Recently, the International Institute of Management and Development (I MD) in Lausanne, Switzerland released the 2002 International Competitiveness Report (referred to as the Lausanne Report) with the participation of 49 countries and regions. The comprehensive ranking of China is 3 1, which is two places higher than the 33rd place of 200 1.
IMD publishes Lausanne Report every year from 1986 to rank the international competitiveness of relevant countries and regions. In 2002, 49 countries and regions were included in the evaluation scope of this report, including 29 O ECD countries and 20 "emerging economies". The selection of participating countries and regions takes into account their influence in the global economy and the collection of internationally comparable data. Since 1994, Chinese mainland has been officially listed as the evaluation object.
Since 200 1, the Lausanne Report has greatly changed the international competitiveness evaluation index system that has been used for many years, and merged the original eight input elements of competitiveness into four elements (economic performance, government efficiency, enterprise efficiency and infrastructure); The original 26 basic indicators of scientific and technological elements were set as 2 1, and 22 were set in 2002.
Judging from the four elements listed in the Lausanne Report, China's economic performance, government efficiency and infrastructure ranking rose by 4, 5 and 4 respectively, while enterprise efficiency decreased by 3. From 1998 to 200 1, according to the international status of the four major factors, its overall trend continued to decline, and it rebounded slightly in 2002.
Among the 49 countries participating in the competition, the United States still ranks first in the comprehensive ranking of international competitiveness. Among the four elements, except for government efficiency, the other three are ranked first. Finland's ranking of international competitiveness is rising year by year. In 2002, it ranked second in international competitiveness, with slightly lower economic performance and the best infrastructure. Singapore's international competitiveness has dropped from the second place to the fifth place, but government efficiency still ranks first.
Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Italy and Chinese mainland rank close in international competitiveness. Among them, China's economic performance ranks far higher than the other four countries, its government efficiency is better than that of Italy, Brazil and Japan, but not as good as that of South Korea, its enterprise efficiency is obviously lower than that of other countries, and its infrastructure is slightly stronger than that of Brazil, with the biggest gap with Japan. Therefore, enterprises and infrastructure are the two major weaknesses of China's international competitiveness at present, and scientific and technological competitiveness is included in China's infrastructure competitiveness, which deserves our high attention.
China's scientific and technological competitiveness is on the rise.
In the ranking of infrastructure elements including scientific infrastructure, Chinese mainland ranked 35th in 2002, up 4 places from 5438+0 in 2006, among which the rankings of scientific infrastructure, technological infrastructure and health and environment all rose.
Because the indicators closely related to science and technology are basically concentrated in the sub-elements of scientific infrastructure, it is of great reference significance to analyze in detail the 22 indicators contained in the sub-elements of scientific infrastructure and the single indicators in technical infrastructure for grasping the international status of China's scientific and technological development.
The horizontal international comparison of R&D expenditure indicators of scientific infrastructure shows that Italy, South Korea, China, Taiwan Province Province of China and Chinese mainland are close in the ranking of "total national R&D expenditure", but their "per capita R&D expenditure" is far better than that of China. Chinese mainland's ranking of R&D expenditure per capita is low, while Malaysian, Russian and Indian are closer to China, ranking 39th, 40th and 46th respectively. This is related to the fact that China is a country with a large population, and the same problem exists in the international ranking of "R&D expenditure of enterprises". The R&D expenditure of enterprises is similar to that of Chinese mainland, ranking fifth, 1 1 and 13 respectively, but the per capita R&D expenditure is better than that of Chinese mainland. Chinese mainland ranks 465,438+0 in this index, which should be behind Colombian, Russian Federation, Thailand, Indian and Philippine.
Among the indicators reflecting R&D personnel, Chinese mainland ranks second in the "total R&D personnel in China" and third in the "total R&D personnel in enterprises", which is close to Japan, Russia and India, while Italy, South Korea and Taiwan Province Province of China rank better, but in the "R&D personnel per thousand people in China" and "R&D personnel per thousand people in enterprises". The situation in India is similar to that in Chinese mainland, with good comprehensive indicators and poor per capita indicators. Japanese, Russian, China and Taiwan Province provinces are in a state of balance.
Compared with the Lausanne report of 200 1, the scientific infrastructure elements include 19 indicators, which are the same as those set in 200 1. 19, the index * *11,which is higher than 200 1, has greatly improved the status of science education of the school and the average annual growth rate of the number of patents granted to nationals, by 15 and12 respectively; In three places, the number of R&D personnel per thousand people in China dropped by two, the interest of young people in science and technology dropped by eight, and the protection of patents and copyrights dropped by13; Five have not changed, namely, per capita R&D expenditure of enterprises, total number of R&D personnel of enterprises, number of R&D personnel per thousand people of enterprises, Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize per capita.
Among the technical infrastructure elements, the ranking of technical cooperation among enterprises has been unsatisfactory, ranking 47th in 2002, two places higher than 200 1; Whether the development and utilization of technology is supported by the legal environment ranks 35 th, which is 5 places lower than 200 1; The Science and Technology Development Fund ranked 36th, 7 places higher than 200 1.
Chinese mainland's high-tech exports totaled 40.837 billion US dollars, ranking ninth; High-tech exports accounted for 18.57% of the manufacturing industry, ranking 22nd. "The availability of skilled labor in the domestic labor market" and "the availability of qualified managers" have always been two survey indicators that people are very concerned about. In 2002, Chinese mainland ranked 48th and 49th respectively.
On China's scientific and technological competitiveness from the perspective of input and output
Investment in science and technology has increased substantially, and the structure of funds has improved.
According to the data published in Lausanne Report, the total R&D expenditure of Chinese mainland in 20001year was $8.2 million110,000, and in 2002 it was $108.44 million, an increase of $26.43 million. The R&D expenditure of enterprises was $4.067 billion in 201year, and $6.530 billion in 2002, an increase of $2.463 billion. It should be said that R&D funds have increased greatly at both the national and enterprise levels, but the per capita R&D funds for scientific and technological personnel are still low, indicating that China has the economic strength to support R&D on the whole, but the per capita R&D funds for scientific and technological personnel are still very limited.
Judging from the growth rate of R&D funds, the growth rate of R&D investment in China is much higher than that of developed countries. The average annual growth rate of R&D funds in developed countries is generally around 2%-3%, which is basically in sync with the growth of G DP, while China is obviously higher than G DP. For example, from 199 1- 1999, the average annual growth rate of R&D funds in China was 12.9%, while the growth rate of 1999-2000 reached 32.2%.
Judging from the proportion of R&D funds in G DP, this indicator in China tends to a more reasonable level. The ratio of R&D expenditure to G DP reflects the intensity of a country's investment in science and technology. Generally speaking, this index is generally higher than 2% in western developed countries. In moderately developed countries, it is1%-2%; Developing countries are generally less than 1%. According to the Lausanne report, in 2000, the highest index was Sweden, 3.782%, the United States, 2.687%, Japan, 3. 1 18%, South Korea, 2.653%, Taiwan Province Province of China, 2.045%, and Russia,1. This indicator has been low in China, with a slight increase of 0.83% from 1.999, which changed the stagnant situation of this indicator in previous years and made a historic breakthrough in 2000, reaching 1.004%. Although this index is still low compared with developed countries, as a developing country, it is basically suitable for the economic development level of China.
Judging from the distribution of administrative R&D expenditure, R&D activities in developed countries are mainly concentrated in enterprises. China's R&D activities were once concentrated in R&D institutions a few years ago, but in recent years they have gradually turned to enterprises. From 65438 to 0999, the R&D expenditure of China enterprises accounted for 49.6% of the total R&D expenditure of China, and R&D institutions accounted for 38.5%. In 2000, R&D expenditure of enterprises accounted for more than half, reaching 60.2%. This shows that with the further deepening of China's economic and scientific and technological system reform, the role of the market in the allocation of scientific and technological resources is becoming more and more prominent, and the executive body of R&D activities is shifting from R&D institutions to enterprises, which is a necessary condition to truly realize the main position of enterprise innovation.
The output capacity of scientific and technological activities has been continuously improved, and scientific papers and patents have been balanced.
Important indicators of scientific and technological output. According to the Lausanne report in 2002, the number of scientific papers in Chinese mainland is 10748, ranking 12 internationally. Although the number of scientific papers in China is growing rapidly and its international status is above average, its influence in the world is still very limited. According to the data of 1999, the number of papers in the fields of earth science, engineering and materials science, chemistry, life science, mathematical science and information science in China accounts for 1.2%, 4.6%, 1.6%, 0.3%, 3.7% and 2.3% of the world total respectively. Compared with the international ranking of 200 1, the number of patents granted to nationals increased by 2 places, and the annual growth rate of patents granted to nationals increased by 17 places compared with 2000. In 2002, the growth rate was 87.36%, up by 12 places, ranking fourth. However, compared with the total number of patents in Korea and Japan, the gap is still very large. According to the Lausanne report in 2002 (data of 1999), the number of Japanese patents is 133960 (ranking first), and that of South Korea is 433 14 (ranking third), which are 43 times and 14 times that of Chinese mainland respectively. The number of patents granted to nationals in Chinese mainland has increased rapidly for two consecutive years, which shows that the innovation ability of nationals is constantly improving, and the awareness of intellectual property protection of nationals is also constantly strengthening. The index of "patent productivity" (data is 1999) examines the ratio of patents granted to nationals to R&D personnel in enterprises, and Chinese mainland ranks 36th, indicating that R&D personnel in Chinese enterprises are weak in international competitiveness and awareness of intellectual property protection.
High-tech industry is developing vigorously 1993- 1999, a high-tech industry in China.
The gross output value grew rapidly, with an average annual growth rate of 23.0%, far exceeding the average growth rate of all manufacturing industries 105438+0%. From the perspective of high-tech export, the total high-tech export in199 was $24.704 billion, including17,25110,000, and the export of electronic technology products was $4.206 billion. Computer and communication technology products are the technical fields with the largest trade surplus. According to the Lausanne Report in 2002, in 2000, the total high-tech export of the United States was the highest, reaching 197033 million US dollars, and Singapore's high-tech export accounted for the highest proportion of manufacturing exports, accounting for 62.39%. China's high-tech exports totaled US$ 40.837 billion, ranking ninth, accounting for 18.57% of manufacturing exports, ranking 22nd. Generally speaking, China's high-tech industry has reached a certain scale, showing the characteristics of rapid growth, playing an increasingly important role in the structural adjustment of manufacturing industry in the stage of national industrialization transformation, and becoming a new force supporting the development of China's manufacturing industry.