Time for at Least One US University to Offer a Graduate Degree in Industrial Policy

With the rise of aggressive techno-industrial competition from China, it is becoming clear that the United States needs coherent policies and effective programs to ensure its strategic industrial base is not further hollowed out.

Most civil servants and political appointees in the defense, intelligence, and foreign policy establishments possess deep expertise in their respective fields, often gained through education at top universities specializing in these areas and reinforced by continued training throughout their careers. But when it comes to individuals tasked with crafting U.S. policies for strategic industries and economic competitiveness, their university-level training is, at best, incidental.

There is no established curriculum or professional pipeline to support industrial policy. The so-called “economic competitiveness” establishment—to the extent there even is such a thing—has no academic foundation to build upon.

No U.S. universities teach economic warfighting or strategic industry policy. In fact, most economics departments, steeped in neo-classical theory, teach that it’s not only unnecessary to fight economic battles, but that it’s harmful. This sharply contrasts with other nations, particularly the Asian Tigers, where graduate education programs offer deep, sophisticated training in industrial strategy, equipping future practitioners with the comprehensive knowledge necessary to craft national policies.

As such, the United States needs to catch up. The National Science Foundation’s Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate should fund at least one university to establish a graduate program, and related career training tracks, focused on economic warfighting and industrial strategy.

This is not the same as studying foreign affairs, macroeconomics, or military policy. It requires a unique, interdisciplinary skill set to analyze the issues and articulate sound policies. Skills that American graduate programs, by and large, do not offer to teach.

That skill set should include a combination of:

1. Economics: including international, macro, regional, and industrial organization economics
2. Business administration: covering firm strategy, international business, R&D management, and entrepreneurship
3. Public policy and political science: including political theory, international relations, and public administration
4. Technology policy: covering national innovation systems and emerging tech governance

More specifically, students should learn:

• How to assess the global competitive position of industries using available data and analytical tools
• Theories and models of national innovation systems
• Core technologies and their development pathways, including key branches of engineering and science
• The history of U.S. industrial policy and technology development
• How policy affects industry performance, productivity, innovation, and competitiveness across the micro (firm), meso (sector and technology), and macro (economy-wide) levels

While some students may be able to piece together parts of this knowledge across departments, perhaps through electives or joint degrees, major gaps would likely remain. No existing program brings it all together in a focused, cohesive way.

Students certainly wouldn’t become competent in industrial policy through an economics department, which focuses on market equilibrium, not industrial strategy. Business administration programs inch closer, as they teach real-world firm behavior. However, business schools largely ignore the role of government and national economic priorities, overlooking the nexus between policy, firms, and industries. Certain urban planning, regional planning, and public policy programs offer the best alignment, especially those integrated with engineering schools. Still, even these tend to emphasize science and technology policy over industrial competitiveness.

Given Congressional intent for NSF TIP to support advanced industry development, the program should launch a competitive grant to fund the creation of at least one dedicated industrial policy master’s program. Ideally, several universities would be selected to foster diverse institutional models and regional expertise.

Beyond graduate students, there is also a pressing need to train federal employees. Few practitioners of industrial policy in government have received any formal training in the discipline. The Eisenhower School at the National Defense University offers some relevant coursework, but its focus naturally skews toward defense. Broader, civilian-focused programs are needed to equip federal employees with the skills, tools, and knowledge to design and implement advanced industry strategies effectively.

If the United States is serious about winning the ongoing techno-economic war with China, it must invest in building the intellectual and institutional infrastructure to do so. That starts with training the people who will carry out the work.