ArticlePDF Available

Perspectives: Decoupling in Science and Education: A Collateral Damage beyond Deteriorating U.S.–China Relations

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Deteriorating relations between the USA and China since 2018 have extended to education and scientific research arenas. We put the US–China science and education in a historical perspective and describe the win–win situation when both countries collaborated. We discuss an ongoing loss–loss scenario of the decoupling and speculate its far-reaching adverse impacts beyond bilateral territories. We call for actions to be taken for a brighter future by the leaderships in both countries.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Decoupling in science and education:
A collateral damage beyond deteriorating
US–China relations
Li Tang
1,†
, Cong Cao
2,†
, Zheng Wang
3,4,
* and Zhuo Zhou
5
1
School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, China,
2
Nottingham
University Business School (China), University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo, 315100, China,
3
Department of
Economics and Marketing, De Montfort University, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK,
4
Research Centre on Globalisation and
Economic Policy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK and
5
Institute of International Economy,
Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, Shanghai, 200025, China
Co-first authors who contribute equally to the work.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: zheng.wang@dmu.ac.uk
Abstract
Deteriorating relations between the USA and China since 2018 have extended to education and sci-
entific research arenas. We put the US–China science and education in a historical perspective and
describe the win–win situation when both countries collaborated. We discuss an ongoing loss–loss
scenario of the decoupling and speculate its far-reaching adverse impacts beyond bilateral
territories. We call for actions to be taken for a brighter future by the leaderships in both countries.
Key words: decoupling, US–China relations, science diplomacy
1. Introduction
The world’s two largest scientific communities are now witnessing
unprecedented yet escalating tensions ever since the Cold War.
Starting from 2018, dozens of prominent scientists in the US, most
of Chinese origin, have been fired or investigated for undisclosed ties
with China (Hao and Guo, 2021;Mervis 2020). These, combined
with continuing shuttering of Confucius Institutes on US university
campuses, strict limits on Chinese nationals studying or conducting re-
search in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
fields, revocations of visas for Chinese scholars who are already study-
ing in the US, the closures of Chinese Consulate in Houston and the
US Consulate in Chengdu in succession, and the recent Strategic
Competition Act of 2021 and the United States Innovation and
Competition Act of 2021 (USICA), are casting long shadows on the
US–China scientific relationship.
2. US–China relationship in science and
education
2.1 A historical perspective
In spite of ups and downs of the bilateral relations, science and edu-
cation had played a largely positive role in bridging the two nations.
In 1854, Yung Wing became the first Chinese to be awarded a bach-
elor’s degree from Yale University. In 1872, under his suggestion
and supervision, the first batch of Chinese teenage boys was sent to
the US, shouldering the hope of absorbing western academic ideas
and making China civilized and prosperous.
Funded by the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship and other
programs top Chinese returnees from America staffed Chinese uni-
versities in the early 20th century, contributing to the institutional-
ization of higher education and scientific research in China.
Historically, of the twenty-three scientists who were responsible
for developing China’s strategic weapons programs, nineteen had
foreign study and/or work experience, including ten in the US
(Simon and Cao, 2009).
Since China and the US established a formal diplomatic relation-
ship in 1979, an increasing number of China’s best and brightest
minds traveled west to study advanced science and technology.
Today the US has remained the most favorable destination for
Chinese students to pursue their studies. According to the most re-
cent data released by the Institute for International Education, in the
2018/19 academic year, some 370,000 Chinese students attended
American universities, on top of which, 48,000 Chinese scholars
were conducting research in the US, with Chinese accounting for
about one-third of the international students and scholars in the US
and surpassing those from any other foreign countries (Institute for
International Education 2020). As of early 2020, the total number
of Chinese in foreign countries as international students reached 1.6
million with at least a quarter in the US (National Science Board,
National Science Foundation 2020). Conversely, with the rapid de-
velopment of the Chinese economy, more American students and
V
CThe Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com 1
Science and Public Policy, 2021, 1–5
doi: 10.1093/scipol/scab035
Perspective
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/scipol/scab035/6322422 by guest on 17 July 2021
scholars travel eastward, temporarily or permanently, to undertake
research in Chinese universities. As reported by the Ministry of
Education of China, more than 492,000 international students and
scholars studied in China in 2018, of which 20,996 were from the
US (Ministry of Education, 2019).
2.2 The present situation
All these were in jeopardy under the Trump Administration. The
US–China trade war, soon after it started in 2018, has spread to
technology and talent areas (Fig. 1 chronologizes the major events
of US–China relations since 2018). Consequently, the barriers for
Chinese students and academics to study and work in the US had be-
come more tacit and politicized. China’s proactive efforts of attract-
ing talent through high-end talent recruitment programs had seen the
pushback from the US government under Trump, which initiated the
investigations into the involvement of America-based scientists in
such programs. Some American politicians also have called for ban-
ning Chinese students from studying STEM subjects at American uni-
versities. In a word, the US seeks to decouple with China in not only
trade but also technologies and talents. American people also have
turned more negative toward the presence of Chinese, but not neces-
sarily international, students on American university campuses.
The US shifting view of China from an ‘economic and strategic
rivalry’ to a ‘foreign adversary’ signaled its rising concerns over
issues from China’s access to core technologies such as chips, alleged
inappropriate use of intellectual property rights through forced tech-
nology transfer, and technology theft and espionage, to national se-
curity at the front of 5G technology and cybersecurity (Schneider-
Petsinger et al., 2019). Ultimately, the difficult technological rela-
tionship between the two countries boils down to intellectual ex-
change and scientific collaboration. There have been no signs of a
quick reversal of the relationship after the change of the leadership
in the US in January 2021.
3. Impacts on the two countries and beyond
3.1 Win–win in the past
Despite the current frictions, there was a long cozy period of US–
China collaboration that brought a win–win situation of knowledge
Figure 1. A chronology of major events of US–China relations (January 2018–March 2021).
2Science and Public Policy, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/scipol/scab035/6322422 by guest on 17 July 2021
creation, sharing, diffusion, and innovation on both sides. Studies
show that the foreign-born and educated have contributed dispro-
portionately to the advancement of US innovation and science su-
premacy (van Holm et al., 2019). From 2003 to 2017, as the largest
source country of US science and engineering (S&E) doctorates,
over 80 per cent of the Chinese recipients remain in the US work-
force and continue their contribution to the American economy five
years after receiving their doctorate degree. In 2018 over one-quar-
ter of US internationally collaborated S&E articles had contributors
from China (National Science Board, National Science Foundation
2020).
On the Chinese side, in addition to its remarkable decades-long
economic development, rapid accumulation of human capital, and
technocratic policy push, China’s rise in science owns a great degree
to international academic exchange and ensuing collaboration with
advanced economies, especially with the US. Our analysis reveals
that joint publications between the US and China jumped from only
57 articles in 1980 to 51,583 in 2019 with an annual growth rate of
20 per cent over forty years. Combined, journal articles involving
Chinese or American scholars make up 47.4 per cent of the global
knowledge production indexed in the Science Citation Index data-
base.
1
Chinese knowledge moderators with training in developed
countries, including the US, had contributed tremendously to
China’s rise in science and technology (Tang 2013). Within the
unbalanced collaboration network, learning-by-collaborating ele-
vated China’s status in vital scientific and technological fields with
surprising rapidity (Leung 2013;Freeman 2014).
America also benefits greatly from educating and collaborating
with international students, scholars, and entrepreneurs. Looking
back into history, the scientific, technological, and economical su-
premacy of the US has been deeply rooted in its capacity of tapping
into the pool of global talents via the conduits of foreign-born scien-
tists and New Argonauts (Saxenian 2007). In particular, over the
last decades, the US has been able to retain a significant amount of
US-trained talent, especially those at the high-end measured by the
possession of an American PhD degree. In some cutting-edge fields
such as artificial intelligence, the top Chinese-origin minds are con-
ducting world-class research in the US (Mozur and Metz, 2020).
Such collaborations between the two countries play a significant
part in pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge for the entire
world.
3.2 The ongoing loss–loss scenario
While it will be years before we know the full effect of the current
US–China tensions on scientific exchange and innovation network
between the two countries, such effect could be felt in various
aspects.
The impacts on China are significant. On the one hand, China
may benefit from the push from the US side leading to an increasing
and accelerating return of the Chinese academics and other profes-
sionals from the US. As talent is always scarce in number and unbal-
anced in terms of training, utilization, and distribution, both pull
and push factors could change the redistribution of talent on a glo-
bal scale (Bansak et al., 2015). While a significant number of
Chinese-origin students and scholars, especially those with US re-
search degrees, tend to seek local employment and permanent resi-
dency after graduation, recent decade has also witnessed an
increasing number of students and scholars returning to China upon
finishing their stints in the US owing to opportunities provided by
China’s faster economic growth, increasing attention paid to R&D
and higher education, and government and universities’ preferable
policy toward returnees.
On the other hand, in addition to the overwhelming amount of
high-end talent still residing in the US, the turning away of Chinese
students and scholars by leading American universities and high-
tech enterprises may mean a gradual cutoff of China from the
world’s leading edge in science and technology. Together, they may
slow down China’s ambition to become an innovation-driven nation
and a world’s scientific superpower, which may ultimately recon-
struct global value chain and geopolitical order unfavorable to
China’s modernizations (Lee et al., 2020;Wyne, 2020).
Decoupling China in science and education could be detrimental
to the US as well. The US has been dependent upon the mobility of
talent from countries such as China to sustain the development of its
scientific and educational enterprise. The loss of international stu-
dents first means financial hardship for some American universities,
many of which are heavily funded by the tuition paid by internation-
al students. The sheer scale of Chinese students and scholars contrib-
uted about $14 billion to the US economy and created 153,000 local
jobs in the US during the 2018/19 academic year (NAFSA, 2020).
The amount of money is non-trivial, especially amid the Covid-19
pandemic which already has put tremendous pressures on American
universities and the US society.
The chilling US–China relations could also cause innovation de-
ficiency which is looming at many institutions where there has been
significant dependency on international graduate students and aca-
demics, particularly those from China. Partly fueled by the timing of
a series of criminal investigations on scientists with Chinese back-
ground or links as well as accounts on tightened visa rules against
Chinese applicants, many American universities, despite being polit-
ically neutral and providing continued support to Chinese students
and scholars, are not short of anecdotal evidence suggesting that
political hostility has been felt by the community of Chinese students
and academics at various levels. This increasingly unwelcoming at-
mosphere felt by these Chinese could push them away from
American universities, R&D institutions, and high-tech enterprises.
Decoupling in science and education is also eroding trust and re-
spect from the people on one side, scientific communities included,
toward the other side of government. The unfriendly political envir-
onment and great uncertainties in bilateral relationship are enticing
unfavorable public opinion toward each other. The more severely
the collateral bias, suspicion, and even hostility between two nations
require years to amend, or even reach a point of no return.
3.3 The decoupling may not be justified
Studies have proposed a myriad of speculations for Sino-US poten-
tial confrontations and decoupling in science and education, ranging
from national security concerns, economic and technological com-
petitiveness, global leadership (Schneider-Petsinger et al., 2019;
Wyne, 2020;Sekiyama, 2019). Amid the complex and multifaceted
reasons is the US adamant belief that China has been reaping more
through research collaboration and globalization on an unfair
ground. In fact, the US concerns over China’s enhanced research
capabilities are not new. Over the last two decades, the consensus
achieved among the upper echelons of the US has been that
American global leadership in science and technology is declining
vis-a-vis Asian nations—especially China. China’s global talents re-
cruitment plan and Made in China 2025 Strategy further solidified
the stereotype of China as a nation posing unprecedented challenges
to American technological leadership and global supremacy.
Science and Public Policy, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0 3
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/scipol/scab035/6322422 by guest on 17 July 2021
Be that as it may, the decoupling is still not justified. As noted in
The Art of War by Sun Tzu, killing 1,000 enemies is often at the cost
of own 800 soldiers wounded. Confrontations could not resolve inter-
national disputes, at least not in the most rational and effective way.
3.4 Far-reaching impacts beyond bilateral relations
The weight of the US and China in the global economy and scientific
research means the deteriorating relationship between them is a glo-
bal issue. It not only hurts the two countries but also wounds the
rest of the world.
The ongoing comprehensive technology decoupling between the
US and China would wreak havoc on the commercial and scientific
bonds between the two countries that had thickened over some four
decades and may end up with having two distinct digital and tech-
nology jurisdictions. For example, the Internet might be turned into
‘splinternets’ and there might be two 5G networks. This would have
significant and more likely adverse implications for both China and
the US and the rest of the world in technology and innovation and
beyond. Therefore, there is urgency to reduce the scope and scale of
the conflicts and instead further expand cooperation in scientific re-
search and education between the two countries and other countries.
This is not just for the benefit of a specific country, such as China’s
economic development and technological upgrading, but a shared
development of humankind with the power of science and
technology.
Global production of knowledge is becoming the norm in many
scientific areas. The long-term ripple effect of the decoupling can
also damage the collaboration in the international research commu-
nity, especially in meeting the global challenges in areas from public
health, food security, climate change, energy, to sustainable develop-
ment, whose adverse effects could be felt globally. The lack of effect-
ive cooperation between the two major participants could
significantly delay the advancement of many of the above global
projects and eventually cause harms to all nations. The outcome
could be even worse if other countries are forced to choose sides be-
tween the two powers for research partnership.
Most importantly, we should not let the parochial mentality of na-
tional competitiveness blind all nations’ shared vision of sustainable
development as a human community. We should encourage competi-
tion but should not turn the competition into a zero-sum game.
4. Look forward into the future
More than a century ago, in conveying his vision to build strong ties
with China through education, University of Illinois President
Edmund James wrote: ‘China is upon the verge of a revolution ...
The nation which succeeds in educating the young Chinese of the
present generation will be the nation which for a given expenditure
of effort will reap the largest possible returns in moral, intellectual
and commercial influence.’ One century since, the Center for
Science Diplomacy of AAAS explicitly states on its website, ‘... sci-
ence can build bridges between societies where official relationships
may be strained.’
No bilateral disputes can be resolved without both sides meeting
halfway. Preventing further worsening of the US–China relationship
calls for the political wisdom of the leaders who take actions to
recouple education and science as a way of seeking common ground
while reserving differences. Rebuilding mutual trust and respect is
the key paving the way for a turning point of the US–China
relationship.
On the US side, the Biden Administration needs to take immedi-
ate steps to prevent any possible and unintended disruption to the
country’s scientific research and higher education due to actions
aimed to cut off China from its research network with America. On
the Chinese side, efforts need to make in protecting intellectual
property rights. To give its credit, China amended the Patent Law
and issued a new Foreign Investment Law in 2020. For the former,
the amendment, the fourth time, aims, among others, to strengthen
the protection of intellectual properties by increasing statutory dam-
ages, introducing punitive damages, and shifting the burden of prov-
ing damages in patent infringement actions. And the latter law gets
more serious about protecting investor’s rights, including their IPs.
More can be done in terms of credible commitment and consistent
law enforcement. China may also need to contemplate both domes-
tic and international concerns over a de facto decoupling on the
Internet by lifting the restriction placed on the access to Google,
Dropbox, and many other Internet sites for academic use. At this
critical moment, natural and social scientists in both countries need
to be more proactive in promoting research collaboration and fos-
tering bilateral relationship. Global issues ranging from the ongoing
pandemic and future health crises, global warming, environmental
degradation, terrorism, and governance of dual-use emerging tech-
nologies such as artificial intellence, human phenomics, and synthet-
ic biology, all call for scientific collaboration and governmental
cooperation of the two scientific and economic powers and other
nations.
As the issue of education is that of future generations, youngsters
in the US and China and indeed worldwide should join forces and
contribute to creating a more livable human community by nurtur-
ing an atmosphere of encouraging cooperation without discrimin-
ation and by sharing knowledge and cultures without prejudice.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China [grant number 71774091], the National Social Science Foundation of
China [grant number 18BGL219], and Sino–British Fellowship Trust [grant
number SRG1920\100546].
Conflict of interest statement
There are no conflicts of interest. The authors are responsible for
any errors.
Notes
1. Authors’ own calculation. Data are available upon request.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr Sybille Hinze, Professor Jeong-Dong Lee, and
Professor Nicholas Vonortas for their insightful comments and suggestions.
The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those
of the funders.
References
Bansak, C., Simpson, N. B., and Zavodny, M. (2015) The Economics of
Immigration. London: Routledge.
Freeman, R. (2014) ‘Immigration, International Collaboration, and
Innovation: Science and Technology Policy in the Global Economy’, NBER
Paper w20521. DOI: 10.3386/w20521
4Science and Public Policy, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/scipol/scab035/6322422 by guest on 17 July 2021
Hao, K. and Guo, E. (2021) The FBI accused him of spying for China. It ruined
his life. MIT Technology Review, June 27.
Institute for International Education (2020) Open Doors Database. <https://
www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors>, accessed on March 9,
2021.
Lee, J. D., Lee, K., Meissner, D. et al. (2020) ‘Local Capacity, Innovative
Entrepreneurial Places and Global Connections: An Overview’, The Journal
of Technology Transfer, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09812-7
Leung, R. C. (2013) ‘Networks as Sponges: International Collaboration for
Developing Nanomedicine in China’, Research Policy, 42/1: 211–9.
Mervis, J. (2020) ‘Fifty-Four Scientists Have Lost Their Jobs as a Result of
NIH Probe into Foreign Ties’, Science.<https://www.sciencemag.org/news/
2020/06/fifty-four-scientists-have-lost-their-jobs-result-nih-probe-foreign-
ties>, accessed on January 15, 2021.
Ministry of Education (2019) Statistical report on international students in
China for 2018 <http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/201904/
t20190412_377692.html>, accessed on March 3, 2021.
Mozur, P., and Metz, C. (2020) ‘A U.S. Secret Weapon in A.I.: Chinese
Talent’, The New York Times, June 9.
NAFSA (2020) Losing Talent 2020: An Economic and Foreign Policy Risk
America Can’t Ignore. Washington, DC: NAFSA.
National Science Board, National Science Foundation (2020) Science and
Engineering Indicators 2020: The State of U.S. Science and Engineering.
NSB-2020-1. Alexandria, VA. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/.
Saxenian, A. (2007) The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global
Economy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Schneider-Petsinger, M., Wang, J., Jie, Y. et al. (2019) US–China Strategic
Competition: The Quest for Global Technological Leadership. London:
Chatham House.
Sekiyama, T. (2019) ‘An Outlook for the US-China Trade War’, Security
Studies, 1/1: 38–49.
Simon, D. F., and Cao, C. (2009) China’s Emerging Technological Edge:
Assessing the Role of High-End Talent. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tang, L. (2013) ‘Does "Birds of a Feather Flock Together" Matter: Evidence
from a Longitudinal Study on the US-China Scientific Collaboration’,
Journal of Informetrics, 7/2: 330–44.
van Holm, E., Wu, Y., and Welch, E. (2019) ‘Comparing the Collaboration
Networks and Productivity of China-Born and US-Born Academic
Scientists’, Science and Public Policy, 46/2: 310–20.
Wyne, A. (2020) ‘How to Think about Potentially Decoupling from China’,
The Washington Quarterly, 43/1: 41–64.
Science and Public Policy, 2021, Vol. 00, No. 0 5
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/scipol/scab035/6322422 by guest on 17 July 2021
... American and Chinese scholars had the most extensive and deep connections in their collaborative networks. The US was the top choice for Chinese students, comprising approximately one third of international students and scholars during the 2018/19 academic year, surpassing all other countries [29]. Simultaneously, with China's rapid economic growth, an increasing number of American students and scholars are conducting research at Chinese universities. ...
... Measures such as the United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 (USICA) have severely disrupted US-China scientific relations. Comprehensive technological decoupling between the US and China will significantly disrupt both commercial and scientific ties, potentially harming international collaboration in addressing global challenges, especially in areas such as public health, food security, climate change, energy, and sustainable development [29]. Canada and Australia exhibited high levels of collaboration with both China and the US. ...
... Our study revealed that the number of original articles published by Chinese scholars has rapidly increased, approaching or even surpassing that of the US, which is consistent with the findings of previous research by Zhu et al. [30]. In terms of international cooperation, we found that the research collaboration between China and the US was the most profound, confirming the results of Tang et al. [29]. In the journal analysis, compared to the study by Badaluddin et al. [73], we performed a comparative analysis of journals across different time periods for a more comprehensive journal analysis. ...
Article
Full-text available
Soil moisture is a key factor in ecosystems that profoundly affects carbon, nitrogen, and water cycles on land surfaces, vegetation growth, and climate change. Consequently, numerous scholars have researched and authored scientific literature on soil moisture and related topics. Using the Web of Science database, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of 60,581 papers published in the field of soil moisture between 2000 and 2022. The findings revealed the following trends. (1) The number of publications on soil moisture has consistently increased in the 21st century at an increasing rate. For instance, although the annual increase was only 94 publications in 2005, it surged to 321 publications in 2020. (2) The United States (US), China, and developed European countries emerged as primary research institutions and authors. The US occupies a leading position in soil moisture research, boasting the highest number of publications and total citations in the field, whereas China ranks second in both publications and total citations. (3) Regarding international collaboration, the US has established close partnerships with numerous international research institutions. However, China’s international cooperation in this field requires improvement. (4) The Journal of Hydrology holds the top position in terms of both the total number of published articles and citations. Research on water resources ranked first in terms of its H-index. (5) Keyword analysis highlighted several current research hotspots, including the coupled covariance effect of soil moisture and land surface environmental factors in the context of climate change, soil moisture utilization rate, crop yield, influence mechanism of soil moisture on soil ecosystem structure, and development of high-precision soil moisture data products. In conclusion, this study provides a systematic review of the research hotspots and trends in soil moisture studies in the 21st century. The objective is to offer a comprehensive reference to aid in understanding the evolutionary patterns of soil moisture research in multiple dimensions.
... As the effects of the con ict start to unfold, the damages caused by the changing political climate between the two countries have also reached education and academic research arenas. 1 Despite accumulating anecdotal evidence, no study to our knowledge has systematically investigated the impact of U.S.-China tension on bilateral people ow and scienti c and educational exchange. Using a newly constructed dataset, we study the recent political tensions between two economic and scienti c powers and estimate the e ect of the deteriorating relationship of the two countries on people in ows from China to the United States. ...
Article
Using novel monthly air passenger traffic data, we assess the impact of U.S.-China tensions on people in flows from China to the U.S. We find that there was a 6 percent decline in air passenger flows from China to the U.S. compared to other source countries during the period between 2017 and 2019. When differentiated by geographical locations, relative to other U.S. airports, U.S. airports near universities with a significant presence of Chinese students are found to have experienced a more than 10 percent annual drop in passengers originating from China. A further investigation reveals that the decline in people in flows is mainly attributed to the loss of passenger arrivals in August and that this decline is consistently more significant than the decrease experienced by airports near tourist destinations during the same period. These findings provide updated evidence of the detrimental effect a hostile political climate could have on international people mobility between two major scientific powers.
... The relative intensity of collaboration between the US and China has been declining since it peaked in 2016 while the opposite is the case for the relation between the UK and China (Rousseau et al., 2023). The decrease in relative collaboration intensity between the US and China is therefore not explained by the COVID-19 travel restrictions, but most probably by the deteriorating relations between the two countries since 2018 (Tang et al., 2021;Zweig, 2021). However, we have not observed dramatic changes so far. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
We study the possible influences of the Russian conflict in the Ukraine on Russia's research productivity and international collaboration in science. For this purpose, we introduce and apply two recently developed indicators of relative intensity and balance in international collaboration. To see whether longitudinal trends have changed recently, we combine a long-term perspective based on annual updates since the year 2000 with a short-term perspective based on monthly updates since the beginning of 2022. The clearest change is that the productivity of Russian science, as measured within Web of Science, has dramatically decreased recently after several years of growth. However, the degree of international collaboration is only slightly affected. Consequently, while international collaboration decreases in absolute numbers, this decrease does not explain the general decline in Russian science, which must instead be explained by internal factors. Our conclusion is that the Russian conflict in the Ukraine has not considerably affected the long-term patterns and trends in international scientific collaboration, except in fields of research that heavily rely on large multinational infrastructures established through state agreements such as Particles and Fields in physics.
... Perhaps still understudied is how the same "EU factor" influences Europe's relations with other parts of the world. China and the USA, the two largest science-producing countries, have for a long time emerged also as the most important scientific collaboration partners in the world, both in absolute numbers and in relative intensity (Fuchs et al., 2021), but their relation has been deteriorating recently (Tang et al., 2021;Zweig, 2021), and China seems to seek other partners (Rousseau et al., 2023). Further studies could investigate not only how global scientific collaboration is developing in general, but also how new configurations of close collaborations are emerging within and among different parts of the world. ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study is to analyze the evolution of international research collaboration from 1980 to 2021. The study examines the main global patterns as well as those specific to individual countries, country groups, and different areas of research. The study is based on the Web of Science Core collection database. More than 50 million publications are analyzed using co-authorship data. International collaboration is defined as publications having authors affiliated with institutions located in more than one country. At the global level, the share of publications representing international collaboration has gradually increased from 4.7% in 1980 to 25.7% in 2021. The proportion of such publications within each country is higher and, in 2021, varied from less than 30% to more than 90%. There are notable disparities in the temporal trends, indicating that the process of internationalization has impacted countries in different ways. Several factors such as country size, income level, and geopolitics may explain the variance. The study provides global averages, indicators, and concepts that can provide a useful framework of reference for further comparative studies of international research collaboration. Originality/value: Long-term macro-level studies of international collaboration are rare, and as a novelty, this study includes an analysis by the World Bank’s division of countries into four income groups.
... Consequently, a significant decrease in revenues due to market access restrictions could adversely affect the long-term technological competitiveness of both the US and China. In addition, a disruption of talent flows could negatively affect technological advancement in companies and universities (Tang et al., 2021). These negative effects on innovation as a consequence of decoupling would contradict some of the motivations in both countries for unraveling their tech ties in the first place. ...
Article
Full-text available
The US has been waging an economic decoupling from China, in which national security concerns replace economic logic and loss-loss game replaces win-win gains from globalization. The decoupling is generating profound ramifications for the world as well as the US and China. The article explores the following questions: what drives the US government to implement the decoupling? what rationales for technology separation as the core of the decoupling? and what are possible outcomes of the decoupling in the short run and long run? It argues that (a) the decoupling was motivated mainly by national security and geopolitical concerns that China’s rapid rise has come to be seen as the largest threat to the US hegemony; (b) the decoupling concentrates on high-tech industries because technology is critical for the US to maintain its global hegemony, and (c) it is highly uncertain for the US to achieve its policy goals and a complete decoupling could divide the world into two economic blocs that centered on them.
... This recent development is only visible with an indicator of the relative intensity of collaboration. The decreased relative intensity of collaborations between China and the USA is possibly reflecting COVID-19 travel restrictions and the deteriorating relations between the two countries since 2018 (Tang et al., 2021;Zweig, 2021). ...
Article
This article aims to add to the body of indicators used to study collaboration in science. We propose a new indicator to measure balance in collaboration (BIC) which is based on the Gini evenness index for a weighted Lorenz curve. The new indicator of balance builds upon and extends the use of, our previously introduced indicator of relative intensity of collaboration (RIC). We present examples based on the collaboration network between the twenty largest countries contributing to science during 2000-2020.
... These geopolitical disputes are exemplified not only in the trade conflict between the U.S. and China but also in industry-specific policy changes, such as the U.S. government pressuring allies against allowing participation of Chinese telecommunications companies in new infrastructure developments or limited cooperation in science and education between the two countries (Tang et al. 2021). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Geopolitical conflicts have increasingly been a driver of trade policy. We study the potential effects of global and persistent geopolitical conflicts on trade, technological innovation, and economic growth. In conventional trade models the welfare costs of such conflicts are modest. We build a multi-sector multi-region general equilibrium model with dynamic sector-specific knowledge diffusion, which magnifies welfare losses of trade conflicts. Idea diffusion is mediated by the input-output structure of production, such that both sector cost shares and import trade shares characterize the source distribution of ideas. Using this framework, we explore the potential impact of a "decoupling of the global economy," a hypothetical scenario under which technology systems would diverge in the global economy. We divide the global economy into two geopolitical blocs -- East and West -- based on foreign policy similarity and model decoupling through an increase in iceberg trade costs (full decoupling) or tariffs (tariff decoupling). Results yield three main insights. First, the projected welfare losses for the global economy of a decoupling scenario can be drastic, as large as 15% in some regions and are largest in the lower income regions as they would benefit less from technology spillovers from richer areas. Second, the described size and pattern of welfare effects are specific to the model with diffusion of ideas. Without diffusion of ideas the size and variation across regions of the welfare losses would be substantially smaller. Third, a multi-sector framework exacerbates diffusion inefficiencies induced by trade costs relative to a single-sector one.
Article
Science diplomacy has played an important role in Chinese history, including in the history of science and technology (S&T) development. While we may consider science diplomacy as simply a part of China's Reform and Opening-up policy, the fact is that even in the Kuomintang period (1925–1949) or the Maoist period (1949–1976) it was a key element of Chinese foreign relations. The targets and nature of science diplomacy were shaped by the prevailing politics and economic issues of the times. For example, the Cold War limited the breadth and depth of S&T cooperation between China and the West. Nonetheless, the People's Republic of China pursued cooperation with the Soviet Union and newly independent countries in a very steadfast manner and continues to engage with Russia and developing countries today. This article analyses the nature of science diplomacy as an element of both China's S&T development and its foreign relations. The interactions and practices at the intersection of science and foreign policy in China are manifold. In addition to providing a comprehensive overview, this article also highlights evolving trends, especially in terms of the deepening of China's linkages across the international S&T system. Finally, the article examines the recent impact of the apparent rise of techno-nationalism and how this has affected the nature of China's international S&T activities regarding Beijing's use of science diplomacy.
Article
The decline might be another sign of politics affecting cross-country scientific collaborations. The decline might be another sign of politics affecting cross-country scientific collaborations. A low angle image looking up at the Department of Justice building with tree branches on the left side A low angle image looking up at the Department of Justice building with tree branches on the left side
Article
Full-text available
The globalisation trend of the past few decades, driven to a large extent by the proliferation of GVCs, has led to a set of significant changes in patterns of technology upgrading and new modes of interaction between domestic technology efforts and external sources of technological knowledge. Whether this new dynamic will lead to continuing increase in the economic importance of emerging economies will ultimately depend on whether their productivity growth will be driven by technology upgrading, requiring active and coordinated activity orchestrated by a variety of state and non-state actors under diverse sectoral, regional and national innovation systems. The new dynamic also reinforces the focus on local–global interfaces which becomes ever more important once we recognize that in the 21st century technology upgrading challenges depend much more on improvements in connectivity and on the industrial ecosystem. Still, the globalization process experienced in the past few decades—reflected in this collection of papers—may need to be recalibrated in the face of the drastic geopolitical changes that the process itself has brought about.
Article
Chinese scientists constitute the largest group of foreign-born tenure-track faculty in science and engineering (S&E) fields in the USA, and have become a target of recent Chinese government efforts seeking to attract them back to China. This study examines the differences of collaboration networks between Chinese scientists and US-born scientists working in the USA. The findings show significant differences in the size, composition, and role of collaboration networks of Chinese scientists, and how these networks differently impact their productivity. The networks of scientists born in China are smaller, more dispersed, and less communicative. However, despite those networks and less benefit from traditional research resources, Chinese scientists appear to be more productive than their American colleagues are. The study improves understanding of this important group in the USA's research enterprise and also provides insights for science policy.
Article
In less than thirty years, China has become a major force in the global economy. One feature of its rapid ascent has been an enormous expansion of the country's science and technology capabilities, leading to the emergence of a large and increasingly well-educated talent pool. Yet China finds itself engaged in an internal debate as to whether its full potential can be realised. At the heart of this debate lie a number of uncertainties surrounding the quality, quantity and effective utilisation of China's S&T workforce. Written by two leading experts in the field, this book is the first in forty years to address these critical issues. Building on exciting new research and a plethora of comprehensive statistical materials, its findings will have significant policy implications both for China and the international community, especially in terms of issues relating to national competitiveness and innovation potential
Book
Introduction 1. Surprising Success 2. Learning the Silicon Valley System 3. Creating Cross-Regional Communities 4. Taiwan as Silicon Sibling 5. Taiwan as Partner and Parent 6. Manufacturing in Mainland China 7. IT Enclaves in India 8. The Argonaut Advantage Appendix A: Immigrant Professional and Networking Associations, Silicon Valley Appendix B: Survey Results: Immigrant Professionals in Silicon Valley Notes References Abbreviations Acknowledgments Index
Article
Previous research tended to emphasize the benefits of international collaboration. This emphasis has led to a common belief that international collaboration will necessarily enhance productivity in science, innovativeness, and even societal impact. Yet, benefits and costs are relative. Economic actors and scientists do not perceive benefits in the same way in all contexts, and there are situational barriers to overcome for materializing the benefits of collaboration. This study examines the case of Chinese science actors who develop medical applications with nanotechnology, and highlights the “barriers to networks” when scientists attempt to collaborate overseas for an emerging technology. I present my findings with the metaphors of “pipes”, “prisms”, and “sponges”, and propose a framework for evaluating the utility of international collaborative networks.