As technology evolves, the topic of technological sovereignty has become one of the defining issues of the modern world. For nations that hold much of the world’s wealth, sovereignty often translates to a reduced dependence on foreign chip manufacturing or cloud infrastructure.
However, underprivileged economies have a stake in the tech world as well. They may strive for independence from global supply chains or investment in local innovation, but often, above all, they want the freedom to define their own digital future.
When a country’s digital backbone is built solely on imported technology, its technological sovereignty can be fragile at best. True sovereignty requires more than just widespread access; it can only be reached after capability, confidence, and continuity have been achieved.
Without those three essentials, the gap between digitally sovereign economies and digitally dependent societies only grows.
Hardware and intellectual dependencies
The problem that underprivileged economies face is twofold and complex. The hardware issues faced by these communities stem from a lack of foundational infrastructure, such as chips, servers, and software. In underprivileged economies, much of this important technology is imported — an unavoidable reality in the short term as these economies find their way into the digital world.
A deeper vulnerability may lie in the intellectual shortfalls within these communities. Algorithmic models are built elsewhere, data centers are located offshore, and platforms are created that do not account for the local behaviors and languages of these underprivileged areas.
Banks that rely on foreign data to process loans, or companies that rely on proprietary software that cannot be personalized or audited locally, are at a disadvantage. The rise of AI has created centralization requirements for data and computational capacity that can be particularly hard for these underprivileged communities to harness, and many of the pillars of AI use exist outside these disadvantaged areas, making it challenging for these communities to participate in the rise of AI.
Importing intelligence
The cost of dependency becomes clear when one examines AI applications across key fields such as finance and defense. Algorithms can be trained on different local behaviors, without considering the community’s spending habits or needs, thereby undermining technological sovereignty.
Communities that have to rely on imported digital tools expose themselves to a number of vulnerabilities, especially with regard to defense. In addition, they may lose leverage in ethical decision-making.
In a word, they have no part in deciding what is “fair” or “risky” with AI use. They are at the mercy of more powerful, sovereign economies.
Building power through localized intelligence
To become sovereign, communities need to work toward localizing intelligence. Disadvantaged economies should build data ecosystems that reflect the realities of their local communities, including agricultural, financial, and transportation data. These data sets work as strategic assets in building localized intelligence.
To arrive at digital sovereignty, communities need to ensure that data remains within jurisdictional boundaries under clear privacy laws. This way, the data is not as vulnerable to the external infrastructure of larger, more established sovereign economies.
In addition, AI must be trained using local realities, remaining culturally relevant and logical. Imported code can never be personalized to the point that communities require to reach sovereignty.
Technology infrastructure must be easy to explain to local stakeholders. That way, once communities bring in the infrastructure, they can support it and keep it thriving.
Funding technological sovereignty
Technological sovereignty cannot come to fruition without funding. However, it requires a financial perspective distinct from that of other ventures.
For one, the expected short-term ROI expectations may not align with the timelines of installing deeply ingrained infrastructure. Building AI infrastructure should be viewed as a capital investment, not a consumable. Across locations in Africa and Southeast Asia, areas considered technologically vulnerable, a blended approach to financing technology is being enacted. Philanthropic capital is working to derisk private investment — an encouraging development bringing these locations closer to sovereignty.
Other areas are investing funds exclusively in AI and cloud technology projects, all of which are locally owned and managed. The primary goal of these sovereign technology funding approaches is local technology transfer and education, so these formerly beholden areas can become technologically self-sufficient.
Sovereign not isolated
When an area becomes technologically sovereign, its inhabitants do not necessarily become isolationists. In fact, they begin to benefit from having an active role in the global technology community and global AI research. As more focus is trained on equity, partnerships can form that can create development, transparent data licensing, and shared model ownership — strengthening technology sovereignty along the way.
Ethics also play a role in sovereignty. AI cannot just be accessible; it must be ethical and reflect the values of the individual economies in which it is used. Before AI systems are even developed, local ethics councils and the local community need to have input on their ethical development and use.
True technological sovereignty for underprivileged economies is about more than just having access to AI technology and digital tools. It is about competing on a global scale with a purpose. Technology identities that are formed around a community’s people and how they live are powerful and lay a pathway toward sustainable innovation.
Sovereignty is asserting agency in a world that is rapidly evolving technologically. When underprivileged economies learn to craft their own technology identities, they become architects of their own digital destinies.
