Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2014 （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 2014" adds a new indicator that utilizes the results of theJapanese National Innovation Survey in time-series comparison. In indicators related to human resources
development, data representation has been improved to more clearly show the status of women andinternational students. Additionally, seven column-style articles use indicators to focus on timely issues
and specific themes from today's society.
Using "Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2014" to look at conditions in Japan, total JapaneseR&D expenditure has changed little since 2009. The percentage of researchers who are female isespecially small in the business enterprise sector. The number of female students enrolling in Japanesehigher education institutions is rising. Japan ranked number one in the world in share of patents (patentfamilies) during the 2000s. Japan's competitive superiority of its high-technology industries is falling, but
the competitiveness in medium high-technology industries is maintained high level.

-1-Characteristics of the Japanese Science and Technology Indicators
The Japanese Science and Technology Indicators is published each year to present the most recent
values at the time of publication. It is a collection of items that allow time-series comparisons as well ascomparisons among the selected countries based on data that are updated each year in principle.

Use of statistical data announced by each country
Wherever possible, statistical data announced by each country are used as the sources of data forindicators appearing in Japanese Science and Technology Indicators. Every effort has been made toclarify each country’s method of collecting statistics and how it differs from other countries’ methods.

Independent NISTEP analysis of paper and patent databases
Paper data were independently aggregated and analyzed by NISTEP using Thomson Reuters Web of
Science. The aggregation method is provided and explained in detail.
Of indicators pertaining to patents, patent family data were independently aggregated and analyzed
by NISTEP using PATSTAT (the patent database of the European Patent Office). The aggregation
method is provided and explained in detail.

Presentation of topical indicators in “columns”
In addition to base indicators, those indicators having topicality or are expected to have particularimportance in the future are presented in the form of “columns.”

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 statisticalstandards. Cases where special attention is required when reading trends of increases and decreases aremarked “attention to trend.” Specifics for such points requiring attention are provided in the notes ofindividual charts.

-2-

1. Circumstances in Japan and the selected countries interms of R&D expenditure(1) Japan's total R&D expenditure has remained mostly unchanged
since 2009.
Looking at the total R&D expenditure of the selected countries as an indicator of the scale ofJapan's R&D, in 2012 Japan's expenditure amounted to 17.3 trillion yen (OECD estimate: 15.9 trillionyen), a figure that has remained mostly unchanged since 2009. Looking at the other countries, the U.S.
has a much larger expenditure compared to the others. China's expenditure surpassed Japan's in 2009and is continuing to grow.
Summary chart 1: Trends in total R&D expenditure in selected countries
Nominal values (OECD purchasing power parity equivalent)¥ trillions
50

Attention tointernational
comparison

U.S.

R&D expenditure (nominal values)

45

３

40

EU-28
EU-15

35
30

China

25
Japan
(estimated by OECD)

20
15
10

U.K.

France

5
0

Japan
17.3
Germany
Korea

Year
1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 2012

Note: 1) The total R&D expenditure is the sum of each sector’s expenditure, and the definition of each sector occasionally differs depending on the country. Therefore it isnecessary to be careful when making international comparisons. Refer to Chart 1-1-4 for the definition of sectors in each selected country.
2) R&D expenditure includes the field of social sciences and humanities (for Korea, only natural sciences until 2006)
3) The former West Germany until 1990, and the unified Germany since 1991, respectively.
4) Reference statistics E were used for the conversion to obtain purchasing power parity equivalent.
5) Real values were obtained by calculations with a GDP deflator (reference statistics D were used).
6) Value for Japan (estimated by the OECD) represents the total R&D expenditure in which the labor cost comprising a part of R&D expenditure in the university andcollege sector was converted to FTE. The value was corrected and estimated by the OECD.
7) Regarding the 2012 values, those for the U.S. are preliminary values, while those for Germany are national projections or estimated values that have been corrected by
the Secretariat to accord, where necessary, with OECD standards. The values for France are provisional, while those for Japan (OECD) and the EU are OECD
Secretariat estimates/projections based on each country's materials.
Source: <Japan> Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Report on the Survey of Research and Development”<U.S.> NSF, “National Patterns of R&D Resources 2011–12 Data Update”<Germany> Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung，“Bundesbericht Forschung 2004, 2006,” “Bundesbericht Forschung und In-novation 2010, 2012”; from2010: OECD，“Main Science and Technology Indicators 2013/2”<Japan (estimated by the OECD), France and EU> OECD, “Main Science and Technology Indicators 2013/2”<U.K> National Statistics website:www.statistics.gov.uk<China> Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China, S&T Statistics Data Book 2013 (website)<Korea> National Science and Technology Information Service (website)-3-(2) Japan's business enterprises continue to emphasize R&D.
Looking at the general conditions of business enterprises, which account for approximately 70% ofJapan's total R&D expenditure, the year-on-year R&D expenditure and sales growth rates of Japanesebusiness enterprises show a roughly linked trend. In 2009, the year in which the global economic crisis(Lehman Shock) affected Japanese business enterprises, R&D expenditure and the year-on-year sales
growth rate were on the negative side by a large margin. However, the ratio of R&D expenditure tosales, which is an indicator showing the degree of focus that business enterprises place on R&D, hasremained at a high level since 2009. It is therefore thought that business enterprises are continuing toemphasize R&D.

3.5

10

3.0

5

2.5

0

2.0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

15

-5

1.5

-10

1.0

Ratio of R&D expenditures to sales (%)

Annual growth rate (%)

Summary chart 2: Year-on-year growth rate in sales and R&D expenditures in the Japanesebusiness enterprise sector, and ratio of R&D expenditures to sales

Annual growth rate in sales (left axis)-15

Annual growth rate of R&D expenditures (left axis)

0.5

Ratio of R&D expenditures to sales (right axis)

-20

0.0

Note: R&D expenditures and sales are both nominal values and based on figures of businesses engaged in R&D (excluding finance and insurance industries),
Sources: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Report on the Survey of Research and Development"-4-(3) Indirect support forms the major part of government support for
R&D by Japanese business enterprises.
A look at "direct support" (amount of business enterprises' R&D expenditures borne by thegovernment) and "indirect support" (amount of business enterprises' corporate taxes to be paid to thegovernment that is exempted through R&D tax incentives) on a ratio to GDP basis in order to view
government support for business enterprises' R&D shows that the share of indirect support is larger inJapan. Looking at other countries, those in which direct government support to business enterprises islarge include Russia, Slovenia and the U.S. Countries in which indirect support is large include France,
Canada, and Belgium.
Summary chart 3: Direct support and indirect support by governments for R&D by business enterprises
0.6

%

0.5

Indirect support
Direct support

Against GDP

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

RussiaSlovenia
The United States
South Korea
Czech Republic
FranceSpain
SwedenHungary
Austria
BrazilEstonia
Belgium
United Kingdom
Germany
NorwayFinland
New ZealandIreland
China
Denmark
CanadaNetherlands
South Africa
Italy
Luxembourg
Portugal
Japan

0.0

Note: 1) Values estimated by each country (in accordance with the survey for R&D tax incentives by NESTI). Preliminary budget values are also included.
2) Values for China, South Africa, and Luxembourg are for 2009; values for Spain, Brazil, Belgium, and Ireland are for 2010.
3) Data on indirect support was not provided for Estonia, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden, and Switzerland.
Source: OECD, “STI Scoreboard 2013"-5-

2. The situations in Japan and the selected countries interms of R&D personnel(1) Japan ranks third behind China and the U.S. in the number of
researchers.
In regards to the numbers of researchers in the selected countries, in 2013, Japan had 660,000
researchers in terms of FTE value (full-time equivalent) and 890,000 in terms of HC value (actual
value). A comparison of FTE values shows that Japan ranks third behind China and the U.S. It
should be noted that Japan's numbers have remained roughly the same since the second half of the
2000s.
Summary chart 4: Trends in the number of researchers (FTE) in selected countries
Attention tointernational
comparison

10,000 people

180

Attention to
trend

EU-28

Number of researchers

160
EU-15

140

China

120

U.S.

100

80

Japan
(HC)

Japan*

60
40

U.K.
France

Japan
(FTE)

Germany

20
Korea

0

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 2013 Year
Note: 1) The number of researchers in a country represents the total value of researchers in every sector, and the definition and measurement method for researchers ineach sector is occasionally different depending on the country. Therefore it is necessary to be careful when international comparisons are being made.
2) Values for each country are FTE, except Japan, which showed both FTE and HC values.
3) The values include the number of researchers in the field of social sciences and humanities (until 2006, only that of the field of natural science and engineering for
Korea).
<Japan> (1) Values until 2001 represent the numbers of researchers measured on Apr.1 and since 2002 represent the numbers of researchers measured on Mar.31
in the corresponding year, respectively.
(2) “Japan＊”: The number of “people mainly engaged in research” without being converted on FTE basis. External non-regular researchers are notmeasured.
(3) “Japan (HC)”: The total of “people mainly engaged in research” and “people engaged in research under non-regular conditions”. The number of
researchers in the universities and colleges sector includes the above mentioned “external non-regular researchers”.
(4) The FTE values of “Japan” through 2007 : The measurement for the universities and colleges sector is made with the conversion in accordance with theresults of the “Survey on the data for full-time equivalents in universities and colleges” in 2002. With regard to the business enterprises sector, thepublic organizations sector and the non-profit institutions sector, “people mainly engaged in research” and “people engaged in research under
non-regular condition whose values are converted on FTE basis” are measured.
(5) FTE values for “Japan” from 2008 : The value for the ““universities and colleges” calculated using the 2008 “Survey on the data for full-time equivalents
in universities and colleges,” and for ““business enterprises” and “public organizations and non-profit institutions” count ““people mainly engaged inresearch” and “people engaged in research under non-regular condition whose values are converted on FTE basis.”<U.S.> OECD Secretariat estimate/projection based on each country's materials.
<Germany> Until 1990, data is for the former West Germany. After 1991, data is for the unified Germany. For 2010 and 2012, OECD Secretariat estimate/projection
based on each country's materials. Figures for 2012 are provisional.
<U.K.> OECD secretariat estimate or projection based on national sources has been used since 1999. In 2005, the measurement method was changed to use ofnational projections or estimated values Figures for 2012 are provisional.
<China> Through 2008, the definition of researcher used was not in complete accordance with the OECD. The measurement method was changed in 2009. Caution
is therefore necessary when observing changes over time.
<EU> OECD Secretariat estimate/projection based on each country's materials.
Source: <Japan> Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Report on the Survey of Research and Development “; MEXT, “Survey on the data for full-time
equivalents in universities and colleges” (2002 and 2008)<U.S., France, U.K., China, and EU> OECD, “Main Science and Technology Indicators 2013/2”<Germany> Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, “Bundesbericht Forschung 1996, 2000, 2004”; “Forschung und Innovation in Deutschland 2007”“Bundesbericht Forschung und Innovation, 2008, 2010, 2012”; OECD, “Main Science and Technology Indicators 2013/2” since 2010.
<Korea>KISTEP, Statistical DB (website)-6-

(2) The ratio of female researchers in Japan is large in the"universities and colleges" sector but low in the "businessenterprises" sector.
Looking at female researchers in the selected countries by sector, in each country, the ratio of
female researchers was smallest in the business enterprises sector. The ratio was relatively large inthe universities and colleges sector in each country.
In the case of Japan, the share of female researchers in the universities and colleges sector waslarge at 25.0%. On the other hand, the share of female researchers in the business enterprises sector
was smallest, accounting for 8.0% of the total. Additionally, Japan's share of female researches in
the non-profit institutions sector is small compared to the selected countries.
Summary chart 5: Shares of female researchers of the selected countries by sector

50

Business enterprises
Universities and colleges%

Public organizations
Non-profit institutions

公的機関と非営利団体
Public organizations &Non-profit institutions
44.4

42.0

40
33.5

10
0

Percentage ofthe total

35.0 33.3

33.4

32.9
27.3

30
20

36.3

40.5

25.0
19.6
15.9

13.7

22.1

19.1

14.2

12.8

8.0

Japan
(2013)
14.4%

Germany(2011)
26.7%

France(2011)
25.6%

U.K.
(2011)
37.7%

Korea(2011)
17.3%

Notes: 1) Values for France's public organizations sector are underestimated or based on underestimated data.
2) For the non-profit institutions sectors of France, the U.K., and Korea, the number of researchers was obtained by subtracting the numbers of researchers in thebusiness enterprises sector, the universities and colleges sector, and public organizations sector from the total.
Sources: <Japan> Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Report on the Survey of Research and Development”<Other countries> OECD “Main Science and Technology Indicators 2013/2”-7-

3. The situation in Japan in terms of university andgraduate students(1) The number of female students enrolling in Japanese universities
is growing.
Looking at the numbers of students enrolling in Japan's undergraduate departments, master's
programs, and doctoral programs, the number of enrolling female students is increasing.

On theother hand, the number of enrolling male students is decreasing.
Looking at the numbers of newly enrolled students in Japan's universities and graduate schools,that for doctoral courses began decreasing in 2003 and that for master's programs began decreasing
after peaking in 2010, while that for undergraduate departments has remained flat since around2000. Thus, human resources development in institutions of higher education is improving from thestandpoint of diversity due to increasing numbers of female enrollees.

However, it is alsoshrinking in size when viewed in terms of the total number of enrolling students.

This situation

may have an impact on the supply of R&D personnel and advanced human resources in the future.
Summary chart 6: Numbers of students enrolling in undergraduate departments,
master's programs, and doctoral programs(A) Female enrollees
10,000people40

Humanities, Social sciences, Others
Natural Sciences35

6

10,000peopleHumanities, Social sciences, Others
Natural Sciences

1.2

5

1.0

4

0.8

3

20

Humanities, Social sciences, Others
Natural Sciences

1.4

30
25

10,000people

0.6

15

2

10

0.4

1

5

0.2

0

0
FY1990FY2000

FY1990FY2013

FY2000FY20130.0
FY1990

Postgraduate master's cours

University undergradute course

FY2000FY2013

Postgraduate doctoral course(B) Male enrollees
10,000peopleHumanities, Social sciences, Others
Natural Sciences40

10,000people635

Humanities, Social sciences, Others
Natural Sciences

1.0

4

25

1.4

Humanities, Social sciences, Others
Natural Sciences

1.2

5

30

10,000people

0.8

20

3

15

0.6

2

0.4

1

0.2

10
5
0

0.0

0
FY1990FY2000FY2013

University undergradute course

FY1990FY2000FY2013

Postgraduate master's cours

Source: MEXT, “Report on School Basic Survey”-8-

FY1990FY2000FY2013

Postgraduate doctoral course(2) The number of Chinese graduate school students among foreign
graduate students in Japan is extremely high.
Concerning the state of foreign graduate students in Japan and the U.S., Japan had 16,000 foreign
graduate students in the natural sciences field (2013). Chinese graduate students accounted for thelargest share of this number with 8,000, which was half the total. On the other hand, in the U.S. had
163,000 foreign graduate students in the science and engineering field (2012). Chinese and Indian
graduate students had the largest shares of this number, accounting for a combined total of 60%.
Summary chart 7: Foreign graduate students in Japan and the U.S.
(A) Japan: Natural sciences and engineering(B) U.S.: Science and engineering
10,000 people
7

10,000 people
0.92012 ranking

2013 ranking
China 1st

0.8

China 1st
6
India 2nd

Korea 2nd
0.7

Indonasia 3rd

Korea 3rd

5
Vietnam 4th

0.6

Iran 4th

Thailand 5th

Taiwan 5th4

0.5

Malaysia 6th

Saudi Arabia 6th

Bangladesh 7th

0.4

Canada 7th

3

Taiwan 8th
Turkey 8th
0.3

India 9th
2

France 18th
0.2

Nepal 9th
Japan 12th

U.S. 20th1

Germany 28th

0.1

Germany 16th

France 17th

U.K. 34th

0

0.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20122007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Note: For Japan, foreign students are those without Japanese citizenship. For the U.S., foreign students are those without U.S. citizenship.
Sources: <Japan> MEXT, “Report on School Basic Survey”<U.S.> NSF, “Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012”-9-

4. Circumstances in Japan and the selected countries
in terms of R&D output(1) Japan continues to have a declining presence in terms of its shareof the number of scientific papers published.
The following looks at scientific papers published, which is a measure of R&D output. Looking firstat share of the number of papers, between the 1980s and the early 2000s, Japan’s share grew to surpass
those of the U.K. and Germany, and for a while ranked number two in the world; however, its share has
been declining in recent years. However, this tendency toward a declining share is not limited to Japan,
as it is also seen for the U.K., Germany, and France.
Moreover, looking at shares of the numbers of adjusted top 10% papers and adjusted top 1% papers
as qualitative indicators, Japan saw its shares increase gradually from the 1980s into to the early 2000s;
however, these shares have been decreasing rapidly since then.
Summary chart 8: Changes in the shares of papers, number of adjusted top 10% papers,
and number of adjusted top 1% papers of the selected countries(All fields, fractional counting, three-year moving average)(A)The share of the number of papers in all fields(moving average over 3 years)(Fractional counting)(B)The share of the number of adjusted top 10% papers (C) The share of the number of adjusted top 1% papers
in all fields(moving average over 3 years)
in all fields (moving average over 3 years)(fractional counting)(fractional counting)

35

70
30

70
30

30

60
25

60
25

25

50

50

20

20

20

40

40

15

15
30

15
30

10

10
20

10
20

10
5

5
10

5

0
0

0
1982

87
U.S.
Germany
Korea

92

97
U.K.
China

02

07

2011
(PY)

Japan
France

1982
1982

87
87
U.S.
U.S.
Germany
Germany
Korea
Korea

92
92

97
97
U.K.
U.K.
China
China

02
02

2011
07
07 2011
Japan (PY)Japan
FranceFrance

0
0

1982
1982

87
87
U.S.
U.S.
Germany
Germany
Korea
Korea

92
92

97
97
U.K.
U.K.
China
China

02
02

2011
07 2011
07
(PY)
Japan
Japan
FranceFranceNote: The analysis targeted articles and reviews. Publication year (PY) was used in annual aggregation. Three-year moving averages of share of papers in all fields (if 2011,
average of PY 2010, PY 2011, and PY 2012). Fractional counting used. Numbers of times cited are values as of the end of 2013.
Source: Compiled by NISTEP based on Thomson Reuters, “Web of Science (SCIE, CPCI: Science)”- 10 -

(2) Japan ranked first in terms of share of patents (number of patentfamilies) in 2000.
Next, looking at numbers of patent families, which are measured by the number of inventions
produced by each country and region in an internationally comparable form, with particular attention topatents, Japan and the U.S. traded places during the second half of the 1990s before Japan took the top
share in the 2000s. This reflects the fact that the number of patent applications submitted from Japan tomultiple countries increased.
Summary chart 9: Changes in shares in the number of patent families in the selected countries(All technical fields, whole counting, three-year moving average)) Share of number of patent families+ single-country applications
r moving average [%]) (whole counting)(B) Share of number of patent families(3-year moving average [%]) (whole counting)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0
88

91

94

97

00

U.K.

Japan

France

Korea

03

06

2009
Germany

1982

85

88

91

94

97

00

U.S.

U.K.

Japan

China

France

Korea

03

06
Germany

Notes: Three-year moving averages of share of number of patent families in all technical fields (if 2008, the average of 2007, 2008, and 2009); see the Technical Notes fordetails concerning the method used for patent family analysis.
Source: Compiled by NISTEP based on PATSTAT (October 2013 version) of the European Patent Office- 11 -

(3) Japan has high shares of the number of patents (number of patentfamilies) in the electrical engineering, general machinery, andinformation and communication technology fields.
Looking at Japan's technology field balance among patent families, Japan has a portfolio with highshares for electrical engineering, general machinery, and information and communication technology
and low shares for biotechnology/pharmaceuticals and bio/medical devices.
Summary chart 10: Comparison of shares in the number of patent families for each technology fieldin the selected countries(%, 1997-1999 and 2007-2009, whole counting)(A) Japan
Electricalengineering

50
40

Other

ICT

30
20
Transport
equipment

Generalmachinery

100Mechanicalengineering

Bio/medical
devices

Biotech/pharmaChemistry

Patent family share (1997-1999)
Patent family share (2007-2009)(C) Germany(B) U.S.

Electricalengineering

Electricalengineering

50

50
40

Other

40

Other

ICT

30

20

20
Transport
equipment

Generalmachinery

10

Transport
equipment

Generalmachinery

1000Mechanicalengineering

Bio/medical
devices

Biotech/pharma

ICT

30

Mechanicalengineering

Bio/medical
devices

Biotech/pharmaChemistry

Chemistry

Patent family share (1997-1999)
Patent family share (2007-2009)

Patent family share (1997-1999)
Patent family share (2007-2009)

Note: Biotechnology/pharmaceuticals: Biotech/pharma
Information and communication technology: CT
Source: Compiled by NISTEP based on PATSTAT (October 2013 version) of the European Patent Office- 12 -

5. Circumstances in Japan and the selected countries
in terms of science, technology, and innovation(1) Japan's technical strength is rising in the world in terms of its
technology trade balance.
Looking at technology trade, which illustrates international trade of technical knowledge as anindicator of each country’s technical strength, Japan’s technology trade balance has been risingcontinuously since surpassing 1 in 1993. In 2012, it reached a high level of 6.1. This is primarily due
to a decline in technology imports, most noteworthy of which is a decline in imports from the U.S.
Looking at technology trade exclusive of that between parent companies and subsidiaries, Japan's
technical trade balance in 2012 was 2.0. It has had an export surplus since 2006. On the other hand, theU.S.'s technical trade balance was 4.0 (reference: main text chart 5-1-2 B).
Summary chart 11: Technology trade balance ratios of the selected countries
12
11

The texchnology trade balance

10
9
8
7

Japan

6

U.S.
5

Germany

4
3France

U.K.

2
1

Korea

0

1981 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 2012
Note :<Japan> Data are for fiscal years.
The sorts of technology trade are as follows (excluding trademark rights):
1) Patent rights, utility model rights and copy rights
2) Design rights
3) Each kind of technological know-how provision and technical guidance (excluding free provision)4) Technological aid for developing countries (including government-commissioned works)<U.S.> Through 2000, only royalties and licenses. For 2001–2005, research, development and testing services were added. Since 2006, intangible assets (excluding
books, records, television, films, etc), computers, data processing services, etc., have been included. Figures for 2011 are provisional.
<Germany> West Germany until 1990. Until 1985 includes patents, licenses, know-how, trademarks, and design. From 1986, additionally included technical services,computer services and R&D in industrial fields. Figures for 2011 are provisional.
<U.K.>From 1996, includes patents, inventions, licenses, trademarks, design and services and R&D related to technology. Data continuity with the previous year isimpaired for 2009. Figures for 2011 are provisional.
<Korea> Figures for 2009 are provisional.Statistical reference E was used for purchasing power parity conversion.
Source :<Japan> Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Report on the Survey of Research and Development.”<U.S., Germany, France, U.K. and Korea>OECD, “Main Science and Technology Indicators 2013/2.”- 13 -

(2) Japan's superior competitiveness in high-technology industries iseroding; however, it maintains high competitiveness inmedium-high technology industries.
Looking at high-technology industrial competitiveness from the standpoint of products and services
trade balance, Japan's balance ratio was 0.9 in 2012, a figure that fell below 1 and marked Japan's firstimport surplus. This is primarily due to an increase in technology imports, most noteworthy of which isan increase in imports from radio, television, and communication equipment industries.
On the other hand, Japan’s industry trade balance ratio in medium high-technology industries was
3.0 in 2013. This ranked number one among the selected countries. Japan showed a rapid decline in
the mid-1990s followed by a gradual decrease; however, its export surplus is still larger than the othercountries.
Summary chart 12: Changes in the high-technology industry trade balance ratios of the selected countries
The trade balance of high technology industry

5

4

3
Japan

FranceGermany

2

Korea
China

1
U.K.

U.S.

0
1990

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

Year
2012

10

Note: High-technology industries: "Pharmaceuticals," "Radio, Television and Communication Equipment," and "Aircraft and Spacecraft"
Sources: OECD, “Main Science and Technology Indicators 2013/2”

Summary chart 13: Changes in the medium high-technology industry trade balance ratios of the selected countries
Medium high-technology industry trade balance ratio

6

5

4

Japan

3
FranceGermany

Korea

2
China
1
U.K.

U.S.
0
1990

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

Year
12 2013

Note: Medium high-technology industries: “Chemicals (excluding Pharmaceuticals),” “Machinery & Equipment,” “Electrical Machinery and Apparatus (excluding
Telecommunications Equipment),” “Motor Vehicles, Trailers and Semi-Trailers,” and “Railroad Equipment and Transport Equipment.”
Source: OECD, “STAN Bilateral Trade in Goods by Industry and End-use (BTDIxE), ISIC Rev. 3”- 14 -

(3) Japan's share of companies that achieved process innovation is
low compared to the selected countries but growing.
Looking at the shares of companies that achieved innovation of the selected countries in terms of
product and process innovation, Japan's share of companies that achieved product innovation is low
compared to the selected countries and decreasing. However, the shares of Germany, the U.K., andKorea are also decreasing. On the other hand, looking at shares of companies that achieved process
innovation, Japan's share is low compared to the selected countries but only Japan’s share is growing.
It should be noted that the shares of companies that achieved innovation that are presented here are
the results of aggregation based on numbers of companies without consideration for company size. It
is therefore thought that the circumstances of small and medium-size enterprises, which make up the
majority of the number of companies, are more strongly expressed in the data.
Summary chart 14: Shares of companies that achieved innovation of the selected countries(A) Shares of companies that achieved product innovation
%
50
43.3

41.5

40

35.7

32.7
30

26.3

24.7

23.7

23.4
19.4

20

16.9 17.3 15.8

10

002-04 08-10 02-04 08-10 02-04 05-07-

Germany

China

U.K.

Korea

04-06 02-04 08-10-

France08-10 99-01 09-11
U.S.

Japan

(B) Shares of companies that achieved process innovation
%
50

40

36.2
29.5

30

25.3

23.4

22.5
20.1

20
15.6

14.6

11.7
10

0
02-04

08-10

Germany

02-04

08-10

France

99-01

09-11

Japan

Notes: 1) “Fiscal year” is used for Japan; “year” is used for other countries.
2) Only the latest data are provided for China and the U.S.

- 15 -

02-04

08-10

U.K.

02-04
Korea

-

3) Figures are estimates of share among all companies of the survey population. The figures for Japan are estimates of all industries (core) that include only coreindustries of CIS 2010, thereby matching them to other countries and similar standards for the purpose of international comparison. The figures for Korea are for
manufacturing industries, and product innovation refers to manufactured goods only.
Sources: 1) National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, ” A report on the Japanese National Innovation Survey 2012 ”
2) 2002-2004 figures for Germany, France, the U.K., and Korea and 1999-2001 figures for Japan are quoted from OECD, “Innovation in Firms.”
3) Figures for the U.S., China, and Korea are quoted from OECD Science, Technology, and Industry Scoreboard 2013. It should be noted that figures for the U.S.
are the results of the 2010 Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS; survey years 2008-2010); figures for China are results of the Industrial Enterprises
Innovation Survey (survey years: 2004-2006); and figures for Korea are results of the 2008 Korean Innovation Survey (survey years: 2005-2007).
4) Figures for the U.K., France, and Germany are quoted from results of CIS 2010 (survey years: 2008 to 2010) that are recorded in the Eurostat database.

- 16 -