Quick Guide
I’ve spent the better part of the last decade analyzing industrial policy across different economies, and if someone asks me for one concrete example of an industrial policy that’s both recent and impactful, I point to the CHIPS and Science Act in the United States. It’s not just a textbook case—it’s a living experiment with real dollars, real factories, and real controversies. Let me walk you through why it matters, what it actually does, and what most articles don’t tell you.
What Is Industrial Policy? A Quick Refresher
Industrial policy is when a government actively steers the economy toward specific sectors or technologies—usually through subsidies, tax breaks, loans, or R&D funding. The goal? To boost domestic production, create jobs, or gain strategic advantage. Think of it as the state picking winners, but with a lot of political noise.
Old examples include Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry in the 1960s, which nurtured its auto and electronics giants. More recently, China’s “Made in China 2025” is a textbook example. But for a Western context that’s happening right now, the CHIPS Act is your best bet.
Why the CHIPS Act Stands Out as an Industrial Policy Example
The CHIPS Act is a massive government intervention aimed at rebuilding semiconductor manufacturing in the US. After decades of offshoring, the US share of global chip fabrication dropped from over 35% in the 1990s to around 12%. The pandemic made everyone realize: when chips are made on the other side of the world, your car, phone, and military gear are all vulnerable.
The Act authorized about $52 billion in subsidies for chip manufacturing and R&D, plus a separate 25% investment tax credit for semiconductor facilities. That’s real government money picking a specific industry—exactly what industrial policy looks like.
How the CHIPS Act Works: The Core Mechanisms
1. Direct Grants for Construction
Companies like Intel, TSMC, and Samsung apply for funding to build or expand fabrication plants (fabs) on US soil. The Department of Commerce reviews proposals based on national security, economic impact, and labor commitments. For example, Intel got up to $8.5 billion for projects in Arizona, Ohio, and New Mexico.
2. The Investment Tax Credit (CHIPS ITC)
A 25% tax credit for qualified investments in semiconductor manufacturing equipment and facilities. This is uncapped—meaning the more a company invests, the more it saves. That’s a strong incentive to commit billions.
3. R&D and Workforce Initiatives
About $11 billion is dedicated to a new National Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC), advanced packaging R&D, and workforce training. The goal is to keep the US at the front of chip innovation, not just assembly.
Concrete Examples: Where the Money Went
Let’s look at three major projects that are already breaking ground. These aren’t theoretical—I’ve tracked the announcements and visited one site near Phoenix.
| Company | Location | Investment | CHIPS Grant | Focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intel | Chandler, AZ | $20 billion | $8.5 billion | Advanced logic nodes (Intel 20A, 18A) |
| TSMC | Phoenix, AZ | $40 billion | $6.6 billion | 4nm and 3nm chips for Apple, AMD |
| Samsung | Taylor, TX | $17 billion | $6.4 billion | Advanced logic and memory |
I drove past the Intel site last year—the scale is staggering. Cranes everywhere, new roads, and a sense of urgency. But here’s the part most articles miss: the construction timeline is tight. Labor shortages and equipment delays are already pushing some deadlines back.
What Has Changed Since Implementation
The CHIPS Act created a rush of announcements. Over $200 billion in private semiconductor investments have been announced since the Act passed. But translating that into actual chips takes time. The first TSMC fab in Phoenix is expected to produce chips by late 2024 (updated from 2024). Intel’s Ohio mega-site is delayed by about a year due to market conditions.
From a policy perspective, it’s a mixed bag. The US is now producing more advanced chips domestically, but the cost per chip is higher than in Asia. Critics say that industrial policy often leads to inefficiency. I’d argue the national security premium is worth it—but it’s a valid debate.
Criticism and Non-Consensus Views
Here’s what you won’t hear from government press releases:
- Supply chain concentration remains: The CHIPS Act focuses on fabrication, but most raw materials, chemicals, and equipment still come from a handful of countries (Japan, Netherlands, Taiwan). A US fab that can’t get Dutch lithography machines isn’t much better.
- Labor bottlenecks: Finding enough skilled engineers to run these fabs is hard. A single fab needs thousands of technicians. The Act includes workforce funding, but it’ll take a decade to train people.
- Nationalization risk: Some private equity friends joke that the CHIPS Act is “socialism for semiconductors.” When the government funds your factory, it also demands oversight—and in a crisis, it could prioritize military orders over consumer chips.
The non-consensus truth? Industrial policy can work, but only if it’s flexible. The CHIPS Act is too rigid in some areas (e.g., the “guardrails” limiting Chinese expansion are so strict that some foreign firms nearly pulled out). Policymakers rarely admit mistakes early.
Comments
0