One of nine capability dimensions
Experimentation
How easily can new approaches be attempted, tested, abandoned, and improved?
This page puts the country comparison, indicator registry and documented cases together. It shows how much of the capability the current data can see.
52 countries in the frame8 indicators in the registry4 indicators with data51 countries with a score
<iframe src="https://ncb-envisioning.vercel.app/embed/compare/BRA/experimentation" title="Experimentation country comparison" loading="lazy" width="100%" height="300" style="border:0" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin"></iframe>All countries use the same frame
The table opens alphabetically. Sort by score, confidence, coverage or trend. Scores need two observed indicators; trends use indicators observed at both ends.
Scores use one 0 to 100 scale for all countries. Each dot is a country. The box covers the middle half of the field, and the line is the median. Hollow dots have thin evidence.
| Argentina | 21.5 | 0.39 | 4 of 8 | +0.7(2) |
| Australia | 38.9 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +1.1(2) |
| Bolivia | 2.9 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +0.8(2) |
| Brazil | 30.0 | 0.39 | 4 of 8 | +6.9(2) |
| Canada | 24.8 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | -5.1(2) |
| Chile | 46.7 | 0.39 | 4 of 8 | +7.2(2) |
| China | 100.0 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +30.6(2) |
| Colombia | 40.1 | 0.38 | 4 of 8 | +0.5(2) |
| Costa Rica | 25.5 | 0.39 | 4 of 8 | +2.6(2) |
| Cuba | 1.4 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | -0.4(2) |
| Dominican Republic | 6.5 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +0.9(2) |
| Ecuador | 6.0 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +1.5(2) |
| El Salvador | 5.8 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +1.3(2) |
| Estonia | 30.2 | 0.39 | 4 of 8 | +7.0(2) |
| Ethiopia | 0.0 | 0.17 | 2 of 8 | no trend |
| Finland | 38.6 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +2.5(2) |
| France | 55.0 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +1.6(2) |
| Germany | 72.5 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +4.9(2) |
| Guatemala | 1.4 | 0.10 | 2 of 8 | no trend |
| Haiti | 0.2 | 0.04 | 2 of 8 | no trend |
| Honduras | 1.6 | 0.15 | 2 of 8 | no trend |
| India | 9.8 | 0.39 | 4 of 8 | +1.7(2) |
| Indonesia | 2.9 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +1.1(2) |
| Ireland | not measured | 0.09 | 1 of 8 | no trend |
| Israel | 21.4 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +1.4(2) |
| Japan | 66.7 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | -6.8(2) |
| Kenya | 0.9 | 0.17 | 2 of 8 | no trend |
| Malaysia | 6.9 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | -1.4(2) |
| Mexico | 32.7 | 0.39 | 4 of 8 | +1.8(2) |
| Netherlands | 28.0 | 0.30 | 3 of 8 | no trend |
| Nicaragua | 1.2 | 0.03 | 2 of 8 | no trend |
| Nigeria | 0.5 | 0.15 | 2 of 8 | no trend |
| Panama | 8.8 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | -2.7(2) |
| Paraguay | 18.3 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +6.2(2) |
| Peru | 20.2 | 0.39 | 4 of 8 | +1.8(2) |
| Philippines | 2.7 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +0.8(2) |
| Poland | 17.8 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | -2.6(2) |
| Rwanda | 0.4 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +0.3(2) |
| Singapore | 46.5 | 0.21 | 4 of 8 | +10.7(2) |
| South Africa | 18.8 | 0.39 | 4 of 8 | +1.8(2) |
| South Korea | 72.2 | 0.39 | 4 of 8 | +16.9(2) |
| Spain | 14.2 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | -4.1(2) |
| Sweden | 29.6 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | -6.0(2) |
| Switzerland | 50.7 | 0.39 | 4 of 8 | +1.8(2) |
| Thailand | 4.8 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | -0.7(2) |
| Turkey | 45.9 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +18.5(2) |
| United Arab Emirates | 6.1 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +1.0(2) |
| United Kingdom | 43.2 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +6.2(2) |
| United States | 55.8 | 0.39 | 4 of 8 | +3.2(2) |
| Uruguay | 34.3 | 0.34 | 4 of 8 | no trend |
| Venezuela | 5.2 | 0.10 | 2 of 8 | no trend |
| Vietnam | 6.9 | 0.18 | 2 of 8 | +1.8(2) |
0 to 100 is a position inside the frame every country builds together. Zero is the weakest on a dimension and 100 is the strongest. A score of 10 puts a country near the floor of that frame. It does not mean 10 percent of a capability.
Experimentation indicators
8 indicators define this capability. Gaps and retired rows remain because they lower confidence. Click a heading to sort.
- Cdirect capability measure Measures the thing itself.
- Icapability input Measures something that supports the capability.
- Odownstream outcome Measures a result that usually follows from the capability.
- Pperception proxy Records what people or experts say, not what they did.
Experimentation
| Note | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | % of R&D | higher is better | UNESCO UIS | 0.40 | UIS publishes this and it is a good candidate for the next ingestion adapter. | |
| Early-stage entrepreneurial activity | C | % aged 18-64 | higher is better | Global Entrepreneurship Monitor | 0.15 | From the GEM Adult Population Survey, entered by hand because GEM has no open API. TEA counts every new business, so necessity self-employment scores the same as a funded startup, which is why Chile and Argentina sit above the United States here. Read it as how many people are trying, not as how much value the attempts create. GEM does not run every economy every year: Singapore last took part in 2014 and the recency term marks that value down hard. |
| Regulatory sandbox activityno dataset | C | count | higher is better | none | 0.10 | Countable from primary sources but nobody maintains a comparable register. A realistic candidate for Envisioning to build. |
| Resident patent applications | O | per million people | higher is better | World Bank | 0.45 | Records completed experiments that reached the filing stage. Korea and the US file for strategic reasons unrelated to novelty. |
| Resident trademark applications | O | per million people | higher is better | World Bank | 0.30 | Cheaper and more frequent than patents, so it tracks the many-small-experiments idea better than patent counts do. |
| Tolerance of entrepreneurial failure | P | % not deterred | higher is better | Global Entrepreneurship Monitor | 0.10 | Stored as 100 minus the published GEM fear of failure rate, so the direction matches the rest of the registry. GEM measures that rate among adults who already see good opportunities, not among all adults, so the denominator differs from the label. Attitudinal: bankruptcy law and time to discharge would be the observable substitute and are still worth wiring beside it. |
| University spinoutsno dataset | C | per million people | higher is better | national TTO associations | 0.35 | Reported nationally with incompatible definitions of what counts as a spinout. |
| Venture capital investmentno dataset | C | % of GDP | higher is better | OECD / national VC associations | 0.60 | Still a gap after a direct check on 2026-08-26. The OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Financing scoreboard is the only inspectable aggregate and it carries venture capital for 6 of these 16 countries, in national currency rather than as a share of GDP, latest year 2022. Brazil, India, South Africa and Singapore are all absent, so wiring it would score the rich half of the set and lower coverage for the rest. Commercial databases cover the world and are not inspectable. Read A1 before treating this dimension as measured. |
Documented deliveries add context to the data
These records describe a country doing something this capability should capture. They stay outside the score because one case is not a comparable series.
Evidence for missing indicators
Each record describes a case the indicators above cannot see. It does not affect the score or confidence because one case is not comparable across countries. A gap can become an indicator when a comparable series covers at least two countries.
The FCA regulatory sandboxlinked to Regulatory sandbox activity, started 2016, still operating
The United Kingdom's financial regulator built the first regulatory sandbox in 2016, and by the end of 2022 had accepted 168 firms and products to test with real customers under supervision.
168 firms, firms and products accepted for testing since launch, 2022. Financial Conduct Authority, Innovation Hub market insights, retrieved 2026-08-27.
How it worked: The regulator wrote a bounded testing regime: a firm without full authorisation can trial a product on real customers for a fixed period, with disclosure requirements and an exit plan, while the regulator watches from inside.
Limits: The count is the regulator reporting on its own programme, and acceptance is not success: the FCA does not publish how many tests led to authorisation, funding or a product that survived. One hundred and sixty-eight firms over seven years is small next to the sector, so the number evidences that the mechanism runs, not that it moves the industry.
Yozma, the venture capital catalystlinked to Venture capital investment, started 1993, delivered and closed
Israel put 100 million dollars of public money into ten hybrid venture funds from 1993, with foreign partners and a buy-out option, and by 2002 the country had 131 venture funds with around 10 billion dollars under management.
10,000,000,000 US dollars, capital under management by israeli venture funds, 2002. 100,000,000 US dollars, government capital that started yozma, 1993. OECD, Venture Capital Policies in Israel, STI working paper 2003/3, retrieved 2026-08-27.
How it worked: The state capitalised new private funds rather than picking companies, required each fund to bring a foreign venture firm as partner, and sold the government's stake cheaply to the private partners once a fund worked, so the subsidy was the upside, and it expired by design.
Limits: Attribution is the weak joint: the ten funds were one cause among several, alongside a million-person skilled immigration wave, military technology spillovers and a US stock market that wanted Israeli listings, and the OECD paper credits Yozma as catalyst rather than cause. The 10 billion figure is capital under management, not investment made or returns earned, and roughly 70 percent of it was foreign money. The programme was deliberately closed once private capital led, which is why the status is concluded.
EMBRAPII, industry-led applied researchlinked to Business share of R&D, started 2013, still operating
Created in 2013, EMBRAPII connects companies to public and private research units through shared-risk funding, and it contracted a record 811 new industrial research projects in 2025.
811 projects, new projects contracted in the year, 2025. EMBRAPII, 2025 results, retrieved 2026-08-29.
How it worked: Public funding follows an industry's defined technical problem into a research unit, sharing early risk while leaving the company and researchers responsible for solving a concrete challenge.
Limits: Project counts show the throughput of a funding network, not the commercial value, technical success or additionality of the research. EMBRAPII's own results report the programme's activity, and projects vary widely in scale and maturity.
Read how the benchmark turns an indicator into a score on the method page. The limits page records where this capability is still poorly observed.