In some cases it works better than others, and often it's needed.

Consider that in the US, the decisions are also 'made from the Top' but often from large investment firms that decide where the money goes.

When an industry is small and new, it's more open.

But for commercial aircraft like for regular airlines, there is zero hope unless the government coordinates it. There's no 'hey, invest $20 Billion in my startup, maybe I will have customers some day'. No - you need a national strategy with the airlines buying in.

That said - concerns over central planning are real - not so much in impetus, but in execution.

If Europe could snap it's fingers and for $10 Billion just have competitors to Intel just magically appear - it would be a good investment. Very good.

But unlike roads, tunnels and bridges, you can't just buy innovation.

It's going to take the right leaders, the right investments, the right kinds of innovation.

Which is extremely hard.

I don't know the industry but it may may more sense to come at it from the periphery: possibly by creating design and fabs for more common chips.

Or maybe it makes sense to come at it from an academic/open angle, and get the top Universities to publish open source designs that if industry buyers want, they can get subsidies for fabs.

Finally ... the other parts of the ecosystem are not there as much: there is no more Nokia. There is nobody making computers. There is no 'OS' to guide deep integration.

I think it's reasonable to be wary of this kind of top down sentiment as it's risky and not preferable, and prone to fluffy words without action, at the same time, it's reasonable to address the issue.