China Tops Europe In R&D Intensity

ananyo writes "By pouring cash into science and technology faster than its economy has expanded, China has for the first time overtaken Europe on a key measure of innovation: the share of its economy devoted to research and development. In 2012, China invested 1.98% of its gross domestic product (GDP) into R&D — just edging out the 28 member states of the European Union, which together managed 1.96%, according to the latest estimates of research intensity, to be released this month by the OECD. The figures show that China's research intensity has tripled since 1998, whereas Europe's has barely increased (see graph). The numbers are dominated by business spending, reflecting China's push in the manufacturing and information- and communication-technology industries."

Comments

They produce more.. what?

[Anonymous Coward]

They might spend more, but considering all the false papers that come out of China, they're not getting much for their money. They'll continue to pirate our research for the considerable future.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Suggest that you move straight to Beijing then. Their economy is so awesome because of the large salaries that they pay those slaves to work in their poisonous factories that spew out counterfeit goods to poison our children with.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[Luckyo]

If you think China is better at treating its workers, I have land on the Moon to sell you.

And we're talking research here, not employment. And in that regard, GP is correct - spending does not equal results. China needs some time to develop the proper R&D culture, as it's simply not there yet. It has the spending power, but it lacks efficiency.

Re:They produce more.. what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing they seem to export the most of is grad students.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[rioki]

1. China does not top Europe in any way, the absolute numbers are fully and totally the opposite. The TFA refers to percent of GDP, which is meaningless.

2. Being on welfare in Germany compares to working off you ass on low to medium job in the US. You just need to do the minimum of research on the different programs.

3. There is something called elevator effect, in which the median standard of living is raised. The low end of German income will get you a middle class standard of living compared to 30 years ago. The only shitty practice are the total lack of minimum wage in Germany, where people have a job and get welfare to prop them up.

Yes complaining, that is what we Germans are really good at...

Re: They produce more.. what?

[Plammox]

Yes, because the Germans forced these countries to run their own economies into the ditch and rack up a gigantic debt...ahem...

Re: They produce more.. what?

[ebno-10db]

The TFA refers to percent of GDP, which is meaningless.

No, it's not. A high proportion of R&D costs is labor. Because of the difference in salaries between different countries, %/GDP matters more than absolute numbers.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[ebno-10db]

Spain, Ireland and a few others were considered models of economic growth and probity before the Lesser Depression. Now of course they're considered "irresponsible" by the same people that lauded them before. Greece is a different story, but put that one aside because it's so different than the others and their economy is so small that it's not of great importance to the EU. Comparing Greece and Spain is absurd.

Germany, despite its other virtues, is a mercantilist country. No wonder they embraced the Euro. Otherwise when the economies of other European countries went south (more than Germany's) the exchange rates of those countries' currencies would have dropped and Germany would have lost much of their current advantage.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[climb_no_fear]

The TFA refers to percent of GDP, which is meaningless.

No, it's not. A high proportion of R&D costs is labor. Because of the difference in salaries between different countries, %/GDP matters more than absolute numbers.

Wrong. Since the most research in Europe is carried out in the countries with the highest labor costs, your statement is misleading, as it skews the costs relative to the GDP of the region.

Also, Switzerland is always ignored in these calculations. I know they are not part of the EU but a quick peek at the graph in the original article shows Europe, not EU (I know they state EU in the fine print). Switzerland has a very vibrant research community (think physics, biotech, pharma) and it seems silly to exclude them. But another example of a country with high labor costs which spends a lot on research (and gets something back).

Re: They produce more.. what?

[i kan reed]

Your point could have been made without the racist implicit assumption that "evil chinese" are trying to poison westerners. They just have lax environmental standards, and the people of China are starting to take notice of how badly it hurts their lives, and the government there is begining to cave, just like the early days before the EPA in the USA.

The rise of the East is good for the world, the more places that have an educated middle class, the less room there is for exploitation. It just happens in a way where exploitation goes way up before it goes down.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[jalopezp]

You forget that these spending numbers are percentages of GDP, not absolute numbers. In this regard, China does not have the spending capacity. In terms of nominal GDP (World Bank, 2012), the EU spent $3.27e11 (327 short billions) in R&D, while China spent $1.65e11 - only just over half. The US, with a slightly smaller GDP than Europe but a higher R&D expenditure is still winning the spending race with $4.35e11. You'll notice TFA also spends most of its time criticising the quality of Chinese research, consistent with the western notion that academic freedom and a competitive market are integral to scientific and technological progress.

The countries with the highest GERD in the OECD are:

1. Israel (4.38),
2. Finland (3.78),
3. Korea (3.74),
4. Sweden (3.37),
5. Japan (3.26),
6. Denmark (3.06).

source

Re: They produce more.. what?

[cyberchondriac]

Your point could have been made without the racist implicit assumption that "evil chinese" are trying to poison westerners. They just have lax environmental standards, and the people of China are starting to take notice of how badly it hurts their lives, and the government there is begining to cave, just like the early days before the EPA in the USA.

The rise of the East is good for the world, the more places that have an educated middle class, the less room there is for exploitation. It just happens in a way where exploitation goes way up before it goes down.

Really, you drew the racist card on this? Currently, China has some terrible policies, on their own people as well, and it's driven largely by their economy, not their ethnicity. Nowhere did parent suggest that it's because Chinese people, as a race, (not as a country, government, or culture) are somehow "inferior" to other races, nor did he imply China could never change because of who they are, ethnically. And why has no one ever been accused of racism when referring to American white devils?
Throwing around terms like racist, bigot, and homophobe at the drop of a hat have become the new Godwin's Law.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[i kan reed]

It was implicit, not explicit. And your usage shows just how retardly abused the phrase "race card" is. It was meant to be a "get out of jail free" analog when invented by wring-wing political correctness. It has no bearing on every single discussion of race, even if misguided, and you need to drop them damn persecution complex, it makes you seem guilty when you're not.

And the "implicit assumption" came from your phrasing, not your intent: "to poison our children with" if you read that again, without going nuts about how someone dared called dear-little-angel-you a r-r-r-racist you'll not the infinitive construction implies intent, which is fucking racist. Saying something racist(or nationalist or otherwise prejudicial) doesn't make you a member of the KKK, it's just wrong, is all.

So please, take this not as an indictment of your character, but a call to consider the meaning of what you say in the future.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[cyberchondriac]

It was implicit, not explicit. And your usage shows just how retardly abused the phrase "race card" is. It was meant to be a "get out of jail free" analog when invented by wring-wing political correctness. It has no bearing on every single discussion of race, even if misguided, and you need to drop them damn persecution complex, it makes you seem guilty when you're not.

And the "implicit assumption" came from your phrasing, not your intent: "to poison our children with" if you read that again, without going nuts about how someone dared called dear-little-angel-you a r-r-r-racist you'll not the infinitive construction implies intent, which is fucking racist. Saying something racist(or nationalist or otherwise prejudicial) doesn't make you a member of the KKK, it's just wrong, is all.

So please, take this not as an indictment of your character, but a call to consider the meaning of what you say in the future.

I'm not sure if you realize I'm *not* the parent AC poster that you initially responded to, so it wasn't "my" phrasing. I never said, "poisoning our children". I don't know who the AC is. Maybe you need to make fewer assumptions and pay closer attention?
But you really need to learn the definition of "racist", not redefine it as you see fit. How is "poisoning children" racist? It's just evil, but evil stems from many things. You are the one who decided to be butthurt and assume the parent AC was criticizing China based not on it's economic policies as a government, but on race. Ironically, that's the real persecution complex, the people who go around calling everything racist. It's gotten to be the modern day witchhunt. Before you judge someone, consider where they're coming from.
That said, it's possible he was being racist, but but by no means was that a definite thing, when other factors exist in the equation.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[ebno-10db]

'Growth' by spending borrowed money on imported products is not growth.

It can be. The US was a major debtor country in the latter 19th century when our industrial growth rate was at its highest. Much of the development of the US, including the "Old West", was financed by the British.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[i kan reed]

Yeah, I realized that after I posted. Sorry for conflating you with a dickbag.

Re:They produce more.. what?

[Applehu Akbar]

Those who spew racial stereotypes are ignoring the all-important Luddite factor. Europe may spend almost as much money as China on R & D, but given a continent full of people who pride themselves of not buying genetically modified products, what's the point of doing research on genetics? Afterf a year when Germany has just opened a record number of new coal-fired power stations to replace its foregone nuclear capacity, why should Europe keep spending money on that Large Hadron Collider when the discoveries flowing from it will be going into new energy projects to be built in China? In the UK, even the newest bullet train line is running into echo-Luddite opposition. If your company contracts for building rail infrastructure, wouldn't you rather bid in a country whose commissars can just point to a place and say, "The new maglev lines goes there..."?

Re: They produce more.. what?

[sociocapitalist]

If you think China is better at treating its workers, I have land on the Moon to sell you.

And we're talking research here, not employment. And in that regard, GP is correct - spending does not equal results. China needs some time to develop the proper R&D culture, as it's simply not there yet. It has the spending power, but it lacks efficiency.

Depends on your definition of R&D. Certainly China already has a reverse-engineering culture which passes for R&D.

Re:They produce more.. what?

[m00sh]

They might spend more, but considering all the false papers that come out of China, they're not getting much for their money. They'll continue to pirate our research for the considerable future.

Why do we assume that China will have to come up the exact path we have been through?

The whole models of quantity of research papers as the measure of research output is old an dated.

Plus, most Chinese would probably publish in Chinese journals.There is no point submitting to US based journals for free and then paying hefty fees to be accessible to others.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[jalopezp]

I also do not think the ggp was being racist. It is a shame because I was agreeing with the gp's point that the rise of the east is good for the world. It will bring prosperity to millions of people who previously had none. What we need most to be worrying about is how to make sure they also obtain the rights and freedoms that we now (or once did :-s) enjoy. China is making greater investments in R&D, and growing them at a much higher rate than Europe? That's great, that benefits us all.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[Anonymous Coward]

People seem to try to bring racist back to the root words, which is a little strange because we don't typically try to insist that awful and awesome are synonyms.

Racism has a meaning, and when you're implying that "the Chinese" as a gestalt are taking action to poison "our children" (not just children, but our, non-Chinese children) it's a racist implication. Even if the speaker is ethnically Chinese.

It's basically an irrational grouping of people. "The Chinese" aren't poisoning "our" children.

That said, it's possible he was being racist

I'd step away from "being racist" to "said a racist thing". I don't know the guy. I know the thing he said this one time. I know where you're coming from, and you're coming from the same place that we are when we say that the Chinese are poisoning our children -- it attributes an extreme motivation to something that isn't in evidence.

Re:They produce more.. what?

[ranton]

They might spend more, but considering all the false papers that come out of China, they're not getting much for their money. They'll continue to pirate our research for the considerable future.

It would be an interesting to do research on just how influential the research coming out of China is. One pretty simple method would be to find out the ratio of Chinese research papers that are cited by European research, and vise versa. That would be a pretty good metric of how much research is just fluff, and how much is useful enough to be used by others.

This article seems to back up the assertion that the quality of research coming out of China is rising, but still isn't as good as research coming out of the west (and Japan). Both Germany and the United Kingdom by themselves have more citations than China, so China must be far behind the European Union as a whole. China's average citation rate is 6.92 compared to the world average of 10.69, so they are well below average.

Re:They produce more.. what?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, did you even read the article?

"An even more encouraging statistic is China’s position in the top four of countries whose scientists’ research was the most cited between 2003 and 2013. This suggests that the research produced in China is as good as any in the world."

why do you hate chinese so much? you're a joke.

Re:They produce more.. what?

[ranton]

lol, did you even read the article?

"An even more encouraging statistic is China’s position in the top four of countries whose scientists’ research was the most cited between 2003 and 2013. This suggests that the research produced in China is as good as any in the world."

why do you hate chinese so much? you're a joke.

The paper goes on to give the numbers I mentioned in my post, that their citation rate is 65% of the world average. And note that this is a comparison with the world average, not the top countries.

I wasn't hating on the Chinese, as I even linked to a post that gave praise to Chinese research. But I did want to point out that the country still has a long way to go. The top researchers in China are apparently doing very well, but there must be a huge amount of very questionable research for their average to be so low. The good news is that China is making a very strong push to improve their research, which has obviously paid large dividends over just the past 5 years. It will almost certainly just continue to improve from here.

Re:They produce more.. what?

[the gnat]

Plus, most Chinese would probably publish in Chinese journals.

Nope. Segregating your country's scientific literature from the rest of the world is a good way to ensure that your scientific community remains isolated and disconnected. Besides, publishing in big-name Western journals like Science/Nature/Cell is a prestige thing, and above all the Chinese want to be taken seriously as a Major Power. (Otherwise they wouldn't be wasting time and effort trying to grab a handful of uninhabited rocks from Japan.)

Re: They produce more.. what?

[Dorianny]

People living from wellfare bein treated like dirt etc.

Yeah, they are really not getting enough free money from the people who are working. Beggars can't be choosers.

The problem is that there is a large and growing number of people working full time and needing welfare assistance because they get paid less than the cost of living. This is really corporations gaming the welfare system and exploiting the employment condititions but it the poor bastards breaking their backs for little that also have to deal with being treeted as leeches by society.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[HuguesT]

Switzerland is very much part of the European Research Council, and even though it is not part of the EU, usually it is included in these types of statistics.

Re:They produce more.. what?

[m00sh]

Plus, most Chinese would probably publish in Chinese journals.

Nope. Segregating your country's scientific literature from the rest of the world is a good way to ensure that your scientific community remains isolated and disconnected. Besides, publishing in big-name Western journals like Science/Nature/Cell is a prestige thing, and above all the Chinese want to be taken seriously as a Major Power. (Otherwise they wouldn't be wasting time and effort trying to grab a handful of uninhabited rocks from Japan.)

Absolute bullshit.

There are plenty of such Russian and French journals, and if you want to explore what the state of the art in some of those specific fields of physics, math or statistics are, then you better learn to translate from those languages.

And seems like you have never seen research communities in theoretical fields. They are isolated and publish for one another because their work is probably going to be understood by at most a dozen of people and their students.

Science/Nature has been known to be a prestige thing but it is also somewhat biased. There is some politics involved in getting your work published into those journals. If you are a foreigner, then there is absolute no chance that you will be published there because nobody will know who you are. The pure merit based thing is a somewhat fictitious and there is a lot of favoritism involved.

Re:They produce more.. what?

[the gnat]

And seems like you have never seen research communities in theoretical fields.

No, as a biologist I ignore these completely.

There is some politics involved in getting your work published into those journals. If you are a foreigner, then there is absolute no chance that you will be published there because nobody will know who you are.

Perhaps this is still true for obscure theoretical fields, but it has not been true in the biological sciences for some time now. I see papers in my field from groups I've never heard of in China with increasing regularity. They get published because ultimately their results are actually worth publishing - taken at face value, anyway. If they didn't publish in English-language journals they'd be ignored by at least 95% of the field, which means they'd barely get cited no matter how awesome their work was. (Of course some of these groups are led by professors who did postdoctoral work in the US or Europe, or in a few cases were even professors before being lured back to China. But this isn't uniformly the case.)

Re: They produce more.. what?

[Luckyo]

If you think that any Western nation doesn't have reverse engineering technology, I have even more land on the Moon to sell you. We still have far more know-how in reverse engineering that China simply due to Cold War experience where West was stealing from USSR and vice versa.

Hell, take a look at F-35. Reverse engineered MiG-29 HMS, coupled with reverse engineered Yak-141 STOVL system, then improved upon through modern technology. Chinese have a long way to go before they're even on par with us when it comes to reverse engineering. They'll probably get there eventually, where they can not only 1:1 or ever 1:less than 1 copy, but actually improve on reverse engineered concepts, but that day is not yet here.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[Plammox]

I will concede that Spain's problems are vastly different than Greece's. But you can hardly call it a good role model of economic growth. Look at all the empthy new houses, apartments and deserted airports. They failed at reining in the bank sector from committing greed driven harakiri. Along with many other countries.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[sociocapitalist]

I didn't say that western nations don't have reverse engineering - just that China does and considers that to be a form of R&D, relevant to the discussion at hand.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[Luckyo]

So do Western countries. Do you have a point, or are you just enjoying pretending that China is somehow worse than Western countries in this regard?

Because we're not. The only difference between us and China right now is that we are so far ahead that China has a whole lot more of our stuff that it can reverse engineer than we have of theirs.

Once this situation becomes a bit more balanced, you can expect the standard industrial espionage and reverse engineering to balance out on all sides and business will continue as usual.

Re: They produce more.. what?

[cyberchondriac]

I get your point, and thank your for being more level about this, though I still can't say I totally agree, though I will agree the original AC poster was being over-dramatic and inflammatory/accusatory.
But, there are different ways to categorize the same group of people. The government and economic climate of Chinese companies here are what I felt he meant by China, not the people themselves as a race, due to their DNA, their looks, culture, etc.. I think it boils down to this: I don't base race on a people's culture, economy, or government, race is a genetic thing. The ancient Celts were not a race, but a culture, though people often mistake them as a race. You could say they were all of Caucasian descent, but what made them Celtic was their culture, which differed from the Anglo Saxons and Northern Romans.
I will agree it is stereotyping to say that all companies in China engage(d) in this practice of poor standards, as per their corporate culture, but I think it falls short of being racist.

Its worse than that

[Chrisq]

Its worse than that. They actually make things rather than patenting concepts. its a good thing that we can get them to pay up for "implementing" the vague concepts we come up with,

Re:Its worse than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Its worse than that. They actually make things rather than patenting concepts. its a good thing that we can get them to pay up for "implementing" the vague concepts we come up with,

Quite correct, they don't come up with anything new on their own. They just create cheap, poorly made, knock-off copies of things created elsewhere.

Re:Its worse than that

[JazzLad]

We used to say this of Japan.

Re:Its worse than that

[Thanshin]

Fortunately for them, Capitalism doesn't care. If it can be sold, it doesn't matter where it was created, how poorly made it is or how much was the idea stolen.

Re:Its worse than that

[SuricouRaven]

Mostly. For now. They have advanced rapidly.

Re:Its worse than that

[ebno-10db]

Really? Why?

Because Japan's economic growth after WWII did depend heavily on inexpensive knock-off copies. That only changed several decades after WWII, when their economy had reached a higher level.

There are also important difference between Japan and China though. Japan heavily emphasized quality. The Deming prize for improved quality is awarded in Japan, and it's quite prestigious. Ironically it's named for W. Edwards Deming - an American. He had some excellent ideas for quality improvement that the Japanese took very seriously. Unfortunately many American manufacturers didn't (especially car companies).

Another difference is that Japan always discouraged foreign direct investment.

Re:Its worse than that

[Chrisq]

Really? Why?

Because Japan's economic growth after WWII did depend heavily on inexpensive knock-off copies. That only changed several decades after WWII, when their economy had reached a higher level.

There are also important difference between Japan and China though. Japan heavily emphasized quality. The Deming prize for improved quality is awarded in Japan, and it's quite prestigious. Ironically it's named for W. Edwards Deming - an American. He had some excellent ideas for quality improvement that the Japanese took very seriously. Unfortunately many American manufacturers didn't (especially car companies).

Another difference is that Japan always discouraged foreign direct investment.

This is so true - I remember the panic by the British motorcycle industry when they realised that whet had started as cheap knock-off copies of Nortons and Triumphs had changed to models that were more reliable, refined and better quality than the originals.

Re:Its worse than that

[Anonymous Coward]

The ironic thing is that a lot of "cheap Chinese" goods is specced like that from the company importing things.

If I wanted something done right, with proper tolerances, materials, and labor, a Chinese factory can do the job. It will cost more than just doing the absolute cheapest possible work, but the end product will be better.

However, that is where China loses its edge. If I want a good product, I can have it made in the US, Germany, UK, Austria, Switzerland, Canada, Israel, Russia, Japan, or almost anywhere. If I wanted to make it dirt cheap and cut every corner imaginable, then China is good at this.

So, when people blame China for shoddy items, in reality, the blame is usually on the importer who specced the crap to be made in the first place.

This is something I learned the hard way. I am working on some manufacturing, and if I want to have it done in China, I either hand over everything to a company there, or partner there with the Chinese firm having 51% ownership of the endeavor.

Instead, I'm probably going to bite the bullet and get what I needed produced domestically, or buy the plastic injection machinery and do it in-house. An added benefit for that is that I don't have to care about my stuff being stacked up on a highly polluting ship (the tar used in those big cargo ship engines is extremely toxic stuff), so I can state better environmental responsibility.

Re:Its worse than that

[jalopezp]

China's production of patents has increased tremendously in the last few years, despite the fact that most of these remain unused. It's all right there, in TFA.

Re:Its worse than that

[ebno-10db]

For example they can not bow to American pressure to make their currency unatractive like Japan did and end up with lost decades.

In other words, it's ok for China to be mercantilist and keep their currency artificially low, but wrong for the US to object to it.

As for "bow[ing] to American pressure", would that include the US threatening to impose tariffs and quotas on Chinese imports? As a sovereign country the US can do that. Don't bother giving me any nonsense about "violation of international agreements", because China has been in such blatant violation of so many agreements for so long that it's laughable.

You're also completely wrong about what caused Japan's lost decade(s). It was caused by a collapse of stock and real estate bubbles. It's similar to what happened here more recently, except that fortunately for us, they didn't happen at the same time. And as absurd as our real estate bubble was, it was nothing compared to Japan's. It got so ridiculous that the valuation of the grounds of the Imperial Palace was higher than for the entire state of California.

Re:Its worse than that

[m00sh]

Really? Why?

Because Japan's economic growth after WWII did depend heavily on inexpensive knock-off copies. That only changed several decades after WWII, when their economy had reached a higher level.

There are also important difference between Japan and China though. Japan heavily emphasized quality. The Deming prize for improved quality is awarded in Japan, and it's quite prestigious. Ironically it's named for W. Edwards Deming - an American. He had some excellent ideas for quality improvement that the Japanese took very seriously. Unfortunately many American manufacturers didn't (especially car companies).

Another difference is that Japan always discouraged foreign direct investment.

Quality control is a well studied field now. China could easily improve quality control if they decide to raise prices. It's not a mysterious field anymore, not anything more than Henry Ford's manufacturing.

The future is possibly automation. If production gets more and more automated, then China will be increasingly marginalized because robot manufacturing will be undercut cheap labor. If Apple could make iPhones with robots in the US for a similar price to China, they would do it in a heartbeat.

Re:Its worse than that

[dwater]

Finally, someone who gets it.

A lot of people spout that the Chinese can only produce low quality good, and seem to forget that their beloved Apple gear, supposedly the pinacle of quality, is also made there. It's all about what level of QC is requested.

I suppose your 'stuff' is only available to your domestic market. Is there no demand for it in China? It's a huge market for the right product - hrm, a bit obvious that, I suppose.

by percentage perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

2% of 9 trillion isn't more than 2% of 13 trillion. Even then, as a US citizen I'm impressed with how Europe is taking care of her citizens, I may not be willing to eat the tax rate that comes with that but it's still impressive. How's China doing with those 1 billion peasants that have a third world standard of living? Maybe they could use some of that 180 billion to up their poorest citizen's lifestyles? Well, then they wouldn't be quite as available as migrant worker organ farms, nevermind.

Re:by percentage perhaps

[alexander_686]

Well, 2 things.

The willingness to spend on R&D gives some idea on where the country will be in 10 years. Yes, some of it is spent reverse engineering things that have been built, but some of it is being spent on the industries of tomorrow. Take almost any small northern European country (Finland, Norway, Denmark) as a counter example. They are small countries1 so the absolute dollar amount spent on R&D is small, yet the high percentage spent on R&D has bought a respectable level of income.

As for poverty, it depends if you are have a glass half full or half empty type of person. IIRC, China over the past 25 years has moved 250 million people from extreme poverty (Less then $2.00 a day) to middle income ($8,000 a year).

Meaningless values are meaningless.

[rioki]

Is it just me or are the given values borderline meaningless. The given values are percent relative to GDP, so they basically indicate the willingness to spend a higher portion of their cash flow for R&D. On an absolute scale this meaningless, a small country could spend 50% of their GDP on R&D and still have less output than a huge nation spending 1%. Then again, raw money value also does not translate to actual scientific progress.

Re:Meaningless values are meaningless.

[Mr. Droopy Drawers]

agreed. The method in which this is calculated really isn't described either. Even though I'm in a development role, we're pressured to demonstrate "research" when we're really just assembling code.

US/Europe need to actually produce real stuff. Anything else is just proprietary fodder for others to take.

Re:Meaningless values are meaningless.

[afidel]

When the third largest economy in the world (or second depending on how you put Europe together) is outspending you on metrics that lead to future growth it absolutely is a meaningful metric. As to scientific progress, this isn't just about science, it's about economics as TFA mentions this is all R&D and much of it in China is companies spending on developing existing knowledge into better, cheaper products.

As an example take solar cells, we've had them for decades and while new research might be upping the maximum possible efficiency by 1-2% per decade at this point the Chinese have been reducing the cost per watt by 90% per decade, which is more important overall?

Re:Meaningless values are meaningless.

[the eric conspiracy]

When is the last time Europe put a rover on another world?

Face it, there are 3 major world players. US, China, Europe.

Re:Meaningless values are meaningless.

[rioki]

The reference to small nation was an example that %of GDP is only of relevance if the GDP is in the same ballpark. The amount of money spent in research is at best a weak indicator of actual research advancement.

Re:Meaningless values are meaningless.

[jalopezp]

It'll be a few years. You mean to list the EU as the third power there? We can go by numbers:

GDP

• Europe: 16.7 trillion
• US: 15.7 trillion
• China: 8.3 trillion

Population

• China: 1362 million
• Europe: 507 million
• US: 317 million

Aircraft carriers

• US: 10
• Europe: 5
• China: 1

Nobel Prizes (ignoring Literature and Peace)

• Europe: 442 (317)
• US: 323 (290)
• China: 7 (4)

Re:Meaningless values are meaningless.

[bluegutang]

Percentages relative to GDP are available too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending

The list goes as follows:

1. Israel 4.2%
2. South Korea 3.74%
3. Japan 3.67%
4. Sweden 3.3%
5. Finland 3.1%
6. United States 2.7% ...
14. China 1.97%

China's figure is still pretty impressive since it is the only developing country over 1% (you would expect developing countries to have low values, since providing for basic necessities is a more pressing need than in rich countries).

Re:Meaningless values are meaningless.

[sociocapitalist]

Is it just me or are the given values borderline meaningless. The given values are percent relative to GDP, so they basically indicate the willingness to spend a higher portion of their cash flow for R&D. On an absolute scale this meaningless, a small country could spend 50% of their GDP on R&D and still have less output than a huge nation spending 1%. Then again, raw money value also does not translate to actual scientific progress.

Not to mention that costs are much higher in Europe and the west than in China making actual money value comparison equally irrelevant.

Re:Meaningless values are meaningless.

[interkin3tic]

This data is useful if we're going to start another science race of some kind. Maybe the "Green energy race" or the "cure cancer race." Us vs China vs the EU. It'll totally be exciting for us nerds. And major bonus: we'd get useful tech out of it like we did with the space race.

National pride hasn't disappeared. From what I hear, it's increasing in China at least. If national pride isn't harvested for something useful to all of us, then it will undoubtedly be harvested by selfish people in the military industrial complex. And we'll get nothing more out of it besides more bombs and maybe a bunch of dead people. Quite possibly a ruined economy too.

Re:Meaningless values are meaningless.

[ananyo]

Proportion of GDP spent on research is not a 'meaningless' number. The EU spent a great deal of time trying to (unsuccessfully) urging its member states to push their total spending up to 3%. They've since realized that no single metric can adequately measure a nation's capacity to innovate in science - but this measure is still part of a basket of metrics that it's perfectly reasonable to use to examine a country's commitment to science.
To be clear - there's little evidence that spending a lot of money science will get you a Google or a Genentech, but on the other hand, a fair bit of evidence that spending nothing will make it extremely unlikely. ie science spending is necessary but not sufficient.

Re:Meaningless values are meaningless.

[the eric conspiracy]

My list was by R&D spending as % of GDP. The topic of this article.

US: 2.7
China: 1.98
EU: 1.96

We can also talk about unemployment:
China: 4.1
US: 7
EU: 12

Or maybe growth rate of economy:
China 6.8
US 3.5
EU 1.1

Or people who have walked on the moon
US 12
China 0
EU 0

The EU Nobel Prize total is mostly before 1950. Since then the US has been winning the vast majority of Nobel Prizes. Recently US domination has been overwhelming.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jonbruner/files/2011/10/nobel_graphic_small.png

Nobel Prizes 1950-2012 (approx)
US 60% (67 after 2000)
EU 30%
China 0

Re:wrong

[JazzLad]

They actually don't even have to reverse engineer that much since we're stupid enough to not manufacture things anymore and have them do it for us.

Re:wrong

[Thanshin]

What does it matter how it is called? Morals have no impact in the confrontation between nations. It's not the rightest country that wins wars, it's the one with the mightiest military.

If China can reach the technology level of competing countries by stealing it, that's how it will happen. Once the play field is level, other strategies will have to be applied.

Re:wrong

[number17]

Actually it's called stealing and stealing since that's all they do. They just hack and steal and reverse engineer and clone everyone else's tech.

Yes, hacking, stealing, and reverse engineering are likely included within the R&D budgets.

Did you just get to the party now? I now know my country does it.

Re:It's not so hard

[Thanshin]

So it is hard.

Maintaining control while having a relaxed attitude towards human rights and no social equality isn't trivial. If it was easy, every other country would be doing that.

Or you believe that power abides by human rights (more or less, and only when it's not convenient to forget them) because of the goodness of its heart.

Eventually, China will have to deal with revolting masses just like everyone else; and it will probably use a mix of some tiny rights, lies, misdirection and propaganda, just like everyone else. Because, after all, all countries are forced to use human beings as their main work force.

Cold War non-sense

[snookiex]

When the Chinese realize that the US and Europe are slowing down by their own choice and they don't need to do anything to catch up, they will stop this "race" and settle for keeping a nice, well armed army.

Re:It's not so hard

[freax]

> Or you believe that power abides by human rights (more or less, and only when it's not convenient to forget them) because of the goodness of its heart.

This is actually more or less what Spinoza learned Western Europe in 1670.

Example English translation:

"If men’s minds were as easily controlled as their tongues, every king would sit safely on his throne, and government by compulsion would cease; for every subject would shape his life according to the intentions of his rulers, and would esteem a thing true or false, good or evil, just or unjust, in obedience to their dictates. However, no man’s mind can possibly lie wholly at the disposition of another, for no one can willingly transfer his natural right of free reason and judgment, or be compelled so to do. For this reason government which attempts to control minds is accounted tyrannical, and it is considered an abuse of sovereignty and a usurpation of the rights of subjects, to seek to prescribe what shall be accepted as true, or rejected as false, or what opinions should actuate men in their worship of God. All these questions fall within a man’s natural right, which he cannot abdicate even with his own consent."

If China's leaders wants to control their country's population, they better start reading Spinoza very very very well. Power does abide by human rights. See how many regimes that don't abide by human rights have ended with their population revolting compared to how many regimes that do abide by human rights having their population fully under control since WOII and some even longer. QED.

It's by the way something the US also better starts learning. Because the way things are going now ...

Re:It's not so hard

[ebno-10db]

It's not so hard ... When you have a very relaxed attitude towards human rights and don't believe in (social) equality.

True as that criticism about China is, what does it have to do with R&D spending?

Re:Once again..

[ebno-10db]

You best get used to the idea. The next century belongs to china.

Funny, that's the same thing they said about Japan in the 80's.

It's tough to make predictions - especially about the future.

Finland!

[DarthVain]

OK how the fsck is Finland seemingly the best at everything? Seems like whenever there is a top list of something positive about countries Finland is top 5 every time (and Sweden also).

Going to have to move there or something.

Re:Finland!

[Luckyo]

Healthy mix of socialism and capitalism that works much better than pure capitalism, plus small country needs to get more out of the small population than big one. It can't afford to waste human potential in the way a big country like US or China can.

As a result, efficiency counters tend to be up all over the board for Nordic countries.

Re:Finland!

[dwater]

It (seemingly) isn't...Israel is above it. Amongst the best, perhaps.

I'm wondering about 'Korea' - are they *really* grouping north and south together?

> Going to have to move there

Yeah, that'll fix it ;)

Having said that, I've just moved *away* from there - a bit too depressing :/

Re:Finland!

[Anonymous Coward]

OK how the fsck is Finland seemingly the best at everything? Seems like whenever there is a top list of something positive about countries Finland is top 5 every time (and Sweden also).

Going to have to move there or something.

We tax the rich!*
No, really, we do. We have free universal healthcare, practically no homeless (everybody is taken care of, regardless of the colour of your skin or of your passport), and free higher education.

Socialism rocks!

Re:Finland!

[Luckyo]

Israel is above everyone by a large margin because of the military R&D, which is actually sponsored by US. As a result, the relation to GDP of Israel is massively skewed, as it's basically bankrolled by US.

Re:Finland!

[dwater]

Ah, so you're discounting Israel. Fair enough, though you could have mentioned it ;)

I suppose I should have just asked why you were discounting Israel...

Re:Finland!

[Luckyo]

I'm not discounting it, I'm merely pointing out that Israel is a fairly clear outlier, and there's a reason for it - the financier is US, and you're comparing spending to Israel's GDP.

When you compare it to Nordics, that do not have such a large country actually doing the bankrolling, the comparison becomes a bit silly.

Re:It's not so hard

[Thanshin]

France had been around long enough for a couple thousands years one form or the other. Controlling revolts was something they had dealt with before.

And yet the king's head rolled.

Even to the eyes of the most cynical, society evolves in one sense only. Maybe with ups and downs, but at the end, no form of government has achieved total control with optimal advance. Once China reaches the still more powerful countries, sooner or later, it will have to deal with the same problems they live with nowadays.

There will never again be an emperor, nor a feudal king, and dictators are already sad figures condemned to disappear in a big lack of interest.

FTFY

[globaljustin]

"China Tops Europe in Arcane & Unverifyable Propaganda Statistics From an Authoritarian Communist Country"

Chung Kuo

[nzjade]

When China gets ahead ... and they will, then what!?