Techno-nationalism or technology sovereignty? Comparative evidence from MRI technology development in Türkiye and Brazil
Abstract
This paper compares Türkiye and Brazil within a political-economy framework, analyzing how techno-nationalism and technology sovereignty strategies affect technological learning and indigenous production capabilities, specifically in MRI technology development. Rapid technological advancements and geopolitical shifts have triggered governments to reconsider industrial policies, emphasizing technological autonomy, supply chain resilience, and national security. While Türkiye's “indigenous-national” approach exhibited strong techno-nationalistic tendencies, hindering effective technological learning, Brazil's more open, collaborative strategy significantly facilitated technology transfer and indigenous capabilities. MRI technology provides an ideal context due to its complexity, strategic healthcare importance, and concentrated global market dominated by multinational corporations. The findings reveal that Türkiye’s nationalistic strategy, characterized by limited institutional alignment and global integration, constrained technological capability building. In contrast, Brazil’s strategic localization, supported by structured policy interventions and international collaboration, resulted in effective technological learning and industrial success. This research provides novel insights by examining Türkiye’s hybrid strategy, an area rarely explored comparatively in existing literature, thus enriching discussions on technology sovereignty and techno-nationalism in emerging economies.
Keywords
References
- References AKÇOMAK, İ. S. (2024), “Türkiye’nin Yeni bir Ekonomik Büyüme Hikayesi Arayışına Yeni Sanayi Politikası Çare olur mu?” İkinci 500 Özel Sayısı. İstanbul Sanayi Odası.
- ARROW, K. J. (1962), “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing”, Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295952
- ASLAN, B., DEMİRDÜZEN, S., and KILIÇ, R. (2014), Türkiye’de Sağlık Teknolojileri Sektör Analizi. TÜSEB Yayınları.
- BATHELT, H., MALMBERG, A., and MASKELL, P. (2004), “Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation”, Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph469oa
- BELL, M. and PAVITT, K. (1993), “Technological Accumulation and Industrial Growth: Contrasts Between Developed and Developing Countries”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 2(2), 157–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/2.2.157
- BINZ, C. and TRUFFER, B. (2017), “Global Innovation Systems: A Conceptual Framework for Innovation Dynamics in Transnational Contexts”, Research Policy, 46(7), 1284–1298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.012
- BLIND, K. (2025), “Standardization and Standards: Safeguards of Technological Sovereignty?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 210(123873). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123873
- BMWK – Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action. (2021), GAIA-X and Digital Sovereignty. (accessed: 4th of April, 2025)
- CAPRI, A. (2020), Strategic US-China Decoupling in the Tech Sector. Hinrich Foundation Report.
- CAPRI, A. (2025), Techno-Nationalism: How it’s Reshaping Trade, Geopolitics and Society, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.