Which countries are best poised to exploit the expanding industries of the 21st century? The answers are important to many people: government policymakers, industrialists and investors, and also footloose youngsters keen to find the most promising areas of the world in which to study.

While there are no absolute answers to the question, a hint emerges from a study by economists and statisticians at the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a think-tank for 30 of the world's most developed countries.

The study began in the mid- 1990s at the behest of OECD member governments. They wanted to plot how their countries were faring in the battle to acquire new skills and progress in those "knowledge-based" industries - such as high-technology manufacturing and the fastest-growing parts of business services - that were likely to be important in the early part of the 21st century. Staff in the OECD's directorate for science, technology and industry were given the job of shedding light on the subject.

The OECD's latest thinking in this area is contained in a characteristically hefty document - the 2001 edition of the organisation's biennial Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard, which brings together statistics on different OECD countries' performance.

The OECD has shied away from summing up the data in a single "league table" of country rankings. There is a lack of consensus over the right way to approach such a task. In addition, the organisation's secretariat is conscious of the possibility of bruising the feelings of those nations that come out poorly in the calculations.

Yet such conclusions are there to be drawn. The Financial Times has distilled the OECD study into a single, overall league table, which captures the 10 most meaningful sets of data from the OECD study. The basis for this is explained in the text below.

Inevitably, some will not agree that our approach is the most appropriate. However, we have adopted a methodology similar to that used by the organisation's staff , though the table shown here does not carry the OECD's imprimatur.

The table contains some genuine surprises. In first place is Switzerland, which is not universally regarded as being at the top level in innovation and entrepreneurship, though it is known for its high quality of business life. In some rankings published this month by the World Economic Forum, for instance, Switzerland is not among the top 10.

Next in the FT/OECD table is Sweden, which few would put at the very top of the tree in industrial performance. After the US, which is in third place, come the Republic and the Netherlands - two small but relatively open economies.

In sixth place is Hungary, making it, on this ranking, the leading member of the former Communist bloc in terms of its industrial potential over the next few years. On this score, Hungary is ahead of Canada, Belgium, Britain, South Korea and Finland. Placed surprisingly low in the table, in 12th, 13th and 16th positions respectively, are Germany, Japan and France. Italy is 20th, behind Denmark and Norway.

What are the lessons from the table for policymakers and industrialists? The first point is that this analysis is different from most of its kind. One of the best-known exercises of this sort is conducted every year by IMD, the Swiss business school, in its "world competitiveness yearbook". The IMD's rankings are more general - based on 286 individual indicators, derived from a variety of sources including national statistical offices, plus a survey of how some 3,600 managers feel about business conditions in the countries where they work. The research by the World Economic Forum is similar to IMD's. It put Finland in the top position as the country with the greatest potential for economic growth over the medium term.

By contrast, the OECD's work offers a view of which countries are doing best in laying the ground for the fastest-expanding industries of the future.

The table is based on both "input" and "output" indicators: the first summarising conditions that seem likely to lead to growth in knowledge-based industries in specific countries; and the second discussing how well the nations are in fact performing. Accordingly, countries need to make sure that they score highly on both the input and the output sides. On the input side, Switzerland is the top-ranked country in the OECD for having the greatest share - 16 per cent - of its student population coming from outside its own country.

Talent is disseminated most easily through the physical movement of people. Many visiting students will stay in their adopted country when they have finished their studies.

Thus the OECD believes that the international mobility of students is crucial in deciding which countries are most likely to take advantage of new ideas.

Also on the input side, Switzerland scores well on its investment in information and computer technologies. In terms of outputs, Switzerland is high in the individual league tables rating the level of both knowledge-based services and high- and medium-technology manufacturing as a proportion of specific countries' total economies.

Georges Haour, professor of technology management at IMD, says Switzerland's top position in the overall ranking for knowledge industries fits in with what he says is a good environment for the growth of new companies in these fields.

In particular, Prof Haour says Switzerland is poised to do well in industries such as medical devices and new instrumentation. These rely on a mix of electronics and traditional precision-engineering skills, many of which are related to watchmaking, a field in which Switzerland has excelled for centuries.

The good showing of both Sweden and the US in the overall survey is due to good scores by both countries in a number of individual indicators. For instance, Sweden comes out in the OECD's reckoning as the country investing most in information and communications technologies, while the US is the biggest investor in venture capital as a proportion of gross domestic product.

The Republic does well in the overall league table, thanks to its relatively open economy. This, the OECD thinks, is likely to mean that new ideas from other countries in knowledge-based industries will be transmitted fairly easily to companies and individuals. In manufacturing, for instance, the Republic has a greater share of output in the hands of foreign affiliates than any other country, while in services it is ranked as the third-highest, after Hungary and Belgium.

The Republic also has a large proportion of its manufacturing output in high-tech fields. This is partly a result of large investments in the past by US manufacturers in fields such as computers and has been affected by the downturn.

The strength of Hungary in the league table may raise a few eyebrows. The country does well for economic openness - only the Republic is ahead in terms of the proportion of manufacturing output accounted for by non-domestic companies.

Just over one-quarter of output of both the country's services and its manufacturing are categorised as knowledge-based by the OECD, putting Hungary in seventh position in the OECD in this field, ahead of Sweden, Austria and Spain.

Labour productivity and patenting activity in recent years also count towards scores in the overall league table. South Korea and the Republic come out as the top two countries in the former; Switzerland and Sweden do best in the latter.

Politicians sometimes seek a "policy" for growth. The OECD's work suggests that such an approach is doomed to fail. Instead, countries need to develop policies that tackle a number of areas simultaneously.

It is not enough to concentrate, for instance, purely on education and research and development without ensuring that sufficient companies (some of them foreign-owned) can take advantage of new thinking as it filters through in years to come. To be good at one big thing means being good at many smaller ones.

Details available on www.oecd.org/sti/statistical-analysis.