- Switzerland (Number 1 in 2012)
- Sweden (2)
- United Kingdom (5)
- Netherlands (6)
- United States of America (10)
- Finland (4)
- Hong Kong (China) (8)
- Singapore (3)
- Denmark (7)
- Ireland (9)
While the United
States of America moved up from 10 to 5 this year compared to 2012 and
Singapore dropped from 3 to 8, the Report notes that the criteria for ranking
changed this year and that:
Singapore and the
United States of America (USA) would have kept their 2012 rankings (3rd and
10th, respectively) had we kept the 2012 framework unchanged while updating the
database; Singapore drops five spots and the USA gains five as a result of
adjustments to the framework in 2013.
The changes are
noted in Table 1 on page 50 with discussion on following pages.
In discussing
research and development expenditures, the press release paints an upbeat
picture:
“On the research
and development (R&D) front, GII 2013 brings a dose of cautious optimism:
despite adversity and tightened budget policies, R&D expenditures have
grown since 2010. On the business front, the R&D expenditures of top 1,000
R&D spending companies have grown between 9 and 10 % in 2010 and 2011. A
similar pattern has been observed in 2012.
A most remarkable
characteristic of that trend is that emerging markets have increased their
R&D faster than high-income countries. Over the last five years, China,
Argentina, Brazil, Poland, India, Russia, Turkey and South Africa (in that
order) have been at the forefront of this phenomenon. Emerging markets, and
notably China, are also largely driving the growth in patent filings worldwide.
“Growing research
and development investments and the rising number of intellectual property
patents filed are tangible examples of a growing commitment to innovation,”
said Mr. Li Yingtao, Head of Huawei’s 2012 R&D laboratories. “In the global
economy, innovation from anywhere can drive change and create new opportunities
everywhere. Everyone concerned with innovation as a catalyst for economic and
social development needs to remain focused on how the value of innovation is to
transform industries, businesses and people’s lives, not just locally but
across the world.”
In examining the BRIC countries compared to the rise of other “emerging
middle-income nations”, the Report states that:
The BRICs have
experienced a relative stagnation or mostly a drop in innovation ranks in 2013
as compared to 2012, repeating the experience of last year (2011 to 2012):
China (35th; a decrease of one spot from 2012 and six from 2011), the Russian
Federation (62nd; a decrease of 11 positions from 2012 and six from 2011),
Brazil (64th; a decrease of six spots from 2012 and 17 from 2011), and India
(66th; a decrease of two positions from 2012 and four from 2011). In this
context, other emerging middle-income nations are increasing their innovation
ranks rapidly: Mexico (63rd; an increase of 16 positions from 2012 and 18 from
2011), Indonesia (85th; an increase of 15 from 2012 and 14 from 2011), and
others (the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,
Uganda, and Uruguay) all increased their rankings by more than 15 positions
this year . . . .
As a big fan of “The Land of Enchantment” (a truly special place), I was
pleased to find that:
Top world R&D
investing countries host top world R&D investing regions. The top region
for R&D in the OECD is New Mexico (United States of America, or USA). This
state devotes more than 7% of its GDP to R&D, followed by Massachusetts
(USA), which invests slightly less than 7% of its GDP in R&D.
And, as a resident of California, it was nice to hear that inventors in the
state are collaborative folks with strong networks:
The regions that
invest the most in R&D and account for most of the world’s patent
applications adopt different innovation modes. In fact, some rely more on
networks than others. For instance, the propensity to carry out research with
multiple inventors located in different regions varies across sectors and
countries. The possibility that inventors located in one region may collaborate
with others located elsewhere is shaped by several factors, including the
institutional environment of the countries involved. In general, however, collaborations
are increasingly important for innovation. In the telecommunication sector, the
share of patents with at least two co-inventors located in two different
regions increased from 7.9% in the late1970s to 16.2% in 2005–07. In this sector,
California performs like a star; the share of patents applied for by residents
of California with at least one co-inventor located in another region, in the
USA or abroad, is around 24%, but the region has the world’s widest network in
terms of the geographic location of partners.
For the patent focused folks, there are PCT patent application rankings by
region within specific countries on page 95.
The top five are Southern Kanto in Japan, California in the United
States, Capitol Region in South Korea, Kinki in Japan, and Guangdong in China.
The Report also notes the relationship between public policy and the growth
of a technology hub by examining Huawaei’s development in depth:
In 1980, Shenzhen was a small fishing village
on the Chinese mainland close to Hong Kong (China). To fuel the growth of the
city, public policies were enacted to ease the movement of talent, expertise,
and investment into the area, both from across China and from over seas.
International corporations were encouraged to invest and create operations in
Shenzhen. Policies supported the construction of public and private infra-
structure, from business parks and transportation and communication links to
hotels and residential developments. The city’s population has grown from
20,000 to 15.5 mil- lion people in just over 30 years; Shenzhen is thriving as
a high-technology innovation cluster and sup- porting markets around the
world.3 Huawei was established in Shenzhen in 1987 as a sales company,
reselling technology developed by a third party.
The Report discusses the importance of intellectual property rights to Huawei:
The idea that
innovation is a fundamental input to socioeconomic development is a strong
belief held within the corporate culture of any successful innovative company.
Commercial companies that invest significantly in R&D do so on the basis
that their innovation will have the opportunity to earn a return on those
investments. Without a return on innovation, the ability to continually
innovate diminishes. This ability requires that IPRs be both respected and
protected. This is a key factor in establishing a culture of innovation and
achieving scale.8 As an example, Huawei has entered into numerous
cross-licensing agreements with industry peers since 2002 and has paid a large
amount in patent licensing fees to use third-party intellectual property. In
2012 alone, Huawei paid some US$300 million in patent licensing fees. Huawei
also licenses its own intel- lectual property. In fact, Huawei is one of the
leading IPR holders in the ICT industry. By December 2012, Huawei had filed
41,948 patent applications in China, 12,453 inter- national Patent Cooperation
Treaty patent applications, and 14,494 patent applications outside China.
Huawei attaches
greater importance to the commercial value and quality of its IPRs than to
their actual quantity, however. Huawei takes the lead in holding patents in
such technical fields as long-term evolution, next-generation wireless
communications technology, fibre- to-the-home networks, optical transport
networks, and the G.711.1 audio standard on fixed broadband networks worldwide.
Huawei strategically maintains its patent application level at 3,000 to 4,000
applications annually.
The Report includes other specific case studies concerning Uruguay, India,
Tunisia, and Morocco. On page 327 on the
Report, there is a ranking of University and Industry Collaboration by country. The top ten include: Switzerland, United
Kingdom, United States, Finland, Singapore, Belgium, Sweden, Israel, Qatar, and
the Netherlands (with Germany at 11) (in response to a survey question). Enjoy!
Nice summary, Mike, but I am not sure what is the "take away" from these data. For instance, what do we do with the fact that Israel probably has more listed companies on NASDAQ as a function of the size of the country? Might not such a data point be just as relevant as those examined in the study?
ReplyDeleteGreat points, Neil! I take the report as painting a pretty good picture of innovation across countries and the take away depends on your perspective. A policy maker in Israel may be concerned by their relative ranking and use the report to ascertain the specific "weak" spot supposedly measured by the report--which she may ultimately discount. The report also provides some decent information for business development and perhaps investment. Generally, I think, the information collected and digested is helpful, particularly if you have an interest in building innovation capabilities. Best, Mike
ReplyDeleteThe Rankings are of course only a small part of the report. I think what must be realised is that we are in the process of understanding innovation and how to promote it at a national level. The report essentially brings together data and ideas of what nations are doing right to improve innovation in their context, which should provide lessons for everyone.
ReplyDelete