, Volume 117, Issue 1, pp 427–447 | Cite as

The declining scientific wealth of Hong Kong and Singapore

  • Hugo HortaEmail author


At a time when the knowledge race is at its most intense, the scientific wealth of nations is increasingly relevant to ensure the preparedness and competitiveness of societies in a globalised, increasingly uncertain and integrated global knowledge economy. Scientific wealth also helps nations become resilient in the face of ever-growing knowledge and technological shifts. Hong Kong and Singapore, which are multicultural, internationalised and capitalist territories, have been part of globalisation since its beginning, and they are renowned for their vibrant research communities. However, given that East Asia and Southeast Asia are becoming worldwide centres of research power and are facing increasing regional competitiveness, a persistent question is whether the two territories are keeping up with the competition and are key players in the global knowledge race. Analysis of their knowledge creation and worldwide impact over the past 20 years indicates that these two territories are struggling to keep up and are showing declining competitiveness. This loss of competitiveness, including in major thematic areas such as Decision Sciences and Business where they had substantial leads in the past, is making these territories indistinguishable from others as knowledge centres, and they are thus potentially less visible and less appealing to potential knowledge related investors. As they continue to be highly internationalised, the main reason behind these trends seems to be related to critical underinvestment in their research systems.


Research system Scientific wealth of nations Revealed comparative advantage Competition Hong Kong Singapore 


  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Solazzi, M. (2011). Are researchers that collaborate more at the international level top performers? An investigation on the Italian university system. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adriaanse, L. S., & Rensleigh, C. (2013). Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison. The Electronic Library, 31(6), 727–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archambault, E., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1320–1326.Google Scholar
  4. Baccini, A., Barabesi, L., Cioni, M., & Pisani, C. (2014). Crossing the hurdle: The determinants of individual scientific performance. Scientometrics, 101(3), 2035–2062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balassa, B. (1965). Trade liberalization and revealed comparative advantage. The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33, 99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrot, J. S. (2017). Research impact and productivity of Southeast Asian countries in language and linguistics. Scientometrics, 110(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bishop, K., D’Este, P., & Neely, A. (2011). Gaining from interactions with universities: Multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 40(1), 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavacini, A. (2016). Recent trends in Middle Eastern scientific production. Scientometrics, 109(1), 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choung, J.-Y., & Hwang, H.-R. (2000). National systems of innovation: Institutional linkages and performances in the case of Korea and Taiwan. Scientometrics, 48(3), 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cimini, G., Gabrielli, A., & Labini, F. S. (2014) The scientific competitiveness of nations. PLoS ONE, 9(12): article number 0113470.Google Scholar
  11. Costinot, A., Donaldson, D., & Komunjer, L. (2012). What goods do countries trade? A quantitative exploration of Ricardo’s ideas. Review of Economic Studies, 79(2), 581–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deb, K., & Hauk, W. R., Jr. (2017). RCA indices, multinational production and the Ricardian trade model. International Economics and Economic Policy, 14(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deem, R., Mok, K.-H., & Lucas, L. (2008). Transforming higher education in whose image? Exploring the concept of world-class university in Europe and Asia. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erfanmanesh, M., Jahromi, R. B., Hosseini, E., & Gholamhosseinzadeh, Z. (2013). Scientific productivity, impact and collaboration of the top Asian countries in Scopus during 1996–2010. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 7(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Esser, F., & Vliegenthart, R. (2017). Comparative Research Methods. In J. Matthes, R. Potter, & C. S. Davis (Eds.), International encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 1–22). London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. French, S. (2017). Revealed comparative advantage: What is it good for? Journal of International Economics, 106, 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuchs, M. (2014). Worldwide knowledge? Global firms, local labour and the region. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  18. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. He, Z.-L., Geng, X.-S., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2009). Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university. Research Policy, 38(2), 306–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heitor, M., & Bravo, M. (2010). Portugal at the crossroads of change, facing the shock of the new: People, knowledge and ideas fostering the social fabric to facilitate the concentration of knowledge integrated communities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 218–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heitor, M. V., Horta, H., & Mendonça, J. (2014). Developing human capital and research capacity: Science policies promoting brain gain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horta, H., & Veloso, F. (2007). Opening the box: Comparing EU and US scientific output byscientific field. Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 74(8), 1334–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations: What different countries get for their research spending. Nature, 430, 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kratke, S. (2011). The creative capital of cities: Interactive knowledge creation and urbanization economies of innovation. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kwan, B. S. (2010). An investigation of instruction in research publishing offered in doctoral programs: The Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 59(1), 55–68.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kwiek, M. (2015). The internationalization of research in Europe: A quantitative study of 11 national systems from a micro-perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(4), 341–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, J. T. (2015). Soft power and cultural diplomacy: Emerging education hubs in Asia. Comparative Education, 51(3), 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, S. W., & Ducruet, C. (2009). Spatial glocalization in Asia-Pacific hub port cities: A comparison of Hong Kong and Singapore. Urban Geography, 30(2), 162–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, L.-C., Lee, Y.-Y., & Liaw, Y.-C. (2012). Bibliometric analysis for development of research strategies in agricultural technology: The case of Taiwan. Scientometrics, 93(3), 813–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, L.-C., Lin, P.-H., Chuang, Y.-W., & Lee, Y.-Y. (2011). Research output and economic productivity: A Granger causality test. Scientometrics, 89, 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2005). Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science? Scientometrics, 63(3), 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lo, W. Y. W. (2018). After globalization: A reconceptualization of transnational higher education governance in Singapore and Hong Kong. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lundvall, B. A., Joseph, K. J., Chaminade, C., & Vang, J. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries: Building domestic capabilities in a global setting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. May, R. M. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275, 793–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miguel, S., Moya-Anegón, F., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2010). The impact of the socio-economic crisis of 2001 on the scientific system of Argentina from the scientometric perspective. Scientometrics, 85(2), 495–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Okubo, Y. (1997). Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems: Methods and examples. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 1997/1, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  38. Park, J. (2017). Higher education knowledge production in postcolonial-neoliberal Asia. In J. Jung, H. Horta, & A. Yonezawa (Eds.), Researching higher education in Asia: History, development and future (pp. 51–72). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Patelli, A., Cimini, G., Pugliese, E., & Gabrielli, A. (2017). The scientific influence of nations on global scientific and technological development. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 1229–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pathak, M., & Bharati, K. A. (2014). Botanical survey of India (1971–2010): A scientometric analysis. Current Science, 106(7), 964–971.Google Scholar
  41. Pereira, T. S. (2002). International dimension of research in Portugal: The European research area and beyond. Science and Public Policy, 29(6), 451–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Postiglione, G. A. (2013). Anchoring globalization in Hong Kong’s research universities: Network agents, institutional arrangements, and brain circulation. Studies in Higher Education, 38(3), 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Radosevic, S., & Yoruk, E. (2014). Are there global shifts in the world science base? Analysing the catching-up and falling behind of world regions. Scientometrics, 101(3), 1897–1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ryan, M. P. (1998). Knowledge diplomacy—Global competition and the politics of intellectual property. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  45. Shilirò, D. (2010). Investing in knowledge: Knowledge, human capital and institutions for the long run growth. In M. J. Arentsen, W. van Rossum, & A. E. Seenge (Eds.), Governance in innovation: Firms, clusters and institutions in a changing setting (pp. 33–50). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  46. Shin, J. C., & Jung, J. (2014). Academics job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the changing academic environments. Higher Education, 67(5), 603–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sombatsompop, N., Markpin, T., Ratchatahirun, P., Yochai, W., Ittiritmeechai, S., Premkamolnetr, N., et al. (2011). Research productivity and impact of ASEAN countries and universities in the field of energy and fuel. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 16(1), 35–46.Google Scholar
  48. Wang, L. (2016). The structure and comparative advantages of China’s scientific research: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Scientometrics, 106(1), 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang, L., & Wang, X. (2017). Who sets up the bridge? Tracking scientific collaborations between China and the European Union. Research Evaluation, 26(2), 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yang, R. (2015). Reassessing China’s higher education development: A focus on academic culture. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(4), 527–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang, R. (2017). Foil to the West? Interrogating perspectives for observing East Asian higher education. In J. Jung, H. Horta, & A. Yonezawa (Eds.), Researching higher education in Asia: History, development and future (pp. 37–50). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Yigitcanlar, T., Metaxiotis, K., & Carrillo, F. J. (Eds.). (2012). Building prosperous knowledge cities: Policies, plans and metrics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Policy, Administration and Social Sciences Education, Faculty of EducationUniversity of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations