Viktiga aspekter av Kinas innovations­kraft missas

Från närmast oförmögna till innovation till mest innovativa i hela världen. Enkelt uttryckt är det så västvärldens syn på kinesisk forskning och uppfinningsrikedom har förändrats de senaste åren. Analytiker på FOI har undersökt varför detta synsätt missar vad innovation är i praktiken.

FOI analysts Frida Edvardsson Lampinen and Anders Schröder have authored a report titled Innovation Capacity in the People’s Republic of China—On the State of the Innovation Assessment Literature and Strategic Ambitions in Science and Technology Governance. The study was funded through FOI’s appropriation from Sweden’s Ministry of Defence, which supports efforts to monitor and respond to emerging technologies.

“Until roughly a decade ago, there was near-consensus that China lacked any real innovative capacity, largely due to the authoritarian nature of Communist Party rule. Today, many describe China as a scientific superpower. The question is whether it has reached that position because of the regime’s authoritarianism, or in spite of it,” says Frida Edvardsson Lampinen.

One reason for the shift in Western perception is the surge in academic publishing by Chinese researchers, along with a dramatic increase in patent applications filed by Chinese companies. The country is investing heavily in research, and few doubt that China’s president considers it vital.

“Xi Jinping has set ambitious strategic goals for building and applying China’s innovative capacity. Part of the rationale is historical. According to Xi and the Communist Party, large parts of the 19th and early 20th centuries—up to the party’s founding in 1949—were marked by national humiliation, much of it attributed to weak scientific and technological capacity, which left China vulnerable,” says Frida Edvardsson Lampinen.

A Narrow Definition of Innovation Misses the Point

The word “innovation” is popular and evokes positive associations, both in the West and in China. But it is also defined in different ways. This, FOI’s analysts argue, is where quantitative comparisons between Chinese and Western innovation capacity sometimes fall short.

“Most of these studies measure inventiveness alone. But to understand innovation fully, we also need qualitative research. Innovation includes how something is implemented, and the effect it has in the marketplace or workplace. That’s much harder to capture with numbers,” says Anders Schröder.

He offers an example of why a positive view of purely inventiveness can be misleading:

“Let’s say the Chinese military acquires a cutting-edge AI system, developed by domestic researchers. If the system is then rushed into deployment without proper training, while leadership expects immediate results, it can create uncertainty, lead to parallel systems, and actually weaken military effectiveness.”

China’s Research Policy Draws Only Partially on Its Systemic Strengths

As mentioned above, Xi Jinping and the Communist Party have far-reaching ambitions to advance China’s innovation capacity. The goal is technological self-reliance, while also encouraging researchers to develop inventions that aim, in part, to make foreign companies and institutions dependent on China.

“China isn’t quite there yet, and still needs constructive international partnerships. That’s why its aggressive technology acquisition strategy can be problematic. Western countries are now closing the door to Chinese takeovers of prominent high-tech firms and to visiting Chinese researchers at universities,” says Anders Schröder.

“Some observers argue that the political pressure on Chinese firms to align with Party-defined innovation goals is leading to invention for its own sake, rather than focusing on its usefulness or impact,” adds Frida Edvardsson Lampinen.

According to the analysts, the Communist Party’s view of research leads it to exclude what has historically been among China’s strengths.

“China has a huge domestic market, a massive population, and dynamic, entrepreneurial firms—assets that many other countries lack. But the Communist Party’s regulatory approach limits the impact of those strengths,” says Frida Edvardsson Lampinen.