AI-related productive capacity depends on more than model development. Infrastructure, access, investment, skills, diffusion, competition, resilience, measurement, and governance create separate questions that institutions can evaluate without assuming a preferred political or fiscal outcome.
Why it matters: Policy analysis becomes harder to audit when infrastructure, investment, adoption, regulation, labour transition, and economic outcomes are collapsed into one label or when technical feasibility is treated as proof of public benefit.
Industrial Policy for AI organizes distinct questions concerning compute and enabling infrastructure, public and private investment, innovation and diffusion, skills and workforce transition, competition and market structure, resilience and security, measurement and evaluation, and regulatory boundaries. It does not treat every AI law, subsidy, national strategy, labour measure, or infrastructure program as one policy model.
Process Liquidity is an LJP-defined analytical frame for examining potential task and process reconfiguration. It distinguishes adaptability from cash or market liquidity, potential automation from actual adoption, technical feasibility from economic desirability, task reallocation from job elimination, and empirical evidence from policy recommendation.
processliquidity.comIndustrial Policy for AI organizes the broader public-policy environment around productive capacity and economic transition. Process Liquidity isolates a narrower organizational question about how tasks and operating processes may be reconfigured as technology and operating conditions change. The relationship is analytical, not hierarchical, causal, or prescriptive.
The OECD Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence supplies direct institutional authority for trustworthy AI principles and national-policy considerations. OECD compute work and European Commission materials provide supporting context for infrastructure, investment, skills, adoption, resilience, and measurement. None defines the LJP package or endorses LJP.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development · OECD/LEGAL/0449
Supports trustworthy AI, inclusive growth, enabling ecosystems, human capacity, labour-market transition, and evidence-based measurement.
Official OECD legal instrument adopted May 22, 2019
Does not define Industrial Policy for AI, AI Policy Economy, or Process Liquidity and does not endorse LJP.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development · OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 350; DSTI/CDEP/AIGO(2022)2/FINAL
Supports national AI compute capacity, infrastructure access, skills, policy planning, resilience, sovereignty, and measurement context.
Official OECD policy paper dated June 12, 2023
Addresses national compute capacity and does not define the complete LJP package architecture.
European Commission · Shaping Europe’s digital future fact page
Provides EU policy context for computing infrastructure, investment, data, skills, adoption, sovereignty, security, and implementation support.
Official European Commission policy page updated May 7, 2025
Describes EU policy; it does not define industrial policy generally, make the AI Act synonymous with industrial policy, or endorse LJP.
AI policy discussions can combine unlike evidence, jurisdictions, institutional mandates, time horizons, and outcome measures. That can obscure what a source actually supports and turn descriptive evidence into an unstated recommendation.
Define the policy or institutional question and relevant jurisdiction.
Separate infrastructure, investment, skills, market, resilience, and governance evidence.
Identify source authority, uncertainty, affected stakeholders, and competing outcomes.
Reserve recommendations, legal interpretation, and implementation choices for the responsible institution.
A source-backed public vocabulary that separates policy questions, identifies evidence roles, and preserves institutional and legal boundaries without recommending legislation, taxation, subsidies, regulation, labour policy, or government expenditure.
industrialpolicy.ai is the canonical public package namespace. It organizes the Phase 1 policy vocabulary and links Process Liquidity as a narrower analytical capability; it is not a government program, advocacy platform, or claim of policy consensus.
This site provides public definitions, relationships, source context, and an evaluation structure. It does not provide legal, tax, economic, labour, investment, accounting, or public-policy advice and does not prescribe legislation, regulation, subsidies, taxation, labour policy, or government expenditure. Buyers and institutions retain authority over analysis, policy design, implementation, and legal interpretation. Publication does not establish consensus, adoption, effectiveness, or institutional recognition of LJP-defined terms. LJP is not affiliated with or endorsed by the OECD, European Commission, Federal Reserve Board, ILO, or any other cited institution.
The package organization is an LJP editorial construct. External sources explain their own terminology and do not endorse LJP, its namespaces, or a commercial evaluation.
Use the public vocabulary to frame a controlled, institution-specific evaluation without treating the site as advice or advocacy.
Email LJP Asset Group