China's research funding system: a regional innovation system

Thrilled to share our new research published today in PNAS with brilliant colleagues Renli Wu (Northwestern University) and Christopher Esposito (UCLA Anderson)! 🎉 "Shifting power asymmetries in scientific teams reveal China's rising leadership in global science" We analyzed millions of scientific papers to understand how leadership in international collaborations is shifting by assessing who plays leadership roles in science. Here's what we found: 📊 The Leadership Shift In US-China collaborations: Chinese scientists went from leading 30% of projects (2010) to 45% (2023). Our models project parity by 2027-2028. 🔬 Critical Technologies: China is on track to reach leadership parity with the US in 8 of 11 critical technology areas before 2030—including AI, semiconductors, and advanced communications. 🌍 The Decoupling Paradox: Counterintuitively, our models show that US-China scientific decoupling would actually increase China's global scientific leadership, as Chinese scientists redirect partnerships to countries where they're more likely to lead. 🎓 Belt & Road Investments: China invested $4.6B in training international students (2012-2025), with growing focus on developing countries. This is already translating into scientific leadership in those regions. 💡 What This Means: This isn't a zero-sum game. The real question is whether competition will drive positive investments in global scientific capacity—or whether efforts to restrain progress will harm both nations and slow global advancement. The dynamics of US-China scientific competition can go in very different directions depending on policy choices made today. Paper: https://lnkd.in/g_GYzPrt Grateful to the NSF National Network for Critical Technology Evaluation and UChicago Knowledge Lab #Science #Research #Innovation #GlobalScience #SciencePolicy #China #ChinaPolicy

Pleased that my work with the great Renli Wu and James Evans is now published in PNAS! James wrote a great synopsis. I wanted to share a bit of the thought process that went into the research. We were inspired by the idea of the division of labor. When people team up to produce a good or service -- whether in a manufacturing plant or in a scientific lab -- there are leaders (such as bosses and managers), and there are workers who support the leaders. For better or for worse, the leaders hold most of the power: they pick the priorities and capture most of the returns. In the past 30 years, the production of science globalized, with teams of collaborators spanning international borders. The growth in US-China collaborations is particularly remarkable -- expanding roughly 250-fold since 2000. Often, globalization is thought of as a "great leveler," spreading opportunity and decreasing inequality. But if scientific globalization also extended the division of scientific labor globally, it may have concentrated leadership functions in some countries and supporter functions in others. For example, China could get caught in supporter roles in global collaborations, similar to the "middle income trap" studied in development economics. We thus asked two main questions: Which country occupies leadership positions in international scientific collaborations? And, how fast is the balance of leadership in US-China collaborations shifting from the US to China? Our findings surprised us. We found that China is on track to lead the majority of US-China collaborations after 2027-2028, including in Critical Technology Areas as defined by US Congress. Evidently, China rapidly broke away from supportive roles in science and become a global leader. What explains China's rapid ascent? It appears that advantageous demographics, combined with large investments by the Chinese government to educate its nationals at leading universities in the US, played crucial roles -- as we document in the paper's Supplemental Information. By funding millions of young scientists to study at the world's leading universities, China did not painstakingly climb a development ladder. Instead, it jumped to the top rung. While the paper is largely empirical, it holds lessons economic development theory. Ultimately, development stems from the ability to organize production. The division of labor in international production provides a window to identify the people and places that organize global production, and the people and places that get organized by others.

"Chinese-based scientists filled 45% of leadership roles in US-China joint studies in 2023, up from 30% in 2010. If the trend holds, China will reach parity with the US in 2027 or 2028 — the point at which both sides lead an equal share of joint research." The US is poised to give up the lead. Cutbacks in federal funding for scientific research won't help -- and will likely accelerate the US decline.

🤝 Amid international concerns over the China Scholarship Council, our latest blog's authors qianqian xie & Alfredo Yegros look at the data. They reveal trends, collaborations and broader implications, and ultimately argue for a "balanced, evidence-based approach". 👇 Read it now on Leiden Madtrics https://lnkd.in/ew534Jqk

I’m excited to share our latest blog “Balancing opportunity and risk: rethinking the China Scholarship Council Programmes (CSC) amid geopolitical tensions” 🥳 🥳 , co-written with Alfredo Yegros and building on our recent paper. In the post, we explore how CSC international mobility grant programmes both open doors and present challenges, especially in today’s climate of heightened geopolitical tensions. What we found: ✨ • CSC-funded researchers contribute to high-impact research and foster strong international collaborations ✨ • They often help fill funding gaps in under-resourced areas within host countries. ✨ • However, their engagement in security-sensitive research remains limited. Our analysis draws on analysis about what research is produced, how influential it is, who collaborates with whom, the funding environments involved, and whether research overlaps with sensitive areas. In the end, we propose policy recommendations calling for a balanced, evidence-based approach for host countries. One that safeguards security without closing the door to collaboration. Trust, transparency and open dialogue might be what keep global science moving forward. Read the full post on Leiden Madtrics https://lnkd.in/ew534Jqk #ResearchFunding #SciencePolicy #InternationalMobility #ChinaScholarshipCouncil

The US has been a powerhouse of science for decades (strongest in the 1970-1990's) due to post war investment and 'attributed to the organizational design of its research universities, which compete more actively for scientific talent and adopt scientific innovations faster than universities and research institutions in Europe (and elsewhere)' (Heinze et al 2019). We have been in decline as other countries have been increasing their investment. The recent US investment in science is 3% of the entire budget...Economists have also found that government investments in scientific research and development have provided returns of 150% to 300% since World War II. (science coalition 2025 report).

This new definition of scientific leadership (Q2) generates new insights (Q1, Q3, Q4). Q1: "The study, published Tuesday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that Chinese-based scientists filled 45% of leadership roles in U.S.-China joint studies in 2023, up from 30% in 2010. If the trend holds, China will reach parity with the U.S. in 2027 or 2028 — the point at which both sides lead an equal share of joint research." Q2: "Researchers at Wuhan University, University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Chicago used a machine-learning model to identify which scientists directed projects based on contribution statements and authorship data. The approach offers a more nuanced way of tracking scientific power than traditional metrics such as publication counts or citation indexes, which measure volume rather than influence, the authors said." Q3: "The results suggest China is no longer just producing more science — it’s organizing it." Q4: "By 2018, almost half of all international students in China came from Africa and South Asia, and the paper finds that Chinese researchers now lead most collaborations with nations participating in the Belt and Road initiative, including those students’ home countries." https://lnkd.in/ghV8XjZE

Research Professional News has spotlighted BFPG’s new report on Science and Soft Power, highlighting its calls for the restoration of long-term international funding, stronger coordination and better narratives to harness scientific expertise for global influence. https://lnkd.in/dn9ju5NU

✨ Thrilled to share a new publication in Regional Studies with Fu Wenying and Daniel Schiller: “Structural and agentic powers in university-based regional innovation across Chinese core and non-core cities” 📑 Universities are increasingly pivotal in driving place-based innovation. In China, the rise of university-based National Research and Development Institutes (NRDIs) provides a unique lens to examine how local governments and universities collaborate to shape regional innovation pathways. Based on six university-based NRDIs, our study explores how structural and agentic powers interact in shaping those collaborations across core and non-core cities. We hope our findings will enrich academic debates on structure–agency dynamics and inform policies that drive university-based regional innovation. 🔎 We identify three patterns of structural-agentic power interplay: 1. Strong–strong reinforcement: mutually enabling collaboration 2. Weak–weak constraints: limited innovation outcomes 3. Misaligned relations: tensions that hinder progress 💡 Key insight: University-based NRDIs can act as top-down platforms to integrate innovation resources in core cities, and as experimental testbeds enabling new development paths in non-core cities. This dual role highlights their potential for reducing regional disparities and strengthening decentralised innovation governance. 👉 Read the paper here: https://lnkd.in/dxDDW5pH We’d love to hear your thoughts on how universities can drive regional innovation in different urban contexts! #RegionalInnovation #UniversityIndustryCollaboration #China #RegionalDevelopment #InnovationGovernance #HigherEducation #InnovationIntermediaries #RegionalStudies

Shutting out China’s best minds will only push them into a homegrown Chinese research ecosystem that is eclipsing American universities. By Bethany Allen and Jenny Wong Leung https://lnkd.in/gUcRnP-b