Fabian’s column: It’s time to get serious about tech sovereignty

Sasjkia Otto is a senior researcher at the Fabian Society. Her research covers technology, labour markets and ageing.

Manchester – birthplace of the first industrial revolution – is now poised to help shape the course of the fourth. Prime Minister Andy Burnham has committed his political economy of “Manchesterism” to “putting more power in people’s hands” – defying a four-decade settlement in which “political power was centralised and economic power was privatised”.

Burnham has only begun to articulate what this means for technology policy. He inherited a government that made important progress in unleashing technology’s potential for the economy and public services, but never arrived at a coherent vision of how this should feel in people’s everyday lives.

His new government appears to be taking a fresh look at assumptions that have been entrenched since major technology platforms emerged two decades ago. These assumptions are: that innovation will unlock abundance; that this is best achieved through the economies of scale and scope characteristic of technology markets; and that the resulting concentration of wealth and power is an unavoidable price of progress.

Over the past year, progressives on both sides of the Atlantic have embraced elements of this ‘abundance’ narrative. They argue that technology can eliminate artificial scarcity – that by building infrastructure and accelerating innovation, governments can grow the economic pie and make everyone better off. Often, they suggest, the state simply needs to get out of the way and let the market deliver.

This philosophy has merit but neglects something important. Technology, adopted inclusively and productively, could bring prosperity and power to every postcode. But this depends on who controls what is produced, who captures the benefits, and who determines the terms of access. 

The current risk is that artificial scarcity is traded for artificial subjugation. Power is flowing away from people, communities and elected representatives, to companies and governments beyond UK democratic control.

This challenge is often described as “technology sovereignty”. But the term can mask what is at stake: the government’s ability to act independently in citizens’ interests, and the ability of people and local businesses to act for themselves and their communities. More than an academic argument about ownership, it has real consequences for the security and resilience of our economy and public services, and our ability to make technology a force for good across the UK.

The UK relies heavily on a small number of large international technology suppliers. These companies can stifle domestic innovation and raise prices to protect their commercial interests. And recent geopolitical tensions have exposed more serious risks. Last year, Donald Trump sanctioned British International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan in retaliation for arrest warrants against Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant. Khan reportedly lost access to his Microsoft email account as a result. 

Losing access or control over foreign-owned technology products could prove catastrophic for the UK economy, public services and national security. The recent loss of 300 jobs at Jaguar Land Rover, following cyber security failures, shows how essential technology is to the economy.

This power imbalance also constrains domestic policy and limits governments’ ability to address technology’s wider harms. In June, President Trump threatened to impose 100 per cent tariffs on imports from countries imposing digital services taxes on US companies, and platforms themselves have withdrawn services from countries to protest regulation. Companies are driving labour-market disruption while bearing few of its costs, and their platforms continue to amplify harmful content and misinformation.

Breaking out of this dependence will not be easy. Britain cannot realistically build or own every part of the technology supply chain. It must instead pursue strategic autonomy: developing domestic strengths while building leverage to use foreign-produced technology on its own terms. 

Manchesterism could breathe new life into this agenda. Some of this is already underway through the Industrial Strategy and Sovereign AI Unit. But now technology production, backed by strategic public investment, could support reindustrialisation – bringing opportunity to every region.[LR1] [SO2]  Democratic accountability and profit-sharing could help ensure AI Growth Zones and citizen data benefit local communities, not just technology companies. Stronger ownership rules and technical standards could rebalance power in public services. Britain could influence globally and benefit locally by forging stronger relationships with middle powers, including the EU.

The new administration has made an excellent start – announcing government backing for chip production in its first week.  But delivering on this promise will require renewed focus. The government must now define a technology sovereignty strategy, backed by clear priorities and incentives, so people across the country have a say and a stake in their digital future.