Every new semiconductor breakthrough is quickly translated into a number: 5 nanometers, 3 nanometers, 2 nanometers. These figures dominate headlines and shape perceptions of technological leadership. Yet the fixation on smaller chips risks obscuring a larger reality about the semiconductor race unfolding across Asia. Leadership in the chip industry cannot be assessed by manufacturing sophistication alone. Taiwan’s TSMC manufactures more than 90% of leading-edge chips globally, yet its domestic chip design lags behind the United States. The countries that benefit most from semiconductor innovation are not necessarily those that produce the smallest chips, but those that build resilient ecosystems around them, strengthen scientific and industrial capabilities, and convert technological advances into sustained improvements in productivity, security, and social welfare. Seen through this broader lens, Asia’s chip race produces multiple leaders across different dimensions, rather than a single undisputed champion.
Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber, or make a donation, to support our work.
The history of semiconductor development is often presented as a story of relentless miniaturization. Because smaller transistors often improve performance and energy efficiency, the nanometer scale has become a focal point of international competition. The relevant unit of analysis cannot be an isolated transistor or fabrication plant. Creating a system that converts semiconductor innovation into usable computing capacity, highlighting the need for a comprehensive approach to increase social welfare, is fundamental for sustainable growth.
The microchip industry has experienced rapid turnarounds, as miniaturization fuels advances in AI, IoT, and cloud computing. The nanometer scale has become a competitive measure of economic growth and strategic leadership. Samsung and TSMC lead in producing advanced chips (2nm and below), with TSMC supplying most of the innovative chips in 2025. China aims for 80% self-sufficiency by 2030. The United States has long possessed major strengths in semiconductor design, software, intellectual property, research, and manufacturing equipment. Intel’s introduction of high-volume production of its 18A process in 2025 strengthened the country’s position in leading-edge domestic manufacturing. Continuing investments involved are considerable. In 2025, American semiconductor companies invested more than US$76.8bn in R&D. India’s Semicon program has attracted more than US$17.31bn in capital investment to support semiconductor development. Such spending assumes that advanced chips will shape future economic power.
The semiconductor race has several leaders but no comprehensive winner. Taiwan leads in advanced fabrication (90% of leading-edge chip manufacturing); the United States maintains major strengths in design, software, intellectual property, and equipment (sales of $425 billion in semiconductors in 2025); and South Korea remains a leader in memory technologies (Samsung grew more than 1800% compared to last year given AI-driven demand). Each excels in specific functions, yet none fully dominates the entire system.
Yes, investment can accelerate innovation, but money does not remove every constraint. Semiconductor work demands technical knowledge, practical experience, and disciplined methods. A country can subsidize a fabrication plant more quickly than it can build a mature network of engineers, technicians, suppliers, and researchers. The international contest is therefore not only about who can produce advanced microchips. It is also about who can buy them, who controls the equipment required to make them, and who can use them on a scale. Semiconductor power is networked power. Countries dispute a place in global supply chains. Hence, each economy may specialize in different areas such as chip design, fabrication, manufacturing, and advanced materials. Today, the focus is on production, testing, and packaging. As a result, modern semiconductors emerge from highly specialized cross-border networks rather than a single national ecosystem.
The explosion of AI data centers has created a global microchip shortage. The rising demand for high-bandwidth memory (HBM) exposed a critical vulnerability in the semiconductor supply chain. Technological and manufacturing leaders could not suppress global demand for HBM. When specialized technology offers an unprofitable margin, even with global capacity, it becomes scarce because there are no incentives to produce it. This ecosystem is internationally interdependent but still fragmented. A resilient semiconductor system may remain integrated while diversifying critical dependencies and maintaining the capacity to respond to disruption.
Then, a fundamental question arises: does corporate technological success translate into broadly distributed national capability? Investment can accelerate innovation, but even a substantial investment alone is not enough. A country without a leading-edge fabrication plant can still convert imported chips into improvements in healthcare, education, research, and industrial productivity. Conversely, a manufacturing leader may struggle to spread the benefits beyond a small number of firms or regions.
From a public policy perspective, industrial development has the greatest impact when it generates social value. Social impact can be observed through technical education, workforce development, economy-wide productivity growth, regional development, access to advanced computing and technology, public infrastructure and services, healthcare and scientific research capacity, and opportunities beyond established technology clusters. India’s Semicon 2.0 program is a leading example that has reduced import dependence and has enhanced national reliance. This set of policies supports the semiconductor ecosystem, including start-ups, research, and human capital development. Yet policymakers worldwide face tensions when implementing these strategies. Measuring social value and the increase in welfare requires precision and robust metrics that, most of the time, aren’t reported. Governments must address brain drain and the lack of specialized employees by finding solutions that mitigate these human capital shortages. National firms need the country’s support to strengthen research departments and not focus only on high-margin products.
Such policies and outcomes do not occur automatically. Governments can attach workforce requirements to subsidies, support partnerships between semiconductor firms and universities or technical colleges. The increasing demand for highly skilled workers expands apprenticeships and technician training, widens access to advanced computing, and builds public-interest research capacity. AI is restructuring the labor market and increasing the demand for high-skilled workers. The education system is changing how it supplies employees with the required knowledge and skills. The competitive market can strengthen smaller suppliers, reform educational policies, and invest in regional infrastructure and commerce.
Access matters as much as production. If advanced computing is concentrated among wealthy states and large companies, gaps in social welfare will most likely increase. Scientific research centers, industrial factories, and public services will concentrate in highly developed cities, increasing inequality and social pendulum swings. To mitigate inequalities, countries must take a well-structured approach to SEZs, with broader development strategies and execute them effectively. Miniaturization may make individual devices more efficient, but total demand for computing continues to rise. The expansion of artificial intelligence, cloud services, and connected technologies can offset efficiency gains by increasing overall consumption.
A semiconductor strategy cannot be considered sustainable if efficiency gains at the chip level are offset by increased aggregate consumption or if environmental costs are shifted onto communities with weaker protections. Governments should therefore measure more than nanometers and market share. They should evaluate whether semiconductor strategies enhance technological capability, resilience, social value, higher levels of welfare, and environmental sustainability.
Bruno S. Sergi is an instructor at Harvard University’s Sustainability and Global Development Practice Graduate Programs. He is also associated with the Harvard Center for International Development, the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, and the Harvard University Asia Center. He has led the launch of multiple scholarly journals and book series, including the Cambridge Elements series at Cambridge University Press and Entrepreneurship and Global Economic Growth at Emerald Publishing.
Mariana P. Gameiro is a Teaching Assistant in Microeconomics and Macroeconomics at Católica Lisbon School of Business and Economics, where she is completing a Master’s in Economics as part of a double degree in Firms Strategy with the Université Catholique de Louvain. Her major research focus is on microeconomic theory and applied economics, with emphasis on understanding market ecosystems and information asymmetries relevant to public policy design.