【摘要】 在新一轮科技革命和产业变革加速演进、国际科技竞争转向体系博弈的背景下，提升国家创新体系整体效能是塑造国家竞争优势与培育新质生产力的关键。通过构建“物理属性—化学过程”双维分析框架，设立包含“韧性”“张力”“弹性”“黏度”四类“物理”性能与“催化力”“键合力”“相变力”三类“化学”性能的多级指标体系，采用权威数据对中美德日四国进行对比测算的结果显示：美国在“物理—化学”两维度整体领先，特征为高“黏度”要素吸附能力与强“催化”金融环境的协同；中国在“韧性”与“相变力”维度表现突出，但在“张力”“黏度”与制度“弹性”等方面存在结构性短板，呈现“物理”强、“化学”趋强但关键环节仍偏弱的特征；德国、日本“物理”属性扎实但“化学”过程活性不足，创新“反应速率”与范式跃迁能力较弱。基于上述结论，可从条件能力建设、体制机制改革、创新生态营造三个方面提炼发达国家改善创新体系“理化”性能的经验，提出政策建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the accelerating evolution of a new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation, and the shift of international technological competition from single-point breakthroughs to systemic rivalry, enhancing the overall efficiency of the National Innovation System(NIS) has become critical to shaping national competitive advantages and cultivating new quality productive forces. By constructing a two-dimensional analysis framework of “Physical Properties—Chemical Processes”, this study establishes a multi-level indicator system comprising four physical properties(resilience, tension, elasticity, and viscosity) and three chemical properties(catalysis, bonding, and phase transition). Comparative measurements for China, the United States, Germany, and Japan are conducted using authoritative and comparable data sources. The results indicate that, the United States leads overall in both physical and chemical dimensions, characterized by the synergy of highviscosity factor adsorption capacity and a highly catalytic financial environment. China performs prominently in the dimensions of resilience and phase transition but faces structural shortcomings in tension, viscosity, and institutional elasticity, exhibiting a pattern of “strong physics and strengthening chemistry, yet remaining weak in key links”. Germany and Japan possess solid physical properties but lack chemical activity, resulting in relatively weak innovation reaction rates and paradigm shift capabilities. Based on these international comparisons, the study synthesizes the experiences of leading technological nations in improving the “physicochemical” performance of their innovation systems across three areas: condition and capacity building, institutional reform, and innovation ecosystem cultivation, and subsequently proposes corresponding policy recommendations.更多还原