54 per cent. America’s greatness also stems from the ideas of foreigners. A lesson for sovereigntists

There is one thing that sovereignists should learn from American history: no country becomes great by convincing itself that it can do without the rest of the world. From this perspective, the history of the United States is a magnificent demonstration of just how productive a form of patriotism can be when it regards foreigners not as a threat, but as a resource. And a study published in recent weeks by the National Bureau of Economic Research provides formidable confirmation of this insight. The study is entitled ‘Foreign Giants’ Broad Shoulders: The Causal Effect of Foreign Ideas on U.S. Innovation’, authored by Tarek Alexander Hassan, Aakash Kalyani and Juan Cruz Lopez Del Valle, and contains a figure that deserves to be framed in every office where industrial policy is formulated: 54 per cent of American technologies are also based on at least one technological contribution originating abroad. This does not, of course, mean that 54 per cent of American inventions were created by foreigners. It means something more interesting: that over half of the American technologies analysed have at least one foreign ancestor in their lineage. And it means that the country which, more than any other, has helped shape the world’s technological future has built a decisive part of its strength through knowledge sourced from other countries.

The authors reached this conclusion by analysing the text of 13 million patents filed between 1887 and 2024, reconstructing the relationships between the various inventions. They discovered that the most fruitful American innovations – those capable of generating further innovations – are also those that rely most heavily on foreign ideas. They also demonstrated a second, politically even more interesting finding: immigrant communities facilitate the uptake of technologies developed in their respective countries of origin. The American counties most exposed to this knowledge do not merely utilise it. They produce new inventions, develop new specialisations and, in the long term, create more jobs in related technology sectors.

This discovery represents a minor cultural revolution. Immigration is not merely a phenomenon to be measured in terms of flows, borders, and immediate costs and benefits. It is also an invisible infrastructure through which ideas travel across the world. A researcher brings with them more than just a CV. They bring knowledge, relationships, languages, skills and links to other research networks. And the value of this knowledge grows when it comes into contact with other areas of expertise.

Of course, a country has the right to control its own borders, screen those entering, protect sensitive technologies and defend national interests. But this is where the most interesting contradiction in the rhetoric of self-sufficiency emerges: claiming to strengthen a nation by reducing its capacity to absorb external knowledge means risking the very thing one seeks to protect.

Another American study, authored by Shai Bernstein, Rebecca Diamond and other economists, had already shown that immigrants account for around 16 per cent of inventors in the United States, yet they hold 23 per cent of patents. A model developed by the authors attributes around 32 per cent of overall innovation to immigrants, whilst also taking into account the positive effects on their American-born colleagues. These figures differ from those in the new study, but they tell a similar story: imported talent does not necessarily replace domestic talent. It can make it more productive.

For Italy, the lesson should be clear. We constantly discuss technological sovereignty, strategic autonomy and the defence of ‘Made in Italy’. We discuss far less how to build universities capable of attracting foreign researchers, businesses able to tap into international expertise, and labour markets in which talented individuals have an incentive to relocate and stay. Defending Italian excellence is important. Creating the conditions for it to interact with excellence from around the world is equally important. The point, ultimately, is not to choose between patriotism and globalisation. It is to understand which concept of patriotism generates greater prosperity. Is it the one that measures a country’s strength by the amount it manages to keep out? Or is it the one that also measures it by the amount of intelligence it manages to attract in?

American history suggests a clear answer. America did not become a technological powerhouse simply because it invented everything on its own. It became a technological powerhouse partly because it was able to transform ideas originating elsewhere into its own innovations. A great nation is not one that has no need for foreigners. It is one that knows how to become even greater thanks to them.