The politics of science and the science of politics

This blog post was originally published on Newsroom. Prof Jonathan Boston ONZM is an Honorary Senior Fellow at the Helen Clark Foundation.

Carl Sagan, the brilliant astronomer, once remarked: ‘Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known’. Research is about revealing, interpreting, and harnessing these incredible things to build a better world.

But do New Zealand politicians care much about research and development (R&D)?

The Prime Minister’s state of the nation address on 19 January 2026 makes no mention of ‘science’, ‘research’ or ‘evidence’, and only a passing reference to ‘technology’. AI, robotics, biotechnology, nanotechnology and much else, it seems, are not part of his recipe for ‘fixing the basics’ or ‘building the future’. Nor, for that matter, is better environmental stewardship.

The state of the nation speech by the Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins, on 23 February is only modestly better. Thankfully, he mentions climate science. He also acknowledges that the country’s ‘investment in innovation and R&D remains stubbornly low’. But there is little reference to how a future Labour-led government might address this situation.

Of course, speeches provide only one indication of what politicians care about. More important, presumably, are their decisions in office. Judging by that latter test, few NZ governments since the Second World War have prioritized investment in R&D. The notable exceptions were during the mid-2000s and the immediate pre-Covid years.

Fundamentally, the country’s gross domestic spending on R&D (i.e. including public and private) has remained low for generations – mostly about 50-60% of the OECD average as a percentage of GDP, and much lower than the median for small advanced economies (see Figure 1).

In the early 1980s, for instance, NZ’s gross domestic R&D expenditure was barely 1% of GDP. By contrast, in many OECD countries it was more than double this amount (e.g. 2.4% in West Germany, 2.3% in the US, 2.2% in the UK, and 2.0% in Japan and Sweden). Since then, our R&D expenditure slowly increased, reaching 1.46% of GDP in 2023 and 1.54% in 2024. But this remains far below the OECD average, which has also been increasing and in recent years has been around 2.7% (see Figure 2). It is also dramatically below many OECD countries, such as Germany, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Sweden, which spend more than 3% of GDP on R&D.

Both private and public expenditures on R&D in NZ have been comparatively low. Low private spending reflects the relative absence of industries where R&D investment is typically high (e.g. pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, software and computer services, automobiles and transportation equipment, technology hardware, petrochemicals, and defence equipment). Also, most of the country’s businesses are small; barely a few thousand invest significantly in research.

Unfortunately, most governments have not compensated for limited private spending by lifting the level of public investment. Also, cross-party support for a concerted and durable strategy to lift private R&D investment has generally been lacking.

Hence, the R&D Tax Credit introduced by the Clark government in 2007 did not survive the subsequent change of government. Not to be deterred, the Ardern government reintroduced a similar scheme in 2019. The available evidence suggests that this scheme has boosted private spending on R&D and delivered a positive return on the Crown’s investment. Fortunately, the scheme has been retained by the Luxon government.

Against this, his government quietly abandoned the target to lift total R&D spending to 2% of GDP. It has also cut public investment in R&D substantially. For instance, R&D expenditure via the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment during the financial year 2025-26 will be around 35% lower in real terms than five years earlier.

Whether we find such figures shocking depends on our societal vision and values. The Prime Minister wants to ‘build the future’. But many futures are possible. We could, for instance, choose to continue exporting many of our most talented people and remain on our long, slow journey of relative economic decline. Continuing to invest only modestly in R&D would be consistent with that choice.

Alternatively, we could seek to build a prosperous, fair, sustainable, resilient, knowledge-based economy, with a vibrant and flourishing research culture. Almost certainly, however, that would need much greater public and private investment in R&D. And that, in turn, would require different governmental priorities, expressed as strongly pro-innovation policy settings maintained over decades.

Most other small, advanced economies embraced the latter path long ago, as Figure 1 highlights. And some are now redoubling their efforts. In Finland, for instance, a cross-party agreement was reached in recent years to lift gross domestic R&D expenditure from around 3% of GDP to 4% by 2030.

For NZ to match such an ambitious goal, total annual R&D expenditure would need to increase from around $6.4 billion currently to almost $18 billion, with public expenditure on research, including that of our eight universities, rising from around $2.4 billion to about $6 billion.

Could NZ embrace such a goal? Currently, no parliamentary party has such ambitions. But why are these goals realistic in other small democracies like Finland? Why do their politicians – whether of the left, right, or centre – value scientific endeavour, innovation, and investing for the future so much more than their NZ counterparts?

Presumably, one answer lies in their political culture, and hence what matters to their citizens. For our local researchers the bad news is that currently our political community does not value science highly. Yet there is also good news: political cultures can change. But how? What are the relevant levers? That, of course, takes us from the politics of science to the science of politics, not least the role of political leadership, social movements, advocacy and campaigning, coalition building, and much else.

I lack any simple answers. Moreover, the current government has substantially reduced public spending on social science research. Hence, a well-funded research project dedicated to investigating such matters is unlikely.

One thing, however, is clear: if NZ desires a thriving, innovative, pioneering research community – and all its potential economic, social, and environmental benefits – this will not happen by accident. It will require dedicated, persistent, vigorous advocacy, along with visionary political, business and civic leadership, and durable cross-party support. Is that your calling?