In today’s rapidly evolving scientific and technological landscape, characterized by intensified geopolitical competition and accelerated industrial transformation, key technologies have become central to shaping international power dynamics, economic vitality, and national security. Since World War II, countries worldwide have acknowledged the critical role of technology in securing national interests, prompting major powers to embed science and technology priorities within their national strategies. These efforts broadly follow two paradigms: a hybrid model that integrates technology strategies into broader national innovation frameworks, and an independent model that focuses exclusively on national-level strategic deployment of key technologies.
Among the most prominent adopters of the independent model are the United States, South Korea, and Australia. Each country’s approach reflects its unique scientific foundation, economic context, and strategic imperatives, resulting in distinct national key technology strategies that exemplify three core models: technology leadership, strategic cultivation, and development-security balance.
The United States: Asserting Global Technology Leadership
As a global technological leader, the United States views maintaining supremacy in critical and emerging technologies as indispensable to its economic prosperity and national security. The 2020 National Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technologies underscores this vision by identifying priority areas—such as artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, and advanced computing—and establishing mechanisms to manage both technological risks and opportunities.
The U.S. strategy is comprehensive, involving coordinated efforts across federal departments, promotion of STEM education, support for innovation ecosystems, and robust public-private partnerships. Importantly, the strategy features annual reviews of key technology priorities to remain adaptive in a fast-changing environment. In parallel, the U.S. prioritizes shaping global standards and governance models that align with democratic values, while strengthening alliances to protect intellectual property and supply chains. This approach reflects a dual objective: sustaining leadership in high-priority technologies while safeguarding national interests amid growing competition from strategic rivals such as China and Russia.
South Korea: Strategic Cultivation of Essential Technologies
Facing fierce international competition and recognizing gaps in source technologies critical for dominance, South Korea’s strategy focuses on the targeted cultivation and protection of national essential strategic technologies. Its 2022 strategy prioritizes technologies including semiconductors, 5G/6G communications, secondary batteries, artificial intelligence, and quantum technologies, aiming to elevate South Korea to a global technological leader by 2030.
South Korea employs a nuanced classification system, dividing technologies into leading, competitive, and catching-up categories based on their current technological maturity relative to global leaders. This tiered approach enables precise allocation of resources and tailored policy interventions. The government promotes challenging R&D projects, simplifies budget processes, and fosters collaboration across universities, research institutes, and industry. Additionally, South Korea actively pursues international partnerships and standard-setting to reinforce its strategic positioning. Its model emphasizes systematic, focused technology development combined with protection mechanisms to enhance resilience against external shocks.
Australia: Balancing Development and Security
Australia’s Blueprint for Critical Technologies exemplifies a balanced strategy that acknowledges both the economic opportunities and national security risks posed by emerging technologies. Recognizing the vital role of technologies like space systems, AI, and advanced manufacturing, Australia aims to ensure supply chain security, foster innovation, and establish resilient infrastructure while managing geopolitical risks.
Australia’s approach features comprehensive measures, including regulatory reform to eliminate barriers to innovation, targeted R&D investment, and international cooperation frameworks such as AUKUS and QUAD. The strategy also emphasizes the development of national security-focused institutions like the Supply Chain Resilience Office and the University Anti-Foreign Interference Task Force to mitigate risks related to intellectual property theft and foreign influence. By integrating economic growth objectives with rigorous security assessments, Australia seeks to create a sustainable and secure technological ecosystem adaptable to evolving global challenges.
The experiences of the U.S., South Korea, and Australia reveal several key trends in national key technology strategies.
Each country identifies and updates prioritized technology areas aligned with national interests, reflecting a dynamic understanding of technological relevance amid global competition.
Effective coordination mechanisms spanning government agencies, academia, and industry are crucial to aligning R&D, commercialization, and security objectives.
Beyond innovation promotion, strategies increasingly emphasize risk assessment, supply chain security, intellectual property protection, and foreign interference mitigation.
Collaboration with allies and partners in R&D, standard setting, and supply chain management is central to sustaining competitive advantages and mitigating shared risks.
These differing yet complementary approaches illustrate how national key technology strategies are evolving to address multifaceted challenges. While the U.S. leads in technological dominance and risk mitigation, South Korea exemplifies targeted cultivation and protection of strategic capabilities, and Australia balances innovation with national security imperatives. Together, they provide valuable models for countries seeking to navigate the complexities of technological competition and safeguard their future prosperity and security.
Source: industry gov au, msit go kr, cnas, itif
