## 2 Literature Review
### Development of the National-Commercial Interplay  
The Cold War and current digital tech rivalries differ in the types of leading technologies, which also shape their innovation directions, moving from the public sector to the private sector or vice versa. In his work on \"Innovation Power\" [70], [PERSON] explained the difference between contemporary and Cold War tech rivalries by differentiating between singular and generative technology. Singular technologies [S-technologies] have a \"clear threshold of technological mastery, and once a country reaches it, the playing field is leveled\". Furthermore, S-technologies do not contribute to further advancing innovation power. Conversely, digital technologies, primarily artificial intelligence, that have become the forefront of current tech rivalries are generative in nature [G-technologies]. They are \"a platform for continuous scientific and technological innovation [and] can lead to yet more innovation\". In contemporary world politics, [PERSON] wrote, \"the source of a country's power lies in its ability to continuously innovate\", and do so \"faster and better than its competitors\". Therefore, advancing AI is critical for competition over innovation power, concluded [PERSON]. Cold War tech rivalries primarily focused on S-technologies, including nuclear, space, and the strategic triad of ICBMs, submarines, and aviation. They were characterized by their physicality and reliance on heavy industrial infrastructure. Developing and maintaining these technologies required substantial investment in manufacturing capabilities, materials science, and large-scale engineering projects. Moreover, developing nuclear weapons and ICBMs demanded expertise in atomic physics, rocketry, and complex systems engineering, driving competition among great powers to attract top scientific talent and establish comprehensive military-industrial complexes (MICs). Nations needed robust industrial bases and infrastructures, extensive research and development programs, and significant financial resources to pursue advancements in these areas, which had little (if any) commercial potential. Even with dual usage for military and civil applications, most technologies did not have commercial applications. Thus, even when developed by industry, they were for national use [19]. Digital technologies, at the forefront of contemporary tech rivalries, rely on information processing, software development, and networked systems, fundamentally altering the nature of innovation and the requisite national capacities. As a result, success in this domain centers on intellectual capital, agility, and adaptability rather than sheer industrial might. Moreover, the interconnected nature of digital technologies necessitates collaboration among all stakeholders, including those from the private sector, public sector, academia, and international partners, to stay at the forefront of advancements. Therefore, as G-technologies are mostly civilian and commercial, they are primarily developed by private sector entities, making rivalry more economically based than militarily based. We theorize two primary innovation flow pathways in this context, each reflecting distinct governance structures, objectives, and relationships. The first is a **National-to-Commercial** pathway. It reflects a traditional, state-led innovation model wherein the government is the primary architect of research and development (R&D), particularly of dual-use S-technologies. Governance structures under this model are highly centralized, with state agencies directing innovation priorities, allocating funding, and retaining ownership and control over critical technologies and infrastructure. In-house R&D efforts are preferred, and outsourcing is conducted under strict oversight. The private sector plays a secondary role, often limited to executing government-defined objectives as contractors or subcontractors. It heavily depends on the public sector instead of market forces.