Elisabeth B. Reynolds (ed.), Priority Technologies. MIT Press. 2026. ISBN 978-0-262-05429-4. $24.95.
Priority Technologies, edited by Dr. Elisabeth B. Reynolds and published by the MIT Press, offers policy recommendations to develop six technologies critical to U.S. national security: critical minerals, semiconductors, biomanufacturing, quantum computing, drones, and advanced manufacturing. Reynolds and her Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) colleagues make specific policy recommendations for each of the technologies.
The technology-focused chapters follow a set structure: Strategic Importance, Current Landscape, Gaps and Opportunities, and Recommendations. This format is similar to the popular SWOT framework, which looks at Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats, in this case with added context provided by the strategic analysis. The recommendations, made by senior faculty with impressive credentials (most of whom occupy named chairs), follow a similar format and often contain similar recommendations.
Among the authors, there appears to be a consensus that the United States should develop regional hubs centered on specific technology groups. I first encountered this type of analysis in AnnaLee Saxenian’s book Regional Advantage, which was published in 1994 and depicted the rise of technology hubs along Route 128 near Boston and in Silicon Valley. Much as in Shenzhen now and with craft-based artisanry in pre-industrial Italy, concentrations of skill and resources create beneficial interactions and competition.
Proposing this type of government-led development within the United States can be a bit fraught. When I worked in the Washington, DC, area in the 1990s the term “industrial policy” evoked strong reactions. Discussions meandered from claims that central planning doomed the Soviet Union, through arguments pointing out the success of Japanese programs running through the Ministry of Technology and Industry (MITI), and often concluding with someone claiming that the United States was a free market economy and the government had no business “picking winners and losers.”
Such discussions went from interesting to drudgery after the first few times through the loop, but one could easily make the case that government entities have always picked winners and losers through acquisitions, tax incentives, and subsidies. More directly, the United States federal government acquired about 10% of Intel stock in 2025 with the stated goal of strengthening our domestic chip design and fabrication capabilities.
Thankfully, the authors bypass the age-old industrial policy debate and recommend sensible levels of government support for specific technologies, industries, and regional development hubs. While Europe has moved away from national champions, at least in part, countries such as China are following aggressive loss-leading strategies to extend their dominance beyond contracted manufacturing. It might not be time to dust off our copies of MITI and the Japanese Miracle, but there are certainly lessons to be learned.
Priority Technologies offers sensible recommendations for policymakers, legislators, and other parties interested in shaping the future of American industry. Yes, it appears that some level of explicit industrial policy is required to create a solid technological foundation for the next phase of economic development, but old prejudices should not stand in the way of future growth.
