Chapter 3 | Science and Engineering Labor Force

The rising emphasis on developing S&E expertise and technical capabilities has been a global phenomenon. S&E work is not limited to developed economies; it occurs throughout the world. However, much of the work is concentrated in developed nations, where a significant portion of R&D also takes place. The availability of a suitable labor force is an important determinant of where businesses choose to locate S&E work (Davis and Hart 2010). Concentrations of existing S&E work, in turn, spawn new employment opportunities for workers with relevant S&E knowledge and skills. As a result, governments in many countries have made increased investments in S&E-related postsecondary education a high priority. At the same time, high-skill workers, including those educated or employed in S&E fields, are increasingly mobile. In recent years, many nations, recognizing the value of high-skill workers for the economy as a whole, have changed their laws to make it easier for such workers to immigrate. These changes indicate an accelerating competition for globally mobile talent (Shachar 2006).

Data on the global S&E workforce are very limited, which makes it difficult to analyze the precise size and characteristics of this specialized workforce. Internationally comparable data are limited to establishment surveys that provide basic information about workers in S&E occupations or on workers with training in S&E disciplines. In contrast, NCSES data on scientists and engineers include far more information on members of the U.S. S&E labor force than is available in other national statistical systems. Additionally, although surveys that collect workforce data are conducted in many OECD member countries, they do not cover several countries—including Brazil and India—that have high and rising levels of S&T capability, and they do not provide fully comparable data for China.

This section provides information about the size and growth of workforce segments whose jobs involve R&D in nations for which relevant data exist.

OECD data covering substantial, internationally comparable segments of the S&E workforce provide strong evidence of its widespread, though uneven, growth in the world’s developed nations. OECD countries, which include most of the world’s highly developed nations, compile data on researchers from establishment surveys in member and selected nonmember countries. These surveys generally use a standardized occupational classification that defines researchers as “professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge” who “conduct research and improve or develop concepts, theories, models, techniques instrumentation, software or operational methods” (OECD 2015). Because this definition can be applied differently when different nations conduct surveys, international comparisons should be made with caution. OECD also reports data on a broader measure of all personnel employed directly in R&D. In addition to researchers, the data on total R&D personnel include those who provide direct services to R&D, such as clerical and administrative staff employed in R&D organizations.

OECD reports an estimated increase in the number of researchers in its member countries from 3.1 million in 2000 to 4.8 million in 2015. OECD also publishes estimates for seven nonmember economies, including China and Russia. Adding these to the OECD member total for 2015 yields a worldwide estimate of 7.1 million researchers. However, numerous uncertainties affect this estimate, including (but not limited to) lack of coverage of countries with significant R&D enterprise as well as methodological inconsistencies over time and across countries. For example, some nonmember countries that engage in large and growing amounts of research (e.g., India, Brazil) are omitted entirely from these totals. In addition, for some countries and regions, including the United States and the European Union (EU; see Glossary for member countries), OECD estimates are derived from multiple national data sources and not from a uniform or standardized data collection procedure. For example, China’s data from 2009 onward have been collected in accordance with OECD definitions and standards, whereas the data before 2009 are not consistent with OECD standards. South Korea’s data before 2007 exclude social sciences and humanities researchers and are therefore not consistent with the data from 2007 onward.

Despite these limitations for making worldwide estimates of the number of researchers, the OECD data provide a reasonable starting point for estimating the rate of worldwide growth. For most economies with large numbers of researchers, the number of researchers has grown substantially since 2000 (Figure 3-38). China, whose pre-2009 data did not entirely correspond to the OECD definition, reported more than twice the number of researchers in 2008 than in 2000 and, likewise, reported substantial growth since the end of the recession in 2009. South Korea nearly doubled its number of researchers between 2000 and 2006 and continued to grow strongly between 2007 and 2015. The United States and the EU experienced steady growth but at a lower rate; the number of researchers grew 40% in the United States between 2000 and 2015 and 65% in the EU between 2000 and 2015. Exceptions to the overall worldwide trend included Japan (which experienced a relatively small change of about 2%) and Russia (which experienced a decline; see also Gokhberg and Nekipelova [2002]). Trends in numbers of full-time equivalent R&D personnel were generally parallel to those for researchers in those cases for which both kinds of data are available (Appendix Table 3-22).

OECD also estimates the proportion of researchers in the workforce. In OECD’s most recent estimates, small economies in Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden) reported that between 1% and 2% of their employed workforce are researchers; small economies in East Asia (Singapore, Taiwan) reported that about 1% of their workforce are researchers (Appendix Table 3-23). Among economies with more than 200,000 researchers, OECD’s latest estimates are that researchers make up the highest proportions of the workforce in South Korea (1.4%), Japan (1.0%), the United States (0.9%), and the United Kingdom (0.9%). Although China reported a large number of researchers, these workers represent a much smaller percentage of China’s workforce (0.2%) than in OECD member countries. Additionally, China and South Korea have shown marked increases in the percentage of their workforce employed as researchers (Figure 3-39). Since 2000, this percentage remained mostly steady in Japan, rose slightly in the United States, and rose steadily in the EU.

The proportion of female researchers varies considerably across OECD economies. According to the most recent estimates for the selected OECD countries for which data by sex are available, Japan (15% women) and South Korea (19% women) have a significant imbalance among researchers. By comparison, several European countries such as Belgium, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Spain, Norway, United Kingdom, Russia, and Poland, and several other countries such as Turkey and Singapore are more balanced, with women representing between 30% and 46% of researchers. In France and Germany, just over one-quarter of researchers are women.

OECD also provides data on gross domestic expenditures on R&D (GERD), which covers all R&D performed within the region, country, or economy in a given year. The data on GERD may be combined with the data on researchers to get an estimate of R&D spending per researcher, which is another useful indicator of national resources devoted to advancing science and engineering. According to the most recent estimates, the United States, Germany, and Austria have the highest R&D expenditures per researcher (Appendix Table 3-23). Japan, South Korea, and China spend relatively similar amounts per researcher, although the number of researchers as a proportion of total employment is significantly lower in China than in Japan and South Korea. Other countries with large numbers of researchers, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Russia, spend much less. Additionally, since 2000, GERD per researcher (in constant prices and purchasing power parity) has fluctuated within a relatively narrow range in the United States, the EU, and South Korea (Figure 3-40). China, whose pre-2009 data did not entirely correspond to the OECD definition, reported nearly 60% more GERD per researcher in 2008 than in 2000, and this number continued to grow between 2009 and 2015.