What the coronavirus vaccine roll-out says about innovation in an age of geopolitical rivalry
- While competition can foster innovation, in the current global crisis, concerns about intellectual property protection and efforts to cultivate diplomatic loyalties through vaccine provision can obstruct the type of cross-border collaboration needed
Reviving decimated industries calls for proactive and stimulatory policy intervention of the type adopted after the global financial crisis and the Great Depression. This imperative underscores the crucial role governments play in supporting industrial growth, including that led by innovation.
The release of Bloomberg’s 2021 global innovation index offers insights into how such a policy might take shape. The index ranks 60 countries across metrics including per capita research and development expenditure, manufacturing value added, tertiary education (universities), number of hi-tech companies, concentration of people holding research positions, and per capita issuance of patents.
The rankings reveal some notable trends. Two Asian countries – South Korea and Singapore – took the top spots. Four rather small European countries – Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland – are in the top 10, while the US dropped out of the top 10 (it had the top rank in 2013). China ranks 16th, the UK 18th, Australia 19th and India 50th.
Success in this endeavour favour firms and countries holding existing advantages in R&D and research capacity. Those rolling out vaccines now in widest use are the US (Moderna), Germany (Pfizer BioNTech), Britain (AstraZeneca) and China (Sinopharm) – all populous countries that are home to multinational corporations and globally competitive universities.
Nevertheless, only one of these vaccine leaders (Germany in fourth place) occupies the top 10 of the 2021 global innovation index. One upshot is that success in vaccine development may reflect not only the sophistication of domestic research ecosystems but also a statistical reality: many vaccines are tested but few are proven effective.
Which Covid-19 vaccine is the best? That’s a complicated question
Thus, countries with higher concentrations of pharmaceutical and biotech firms have more hands on deck. When solutions are needed urgently in times of crises, a “crash the gates” mentality favours the volume as much as the substance of ideas.
Other high-innovation industries are rarely under such an urgent existential mandate as pharmaceuticals during a pandemic.
At the same time, the inward turn resulting from geopolitical competition works against the process of innovation – an activity enhanced by information access and exchange.
The pertinent question, then, is: innovation for what purpose? Do the world’s superpowers see innovation as a way to produce universal solutions (for example, vaccines and “smart” capabilities) or as an opportunity to score political points concerning national or ideological superiority?
The leaders of the 2021 global innovation index – South Korea, Singapore and small wealthy European countries – arguably have less ambition for global power and influence that the US, China and Russia do.
Why much of the world is facing a Covid-19 vaccine famine
A sanguine reading would suggest that the danger of politicising innovation is low in these small but innovative countries – good news for society’s reliance on new technologies, as innovative ideas do not come solely from global superpowers.
At the same time, as Covid-19 has shown, solutions to emergent crises needing rapid biotechnical and pharmaceutical innovation often come from a small group of influential countries.
At a higher level, policy responses to each successive global crisis can be interpreted as reproductions of existing power dynamics. The same powerful countries assert their supremacy, no matter what the issue.
Whether in AI, pandemics or financial crises, the prospects of a geopolitically fragmented world working in unison seem to be declining – despite various global agreements and protocols.
Optimists argue that geopolitical tensions are the competitive drive behind innovation, particularly through the (siloed) multi-sourcing of innovation capacity that ensures systemic resilience. However, the world abandons the synergistic effects of collaboration when it sees innovation as a geopolitical exercise.
For the sake of our future prosperity and stability, we need governments to depoliticise their pandemic response – domestically and internationally.
Asit K. Biswas is a visiting professor at the University of Glasgow. Kris Hartley is an assistant professor in public policy at the Education University of Hong Kong