The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) is a defence and strategic-policy think tank based in Canberra, Australia. In AI-policy debate it is best known for its Critical Technology Tracker, a data-driven project that ranks countries and institutions by their share of high-impact research across 64 critical technology areas, including artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum technologies, and robotics. ASPI's findings are frequently cited in U.S.–China technology-competition discussion (see US-China AI Competition: Different Races, Different Metrics).
Critical Technology Tracker
The Critical Technology Tracker measures national research performance by examining the top 10% of most highly cited research publications, treated as a leading indicator of a country's research performance, strategic intent, and potential future science-and-technology capability. It first launched on March 1, 2023, covering five years of data (2018–2022), and underwent a major expansion on August 28, 2024 that extended the dataset to 21 years (2003–2023) across 64 technologies. The accompanying report, ASPI's two-decade Critical Technology Tracker: The rewards of long-term research investment, was authored by Jamie Gaida, Jennifer Wong-Leung, Stephan Robin, and Danielle Cave (Source: aspi.org.au).
The two-decade analysis reported that the United States led in 60 of 64 technologies in 2003–2007 but in just seven in 2019–2023, while China rose from leading in three technologies in 2003–2007 to leading in 57 of 64 in 2019–2023 (up from 52 in the prior 2018–2022 dataset). The report found the United States retained leads in quantum computing, vaccines and medical countermeasures, nuclear medicine, small satellites, atomic clocks, genetic engineering, and natural language processing, while China's gains concentrated in quantum sensors, high-performance computing, gravitational sensors, space launch, and advanced integrated-circuit design and fabrication. It also reported that the number of technologies classified as at "high risk" of a single-country research monopoly rose from 14 to 24, with China the lead country in all 24, and identified the Chinese Academy of Sciences as the single highest-performing institution, leading in 31 of 64 technologies (Source: aspi.org.au).
The tracker's findings have been used to argue that leadership in AI alone will not secure broad U.S. technological advantage. Analysis citing ASPI's data, reported June 18, 2026, was invoked in coverage noting that China leads the United States across most priority technologies (Source: bloomberg.com). The Chinese government has publicly disputed the rankings.
The Tech Tracker is one input among several: ASPI itself notes that converting research-publication leadership into fielded technological capability requires additional inputs such as manufacturing capacity and policy implementation, so the dataset measures research performance and strategic intent rather than deployed capability.
Relationships
- related: US-China AI Competition: Different Races, Different Metrics (frequently cited evidence base)
- related: Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) (U.S. counterpart think tank on technology competition)
- related: Export Controls (AI), AI Sovereignty (policy debates its data informs)
- related: House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (U.S. body engaged on the same competition questions)
Sources
- ASPI / ASPI's two-decade Critical Technology Tracker: The rewards of long-term research investment (Aug 28, 2024): aspi.org.au
- Bloomberg / Why AI alone is not enough for the US to beat China in the tech race (June 18, 2026): bloomberg.com