Science and Technology Statistical Compendium · RÉUNION DU COMITÉ DE LA POLITIQUE SCIENTIFIQUE...

Scienceand TechnologyStatisticalCompendium «MEETING OF THE OECD COMMITTEE FOR SCIENTIFICAND TECHNOLOGICAL POLICY AT MINISTERIAL LEVEL29-30 JANUARY 2004

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT 2004www.oecd.org/cstp2004min

Science and Technology Statistical Compendium 2004

MEETING OF THE OECD COMMITTEEFOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL POLICY

AT MINISTERIAL LEVEL29-30 JANUARY 2004

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came intoforce on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)shall promote policies designed:

– to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard ofliving in member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to thedevelopment of the world economy;

– to contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member countries in theprocess of economic development; and

– to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis inaccordance with international obligations.

The original member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France,Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countriesbecame members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan(28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973),Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland(22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). TheCommission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECDConvention).

Publié en français sous le titre :Compendium statistique 2004 de la science et de la technologie

RÉUNION DU COMITÉ DE LA POLITIQUE SCIENTIFIQUE ET TECHNOLOGIQUEDE L’OCDE AU NIVEAU MINISTÉRIEL

29-30 JANVIER 2004

© OECD 2004Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtainedthrough the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris,France, tel. (33-1) 44 07 47 70, fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19, for every country except the United States. In the United Statespermission should be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, (508)750-8400,222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA, or CCC Online: www.copyright.com. All other applications forpermission to reproduce or translate all or part of this book should be made to OECD Publications, 2, rue André-Pascal,75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.

3

FOREWORD

This document has been prepared for the 2004 meeting of the Committee for Scientific andTechnological Policy (CSTP) at Ministerial level and mainly draws on databases, indicators andmethodology developed by the CSTP’s Working Party of National Experts on Science and TechnologyIndicators (NESTI), and compiled by the Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry (DSTI). Itpresents a wide selection of the most policy-relevant and internationally comparable indicatorscurrently available in the field of science and technology.

The S&T Statistical Compendium 2004 looks at the state of science and technology in the OECD acrossfour broad dimensions:

• Section A: Innovation and R&D.

• Section B: Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST).

• Section C: Patents.

• Section D: Other areas (ICT, globalisation, industrial structure).

Many of these indicators are drawn from or are updates to the Science, Technology and IndustryScoreboard 2003 (www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard) which also includes more detailed methodological explanationsand notes. Member country rankings should be interpreted with caution when absolute differences aresmall since data are subject to ongoing revisions.

In addition to well-established S&T data, this report presents a wide range of recently developedindicators in the areas of patents and human resources in science and technology (including data drawnfrom the work of the Education Directorate). Patent indicators are mainly drawn from the workconducted within the framework of the OECD Patent Project (www.oecd.org/sti/ipr-statistics). The HRSTindicators include, among others, labour force participation of university graduates, growth of scientificand technical occupations and international mobility of students and scientists and engineers.

This compendium includes a number of experimental indicators in areas such as biotechnology,nanotechnology and the international mobility of human resources for S&T. While these indicators donot benefit from the decades of experience that other S&T indicators enjoy, such as R&D, they areincluded to give policy makers some indication of trends in areas high on the policy agenda as well ascurrent developmental work being undertaken by NESTI. These indicators should be used with anappreciation of their limitations given their early stage of development.

© OECD 2004

5

© OECD 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Innovation and R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A.1. Investment in knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8A.2. Trends in domestic R&D expenditure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9A.3. R&D financing and performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10A.4. R&D expenditure by type and growth by source of financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11A.5. Business R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12A.6. R&D performed by the higher education and government sectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13A.7. Government R&D budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14A.8. Tax treatment of R&D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15A.9. R&D in non-OECD economies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

A.10. Industry-science relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17A.11. Venture capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18A.12. Biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19A.13. Nanotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

B. Human Resources in Science and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

B.1. Tertiary education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22B.2. Flows of university graduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23B.3. Foreign PhD students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24B.4. Science and engineering doctorates awarded to foreign citizens in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25B.5. Labour force participation of university graduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26B.6. Employment of tertiary-level graduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27B.7. Scientific and technical occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28B.8. International mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29B.9. R&D personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

B.10. Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31B.11. Foreign scholars in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32B.12. Researchers in non-OECD economies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

C. Patents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

C.1. Trends in patent applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36C.2. Evolution of patent filings to the EPO and the USPTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37C.3. Triadic patent families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38C.4. EPO patent applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39C.5. Patent intensity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40C.6. ICT patents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41C.7. Cross-border ownership of inventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42C.8. International co-operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

D. Other Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

D.1. Internationalisation of manufacturing R&D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46D.2. Access to the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47D.3. Technology- and knowledge-intensive industries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48D.4. High-tech trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Annex. Main OECD Databases Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

7

A. INNOVATION AND R&D

In the OECD area, investment in knowledge – the sum of investment in R&D, software and highereducation – amounted to about 4.8% of GDP in 2000. In the United States, this figure reached almost 7%of GDP, well above the share for Japan (4.7%) or the European Union (4.0%). At the OECD level, R&Daccounted for almost one-half of total investment in knowledge.

In 2001, OECD countries allocated about USD 638 billion (current purchasing power parity) to R&D,or 2.3% of GDP. The United States accounted for approximately 43% of the OECD total, the EuropeanUnion for 29% and Japan for 16%. R&D expenditure in the OECD area rose annually by 4.5% in real termsover 1995-2001. During that period, R&D expenditure rose faster in the United States (5.0% a year) thanin the European Union (3.8%) and Japan (2.9%). In 2001, the R&D intensity of the European Unionreached 1.9% of GDP, its highest level since 1990, but still well below the Lisbon target of 3% in 2010.In 2001, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Japan were the only OECD countries in which the R&D to GDPratio exceeded 3%. In 2002, the R&D intensity of the United States remained stable at 2.7% of GDP.

Most of the rise in R&D expenditure is due to higher business investment. The business sector isthe major source of financing of domestic R&D accounting for almost two-thirds of funding in OECDcountries in 2001. R&D expenditure by the higher education sector increased in the first half ofthe 1990s and then stabilised. R&D by the government sector has declined in recent years, partly owingto the reduction in defence R&D and the transfer of some public agencies to the private sector.

Government R&D budgets have grown substantially in most OECD countries, by 5% or moreannually during 1995-2003 in more than one-third of these countries. Defence-related R&D usuallyaccounts for a small share of such budgets (less than 10%), the exceptions being France, the UnitedKingdom and Spain (between 25 and 40%) and the United States (more than 50%).

R&D expenditure in the major non-OECD economies is currently more than one-fifth that of theOECD area. In 2002, Israel allocated 4.7% of GDP to R&D (excluding R&D for defence), a higher ratio thanthe leading OECD country, Sweden. R&D expenditure in China grew rapidly over the past decade andin 2002 reached USD 72 billion. This is behind the United States (USD 277 billion) and Japan(USD 104 billion in 2001), but ahead of Germany (USD 55 billion) which has the third highest level in theOECD area. India spent about USD 20 billion on R&D in 2000-2001, which puts it among the top tencountries worldwide. When compared with OECD countries, Brazil, the Russian Federation and ChineseTaipei rank below the G7 and Korea in terms of R&D expenditure, but ahead of all others.

The importance of industry-science relations is growing as measured by the increasing share ofbusiness-funded R&D in the higher education and government sectors, but also by the number of“science linkages”, as measured by scientific article citations in patents.

Certain new technologies account for a growing part of R&D spending. Nanotechnology, forexample, is among the most rapidly growing targets of R&D funding, but it still accounts for only a smallshare of total R&D. Between 1997 and 2000, government R&D funding for nanotechnology trebled toUSD 293 million in the United States, and doubled to USD 210 million in the European Union and toUSD 190 million in Japan.

© OECD 2004


8

A.1. Investment in knowledge

Source: OECD, Annual National Accounts of OECD countries, OECD Economic Outlook, MSTI database, Education database; and InternationalData Corporation, June 2003.

• Investment in knowledge is defined as the sum of R&D expenditure, expenditure for highereducation (public and private) and investment in software. In 2000 investment in knowledgeamounted to 4.8% of GDP in the OECD area and would be around 10% if expenditure for all levels ofeducation were included in the definition.

• The ratio of investment in knowledge to GDP is 2.8 percentage points higher in the United Statesthan in the European Union. In Sweden (7.2%), the United States (6.8%) and Finland (6.2%)investment in knowledge exceeds 6% of GDP. In contrast, it is less than 2.5% of GDP in southern andcentral European countries and in Mexico.

• Most OECD countries are increasing investment in their knowledge base. During the second half ofthe 1990s, it increased by more than one percentage point (as a share of GDP) in Denmark, theUnited States and Germany, and more than 1.5% in Finland and Sweden.

• For most countries, increases in software expenditure were the major source of growing investment inknowledge during the second half of the 1990s. Among those countries with relatively high growth,notable exceptions are Finland (where R&D was the main source of increase) and Korea (expenditurefor higher education being the largest component). For countries which experienced a relatively lowgrowth, this was mainly due to declining expenditure on higher education.

8 06 4 2%

-0.5 2.00.0 0.5 1.0%

1.5

SwedenUnited StatesFinlandKoreaCanadaSwitzerlandDenmarkOECDGermanyNetherlandsJapanFranceBelgiumUnited KingdomAustraliaEUAustriaNorwayCzech RepublicIrelandHungarySpainSlovak RepublicItalyPortugalPolandMexicoGreece

Finland

Sweden

Denmark

United States

Germany

Austria

Korea

Netherlands

Switzerland

Hungary

Czech Republic

Japan

France

Canada

Portugal

United Kingdom

Spain

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Mexico

Australia

Norway

Source of change in investment in knowledgeAs a percentage of GDP, 1995-2000 or closest available years

Investment in knowledgeAs a percentage of GDP, 2000 or latest available year

R&D Software

Higher education

R&D Software

Higher education

© OECD 2004

Innovation and R&D

9

A.2. Trends in domestic R&D expenditure

Source: OECD, MSTI database, November 2003.

• In 2001, OECD countries allocated about USD 638 billion (current PPP) to R&D, or about 2.3% ofoverall GDP.

• OECD-area R&D expenditure has continued to increase steadily in recent years, rising by 4.5%annually in real terms between 1995 and 2001. In 2001, R&D expenditure in the United Statesaccounted for approximately 43% of the OECD total, close to the combined share of the EU (29%) andJapan (16%).

• In the three main OECD regions, R&D expenditure relative to GDP (R&D intensity) has continued toincrease steadily over the past three years, although the persistent gap between the United Statesand Japan on the one hand, and the European Union on the other, remains an important policyconcern.

• In 2001-2002, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Japan were the only four OECD countries in which R&Dintensity exceeded 3%.

3.5

5 04 3 2 1%

%

3.0

2.5

2.0

0

400

200

1981 83 200185 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

1981 83 200185 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

600

1.5

R&D intensityR&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP, 2002 or latest available year

SwedenFinlandIcelandJapanKoreaUnited StatesSwitzerlandGermanyDenmarkOECDFranceBelgiumAustriaEUNetherlandsUnited KingdomCanadaNorwayAustraliaCzech RepublicNew ZealandIrelandItalyHungarySpainPortugalPolandGreeceTurkeySlovak RepublicMexico

Trends in R&D intensity by areaAs a percentage of GDP, 1981-2001

Gross domestic expenditure on R&D by areaBillions of 1995 PPP dollars

Japan

United States

OECD

EU

OECD

EU

United States

Japan

© OECD 2004


10

A.3. R&D financing and performance


• The business sector is the major source of financing of domestic R&D accounting for more than 63% offunding in OECD countries in 2001. The role of the business sector in funding R&D differs sharplyacross the three main OECD regions. The business sector funds 73% of R&D in Japan and 64% in theUnited States, but only 56% in the European Union. During the second half of the 1990s, the share ofbusiness funding of R&D increased significantly in the United States, moderately in Japan and onlyslightly in the European Union.

• Government funding of R&D retreated in all countries except the Czech Republic, Korea, Poland andthe Slovak Republic. However, government is still the major source of R&D funding in a third of OECDcountries.

• Foreign funding of R&D has increased in recent years. Canada, the United Kingdom, Iceland and Austriareceive more than 15% of their R&D funding from abroad and Greece receives almost one-quarter.

• The business sector also performs most R&D. Its contribution to the overall R&D effort has increasedsince the mid-1990s and, according to the latest available data, accounts for about 70% of total R&Dexpenditure.

• The higher education and government sectors perform 31% of all R&D in the OECD area. Theircombined share is more than 60% in Mexico, Greece, New Zealand, Turkey and Poland.

100 060 40 20%

0 10040 60 80%

80 20

JapanKoreaSwedenFinlandSwitzerlandIrelandGermanyUnited StatesBelgiumOECDDenmarkEUFranceCzech RepublicSlovak RepublicNetherlandsNorwaySpainAustraliaUnited KingdomIcelandItalyTurkeyAustriaCanadaNew ZealandPortugalPolandHungaryGreeceMexico

SwedenKorea

SwitzerlandJapan

BelgiumFinland

United StatesGermany

OECDDenmark

IrelandUnited Kingdom

EUSlovak Republic

AustriaFrance

Czech RepublicNorway

NetherlandsIceland

CanadaSpain

ItalyAustralia

New ZealandPoland

HungaryPortugal

TurkeyGreeceMexico

R&D expenditures by source of financingPercentage shares in national total, 2002 or latest available year

R&D expenditures by performing sectorPercentage shares in national total, 2002 or latest available year

Other(other national sources + abroad)

GovernmentBusiness enterprises

Not available

Business enterprises Government

Not availableHigher education Private non-profit

© OECD 2004

Innovation and R&D

11

A.4. R&D expenditure by type and growth by source of financing

Source: OECD, R&D database, November 2003.

• There is evidence that innovation efforts draw increasingly on basic research, notably in newareas such as biotechnology and ICT. In OECD countries for which data are available, the ratio ofbasic research to GDP varies between 0.1% and 0.7%, or 10-40% of gross domestic expenditure onR&D (GERD). In the United States, this ratio increased from 0.4% to 0.6% in the second half ofthe 1990s, mainly owing to increasing efforts by the business enterprise sector. In countries withhigh R&D intensity (except Switzerland), basic research usually accounts for one-fifth or less oftotal R&D.

• In Mexico, Portugal, Poland and Hungary, the ratio of basic research to GDP is low compared withother OECD countries, but their basic research expenditure relative to total R&D expenditure isamong the highest of all OECD countries. This is due to high shares of the government and highereducation sectors which perform the bulk of basic research in total GERD.

• In most OECD countries, the growth of GERD during the second half of the 1990s was largely drivenby increasing funding by business enterprise. In countries with lower R&D intensities, government-funded R&D played an equally important role. In a small number of OECD countries, funds fromabroad were also significant contributors (e.g. Iceland, Austria, Canada, Greece).

3.5 02.5 2.0 1.5%

-10 200 5 10%

3.0 -51.0 0.5 15

Iceland

Japan

Korea

United States

Switzerland

France

Denmark

Netherlands

Austria

Australia

Norway

Czech Republic

Italy

Hungary

Spain

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Poland

Mexico

IcelandTurkeyMexicoGreeceFinland

PortugalHungary

KoreaSweden

DenmarkSpain

IrelandBelgiumAustria

Czech RepublicCanada

United StatesNorway

New ZealandPoland

GermanyFranceJapan

United KingdomAustralia

NetherlandsSwitzerland

Slovak Republic

Breakdown of R&D expenditure by type of researchAs a percentage of GDP, 2001 or latest available year

Breakdown of GERD growth by source of financingAverage annual growth rate in percentage,

1995-2001 or closest available years

Non-specified

Basic research Applied research

Experimental development GovernmentBusiness enterpriseAbroadOther national

© OECD 2004


12

A.5. Business R&D


• The business enterprise sector accounts for the bulk of R&D activity in OECD countries in terms ofboth performance and funding. In 2001, R&D performed by the business sector reached USD440 billion (current PPP), or close to 70% of total R&D.

• Business R&D intensity is well above the OECD average (2.2%) in all Nordic countries except Norway,and particularly in Sweden (5.2%) and Finland (3.6%). Iceland has enjoyed a large increase inbusiness R&D intensity since 1995 (2 percentage points).

• In the OECD area, R&D performed by the business sector has increased steadily over the past twodecades. However, the pace of growth has picked up since the mid-1990s, mostly owing to businessR&D in the United States, which increased by 3.9% a year between 1995 and 2002, and the EuropeanUnion, where it grew by 4.6% annually between 1995 and 2001. Between 1995 and 2001, OECD-areabusiness enterprise expenditure on R&D grew by around USD 100 billion (1995 PPP). The UnitedStates accounted for almost one-half of this growth and the EU for less than a quarter.

• Provisional figures for 2002 show a decline in business sector R&D with respect to 2001 in most of thelarge OECD economies for which data are available: –4.1% in the United States, –1.0% in Germany,–1.8% in France, and –7.0% in Canada

• Over the second half of the 1990s, annual average growth rates for business enterprise R&D werehighest in Iceland, Turkey, Mexico and Portugal. Only the Slovak Republic experienced a significantdecline in business R&D spending during the period.

6 03 2 1%

-20 300 10 20%

-1045

Business enterprise R&D intensityR&D expenditure as a percentage of value added in industry,

2002 or latest available year

Growth of business R&DAverage annual growth rate in percentage, 1995-2002

or closest available years

SwedenFinlandSwitzerlandJapanIcelandKoreaDenmarkUnited StatesGermanyBelgiumOECDFranceUnited KingdomEUNetherlandsAustriaNorwayCanadaAustraliaIrelandCzech RepublicItalySpainNew ZealandHungaryPortugalSlovak RepublicPolandGreeceTurkeyMexico

IcelandTurkeyMexico

PortugalFinland

DenmarkGreeceAustriaSpain

SwedenKorea

IrelandNew Zealand

BelgiumHungaryNorwayOECD

EUCzech Republic

GermanyNetherlands

United StatesJapan

CanadaFrance

United KingdomItaly

PolandSwitzerland

AustraliaSlovak Republic

© OECD 2004

Innovation and R&D

13

A.6. R&D performed by the higher education and government sectors

Source: OECD, R&D and MSTI databases, November 2003.

• The higher education sector performs about 17% of total domestic R&D in the OECD area (see A.3).This represents about 0.4% of GDP. Sweden, Finland and Canada had the highest shares of GDP forR&D by this sector at more than 0.6%. The corresponding shares for the Slovak Republic and Mexicowere less than 0.2%.

• In the OECD area, R&D performed by the higher education sector increased steadily over the 1990s(as a share of GDP), with a slowdown in the mid-1990s. Since then, it has increased slightly relative toGDP in the European Union and the United States and has increased significantly in Japan (whereGDP has grown little).

• The government sector accounts for one-tenth of total R&D performed in the OECD area. However, itconducts one-third or more in Mexico, New Zealand, and Hungary.

• Government performance of R&D declined until 2000 reaching 0.23% of GDP, compared to 0.31%in 1985. It dropped in France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, owing to a decreasein defence spending and transfers of public agencies to the private sector. Japan is the only largeOECD country where R&D performed by the government sector increased between 1991 and 2001,from 0.22% to 0.29% of GDP.

0.45

1.4 00.8 0.6 0.4 0.2%

%

0.15

0.45

1981 83 200185 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0.151981 83 200185 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

1.01.2

%

SwedenFinlandCanadaSwitzerlandAustriaNetherlandsIcelandJapanDenmarkFranceGermanyBelgiumUnited StatesNorwayAustraliaUnited KingdomEUOECDTurkeyNew ZealandItalyPortugalKoreaSpainGreeceIrelandHungaryPolandCzech RepublicMexicoSlovak Republic

Trends in R&D expenditure in the highereducation sector

As a percentage of GDP, 1981-2001

Japan (adjusted)

United States

OECD

EU

Trends in R&D expenditurein the government sector

As a percentage of GDP, 1981-2001

OECD

EU

United StatesJapan (adjusted)

R&D expenditure by sector of performanceAs a percentage of GDP, 2002 or latest available year

Higher education Government

© OECD 2004


14

A.7. Government R&D budgets

Source: OECD, R&D database, November 2003.

• The ratio of government budget appropriations or outlays for R&D (GBAORD) to GDP varies widelyfrom less than 0.3% in Luxembourg, Greece and Mexico, to more than 1% in Iceland, France andFinland.

• Defence-related R&D usually accounts for a small share of GBAORD (less than 10%), the exceptionsbeing France, the United Kingdom and Spain (between 25 and 40%), and the United States wheredefence R&D accounts for more than half (or 0.52% of GDP).

• During the second half of the 1990s, GBAORD has grown in real terms in all but three OECDcountries. Growth has been particularly strong in some countries which have relatively low levels(e.g. Luxembourg, Ireland, Mexico), as well as in others in which GBOARD accounts for a significantshare of GDP (e.g. United States, Korea, Sweden).

1.4 00.4 0.2%

-5 200 5 10%

0.60.81.01.2 15

26.9LuxembourgKoreaSpain

PortugalIreland

United StatesMexicoJapan

SwedenIceland

ItalyAustraliaBelgium

New ZealandPoland

NorwayFranceGreeceCanadaAustriaOECD

NetherlandsEU

FinlandUnited Kingdom

GermanySwitzerland

DenmarkSlovak Republic

IcelandFranceFinlandUnited StatesSwedenKoreaGermanyNetherlandsNorwayDenmarkJapanPortugalSpainItalyUnited KingdomAustriaSwitzerlandBelgiumAustraliaCzech RepublicCanadaNew ZealandPolandIrelandSlovak RepublicGreeceMexicoLuxembourg

Growth of government R&D budgetsAnnual average growth rate (%) of GBOARD, 1995-2003,


Defence and civil R&D budgetsGovernment budget appropriations or outlays for R&D (GBAORD)

as a percentage of GDP, 2002 or latest available year

Defence Civil

© OECD 2004

Innovation and R&D

15

A.8. Tax treatment of R&D

Source: OECD, STI/EAS Division, November 2003.

• Most OECD countries have special tax treatment for R&D expenditures, such as immediate write-offof current R&D expenditures (all countries) and various types of tax relief such as tax credits(11 countries in 2001) or allowances against taxable income (six countries in 2001).

• As a policy instrument, tax relief is on the rise in OECD countries. These schemes resulted in taxsubsidies for R&D in 13 OECD countries in 2001 for large firms and in 15 for small firms. The UnitedKingdom and Norway have recently introduced such schemes.

• While tax subsidies for R&D (for large firms) increased significantly between 1995 and 2001 in tencountries, they decreased slightly in three.

• Depending on the country, tax relief can be “flat rate” (e.g. on the amount of R&D, as in Canada) or“incremental” (taking account of the difference between current R&D and a past reference point, as inthe United States). Certain countries (e.g. Spain) have both.

• In ten countries, small firms or start-ups benefit from special treatment, such as higher rates or cashrefunds (for firms not subject to tax). Spain, Portugal and Australia provide the highest subsidies forlarge firms; Italy, Spain and the Netherlands are the most generous to small firms.

0.5 -0.10.1 0%

-0.1 0.40 0.1 0.2%

0.20.30.4 0.3

Rate of tax subsidies for USD 1 of R&DLarge firms, 2001

Spain

Portugal

Australia

Canada

Korea

Austria

Denmark

Netherlands

United Kingdom

United States

France

Mexico

Japan

Ireland

Belgium

Switzerland

Finland

Iceland

Sweden

Greece

Norway

New Zealand

Germany

Italy

Portugal

Spain

United Kingdom

United States

Austria

Mexico

Italy

Germany

Korea

Japan

Switzerland

Netherlands

Belgium

Sweden

Ireland

Norway

Canada

Finland

Australia

France

Denmark

Change in the rate of tax subsidiesfor USD 1 of R&D

Large firms, 1995-2001SMEs

© OECD 2004


16

A.9. R&D in non-OECD economies

Source: OECD, MSTI database, November 2003; Eurostat, NewCronos database, November 2003; and OECD, based on national sources.

• Non-OECD economies account for a growing share of the world’s R&D. When combined with that ofOECD countries, the non-OECD economies included here accounted for 17% of R&D expenditurein 2001, and probably for more than 18% in 2002, a share that is expected to increase in coming years.

• In 2002, Israel allocated 4.7% of GDP to R&D (excluding R&D for defence), more than Sweden, whichhas the highest R&D intensity in the OECD area, at 4.3% (in 2001).

• R&D expenditure in China has grown rapidly over the past decade and in 2002 reached USD72 billion (current PPP), placing it behind the United States (USD 285 billion in 2003) and Japan(USD 104 billion in 2001), but ahead of Germany (USD 55 billion). In 2000-01, India is estimated tohave spent almost USD 20 billion on R&D, which puts it among the top ten worldwide. Whencompared with OECD countries, Brazil, the Russian Federation and Chinese Taipei rank below theG7 and Korea in terms of R&D expenditure, but ahead of all others.

• In most of Central and Eastern Europe and South America, R&D intensity is below 1%, far belowthe OECD average. Except for Russia and Brazil, their absolute levels of R&D expenditure arealso low.

• From 1993 to 2002, the three Asian economies for which calculations are possible and the three Balticstates have experienced high average annual growth of R&D expenditure (in constant 1995 USD PPP).Slovenia and Russia have had growth rates around the OECD average, while the Latin Americaneconomies, Bulgaria and Romania were subject to low or negative growth.

02 1%

-10 15-5 0 5%

345 10

6 360

638 412

2 130

10 902

570

72 077

14 190

13 175

19 795

183

93

2 637

951

261

723

86

1 560

542

33

R&D expenditurein millions of USD

(current PPP), 2002 orlatest available year

Gross domestic expenditure on R&DAs a percentage of GDP, 2002 or latest available year

Evolution of gross domestic expenditure on R&DAverage annual growth rate, 1993-2002 or closest available years

Israel

OECD

Singapore

Chinese Taipei

Slovenia

China

Russian Federation

Brazil

India

Lithuania

Estonia

South Africa

Hong Kong, China

Bulgaria

Chile

Latvia

Argentina

Romania

Cyprus

Singapore

Estonia

Israel

Lithuania

Cyprus

Chinese Taipei

Latvia

Russian Federation

OECD

Slovenia

Chile

Bulgaria

Argentina

Romania

© OECD 2004

Innovation and R&D

17

A.10. Industry-science relations

Source: OECD, R&D database; CHI Research, November 2003.

• Co-operation between firms and other actors in science and innovation systems takes many formsand is often difficult to quantify.

• Direct financial flows are one example: business enterprise has been funding a growing share of R&Dperformed in the higher education and government sectors, averaging 5.2% in the OECD area in 2001(and 6.5% in the EU). Despite the increase in many countries, these flows only account for a modestshare (less than 5%) in most large OECD economies.

• A second indicator which can be used to measure the relative importance of industry-sciencerelations is the number of “science linkages”. The large increase of science linkages over the secondhalf of the 1990s can by explained by a combination of factors. Firstly, the growing use of electronicdatabases of scientific publications which has increased the relative ease of citing (while theincentives to do so have also grown). Secondly, the overall growth of science-based industries (inwhich such citations are more prevalent) has also resulted in an increasing number of citations,notably in biotechnology. Finally, the uneven growth across countries suggests that these linkagesare playing a relatively more important role in some economies, particularly in Central and NorthernEurope as well as in North America.

20 0%

0 4.00.5 1.0 1.5%

51015 3.02.0 2.5 3.5

1985-95

Business-funded R&D in the higher education (HE)and government (GOV) sectors

As a percentage of total R&D performed in the sectors,2001 or latest available year

TurkeyNew ZealandBelgiumNetherlandsKoreaSlovak RepublicPolandFinlandHungarySpainUnited KingdomIcelandMexico (HE only)CanadaGermanyNorwayIrelandEULuxembourg (GOV only)GreeceOECDAustraliaSwitzerland (HE only)SwedenDenmarkFranceCzech RepublicUnited StatesItalyAustriaPortugalJapan

Czech RepublicHungaryGreecePolandIceland

DenmarkCanada

United StatesMexico

AustraliaUnited Kingdom

IrelandNew Zealand

OECDPortugalBelgium

TurkeyAustriaSpain

SwitzerlandSwedenFinland

NetherlandsNorwayFrance

ItalyGermany

JapanKorea

Luxembourg

Science linkagesAverage number of scientific articles cited per patent granted

in the United States, average for the period 1995-2002

© OECD 2004


18

A.11. Venture capital

Source: OECD, based on data from EVCA, NVCA, CVCA and Asian Venture Capital Journal, 2003.

• Relative to GDP, venture capital investment is quite small, but it is a major source of funding for newtechnology-based firms. It plays a crucial role in promoting the radical innovations often developedby such firms.

• Over 1998-2001, the United States and Iceland had the largest venture capital investment as a shareof GDP, at nearly 0.5%. Other OECD countries had substantially less. About one-third of venturecapital goes to firms in their early stages and two-thirds to those in the expansion stage. In Finland,Ireland and Switzerland, half is attributed to firms in early stages.

• High-technology firms attract half of OECD venture capital investment, but disparities amongcountries are large. In Canada and Ireland, they receive more than 80% of total venture capital, butin Australia and Japan they account for less than a quarter. In the United States, they attract overhalf of venture capital, of which about half goes to the communications industry. In Canada andIreland, investment tends to focus on IT firms, while in central European countries and Italycommunications firms attract most of the investment. In Denmark, health and biotechnology firmsaccount for over 25% of total venture capital investment and in Canada and Hungary for almost 20%of the total.

0.5 00.4 0.3%

0 10040 60 80%

200.2 0.1

United StatesIcelandOECDCanadaNetherlandsUnited KingdomSwedenKoreaBelgiumFinlandEUGermanyNorwayFranceIrelandSpainAustraliaSwitzerlandPolandDenmarkItalyCzech RepublicNew ZealandPortugalGreeceHungaryAustriaJapanSlovak Republic

CanadaIreland

NorwayDenmarkBelgiumHungary

Czech RepublicUnited StatesNew Zealand

OECDIcelandPolandFinland

KoreaGermany

GreeceFranceAustria

SwitzerlandEU

NetherlandsPortugal

United KingdomSweden

ItalySpainJapan

AustraliaSlovak Republic

Investment in venture capitalBy stage, as a percentage of GDP, 1998-2001

Early stages Expansion

Share of high-tech sectors in venture capitalAs a percentage of total venture capital, 1998-2001

Communications

Health/biotechnology

Information technology

© OECD 2004

Innovation and R&D

19

A.12. Biotechnology

Source: OECD, Venture Capital and Patent databases, 2003.

• Although the field of biotechnology has grown markedly owing to scientific advances in areas such asgenomics and genetic engineering, internationally comparable data remain scarce.

• Venture capital is important for biotechnology firms, which often have high R&D expenditure andlimited revenues for several years. Canada and the United States are the countries in which thelargest shares of venture capital go to biotechnology (more than 0.03% of GDP in 2001).

• Biotechnology patent applications at the European Patent Office (EPO) increased significant duringthe 1990s. Between 1991 and 2000, such applications at the EPO increased by 10.2% a year comparedwith 6.6% for the total patents.

• The ratio of biotechnology patents to total patents is far higher in the United States than in theEuropean Union and Japan. However, Denmark has the highest such ratio, followed by the SlovakRepublic and Canada: in these countries, around one in ten patents is related to biotechnology.

500 0 0 122 4 6%

400 8300 200 100 10

Biotechnology venture capitalPer million units of GDP, 2001

Canada

United States

Belgium

Germany

Denmark

Australia

Sweden

New Zealand

Korea

Norway

United Kingdom

France

Finland

Netherlands

Iceland

Austria

Japan

Switzerland

Italy

Spain

DenmarkSlovak Republic

CanadaUnited States

AustraliaIceland

IsraelBelgium

ChinaUnited Kingdom

New ZealandIreland

HungaryMexico

PortugalNetherlands

Russian FederationOECD

GreeceNorway

KoreaPolandFrance

EUAustria

SwedenGermany

JapanSouth Africa

SpainSwitzerland

FinlandItaly

Czech RepublicTurkey

Luxembourg

Biotechnology patentsAs a percentage of total patents at the EPO, 2000

1995

© OECD 2004


20

A.13. Nanotechnology

Source: European Commission; Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS).

• In recent years, nanotechnology, the science of the very small, has been high on the policy agenda ofmany countries around the world. Because of its promising economic potential, it has become atarget for increased R&D. Indeed, over 30 countries have established R&D programmes innanotechnology.

• Although it is difficult to estimate government R&D funding precisely owing to the lack of an agreeddefinition of nanotechnology and the inclusion of nanotechnology-related R&D in many broaderresearch activities such as biotechnology and materials, available figures show that between 1997and 2000, government R&D funding for nanotechnology grew from approximately USD 114.4 millionto more than USD 210.5 million in the European Union, from USD 102.4 million to USD 293 million inthe United States and from USD 93.5 million to USD 189.9 million in Japan.

• Related to the rise in governmental R&D spending is an increase in scientific output, as measured bythe number of scientific publications in this area, which increased from 10 575 in 1997 to15 667 in 2000. Over the period, scientific output was largely dominated by the United States, Japanand Germany, followed by France, the United Kingdom and Italy.

0

4.0

300 00 35250 200 150 100 50 5 10 15 20 25 30

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Estimated government R&D spending on nanotechnologyUSD millions, 1997-2000

1997

United States

EU

Japan

Germany

United Kingdom

France

Netherlands

Italy

Sweden

Finland

Ireland

Austria

Denmark

Belgium

Greece

Spain

Portugal

Other countries

1997

Italy

Other countries

Icelan

d

Korea

Switzer

land

Canad

a

Sweden

Spain

Nethe

rland

s

Austra

lia

Belgium

Poland

Austri

a

Denm

ark

Finlan

d

Czech

Rep

ublic

Hunga

ry

Greec

e

Mex

ico

Irelan

d

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Turk

ey

New Z

ealan

d

Portu

gal

Norway

European Commission

Nanotechnology publicationsAs a percentage of OECD total, 1997-2000

30%

15%13%

8%

27%

Japan 14%

Germany 13%

France 8%

Other 29%

7%

United States29%

UnitedKingdom

7%

1997

Five major contributors2000

30%

15%13%

8%

27%

Japan 14%

Germany 13%

France 8%

Other 29%

7%

United States29%

UnitedKingdom

7%

1997

Five major spenders

%

© OECD 2004

21

B. HUMAN RESOURCES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

On average in 2001, 30% of the OECD population at the typical age of graduation completed auniversity degree. Flows of graduates are dominated by people earning degrees in social sciences, law,business or humanities. Science and engineering (S&E) degrees represent only 22% of total degreesawarded in OECD countries, 27% in the EU and 16% in the United States. Although more women getuniversity degrees than men, they remain under-represented in S&E fields accounting for around one-third of total S&E degrees delivered in most OECD countries. Women are also under-represented atdoctorate level, receiving between one-third and one-half of total PhDs.

Large investments in education over the past decades have led to a general rise in the educationalattainment of the employed population. Employment of tertiary-level graduates grows at a pace of 2% to6% a year, substantially faster than aggregate employment growth. Professional and technical workersrepresent between 20% and 35% of total employment in most OECD countries, and over 35% in Sweden,Switzerland, Australia and Denmark. In 2000, approximately 3.4 million persons in the OECD area weredevoting their time to research and development and approximately two-thirds of these were engaged inthe business sector. In 2002, China had the second highest number of researchers in the world (811 000),behind the United States (1.3 million in 1999), but ahead of Japan (676 000 in 2001) and Russia (492 000).Among the major OECD regions, Japan has the highest number of researchers relative to totalemployment (10.2 per thousand), followed by the United States (8.6) and the European Union (5.9).

Labour force participation of women is lower than that of men in all countries, particularly in Turkey,Japan, Korea and Mexico. In the OECD area, the rapid growth of professional and technical occupationsowes however more to the rapid increase of women than that of men. Nevertheless, women in researchactivities represent only 25% to 35% of total researchers, and women researchers are principally found inthe higher education sector. Their participation is particularly low in industry and this unevendistribution across sectors has an impact on the very low overall participation of women.

The number of foreign students enrolled in tertiary education abroad has doubled in 20 years andis growing more rapidly than overall enrolment in tertiary education. Foreign students represent morethan a third of PhD enrolments in Switzerland, Belgium and the United Kingdom and 27% in the UnitedStates. In absolute numbers however, the United States has far more foreign PhD students than otherOECD countries, with around 79 000. The United Kingdom follows with some 25 000. In 2001, 36% of S&Edoctorates in the United States were awarded to foreign citizens. Among these a little more than aquarter went to Chinese citizens, 9% to Koreans or Indians, 6% to citizens from Chinese Taipei and therest to foreigners from a wide diversity of countries. S&E doctorates granted to non-US OECD citizens inthe United States represent on average 1% or 2% of those delivered in the origin country.

In the United States, the largest number of non-US scientists and engineers with S&E doctoratesoriginating from the OECD area come from the United Kingdom and Canada; relatively few are fromGermany and Japan. The main foreign contributors to the S&E workforce in the United States are fromnon-OECD countries: there are three times as many foreign scientists from China and twice as manyfrom India as from the United Kingdom. In 2002 in the European Union countries, the relative share ofnon-national human resources in science and technology is between 3% and 3.5%, with Belgium,Luxembourg, Austria and the United Kingdom having high shares.

© OECD 2004


22

B.1. Tertiary education

Source: OECD, Educational Attainment and Education databases, November 2003.

• Educational attainment is the most commonly used proxy for human capital. The data presentedhere refer to the population as a whole; the educational attainment of employed population isexamined in B.6.

• In the OECD area, 23% of the population aged 15-64 has completed tertiary-level education. Theshare is much higher in Japan (36%) and the United States (32%) than in the European Union (19%). Itexceeds 25% in Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Australia. In contrast, it is below 15% insouthern, Central and Eastern Europe (Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, the SlovakRepublic, Italy, Portugal and Turkey).

• Expenditure per student for tertiary-level education varies by a factor of six between Poland and theUnited States. Expenditure per student is highest in the United States (USD 20 358 in purchasingpower parities – PPP) and in Switzerland (USD 18 450 in PPP), more than 1.5 times the OECD average(USD 11 109 in PPP). Expenditure per student in southern, central and eastern European countries aswell as in Mexico is less than half the OECD average.

%0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000010203040

United StatesSwitzerland

SwedenCanadaNorway

AustraliaDenmark

NetherlandsOECDIrelandJapan

GermanyAustria

BelgiumUnited Kingdom

FranceFinland

ItalyIceland

HungarySpainKorea

Czech RepublicSlovak Republic

PortugalMexicoTurkey

GreecePoland

CanadaJapanUnited StatesSwedenFinlandNorwayAustraliaBelgiumNew ZealandUnited KingdomDenmarkKoreaOECDSpainIrelandSwitzerlandFranceNetherlandsIcelandGermanyEULuxembourgGreeceAustriaHungaryCzech RepublicPolandSlovak RepublicItalyMexicoPortugalTurkey

Persons aged 15-64 with tertiary-level educationAs a percentage of the population, 2002

Expenditure per student for tertiary-level education2000 USD using PPP

© OECD 2004

Human Resources in Science and Technology

23

B.2. Flows of university graduates

Source: OECD, Education database, 2003.

• Flows of university graduates are an indicator of a country’s ability to supply the labour marketwith highly skilled workers and increase its potential for producing and diffusing advancedknowledge. In 2001, the overall PhD graduation rate (persons receiving a PhD degree as apercentage of the population of the typical graduation age) was between 0.75% and 1.5% in halfof all OECD countries. In the vast majority of countries, women accounted for between one-thirdand one-half of all PhDs.

• One out of three students university students graduates in social sciences, law or business and thenext most important fields are humanities, arts and education. S&E degrees represent 21.8% of totaldegrees awarded in OECD countries, 27.1% in the EU and 15.9% in the United States.

• Concerns have been raised about the insufficient presence of women in higher education,particularly with regard to scientific studies. In most countries, women account for around one-thirdof total S&E degrees with the highest shares in Ireland, New Zealand and Iceland (around 40%), andthe lowest in Japan, the Netherlands and Switzerland (less than 20%).

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 10 20 30 40% %

Graduation rates at PhD levelPhD graduates as a percentage of the population

of the typical graduation age by gender, 2001

Science and engineering degreesAs a percentage of total new degrees, 2001

Share of men PhDShare of women PhD

SwedenSwitzerlandGermanyFinlandUnited KingdomAustriaFranceUnited StatesAustraliaNetherlandsNorwayDenmarkBelgiumPortugalIrelandSpainPolandNew ZealandCanadaKoreaCzech RepublicSlovak RepublicJapanHungaryItalyGreece (total)TurkeyMexicoIceland

WomenMen

KoreaGermanySwedenFrance

SwitzerlandUnited Kingdom

FinlandAustriaIreland

Slovak RepublicEU

JapanCzech Republic

SpainItaly

MexicoBelgium

TurkeyOECD

CanadaNew Zealand

AustraliaPortugalIceland

United StatesNetherlands

DenmarkNorwayPoland

Hungary

© OECD 2004


24

B.3. Foreign PhD students

Source: OECD, Education database, November 2003.

• International mobility of PhD students is an indicator of the internationalisation of both the highereducation sector and the research system. In absolute numbers, the United States receives manymore foreign PhD students than other OECD countries, with around 79 000 in 2001. The UnitedKingdom follows with some 26 000. The language used in the country plays a role in the choice ofdestination, notably for English-speaking countries, but also for Spain, which receives many studentsfrom Central and South America. However, a whole range of other factors plays a role in the choice ofdestination such as geographical proximity, cultural or historical links, the existence of exchangeprogrammes (e.g. Erasmus) or scholarships, immigration policies or the quality of education.

• In relative terms, the share of foreign students is highest in Switzerland, the United Kingdom andBelgium, representing more than one-third of PhD enrolments. Most foreign PhD students areenrolled in the social sciences, business and law or in arts and humanities. In Finland andSwitzerland, however, science and engineering programmes are chosen by 37% and 35%, respectively,of foreign PhD students.

• With a few exceptions, 20% to 25% of PhD students enrolled in foreign universities originate from theEuropean Union. These shares reach 51% in Austria and 71% in Switzerland. European students alsorepresent 27% of foreign PhD students enrolled in New Zealand and 19% of those in Canada, but only0.4% of those in Korea.

40 030 20 10 0 10 0005 000 7 5002 500%

As a percentage of total enrolment, 2001 Number by host country, 2001

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Belgium

United States

Australia

Sweden

Denmark

Canada

Norway

Austria

Iceland

Spain

New Zealand

Czech Republic

Portugal

Finland

Turkey

Slovak Republic

Mexico

Italy

United States

United Kingdom

Spain

Australia

Switzerland

Canada

Sweden

Austria

Belgium

Finland

Czech Republic

Portugal

Norway

Denmark

Turkey

New Zealand

Italy

Slovak Republic

Mexico

Iceland

Foreign PhD students

78 884

26 143

© OECD 2004


25

B.4. Science and engineering doctorates awardedto foreign citizens in the United States

Source: OECD, based on data from US National Science Foundation, 2003.

• In 2001, 9 188 S&E doctorates or 36% were awarded to foreign citizens in the United States. Holders oftemporary visas represented 86% of these foreign doctorate recipients, while 14% held residentstatus or a “green card”. The balance has changed in favour of temporary visitors over time since thelatter represented only 81% of total foreigners in 1985. However, at the time when the number of S&Edoctorates granted to foreign citizens reached a peak in 1996, the distribution was more balancedtowards “green card” holders who received one-third of S&E doctorates. Their number as well astheir share has decreased since.

• The number of S&E doctorates awarded to foreign citizens more than doubled over theperiod 1985-1996 and the increase was particularly steady in the first half of the 1990s. A peak of10 844 was reached in 1996, but the number of foreign citizens receiving S&E doctorates has beendecreasing since.

• Among S&E doctorates awarded to foreigners in the United States, a little more than a quarter wentto Chinese citizens, 9% to Koreans or Indians, 6% to citizens from Chinese Taipei and the rest toforeigners from a wide diversity of countries. Asian students are therefore those who represent thebulk of PhDs awarded to foreigners in the United States, although their numbers have diminishedover the decade in the case of India, Korea, Chinese Taipei and Hong Kong, China. S&E doctoratesgranted to Koreans in the United States represent nevertheless 20% of those delivered in the countryof origin. This percentage reaches 25% in the case of Turkey but is only 1% or 2% in other OECDcountries.

1985 87 89 91 93 95

12 000

10 000

8 000

6 000

4 000

2 000

097 99 2001

Number of S&E doctorates awarded to foreign citizens in the United States

By citizenship or origin, 2001 By type of visa, 1985-2001

Temporary visas

Permanent USresident visas(”Green Card”)

Canada 305Turkey 304

Germany 220

United Kingdom138

France 84

Argentina 69

Israel 49

Hong Kong, China 46

Australia 44

Other430

China2 405

Rest of the world1 622

OtherEuropean

1 198

Korea862

India808

Chinese Taipei538

Mexico 205

Brazil 141

Japan 150

© OECD 2004


26

B.5. Labour force participation of university graduates

Source: OECD, Educational Attainment database, November 2003.

• Looking at labour force participation is important in the context of ageing populations and skillshortages. With the exception of Japan and Mexico, labour force participation of university graduatesis higher than that of the whole population. In one-third of OECD countries, more than 90% ofuniversity graduates participate in the labour force. The shares are lowest (less than 80%) in Korea,Japan and Mexico.

• Labour force participation of women is lower than that of men in all countries and reaches 90% ormore in only three countries: Iceland, Portugal and Sweden. In addition, differences across countriesin labour force participation are larger for women than they are for men. Countries where women’sparticipation is lowest, i.e. Turkey, Japan, Korea and Mexico, are also those for which the overalllabour force participation of university graduates is lagging behind other countries.

%%0 25 50 75 1000206080100 40

Participation rate of university graduates2002

IcelandPortugalSweden

DenmarkFinland

United KingdomNorwayPolandAustria

Slovak RepublicSwitzerlandNetherlands

IrelandBelgiumAustraliaGermany

GreeceItaly

CanadaNew Zealand

SpainUnited States

Czech RepublicFrance

HungaryLuxembourg

TurkeyJapanKorea

Mexico

PortugalSwitzerlandDenmarkSwedenUnited KingdomAustriaFinlandSlovak RepublicNorwayPolandNetherlandsGermanyAustraliaCzech RepublicIrelandBelgiumNew ZealandGreeceItalyCanadaUnited StatesLuxembourgSpainFranceHungaryTurkeyKoreaJapanMexico

Differences in labour force participation by gender2002

WomenTotal population Men

© OECD 2004


27

B.6. Employment of tertiary-level graduates

Source: OECD, Educational Attainment database, November 2003.

• Large investments in education over the past decades have led to a general rise in the educationalattainment of the employed population. On average, 28.4% of employed persons in OECDcountries have a tertiary-level degree. However, the shares vary from 7.9% in Mexico to 42.6% inCanada. Japan (38.9%) and the United States (37.9%) rank far ahead of the European Union (24.4%),which also has large cross-country disparities. Finland (34.8%), Belgium (34.4%) and Sweden (32.5%)score high; the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Italy, Turkey, Portugal and Mexico remainbelow 15%.

• In recent years, growth in employment of tertiary-level graduates has ranged between 2% and 6% ayear. For the period 1997-2002, the OECD and EU averages are 3.5% and 3.6%, respectively. Theoutsiders are Spain (9.0%) at the high end and Germany (0.7%) and the Netherlands (0.7% for 1998-2001)at the low end. Except in Ireland and the Netherlands, total employment has increased much moreslowly (when it has not decreased) at 0.9% and 1.4% in the OECD area and the EU, respectively.

• Tertiary-level employment growth owes more to women than to men because of their greaterpropensity to graduate at the tertiary level. In most countries, however, there are still fewer womenthan men in tertiary-level employment. They represent on average 45% of this population withextremes in Portugal (61%) and Mexico (29%).

%%0 10 20 40 50-20468 2 30

9

Employment growth of tertiary-level graduatesAverage annual growth rate, 1997-2002

Employment of tertiary-level graduatesAs a percentage of total employment, 2002

WomenTotal employment growth Men

CanadaJapan

United StatesFinland

BelgiumSwedenAustraliaNorway

SpainOECD

United KingdomIrelandKorea

New ZealandFrance

DenmarkNetherlandsSwitzerland

EUGermany

IcelandGreece

LuxembourgHungary

PolandAustria

Slovak RepublicCzech Republic

ItalyTurkey

PortugalMexico

SpainIcelandAustriaKoreaAustraliaTurkeyItalyFranceNorwaySwedenHungaryIrelandGreeceUnited KingdomCanadaPolandNew ZealandEUSwitzerlandPortugalOECDCzech RepublicUnited StatesJapanLuxembourgBelgiumMexicoFinlandDenmarkSlovak RepublicGermanyNetherlands

© OECD 2004


28

B.7. Scientific and technical occupations

Source: OECD, calculations and estimates from national sources, November 2003.

• As measured here, human resources in science and technology (HRST) encompass workers inprofessional (e.g. engineers or medical doctors) and technical occupations. The definition goes farbeyond R&D by including workers actively involved in the creation and diffusion of knowledge andtechnological innovation. Professionals and technicians represent between 20% and 35% of totalemployment in most OECD countries. Their share is over 35% in Sweden, Switzerland, Australia andDenmark and below 20% in Greece, Korea, Japan and Portugal (data for Japan are, however, probablyunderestimated).

• Professional and technical occupations have grown at a much faster rate than overall employmentover 1995-2002. In Spain, Norway, Ireland, Iceland and Luxembourg, professional and technicaloccupations grew by more than 5% a year. However, in Portugal, Hungary and Poland, employment ofprofessionals and technicians has decreased.

• The rapid growth of these professions owes more to the rapid increase of women’s participation thanthat of men. The share of women is at least equal to that of men in half of all OECD countries. It isparticularly high (more than 60%) in Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic and lowest inSwitzerland, the United Kingdom, Italy, Luxembourg and Korea.

• The share of professionals is particularly high (i.e. over 17%) in Belgium, Australia, Sweden and theNetherlands. The breakdown between professionals and technicians varies across countries, butthere are generally more technicians than professionals.

��

��

��

��

�� !��" ��

��#��

$��%��

&��"�� '��(��'��

&��%��

$)��*��)��

�� +�!�*��, ��-��, ��

��)�� !� ��%��&��'�� (��$)��*��'��$�� +�!�*��#��&��"�� -��, ��%��" ��.��, ��

�� +�� /0012��

,� �� 3 ��4��

© OECD 2004


29

B.8. International mobility

Source: OECD based on data from National Science Foundation/SRS, SESTAT database, and from the Eurostat Labour Force Survey, May 2003.

• In recent years, the international mobility of highly skilled workers has received increasing attentionfrom policy makers and the media. However, internationally comparable data on international flowsof scientists and researchers are scarce. For example, the above data on foreign scientists andengineers (S&Es) only exist in the United States and thus provide only part of the picture ofinternational mobility.

• In the United States, the largest number of non-US scientists and engineers with S&E doctoratesoriginating from the OECD area come from the United Kingdom and Canada; relatively few are fromGermany and Japan. If non-OECD countries are taken into account, there are three times as many foreignscientists from China and twice as many from India as from the United Kingdom in the United States.

• In 2002 in the European Union countries, the relative share of non-national human resources in scienceand technology (HRST), as defined by people employed as professionals and technicians, was between3% and 3.5%, but there are large differences among countries. As a percentage of national HRST,Luxembourg employs by far the largest share (38%), in part because of a sizeable banking sector, asmall labour market and the presence of various EU institutions. Belgium also employs a relativelylarge share: 7.5% for all occupational groups and 5.5% for HRST, again in part because of the presence ofvarious European institutions and the European headquarters of many multinationals. Austria and theUnited Kingdom also have relatively high shares. In the United Kingdom, the relative share of non-national HRST is higher than that of non-nationals for all occupational groups.

��

��

��

&��"��

$��

%��

.��

��

'��

��

��

%��

4��!��

" ��

, ��

��

5��

(��

��

��)��

��

��#��

-��

��

'��

��!

, ��

� ��

��

��

��

(��

&��"��

%��

��

��

'��

��!

��

��

%��

'��

��

��

/000

�� !�� "��

�� +��

�� 2��

© OECD 2004


30

B.9. R&D personnel


• Total R&D personnel encompasses all persons employed directly in R&D activities and thereforeincludes technicians and support staff in addition to researchers. R&D personnel employment isclosely related to the amount of R&D expenditure. It is most intensive in the Nordic countries withFinland and Sweden having more than 15 per thousand employees contributing to R&D. In Franceand Japan, 13.5 per thousand employees are also devoted to R&D activities, which is well above theEU average of 10.5 per thousand employees.

• The participation of women in R&D activities is increasingly gaining the attention of policy makers.Women are indeed under-represented among researchers. Most countries for which data areavailable show a percentage of women researchers comprised between 25% and 35%. Portugal is theonly country for which women researchers exceed 40% of total researchers, while at the other end,Japan and Korea are characterised by a very low percentage of women (around 11%).

• Women researchers are principally found in the higher education sector and their participation isparticularly low in the business sector, which in most countries concentrates the highest number ofresearchers (see B.10). This uneven distribution of women across sectors has an impact on the verylow overall participation of women.

%0 10 20 30 40 500510152025

%

R&D personnelPer thousand total employment, 2001 or latest available year

Women researchersBy sector of employment, as a percentage of total researchers,


Finland

Sweden

Denmark

Luxembourg

France

Belgium

Japan

Switzerland

Germany

Norway

Netherlands

EUAustralia

New Zealand

Canada

Austria

Spain

Korea

Ireland

Slovak Republic

Greece

Italy

Hungary

Poland

Portugal

Turkey

Mexico

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Poland

Spain

Iceland

Turkey

Hungary

Norway

Denmark

Italy

France

Czech Republic

Switzerland

Austria

Korea

Japan

Business enterprises Government

Higher education Other

© OECD 2004


31

B.10. Researchers


• In 2000, approximately 3.4 million researchers were devoting their time to research and development(R&D) in the OECD area. This corresponds to about 6.5 researchers per thousand employees, asignificant increase from the 1995 level of 5.8 researchers per thousand. In 2000, approximately2.1 million researchers (about 64% of the total) were engaged in the business sector in the OECD area.

• Among the major OECD regions, Japan has the highest number of researchers relative to totalemployment, followed by the United States and the European Union. Researcher’s employmentintensity in Finland, Sweden, Japan and the United States is substantially above the OECD average.

• Finland, the United States, Japan and Sweden are also the only countries where business researchersin industry exceed six per thousand employees; in the large European economies, they are onlythree or four per thousand employees. Mexico, Turkey, Portugal, Greece and Poland have a lowintensity of business researchers (fewer than one per thousand employees in industry). This ismainly due to national characteristics: in these countries, the business sector plays a much smallerrole in the national innovation system than the higher education and government sectors.

• Growth in the number of business researchers is most dynamic in smaller OECD economies such asPortugal, Iceland and Mexico, where the number of business researchers increased by more than 15%annually since 1995. Central and eastern European transition countries have been affected by areduction in numbers of business researchers in the 1990s, although the trend has reversed in theCzech Republic and Hungary in the past few years. Italy is the only other OECD country where thenumber of business researchers has decreased since 1995.

��

, ��5�� '��4��!��

��

%��#��

" ��(��

��)�� !� ��-��

&��

��'��

%��$)��*��

.��

&��"�� $��

��, ��

�� +�!�*��

'��.�� &��(��'�� !��#��%��" ��)�� $��&��"�� +�!�*��, ��-��%��, ��4��!��5��

��,�� +��

��

��#�� +��

/0012��/� �� +��

© OECD 2004


32

B.11. Foreign scholars in the United States

Source: OECD, based on data from the Institute of International Education (IIE), October 2003.

• In 2001-2002, universities in the United States received 86 015 foreign scholars (non-immigrant, non-student academics) against 59 981 in 1993-1994. This represents an average annual growth of 4.6%.In 1999-2000, 17.7% of these foreign scholars came from China, which was the main contributor farahead of other countries. A little more than a half of foreign scholars originated from OECD countriesand a quarter from the European Union.

• Russia and Korea show both a high average annual growth (respectively 15.9% and 10.1%) of theirscholars in the United States and a high number per hundred university researchers in their homecountry (respectively 10.6% and 13.3%). For most OECD countries, the number of scholars holdingtemporary positions in universities of the United States represents 2% to 4% of university researchersin their home country and this percentage was stable during the 1990s.

• It is estimated that foreign scholars represent 30% to 40% of total university researchers in the UnitedStates and that this percentage has grown over the period. For comparison, the percentage of foreignresearchers in the higher education sector is 5.0% in Portugal, 7.5% in France and 10.5% in Norway.Switzerland, on the other hand, displays a similar pattern as the United States with around 35% offoreign researchers in its universities.

%-12 -8 -4 0 4 16128

Germany5 016Japan5 460China

13 229

Other26 049

Korea5 015

India4 929Canada3 578Russia3 195France3 076United Kingdom2 916Italy2 108

Israel1 108

Chinese Taipei1 200Brazil1 273

Australia1 090

Spain1 729

Other19 649

Number of foreign scholars in the USBy country of origin, 1999-2000

RussiaIreland

Slovak RepublicPortugal

KoreaTurkey

New ZealandMexico

AustraliaSwedenGreeceCanada

Czech RepublicOECD

EUChine

BelgiumIsraelSpain

ItalyNorway

South AfricaAustria

GermanyFrance

United KingdomFinland

JapanNetherlands

DenmarkSwitzerland

PolandHungary

IcelandLuxembourg

Growth of foreign scholars in the USBy country of origin, average annual growth rates, 1993-2001

Number of foreign scholars in the US in 1999-2000(per 100 university researchers in the country of origin)

© OECD 2004


33

B.12. Researchers in non-OECD economies

Source: OECD, MSTI database, November 2003; Eurostat, NewCronos database, November 2003; and OECD, based on national sources.

• Researchers in non-OECD economies accounted for almost one-third of the combined total of OECDand non-OECD researchers presented in the graphs, which is much higher than their share in R&Dexpenditure (see A.9). This is explained by the fact that expenditure per researcher is considerablylower in less developed countries (because of lower wages, less and cheaper support staff, lessexpensive equipment, etc.).

• In 2002, China had the second highest number of researchers in the world (811 000), behind theUnited States (1.3 million in 1999), but ahead of Japan (676 000 in 2001) and Russia (492 000). As ashare of total employment, Singapore and Russia employed more researchers than the OECDaverage, while India, Brazil and China were far below the average, owing to the size of theirpopulations and their pattern of development.

• Russia suffered a decline of 21% in the number of researchers between 1994 and 1998, followed by aslight recovery and a new drop in 2002.

• In the more developed Asian economies and in China, as in the OECD area, the business enterprisesector employs most researchers. In less developed non-OECD economies as in less developedOECD countries, on the other hand, most R&D is performed by researchers in the government andhigher education sectors.

%0 20 40 80024610 608

18 120

491 944

3 364 740

59 656

8 075

4 498

2 666

3 497

9 479

20 286

26 083

810 525

304

70 940

95 428

OECD

Chinese Taipei

Russian Federation

China

Romania

Singapore

India

Slovenia

Brazil

Cyprus

Latvia

Bulgaria

Argentina

Estonia

Lithuania

Singapore

Russian Federation

OECD

Chinese Taipei

Lithuania

Slovenia

Estonia

Latvia

Bulgaria

Romania

Argentina

China

Cyprus

Brazil

India

Number of researchersPer thousand total employment, 2002 or latest available year

Business enterprise researchersAs a percentage of total researchers,


Total numberof researchers

(FTE)

© OECD 2004

35

C. PATENTS

Patents are exclusive rights issued by authorised bodies to inventors to make use of and exploittheir inventions for a limited period of time (generally 20 years). Patents are granted to firms,individuals or other entities as long as the invention is novel, non-obvious and industrially applicable.Patent documents are a rich source of information on the invention and include information on thetechnical feature, inventors, history of the invention, etc.

Patent-based indicators reflect the inventive performance of countries, regions, firms, and otheraspects of the dynamics of the innovation process (co-operation in innovation, internationalisation oftechnology, etc.). Patent indicators, along with other science and technology indicators, thus contributeto our understanding of the innovation system and factors that support economic growth. For example,using the address of the inventors, indicators are developed to monitor the level of internationalisationand international collaboration of S&T activities.

In the last decade there has been a sharp increase in the level of patent activities across the world.This reflects the growing importance of patents in the knowledge-based economy. Businesses andresearch institutions are increasingly using patents to protect their inventions. More than850 000 patent applications were filed in Europe, Japan and the United States in 2002, compared toaround 600 000 in 1992.

Although nearly all technology fields experienced growth in patenting over the 1990s, twotechnology fields contributed substantially to the overall surge in patenting: biotechnology and ICT.Between 1991 and 2000, biotechnology and ICT patent applications to the European Patent Office (EPO)increased by 10.2% and 9.1% respectively, compared to 6.6% for total EPO patent applications.

The OECD triadic patent families (inventions protected at the EPO, the JPO and the USPTO) showthe existence of more than 42 000 patent families in 1999. The United States accounted for around34.3%, followed by the European Union (31.7%) and Japan (26.7%).

Internationalisation of technology has increased over time as reflected in the increase in the shareof technology owned by firms of another country than the inventor’s country of residence. In thelate 1990s, an average of 14% of all inventions in any OECD country were owned or co-owned by aforeign resident, compared to 10.7% in the early 1990s.

International co-operation (patents with co-inventions residing in different countries) tends to behigher in smaller OECD countries, such as Luxembourg, Poland and the Slovak Republic. By late 1990s,6.6% of patents were the result of international collaborative research, an increase of 2.5 percentagepoints from the early 1990s level.

Korea and Japan are much less internationalised in terms of cross-border ownership of inventionswith few local inventions owned by foreigners and few owned inventions made abroad. They also havea limited level of international collaboration in patenting activity.

© OECD 2004


36

C.1. Trends in patent applications

Source: OECD, Patent database and EPO, JPO and USPTO annual reports, November 2003.

• The last decade has seen a huge surge in patent filings across the world. The surge in patentactivities reflects the growing importance of patents in the knowledge-based economy. Businessesand research institutions are increasingly using patents to protect their inventions.

• In 2002, the total number of patent applications in Europe, Japan and the United States amounted toaround 850 000, a 40% increase from the 1992 level. The high growth rate in patent applications islargely driven by new (emerging) technologies such as ICT and biotechnology.

• The growth rate of patent applications at the USPTO, which was as high as 9% per year at the endof 1980s, slowed at the beginning of the 1990s and again reached a 10% annual growth rate at the endof 1990s. Growth rate at the EPO were relatively high throughout the 1980s, stagnated in the first halfof the 90s and increased again during the second half of the 1990s (averaging 10% per year). Once theJPO patent applications data are corrected for the change in law, JPO also appears to haveexperienced a high growth rate, particularly in 1994 and 2000.

• The latest available data (2002) show a decrease in the number of patent applications filed at theEPO, the JPO and a slow down at the USPTO. This is partly explained by the reduction in businessR&D expenditure and economic downturn in OECD countries.

1989

400

1982

20%

0

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

-10

15

10

5

0

-5

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

20021990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

4 000

0

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

Patent filings to the EPO, the JPO and USPTO1982-2002

EPO and USPTO filings (Thousand of applications)

Growth rates of patent filings to the EPO, the JPO and the USPTOAnnual growth rates, 1989-2002

JPOUSPTO EPO

USPTO JPO EPO

JPO filings (Thousand of claims)

© OECD 2004

Patents

37

C.2. Evolution of patent filings to the EPO and the USPTO

Source: OECD, Patent database, November 2003.

• For the majority of the top 16 countries (selected here) the average annual growth rate of patentapplications to the EPO was high in the second half of the 1990s (1994-2000) relative to theearly 1990s (1991-93). The exceptions are Korea, Finland, Sweden and Belgium, where theirrespective average annual growth rates of the early 1990s were higher than during the second half ofthe 1990s.

• In contrast to the EPO, the opposite pattern is observed at the USPTO. For a majority of the top16 countries, the average annual growth rates in the first half of the 1990s (1991-93) were higher thanthose of the second half of the 1990s (1994-99). For the second half of 1990s, each country has ahigher average annual growth rate at the EPO than the USPTO. To a certain extent, this is due tobacklog of pending patent applications at the USPTO.

• Inventions originating from Korea and Israel increased rapidly during the 1990s: Korea and Israel hadthe highest average annual growth rates of patenting at the EPO and the USPTO throughoutthe 1990s.

25 -5%

-5 250 5%

20 1015 5 0 1510 20

1991-93 1991-93

(31.7)

EPO patent applicationsAverage annual growth rate, 1994-2000

Korea

Israel

Netherlands

Canada

Australia

Finland

Japan

Germany

Austria

Italy

EU

OECD

Sweden

Belgium

United Kingdom

Switzerland

United States

France

Korea

Israel

Netherlands

Canada

Australia

Finland

Japan

Germany

Austria

Italy

EU

OECD

Sweden

Belgium

United Kingdom

Switzerland

United States

France

USPTO patent grantsAverage annual growth rate, 1994-1999

© OECD 2004


38

C.3. Triadic patent families


• To improve the quality and international comparability of patent-based indicators, the OECD hasdeveloped triadic patent families indicators (inventions protected at the European Patent Office, theJapanese Patent Office and the US Patent and Trademark Office).

• In 1999, the total number of triadic patent families was estimated to be in excess of 42 000, a 41.5%increase from the 1991 level. The United States accounted for 34.3% of the total, followed by theEuropean Union (31.7%) and Japan (26.7%).

• Between 1991 and 1999 the share of triadic patent families of Germany, the European Union, Koreaand Sweden increased, while the share of patent families of Japan and France decreased.

• When population is taken into account, the European Union (36) has a low triadic patent-to-population ratio (patent propensity) in comparison with the United States (52) and Japan (89).Switzerland (112) has the highest patent propensity, followed by Sweden (94), Japan (89), Finland(76) and Germany (70). In contrast, China (0.1), Turkey (0.1), Mexico (0.1), and Poland (0.2) have a lowpatent propensity.

• Patent propensity has increased for all the countries (reported here) between 1991 and 1999.Sweden, Finland and Israel are the three most notable examples where patent propensity increasedsignificantly during the 1990s.

35 0%

0 12020 4025 6015 5 8010 100

1991

30 20

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 18

1991

1991

3 6 9 12 15%

Share of countries in triadic patent families1999

United States

EU

Japan

Germany

France

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Sweden

Switzerland

Italy

Canada

Korea

Finland

Belgium

Israel

Australia

Switzerland

Sweden

Japan

Finland

Germany

Netherlands

Israel

United States

Denmark

Luxembourg

Belgium

OECD

EU

France

Austria

United Kingdom

Iceland

Norway

Triadic patent familiesPer million population, 1999

AustriaDenmarkSpainNorwayRussian Fed.ChinaIrelandHungaryNew ZealandSouth AfricaLuxembourgMexicoCzech RepublicPolandIcelandPortugalTurkeyGreeceSlovak Republic

CanadaAustralia

IrelandItaly

KoreaNew Zealand

HungarySpain

Czech RepublicSouth Africa

Slovak RepublicPortugal

Russian Fed.GreecePolandMexicoTurkeyChina

© OECD 2004

Patents

39

C.4. EPO patent applications


• In 2000, the total number of patent applications filed to the European Patent Office (EPO) amountedto 106 730, a 78% increase from the 1991 level. Patent count is based on priority date (which is closeto invention date) and includes transferred Patent Co-operation Treaty applications data, thus thelatest available data is for 2000.

• The European Union (EU) accounted for 46.2% of patent applications to the EPO, a share significantlyabove that of the United States (26.4%) and Japan (19.4%). However, this share somewhat overstatesthe EU’s inventive performance, as patents taken at the EPO primarily reflect EU countries’ domesticmarket (“home advantage”).

• To standardise for country size, patent applications are expressed relative to population. The patent-to-population ratio (patent propensity) has increased for all the countries (reported here)between 1991 and 2000. The differences in the propensity to patent of the three major OECD regionsare smaller than the differences observed for absolute patent numbers. Switzerland (364), Germany(263), Finland (258) and Sweden (247) have a high propensity to patent.

50 0%

0 35050 10030 150 20010 250

1991

40 20

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

1991

300

364

0 5010 20 30 40%

Share of countries in EPO patent applications2000

EU

United States

Germany

Japan

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Netherlands

Switzerland

Sweden

Canada

Finland

Belgium

Korea

Austria

Australia

Switzerland

Germany

Finland

Sweden

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Denmark

Japan

Israel

Austria

EU

Iceland

Belgium

France

United States

United Kingdom

OECD

Norway

Italy

Intensity of EPO patent applicationsPer million population, 2000

IsraelDenmarkSpainNorwayChinaRussian Fed.IrelandNew ZealandSouth AfricaHungaryLuxembourgCzech RepublicGreecePortugalTurkeyPolandIcelandMexicoSlovak Republic

IrelandCanada

AustraliaNew Zealand

KoreaSpain

HungaryCzech Republic

GreecePortugal

South AfricaSlovak Republic

Russian Fed.PolandTurkeyChina

Mexico

© OECD 2004


40

C.5. Patent intensity

Source: OECD, Patent and R&D databases, November 2003.

• There is a (strong) positive correlation (R2 = 0.95) between the average number of triadic patentfamilies and the average level of industry-financed research and development (R&D) duringthe 1990s.

• Countries with a high level of R&D industry-financed R&D expenditure (such as the United States,Japan, Germany and France) also have large numbers of triadic patent families. Eastern and southernEuropean countries in addition to Iceland have both a low level of industry-financed R&Dexpenditure and triadic patent families.

100 000

10

10 000

1 000

100

10

10 100 1 000 10 000 100 000 1 000 000

EU

Israel

Russian Federation

United States

United Kingdom

Turkey

Switzerland

Sweden

Spain

Slovak Republic

Portugal

Poland

Norway

New Zealand

Netherlands

Mexico

Korea

Japan

Italy

Ireland

Iceland

Hungary

Greece

Germany

France

Finland

Denmark

Czech Republic

CanadaBelgium

Austria Australia

Triadic patent families and industry-financed R&DAverage level, 1991-99

Triadic patent families (log)

Industry-financed GERD (log)

© OECD 2004

Patents

41

C.6. ICT patents


• ICT-related patents have grown much more rapidly than overall patent applications at the EuropeanPatent Office (EPO). Between 1991 and 2000, they increased by 9.1% a year, while total patentapplications grew by 6.6%.

• In 2000, the total number of ICT-related patent applications filed at the EPO amounted to 37 027. TheEuropean Union accounted for 39% of the total ICT-related patents, significantly above the shares ofthe United States (29%) and Japan (25%). For the EU, this is lower than its share in total patentapplications.

• Finland (57%), Israel (50%), Korea (49%) and the Netherlands (46%) have a high ratio of ICT-relatedpatents to total patents, compared to the OECD-wide average (35%). The Slovak Republic, Portugal,the Czech Republic, Luxembourg and Turkey on the other hand have a low ICT-to-total-patent ratio(less than 15%).

• For most countries, the 2000 ICT-to-total-patent ratio is higher than the 1991 ratio, in particular forFinland and Sweden (these countries also have a high ICT-related R&D expenditure).

1991%60

0

50

40

30

20

10

Finlan

dIsr

ael

Korea

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Nethe

rland

s

Japa

n

Irelan

d

United

Sta

tes

Sweden

Canad

a

United

King

domChin

a

OECD

Icelan

d

Austra

lia

Hunga

ry

Fran

ce EU

Germ

any

Norway

Switzer

land

Denm

ark

New Z

ealan

d

Russia

n Fe

dera

tion

South

Afri

ca

Greec

e

Belgium

Spain

Mex

ico

Poland

Austri

aIta

ly

Turk

ey

Luxe

mbo

urg

Czech

Rep

ublic

Portu

gal

Japan 24.6%

United States 29.2%Other countries 7.4%

EU 38.8%Germany 14.9%France 5.8%United Kingdom 5.5%Netherlands 4.0%Sweden 2.2%Finland 2.0%Italy 1.8%Other Europeancountries 2.6%

Switzerland 1.8%Korea 1.6%Canada 1.5%

Israel 1.2%Australia 0.8%

Others countries 0.5%

ICT patents at the EPOCountry share in total ICT patents, 2000

ICT patents as a percentage of total national applications, 2000

© OECD 2004


42

C.7. Cross-border ownership of inventions


• As firms progressively relocate their production and research facilities abroad as part of theirinternationalisation strategies, an increasing share of technology is owned by firms of a country that isnot the inventor’s country of residence.

• On average, 14.3% of all inventions in any OECD country were owned or co-owned by a foreignresident in 1999-2000, compared to 10.7% in 1991-92. Likewise, OECD countries owned around14.6% of inventions made in a different country than the owner’s in 1999-2000, compared to 10.9%in 1991-92.

• Foreign ownership of domestic inventions is high in Poland, Luxembourg, the Russian Federationand Mexico, where more than 60% of the patents filed to the European Patent Office (EPO) are owned(or co-owned) by a foreign resident.

• Domestic ownership of inventions made abroad is high in small open countries. For example, morethan 77% of all inventions owned by residents of Luxembourg were made abroad. This share is alsohigh in Switzerland (47%), Ireland (36%), the Netherlands (32%) and Canada (32%).

• Japan and Korea are much less internationalised in terms of cross-border ownership of inventionswith few local inventions owned by foreigners and few owned inventions made abroad. This couldpartly be explained by linguistic barriers, low penetration of foreign affiliates and geographicaldistance from Europe and the United States.

%80

1991-92

0

1991-92%80

0

60

40

20

60

40

20

Foreign ownership of domestic inventions1999-2000

Luxe

mbour

g

Switzer

land

Denm

ark

Domestic ownership of foreign inventions made abroad1999-2000

Poland

Luxe

mbo

urg

Russia

n Fe

dera

tion

Norway

Japa

n

Mex

ico

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Hunga

ry

Icelan

d

China

Belgium

Czech

Rep

ublic

Irelan

d

United

King

dom

Portu

gal

Austri

a

Greec

e

South

Afri

ca

Turk

ey

Canad

aIsr

ael

Spain

Austra

lia

New Z

ealan

d

Switzer

land

Denm

ark

Nethe

rland

s

Fran

ce Italy

Sweden

OECD

Germ

any

United

Sta

tes

EU

Finlan

d

Korea

Irelan

d

Japa

n

Nethe

rland

s

Canad

a

Sweden

Belgium

Portu

gal

Austri

a

Finlan

d

China

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Mex

ico

South

Afri

ca

United

King

dom

Norway

United

Sta

tes

Fran

ce

Poland

OECD

Hunga

ry

New Z

ealan

d

Icelan

d

Turk

ey

Austra

lia

Russia

n Fe

dera

tion

Greec

eIsr

ael

Germ

any

Czech

Rep

ublic EU

Spain

Korea Ita

ly

© OECD 2004

Patents

43

C.8. International co-operation


• The co-inventions of patents provide an indication of the level of international co-operation inscience and technology activities. In 1999-2000, 6.6% of OECD resident patents (filed at theEuropean Patent Office) were the result of international collaborative research, as compared with4.1% in 1991-92.

• Internationalisation tends to be higher in smaller OECD countries. For example, 56% of patents withan inventor from Luxembourg have also inventors from other countries. Poland (54%) and the SlovakRepublic (54%) also have a high share of patents with foreign co-inventors. This could partly be dueto the domestic pool of researchers being limited because of the size of the country, which impliesthat researchers must look abroad for collaboration.

• When intra-EU co-operation is netted out, international collaboration in patenting is lower in theEuropean Union (7%) than the United States (11%). In Japan (3%), international co-operation inscience and technology is rather limited.

• For a majority of countries, the share of patents with foreign co-inventors is higher in the late 1990scompared to the early 1990s. Notable exceptions are China, Portugal and Israel, which experienced asharp growth of their national S&T capabilities in the 1990s.

%60

1991-92

0

0

%60

50

40

30

20

10

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of patents with foreign co-inventors1999-2000

Norway

Japa

n

United

King

dom

South

Afri

caSpa

in

Austra

lia

Denm

ark

Sweden

Nethe

rland

sIsr

ael

Fran

ce

Finlan

d

United

Sta

tes

Germ

any

Italy EU

Korea

OECD

Luxe

mbo

urg

Poland

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Mex

ico

Russia

n Fe

dera

tion

Greec

e

China

Belgium

Hunga

ry

Czech

Rep

ublic

Turk

ey

Portu

gal

Canad

a

Irelan

d

Switzer

land

Icelan

d

Austri

a

New Z

ealan

d

(Continued)

© OECD 2004

45

D. OTHER AREAS

Science and innovation systems in OECD countries function within a broader context whichincludes fundamental changes such as globalisation, the ICT revolution and structural shifts due to thegrowth of technology-based (and knowledge-based) industries.

Although in many OECD countries R&D activities are less internationalised than production, foreignaffiliates are playing an increasing role as more multinationals set up offshore R&D activities. Foreignaffiliates account for less than half of total business R&D in most countries, although this share is as highas 70% in some countries such as Ireland and Hungary. In almost all countries, foreign affiliates have alower R&D intensity than domestic firms.

The use of the Internet is growing in both businesses and households. More than three-quarters ofall firms (with 10 or more employees) in half of the OECD countries now have Internet access.Broadband connections are an increasingly important indicator of Internet access across countries.Korea leads by far in terms of broadband penetration, reaching more than 22 subscribers per100 inhabitants in March 2003. Broadband has also diffused widely in households in Canada, the Nordiccountries, Belgium, the Netherlands and the United States.

High and medium-high technology industries (such as pharmaceuticals and electrical machinery)accounted for 8.5% of total OECD value added in 2000, and knowledge-based “market” services for anadditional 19% (or 30% including health and education). These industries continue to be significantdrivers of growth in countries such as Ireland, Korea and Hungary.

Trade in high-technology goods, such as aircraft, computers, pharmaceuticals and scientificinstruments, accounted for over 25% of total trade in 2000 and 2001, up from less than 20% in theearly 1990s. If one also includes medium-high technology industries (such as electrical machinery,automobiles, and chemicals), these types of goods account for almost two-thirds of total OECDmanufacturing exports. High-technology exports account for much of the increase in trade over the pastdecade, growing significantly faster than manufacturing exports in all OECD countries.

© OECD 2004


46

D.1. Internationalisation of manufacturing R&D

Source: OECD, AFA database, November 2003.

• In many OECD countries, R&D activities are less internationalised than production. This is changingas more multinationals set up offshore R&D laboratories. Ideally, the presence of research-performing foreign affiliates enables the host country to benefit from their technological andorganisational capabilities. However, the available data indicate that R&D activities abroad consistprimarily of design and development to help the parent company establish a market presence in thehost country.

• The share of foreign affiliates in domestic industrial R&D varies widely across countries, ranging fromless than 5% in Japan to over 70% in Hungary and Ireland. These differences primarily reflect thecontribution of foreign affiliates to industrial activity. For instance, the share of foreign affiliates inmanufacturing production or turnover is high in Ireland and low in Japan. It is estimated that aroundone-fifth of R&D growth in the United States between 1996 and 2001 can be attributed to foreignaffiliates.

• The share of foreign affiliates in R&D reflects the size of their R&D effort relative to that of domesticfirms. In Hungary and Ireland, for example, foreign affiliates carry out relatively more R&D thannational firms. In most other OECD countries, and particularly in Japan, the opposite is true.

1.080

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

00 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Ireland

Share of affiliates under foreign control in totalmanufacturing R&D and turnover


R&D intensity of foreign affiliates and firms controlled bycompiling countries

As a percentage of value added in industry,2001 or latest available year

R&D intensity of affiliates under foreign control (%)Turnover (%)

R&D expenditure (%) R&D intensity of firms controlled by the compiling countries (%)

Hungary

Canada

Czech Republic

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

France

Poland

United StatesNetherlands

Germany

FinlandTurkey

Japan

United Kingdom

Ireland

Czech Republic

CanadaAustralia

Hungary

Spain

Portugal

Slovak Republic

TurkeyPoland

Greece

Japan

France

Netherlands United States

GermanyFinland

Sweden(4.2, 2.2)

© OECD 2004

Other Areas

47

D.2. Access to the Internet

Source: OECD, ICT database and Communications database; Eurostat, 2003.

• In many countries almost all enterprises with ten or more employees use the Internet. Frequent useof the Internet is positively correlated with the number of enterprise Web sites in a country. InFinland, Denmark and Sweden, two-thirds or more of all enterprises with ten or more employeeshave Web sites.

• Digital subscriber lines (DSL), cable modems and other broadband connections are an increasinglyimportant indicator of Internet penetration, carrying telephony as well as large amounts of data.Broadband has diffused most widely in Korea, Canada, the Nordic countries, Belgium, theNetherlands and the United States.

• During 2002-2003, broadband access continued to increase at a rapid pace, both in countries with lowpenetration (Ireland, Poland, Mexico), as well as in some which already enjoyed relatively high rates(Netherlands, Iceland).

��

" ��$��

��!(��

��&��)��

.��'��

%��

'��

, ��&��"��

��

��#��

-��5��

$)��*��, ��4��!��

�� +�!�*��%��

.��

'��

��

��!

$��

��

$)��*��

��

��#��

%��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��)��

��

, ��

%��

&��"��

5��

$�� % �� &�#��,�� /�6�� +��

�� +��

$��# �� /��5��7

-�+�� 3��

© OECD 2004


48

D.3. Technology- and knowledge-intensive industries

Source: OECD, STAN and National Accounts databases, May 2003.

• All industries generate and/or exploit new technology and knowledge to some extent, but some aremore technology- and/or knowledge-intensive than others. To gauge the importance of technologyand knowledge, it is useful to focus on the leading producers of high-technology goods and on theactivities (including services) that are intensive users of high technology and/or have the relativelyhighly skilled workforce necessary to benefit fully from technological innovations. Examples of high-technology industries include pharmaceuticals and aircraft/spacecraft manufacturing, whileknowledge-intensive market services comprise, among others, finance and insurance, and post andtelecommunications.

• In 2000, high and medium-high technology manufacturing accounted for about 8.5% of total OECDvalue added, and knowledge-based “market” services accounted for 19% (including education andhealth, about 30%).

• In Ireland, Korea and Hungary, high and medium-high technology manufacturing continues to be asignificant driver of economic growth. Switzerland and Luxembourg’s high shares of knowledge-intensive services are due to their strong financial sectors. In most other countries, business servicesaccount for the largest proportion of knowledge-intensive services.

• In the United States and France, growth in real value added of high and medium-high technologymanufacturing outpaced that of services in the 1990s. In Europe and Japan, services have generallygrown more rapidly.

��

�� )��

&��

&��"��

'��%��

��

��$��-��.��

$)��*�� !%��

'��" ��

�� +�!�*��5��

��" ��-��%��'��$)��*��.��)��(��5�� $��&�� +�!�*��'��&��"�� , �� !��, �� %��

�� ! ��'�()))�� !� # ��"��" ��2��+��8��!��9��+��-��2��

, �� '��(��+��

��2��

© OECD 2004

Other Areas

49

D.4. High-tech trade

Source: OECD, STAN database, November 2003.

• Technology-intensive industries (high-tech + medium-high tech industries) accounted for two-thirdsof total OECD manufacturing exports in 2001. Differences among countries are substantial, however;the share of high and medium-high technology industries ranges from over 80% in Japan and Irelandto less than 20% in New Zealand and Iceland.

• Manufacturing exports are particularly technology intensive in Ireland, the United States, the UnitedKingdom and Korea, where high-technology industries account for a larger share of exports thanmedium-high technology industries.

• Technology-intensive exports accounted for much of the growth in trade over the past decade. In allOECD countries, they grew more rapidly than total manufacturing exports. This is especially the casefor high-technology exports. Technology exports have grown very rapidly in Iceland, Turkey and theeastern European countries but still contribute little to international technology trade.

%%0 5 10 15 20 350255075100 3025

Share of high and medium-high technology industriesin manufacturing exports

2001

IcelandHungary

Czech RepublicPolandMexicoTurkey

GreeceIrelandFinland

BelgiumNetherlands

CanadaUnited Kingdom

PortugalAustria

Slovak RepublicEU

KoreaUnited StatesNew Zealand

SpainOECD

AustraliaGermanyDenmark

FranceSwedenNorway

SwitzerlandItaly

Japan

JapanIrelandMexicoSwitzerlandUnited StatesUnited KingdomGermanyHungaryOECDFranceEUKoreaSwedenNetherlandsCanadaCzech RepublicSpainBelgiumAustriaItalyFinlandDenmarkSlovak RepublicPortugalPolandNorwayAustraliaTurkeyGreeceNew ZealandIceland

Growth of high-tech exportsAnnual average growth rate in percentage, 1992-2001


High technologyMedium-high technology Manufacturing

© OECD 2004

51

Annex

MAIN OECD DATABASES USED

Industrial structure and performance

STAN: The database for Industrial Analysis includes annual measures of output, labour input, investment andinternational trade which allow users to construct a wide range of indicators focused on areas such as productivitygrowth, competitiveness and general structural change. The industry list provides sufficient details to enable usersto highlight high-technology sectors and is compatible with those used in related OECD databases. STAN is primarilybased on member countries’ annual National Accounts by activity tables and uses data from other sources, such asnational industrial surveys/censuses, to estimate any missing detail. Since many of the data points in STAN areestimated, they do not represent the official member country submissions.

The latest version of STAN is based on the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) Rev. 3 and hasbeen expanded to cover all activities (including services) and a wider range of variables. It has effectively beenmerged with the OECD’s International Sectoral Database (ISDB) which is no longer updated. Further details on STANare available at www.oecd.org/sti/stan.

STAN is available on line on Source OECD (www.sourceoecd.org). In order to improve timeliness, it is updated on a“rolling” basis (i.e. new tables are posted as soon as they are ready) rather than published as an annual “snapshot”.

Science and technology

R&D and TBP: The R&D database contains the full results of the OECD surveys on R&D expenditure andpersonnel from the 1960s. The TBP database presents information on the technology balance of payments. Thesedatabases serve, inter alia, as the raw material for the MSTI database.

MSTI: The Main Science and Technology Indicators database provides a selection of the most frequently usedannual data on the scientific and technological performance of OECD member countries and eight non-membereconomies (Argentina, China, Israel, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovenia, Chinese Taipei). Theindicators, expressed in the form of ratios, percentages and growth rates, cover resources devoted to R&D, patentfamilies, technology balance of payments and international trade in highly R&D-intensive industries.

Patent database: This database contains patents filed at the largest national patent offices: the European PatentOffice (EPO); the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) and other national orregional offices. Each patent is referenced by the patent numbers and dates (publication, application and priority);names and countries of residence of the applicants and of the inventors; and technological categories, using thenational patent classification as well as the International Patent Classification (IPC). The compiled indicators mainlyrefer to single patent counts in a selected patent office, as well as counts of “triadic” patent families (patents filed atthe EPO, the USPTO and the JPO to protect a single invention).

Globalisation and international trade

AFA: The Activities of Foreign Affiliates database presents detailed data on the performance of foreign affiliatesin the manufacturing industry of OECD countries (inward and outward investment). The data indicate the increasingimportance of foreign affiliates in the economies of host countries, particularly in production, employment, valueadded, research and development, exports, wages and salaries. AFA contains 18 variables broken down by countryof origin and by industrial sector (based on ISIC Rev. 3) for 18 OECD countries.

Information and communication technology (ICT)

Telecommunications: This database is produced in association with the biennial Communications Outlook. Itprovides time-series data covering all OECD countries, where available, for the period 1980-2002. It contains bothtelecommunication and economic indicators.

© OECD 2004


52

ICT: Work is under way to develop a database on ICT supply and ICT usage statistics. Statistics on employment,value added, production, wages and salaries, number of enterprises, R&D, imports and exports for the ICT sector arebeing collected following the OECD ICT sector definition.

Other OECD databases

ADB: Analytical DataBase (Economics Department).

ANA: Annual National Accounts (Statistics Directorate).

Education database (Directorate for Education).

Educational Attainment database (Directorate for Education).

Further details on OECD statistics are available at www.oecd.org/statistics/

Current country coverage of main DSTI databases used in this document

Source: OECD.

Industry Science and technology Globalisation ICT

STAN R&D TBP MSTI Patents AFA Telecom.

Australia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Austria ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Belgium ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Canada ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Czech Republic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Denmark ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Finland ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓France ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Germany ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Greece ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Hungary ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Iceland ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Ireland ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Italy ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Japan ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Korea ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Luxembourg ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Mexico ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Netherlands ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓New Zealand ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Norway ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Poland ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Portugal ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Slovak Republic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Spain ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Sweden ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Switzerland ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Turkey ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓United Kingdom ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓United States ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

© OECD 2004

OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16

PRINTED IN FRANCE

(00 2003 4X 1 P) – No. 82411 2004

Scienceand TechnologyStatisticalCompendium «MEETING OF THE OECD COMMITTEE FOR SCIENTIFICAND TECHNOLOGICAL POLICY AT MINISTERIAL LEVEL29-30 JANUARY 2004

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT 2004www.oecd.org/cstp2004min

Science and Technology Statistical Compendium · RÉUNION DU COMITÉ DE LA POLITIQUE SCIENTIFIQUE...

Documents

Transcript of Science and Technology Statistical Compendium · RÉUNION DU COMITÉ DE LA POLITIQUE SCIENTIFIQUE...