Author: Zhang Guangping **The Financial Work Conference put forward the grand goal of accelerating the construction of a financial power, and deployed five major articles of "doing a good job in science and technology finance, green finance, inclusive finance, pension finance, and digital finance", setting the tone and pointing out the goals for the future development of China's financial industry.
**During the investigation and investigation in Shanghai, the general secretary had an in-depth understanding of Shanghai's phased achievements in enhancing the competitiveness of the international financial center and promoting the construction of an international science and technology innovation center, which shows that the general secretary attaches great importance to the development of science and technology finance, and science and technology finance will usher in a new round of major development opportunities.
Fintech involves various fields from technology to the real economy to finance. There are dozens to hundreds of parameters in the global financial industry and finance, but very few are widely recognized by global technology. Without the measurement of science and technology, the impact of science and technology on the economy, industry, current account, foreign exchange, currency internationalization and capital market will continue to stay in the concept of words, and it is difficult to penetrate into the digital level, which will lead to the support of finance for the real economy and the promotion of scientific and technological innovation also stay in the concept of words. Without quantitative tools, it is difficult to accurately grasp the effect of the dual circulation of technology and finance, and it is even more difficult to formulate and implement various promotion policies in a targeted manner. On the basis of introducing the limitations of the widely circulated global innovation index, this paper uses market data such as global public patent data, global services, and market capitalization to demonstrate the necessity, urgency and importance of establishing a science and technology index system in China and even the world.
The importance of technological measurements.
Finance is the blood of the real economy and undertakes the mission of delivering blood to the real economy; Technology is the backbone of the real economy and bears all the burdens of the real economy. The bones determine the height and position, and determine the speed, direction, rhythm, and precision of the subject's movement. Science and technology finance is an interactive model that organically combines the two and has a two-way virtuous cycle - science and technology drive the economy, industry, and industry to promote financial development, and financial services to the real economy while supporting scientific and technological innovation. It covers a wide range of areas and is interlocking.
At present, we have quantitatively analyzed the "financial bloodline" very deeply, forming various indicators of multiple industries and their sub-industries, but the analysis of the "science and technology skeleton" is still basically at the perceptual level, lacking the global comparable indicators corresponding to the "financial bloodline", the existing Global Innovation Index (GII) also has many limitations, and the impact of science and technology on the main areas of economy and trade and finance and the impact of finance on science and technology support are also difficult to refine to the level of data quantitative and empirical evidence. With the continuous progress of global scientific and technological innovation and the emergence of new technologies, the existing science and technology measurement models have been difficult to meet the needs of the development of science and technology finance.
Limitations of the Global Innovation Index (GII).
The Global Innovation Index was jointly launched by the World Intellectual Property Organization and two academic institutions more than 10 years ago, which played an important reference role in global scientific and technological innovation at that time.
The GII index includes 7 sub-indicators, 21 secondary sub-indicators and 80 ** sub-indicators, which seem to cover a wide range, but in fact, its evaluation results are neither a measure of the total amount of science and technology of each economy, nor is it a measure of the degree of scientific and technological development of each economy, so it is difficult to further analyze the impact of scientific and technological innovation on economy and trade, foreign exchange or **. Of particular note is that the overall results of the assessment are not only inconsistent but also contradictory to the results of its innovation clusters (e.g., none of the top five global STI clusters in 2023 appear in the top nine economies in the overall economic rankings). Table 1 shows the results and arithmetic averages of the top 40 economies in the overall GII 2023 assessment results and the seven sub-indicators.
Data**: World Intellectual Property Organization "Global Innovation Index 2023 Innovation in the Face of Uncertainty").
Table 1 shows that the GII of Switzerland has been ranked first for 11 consecutive years. The innovation accumulation corresponding to the first ranking of innovation for more than ten years should be visible in the market. However, data shows that from 2011 to 2019, Switzerland's net exports of intellectual property averaged 9$500 million, but in 2020 and 2021 it went from a surplus to a deficit (-87.).5 and -28$300 million), only 0The surplus of 500 million US dollars shows that the innovation first for more than ten consecutive years has led to a surplus in the import and export of intellectual property rights from a surplus to a considerable deficit, and the GII ranking is not worthy of the first place. In addition, Sweden's net exports of intellectual property rights averaged 40 per year from 2011 to 2019700 million US dollars, but from 2020 to 2022, it has become a continuous deficit, soaring from -900 million US dollars to -69900 million US dollars, with an annual deficit and a large growth rate for three years, shows that Sweden is not worthy of the name of ranking second. The above empirical evidence shows that the results of GII are not only inconsistent with the top two levels of scientific and technological innovation, but also contradictory.
Overall, the GII is based on the average of the seven sub-indicators, and different sub-indicators may be weighted differently. For example, the two sub-indicators of "human capital research and development" and "knowledge and technology output", which have the greatest impact on global innovation, are not measures of human capital research and knowledge and technology in each economy (Switzerland and Sweden cannot be compared with the United States, which ranks third), nor are they per capita measures of the two indicators. Assuming that the two sub-indicators presented in Table 1 are reasonable, the ranking of "human capital R&D" and "knowledge and technology output" according to Table 1 is even more different from the overall ranking, with 19 and 24 economies with a difference of more than 10 places, respectively, indicating that the GII gives too low weight to these two sub-indicators.
Global Technology Metrics**.
The "knowledge and technology output" indicator of the seven sub-indicators of the GII covers the patent data of each economy, but does not directly use the patent data, and uses the "ratio of patents to GDP" as the ** sub-indicator, resulting in the ratio of patents to output value being too low to play its due role. In addition, the calculation of the number of patents of each economy as the equivalent unit of GDP "dollars" ignores the basic rule that the number of patents of various economies in the world cannot be directly compared, which directly leads to inconsistencies or even contradictions between the evaluation results of innovation clusters and the total evaluation results. In addition, the import and export data of intellectual property rights, which are very important for scientific and technological innovation, are reflected in the sub-indicators of "business maturity" and "knowledge and technology output", but the import and export data of intellectual property rights are also not directly entered into the index system, but are entered into the sub-indicators in the form of "the proportion of intellectual property import and export amount and the total value", which greatly reduces the importance of intellectual property rights and leads to serious deviations in its evaluation results.
The author and Tan Ziyang used the data jointly released by the five major patent offices of China, Japan, South Korea, Europe and the United States and the World Intellectual Property Organization, including the global patent family data outside each office and the five major patent offices, and the corresponding data on import and export royalties of intellectual property rights published by the WTO (a sub-item of service**) to define and measure the scientific and technological autonomy and technological internationalization of major currency issuers, and then obtain the empirical results of the interaction between the technological internationalization and currency internationalization of major currency issuers. Based on the patent data and intellectual property import and export data of various economies in the world published by the World Intellectual Property Organization, the author solves the eight-yuan equation related to international patents and intellectual property import and export royalties, and obtains the average "intellectual property export" results generated by each international patent of the top eight currency issuers, so as to solve the problem of incomparability of international patents in various economies, and then obtain the measurement results of the scientific and technological development index, internationalization index and autonomy index of the world's major currency issuers.
A breakthrough in global technology measurement.
Since the total global royalties for imports and exports of intellectual property rights in recent years have only approached US$1 trillion, which is relatively small, some experts believe that they are not sufficiently representative of the overall global science and technology and question the measurement method of patents in various economies calculated using only data on import and export royalties of intellectual property rights.
For more than half a year, in addition to using global foreign exchange transaction data (the measurement basis of currency internationalization) to analyze, the author has also demonstrated the empirical results of the impact of the global international identifiable reserve currency with a scale of more than 10 trillion US dollars and the global ** market value of more than 100 billion US dollars (equivalent to the global GDP in recent years) in recent years, and found a more satisfactory answer to the questions of experts. The author uses the results of the high-, medium-, and low-tech assessment of the world's major ** market capitalization and major currency issuances released by the World Exchange Federation to calculate the impact of high, medium, and low technology of major currency issuers on the market value of their own country and the impact on the global market value of their own countries, and then calculates the impact of high, medium, and low technology of major economies on the global market, such as the average annual impact of high, medium, and low technology and total technology on the market value of the United States from 2013 to 2022 is 298 trillion, 311 trillion, 010 trillion and 33$02 trillion; The average annual impact of China's high, medium, and low technology and total technology on China's ** market value is 83 trillion, 16 trillion, 01 trillion and 100 trillion US dollars, China's total technology influence at home and abroad is only lower than the United States, the euro area and Japan, ranking fourth in the world, showing the fact that China's technology has a greater influence on the global market value.
Using the same method, you can calculate the influence of high, medium and low technology of major currency issuers on the local and foreign global **, plus the impact on the local ** market value, you can obtain the influence of currency issuer technology on the world, and get the driving role of science and technology on **. The total impact of global technology on the global market value can be obtained by adding the high, medium and low technology impact of each currency issuer on the global market capitalization, and the proportion of the global technology impact of each currency issuer on the global technology is the measurement result of the internationalization of science and technology of each currency issuer, and Table 2 shows the results of the impact of high, medium and low technology of the world's major economies on the global market value from 2008 to 2022.
Data**: Calculated using the world's year-end market capitalization published by the World Federation of Exchanges).
In recent years, the world's largest market value has exceeded 100 billion US dollars, and the reflection of global science and technology should be more sufficient, so the measurement results of the internationalization of science and technology of major currency issuers given in Table 2 actually reflect the degree of technological changes of each currency issuer based on the global market. It is worth noting that the measurement results of the internationalization of science and technology of major currency issuers given in Table 2 can be mutually corroborated with the calculation results given only considering the import and export royalties of intellectual property rights (the average annual change is less than 3%), which shows the rationality of the science and technology estimation method introduced in this paper.
When there are no scientific and technological indicators, China borrows the existing indicators to assess and evaluate the progress of domestic scientific and technological innovation, which is a helpless choice to guide according to the situation. The Global Innovation Index (GII) indicator system seems to be comprehensive, but in fact, it proportions the most important "patent data" and "intellectual property import and export data" of scientific and technological innovation with GDP and gross domestic product respectively, thus diluting the importance of these two types of raw data and failing to play their decisive role in the measurement of scientific and technological innovation. The Global Innovation Index cannot reflect the measurement and change of the total amount of science and technology and the average daily science and technology of each economy, so it cannot be used to study the impact of science and technology on the economy and finance. After recognizing many limitations and even serious problems, if we continue to use the Global Innovation Index, it will be a great misjudgment and misleading for China's scientific and technological innovation progress and global comparison. Therefore, it is necessary to find a new way to measure the impact of technology and finance.
The method of using globally publicly comparable global patent data and globally publicly comparable services**, foreign exchange and ** market data to measure global science and technology can provide a basis for scientific tracking, monitoring and analysis of China's national and local innovation progress, and can also provide a basis for promoting various policies of science and technology finance, which has actually met our expectations for exploring science and technology measurement indicators. The release and promotion of this global science and technology index system based on global open comparable data and rigorous data methods will also help improve China's voice in the global science and technology field, make China's own voice heard, and lead and influence international science and technology innovation.
About author:Zhang Guangping, Counselor of Shanghai. Born in Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, he holds a master's degree and a doctorate degree. He went to the United States to study in 1987 and received a master's degree in economics and a doctorate in economics and finance from Southern Methodist University in 1989. 2007 became"The 2nd Shanghai Overseas Students Achievement Exhibition"One of the personnel.