Artificial intelligence (AI) technological stacks have emerged as a major political issue in the context of sustainable development, since access to chips, data, cloud platforms, software ecosystems and human resources and regulatory interoperability determines countries’ capacity to use AI for industrial upgrading. This article investigates the relationship between digital geopolitical pressures, competitiveness of the AI stack and industrial and innovation outputs related to SDG 9. The study develops an AI Stack Competitiveness Index (ASCI) based on publicly available secondary data, including the Global Innovation Index, ITU ICT statistics and ITU ICT Development Index materials, World Bank World Development Indicators, OECD.AI Data and UN-based voting alignment information. Balanced analytical panel for countries 2018–2023 is composed of country-year harmonization, normalization and selection of missing data. Empirical design involves principal component analysis, two-way fixed-effects panel regression and gradient-boosted classification. External geopolitical exposure variables are excluded from the PCA-derived index and variables used to construct ASCI are not included on the right-hand side of the ASCI model in order to minimize mechanical overlap. The findings show conditional relationships between geopolitical openness, access to semiconductors and the competitiveness of the AI stack. The classifier is used for diagnosis purposes and not as evidence of causality, and the use of the tier classification is done with caution using leakage-sensitive feature selection and robustness checks. The article provides a clear toolset to assess digital geopolitics and AI stack capabilities in light of SDG 9, and discusses how open-stack partnerships could help mitigate downstream risks for countries not in the primary AI clusters.

1.         Maslej N, Fattorini L, Perrault R, et al. Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2024. ArXiv. 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19522

2.         Bu Q. Can de-risking avert supply chain precarity in the face of China-US geopolitical tensions? From sanctions to semiconductor resilience and national security. International Cybersecurity Law Review. 2024; 5: 413–442. doi: 10.1365/s43439-024-00125-1

3.         Bremmer I, Suleyman M. The AI power paradox. Foreign Affairs. 2023; 102(5): 26–43.

4.         Roberts H, Cowls J, Morley J, et al. The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: An analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI & Society. 2021; 36(1): 59–77. doi: 10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2

5.         Xiong W, Wu DD, Yeung JHY. Semiconductor supply chain resilience and disruption: Insights, mitigation, and future directions. International Journal of Production Research. 2025; 63(9): 3442–3465. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2024.2387074

6.         Khan SM, Mann A, Peterson D. The Semiconductor Supply Chain: Assessing National Competitiveness. Center for Security and Emerging Technology. 2021; 8(8). doi: 10.51593/20190016

7.         Vinuesa R, Azizpour H, Leite I, et al. The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Communications. 2020; 11: 233. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y

8.         Nasir O, Javed RT, Gupta S, et al. Artificial intelligence and sustainable development goals nexus via four vantage points. Technology in Society. 2023; 72: 102171. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102171

9.         Galaz V, Centeno MA, Callahan PW, et al. Artificial intelligence, systemic risks, and sustainability. Technology in Society. 2021; 67: 101741. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101741

10.      Francisco M, Linnér BO. AI and the governance of sustainable development: An idea analysis of the European Union, the United Nations, and the World Economic Forum. Environmental Science & Policy. 2023; 150: 103590. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103590

11.      Heilinger JC, Kempt H, Nagel S. Beware of sustainable AI! Uses and abuses of a worthy goal. AI and Ethics. 2024; 4: 201–212. doi: 10.1007/s43681-023-00259-8

12.      Filippucci F, Gal P, Jona-Lasinio C, et al. The impact of artificial intelligence on productivity, distribution and growth: Key mechanisms, initial evidence and policy challenges. OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers No. 15. OECD Publishing; 2024. doi:10.1787/8d900037-en

13.      Cazzaniga M, Jaumotte F, Li L, et al. Gen-AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work. IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/2024/001. International Monetary Fund; 2024. doi:10.5089/9798400262548.006

14.      Mienye ID, Sun Y, Ileberi E. Artificial intelligence and sustainable development in Africa: A comprehensive review. Machine Learning with Applications. 2024; 18: 100591. doi: 10.1016/j.mlwa.2024.100591

15.      Singh A, Kanaujia A, Singh VK, Vinuesa R. Artificial intelligence for Sustainable Development Goals: Bibliometric patterns and concept evolution trajectories. Sustainable Development. 2024; 32(1): 724–754. doi: 10.1002/sd.2706

16.      Boudt K, d’Errico M, Luu HA, et al. Interpretability of composite indicators based on principal components. Journal of Probability and Statistics. 2022; 2022: 4155384. doi: 10.1155/2022/4155384

17.      Bonnet J, Coll-Martínez E, Renou-Maissant P. Evaluating sustainable development by composite index: Evidence from French departments. Sustainability. 2021; 13(2): 761. doi: 10.3390/su13020761

18.      Shwartz-Ziv R, Armon A. Tabular data: Deep learning is not all you need. Information Fusion. 2022; 81: 84–90. doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2021.11.011

19.      Lundberg SM, Erion G, Chen H, et al. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nature Machine Intelligence. 2020; 2: 56–67. doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9

20.      Wooldridge JM. Two-way fixed effects, the two-way Mundlak regression, and difference-in-differences estimators. Empirical Economics. 2025; 69: 2545–2587. doi: 10.1007/s00181-025-02807-z

21.      Farrell H, Newman AL. Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security. 2019; 44(1): 42–79. doi: 10.1162/isec_a_00351

22.      Dutta S, Lanvin B, León LR, et al. Global Innovation Index 2023: Innovation in the Face of Uncertainty. World Intellectual Property Organization; 2023. doi:10.34667/tind.48220

23.      International Telecommunication Union. Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures 2023. ITU; 2023. Available online: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx (accessed on 1 June 2026).

24.      World Bank. World Development Indicators. World Bank Group; 2024. Available online: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed on 1 June 2026).

25.      Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD.AI Policy Observatory: Data and Trends. OECD.AI; 2024. Available online: https://oecd.ai/en/data (accessed on 1 June 2026).

26.      Fjelstul J, Hug S, Kilby C. Decision-making in the United Nations General Assembly: A comprehensive database of resolution-related decisions. The Review of International Organizations. 2025; 27; 447–464. doi:10.1007/s11558-024-09580-1

27.      Laux J, Wachter S, Mittelstadt B. Three pathways for standardisation and ethical disclosure by default under the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. Computer Law & Security Review. 2024; 53: 105957. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105957

28.      Mökander J, Floridi L. Ethics-based auditing to develop trustworthy AI. Minds and Machines. 2021; 31(2): 323–327. doi: 10.1007/s11023-021-09557-8

29.      Roberts H, Hine E, Taddeo M, Floridi L. Global AI governance: Barriers and pathways forward. International Affairs. 2024; 100(3): 1275–1286. doi: 10.1093/ia/iiae073

30.      Mökander J, Schuett J, Kirk HR, Floridi L. Auditing large language models: A three-layered approach. AI and Ethics. 2024; 4: 1085–1115. doi: 10.1007/s43681-023-00289-2

31.      Tallberg J, Erman E, Furendal M, et al. The global governance of artificial intelligence: Next steps for empirical and normative research. International Studies Review. 2023; 25(3): viad040. doi: 10.1093/isr/viad040