Research Material-251
238

Digest of Japanese Science and Technology

2015
Indicators 2016
Aug.
2016
Oct.
2015
Research Unit for Science and Technology Analysis and Indicators

National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, MEXTThis material is the English translation of the executive summary of the “Japanese Science and Technology

Indicators 2016” published by NISTEP in August 2016.

【Contributors】
Yumiko KANDA

Senior Research Fellow, Research Unit for Science and Technology
Analysis and Indicators, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy,
MEXT

Akiyoshi MURAKAMI

Research Fellow, Research Unit for Science and Technology Analysis andIndicators, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, MEXT

Naomi FUKUZAWA

Research Fellow, Research Unit for Science and Technology Analysis andIndicators, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, MEXT

Masatsura IGAMI

Director, Research Unit for Science and Technology Analysis and Indicators,
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, MEXT

Please specify reference as the following example when citing this NISTEP RESEARCH MATERIAL.

“Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016”, NISTEP RESEARCH MATERIAL No. 251,
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Tokyo.
DOI：http://doi.org/10.15108/rm251e

Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 （ABSTRACT）"Science and Technology Indicators" is a basic resource for understanding Japanese science andtechnology activities based on objective and quantitative data. It classifies science and technology
activities into five categories, R&D Expenditure; R&D Personnel; Higher Education; The Output of R&D;
and Science, Technology, and Innovation. The multiple relevant indicators (approximately 150 indicators)
show the state of Japanese science and technology activities. "Japanese Science and Technology Indicators
2016" includes new indicators and indicators with modified visualization, totally about 10 indicators, suchas the global mobility of foreign students (higher education level), the respective situations oftechnological trade in Japan and the United States, and the external sources of information that companies
think important in innovation activities.
Overviewing the latest Japan’s situation from "Science and Technology Indicators 2016," it was foundthat in the Japanese business enterprise sector, the manufacturing industry accounts for 87% of researchand development expenditure and for 88% of the researchers. Also, the number of researchers per 1,000
labor force is 547 in the manufacturing industry and 53 in the non-manufacturing industry.
The number of Japanese students studying overseas (1.0% of students worldwide) and the number ofstudents from overseas accepted into higher education institutions in Japan (4.2%) are both small. The
country that sent out the largest number of students for overseas studies is China at 20.7%. The UnitedStates accepted the largest number of foreign students at higher education institutions (24.0% of students
worldwide), followed by the United Kingdom at 12.8%.
The number of scientific publications from Japan remained almost flat in last 10 years, however the
position of Japan in the global rank moved down due to a growth of other countries. Japan has remained,
however, as the top in the number of patent families since 10 years ago.

Blank page

1. Circumstances in Japan and the selected countries in terms of R&D
expenditure(1) Japan's total R&D expenditure was 19.0 trillion yen in 2014 (OECD-estimated Japan: 17.5 trillion yen),
the world's third largest after the United States and China.
Japan's total R&D expenditure was 19.0 trillion yen in 2014 (OECD-estimated Japan: 17.5 trillion yen).
After remaining almost flat since 2009, Japan's R&D expenditure increased 4.6% in 2014 from theprevious year (OECD-estimated Japan: 4.8%). The United States' total R&D expenditure was 46.9 trillion
yen in 2013, overwhelming all the other countries. After surpassing Japan in 2009, China's total R&D
expenditure has constantly increased to 38.6 trillion yen. As to the percentage of R&D expenditure bysector, the business enterprises sector accounts for the largest in the total. This tendency is particularly
clear in Asian countries including Japan. In major European countries, the percentages of sectors otherthan the business enterprises sector are higher compared with the other countries.
[Summary Chart 1] Changes in total R&D expenditure in the selected countries
Nominal values (converted using OECD purchase power parities data)Japan

R&D expenditure (nominal values)50¥ trillions

Japan (estimated by
OECD)
U.S.

45
40

Germany

35
30

France

25

U.K.

20

China

15

Korea

10
5

EU-15

0

EU-28
1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 2014 Year

Reference: Chart 1-1-1, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)[Summary Chart 2] Percentage of R&D expenditure by sector in the selected countries
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Public organizations andNon-profit institutions
Universities and colleges
Public organizations
Non-profit institutions

Japan
2014

Japan
(estimatedby2014
OECD)

2014

U.S.

Germany France

U.K.

China

Korea

EU-15

EU-28

2013

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

Reference: Chart 1-1-6, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)-1-

Business enterprisesYear(2) The ratio of R&D expenditure in the manufacturing industry to that in the non-manufacturing industry
varied depending on the country. The percentage of R&D expenditure in the manufacturing industry
is relatively high in Japan among the selected countries.
According to the data on the ratio of R&D expenditure in the manufacturing industry to that in the
non-manufacturing industry in the business enterprises sector, the average percentage of R&D expenditurein the manufacturing industry in Japan, Germany, China, and Korea was a little less than 90%. On theother hand, the percentage of R&D expenditure in the manufacturing industry was 70% in the UnitedStates and the U.K., and was a little higher than 70% in France. In these countries, the percentage of R&D
expenditure in the non-manufacturing industry was higher compared with the other countries.
[Summary Chart 3] The ratio of R&D expenditure in the manufacturing industry to that in the non-manufacturingindustry in the business enterprises sector of the selected countries

100%
90%

Ratio of R&D Expenditure

80%
70%
60%
50%

Non-manufacturing
Manufacturing

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Japan
U.S.
Germany France
U.K.
China
Korea
(2012-14) (2010-12) (2011-13) (2011-13) (2011-13) (2012-14) (2012-14)
Reference: Chart 1-3-5, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)-2-(3) Direct government funding to business enterprises has been on the decline over the long term.
Indirect government support has been on the increase, though the amount of support changed
significantly depending on the year.
As seen in the changes in Japan's direct government funding (i.e., the amount funded by thegovernment to support business enterprises' R&D expenditure–expressed as a percentage of GDP) and in
the changes in indirect government support (i.e., the amount of deducted corporate tax through R&D tax
incentives–expressed as a percentage of GDP), Japan's direct government funding to business enterprises
has been on the decline over the long term, but flat in recent years. On the other hand, Japan's indirectgovernment support remarkably increased in 2004, but decreased in 2008 and increased again in 2013.
The changes in the amount of R&D tax incentives are attributable to the changes in market conditions(economy, depression) and other factors.
[Summary Chart 4] Japanese government's direct and indirect support to help business enterprises with R&D％
0.18

Indirect government support through R&D tax incentives
Direct government funding of BERD

0.16

As a percentage of GDP

0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00

1999 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2013 Year

Reference: Chart 1-3-8, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)-3-2. Circumstances in Japan and the selected countries in terms of R&D personnel(1) The number of researchers per 10,000 labor force in Japan has been relatively high among theselected countries. However, the growth of the number in the past 10 years has been slower
compared with many of those countries.
As one of the key indicators, the number of researchers is as important as the amount of R&D
expenditure. In the first half of the 2000s, the number of researchers (FTE1) per 10,000 labor force inJapan was the largest of the selected countries, but Korea took over the top position from Japan in 2009.
As of 2014, Japan still maintains a relatively high FTE level among the selected countries.
Balance of the number of researchers by sector revealed that the percentage of researchers in thebusiness enterprises sector in Japan, China, and Korea was higher compared with European majorcountries. In the past ten years or so, Japan and the U.K. have shown no major changes in all sectors. The
other countries have been increasing the number of researchers per 10,000 labor force at a constant pace,especially the number of researchers in the business enterprises shows remarkable growth in Korea.
[Summary Chart 5] Changes in the number of researchers per 10,000 labor force

researcher / labor force

Japan*

Number of researchers per 10,000 labor force

140

Japan(FTE)

120

Japan(HC)

100

U.S.
Germany

80

France
60

U.K.
China

40

Korea

20

EU-15
0
EU-28
1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 2014 Year
Reference: Chart 2-1-5, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)

1

There are two types of methods for counting the number of researchers: by counting the actual number (HC: Head Count) and by taking account of thedegree of engagement in research (FTE: full-time conversion). Since the number of researchers is counted on the basis of FTE in the selected countries, it isappropriate that the number in Japan (FTE) be used when comparing it with other countries.

-4-

[Summary Chart 6] Changes in the number of researchers per 10,000 labor force by sector
researcher / labor force

Number of researchers per 10,000 labor force by Sector

140

Graph data are for 2005 to 2014 (from left) for all countries except China, whose data are for 2009 to 2014

Business enterprises
Public organizations
Public organizations and Non-profit institutions
Non-profit institutions
Universities and colleges

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Japan(FTE)

Germany

FranceU.K.

Reference: Chart 2-1-7, Science and Technology Indicators 2016, and Reference Statistics B (in Japanese)

-5-

China

Korea

(2) The ratio of researchers in the manufacturing industry to those in the non-manufacturing industry
varied depending on the country. Particularly in the U.K. and France, the percentage of researchers
in the non-manufacturing industry was higher than 50%.
According to the data on the ratio of researchers in the manufacturing industry to those in the
non-manufacturing industry in the business enterprises, the percentage of researchers in the
manufacturing industry was about 90% in Japan and about 80% in Germany, China, and Korea. On theother hand, the percentage of researchers in the manufacturing industry was around 60% in the UnitedStates and less than 50% in France and the U.K. In these countries, the percentage of researchers in the
non-manufacturing industry was remarkably higher than the other countries. When comparing this withthe ratio of R&D expenditure in the manufacturing industry to that in the non-manufacturing industry,
which was described in [Summary Chart 3], the percentage of researchers in the non-manufacturingindustry had a tendency to show a higher percentage. In contrast, for Japan and Germany, the ratio of
R&D expenditure in the manufacturing industry to that in the non-manufacturing industry and the ratioof researchers in the manufacturing industry to those in the non-manufacturing industry are the same.
[Summary Chart 7] The ratio of researchers in the manufacturing industry to those in the non-manufacturingindustry in the business enterprises sector of the selected countries
100%
90%

Ratio of researcher

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

Non-manufacturing
Manufacturing

20%
10%
0%

Japan
U.S.
Germany France
U.K.
China
Korea
(2013-15) (2010-12) (2011-13) (2011-13) (2011-13) (2012-14) (2012-14)
Reference: Chart 2-2-5, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)-6-(3) In Japan, the number of researchers per 10,000 employees for each industry classification waslarger in the manufacturing industry than in the non-manufacturing industry.
In Japan, the number of researchers per 10,000 employees for each industry classification is larger inthe manufacturing industry (547) than in the non-manufacturing industry (53). The number of
researchers engaged in the "information and communication electronics equipment" in the manufacturingindustry is the largest at 2,052, which is followed by the "business oriented machinery" and "drugs andmedicines".
On the other hand, in the non-manufacturing industry, the numbers of researchers engaged in the"communications" (553) and the "scientific research, professional and technical services" (308) are
relatively large, though smaller compared with those in the manufacturing industry.

[Summary Chart 8] Number of researchers per 10,000 employees for each industry classification in Japan (2015)

0500

All industries

2,000

2,500

People547
53Drugs and medicines

967

Chemical products

905

Petroleum and coal products

508

Iron and steel

192

Business oriented machinery

1,248Electronic parts, devices, and electronic circuits

610

Electrical machinery, equipment and supplies

634

Information and communication electronics equipment

2,052

Transportation equipment

820

Communications

553

Information services
Finance and insurance

1,500

252

Manufacturing
Non-Manufacturing

1,000

189
3

Scientific research, professional and technical services

308

Number of researchers per 10,000 employees by type of industry
Reference: Chart 2-2-7, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)-7-3. The situation in Japan in terms of graduates of universities and colleges(1) The percentage of the graduates in science and engineering who found employment in the
non-manufacturing industry (except research and education) was 72.0% of the graduates of abachelor’s program and 42.2% of the graduates of a master’s program. Those percentages havebeen on the increase over the long term. On the other hand, the percentage of graduates who foundemployment in the non-manufacturing industry (except R&D) of a doctor’s program has slightly
declined over the past 10 years to 22.2%.
The data for each industry classification show that 50–60% of the graduates of a bachelor’s program inscience and engineering found employment in the "manufacturing industry" in the 1980s. Since then, thatpercentage has constantly declined to 25.0% in 2015. In contrast, the percentage of the graduates of abachelor’s program in science and engineering who found employment in the non-manufacturingindustry (except the research and education) has increased to 72.0% in 2015.
In the 1980s, 70–80% of the graduates of a master’s program in science and engineering foundemployment in the "manufacturing industry." Since then that percentage has constantly decreased to 60%
in 2010 and then to 55.6% in 2015. In contrast, the percentage of the graduates of a master’s program inscience and engineering who found employment in the non-manufacturing industry (except the researchand education) has increased to 42.2% in 2015.
About 30% of the graduates of a doctor’s program in science and engineering found employment in
the "manufacturing industry," and the percentage was 28.3% in 2015. The percentage of the graduates ofa doctor’s program in science and engineering who found employment in the "education" (e.g., schools)
reached 50% in the middle of the 1980s. However, entering the 2000s, that percentage declined to a little
less than 30% but the percentage in 2015 was 31.9%. Similarly, the percentage of the graduates of a
doctor’s program in science and engineering who found employment in the "research" (e.g., academic
and R&D institutions) was 17.6% in 2015. On the other hand, the percentage of the graduates of a
doctor’s program in science and engineering who found employment in the non-manufacturing industry(except the research and education) has slightly declined in the past 10 years to 22.2% in 2015.

-8-

[Summary Chart 9] Employment status by industry classification of graduates in science and engineering

100%

Excluding
education andresearch inservice typeindustries
Research

70%
60%
50%
40%

Education30%

Non-manufacturing

80%

The ratio of the employment for industry classification

90%

20%
10%

Manufacturing0%

Others90%
80%

Excluding
education andresearch inservice typeindustries
Research

70%
60%
50%

Non-manufacturing

OthersService type industries

The ratio of the employment for industry classification

100%(B) Graduates of a master's program inscience and engineering

Service type industries(A) Graduates of a bachelor's program inscience and engineering

40%

Education

30%
20%
10%

Manufacturing0%1981 85

89

93

97

01

05

09

13 2015year

1981

Reference: Chart 3-3-4, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016
(in Japanese)

85

89

93

97

01

05

09

13 2015 Year

Reference: Chart 3-3-5, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016
(in Japanese)(C) Graduates of a doctor's program inscience and engineering
Others80%

Excluding
education andresearch inservice typeindustries
Research

70%
60%
50%
40%

Non-manufacturing

90%

Service type industries

The ratio of the employment for industry classification

100%

Notes:1) The number of graduates who found employment includes
work-study students.
2) The following is the details of the service-related industries.
Education: Those who found employment at schools. For
example, those who became faculties of universities fall under
this category.
Research: Those who found employment at academic or R&D
institutions (of which data have been collected since 2003).
Others: Information and communication, medical welfare, etc.
3) "Others" in the non-manufacturing industry include construction,
wholesale and retail, finance, and insurance, public services, etc.

Education

30%
20%
10%

Manufacturing

0%
1981

85

89

93

97

01

05

09

13

2015 Year

Reference: Chart 3-3-6, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016
(in Japanese)-9-(2) Among the selected countries, Japan sending a smaller number of students to other countries andalso hosting a smaller number of students from other countries.
Global relationship between the country/region of origins of foreign students and the country/region
hosting those students at higher education (ISCED2 level 5–8) shows that China, among the selected
countries, is sending the largest number of students to many countries around the world, accounting for20.7% of the world total. Following China, Germany is sending the second largest number of students toforeign countries (3.6% of the world total). On the other hand, the U.K. is sending the smallest numberof students to other countries, accounting for 0.8% of the world total. Japan and the United States areamong the countries that are sending a small number of students overseas (1.0% and 1.5%, respectively).
In terms of host country/region, the United States is hosting the largest number of foreign students,
accounting for 24.0% of the world total. Following the United States, the U.K. is the second largest
hosting country (12.8%), followed by France (7.0%), Germany (6.0%), Japan (4.2%), China (3.0%), andKorea (1.7%).
While sending many students to foreign countries, China and Korea are hosting only a small numberof foreign students. In contrast, while not sending many students overseas, the United States and the U.K.
are hosting many foreign students. Among the selected countries, Japan sending a smaller number ofJapanese students to other countries and also hosting a smaller number of students from other countries.
[Summary Chart 10] Country/region of origins and host country/region of foreign students
with high-level education (ISCED level 5–8) (2013)

Notes:1) Students with education level equivalent to ISCED 2011 level 5–8 (such as Japanese colleges including two-year colleges and technical colleges)2) Foreign students refer to students who do not hold nationality of a host country/region.
3) China includes Hong Kong.
Reference: Chart 3-5-2, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)

2

ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) developed by UNESCO. The latest version is ISCED 2011.

- 10 -

4. Circumstances in Japan and the selected countries in terms of R&D output(1) The number of Japanese scientific publications remains at the same level as it was ten years ago.
However the position of Japan in the global rank moved down due to a growth of other countries.
This section looks at the number of scientific publications as one of the R&D outputs from Japan andthe selected countries. Using the fractional counting method that measures the degree of contribution topaper production, the number of Japanese papers is ranked in 3rd place after the United States and China(the average of PY2012–2014). As to the number of adjusted top 10% papers, Japan is ranked in 7th place
after the United States, China, the U.K., Germany, France, and Italy. As to the number of adjusted top 1%
papers, Japan is ranked in 9th place after the United States, China, the U.K., Germany, France, Canada,
Australia, and Italy.
The number of Japanese papers remains at the same level as it was ten years ago, but because of thegrowth of other countries, Japan has moved down in the world rank. The trend is particularly clear in
high-impact papers such as the adjusted top 10% papers and adjusted top 1% papers.
[Summary Chart 11] Top 10 countries/regions in terms of the number of papers, the number of adjusted top 10%
papers, and the number of adjusted top 1% papers (based on the fractional counting method)
All fields
Country/Region
U.S.
Japan
U.K.
Germany
FranceCanadaRussiaItaly
India
Australia
All fields
Country/Region
U.S.
U.K.
Japan
Germany
FranceCanadaNetherlands
Italy
Australia
SwedenAll fields
Country/Region
U.S.
U.K.
GermanyJapan
CanadaFranceNetherlands
Switzerland
Italy
Australia

1992 － 1994
The number of papers
Fractional counting
Papers
Share
World rank
179,56832.1
145,5988.2
241,0287.3
337,3776.7
4
29,1545.2
522,9874.1
622,4694.0
717,0973.1
811,4412.0
911,3092.0
101992 － 1994(PY) (Average)
The number of adjusted top 10% papers
Fractional counting
Papers
Share
World rank
27,434
49.2
1
4,628
8.3
2
3,240
5.8
3
3,220
5.8
4
2,586
4.6
5
2,553
4.6
6
1,393
2.5
7
1,278
2.3
8
1,110
2.0
9
997
1.8
10
1992 － 1994(PY) (Average)
The number of adjusted top 1% papers
Fractional counting
Papers
Share
World rank
3,136
56.2
1
457
8.2
2
304
5.4
3
264
4.7
4
230
4.1
5
215
3.8
6
132
2.4
7
107
1.9
8
101
1.8
9
101
1.8
10

All fields
Country/Region
U.S.
Japan
Germany
U.K.
China
FranceItaly
CanadaSpain
RussiaAll fields
Country/Region
U.S.
U.K.
Germany
Japan
FranceCanadaChina
Italy
Netherlands
Australia
All fields
Country/Region
U.S.
U.K.
Germany
Japan
FranceCanadaChina
Netherlands
Italy
Switzerland

2002－ 2004(PY) (Average)
The number of papers
Fractional counting
Papers
Share
World rank
213,31926.5
167,4758.4
251,2056.3
3
49,9846.2
442,2365.2
536,825
4.6
6
28,9263.6
726,0193.2
820,3732.5
920,022
2.5
10
2002－ 2004(PY) (Average)
The number of adjusted top 10% papers
Fractional counting
Papers
Share
World rank
32,239
40.1
1
6,144
7.6
2
5,297
6.6
3
4,593
5.7
4
3,569
4.4
5
2,959
3.7
6
2,909
3.6
7
2,479
3.1
8
1,944
2.4
9
1,802
2.2
10
2002－ 2004(PY) (Average)
The number of adjusted top 1% papers
Fractional counting
Papers
Share
World rank
3,897
48.5
1
647
8.0
2
484
6.0
3
364
4.5
4
292
3.6
5
270
3.4
6
234
2.9
7
191
2.4
8
186
2.3
9
169
2.1
10

All fields
Country/Region
U.S.
China
Japan
Germany
U.K.
India
France
Korea
Italy
CanadaAll fields
Country/Region
U.S.
China
U.K.
Germany
FranceItaly
Japan
CanadaAustralia
Spain
All fields
Country/Region
U.S.
China
U.K.
Germany
FranceCanadaAustralia
Italy
Japan
Spain

2012 － 2014(PY) (Average)
The number of papers
Fractional counting
Papers
Share
World rank
269,01620.5
1191,04314.5
264,7304.9
364,072
4.9
458,2084.4
546,4263.5
644,973
3.4
742,7473.3
842,5133.2
938,8523.0
102012 － 2014(PY) (Average)
The number of adjusted top 10% papers
Fractional counting
Papers
Share
World rank
38,96429.7
118,052
13.8
2
8,196
6.2
3
7,827
6.0
4
4,924
3.8
5
4,528
3.4
6
4,331
3.3
7
4,296
3.3
8
3,929
3.0
9
3,665
2.8
10
2012 － 2014(PY) (Average)
The number of adjusted top 1% papers
Fractional counting
Papers
Share
World rank
4,691
35.7
1
1,643
12.5
2
932
7.1
3
759
5.8
4
459
3.5
5
408
3.1
6
405
3.1
7
353
2.7
8
340
2.6
9
303
2.3
10

Note: The number of articles and reviews was counted. Papers were sorted by publication year (PY). The number of citations are as of end of 2015.
Reference: Chart 4-1-6, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)- 11 -

(2) Japan has been ranked high in the number of patent families in the past ten years, and the majorityof those patent applications were filed in the United States.
This section looks at the status of patent applications by analyzing the number of patent families, which
is a proxy to measure the number of inventions in an internationally comparable manner. Between 1989
and 1991, the United States was ranked in 1st place and Japan in 2nd place. Between 1999 and 2001, andbetween 2009 and 2011, Japan was ranked in 1st place and the United States in 2nd place. The increasein the number of Japanese patent families is attributable to the increase in oversea patent applications.
In order to analyze globalization of patent applications, countries/regions to which patent applications
were field from selected countries were analyzed. Japan is filing 43.0% (excluding patent filing in homecountry) of its patent families in the United States. In the past 10 years, while Japan has been increasing
the percentage of its patent applications in China, the percentage of its patent applications in Europe has
been declining. The United States has been increasing the percentage of its patent applications in Asia,
particularly in China in recent years. Compared with Germany, the U.K. has been increasing thepercentage of its patent applications in the United States more than at the European Patent Office. China
has been increasing the percentage of its patent applications in the United States.
[Summary Chart 12] Patent families by selected country/region(A) Number of patent families (top 10 countries/regions)

Country/Region

U.S.
Japan
Germany
FranceYemen
Italy
Switzerland
Netherlands
CanadaSweden1989 - 1991(Average)
Number of patent families
Whole counting
Patent Families

22,534
22,135
14,360
5,702
4,757
2,669
2,172
1,681
1,505
1,206

Share
27.4
27.0
17.5
6.9
5.8
3.3
2.6
2.0
1.8
1.5

World rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Country/Region

Japan
U.S.
Germany
France
Yemen
Korea
Italy
Netherlands
CanadaSwitzerland

1999 - 2001(Average)
Number of patent families
Whole counting
Patent Families

42,731
41,554
26,466
8,986
8,338
5,978
4,361
3,990
3,857
3,362

Share
27.8
27.1
17.2
5.9
5.4
3.9
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.2

Reference: Chart 4-2-5, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)- 12 -

World rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Country/Region

Japan
U.S.
Germany
Korea
China
FranceT aiwan
Yemen
CanadaItaly

2009 - 2011(Average)
Number of patent families
Whole counting
Patent Families

61,22946,41729,92918,501
13,715
11,141
10,892
8,453
5,807
5,460

Share
28.3
21.5
13.9
8.6
6.3
5.2
5.0
3.9
2.7
2.5

World rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

(B) Selected countries/regions in which patent families were filed(a)Japan
100%

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

Europe (otherthan EPO)
European Patent
OfficeNorth/Latin
America (otherthan the U.S.)

70%
60%

Korea

Asia (other thanJapan, China,
and Korea)

20%
10%

China

20%
10%
0%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 10 Year

80%
70%

30%

Africa

100%
90%

10%
0%

Japan

50%
40%
U.S.

30%

Korea
China

20%

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 10 Year(e)China
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Europe(other than
EPO)

AfricaEurope(other than
EPO)

European
PatentOfficeNorth/Latin
America(other thanU.S.
the U.S.)
Asia (otherthan Japan,
China, andKorea)
Korea
Japan

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 10 Year

0%

100%
90%
80%
70%

Japan

Other
Middle East
AfricaOceania
Europe (other than EPO)
European Patent Office

Asia (other than Japan,
China, and Korea)
Korea

European
PatentNorth/LatinOfficeAmericaU.S.
(other thanthe U.S.)

10%

WIPO

North/Latin America (otherthan the U.S.)
U.S.

Africa

80%
60%

20%

10% China
Japan
0%
1

(d)U.K.

Europe(other than
EPO)

North/Latin
America(other thanthe U.S.)

Middle East80%
Africa70%
Oceania
Europe60%(other than
European
EPO)
North/Latin
50%
PatentOfficeAmerica40%(other thanAsia(othertheU.S.
U.S.)
Korea
30%
than Japan,
China, and
20%Korea
China Korea)

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 10 Year

70%
European
PatentOfficeWIPO
90% OtherJapan(c)Germany

90%

40%

America(other thanthe U.S.)

30%

0%

50%

European
PatentOfficeNorth/Latin

50%

U.S.

100%

Europe(other than
EPO)

80%

40%

30%

60%

Africa

90%

40%

100%

(b)U.S.

China
Korea
China

Japan

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 10 Year(f)Korea
Europe Africa(other than
European
EPO)
PatentOffice

60%

U.S.

50%

Asia (otherthan Japan,
China, andKorea)

40%
30%
20%

China

Japan

10%
0%

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 Year

Notes:1) Patent applications filed in home countries/regions are excluded.
2) A patent family is a group of patents filed in two or more countries, directly or indirectly related to each other by priority rights. In many cases, thesame patents filed in multiple countries belong to the same patent family.
Reference: Chart 4-2-11, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)- 13 -

5. Circumstances in Japan and the selected countries in terms of science,technology, and innovation(1) Japan and the United States are dependent on each other in the technology trade, but Japan’s
dependence on the United States is more remarkable.
Japan's largest trading partner in terms of technology export is the United States. This holds true fortechnology export to Japanese affiliated and unaffiliated companies located in the United States. On theother hand, the United States' largest trading partner in terms of technology export to unaffiliatedcompanies is Taiwan. For the United States, Ireland is its largest partner in terms of technology export toits affiliated companies. This is because Ireland imposes the lowest level of corporate tax in the EU region(as of 2014). As this example indicates, technology trade between affiliated companies includes factors
other than technological competence.
Japan's largest trading partner in terms of technology import is the United States. This holds true fortechnology import to U.S. affiliated and unaffiliated companies located in Japan. In addition, the UnitedStates' largest trading partner in terms of technology import is Japan. This holds true for technology
import to Japanese affiliated and unaffiliated companies located in the United States. Japan depends
heavily on the United States particularly in technology import.

(2) The increase in Japan's technology trade balance (exports/imports), excluding its affiliatedcompanies, indicates that Japan is increasing its technical competitiveness.
The balance of technology trade ratios of Japan and the United States excluding their affiliatedcompanies shows that the ratio of Japan, which used to hover around 1.0, started to rise in the latter half ofthe 2000s, increasing to as high as 2.3 in 2014. This indicates that Japan's relative competitiveness intechnology has been increasing over time. The ratio of the United States has been hovering around 4.0.
The ratio in 2014 was 3.5.

- 14 -

[Summary Chart 13] Technology exports and imports by partner country/region: Japan vs. the United States (2014)(A) Japan

Technology imports

Technology Exports¥ trillions

AffiliatedUnaffiliated

1.5
1.2

¥ trillions

AffiliatedUnaffiliated

1.5
1.2
0.9

0.6

0.6

0.3

0.3

0.0

0.0

U.S.
China
Korea
U.K.
Indonesia
Malaysia
ThailandTaiwanIndia
MexicoCanadaOthersU.S.
Switzerland
Germany
U.K.
FranceNetherlands
SwedenKorea
China
Canada
Italy
Others0.9(B) U.S.

Technology Exports

Technology imports¥ trillions¥ trillions

5

AffiliatedUnaffiliated4

AffiliatedUnaffiliated

1.5
1.2
0.9

2

0.6

1

0.3

0

0.0

Japan
U.K.
Germany
Switzerland
MexicoCanadaSwedenFranceIrelandNetherlands
BrazilOthersTaiwanKorea
Japan
CanadaU.K.
China
Germany
BrazilSwitzerland
Netherlands
Ireland
Others3

Notes:1) The amounts for Japan are financial-year-based.
2) The definition of affiliated companies is different between Japan and the United States, which requires attention in international comparison.
The following are major differences in the definition of affiliated companies between the two countries:[Japan] A parent company owns more than 50% of the stake of its subsidiary company. The types of Japanese technology trade include 1) patent right,
utility model right, and copyright, 2) design right, 3) technical know-how service and technical guidance (except ones provided free of charge), and 4)
technical assistance to developing countries (including government-commissioned assistance).
[U.S.] If a company directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of equity or a voting right of another company, the subsidiary company is called anaffiliated company. The types of U.S. technology trade include 1) industrial processes, 2) computer software, 3) trademarks, 4) franchise fees, 5)audio-visual and related products, and 6) other intellectual properties.
Reference: Chart 5-1-5, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)[Summary Chart 14] The balance of technology trade of Japan and the United States
excluding their affiliated companies

The technology trade balance

10
9

U.S. (excluding affiliates)

8

Japan (excluding affiliates)

7
6
5
4

3.5

3

2.3

2
1
0

2001 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 2014 Year
Note: The notes for Summary Chart 13 are applied to this chart.
Reference: Chart 5-1-2, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)- 15 -

(3) The percentage of firms that achieved product innovation was higher with the firms that wereinvolved in R&D activities than with the firms that were not.
The percentage of firms that achieved product innovation (introducing new products and services) by
the involvement in R&D activities revealed that percentage was higher with firms that were involved in
R&D activities in all countries. The percentage was the highest in Germany at 76.9%, followed by France
at 76.0% and Japan at 71.0%.
[Summary Chart 15] Percentage of firms that achieved product innovation in the selected countries(by involvement in R&D activities)

Percentage of product innovative firms％

100

All firms

90

All R&D active firms

80

All firms with no R&D

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Japan
(2009-12)

Germany(2010-12)

France(2010-12)

U.K.
(2010-12)

Korea(2011-13)

Notes:1) Korea looks at the entire manufacturing industry as the industrial classification for product innovation surveys, while other countries look at the only
core target industries that CIS2010 designates. So, this requires attention when internationally comparing the values for all firms.
2) The value for "all firms" in the U.K. is not shown.
Reference: Chart 5-4-2, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)- 16 -

(4) The percentage of firms that achieved product innovation was higher in the manufacturing industry
than in the service industry. The percentages of Japanese firms that achieved product innovation in
the manufacturing industry and the service industry were lower than European countries.
In all countries, the percentage of firms that achieved product innovation was higher in the
manufacturing industry than in the service industry. Between the manufacturing industry and the service
industry, the difference in the percentage of firms that achieved product innovation is the largest in Korea
and the smallest in the U.K.

Percentage of product innovative firms[Summary Chart 16] Percentage of firms that achieved product innovation in the selected countries(manufacturing industry vs. service industry)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

％

All firms
Manufacturing
ServicesJapan(2009-12)

Germany(2010-12)

France(2010-12)

Note: The value for "all firms" in the U.K. is not shown.
Reference: Chart 5-4-3, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)- 17 -

U.K.
(2010-12)

Korea(2011-13)

(5) In all countries, firms that were involved in product/process innovation activities attachedimportance to market related information as external sources of information.
This section looks at the external sources of information to which firms involved in product/process
innovation activities attach importance. If the information is classified into "market related (e.g., suppliers,
customers, competitors)" and "institution related (e.g., higher education institutions, governmentorganizations)," the importance of "market related" is greater in all countries, and 40–60% of firms
consider it very important. On the other hand, about 10% of firms consider "institution related"
information very important.

Percentage of firms involving in product/process
innovation activities citing source as ''highly important''[Summary Chart 17] External sources of information for firms involved in product/process
innovation activities in the selected countries
100％

Market sources (suppliers, customers, competitors, etc.)

90

Institutional sources (higher education, government)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Japan
(2009-12)

Germany(2010-12)

U.K.
(2010-12)

Korea(2011-13)

Note: This survey targeted firms involved in product/process innovation activities (including ongoing and suspended activities).
Reference: Chart 5-4-5, Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016 (in Japanese)- 18 -

Characteristics of the Japanese Science and Technology Indicators
The Japanese Science and Technology Indicators is published annually to present the most recent
statistics/indicators at the time of publication. Items that allow time-series comparisons as well ascomparisons among the selected countries based on data that are updated each year in principle arecollected.

Use of original statistical data published by authorities in each country
Wherever possible, statistical data published by authorities in each country are used as the sources ofdata for indicators appearing in Japanese Science and Technology Indicators. Every effort has been madeto clarify each country’s method of collecting statistics and how it differs from other countries’ methods.

NISTEP conducted analysis of paper and patent databases
Paper data were aggregated and analyzed by NISTEP using Thomson Reuters Web of Science.
Patents family data were aggregated and analyzed by NISTEP using PATSTAT (the patent database of
the European Patent Office).

Use of “reminder marks” for international comparisons and time-series comparisons
The reminder marks “attention to international comparison”
and “attention to trend”
have been attached to graphs where they are required. Generally, the data for each country
conform to OECD manuals and other materials. However, differences in methods of collecting data or
scope of focus do in fact exist, and therefore attention is necessary when making comparisons in somecases. Such cases are marked “attention to international comparison.” Likewise, for some time series data,
data could not be continuously collected under the same conditions due to changes in statistical standards.
Cases where special attention is required when reading chronological trends are marked “attention totrend.” Specifics for such points requiring attention are provided in the notes of individual charts.

- 19 -

Blank page

RESEARCH MATERIAL No. 251

Digest of Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016

August 2016

Research Unit for Science and Technology Analysis and Indicators
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP)
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)Japan

DOI：http://doi.org/10.15108/rm251e