News on China's scientific and technological development.

Eventine said:

Korea has players in almost every industry, but they are not competitive because they decided to focus their efforts into a smaller set of key industries. The four you listed are prominently known, but Korea was/is actually also competitive in appliances, chemical engineering, machine tools, automation (e.g. robotics), weapons manufacturing, and more. Obviously you can make the point that all of these industries are industries China is also interested in, but the question is not one of interest - it's one of opportunity cost.

In the simplest example, let's say Country A has 100 people and 10 industries to invest them in; it could start off by putting 10 people in each industry. If Country B, their competition, only has 15 people, their best play is to invest all 15 people in 1 of the 10 industries - ie "specialization" - so that they can beat Country A's investment. Country A can of course reinforce that industry with more people to match or beat Country B's investment, but then it'd be taking those people away from other industries, making those industries weaker. Country B can then pivot to those industries instead, in a never ending cat and mouse game, until eventually both countries reach an equilibrium and just agree that 1 of the 10 industries will belong to Country B.

That is the game Korea could have played, based on the principle of comparative advantage. Even if it cannot keep hold of the four industries you mentioned, it could have redirected and focused its resources to some other industry like chemical engineering or robotics, and dominated that, instead. Sure, China has a lot more resources (in talent, money, etc.) than Korea, but distributed across many different industries, it can only devote so much to any one thing. That's what leads to specialization and the creation of global supply chains; because at the end of the day, if we ignore geopolitics, resources are just resources - there's no reason why Chinese companies would not find a use for Korea's resources in their supply chain.

Click to expand...

The issue is that China could invest in every industry and still have STEM personnel and investment money to spare.

So China has an absolute advantage in every industry, not just a comparative advantage.

If you look at annual STEM graduates which are useful, it does look like China has more than the rest of the world combined. Looking at China and Korea specifically, it looks like a 44x difference.

AndrewS said:

The issue is that China could invest in every industry and still have STEM personnel and investment money to spare.

So China has an absolute advantage in every industry, not just a comparative advantage.

If you look at annual STEM graduates which are useful, it does look like China has more than the rest of the world combined. Looking at China and Korea specifically, it looks like a 44x difference.

Click to expand...

This is where China has absolute advantage over WEST/JAPAN/KOREA.. there is also fierce competition going between local governments in order to invest in High tech industries. everybody wants piece of slice.

except Civil aviation(COMAC), China has multiple companies in each and every high tech industry. for example, Five-Axis High end Machine tools, there are 5 known Chinese companies competing with each other and rapidly gaining market share.. 6 out of 10 are domestic companies in this category in mainland in H1,2024 ..

even the Most technological advanced industry, Lithography. 4 Major players showed up. SMEE/CETC/CIOMP/SIOMP. all are developing Litho separately. 7 different light source have developed by 7 difference institutes so far. LOL

in Turbofan Engine industry, we have Four Major players. Liming/Xian/AECC Shanghai and Guiyang

in Heavy duty Gas turbine industry we have Three Major players. Shanghai/Dongfeng/Harbin

in Industrial Robot category, we have 7 different companies. most of these companies now developed core parts in house. domestic companies captured 50 percent market share already.

Shipbuilding , Electronics , display , Auto , Aerospace , Military aviation and many more all have multiple companies..

the List is so long..
*************************************************************************************
Nobody can compete with China. this is because of ''largest Talent pool in Human history'' plus our local governments are rich. so they can spend money.

Full story in the posted link

A model of a hydrogen fuel cellshunting locomotive is on display at the 21st China-ASEAN Expo in Nanning, south China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Sept. 26, 2024. New technologies and applications such as intelligent robots, unmanned vehicles and AI applications are gaining popularity at the ongoing China-ASEAN Expo in Nanning. (Xinhua/Zhang Ailin)

NANNING, Sept. 26 (Xinhua) -- Guided by remote control, a mechanical loader can upload tonnes of materials or even transport them to production lines -- all without a driver behind the wheel.

This intelligent loader, developed and manufactured by China's Guangxi LiuGong Machinery Co., Ltd., is gaining popularity among mining and construction companies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries.

"Catering to demands for high-end, diversified, and personalized products in the construction machinery market, LiuGong has focused on the electrification, digitization, interconnectivity and intelligence of machinery, with double-digit annual growth in R&D investment," said Li Dongchun, a senior manager of the company.

At the ongoing China-ASEAN Expo in Nanning, south China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, the construction machinery maker is showcasing eight electric products, including loaders, excavators and forklifts in response to growing interest in Chinese-made smart and green products across ASEAN countries.

China-ASEAN trade has recorded steady expansion over the years. Official data showed that China has been ASEAN's largest trading partner for 15 consecutive years, with bilateral trade surging from 876.4 billion yuan (about 124.6 billion U.S. dollars) in 2004 to 6.41 trillion yuan in 2023, averaging an 11-percent annual growth rate.



An interactive robot is pictured at the 21st China-ASEAN Expo in Nanning, south China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Sept. 26, 2024. Nanning. (Xinhua/Huang Xiaobang)



An exhibitor introduces an automatic apron for drones at the booth of China Southern Power Grid during the 21st China-ASEAN Expo in Nanning, south China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Sept. 25, 2024.(Xinhua/Jin Haoyuan)



A manned aircraft is on display at the 21st China-ASEAN Expo in Nanning, south China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Sept. 26, 2024. (Xinhua/Huang Xiaobang)



A delivery drone is pictured at the 21st China-ASEAN Expo in Nanning, south China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Sept. 25, 2024. (Xinhua/Jin Haoyuan)



An electric car is on display at the 21st China-ASEAN Expo in Nanning, south China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Sept. 26, 2024.(Xinhua/Zhang Ailin)



A model of a tunnel boring machine (TBM) is on display at the 21st China-ASEAN Expo in Nanning, south China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Sept. 26, 2024. (Xinhua/Zhang Ailin)

transforming the captured CO2 into a clear, viscous liquid - ethylene glycol, a key ingredient in polyester production

FairAndUnbiased said:

Chemistry isn't just petrochemical and polymer stuff from the 1950s. Field has moved on.

I encourage you to flip through a few pages of Journal of Physical Chemistry or something. Nobody cares about making some petrochemical process 0.1% more efficient, it will neither attract money nor attention.

New innovation in chemistry is in materials (battery, semiconductor, renewable energy) and medical applications. Battery is ahead means the entire field of electrochemistry is ahead. Photovoltaics being ahead means a huge chunk of semiconductor physics and materials chemistry is ahead. Etc etc.

Click to expand...

You need to cite sources to tell me why the field has moved on. You are again confusing chemistry with chemicals/processes. The field has definitely expanded, but petrochemicals are the largest fraction. Also, it's not only about petrochemicals. I have done a thorough survey of chemical industry and spoken to a lot of people, Chinese chemical companies are not just there yet.

Let me ask you some questions:

1. Why are we not seeing the case of VW, Toyota in China's chemical industry? VW, Toyota are struggling to compete right now. Not the case with BASF, Solvay, Toray etc. in China. They are happily investing, and increasing market share. Even Japanese firms are investing like crazy.
2. Why does China have only 7-8 companies in the top 50, and only 2 companies in the top 10 by revenue (when 50% of chemical production by value happens in China, probably more by simply tonnage)? If you are generous and add Syngenta (bought) and Formosa (Taiwanese), even that takes it to 9-10. Even latest rankings have increased by only 2 firms.
   
   Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
   Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
3. Coming again from point 2 above, most of the firms on that list are petrochemical. It is ironical that it is in fact the petrochemical field where Chinese firms have had the most success.

Now, I am not saying that things are not changing, or there are not innovative firms. China is so huge and progressing in general, so that is definitely expected. There are pockets of excellence.

But there is no DJI/Huawei/BYD in the chemical industry, which is a firm that is in dogged pursuit of excellence, leadership, and market share in the whole field.

azn_cyniq said:

Most breakthrough (Nobel Prize) papers weren't published in Nature and Science though. However, I do agree that most scientific breakthroughs come from the US and Europe.

Some of you may disagree with me, but I believe that traditional Chinese culture pushes people to be more risk-averse than Westerners. I've noticed that people from mainland China are more similar to Westerners than people from Taiwan in the sense that mainland Chinese people are more willing to take risks. That's one of the reasons why I'm so confident in the future of China.

Click to expand...

Nature and Science might not publish all nobel prize papers, but they are selective, and disproportionately represent nobel prizes.

sunnymaxi said:

The most important point you have missed here ..

China missed first and second industrial Revolution. started work from 3rd industrial Revolution alongside working on first and second simultaneously. a hell of load on Chinese people, they have to cover 200 years time period in couple of decades.. and China did it.

there is difference between innovation and fundamental invention .. China being the latecomer in the party so majority of the tech were already invented when China begun their journey..

4th industrial revolution, this is where China is now equal to Western world. you can say this only USA.. coz Europe is almost non-existent in this race..

who is setting Tech standards in 5G/5.5G ?? its China
who is setting Tech standards in Battery tech/Solar and other Green energy ?? its China
who is setting Tech standards in EV ?? its China..

in EV supply chain, there are other plenty of revolutionary tech like Lidar , Smart driving etc etc.. who is in charge ???? its China

we are also taking different route in Ai, being implemented in industry and manufacturing.. we also have our own tech standard in Quantum technology ..

so please don't compare us with Japan/Korea.. we just started to invest huge in Basic research also took different approach and path.. you will see in near future
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

where was Europe in 3rd industrial Revolution ??
where is Europe in 4th industrial Revolution ??

its only USA.. especially in 4th one.. its two horse race now. USA vs China

Click to expand...

Yeah this I can agree, but change can happen only when people first recognize the current shortcomings.

PopularScience said:

Why this conclusion? Cell just published 3 articles from China last few days.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

These are not Cell papers, Cell is the name of the flagship journal which is published by Cell Press. Cell Press however publishes a whole host of other journals:


The article that you listed are not from Cell the flagship journal. It's no big deal to ultimately end up in one of the Cell Press journals.

Look at the flagship journal here:

iewgnem said:

Problem is China is almost 30x larger than Korea and number of important industries are finite.

At end of the day a Chinese side projrct could still beat Korea even if they focus on only 1 industry

For specilization to happen, Korea must convince China to voluntarily not work on something, and they're doing the opposite of that.

Korea is multiple leagues below China, they're not in any position to talk about comparative advantage in any shape in form onany subject with China

Click to expand...

Agreed, scale has an advantage. In fact, I think scale is one of the reasons why US is richer than UK, Germany etc. Scale makes it easier to get into further competitive advantage splits.

The irony is that China from 1980s onwards (for 3.5 decades) actively tried to blunt this scale advantage.

PopularScience said:

China published 2 more new Cell articles today.

Click to expand...

Not Cell papers, these are Cell Press papers.

sunnymaxi said:

This is where China has absolute advantage over WEST/JAPAN/KOREA.. there is also fierce competition going between local governments in order to invest in High tech industries. everybody wants piece of slice.

except Civil aviation(COMAC), China has multiple companies in each and every high tech industry. for example, Five-Axis High end Machine tools, there are 5 known Chinese companies competing with each other and rapidly gaining market share.. 6 out of 10 are domestic companies in this category in mainland in H1,2024 ..

even the Most technological advanced industry, Lithography. 4 Major players showed up. SMEE/CETC/CIOMP/SIOMP. all are developing Litho separately. 7 different light source have developed by 7 difference institutes so far. LOL

in Turbofan Engine industry, we have Four Major players. Liming/Xian/AECC Shanghai and Guiyang

in Heavy duty Gas turbine industry we have Three Major players. Shanghai/Dongfeng/Harbin

in Industrial Robot category, we have 7 different companies. most of these companies now developed core parts in house. domestic companies captured 50 percent market share already.

Shipbuilding , Electronics , display , Auto , Aerospace , Military aviation and many more all have multiple companies..

the List is so long..
*************************************************************************************
Nobody can compete with China. this is because of ''largest Talent pool in Human history'' plus our local governments are rich. so they can spend money.

Click to expand...

Yup agreed, this competition is very good.

jli88 said:

You need to cite sources to tell me why the field has moved on. You are again confusing chemistry with chemicals/processes. The field has definitely expanded, but petrochemicals are the largest fraction. Also, it's not only about petrochemicals. I have done a thorough survey of chemical industry and spoken to a lot of people, Chinese chemical companies are not just there yet.

Let me ask you some questions:

1. Why are we not seeing the case of VW, Toyota in China's chemical industry? VW, Toyota are struggling to compete right now. Not the case with BASF, Solvay, Toray etc. in China. They are happily investing, and increasing market share. Even Japanese firms are investing like crazy.
2. Why does China have only 7-8 companies in the top 50, and only 2 companies in the top 10 by revenue (when 50% of chemical production by value happens in China, probably more by simply tonnage)? If you are generous and add Syngenta (bought) and Formosa (Taiwanese), even that takes it to 9-10. Even latest rankings have increased by only 2 firms.
   
   Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
   Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
3. Coming again from point 2 above, most of the firms on that list are petrochemical. It is ironical that it is in fact the petrochemical field where Chinese firms have had the most success.

Click to expand...

1. because the classical chemical industry of 'chemical engineering' and 'processes' is much slower to change. it is simply not as innovative and thus more difficult to unseat incumbents with innovation.




Notice that other than pharma and biotech, China is a fierce competitor in all other fields top patent filing fields.

2. because it is not as tightly linked to consumer markets so you can't change impressions quickly by success alone, and B2B markets are highly risk adverse.

3. many "chemicals" are manufactured by companies not in the "chemical" industry. what is metallurgy for instance?

other than US, is there a country with more companies in the top 10 than China? revenue is concentrated in the top 10.

CATO is one of the most hard right think tanks.

jli88 said:

Nature and Science might not publish all nobel prize papers, but they are selective, and disproportionately represent nobel prizes.

Click to expand...

That is true, but only around 11% of Nobel-Prize-winning papers were published in Nature and Science. It's not fair to focus on those journals alone.


More Nobel-Prize-winning papers were published in Physical Review Letters than any other journal. 28.5% of Nobel-Prize-winning papers were published in Physical Review Letters whereas 5.6% were published in Science and 4.7% were published in Nature. 11.2% were published in The Astrophysical Journal.

From June 2023 to May 2024, Chinese scientists authored or co-authored 568 Physical Review Letters papers. American scientists authored or co-authored 832. The US still leads China, but gap is smaller.

That said, China still lags the US in top 0.01% research, like you said. I just think that we should be looking at a broader assortment of journals, and the Nature Index does that job quite well. Most of the journals included in the Nature Index are very, very, very prestigious.

azn_cyniq said:

That is true, but only around 11% of Nobel-Prize-winning papers were published in Nature and Science. It's not fair to focus on those journals alone.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

More Nobel-Prize-winning papers were published in Physical Review Letters than any other journal. 28.5% of Nobel-Prize-winning papers were published in Physical Review Letters whereas 5.6% were published in Science and 4.7% were published in Nature. 11.2% were published in The Astrophysical Journal.

From June 2023 to May 2024, Chinese scientists authored or co-authored 568 Physical Review Letters papers. American scientists authored or co-authored 832. The US still leads China, but gap is smaller.

That said, China still lags the US in top 0.01% research, like you said. I just think that we should be looking at a broader assortment of journals, and the Nature Index does that job quite well. Most of the journals included in the Nature Index are very, very, very prestigious.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I am using Nature Index (with Nature & Science) selection as a proxy for high quality research.

I have some reservations with your data though:

1. Your analysis only highlights Physics. Nature and Science publish everything. Physics is different because they have their own journal.
2. PRL also is immense. It is not one journal, it is a publisher with multiple journals. If you were to take all the journals from Nature and Science publishers, the stats would be different.
3. PRL is again immense, to judge high quality, you need to filter for only good publications in PRL, like PRL highlights that they have every week etc. I don't have numbers for those as yet.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

CATO is one of the most hard right think tanks.

Click to expand...

You can't pick and choose the articles from a right wing think tank purely based on your own liking.

That US has attracted far more scientific talent from China, specially at the highest echelon is pure fact that is visible everywhere.

A typical talent from China goes to the US for their bachelors/masters/PhD, and then (after or before work) may decide to come back to China.

However, all of these talents are from China. US still retains a lot of these people, specially at the highest echelon. I recently went to Stanford CS graduation, probably half of the graduating PhD class were Chinese, at least 1/3 were mainlanders with pinyin names, but can be more since some mainlanders formally adopt western names too. I spoke with some of them, all already had offers, stuff to do in the US. They are not coming back. Going back is an exception, specially in CS.