ARM represents a shining example of the “Cambridge Phenomenon.” During the early 1980s, a collection of geeky, bright minds gathered in a converted barn not far from the famed UK university’s medieval towers and came up with a brilliant idea: a design for low-cost microprocessors that consume the minimum power and generate minimal heat.
Unlike other semiconductor companies at the time, ARM never produced a single processor. It developed a chip architecture and licensed it to other companies, who build the physical devices. ARM technology now underpins more than 325 billion devices, despite never owning a leading‑edge fab or receiving Korean- or American‑style state subsidies.
Today, the ARM model dominates the chip industry. Most cutting-edge chip companies focus on design, leaving the manufacturing to others. The UK’s best hope in global chipmaking is to repeat the ARM story — plant enough seeds in design, compound semiconductors, and advanced packaging — to create critical chokepoints. British comparative advantage is in ideas and specialized hardware, not commodity volume.
UK government strategy recognizes and supports this ARM model. London hopes to “maintain and build on” its leading edge in chip design and intellectual property, treating design blueprints —not factories — as its main strategic asset in global semiconductors.
A first big hope is compound semiconductors. Unlike traditional semiconductors, which are based on a single element (silicon), compound chips are made from two or more elements — for example Gallium Arsenide and Gallium Nitride, known in the semiconductor world by their chemicial formulae GaAs and GaN.
Compared to single-element silicon, these materials offer superior electron mobility, higher power density, and efficient light emission. They are essential for 5G telephony, LEDs, electric vehicles, and high-speed, high-temperature, or power-efficient electronics.
UK policy is to make the country “one of the top global centers for compound semiconductor innovation,” with a world-class Compound Semiconductor Cluster hosted in South Wales. If British‑designed compound chips become the de‑facto standard for electric vehicle fast chargers and aerospace and defense RF front-ends (the circuits in front of the processors that convert data to and from radio signals), that would give the UK leverage comparable — in its niche — to Korea’s in memory or Europe’s in lithography.
A second candidate is advanced power electronics packaging and modules — putting multiple chips, each made from different compounds, together into one module which looks physically indistinguishable from a single chip. Scotland already delivers world‑class power modules using silver‑sinter and 3D packaging (chips stacked on top of each other and connected vertically) for electric vehicle drivetrains and harsh‑environment applications.
A third frontier is ultra‑wide‑bandgap materials, which enable high-performance devices for power electronics, ultraviolet photonics, quantum sensing, and quantum computing applications. TheSpace Forge ForgeStar‑1 mission has already demonstrated plasma generation in microgravity aimed at producing crystals with far fewer defects than earth‑grown equivalents.
Crucially, the UK is not attempting to pre‑pick a single winner. The country’s National Semiconductor Strategy spreads modest public money — millions, not tens or hundreds of millions like the European Union or the US spend — across research and design. The market determines what works.
The new UK Centre for Doctoral Training in Semiconductor Skills at Swansea feeds this UK ecosystem with PhD‑level talent. Public incubators ChipStart and SiliconCatalyst.UK provide design tools, IP blocks, mentoring, and access to global foundries. This lowers barriers for dozens of early‑stage UK chip companies, any one of which could become the ARM of the 2030s.
US and European policymakers should treat these UK strengths as strategic assets — integrating them into a strong Western semiconductor alliance. The UK will never be a chip superpower. But it can become, once again, the small but indispensable player that designs what the rest of the democratic world builds, helping to keep the technological frontier out of China’s hands.
Christopher Cytera CEng MIET is a senior fellow with the Tech Policy Program at the Center for European Policy Analysis and a technology business executive with over 30 years’ experience in semiconductors, electronics, communications, video, and imaging.
Bandwidth is CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy. All opinions expressed on Bandwidth are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
Tech 2030
A Roadmap for Europe-US Tech Cooperation
