An overview of national strategies and policies for quantum technologies

1. National quantum strategies: From vision to implementation

1.1 From developing a vision to setting concrete objectives

Many countries have committed substantial public funding to support the development and uptake of quantum technologies. As of November 2025, 18 OECD Members plus the European Union have adopted dedicated national strategies. These strategies reflect underlying technological development priorities, management of risks, stakeholder inclusion and desired outcomes. A selection of notable policy milestones and strategies illustrates the growing activity of policymakers in the field (Figure 1).

This section presents a synthetic overview of the elaboration, implementation and monitoring of national strategies, as well as further considerations in the context of international relations. These elements build upon the OECD’s Quantum Technologies Policy Primer (OECD, 2025[2]) and provide the necessary broader context for examining the detail of the policy initiatives presented in Section 2.

1.1.1 National strategies’ framing: Economic imperatives and national security considerations

Governments are investing in basic and applied research, as well as in the commercialisation of quantum technologies, in recognition of their potential in a wide range of business applications across various sectors (OECD, 2025[2]). In healthcare, for example, quantum sensors could help monitor the effects of medication at the cellular level. Quantum computers could also contribute to drug discovery by simulating molecular structures and interactions. Meanwhile, industries such as finance, energy and communications are exploring quantum solutions to enhance portfolio optimisation, resource exploration and digital security. Furthermore, considerations around potential digital security and privacy risks, as well as dual‑use applications, are motivating countries to increase their domestic capabilities in these technologies. By investing in quantum research and development, many governments aim to secure technological leadership and protect national security while monitoring advances with economic or strategic risks (Box 1).

The Covid‑19 pandemic fundamentally reshaped the context for quantum strategy development, as it heightened concerns about technological resilience and supply chain vulnerabilities. The pandemic also led to a wave of government investment in support of the economy, some of which was dedicated to quantum science and technology, allowing some European countries to start formalising their own national quantum policy (see Box 2). Concurrently, in the United States, the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 extended the dedicated budgets and provisions of the National Quantum Initiative. As described in the OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2023 (OECD, 2023[3]), the global STI landscape entered “an era of strategic competition, particularly in critical technologies, driven by concerns surrounding supply chain vulnerabilities, strategic dependencies and geopolitical tensions.”

Figure 1. The timeline of national and supranational quantum strategies

Note: This timeline presents the main policy developments in the global elevation of quantum technologies. It is not comprehensive and accounts for initiatives that are not dedicated quantum strategies yet remain important for contextual awareness.

Box 1. Potential benefits and risks of quantum technologies

Potential technology benefits

Once sufficiently mature, quantum technologies could become a source of productivity gains and a competitive advantage across many business activities and sectors. Research is still needed to verify the applications of quantum technologies, but interest in the following areas is widespread:

• Medicine and healthcare: Quantum sensors promise improved medical imaging that could detect tumours and track drug effects at the cellular level, enabling earlier and more accurate diagnoses. Quantum computing could accelerate DNA sequencing and drug discovery.

• Materials science: Quantum sensors could reveal microscopic defects and thermal stresses in materials before cracks appear, boosting safety and cutting quality inspection time. Quantum computers could help develop stronger, lighter and more efficiently manufactured materials.

• Energy and extractive industries: Quantum sensors could help locate geological resources and identify equipment faults early, reducing exploration costs, production downtime and environmental risks. Quantum simulation and optimisation may help deliver improved carbon‑capture processes and energy grid operations.

• Chemistry: By simulating molecular reactions, quantum computers could unlock low‑energy routes to manufacturing ammonia and other chemicals, dramatically lowering carbon emissions. Quantum simulations are likely to aid in understanding how molecules interact with light, thereby deepening our understanding of biological processes such as photosynthesis and vision.

• Finance: Atomic clocks already timestamp trades with microsecond precision, aiding market transparency and regulatory compliance. Quantum algorithms could expand capabilities in areas such as risk analysis, portfolio optimisation, transaction settlement and crash forecasting.

• Transportation and logistics: Quantum sensors could improve battery‑health diagnostics and enable civil engineers to conduct deeper surveys of subsoils. Quantum computing could aid in designing next‑generation batteries and solving vast routing and scheduling problems.

• Communications: Quantum networks are being tested to strengthen the security of data links for critical infrastructure applications and to enable new modalities of distributed quantum sensing and computing.

Many applications might also help tackle some of today’s most pressing societal challenges, for example boosting food security through precision agriculture, and improved access to clean water on account of subterranean monitoring and next‑generation purification materials. The integration of quantum technologies with classical computing and networks is expected to augment these benefits.

Potential technology risks

Although these technologies offer great potential, they also present considerable risks, especially concerning digital security and privacy. Quantum computers have the capability to compromise commonly used encryption methods, putting financial information, sensitive data and critical infrastructure at risk. Post‑quantum cryptography standards have been developed, with adoption and integration into existing systems to follow. Additionally, the advanced capabilities of quantum sensors raise concerns about arbitrary or unlawful surveillance and potential privacy infringements. Applications in cryptanalysis, intelligence gathering and weapons development, among others, pose national security risks that are prompting countries to build domestic quantum capabilities.

Source: OECD (2025[2]).

Box 2. The Covid‑19 crisis led to European Union funding allocations for quantum technologies

The Covid‑19 pandemic led to important economic stimulus packages in the European Union (EU), with Member States mobilising recovery funds to stabilise economies and support strategic sectors, including quantum technologies. The EU established NextGenerationEU as its primary financial mechanism for post‑pandemic recovery. With a total budget exceeding EUR 800 billion, this mechanism was designed to strengthen economic resilience and support green and digital transitions, the latter including emerging fields such as quantum technologies. The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the core component of NextGenerationEU, allocated a total EUR 723.8 billion in grants and loans to Member States. Each EU country was required to develop a National Recovery and Resilience Plan.

This funding was instrumental in the formalisation of quantum strategies in countries such as Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Germany leveraged its Economic Stimulus Package to support quantum technologies as part of a broader research and innovation framework: A total of EUR 2 billion from the package was allocated to quantum technologies specifically.

Austria allocated EUR 107 million to quantum technologies from its national recovery funds under the RRF. The Czech Republic’s National Recovery Plan helped fund the QuantERA II 2023 call for transnational research projects in quantum science and technologies. Spain integrated quantum technologies into its national recovery and resilience plans. Italy utilised recovery funds to support quantum computing infrastructure and research hubs.

1.2 Process for developing strategies: Strategic intelligence, public consultation and development of roadmaps 

Quantum science and technology is a complex field. The underlying physical phenomena can be difficult to communicate, and the potential socioeconomic consequences of quantum technologies remain highly uncertain. In this context, governments have used various tools to inform the development of their policies and set strategic objectives:

• Public consultation exercises have varied in scope and frequency. For example, France and Korea essentially sought inputs from domain specialists, while Australia, for example, released a public “National Quantum Strategy Issues Paper” for general consultation and feedback, and Canada consulted citizens widely through virtual roundtables and online surveys. Table 1 compares stakeholder engagement in the development of national quantum strategies across multiple countries.

• Technology assessment aims to evaluate a technology’s potential and associated risks. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a thorough assessment of quantum computing and communications, identifying critical opportunities and policy considerations for federal decision makers (GAO, 2022[4]). Since 2022, Korea has supported the annual publication of a “Quantum Information Technology White Paper” covering technology trends, markets and statistics.

Table 1. Stakeholders’ involvement in quantum strategy development, selected countries

Comparative overview of participation methods and key actors

Country	Methods used	Notes
Australia (DISR, 2022[5])	Workshops, consultations, advisory boards, programmes	The CSIRO Quantum Technology Roadmap was specifically developed to initiate a dialogue between government, researchers and industry on the benefits of quantum technology for Australian industry and the potential for long‑term economic growth. The development of this Roadmap involved extensive consultation with over 80 stakeholders from more than 40 organisations spanning the quantum technology industry. This included representatives from university research groups, publicly funded research agencies, industry players, end‑users, government entities and private investors. In April 2022, DISER released the "National Quantum Strategy Issues Paper" for public consultation. This paper aimed to gather diverse perspectives on the potential opportunities and challenges of quantum technologies in Australia, informing the development of the strategy.
Canada (ISED, 2022[6])	Roundtables, surveys, road‑mapping	To inform the development of its national strategy, the Government of Canada undertook broad consultations with academia, industry and not‑for‑profit organisations. These consultations focused on key areas including research, talent development, commercialisation and security. In 2021, over 200 experts and stakeholders, representing academia, industry and government, were consulted to understand Canada’s needs in quantum science, identify opportunities and define priorities. The methods employed for these consultations included virtual roundtables, an online survey and a dedicated email address to facilitate input from a wide range of participants.
France (Forteza Paula, 2020[7])	Auditions in the context of a report	The Forteza report was commissioned by the French Prime Minister and led by members of the Parliament. The report involved gathering insights from experts, including academics, large industrial groups, start‑ups and public institutions.
Korea (Ministry of Science and ICT, 2023[8])	Collaborative platform, review and advisory	In 2025, the Korean government launched the Quantum Strategy Committee and a working‑level committee comprising government officials, academics, researchers, industry representatives and others. These committees work to establish policies and investment strategies that promote quantum science and technology, as well as the quantum industry. The Quantum Strategy Committee will review and approve a comprehensive quantum plan covering research and development, industrialisation, human resource development, infrastructure development, and international co-operation strategies in the quantum field in Korea.
Netherlands (Quantum Delta, 2019[9])	National open day, consultation group	A national open day was held in April 2019 to gather input from the public. A broad‑based consultation group was formed, comprising fifty representatives from the scientific, business and governmental communities.
Spain (Red.es, 2025[10])	Public consultation, inter‑ministerial coordination	To inform the development of its National Strategy on Quantum Technologies (2025‑2030), Spain launched a public consultation to assess the needs of its national quantum ecosystem. The consultation focused on identifying priorities for deploying quantum initiatives, including infrastructures, use cases, incubators and testbeds, which will be supported by resources from the European Regional Development Fund managed by Red.es until 2029. Based on the findings, the Spanish government approved the strategy in 2025 as a coordinated framework between the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities and the Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Function.
United Kingdom (Lucy Williams, 2024[11]) (EPSRC, 2018[12])	Public and experts, workshop, advisory boards, parliamentary inquiry	The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council commissioned a public dialogue to understand public perceptions of quantum technologies. This involved workshops in four locations (Oxford, Glasgow, Birmingham and York) with 77 participants. The workshops were held between September and November 2017. A stakeholder workshop was held in March 2017 involving academics, representatives from technology companies and policymakers. The Government Office for Science enlisted a panel of academics and industrialists to provide the evidence base for its report on quantum technologies. The Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons conducted an inquiry into quantum technologies, gathering written and oral evidence from various stakeholders.
United States (NQCO, 2020[13])	Workshops, expert reports	Since 2014, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy have organised several workshops on specific topics on quantum technologies, inviting academia, industry and policymakers. Since 2018, the White House has also convened summits with the same type of actors.

Source: OECD elaboration based on various national reports and strategy documents.

• Horizon scanning identifies emerging trends and opportunities in each technology. Innovate UK actively engages in horizon scanning with its 2023 "50 Emerging Technologies" report, which includes quantum technologies, to guide strategic investment and policymaking. The United Kingdom’s Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) produced a "Quantum Technologies Insight Paper", engaging regulatory bodies like Ofcom, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Information Commissioner’s Office, facilitating discussions about potential regulatory implications and broader societal impacts of quantum technologies (DRCF, 2023[14]).

• Technology road‑mapping involves developing strategic guidelines to direct a given technology’s long‑term development. The roadmaps developed for quantum technologies differ significantly across countries, shaped by distinct creation processes and strategic priorities. For example, Canada employs a structured approach, establishing specialised working groups to develop dedicated roadmaps for each domain of quantum technology (computing, sensing and communication). In contrast, the United States adopts a decentralised approach, with agencies like the Department of Energy (DoE) producing a "Quantum Information Science Applications Roadmap", detailing their directions in quantum research and development (DoE, 2024[15]). Table 2 illustrates various methods and strategic exercises used by governments to inform their actions in the field of quantum technology, while Table 3 presents examples of common objectives in quantum roadmaps.

Table 2. Examples of governmental exercises informing quantum technology strategies

Country	Roadmap	Technology forecasting	Foresight	Horizon scanning	Technology assessment
Canada	National Quantum Strategy with roadmaps for sensing and computing	Economic forecasting within National Quantum Strategy	Integrated into National Quantum Strategy	Consultative approach for the development of the National Quantum Strategy	Council of Canadian Academies report on responsible adoption, cybersecurity considerations in the National Quantum Strategy
France	National Quantum Strategy, France 2030 plan, PROQCIMA	Forteza report	Integrated into National Quantum Strategy and the France 2030 plan		MetriQs‑France programme
Korea	National Quantum Strategy	Three‑Phase Development Strategies for Transitioning to Quantum Economy	Integrated into National Quantum Strategy	Ongoing through Quantum Strategy Committee	Quantum Information Technology White Paper
United Kingdom	2015 NQTP, 2023 National Strategy, NQCC Roadmap	DRCF Insight Paper, MoD Global Strategic Trends	GO Science	Innovate UK’s 50 Emerging Technologies, IoP Vision for Quantum Technologies	TechUK Report on Quantum Resilience

Note: This table provides illustrative examples rather than an exhaustive review of all governmental activities.

1.3 Governance of strategies: Involvement of stakeholders, interministerial alignment and mission‑oriented innovation policies

Governance structures for quantum strategies vary significantly across countries, reflecting differences in national priorities, organisational frameworks and levels of governmental commitment. This diversity illustrates how each country tailors its approach to advancing quantum technologies. In some cases, national quantum strategies are embedded within broader science and technology agendas, while in others, they stand alone, supported by dedicated laws or specific governance bodies. Figure 2 shows the executive authorities responsible for quantum strategies in a selection of countries.

Table 3. Examples of common objectives in quantum roadmaps

Objective	Description	Examples
Technological	Many countries articulate clear, measurable targets in terms of qubit counts and performance metrics regarding quantum computing capabilities.	The European Union, through its Quantum Flagship initiative, initially targeted the achievement of quantum advantage using NISQ (Noisy Intermediate‑Scale Quantum) processors of around 50 qubits with low error rates by 2023, subsequently aiming for scalable architectures of up to 1 000 qubits by the end of the decade (European Commission, 2024[16]). Similarly, Germany’s 2022 roadmap outlines precise numerical milestones, seeking an internationally competitive quantum computer with at least 100 qubits by 2026. That computer would need to be scalable up to 500 qubits, with Germany ultimately developing fully fault‑tolerant, universal quantum computing systems within fifteen years (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 2022[17]).
Economic	Strategies typically highlight market competitiveness, commercialisation pathways and investment attraction.	The United Kingdom explicitly aims to capture 15% of the global quantum technology market share by 2033 (Department for Science, Innovation & Technology, 2023[18]), emphasising private equity growth and robust industrial engagement. Japan has set ambitious economic goals, aiming for a value of quantum technology production of approximately JPY 50 trillion by 2030, with a clear focus on immediate industrial applications and societal integration (Cabinet Office, 2024[19]).
Social	This includes workforce development, education and public awareness, which play a vital role in quantum roadmaps and reflect a consensus that technological progress in the field is contingent upon societal readiness.	The European Union has developed comprehensive targets, including the creation of 180 validated open‑source quantum education modules, hosting 100 outreach events by 2030 and actively promoting diversity within the quantum technology workforce (European Commission, 2024[16]). Korea prioritises a significant expansion of its specialised quantum workforce, increasing from fewer than 400 experts in 2022 to over 2 500 by 2035, through dedicated graduate programmes and international collaborations (Ministry of Science and ICT, 2023[8]).

Figure 2. Positioning of executive authorities governing quantum strategies in selected countries

Note: The horizontal axis represents the spectrum of institutions responsible for quantum strategies in countries. Ministries of science and research are on the left (CN, DK), while ministries of economy, technology and innovation are on the right (AU,SG). At the centre lie authorities with both attributions or those for which this distinction is not applicable.

The governance of quantum strategies in France, Japan and the United States is under the responsibility of the highest level of the executive branch. In the United States, for example, the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy oversees the national quantum strategy, coordinating federal efforts to accelerate the development of quantum technologies. Similarly, Japan’s Cabinet Office plays a central role in managing national science and technology policies, ensuring that quantum initiatives are embedded within the country’s broader innovation agenda.

In some countries, independent bodies have been specifically created to oversee quantum initiatives. The United Kingdom, for example, coordinates its national quantum policy through the Office for Quantum, which is housed within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. This specialised office focuses solely on quantum technologies, providing a dedicated channel for policy implementation, coordination and monitoring. The United States also established the National Quantum Coordination Office, designed to ensure cross‑departmental collaboration and strategic alignment in the execution of quantum policies. Singapore follows a similar approach, with its National Quantum Office tasked with driving the implementation of the country’s national quantum strategy, ensuring that quantum research and development are closely aligned with national economic goals and industrial needs.

In most countries, expert advisory groups play a vital role in shaping national quantum strategies by providing well‑informed, specialised guidance to government bodies. Countries like Australia and Korea have established advisory groups composed of leading experts in quantum science and technology, helping to ensure that national policies are grounded in scientific excellence and practical feasibility. In Australia, the National Committee on Quantum brings together experts to advise the government on quantum policies, making sure that scientific developments align with industry needs and public policy objectives. Similarly, Korea’s Quantum Strategy Committee offers strategic guidance to the government, helping to steer national efforts in quantum technologies and ensure that the country’s quantum ambitions are effectively integrated into its broader technological and industrial strategies.

1.3.1 Strategies help the coordination and amplification of quantum initiatives

As of October 2025, an estimated USD 55.7 billion has been committed to quantum science and technology by governments worldwide since 2013 (Qureca, 2025[1]). Yet, it is important to note that these estimates are based on public announcements of government investments and should be interpreted with care. They often represent the overall expected budget of programmes, which may include legacy allocations for quantum technologies made before the strategy was established. They may also include funding from non‑governmental sources such as the private sector.

Achieving a complete thematic breakdown of public expenditures on quantum science and technology is not possible at present. However, the OECD Fundstat infrastructure provides a decentralised database and a set of analytical tools capable of estimating quantum‑specific R&D funding allocations at a project level for 19 OECD Member countries and the EU‑EC programme, representing a weighted average percentage of 58% of total Government Budget Allocations for R&D (GBARD) in 2021. Ongoing OECD work provides a detailed description of the methodology, limitations and country comparisons (Yamashita et al., 2021[20]; Aristodemou et al., 2023[21]; Aristodemou et al., 2025[22]). While the coverage is only partial, the ongoing work offers valuable insights into quantum‑related funding trends and identifies a total of USD 11 billion (in Purchasing Power Parity – PPP terms) in R&D project awards since 2015. The OECD Fundstat resource is a flexible infrastructure comprising a database on government project‑level R&D funding and analytical tools. Figure 3 details estimated quantum‑related R&D funding allocations across 19 OECD Members and the European Commission (EC) programmes, for the years 2015‑2023. During this reference period, a total of 12 209 quantum‑oriented R&D projects received funding awards, amounting to approximately USD 11 235 million (in purchasing power parity terms (PPP)). The average implied quantum project award size stood at USD 0.92 million (PPP), surpassing the implied average project size across all R&D fields (USD 0.75 million in PPP terms), reflecting a major interest in quantum technologies.

Figure 3. Estimated annual quantum R&D funding in the OECD Fundstat database, 2015‑23

Note: The OECD Fundstat database comprises R&D funding project award data from 19 OECD Member countries (AUS, AUT, BEL, CAN, CHE, CZE, DEU, EST, FIN, FRA, GBR, IRL, JPN, LTU, LVA, NOR, PRT, SWE, USA) and the European Union (EU) ‑ European Commission (EC) programmes. Over the reference period, 2015‑23, during which data coverage is stable, the OECD Fundstat database covers approximately 51% of the Government Budget Allocation for R&D (GBARD) in these 19 OECD Members (excluding General University Funds), as reported in the Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI) Database, www.oecd.org/sti/msti.htm. R&D funding award data reflect authorisations rather than actual commitments or expenditure. Analysis performed on R&D project awards with available funding information.

Source: OECD calculations based on data from the OECD Fundstat database (v.2024), accessed in September 2025.

Figure 3 shows the results of an analysis of the annual distribution of public quantum‑related R&D funding and project awards, expressed as proportions of the total cumulative quantum‑related R&D funding recorded between 2015 and 2023. The analysis reveals funding increases after 2019, with particularly high investment activity occurring in 2022 and 2023, together accounting for over one‑third of total quantum R&D funding during this timeframe. While quantum‑related R&D project awards also increased, their trajectory followed a steadier growth pattern, with a decrease in 2023 to a level comparable to that of 2020 rather than sharp peaks.

This progressive rise illustrates how, before the establishment of formal national strategies, funding for quantum technologies was already increasing, even if doing so in a fragmented manner across different institutional channels. For example, in the years leading up to the National Quantum Initiative Act, the United States government was already funding research in quantum science and technology through dedicated programmes in the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of War and the Department of Homeland Security (National Science & Technology Council, 2021[23]).

To coordinate efforts across ministries and initiatives, mission‑oriented innovation policies are being used in several national quantum strategies. These can help to provide innovators with more direction, for instance in better understanding application areas where demand is likely to rise. Mission‑oriented innovation policies can also help to set the conditions necessary for coordination and joined‑up actions. Mission‑oriented innovation policies are coordinated packages of policy and regulatory measures tailored to mobilise science, technology and innovation to address well‑defined objectives related to specific societal challenges within a defined timeframe. Mission-oriented innovation policies often span several stages of the innovation cycle, from research to demonstration and market deployment (Larrue, 2021[24]).

The most striking example of mission‑oriented innovation policies serving to structure a national strategy is with the United Kingdom’s 2023 National Quantum Strategy, which is built around five explicit missions. These missions aim to address specific challenges, such as secure communication, healthcare diagnostics and infrastructure resilience, and have measurable targets set for 2030‑2035. The “missions” themselves were co‑designed by government, academia and industry to ensure coordinated efforts across sectors. Emphasis was placed on end‑users of quantum technologies within government (e.g., related to uses in health, defence and transport). The National Quantum Strategy also includes investments in testbeds and pilot projects to support the transition of quantum technologies from research to practical application.

1.4 Monitoring progress in quantum strategies: Key performance indicators

To direct policy and monitor progress in quantum technology, countries often set goals and aim to measure progress within their strategies. This helps countries to position themselves in the global quantum sector, benchmarking against other countries to identify weaknesses and strengths. The key performance indicators (KPIs) used in national strategies range from specific targets for technological performance and readiness levels, to ecosystem metrics such as skills and workforce development, adoption and preparedness, numbers of quantum start‑ups and spin‑offs, as well as attained market shares, levels of private investment, intellectual property produced, supply chain autonomy and international collaboration.

Some countries, notably the United States and, to a lesser extent, France, have opted for broader, less defined and more flexible objectives in their quantum strategies. For example, quantum strategy documents in the United States generally do not specify quantitative metrics or targets, but instead outline strategic goals and directions. In contrast, strategies from the European Union (Strategic Advisory Board of the European Quantum Flagship, 2024[25]), Korea (Ministry of Science and ICT, 2023[8]) and the United Kingdom (DSIT, 2023[26]), feature detailed metrics and publicly available methodologies. However, it is important to note that even among those countries with more precise metrics, there is a shared recognition that these goals and measurements are part of an ongoing process of definition (Strategic Advisory Board of the European Quantum Flagship, 2024[25]).

An attempt at standardising quantum KPIs was recently presented by the German Quantum Technology and Application Consortium (Quantum Technology and Application Consortium – QUTAC, 2024[27]). The QUTAC framework addresses critical challenges such as inconsistencies in current KPI definitions, measurement methodologies and data comparability across countries. It highlights the need for standardised KPIs to enable meaningful international benchmarking and informed policymaking. However, the QUTAC work also acknowledges several limitations. One is the inherent difficulty of capturing nuances in national priorities within a uniform framework. In addition, practical challenges relate to data availability, quality and harmonisation across countries with different capacities and resources.

1.5 The international dimension: Collaboration, standardisation and safeguard measures

International relations in quantum science and technology are increasingly influenced by strategic considerations. National quantum strategies typically include an international dimension. For instance, one of the KPIs used by the United Kingdom for its national strategy is the number of countries that universities in the United Kingdom have partnered with. Korea sets explicit funding targets for international collaboration. France reviews the extent of foreign investments in quantum businesses as a protection measure in its national strategy. The United States has a dedicated strategic document specifically on international engagement and partnerships. Moreover, shaping formal international standards for quantum technologies also emerges as a common strategic priority across countries.

Figure 4 presents a comparative analysis of quantum research output volume juxtaposed with data on international collaboration intensity across leading national quantum ecosystems. This is an experimental indicator that measures the number of documents related to quantum technologies, identified using a list of search queries developed from a review of existing literature (Scheidsteger et al., 2021[28]). The substantial rates of international collaboration observed across European quantum research ecosystems—with France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland all exhibiting collaboration intensities around 40%—reflect the structural impact of general European research integration mechanisms and of the Quantum Flagship in particular.

Figure 4. Top countries with quantum‑related publications and their international scientific collaboration intensity, based on fractional counts, 2023

The number of publications is represented in blue bars (left‑hand scale in absolute numbers, fractional count). Juxtaposed is the share of publications of that country involving international co‑authors (right‑hand scale, in percentage)

Note: A fractional count means that a share of a publication is attributed as a fraction of 1 to each participating country, if multiple countries are involved.

Source: OECD calculations based on Scopus Custom Data, Elsevier, Version 1.2025, accessed in September 2025.

The growing strategic importance of quantum science and technology is illustrated by shifting trends in the intensity of international collaboration, which have historically been particularly high. Figure 5 presents longitudinal data on international collaboration intensity across three categories: quantum research, physical sciences and all scientific fields. This temporal perspective reveals that quantum research had a consistently higher level of internationalisation than the two other categories throughout the 2008‑2022 period. However, collaboration intensity in quantum science and technology began to plateau and subsequently decline, with international co‑authorship rates falling from approximately 33% to below 30% from 2019 to 2022. Collaboration intensity1 in quantum technologies between the United States and EU Member States declined by 15% between 2018 and 2022. This overall decrease reflects broader global trends, possibly influenced by security‑related policies impacting co-operation, even among like‑minded partners.

This recent deceleration could signal a shift in the international quantum research landscape. The timing corresponds to several interrelated developments: heightened geopolitical tensions regarding technological leadership, increased policy emphasis on scientific security and technology transfer restrictions, expansion of export control regimes to encompass quantum technologies and national‑level strategic prioritisation of quantum capabilities development.

Figure 5. International collaboration intensity for publications in quantum, physical sciences and all fields, based on fractional counts, 2008‑2022

Percentage rates of international co‑authorship

Source: OECD calculations based on Scopus Custom Data, Elsevier, Version 1.2024, accessed in November 2024

1.5.1 The growing incidence of measures to protect quantum technologies

Countries seeking to strengthen their technological and strategic autonomy often rely on three main policy interventions: protection, promotion and projection (OECD, 2023[3]). Promotion focuses on industrial policies to enhance domestic capabilities and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, while projection aims to expand technological influence abroad. Protection measures seek to restrict knowledge flows and mitigate potential risks associated with technological interdependencies. Among these, export controls have become a key tool for restricting the transfer of sensitive technologies. Countries that have announced export controls related to quantum technologies and materials include Australia, Canada, the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”), Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.

1.5.2 Bilateral collaboration

Bilateral agreements are formal arrangements between two countries to collaborate on shared priorities. In the areas of science, technology and innovation, these provide structured frameworks for establishing partnerships for collaborative research, knowledge sharing and technology development. They are also used as tools for addressing geopolitical and economic challenges, aiming to ensure countries maintain technological competitiveness in emerging fields. The United States, for example, has formalised bilateral agreements on quantum technologies with at least ten countries. Similarly, the United Kingdom has formalised agreements with at least six countries. Illustrating their proliferation, Figure 6 provides a graphic representation of over 20 bilateral agreements across OECD Member countries.

Figure 6. A representation of over 20 bilateral agreements related to quantum science and technology

Note: Each node represents a country and the lines between countries represent bilateral agreements. The size of the node corresponds to the number of bilateral co-operation statements, accords, memoranda or declarations related to the country.

1.5.3 Standardisation

Most national quantum strategies prioritise the development of standards and participation in standards‑setting activities. Several quantum standardisation activities are taking place globally. Standards support interoperability, which can in turn accelerate commercialisation (OECD, 2025[2]). Standards can also serve to assert technological leadership. As shown in Table 4, several organisations are actively engaged in developing standards for quantum technologies, each with a specific focus and approach.

The appropriateness of the timing of current standards‑setting processes in quantum technologies is debated. Early standardisation in many fields of technology can help to provide direction and prevent future fragmentation. However, setting technical standards too early risks locking in technologies that may later prove sub‑optimal. As the IEC points out in a 2021 White Paper on quantum technologies, "Initiating and promoting standards activities before the science has matured can lead to standards that lock in inferior technologies or give an unfair advantage to those quickest to take leadership" (IEC, 2021[29]).

Nevertheless, some types of standardisation and best practices could reduce fragmentation in research and development. Establishing basic standards related to terminology and measurement can support quantum technologies that are still at the early stages of development without precluding further directions of progress (van Deventer et al., 2022[30]). These standards can help provide ecosystem actors (whether from research, industry or government) with a clear and shared understanding of the technology. It may also be valuable to establish standardised processes and benchmarks for evaluating the performance of quantum technologies, not least to support decision making by investors and research funders (RHC, 2024[31]). Standardisation efforts also need to be co‑developed with industry actors to ensure that standards support, rather than obstruct, industry efforts.

Table 4. Stakeholders of international quantum technology standardisation

Organisation or consortium	Primary focus area	Key standardisation activities or initiatives
IEEE Standards Association (IEEE SA)	Broad quantum technologies	P1913 (Software‑Defined Quantum Communication), P1943 (Post‑Quantum Network Security), P2995 (Quantum Algorithm Design), P3120 (Quantum Computing Architecture), P3172 (Post‑Quantum Cryptography Migration), P3185 (Hybrid Quantum‑Classical Computing), P3329 (Quantum Computing Energy Efficiency), P7130 (Quantum Technologies Definitions), P7131 (Quantum Computing Performance Metrics)
IEC/ISO Joint Technical Committee 3 (JTC 3)	Broad quantum technologies	Developing standards for quantum computing, simulation, sources, metrology, detectors, communications;
CEN‑CENELEC Joint Technical Committee 22 (JTC 22)	European market‑focused quantum technologies	WG 1 (Strategic Advisory), WG 2 (Quantum Metrology, Sensing, Enabling Technologies), WG 3 (Quantum Computing and Simulation ‑ Layer Model), WG 4 (Quantum Communication and Cryptography)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)	U.S.-focused, focus on PQC	Post‑Quantum Cryptography (PQC) standardisation (ML‑KEM, ML‑DSA, SLH‑DSA, HQC, FALCON), quantum measurement standards, support for QED‑C
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)	Quantum communication, particularly Quantum Key Distribution (QKD)	ITU‑T X.1713 (QKD Node Security), Framework for QKD Protocols, Y.3800 (QKD Network Overview), Y.3801 (QKD Network Requirements)

Source: OECD elaboration based on ISO (2025[32]), ITU-T Focus Group on Quantum Information Technology for Networks (2022[33]), Department of Commerce (2024[34]) and IEC (2021[29]).

1.5.4 Risks of a fragmented technology landscape

Some business and research leaders have voiced concerns that export controls could stifle innovation in quantum technologies. Small firms may struggle with the reporting requirements tied to export licence applications (Zhang, Clare, 2024[35]). Several countries have prohibited the export of quantum computers with 34 or more qubits, yet it is unclear to academic and industry experts why this threshold presents a meaningful national security risk (Sparkes, 2024[36]). Concerns are also raised about national interests potentially influencing the development and adoption of standards, particularly in the context of increasing competition between countries in the race for quantum supremacy (OECD, 2025[2]). This issue is made more visible by the increased involvement of governments in standardisation processes in spaces that were traditionally left to the private sector (NIST, 2024[37]).

Any re‑division of the world into blocs will likely sacrifice some of the gains from specialisation, from economies of scale, and from the diffusion of information and know‑how (OECD, 2022[38]). It could also lead to competition in ways that might undermine future co‑operation on global grand challenges. Such risks are further described in the OECD’s Quantum Technologies Policy Primer (OECD, 2025[2]).

Note

← 1.  The indicator of bilateral collaboration intensity between two economies is calculated by dividing the number of scientific publications by authors with affiliations in both economies (whole counts) by the square root of the product of the publications for each of the two economies (whole counts). This indicator is therefore normalised for publication output. Publications refer to all citable publications, namely, articles, reviews and conference proceedings based on Scopus Custom Data, Elsevier, Version 1.2024, November 2024.