Diminishing Returns of National R&D Investment: Cross-Country Evidence on Research Efficiency from 29 OECD Nations

Diminishing Returns of National R&D Investment: Cross-Country Evidence on Research Efficiency from 29 OECD Nations | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Diminishing Returns of National R&D Investment: Cross-Country Evidence on Research Efficiency from 29 OECD Nations Jeong-Soon Yong This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9309028/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Nations are increasing R&D expenditure to enhance scientific competitiveness, yet whether higher spending proportionally increases research output remains contested. Endogenous growth theory predicts diminishing returns at the technology frontier, while National Innovation Systems (NIS) theory suggests that systemic capacity, not merely financial input, determines innovation outcomes. Methods We analyzed R&D expenditure (%GDP), scientific publications per million population, and researchers per million population across 29 OECD countries using World Bank indicators. Linear and logarithmic models were compared. Research efficiency (publications per unit R&D) and researcher productivity (publications per researcher) were calculated and compared between high- and low-investment groups. Results The logarithmic model (R² = 0.392) substantially outperformed the linear model (R² = 0.150), confirming diminishing returns. Countries investing above the median R&D/GDP (> 1.7%) showed significantly lower research efficiency (675 vs. 1,097; p = 0.025). A strong negative correlation was found between R&D intensity and per-researcher productivity (ρ = −0.681, p = 0.0001). Citation quality analysis confirmed the pattern: Korea ranked 23rd of 29 in citations per document (20.56) and last (29th) in quality efficiency (citations per document per unit R&D investment). Korea, despite the second-highest R&D/GDP (5.21%) and the highest researcher density (9,435 per million), ranked 27th in publication efficiency, 27th in researcher productivity, and 29th in citation quality efficiency. Conclusions R&D investment exhibits clear diminishing returns at the national level, consistent with predictions from Schumpeterian growth theory and absorptive capacity frameworks. High-investing nations, particularly Korea and Japan, exhibit a 'Researcher Paradox' where the largest researcher workforces produce the lowest per-capita output, suggesting systemic bottlenecks in administrative capacity and research governance rather than insufficient funding. We propose a Selective Abandonment Framework: when absorptive capacity is saturated, the strategic response is not to invest more but to strategically select what not to fund, organizing priorities along a temporal axis of urgency rather than importance rankings. R&D expenditure diminishing returns research productivity absorptive capacity national innovation systems selective abandonment OECD science policy Researcher Paradox Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction 1.1 The Growth Imperative and R&D Investment National expenditure on research and development (R&D) has been widely regarded as a critical determinant of scientific competitiveness and economic growth. Governments across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have consistently increased R&D budgets, with the implicit assumption that greater investment leads to proportionally greater research output [ 1 , 2 ]. Israel leads globally with R&D expenditure at 6.02% of GDP, followed by Korea at 5.21%, which has more than doubled its R&D intensity from approximately 2.5% in 2000 to over 5% in the 2020s [ 3 ]. Yet a fundamental question persists: does this expanding investment yield proportionally expanding returns? 1.2 Theoretical Framework Three interconnected theoretical traditions provide the analytical lens for examining this question. Schumpeterian endogenous growth theory. Aghion and Howitt [ 4 ] formalized the insight that innovation drives long-run economic growth through 'creative destruction,' where new technologies displace existing ones. A key implication is that nations closer to the technology frontier face increasing difficulty in generating frontier-shifting innovations, as the 'easiest' discoveries have already been made [ 5 , 6 ]. This predicts that the marginal return to R&D investment should decline as nations approach the frontier—precisely the pattern of diminishing returns. Jones [ 7 ] further demonstrated that even in models where R&D drives growth, the relationship between research effort and productivity growth exhibits decreasing returns, as the rising complexity of knowledge demands ever-larger research inputs to achieve incremental advances. Absorptive capacity theory. Cohen and Levinthal [ 8 ] introduced the concept that R&D serves a dual function: generating new knowledge and developing the capacity to assimilate external knowledge. Griffith, Redding, and Van Reenen [ 9 ] extended this to the national level, showing that R&D promotes both innovation and technology transfer through absorptive capacity. However, absorptive capacity has inherent limits: when a nation's R&D system generates knowledge faster than its institutions can absorb, diffuse, and commercialize it, additional investment yields diminishing returns [ 10 , 11 ]. This framework predicts that the efficiency of R&D spending depends not merely on its magnitude but on the alignment between investment scale and institutional absorptive capacity. National Innovation Systems (NIS) theory. Lundvall [ 12 ] and Nelson [ 13 ] argued that innovation emerges not from isolated investments but from the interactive functioning of institutions—universities, firms, government agencies, and regulatory frameworks—within a national system. The NIS framework implies that R&D spending operates within a systemic context: its effectiveness is mediated by governance structures, university-industry linkages, researcher autonomy, and administrative infrastructure [ 14 , 15 ]. When budgets expand faster than the supporting system can adapt, the result is not more innovation but more bureaucratic overhead—what Coccia [ 16 ] termed 'bureaucratization' of public research institutions. Castellacci and Natera [ 17 ] demonstrated that innovative capability and absorptive capacity co-evolve at the national level, suggesting that imbalances between the two constrain overall system performance. 1.3 Hypotheses From these three theoretical traditions, we derive three testable hypotheses: H1 (Schumpeterian diminishing returns) The relationship between national R&D intensity and research output follows a concave (logarithmic) rather than linear function, indicating diminishing marginal returns. H2 (Absorptive capacity threshold) Nations with R&D intensity above a threshold exhibit significantly lower research efficiency than those below, reflecting absorptive capacity saturation. H3 (NIS bottleneck — the Researcher Paradox) Nations with the highest researcher density exhibit disproportionately low per-researcher productivity, reflecting systemic bottlenecks in the innovation system rather than individual researcher underperformance. 1.4 Gap in the Literature Previous studies have examined R&D productivity at the firm level [ 18 , 19 ] and within specific sectors [ 20 , 21 ], and several have analyzed cross-country R&D efficiency using stochastic frontier analysis [ 22 ] or data envelopment analysis [ 23 ]. However, three gaps remain. First, the explicit integration of Schumpeterian growth theory, absorptive capacity, and NIS frameworks to explain cross-national diminishing returns has not been attempted. Second, the simultaneous analysis of both financial efficiency and human resource efficiency (per-researcher productivity) across OECD countries is rare [ 24 ]. Third, the phenomenon we term the 'Researcher Paradox'—the inverse relationship between researcher density and per-researcher output—has not been formally documented or theoretically grounded. This study addresses these gaps by analyzing 29 OECD countries across two efficiency dimensions, testing the three hypotheses derived from our integrated theoretical framework. Methods 2.1 Data Sources National-level data were obtained from the World Bank Open Data platform [ 2 ]. Four indicators were used: (1) R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP (GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS), (2) Scientific and technical journal articles (IP.JRN.ARTC.SC), (3) Total population (SP.POP.TOTL), and (4) Researchers in R&D per million people (SP.POP.SCIE.RD.P6). For each of the 38 OECD member countries, the most recent year with complete data was selected (2018–2022). Countries with missing data were excluded, yielding 29 nations for the primary analysis and 28 for the researcher productivity analysis (Israel excluded due to missing researcher data). 2.2 Variables and Efficiency Measures The primary independent variable was R&D intensity (R&D expenditure as %GDP). Three efficiency measures were computed: (1) Financial efficiency index = publications per million population divided by R&D/GDP percentage, following Wang [ 22 ]; (2) Researcher productivity = publications per million population divided by researchers per million population, expressed per 1,000 researchers; and (3) Quality efficiency = citations per document divided by R&D/GDP percentage, using citation data from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database [ 32 ], which aggregates Scopus-indexed publications from 1996 to 2024. These three measures capture, respectively, the quantitative return on financial investment, the return on human capital investment, and the qualitative return on financial investment in R&D. 2.3 Statistical Analysis To test H1, Spearman rank correlations assessed associations between R&D intensity and output measures. Linear and logarithmic regression models were fitted and compared by R². To test H2, countries were stratified at the median R&D/GDP into high- and low-investment groups, with efficiency compared by Mann-Whitney U test. To test H3, the Spearman correlation between researcher density and per-researcher productivity was computed, and individual country rankings were examined for systematic patterns. All analyses used Python 3.12 with SciPy 1.13. 2.4 Ethical Statement This study used publicly available aggregate national-level data and did not involve human subjects. Results 3.1 H1: Diminishing Returns (Schumpeterian Prediction) R&D intensity ranged from 0.26% (Mexico) to 6.02% (Israel). Research output density ranged from 140 (Costa Rica) to 2,732 (Denmark) publications per million population. The Spearman correlation between R&D intensity and publication density was ρ = 0.440 (p = 0.017). The logarithmic model substantially outperformed the linear model (R² = 0.392 vs. 0.150; Figure 1), confirming a concave relationship consistent with diminishing returns and supporting H1. Figure 1. Relationship between R&D intensity and publication density across 29 OECD nations. The logarithmic model (R² = 0.392) outperforms the linear model (R² = 0.150), confirming diminishing returns. 3.2 H2: Absorptive Capacity Threshold Countries above the median R&D/GDP (1.7%) showed significantly lower financial efficiency than those below (mean 675 vs. 1,097; Mann-Whitney p = 0.025), supporting H2. This threshold effect is consistent with absorptive capacity saturation: beyond approximately 1.7% of GDP, each additional unit of R&D investment generates proportionally fewer publications. Table 1 presents the complete financial efficiency ranking for all 29 countries. 3.3 H3: The Researcher Paradox A strong negative correlation was observed between R&D intensity and per-researcher productivity (ρ = −0.681, p = 0.0001; Figure 2), strongly supporting H3. Korea had the highest researcher density (9,435 per million) but ranked 27th of 28 in per-researcher productivity (157.8 publications per 1,000 researchers). For comparison, Australia had 4,569 researchers per million and produced 528.2 publications per 1,000 researchers, 3.3 times Korea's rate. Japan similarly ranked last (147.3 per 1,000 researchers) despite a researcher density of 5,630 per million. This pattern—the largest research workforces producing the least per capita—constitutes the Researcher Paradox. Figure 2. Per-researcher productivity versus R&D intensity across 28 OECD nations. The strong negative correlation (ρ = −0.681, p = 0.0001) reveals the Researcher Paradox. 3.4 Quality Efficiency: Citations per Document To address the limitation that publication counts capture quantity but not quality, we analyzed citations per document from the SCImago database [32]. Korea ranked 23rd of 29 in citations per document (20.56), despite being 2nd in R&D investment. When normalized by investment (quality efficiency = citations per document / R&D GDP%), Korea ranked last (29th of 29) with a quality efficiency of 3.95. For comparison, Denmark achieved 12.66 (20th), Ireland 29.59 (5th), and Costa Rica 69.03 (1st). Japan ranked 27th (quality efficiency 6.17). The pattern observed with publication quantity thus extends to publication quality: Korea's R&D investment produces not only fewer papers per unit of spending but also less-cited papers per unit of spending than any other OECD nation in our sample. 3.5 Case Comparison: Korea and Denmark Korea and Denmark provide a natural comparison that illustrates all three hypotheses simultaneously (Figure 3). Korea invested 5.21% of GDP in R&D with 9,435 researchers per million, producing 1,489 publications per million (financial efficiency: 286; researcher productivity: 157.8). Denmark invested 2.89% of GDP with 8,736 researchers per million, producing 2,732 publications per million (financial efficiency: 945; researcher productivity: 312.7). Denmark spent 55% of Korea's R&D intensity, employed 93% of Korea's researcher density, yet produced 1.8 times more publications per capita, achieved 3.3 times Korea's financial efficiency, and 2.0 times Korea's researcher productivity. Discussion 4.1 Theoretical Integration Our findings converge with predictions from all three theoretical frameworks. The logarithmic R&D-output relationship (H1) aligns with Schumpeterian growth theory, which predicts increasing difficulty of frontier innovation [4, 5]. The absorptive capacity threshold (H2) is consistent with Cohen and Levinthal's [8] framework as extended to the national level by Griffith et al. [9]: beyond a saturation point, additional R&D investment outstrips the system's capacity to productively deploy it. The Researcher Paradox (H3) resonates with the NIS framework's emphasis on systemic coordination [12, 13]: expanding the researcher workforce without proportionally expanding the institutional infrastructure that supports research—governance, mentorship, facilities, and critically, research management capacity—leads to congestion effects rather than scale economies. 4.2 Administrative Capacity as the Binding Constraint Among the mechanisms underlying diminishing returns, our data are most consistent with what we term the administrative capacity bottleneck. When R&D budgets expand faster than the program management workforce, funding agencies respond by fragmenting grants into smaller units, creating narrowly defined calls that prioritize budget execution over scientific merit, and proliferating compliance requirements that burden researchers [16, 25]. Korea exemplifies this: its R&D governance is distributed across multiple ministries (Ministry of Science and ICT, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Health and Welfare) and dozens of funding agencies, each with distinct evaluation criteria, reporting formats, and compliance requirements [26]. This fragmentation imposes a 'coordination tax' on researchers that is absent in more streamlined systems. This interpretation resonates with Stephan's [25] analysis of how funding structures shape scientific behavior, and with Coccia's [16] documentation of bureaucratization in public research. It also connects to Lundvall's [12] emphasis on the 'learning economy': when administrative systems fail to learn and adapt as fast as the research enterprise they govern, they become the binding constraint on system-level productivity. 4.3 Beyond Absorptive Capacity: A Selective Abandonment Framework Existing theoretical frameworks—Schumpeterian growth, absorptive capacity, and NIS theory—explain why diminishing returns occur but offer limited guidance on how high-investment nations should respond. Cohen and Levinthal [8] prescribe building absorptive capacity; NIS theory prescribes improving systemic coordination [12, 13]. Both assume that the answer is to absorb more or coordinate better. Our data suggest a different imperative: when absorptive capacity is saturated, the strategic response is not to absorb more but to selectively abandon. We propose a Selective Abandonment Framework comprising four principles that emerge from the cross-country evidence. A critical clarification is necessary: this framework does not advocate reducing R&D budgets. The evidence shows that absolute investment levels correlate positively with output; the inefficiency lies not in the magnitude of spending but in the absence of strategic selection within it. The prescription is to maintain or increase investment while restoring the selectivity that high-investment nations have progressively lost as budgets expanded. First, enumeration is not strategy. High-investment nations tend to respond to increasing R&D budgets by expanding the list of priority areas—artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum computing, space technology, semiconductors—without differentiating commitment levels across them. When all areas are priorities, none are. The Nordic nations that achieve high efficiency tend to have fewer, more focused national research priorities [27, 28], consistent with the principle that strategic concentration outperforms comprehensive coverage. Second, differentiation creates political resistance. When policy-makers attempt to distinguish priority from non-priority research areas, the resulting ranking generates institutional resistance: 'Is our field unimportant?' This political dynamic drives nations toward enumeration rather than selection, perpetuating the very inefficiency the framework identifies. Overcoming this resistance requires reframing the question from 'what is important?' (which creates rankings) to a temporal framework: 'what must be done now versus what must be sustained over time.' Third, temporal framing resolves the selection dilemma. Rather than ranking fields by importance, R&D strategy can be organized along a temporal axis: preemptive investment (areas where delay creates irreversible disadvantage) versus sustaining investment (areas where continuous effort maintains competitiveness). This distinction is not a ranking of value but a classification of urgency, which is both analytically clearer and politically more tractable. Korea's current R&D strategy, which treats all areas with equal urgency, loses the discriminatory power that temporal framing provides. Fourth, cross-cutting applicability is a feature, not a flaw. A persistent criticism of national R&D governance is ministerial duplication: multiple ministries funding overlapping research areas. From an NIS perspective, however, this overlap reflects the inherent cross-cutting nature of enabling technologies—AI, for instance, is relevant to healthcare, defense, agriculture, and education simultaneously. The inefficiency lies not in the overlap itself but in the absence of a cross-ministerial framework that recognizes this transversality and coordinates accordingly, rather than treating each ministry's investment as an isolated expenditure [26]. Fifth, abundance kills selectivity. Korea's rapid industrialization in the 1960s–1980s was built on highly selective technology acquisition—forced by scarcity [26]. As budgets expanded, this selectivity was progressively replaced by comprehensiveness, and efficiency declined accordingly. Our data confirm the pattern: Chile (R&D/GDP 0.36%, efficiency rank 4) and Ireland (0.96%, rank 1) achieve disproportionate efficiency because limited budgets enforce strategic focus. The lesson is not to reduce budgets but to recognize that the discipline of scarcity—the habit of choosing what not to fund—must be institutionally preserved even when abundance makes it optional. This framework extends absorptive capacity theory by positing that the binding constraint in high-investment nations is not the inability to absorb external knowledge (the original Cohen-Levinthal concern) but the inability to strategically select which internal programs to discontinue. Just as trained immune cells achieve enhanced function not by opening all chromatin but by selectively closing most of it while amplifying the remainder, efficient national R&D systems may achieve superior outcomes not by funding everything but by strategically choosing what not to fund. The analogy is structural, not metaphorical: in both biological and institutional systems, memory and efficiency are encoded by selective suppression rather than comprehensive activation. 4.4 The Nordic Efficiency Model Nordic countries consistently ranked among the most efficient systems. Denmark, Norway, and Finland achieved high output with moderate investment. Common features include strong traditions of academic freedom, flat institutional hierarchies, high baseline educational quality, effective university-industry partnerships, and relatively streamlined funding mechanisms that minimize administrative burden on researchers [27, 28]. These features correspond to what the NIS literature identifies as well-functioning systems with strong institutional complementarities [14]. 4.5 Implications for Korea and High-Investment Nations Korea and Japan occupy the high-investment, low-efficiency quadrant. Korea's case is particularly instructive: despite the second-highest R&D/GDP and the highest researcher density, it ranks near the bottom on both efficiency measures. Through the lens of our theoretical framework, this reflects not insufficient resources but an imbalance between financial inputs and systemic capacity—precisely the type of misalignment that NIS theory predicts will undermine innovation outcomes [13, 17]. Policy implications are clear: high-investment nations should prioritize systemic efficiency over budgetary expansion. Specific recommendations include consolidating R&D governance to reduce fragmentation [26], reducing grant administration burden on researchers, increasing the proportion of untargeted basic research funding to enhance researcher autonomy [29], reforming evaluation systems to emphasize research quality over quantity, and critically, expanding the professional research management workforce to match the scale of the research enterprise [25]. 4.6 The Researcher Paradox in Context The strong negative correlation between researcher density and per-researcher productivity (ρ = −0.681) constitutes what we term the 'Researcher Paradox.' This phenomenon can be understood through multiple theoretical lenses. From absorptive capacity theory, additional researchers face diminishing marginal returns as they compete for finite facilities, equipment, and publication opportunities [8]. From NIS theory, systems that expand headcounts without proportionally expanding the mentorship, infrastructure, and governance systems that support productive research create congestion rather than capacity [12, 30]. The paradox also connects to Stephan's [25] observation that expanding the PhD workforce beyond absorptive demand leads to misallocation of trained researchers into administrative, teaching, or peripheral roles that do not contribute directly to the publication count. 4.7 Limitations This study has several limitations. Publication count does not capture innovation, patents, or societal impact. The cross-sectional design cannot establish causality or control for unobserved heterogeneity. R&D composition (public vs. private, basic vs. applied) was not disaggregated, which is a significant omission given that private R&D may have different output profiles than public R&D [20]. Country-level analysis obscures within-country variation across institutions and fields. The financial efficiency index may be tautologically biased against high-investment countries by construction, though the Researcher Paradox analysis, which uses an independent denominator, confirms the pattern. Future work should incorporate citation-weighted metrics [31], patent data, longitudinal panel designs with fixed effects to control for unobserved country characteristics, and disaggregated R&D composition data. Conclusion National R&D investment exhibits clear diminishing returns across OECD countries, consistent with predictions from Schumpeterian growth theory, absorptive capacity frameworks, and National Innovation Systems theory. Both financial efficiency and researcher productivity decline with increasing R&D intensity. The Researcher Paradox—where the largest researcher workforces produce the least per capita—suggests that systemic administrative capacity, not funding magnitude, is the binding constraint on research productivity in high-investment nations. We propose a Selective Abandonment Framework that extends absorptive capacity theory: when the capacity to productively deploy R&D investment is saturated, the strategic imperative shifts from investing more to strategically selecting what not to fund. Temporal framing—distinguishing preemptive from sustaining investments—offers a politically tractable mechanism for this selection. These findings challenge the prevailing assumption that more investment necessarily yields more science, and call for policy attention to strategic selectivity alongside institutional infrastructure. Declarations Acknowledgments Data were obtained from the World Bank Open Data platform. Funding: This research received no external funding. Declaration of Generative AI in the Writing Process During the preparation of this work, the author used Claude (Anthropic) to assist with data retrieval, statistical computation, and manuscript drafting. The author reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication. Declaration of Interest The author declares no competing interests. Data Availability All data are publicly available from the World Bank Open Data platform (https://data.worldbank.org). Analysis code is available from the corresponding author upon request. References OECD. Main Science and Technology Indicators. OECD Publishing, 2024. World Bank. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2024. OECD. OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023. Aghion P, Howitt P. A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 1992;60(2):323–351. Aghion P, Howitt P. Endogenous Growth Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998. Bloom N, Jones CI, Van Reenen J, Webb M. Are ideas getting harder to find? American Economic Review 2020;110(4):1104–1144. Jones CI. R&D-based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy 1995;103(4):759–784. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 1990;35(1):128–152. Griffith R, Redding S, Van Reenen J. R&D and absorptive capacity: Theory and empirical evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 2003;105(1):99–118. Zahra SA, George G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review 2002;27(2):185–203. Lane PJ, Koka BR, Pathak S. The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review 2006;31(4):833–863. Lundvall B-Å (ed.). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers; 1992. Nelson RR (ed.). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993. Edquist C (ed.). Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter; 1997. Freeman C. The 'national system of innovation' in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics 1995;19(1):5–24. Coccia M. Bureaucratization in public research institutions. Minerva 2009;47(1):31–50. Castellacci F, Natera JM. The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy 2013;42(3):579–594. Griliches Z. The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 1992;94:S29–S47. Hall BH, Mairesse J, Mohnen P. Measuring the returns to R&D. In: Hall BH, Rosenberg N (eds.). Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2010. pp. 1033–1082. Guellec D, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. R&D and productivity growth: Panel data analysis of 16 OECD countries. OECD Economic Studies 2001;33:103–126. Dosi G, Llerena P, Labini MS. The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called 'European Paradox.' Research Policy 2006;35(10):1450–1464. Wang EC. R&D efficiency and economic performance: A cross-country analysis using the stochastic frontier approach. Journal of Policy Modeling 2007;29(2):345–360. Sharma S, Thomas VJ. Inter-country R&D efficiency analysis: An application of data envelopment analysis. Scientometrics 2008;76(3):483–501. Crespi G, Zuniga P. Innovation and productivity: Evidence from six Latin American countries. World Development 2012;40(2):273–290. Stephan P. How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2012. Lee K, Kim BY. Both institutions and policies matter but differently for different income groups. World Development 2009;37(3):533–549. Fagerberg J, Srholec M. National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Research Policy 2008;37(9):1417–1435. Edquist C, Zabala-Iturriagagoitia JM. Public procurement for innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research Policy 2012;41(10):1757–1769. Heinze T, Shapira P, Rogers JD, Senker JM. Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy 2009;38(4):610–623. Rogers M. Absorptive capability and economic growth: How do countries catch-up? Cambridge Journal of Economics 2004;28(4):577–596. Waltman L, van Eck NJ. A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012;63(12):2378–2392. SCImago. SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Available at: https://www.scimagojr.com . Accessed 2026. Table 1 Table 1 is not available with this version Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9309028","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":632543073,"identity":"414c0b53-0aea-422e-b43f-bcb2eab6d1ec","order_by":0,"name":"Jeong-Soon Yong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Korea University College of Medicine","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jeong-Soon","middleName":"","lastName":"Yong","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-03 05:24:47","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9309028/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9309028/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108475698,"identity":"df5050c1-0b79-442e-bc4b-a69e5ca6d018","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-05 06:49:41","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":277141,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between R\u0026amp;D intensity and publication density across 29 OECD nations. The logarithmic model (R² = 0.392) outperforms the linear model (R² = 0.150), confirming diminishing returns.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9309028/v1/74e0f747d332dac91967e496.png"},{"id":108475699,"identity":"9d45374c-5313-4918-826e-b4416fc82d65","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-05 06:49:41","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":237538,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePer-researcher productivity versus R\u0026amp;D intensity across 28 OECD nations. The strong negative correlation (ρ = −0.681, p = 0.0001) reveals the Researcher Paradox.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9309028/v1/874d692b8beeddca5ed8e6dc.png"},{"id":108493898,"identity":"70330cb3-df48-48ce-b4f8-341ef006de0c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-05 10:02:05","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":200838,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eKorea-Denmark comparison across key metrics.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9309028/v1/ebd849171bd46d09e1ab6d3f.png"},{"id":108803837,"identity":"ed80652f-e35d-4296-a2c1-aa1bf8d324bd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 15:09:07","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":789607,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9309028/v1/6bd60643-43f5-4ebb-9c88-1fdd262848b1.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eDiminishing Returns of National R\u0026amp;D Investment: Cross-Country Evidence on Research Efficiency from 29 OECD Nations\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1 The Growth Imperative and R\u0026amp;D Investment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational expenditure on research and development (R\u0026amp;D) has been widely regarded as a critical determinant of scientific competitiveness and economic growth. Governments across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have consistently increased R\u0026amp;D budgets, with the implicit assumption that greater investment leads to proportionally greater research output [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Israel leads globally with R\u0026amp;D expenditure at 6.02% of GDP, followed by Korea at 5.21%, which has more than doubled its R\u0026amp;D intensity from approximately 2.5% in 2000 to over 5% in the 2020s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Yet a fundamental question persists: does this expanding investment yield proportionally expanding returns?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2 Theoretical Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree interconnected theoretical traditions provide the analytical lens for examining this question.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSchumpeterian endogenous growth theory.\u003c/b\u003e Aghion and Howitt [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e] formalized the insight that innovation drives long-run economic growth through 'creative destruction,' where new technologies displace existing ones. A key implication is that nations closer to the technology frontier face increasing difficulty in generating frontier-shifting innovations, as the 'easiest' discoveries have already been made [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. This predicts that the marginal return to R\u0026amp;D investment should decline as nations approach the frontier\u0026mdash;precisely the pattern of diminishing returns. Jones [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e] further demonstrated that even in models where R\u0026amp;D drives growth, the relationship between research effort and productivity growth exhibits decreasing returns, as the rising complexity of knowledge demands ever-larger research inputs to achieve incremental advances.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAbsorptive capacity theory.\u003c/b\u003e Cohen and Levinthal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e] introduced the concept that R\u0026amp;D serves a dual function: generating new knowledge and developing the capacity to assimilate external knowledge. Griffith, Redding, and Van Reenen [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e] extended this to the national level, showing that R\u0026amp;D promotes both innovation and technology transfer through absorptive capacity. However, absorptive capacity has inherent limits: when a nation's R\u0026amp;D system generates knowledge faster than its institutions can absorb, diffuse, and commercialize it, additional investment yields diminishing returns [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. This framework predicts that the efficiency of R\u0026amp;D spending depends not merely on its magnitude but on the alignment between investment scale and institutional absorptive capacity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eNational Innovation Systems (NIS) theory.\u003c/b\u003e Lundvall [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] and Nelson [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] argued that innovation emerges not from isolated investments but from the interactive functioning of institutions\u0026mdash;universities, firms, government agencies, and regulatory frameworks\u0026mdash;within a national system. The NIS framework implies that R\u0026amp;D spending operates within a systemic context: its effectiveness is mediated by governance structures, university-industry linkages, researcher autonomy, and administrative infrastructure [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. When budgets expand faster than the supporting system can adapt, the result is not more innovation but more bureaucratic overhead\u0026mdash;what Coccia [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] termed 'bureaucratization' of public research institutions. Castellacci and Natera [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] demonstrated that innovative capability and absorptive capacity co-evolve at the national level, suggesting that imbalances between the two constrain overall system performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.3 Hypotheses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom these three theoretical traditions, we derive three testable hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH1 (Schumpeterian diminishing returns)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between national R\u0026amp;D intensity and research output follows a concave (logarithmic) rather than linear function, indicating diminishing marginal returns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH2 (Absorptive capacity threshold)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNations with R\u0026amp;D intensity above a threshold exhibit significantly lower research efficiency than those below, reflecting absorptive capacity saturation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH3 (NIS bottleneck \u0026mdash; the Researcher Paradox)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNations with the highest researcher density exhibit disproportionately low per-researcher productivity, reflecting systemic bottlenecks in the innovation system rather than individual researcher underperformance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.4 Gap in the Literature\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious studies have examined R\u0026amp;D productivity at the firm level [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] and within specific sectors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], and several have analyzed cross-country R\u0026amp;D efficiency using stochastic frontier analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] or data envelopment analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. However, three gaps remain. First, the explicit integration of Schumpeterian growth theory, absorptive capacity, and NIS frameworks to explain cross-national diminishing returns has not been attempted. Second, the simultaneous analysis of both financial efficiency and human resource efficiency (per-researcher productivity) across OECD countries is rare [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. Third, the phenomenon we term the 'Researcher Paradox'\u0026mdash;the inverse relationship between researcher density and per-researcher output\u0026mdash;has not been formally documented or theoretically grounded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study addresses these gaps by analyzing 29 OECD countries across two efficiency dimensions, testing the three hypotheses derived from our integrated theoretical framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Data Sources\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational-level data were obtained from the World Bank Open Data platform [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Four indicators were used: (1) R\u0026amp;D expenditure as a percentage of GDP (GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS), (2) Scientific and technical journal articles (IP.JRN.ARTC.SC), (3) Total population (SP.POP.TOTL), and (4) Researchers in R\u0026amp;D per million people (SP.POP.SCIE.RD.P6). For each of the 38 OECD member countries, the most recent year with complete data was selected (2018\u0026ndash;2022). Countries with missing data were excluded, yielding 29 nations for the primary analysis and 28 for the researcher productivity analysis (Israel excluded due to missing researcher data).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Variables and Efficiency Measures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary independent variable was R\u0026amp;D intensity (R\u0026amp;D expenditure as %GDP). Three efficiency measures were computed: (1) Financial efficiency index\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;publications per million population divided by R\u0026amp;D/GDP percentage, following Wang [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]; (2) Researcher productivity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;publications per million population divided by researchers per million population, expressed per 1,000 researchers; and (3) Quality efficiency\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;citations per document divided by R\u0026amp;D/GDP percentage, using citation data from the SCImago Journal \u0026amp; Country Rank database [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e], which aggregates Scopus-indexed publications from 1996 to 2024. These three measures capture, respectively, the quantitative return on financial investment, the return on human capital investment, and the qualitative return on financial investment in R\u0026amp;D.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Statistical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo test H1, Spearman rank correlations assessed associations between R\u0026amp;D intensity and output measures. Linear and logarithmic regression models were fitted and compared by R\u0026sup2;. To test H2, countries were stratified at the median R\u0026amp;D/GDP into high- and low-investment groups, with efficiency compared by Mann-Whitney U test. To test H3, the Spearman correlation between researcher density and per-researcher productivity was computed, and individual country rankings were examined for systematic patterns. All analyses used Python 3.12 with SciPy 1.13.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.4 Ethical Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study used publicly available aggregate national-level data and did not involve human subjects.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1 H1: Diminishing Returns (Schumpeterian Prediction)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eR\u0026amp;D intensity ranged from 0.26% (Mexico) to 6.02% (Israel). Research output density ranged from 140 (Costa Rica) to 2,732 (Denmark) publications per million population. The Spearman correlation between R\u0026amp;D intensity and publication density was \u0026rho; = 0.440 (p = 0.017). The logarithmic model substantially outperformed the linear model (R\u0026sup2; = 0.392 vs. 0.150; Figure 1), confirming a concave relationship consistent with diminishing returns and supporting H1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eRelationship between R\u0026amp;D intensity and publication density across 29 OECD nations. The logarithmic model (R\u0026sup2; = 0.392) outperforms the linear model (R\u0026sup2; = 0.150), confirming diminishing returns.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2 H2: Absorptive Capacity Threshold\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCountries above the median R\u0026amp;D/GDP (1.7%) showed significantly lower financial efficiency than those below (mean 675 vs. 1,097; Mann-Whitney p = 0.025), supporting H2. This threshold effect is consistent with absorptive capacity saturation: beyond approximately 1.7% of GDP, each additional unit of R\u0026amp;D investment generates proportionally fewer publications. Table 1 presents the complete financial efficiency ranking for all 29 countries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3 H3: The Researcher Paradox\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA strong negative correlation was observed between R\u0026amp;D intensity and per-researcher productivity (\u0026rho; = \u0026minus;0.681, p = 0.0001; Figure 2), strongly supporting H3. Korea had the highest researcher density (9,435 per million) but ranked 27th of 28 in per-researcher productivity (157.8 publications per 1,000 researchers). For comparison, Australia had 4,569 researchers per million and produced 528.2 publications per 1,000 researchers, 3.3 times Korea\u0026apos;s rate. Japan similarly ranked last (147.3 per 1,000 researchers) despite a researcher density of 5,630 per million. This pattern\u0026mdash;the largest research workforces producing the least per capita\u0026mdash;constitutes the Researcher Paradox.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ePer-researcher productivity versus R\u0026amp;D intensity across 28 OECD nations. The strong negative correlation (\u0026rho; = \u0026minus;0.681, p = 0.0001) reveals the Researcher Paradox.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.4 Quality Efficiency: Citations per Document\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address the limitation that publication counts capture quantity but not quality, we analyzed citations per document from the SCImago database [32]. Korea ranked 23rd of 29 in citations per document (20.56), despite being 2nd in R\u0026amp;D investment. When normalized by investment (quality efficiency = citations per document / R\u0026amp;D GDP%), Korea ranked last (29th of 29) with a quality efficiency of 3.95. For comparison, Denmark achieved 12.66 (20th), Ireland 29.59 (5th), and Costa Rica 69.03 (1st). Japan ranked 27th (quality efficiency 6.17). The pattern observed with publication quantity thus extends to publication quality: Korea\u0026apos;s R\u0026amp;D investment produces not only fewer papers per unit of spending but also less-cited papers per unit of spending than any other OECD nation in our sample.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.5 Case Comparison: Korea and Denmark\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKorea and Denmark provide a natural comparison that illustrates all three hypotheses simultaneously (Figure 3). Korea invested 5.21% of GDP in R\u0026amp;D with 9,435 researchers per million, producing 1,489 publications per million (financial efficiency: 286; researcher productivity: 157.8). Denmark invested 2.89% of GDP with 8,736 researchers per million, producing 2,732 publications per million (financial efficiency: 945; researcher productivity: 312.7). Denmark spent 55% of Korea\u0026apos;s R\u0026amp;D intensity, employed 93% of Korea\u0026apos;s researcher density, yet produced 1.8 times more publications per capita, achieved 3.3 times Korea\u0026apos;s financial efficiency, and 2.0 times Korea\u0026apos;s researcher productivity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1 Theoretical Integration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur findings converge with predictions from all three theoretical frameworks. The logarithmic R\u0026amp;D-output relationship (H1) aligns with Schumpeterian growth theory, which predicts increasing difficulty of frontier innovation [4, 5]. The absorptive capacity threshold (H2) is consistent with Cohen and Levinthal\u0026apos;s [8] framework as extended to the national level by Griffith et al. [9]: beyond a saturation point, additional R\u0026amp;D investment outstrips the system\u0026apos;s capacity to productively deploy it. The Researcher Paradox (H3) resonates with the NIS framework\u0026apos;s emphasis on systemic coordination [12, 13]: expanding the researcher workforce without proportionally expanding the institutional infrastructure that supports research\u0026mdash;governance, mentorship, facilities, and critically, research management capacity\u0026mdash;leads to congestion effects rather than scale economies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2 Administrative Capacity as the Binding Constraint\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the mechanisms underlying diminishing returns, our data are most consistent with what we term the administrative capacity bottleneck. When R\u0026amp;D budgets expand faster than the program management workforce, funding agencies respond by fragmenting grants into smaller units, creating narrowly defined calls that prioritize budget execution over scientific merit, and proliferating compliance requirements that burden researchers [16, 25]. Korea exemplifies this: its R\u0026amp;D governance is distributed across multiple ministries (Ministry of Science and ICT, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Health and Welfare) and dozens of funding agencies, each with distinct evaluation criteria, reporting formats, and compliance requirements [26]. This fragmentation imposes a \u0026apos;coordination tax\u0026apos; on researchers that is absent in more streamlined systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis interpretation resonates with Stephan\u0026apos;s [25] analysis of how funding structures shape scientific behavior, and with Coccia\u0026apos;s [16] documentation of bureaucratization in public research. It also connects to Lundvall\u0026apos;s [12] emphasis on the \u0026apos;learning economy\u0026apos;: when administrative systems fail to learn and adapt as fast as the research enterprise they govern, they become the binding constraint on system-level productivity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.3 Beyond Absorptive Capacity: A Selective Abandonment Framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExisting theoretical frameworks\u0026mdash;Schumpeterian growth, absorptive capacity, and NIS theory\u0026mdash;explain why diminishing returns occur but offer limited guidance on how high-investment nations should respond. Cohen and Levinthal [8] prescribe building absorptive capacity; NIS theory prescribes improving systemic coordination [12, 13]. Both assume that the answer is to absorb more or coordinate better. Our data suggest a different imperative: when absorptive capacity is saturated, the strategic response is not to absorb more but to selectively abandon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe propose a Selective Abandonment Framework comprising four principles that emerge from the cross-country evidence. A critical clarification is necessary: this framework does not advocate reducing R\u0026amp;D budgets. The evidence shows that absolute investment levels correlate positively with output; the inefficiency lies not in the magnitude of spending but in the absence of strategic selection within it. The prescription is to maintain or increase investment while restoring the selectivity that high-investment nations have progressively lost as budgets expanded.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFirst, enumeration is not strategy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eHigh-investment nations tend to respond to increasing R\u0026amp;D budgets by expanding the list of priority areas\u0026mdash;artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum computing, space technology, semiconductors\u0026mdash;without differentiating commitment levels across them. When all areas are priorities, none are. The Nordic nations that achieve high efficiency tend to have fewer, more focused national research priorities [27, 28], consistent with the principle that strategic concentration outperforms comprehensive coverage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecond, differentiation creates political resistance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eWhen policy-makers attempt to distinguish priority from non-priority research areas, the resulting ranking generates institutional resistance: \u0026apos;Is our field unimportant?\u0026apos; This political dynamic drives nations toward enumeration rather than selection, perpetuating the very inefficiency the framework identifies. Overcoming this resistance requires reframing the question from \u0026apos;what is important?\u0026apos; (which creates rankings) to a temporal framework: \u0026apos;what must be done now versus what must be sustained over time.\u0026apos;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThird, temporal framing resolves the selection dilemma.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eRather than ranking fields by importance, R\u0026amp;D strategy can be organized along a temporal axis: preemptive investment (areas where delay creates irreversible disadvantage) versus sustaining investment (areas where continuous effort maintains competitiveness). This distinction is not a ranking of value but a classification of urgency, which is both analytically clearer and politically more tractable. Korea\u0026apos;s current R\u0026amp;D strategy, which treats all areas with equal urgency, loses the discriminatory power that temporal framing provides.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFourth, cross-cutting applicability is a feature, not a flaw.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eA persistent criticism of national R\u0026amp;D governance is ministerial duplication: multiple ministries funding overlapping research areas. From an NIS perspective, however, this overlap reflects the inherent cross-cutting nature of enabling technologies\u0026mdash;AI, for instance, is relevant to healthcare, defense, agriculture, and education simultaneously. The inefficiency lies not in the overlap itself but in the absence of a cross-ministerial framework that recognizes this transversality and coordinates accordingly, rather than treating each ministry\u0026apos;s investment as an isolated expenditure [26].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFifth, abundance kills selectivity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eKorea\u0026apos;s rapid industrialization in the 1960s\u0026ndash;1980s was built on highly selective technology acquisition\u0026mdash;forced by scarcity [26]. As budgets expanded, this selectivity was progressively replaced by comprehensiveness, and efficiency declined accordingly. Our data confirm the pattern: Chile (R\u0026amp;D/GDP 0.36%, efficiency rank 4) and Ireland (0.96%, rank 1) achieve disproportionate efficiency because limited budgets enforce strategic focus. The lesson is not to reduce budgets but to recognize that the discipline of scarcity\u0026mdash;the habit of choosing what not to fund\u0026mdash;must be institutionally preserved even when abundance makes it optional.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis framework extends absorptive capacity theory by positing that the binding constraint in high-investment nations is not the inability to absorb external knowledge (the original Cohen-Levinthal concern) but the inability to strategically select which internal programs to discontinue. Just as trained immune cells achieve enhanced function not by opening all chromatin but by selectively closing most of it while amplifying the remainder, efficient national R\u0026amp;D systems may achieve superior outcomes not by funding everything but by strategically choosing what not to fund. The analogy is structural, not metaphorical: in both biological and institutional systems, memory and efficiency are encoded by selective suppression rather than comprehensive activation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.4 The Nordic Efficiency Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNordic countries consistently ranked among the most efficient systems. Denmark, Norway, and Finland achieved high output with moderate investment. Common features include strong traditions of academic freedom, flat institutional hierarchies, high baseline educational quality, effective university-industry partnerships, and relatively streamlined funding mechanisms that minimize administrative burden on researchers [27, 28]. These features correspond to what the NIS literature identifies as well-functioning systems with strong institutional complementarities [14].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.5 Implications for Korea and High-Investment Nations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKorea and Japan occupy the high-investment, low-efficiency quadrant. Korea\u0026apos;s case is particularly instructive: despite the second-highest R\u0026amp;D/GDP and the highest researcher density, it ranks near the bottom on both efficiency measures. Through the lens of our theoretical framework, this reflects not insufficient resources but an imbalance between financial inputs and systemic capacity\u0026mdash;precisely the type of misalignment that NIS theory predicts will undermine innovation outcomes [13, 17].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePolicy implications are clear: high-investment nations should prioritize systemic efficiency over budgetary expansion. Specific recommendations include consolidating R\u0026amp;D governance to reduce fragmentation [26], reducing grant administration burden on researchers, increasing the proportion of untargeted basic research funding to enhance researcher autonomy [29], reforming evaluation systems to emphasize research quality over quantity, and critically, expanding the professional research management workforce to match the scale of the research enterprise [25].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.6 The Researcher Paradox in Context\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe strong negative correlation between researcher density and per-researcher productivity (\u0026rho; = \u0026minus;0.681) constitutes what we term the \u0026apos;Researcher Paradox.\u0026apos; This phenomenon can be understood through multiple theoretical lenses. From absorptive capacity theory, additional researchers face diminishing marginal returns as they compete for finite facilities, equipment, and publication opportunities [8]. From NIS theory, systems that expand headcounts without proportionally expanding the mentorship, infrastructure, and governance systems that support productive research create congestion rather than capacity [12, 30]. The paradox also connects to Stephan\u0026apos;s [25] observation that expanding the PhD workforce beyond absorptive demand leads to misallocation of trained researchers into administrative, teaching, or peripheral roles that do not contribute directly to the publication count.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.7 Limitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has several limitations. Publication count does not capture innovation, patents, or societal impact. The cross-sectional design cannot establish causality or control for unobserved heterogeneity. R\u0026amp;D composition (public vs. private, basic vs. applied) was not disaggregated, which is a significant omission given that private R\u0026amp;D may have different output profiles than public R\u0026amp;D [20]. Country-level analysis obscures within-country variation across institutions and fields. The financial efficiency index may be tautologically biased against high-investment countries by construction, though the Researcher Paradox analysis, which uses an independent denominator, confirms the pattern. Future work should incorporate citation-weighted metrics [31], patent data, longitudinal panel designs with fixed effects to control for unobserved country characteristics, and disaggregated R\u0026amp;D composition data.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eNational R\u0026amp;D investment exhibits clear diminishing returns across OECD countries, consistent with predictions from Schumpeterian growth theory, absorptive capacity frameworks, and National Innovation Systems theory. Both financial efficiency and researcher productivity decline with increasing R\u0026amp;D intensity. The Researcher Paradox\u0026mdash;where the largest researcher workforces produce the least per capita\u0026mdash;suggests that systemic administrative capacity, not funding magnitude, is the binding constraint on research productivity in high-investment nations. We propose a Selective Abandonment Framework that extends absorptive capacity theory: when the capacity to productively deploy R\u0026amp;D investment is saturated, the strategic imperative shifts from investing more to strategically selecting what not to fund. Temporal framing\u0026mdash;distinguishing preemptive from sustaining investments\u0026mdash;offers a politically tractable mechanism for this selection. These findings challenge the prevailing assumption that more investment necessarily yields more science, and call for policy attention to strategic selectivity alongside institutional infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were obtained from the World Bank Open Data platform.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding: This research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Generative AI in the Writing Process\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the preparation of this work, the author used Claude (Anthropic) to assist with data retrieval, statistical computation, and manuscript drafting. The author reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data are publicly available from the World Bank Open Data platform (https://data.worldbank.org). Analysis code is available from the corresponding author upon request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD. Main Science and Technology Indicators. OECD Publishing, 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Bank. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD. OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAghion P, Howitt P. A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 1992;60(2):323\u0026ndash;351.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAghion P, Howitt P. Endogenous Growth Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBloom N, Jones CI, Van Reenen J, Webb M. Are ideas getting harder to find? American Economic Review 2020;110(4):1104\u0026ndash;1144.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones CI. R\u0026amp;D-based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy 1995;103(4):759\u0026ndash;784.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen WM, Levinthal DA. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 1990;35(1):128\u0026ndash;152.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGriffith R, Redding S, Van Reenen J. R\u0026amp;D and absorptive capacity: Theory and empirical evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 2003;105(1):99\u0026ndash;118.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZahra SA, George G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review 2002;27(2):185\u0026ndash;203.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLane PJ, Koka BR, Pathak S. The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review 2006;31(4):833\u0026ndash;863.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLundvall B-\u0026Aring; (ed.). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers; 1992.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNelson RR (ed.). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdquist C (ed.). Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter; 1997.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreeman C. The 'national system of innovation' in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics 1995;19(1):5\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoccia M. Bureaucratization in public research institutions. Minerva 2009;47(1):31\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCastellacci F, Natera JM. The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy 2013;42(3):579\u0026ndash;594.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGriliches Z. The search for R\u0026amp;D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 1992;94:S29\u0026ndash;S47.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHall BH, Mairesse J, Mohnen P. Measuring the returns to R\u0026amp;D. In: Hall BH, Rosenberg N (eds.). Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2010. pp. 1033\u0026ndash;1082.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuellec D, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. R\u0026amp;D and productivity growth: Panel data analysis of 16 OECD countries. OECD Economic Studies 2001;33:103\u0026ndash;126.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDosi G, Llerena P, Labini MS. The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called 'European Paradox.' Research Policy 2006;35(10):1450\u0026ndash;1464.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang EC. R\u0026amp;D efficiency and economic performance: A cross-country analysis using the stochastic frontier approach. Journal of Policy Modeling 2007;29(2):345\u0026ndash;360.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharma S, Thomas VJ. Inter-country R\u0026amp;D efficiency analysis: An application of data envelopment analysis. Scientometrics 2008;76(3):483\u0026ndash;501.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrespi G, Zuniga P. Innovation and productivity: Evidence from six Latin American countries. World Development 2012;40(2):273\u0026ndash;290.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStephan P. How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2012.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee K, Kim BY. Both institutions and policies matter but differently for different income groups. World Development 2009;37(3):533\u0026ndash;549.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFagerberg J, Srholec M. National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Research Policy 2008;37(9):1417\u0026ndash;1435.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdquist C, Zabala-Iturriagagoitia JM. Public procurement for innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research Policy 2012;41(10):1757\u0026ndash;1769.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeinze T, Shapira P, Rogers JD, Senker JM. Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy 2009;38(4):610\u0026ndash;623.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogers M. Absorptive capability and economic growth: How do countries catch-up? Cambridge Journal of Economics 2004;28(4):577\u0026ndash;596.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaltman L, van Eck NJ. A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012;63(12):2378\u0026ndash;2392.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSCImago. SCImago Journal \u0026amp; Country Rank. Available at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.scimagojr.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.scimagojr.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 2026.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Table 1","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 is not available with this version\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"R\u0026D expenditure, diminishing returns, research productivity, absorptive capacity, national innovation systems, selective abandonment, OECD, science policy, Researcher Paradox","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9309028/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9309028/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNations are increasing R\u0026amp;D expenditure to enhance scientific competitiveness, yet whether higher spending proportionally increases research output remains contested. Endogenous growth theory predicts diminishing returns at the technology frontier, while National Innovation Systems (NIS) theory suggests that systemic capacity, not merely financial input, determines innovation outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe analyzed R\u0026amp;D expenditure (%GDP), scientific publications per million population, and researchers per million population across 29 OECD countries using World Bank indicators. Linear and logarithmic models were compared. Research efficiency (publications per unit R\u0026amp;D) and researcher productivity (publications per researcher) were calculated and compared between high- and low-investment groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe logarithmic model (R\u0026sup2; = 0.392) substantially outperformed the linear model (R\u0026sup2; = 0.150), confirming diminishing returns. Countries investing above the median R\u0026amp;D/GDP (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1.7%) showed significantly lower research efficiency (675 vs. 1,097; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.025). A strong negative correlation was found between R\u0026amp;D intensity and per-researcher productivity (ρ = \u0026minus;0.681, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0001). Citation quality analysis confirmed the pattern: Korea ranked 23rd of 29 in citations per document (20.56) and last (29th) in quality efficiency (citations per document per unit R\u0026amp;D investment). Korea, despite the second-highest R\u0026amp;D/GDP (5.21%) and the highest researcher density (9,435 per million), ranked 27th in publication efficiency, 27th in researcher productivity, and 29th in citation quality efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u0026amp;D investment exhibits clear diminishing returns at the national level, consistent with predictions from Schumpeterian growth theory and absorptive capacity frameworks. High-investing nations, particularly Korea and Japan, exhibit a 'Researcher Paradox' where the largest researcher workforces produce the lowest per-capita output, suggesting systemic bottlenecks in administrative capacity and research governance rather than insufficient funding. We propose a Selective Abandonment Framework: when absorptive capacity is saturated, the strategic response is not to invest more but to strategically select what not to fund, organizing priorities along a temporal axis of urgency rather than importance rankings.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Diminishing Returns of National R\u0026amp;D Investment: Cross-Country Evidence on Research Efficiency from 29 OECD Nations","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-05 06:49:37","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9309028/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"712945f9-f0bf-4834-83ef-3d20d294e124","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 5th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-05T06:49:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-05 06:49:37","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9309028","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9309028","identity":"rs-9309028","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}