China
has leaped ahead of Japan in the R&D spending league table,
according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
But BusinessWeek suspects the achievement owes more to a statistical sleigh of hand than any great leap forward by Chinese researchers.
The OECD forecasts that China will spend just over $136bn on R&D in 2006 compared to Japan's forecast $130bn. The US is predicted to remain the world's leading investor in R&D in 2006, spending just over $330bn, followed by the EU with $230bn.
China's spending on R&D as a percentage of GDP, known as R&D intensity, has more than doubled from 0.6% in 1995 to just over 1.2% in 2004. Over the same period, the number of researchers in China increased by 77% to 926,000, putting it second only to the US, which has 1.3m researchers.
The Financial Times said the OECD report was the latest indication of the dramatic rise in research spending in China, which is "beginning to cause concerns among western governments."
The OECD notes that the bulk of China's R&D spending goes on product development, rather than basic research, so the raw figures perhaps overstate China's R&D strengths.
However, some multinationals are beginning to move genuine research to China because of the high numbers of skilled scientists they can now recruit in the PRC. "There are some signs that they are starting to do fundamental or breakthrough work in China," says Dirk Pilat, head of the OECD's science and technology policy division.
Recent months have seen a flurry announcements about new R&D facilities in China from the likes of Motorola, GE, Siemens, Nortel and Honeywell, as well as pharma giants Novartis and AstraZeneca -- click the links for the relevant EngagingChina stories.
Europe's policymakers have also woken up to China's research strengths. On the occasion of the inauguration of the China-EU Science and Technology Year, the EU's science and research commissioner Janez Potocnik said:
China is quickly becoming a major global player in science and technology. We face many of the same challenges for the future, and research can play a part in facing them."
But before everyone gets too carried away with the idea that China
has, almost overnight, become an scientific superpower, a note of
caution.
It turns out that China's rapid rise in the R&D league turns out to be something of an illusion.
Bruce Einhorn, BW's excellent Asia technology correspondent, has spilled the beans and discovered that the OECD inflated China's figures by a factor of four to take account of the "real purchasing power" of the yuan.
While economists may argue such distortion is admissible, the OECD seems to be the only one using such a generous measure. When Xinhua, China's official news agency, reported the country's R&D spending for 2005 it converted the yuan-denominated figure -- 237bn yuan -- to US dollars using the standard market rate and got $29bn.
So China, by its own admission, is still a long way behind Japan in the R&D stakes. Nevertheless, spending in 2005 was up 20% on the previous year, so perhaps it will not be too long before Japan really does have to worry.



Our firm is the outsourcing hub for Tsinghua University, China's MIT. We also have guanxi where it's needed MOST (pun intended), i.e., at the Ministry of Science and Technology. Hence, we're in the thick of things regarding R&D in China.
Yes, it's true that China is better at "D" than "R." However, this really depends on which discipline is in play. Also, sometimes it's hard to draw a line between experimental and theoretical endeavors. As a result, there's probably more "R" in China than many in the West may think.
The two real issues are China vs. India (yes, this is a key issue; R&D center location does matter) and IPR issues. Possibly toss national security concerns into the "IPR" hat.
Regarding China vs. India, it's no contest: China wins. In BPO for English-speaking countries, it's no contest: India wins. In ITO for end users, it's no contest: India wins (and the gap is widening, not narrowing). In ITO for ISVs, it really depends on what is being done. Agile, embedded and open source I'd give to China, but this isn't a hard-and-fast rule. Also, let's not forget that many Indian globals are expanding their presence in China, although cultural issues (among other things) will impede their growth in China. But for R&D and engineering services outsourcing, China really does kick India's butt. I know that NASSCOM is claiming superiority for India in ESO, but it simply isn't so. India does have strong capabilities, but they can't touch China.
Fact: According to a third-party monitoring service, there are more English-language technical conferences held each year in China than in India.
Fact (and a more important fact): There are over four times as many English-language technical papers published in China versus India. That's right, over four times as many!!
Take a look at this:
4456 records in Inspec for 2005-2007
((india WN ALL) AND ((({B}) WN DI) OR (({C}) WN
DI) OR (({D}) WN DI) OR (({E}) WN DI)) AND ((PRA
WN TR) OR (EXP WN TR))) NOT (THR WN TR)
{india} WN CO
20503 records in Inspec for 2005-2007
((china WN ALL) AND ((({B}) WN DI) OR (({C}) WN
DI) OR (({D}) WN DI) OR (({E}) WN DI)) AND ((PRA
WN TR) OR (EXP WN TR)) AND (({English}) WN
LA)) NOT (THR WN TR) {china} WN CO
There's proof for you!!
Regarding IPR issues, I don't want to lie and say that China is making great progress in IP protection. The problem is somewhat cultural; it transcends anything the government can do.
Solution: Don't be an idiot!! Keep all core IP development in your home country; don't offshore it ... anywhere!! But if you're a SME (small/medium enterprise), look to China for R&D for exploring secondary and tertiary market opportunities that are simply too expensive to explore back home. Let's take the U.S., for example. The annual fully-burdened labor cost for a Ph.D. is about $250,000. In China it's less than $50,000 (and I'm being generous in my calculations; a Ph.D. for a top-tier school with a few years experience can often be had for as little as US$18,000 per year ... and burden rates are much lower in China, especially in areas with good incentives, like Suzhou, Tianjin, and Guangzhou).
SMEs in the States cannot afford to explore secondary market opportunities. But with a China option, exploring secondary markets becomes doable. Often the best bet is to start as an ODC (offshore development center) and then convert the ODC with a BOT (build-operate-transfer) model to a CRC (captive research center). Flip a switch and you go from third-party outsourcing support to a full-fledged research center in China.
Two cents (or fen) from somebody in China on the front lines of the R&D sector.
As you point out, the choice of offshore location for a western firm depends heavily on the type of work being outsourced -- and Id also add, the experience the candidate region can offer in a particular vertical.
For example, China is only now starting to challenge India for pharmaceutical R&D outsourcing, but I bet it will be a much more formidable competitor in this vertical in a few years.
Thanks for the great comments from someone who obviously experiences these issues at first hand.
Geoff