3 ms·
(not the parent) I would think that since innovation and growth (caused by innovative use of resources or increase in efficiency or novel products and services
by haneefmubarak 6y ago
(not the parent)
I would think that since innovation and growth (caused by innovative use of resources or increase in efficiency or novel products and services) in general should be relative to the population and its state to begin with, nominal GDP growth per annum would be a reasonable metric as a proxy for the wildly non-measurable "innovation in terms of GDP"; for reference, here's the data for 2018:
USA: 2.9%
Canada: 1.9%
Sweden: 2.2%
Norway: 1.3%
Finland: 1.7%
Denmark: 2.4%
Germany: 1.5%
France: 1.7%
Ireland: 8.2% (not a typo, likely explained by expansion of business services from NA into EU)
UK: 1.4%
Portugal: 2.4%
Italy: 0.8%
Greece: 1.9%
Spain: 2.4%
- jashmatthews 6y agoNo need to approximate: https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm Germany is at 3.4% of GDP spending on R&D and the USA at 2.8% France is also right up there at 2.2%
- haneefmubarak 6y agoSpending on research and development is an awful proxy for results delivered by said R&D, which is what we would actually want to measure if we're looking for innovation relative to GDP.
- mrkstu 6y agoAlso highly dependent on the laws of the individual countries as to what counts as R&D spending.