America’s lead in life sciences is being challenged. Other countries are aggressively seeking to attract and grow companies with innovation-based tax incentives, a range of firm-specific enticements, increased government research funding, improved IP protections, and streamlined regulatory approval processes. The federal government should act to ensure U.S. life sciences remain competitive.

The EU’s new data privacy rules, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), will have a negative impact on the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in Europe, putting EU firms at a competitive disadvantage compared with their competitors in North America and Asia.

Raising the cost of ICT products by levying tariffs on ICT imports from China would reduce growth in U.S. ICT investments, which would lower productivity growth, and thus economic growth.

Rather than slow down technological disruption to protect a small number of workers at the expense of the vast majority who are benefiting, policymakers should focus on doing significantly more to help those who are displaced transition successfully into new jobs and occupations.

Brazil, China, Indonesia, Russia, and Vietnam fielded some of the year’s worst innovation mercantilist policies. Their targets included Internet-based services, electric vehicles, biopharmaceuticals, computers and electronics.

ITIF has conducted in-depth analyses showing that while superior productivity growth did contribute to U.S. manufacturing job losses, the bigger factor was unfair foreign trade practices and the U.S. manufacturing sector’s lack of competitiveness.

No one has done more to shape the narrative about income inequality in America than economist Thomas Piketty. But he and his colleagues have been making questionable methodological choices that maximize the jarring effect of their findings.

Life-sciences companies grow best in locations that can combine qualities like a good business environment, skilled workers, strong research universities, and available capital. Strengthening these and related factors can give states a stronger competitive advantage.

Most competitiveness strategies focus on broad measures such as improving the business environment or supporting better factor inputs for firms. While necessary, these steps do not constitute an effective competitiveness strategy. Policymakers must go much deeper.

While there is much excitement about autonomous vehicles, connected vehicles hold much more promise over the next decade or so. However, absent proactive public policies, especially to enable infrastructure to “talk” to vehicles, the development and adoption of connected vehicles will be suboptimal.

The number of technology-based start-ups surged 47 percent in the last decade. These firms still account for a relatively small share of all businesses, but they have an outsized impact on economic growth, because they provide better-paying, longer-lasting jobs than other start-ups, and they contribute more to innovation, productivity, and competitiveness.

The Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) more effectively generates new ideas that are useful to energy innovators than its older brethren in the federal R&D establishment, and it bridges the gap between research and use in ways that these other agencies simply do not.

The State New Economy Index uses 25 indicators to measure the extent to which state economies are knowledge-based, globalized, entrepreneurial, IT-driven, and innovation-oriented.

While local governments can and should manage much of the evolution to “smart cities,” national governments have an important role to play as well in accelerating and coordinating their development. Indeed, the long-term success of smart cities will likely depend on whether national governments support their development.

China’s systematic mercantilism is a threat to the U.S. economy and the very soul of the global trading system. America cannot respond with either flaccid appeasement or economic nationalism; it must assemble an international coalition that pressures China to stop rigging markets and start competing on fair terms.

Contrary to popular perceptions, the labor market is not experiencing unprecedented technological disruption. In fact, occupational churn in the United States is at a historic low. It is time stop worrying and start accelerating productivity with more technological innovation.

While data-driven innovation is a global phenomenon, some regions are better poised to enjoy the resulting benefits because they have invested in and supported the conditions necessary to succeed in the data economy. This is also true within the United States.

A growing number of countries are making it more expensive and time consuming, if not illegal, to transfer data overseas. This reduces economic growth and undercuts social value.

There is considerable confusion about the potential effects of emerging technologies such as robotics and artificial intelligence on employment. This primer outlines 13 key points to understand about that interaction.

Productivity is the key to improving living standards—so policymakers should ignore conventional economists who say there is little government can do about it and instead make it the principal goal of economic policy.

America’s innovation-driven, high-tech economy isn’t concentrated around a few hubs like Silicon Valley; it is widely diffused—and every state and congressional district has a stake in its success.

A menu of actionable ideas for the Trump administration and 115th Congress to foster innovation, growth, and progress.

This book delivers a critical wake-up call: a fierce global race for innovation advantage is under way, and while other nations are making support for technology and innovation a central tenet of their economic strategies and policies, America lacks a robust innovation policy.