominację nad światem. Wydawnictwo Prześwity.
Trading Economies. (2025a). Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://pl.tradingeconomics.com/china/population.
Trading Economies. (2025b). Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://pl.tradingeconomics.com/germany/population.
Tutak, M., & Brodny, J. (2024). Technological progress in central and eastern Europe: Digitalization and business innovation leaders and outsiders. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 10(4), 100404. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2199853124001987.
United Nations. (2024). Digital economy report. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/der2024_en.pdf.
Vărzaru, A., & Bocean, C. (2024). Digital transformation and innovation: The influence of digital technologies on turnover from innovation activities and types of innovation. Systems, 12(9), 359. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/12/9/359.
WIPO. (2024). Global Innovation Index. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/global-innovation-index-2024/assets/67729/2000%20Global%20Innovation%20Index%202024_WEB3lite.pdf.
World Bank. (2020). World Development Report 2020: Trading for Development in the Age of Global Value Chains. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/32437/9781464814570.pdf.
WTO, IDE-JETRO, IDB & UIBE. (2023). Global Value Chain Development Report 2023: Resilient and Sustainable GVCS in Turbulent Times. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gvc_dev_rep23_e.pdf.
Zúñiga, N., Burton, S., Blancato, F., & Carr, M. (2024). The geopolitics of technology standards: historical context for US, EU and Chinese approaches. International Affairs, 100(4), 1635–1652. Retrieved 15.05.2025 from https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/100/4/1635/7692873.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Catallaxy

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.



