Frost & Sullivan Releases the Policy Position Paper "AI Sovereignty For an Inclusive Intelligent Society"
Frost & Sullivan Releases the Policy Position Paper "AI Sovereignty For an Inclusive Intelligent Society"
AI sovereignty is transitioning from an academic concept to global policy practice. In the past two years, over a hundred countries have issued national AI strategies, with autonomy, security, and supply chain resilience becoming common concerns. In this position paper, Frost & Sullivan argues that AI sovereignty is not about isolation. Its essence is preserving choice within an open system, meaning a country retains ultimate decision-making authority over critical resources and rules. The report breaks down this capability into three levels and six elements: energy, computing power, and data form the foundational physical and resource architecture; models and applications handle technological conversion and value realization at the intermediate level; and AI development sovereignty at the upper level determines the independent choice of technology paths, priority areas, and international partners.
Based on this framework, the report creates the AISDI AI Sovereignty Development Index, using six dimensions, thirty core indicators, and a three-layer weighting system, to assess all 195 countries globally. In the weighting system, foundational resources account for 50%, intermediate technologies for 30%, and upper-level governance for 20%. The evaluation results show that what distinguishes countries is not the amount of resource endowment, but the degree of coupling among the three levels of capability. In most countries, strategies and regulations progress faster than power, computing, and data infrastructure, leaving them at the advanced level for a long time. Therefore, the report classifies countries into basic, advanced, and mature tiers, and concludes that there is no single path to AI sovereignty, only a sequence of priorities matching each country's maturity.
For implementation, the report proposes a four-step pathway generation method involving profile positioning, tool selection, phasing configuration, and dynamic adaptation, supported by a 116-item action toolkit covering all six elements. The toolkit provides directly callable policy measures for countries at all levels, organized along two directions: internal capability development and external rule shaping. The report also establishes a dual mechanism of risk control and value creation, with five categories of core risks each having a defined response. Three levels of returns—public value, industrial value, and ecosystem spillovers—support the continuous evolution of sovereignty building. The report concludes that autonomous control is not the end point. The higher goal of AI sovereignty is AI equity: sovereignty is the prerequisite for equity, equity is the higher goal of sovereignty, and cooperation connects the two.
AI sovereignty is rapidly evolving from an academic concept to global policy practice. Over the past two years, more than one hundred countries have established national AI strategies, making autonomy, security, and supply chain resilience a shared concern. In this position paper, Frost & Sullivan argues that AI sovereignty is not about isolation. Its essence is preserving choice within an open system, meaning a country retains ultimate decision-making authority over critical resources and rules. The report breaks this capability into six elements across three levels: energy, computing power, and data form the foundational physical and resource architecture; models and applications handle technological conversion and value realization at the intermediate level; and AI development sovereignty at the upper level determines the independent choice of technology paths, priority areas, and international partners.
Based on this framework, the report establishes the AI Sovereignty Development Index, or AISDI, consisting of six dimensions, thirty core indicators, and a three-layer weighting system, and applies it to all 195 countries worldwide. Foundational resources account for 50% of the weighting, intermediate technologies for 30%, and upper-level governance for 20%. The assessment reveals that what separates countries is not the quantity of resource endowments, but the degree of coupling among the three levels of capability. In most countries, strategies and regulations advance faster than power, computing, and data infrastructure, leaving them at the advanced level for a long time. Based on this, the report classifies countries into basic, advanced, and mature tiers, and concludes that there is no single path to AI sovereignty, only a sequence of priorities matching each country's maturity.
For implementation, the report proposes a four-step pathway generation method including profile positioning, tool selection, phasing configuration, and dynamic adaptation, supported by a 116-item action toolkit covering all six elements. The toolkit provides directly callable policy measures for countries at all levels, organized along two directions: internal capability development and external rule shaping. The report also establishes a dual mechanism of risk control and value creation, with five categories of core risks each having a defined response. Three levels of returns—public value, industrial value, and ecosystem spillovers—support the continuous evolution of sovereignty building. The report concludes that autonomous control is not the destination. The higher goal of AI sovereignty is AI equity: sovereignty is the prerequisite for equity, equity is the higher goal of sovereignty, and cooperation connects the two.
Click the following link to view an excerpt of the report:
If you need further research on AI sovereignty and global AI governance, please contact us:
Ms. Li Li, Frost & Sullivan
E-mail: livia.li@frostchina.com
