The Experts below are selected from a list of 19266 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Xunpeng Shi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Intangible Capital and sectoral energy intensity evidence from 40 economies between 1995 and 2007
2018Co-Authors: Shenglang Yang, Xunpeng ShiAbstract:Abstract Intangible Capital has been found to be an increasingly important source of productivity and economic growth. However, its effects on energy intensity have received little attention. Given the importance of reducing energy intensity, this study advances the understanding of the relationship between Intangible Capital and sectoral energy intensity by taking advantage of a rich dataset of 40 economies derived from the World Input-Output Database (WIOD), spanning across 13 years (1995–2007). A relatively robust causal relationship between Intangible Capital and sectoral energy intensity has been identified. The qualitative and quantitative interactions of this relationship with income level and sectoral heterogeneity have also been revealed. It is found that the effect of Intangible Capital on reducing sectoral energy intensity generally diminishes along with increasing income level but a moderate quadratic relationship is identified in some types of Intangible Capital. Finally, sectors where Intangible Capital have the largest and smallest effect are also pinpointed.
Aruna Chandra - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Intangible Capital knowledge and new product development competence in supply chains process interaction and contingency effects among smes
2014Co-Authors: Tobias Schoenherr, David A Griffith, Aruna ChandraAbstract:Leveraging the strengths of a firm’s supply chain partners for new product development (NPD) has become essential to satisfy rapidly changing customer demands and to remain competitive. Firms are, therefore, aiming to further their NPD competence, which we define as the ability of the supply chain to improve and generate new products and services, based on the processes and relationships established with suppliers and customers. This study examines how Intangible Capital and knowledge further the development of NPD competence within the context of a supply chain. A theoretical model, based upon resource-advantage theory, is tested via structural equation modelling utilising survey data collected from 195 small- and medium-sized enterprises in the manufacturing industry reporting on their primary supply chain. Our findings indicate that more easily transferable Capital manifests itself in explicit knowledge and less easily transferable Capital manifests itself in tacit knowledge. We further identify comple...
-
Intangible Capital knowledge and new product development competence in supply chains process interaction and contingency effects among smes
2014Co-Authors: Tobias Schoenherr, David A Griffith, Aruna ChandraAbstract:Leveraging the strengths of a firm’s supply chain partners for new product development (NPD) has become essential to satisfy rapidly changing customer demands and to remain competitive. Firms are therefore aiming to further their NPD competence, which we define as the ability of the supply chain to improve and generate new products and services, based on the processes and relationships established with suppliers and customers. This study examines how Intangible Capital and knowledge further the development of NPD competence within the context of a supply chain. A theoretical model, based upon resource-advantage (R-A) theory, is tested via structural equation modeling utilizing survey data collected from 195 small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing industry reporting on their primary supply chain. Our findings indicate that more easily transferable Capital manifests itself in explicit knowledge and less easily transferable Capital manifests itself in tacit knowledge. We further identify complementarities of the two types of Intangible Capital as influencing knowledge type development. More importantly, we find that the two types of knowledge differ in their ability to influence NPD competence in the supply chain, and that these links are moderated by relationship length. Supply chain management implications for academics and practitioners are presented.
Charles R Hulten - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the role of Intangible Capital in the transformation and growth of the chinese economy
2012Co-Authors: Charles R Hulten, Janet X HaoAbstract:Investment in a broad array of Intangible Capital - R&D, organizational Capital, worker training, and brand equity - has occurred in many of the most advanced world economies and has been found to be an important source of economic growth. This evidence suggests that Intangible Capital formation may play an important role in China's reform-driven transformation to a more market-oriented open economy. Though the literature on Intangible Capital is expanding, there has as yet been no general assessment of its role in China's rapid economic growth. This paper seeks to fill this gap by estimating how much Intangible investment has taken place there over the last two decades. The importance of this Capital as a driver of China's recent growth is then assessed using a growth accounting framework, and the results compared to similar findings for the U.S., Japan, the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, and Spain, as well as Japan during its high growth period. The paper also looks beyond the growth accounting framework to the role of saving rates and long-run convergence in shaping longer-term growth prospects. It also focuses on the problem of accurate economic measurement in an economy undergoing rapid transformation.
-
decoding microsoft Intangible Capital as a source of company growth
2010Co-Authors: Charles R HultenAbstract:A great deal of research has been devoted to the effects of technical change on economic growth. Less attention has been given to the factors driving the growth of the technological innovators themselves. This paper examines the case of one of the central contributors to the IT revolution, the Microsoft Corporation. The company's sources of growth are estimated using the conventional Solow-Jorgenson-Griliches "residual" model, expanded to include investments in product research and development, sales and marketing, and organizational development (collectively termed the company's "Intangible" Capital). The picture of Microsoft that emerges from this analysis is a story about the successful use of knowledge inputs to produce knowledge outputs. It is also a story of the importance of product innovation, rather than process innovation, as a source of total factor productivity growth. The theoretical underpinnings of the empirical analysis are also examined, and a model is sketched in which the neoclassical growth accounting framework is linked to the theoretically messier world of the Schumpeterian competitor via the Berndt-Fuss theorem on Capital utilization.
-
measuring Intangible Capital and its contribution to economic growth in europe
2009Co-Authors: Carol Corrado, Charles R HultenAbstract:This study describes the state of the art in the measurement of Intangible Capital and its contribution to economic growth, with a focus on an international comparison of Intangible Capital deepening among eleven advanced economies. By employing a broad measure of Intangibles, including computerized information, innovative property and economic competencies, we find a relatively large impact on growth. Intangible Capital explains about a quarter of labour-productivity in the US and larger countries of the EU. The continental West-European countries show a distinction between countries with significant contributions from Intangible Capital deepening and a group of laggards. Catching-up countries such as the Czech Republic, Greece and Slovakia show much larger contributions from tangible Capital deepening than from Intangibles, and also larger multi-factor productivity (MFP) growth rates related to the restructuring of those countries.
-
measuring Intangible Capital and its contribution to economic growth in europe
2009Co-Authors: Bart Van Ark, Carol Corrado, Janet X Hao, Charles R HultenAbstract:The recent economic downturn has changed the current debate on economic growth from one that emphasizes the long-run need for productivity and innovation to one that stresses economic recovery, particularly in employment. The focus on job growth is an inevitable aspect of any recession, and the deeper the recession, the greater the concern. This recession, however, is somewhat different because it has unfolded against the backdrop of the job losses and labour force restructuring brought about by the globalization of the world economy. One way to accomplish both short- and long-term objectives is to promote investment where the high-wage economies of Europe and the US have their greatest comparative advantage – the creation of knowledge. As the knowledge-content of the products and services that economies produce gradually increases, investment in knowledge production becomes the key source of economic growth. Moreover, the creation of knowledge both raises investment opportunities in the short run while creating the rewards of higher income and productivity growth in the future. Knowledge creation is part of a wide-ranging process of investment in Intangible Capital. This investment includes expenditures for human Capital, in the form of education and training, public and private scientific research, and business expenditures for product research and development, market development, and organizational and management efficiency. These are strategic investments in the long-run growth path of individual companies and of the economy as a whole. They are increasingly seen by policy makers as essential for the sustained economic health of the economy as witnessed, for example, by the European Lisbon Strategy to revitalize growth, competitiveness and sustainable development and the America Competes Act in the United States. In order to manage Intangibles both as a source of growth at the macroeconomic level, and as a driver of value creation for individual firms, it is important to measure them well. While nobody would disagree with their long-lasting benefits, the costs of most Intangibles are still expensed in company financial statements and in national income and product accounts, implying that they detract from value-added growth rather than increasing it. To paraphrase Solow’s quip about the computer revolution, one could say that today “the knowledge economy is all around us, but where can we see it in the official statistics?” 1 One answer is that much of the activity we associate with knowledge creation, especially by businesses, isn’t there. Conventional measures of investment in the accounts consist primarily of tangible assets such as plant and equipment, vehicles, office buildings and other commercial structures. In reality, as the reported estimates in this article show, investment in Intangibles in many advanced economies approaches the value of investment in tangible assets, and in some cases (such as in the United Kingdom and the United States) it even exceeds tangible investment. In recent decades, the accounting treatment of Intangibles has begun to change, with the decision to Capitalize software expenditures and treat the result as a contribution to GDP. Software is a major category of Intangibles and a primary means of transforming knowledge (or “blueprints”) into computerized information. More recently, it has been proposed to extend the Capitalization of Intangibles to expenditure on research and development (R&D). For example, the US Bureau of Economic
-
what is a company really worth Intangible Capital and the market to book value puzzle
2008Co-Authors: Charles R Hulten, Xiaohui HaoAbstract:"What is a company really worth?" is a question asked repeatedly during the recent financial crisis. Attention has been focused on short-term valuation issues, like the "mark-to-market" controversy. Sorting out these issues is complicated by the fact that the market puts a value on shareholder equity that is consistently more than twice the reported book value of a company. Numerous observers have pointed to the absence of most Intangible assets from financial statements as an important source of this puzzle. We use Compustat financial data for 617 R&D intensive firms to test this possibility. We find that conventional book value alone explains only 31 percent of the market Capitalization of these firms in 2006, and that this increases to 75 percent when our estimates of Intangible Capital are included. The debt-equity ratio also falls from 1.46 to 0.61. These findings suggest that financial reports tend to substantially understate the long-run intrinsic value of corporate America.
Edward C Prescott - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a reassessment of real business cycle theory
2014Co-Authors: Ellen R Mcgrattan, Edward C PrescottAbstract:During the downturn of 2008–2009, output and hours fell significantly while labor productivity rose. These facts have led many to conclude that there is a significant deviation between observations and current macrotheories that assume business cycles are driven, at least in part, by fluctuations in total factor productivities of firms. We show that once investment in Intangible Capital is included in the analysis, there is no inconsistency. Measured labor productivity rises if the fall in output is underestimated; this occurs when there are large unmeasured Intangible investments. Microevidence suggests that these investments are large and cyclically important.
-
a reassessment of real business cycle theory
2014Co-Authors: Ellen R Mcgrattan, Edward C PrescottAbstract:During the downturn of 2008–2009, output and hours fell significantly, but labor productivity rose. These facts have led many to conclude that there is a significant deviation between observations and current macrotheories that assume business cycles are driven, at least in part, by fluctuations in total factor productivities of firms. We show that once investment in Intangible Capital is included in the analysis, there is no inconsistency. Measured labor productivity rises if the fall in output is underestimated; this occurs when there are large unmeasured Intangible investments. Microevidence suggests that these investments are large and cyclically important.
-
technology Capital and the us current account
2010Co-Authors: Ellen R Mcgrattan, Edward C PrescottAbstract:The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates the return on investments of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. multinational companies over the period 1982–2006 averaged 9.4 percent annually after taxes; U.S. subsidiaries of foreign multinationals averaged only 3.2 percent. Two factors distort BEA returns: technology Capital and plant-specific Intangible Capital. Technology Capital is accumulated know-how from Intangible investments in R&D, brands, and organizations that can be used in foreign and domestic locations. Used abroad, it generates profits for foreign subsidiaries with no foreign direct investment (FDI). Plantspecific Intangible Capital in foreign subsidiaries is expensed abroad, lowering current profits on FDI and increasing future profits. We develop a multicountry general equilibrium model with an essential role for FDI and apply the BEA’s methodology to construct economic statistics for the model economy. We estimate that mismeasurement of Intangible investments accounts for over 60 percent of the difference in BEA returns.
-
technology Capital and the u s current account
2007Co-Authors: Ellen R Mcgrattan, Edward C PrescottAbstract:The rate of return on Capital of U.S. foreign subsidiaries has been much higher than the rate of return on Capital of U.S. affiliates of foreign companies. Over the period 1982-2005, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates that the difference in returns, after subtracting taxes, averaged 6.3 percent per year. One explanation explored in this paper is the fact that multinationals make large Intangible investments that affect profits but are excluded from BEA Capital stock measures. Differences in reported returns on foreign direct investment (FDI) could exist if there were differences in the timing and magnitude of these foreign Intangible investments. We explore this possibility using a growth model with two types of Intangible Capital: plant-specific Intangible Capital and technology Capital. Technology Capital is accumulated know-how from investments in research and development (R&D), brands, and organizations that can be used in as many available locations as firms choose. As countries open up, there are gains to foreign direct investment with more locations available in which to put technology Capital. We choose parameters of our model to mimic the U.S. current accounts and find that the mismeasurement of incomes and Capital stocks accounts for a little over half of the difference in reported returns.
-
Needed: a theory of total factor productivity
1997Co-Authors: Edward C PrescottAbstract:This paper evaluates the argument that differences in physical and Intangible Capital can account for the large international income differences that characterize the world economy today. The finding is that they cannot. Savings rate differences are of minor importance. What is all-important is total factor productivity. In addition, the paper presents industry evidence that total factor productivities differ across countries and time for reasons other than differences in the publicly available stock of technical knowledge. These findings lead me to conclude a theory of TFP is needed. This theory must account for differences in TFP that arise for reasons other than growth in the stock of technical knowledge.
David A Griffith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Intangible Capital knowledge and new product development competence in supply chains process interaction and contingency effects among smes
2014Co-Authors: Tobias Schoenherr, David A Griffith, Aruna ChandraAbstract:Leveraging the strengths of a firm’s supply chain partners for new product development (NPD) has become essential to satisfy rapidly changing customer demands and to remain competitive. Firms are, therefore, aiming to further their NPD competence, which we define as the ability of the supply chain to improve and generate new products and services, based on the processes and relationships established with suppliers and customers. This study examines how Intangible Capital and knowledge further the development of NPD competence within the context of a supply chain. A theoretical model, based upon resource-advantage theory, is tested via structural equation modelling utilising survey data collected from 195 small- and medium-sized enterprises in the manufacturing industry reporting on their primary supply chain. Our findings indicate that more easily transferable Capital manifests itself in explicit knowledge and less easily transferable Capital manifests itself in tacit knowledge. We further identify comple...
-
Intangible Capital knowledge and new product development competence in supply chains process interaction and contingency effects among smes
2014Co-Authors: Tobias Schoenherr, David A Griffith, Aruna ChandraAbstract:Leveraging the strengths of a firm’s supply chain partners for new product development (NPD) has become essential to satisfy rapidly changing customer demands and to remain competitive. Firms are therefore aiming to further their NPD competence, which we define as the ability of the supply chain to improve and generate new products and services, based on the processes and relationships established with suppliers and customers. This study examines how Intangible Capital and knowledge further the development of NPD competence within the context of a supply chain. A theoretical model, based upon resource-advantage (R-A) theory, is tested via structural equation modeling utilizing survey data collected from 195 small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing industry reporting on their primary supply chain. Our findings indicate that more easily transferable Capital manifests itself in explicit knowledge and less easily transferable Capital manifests itself in tacit knowledge. We further identify complementarities of the two types of Intangible Capital as influencing knowledge type development. More importantly, we find that the two types of knowledge differ in their ability to influence NPD competence in the supply chain, and that these links are moderated by relationship length. Supply chain management implications for academics and practitioners are presented.
-
do marketing capabilities consistently mediate effects of firm Intangible Capital on performance across institutional environments
2010Co-Authors: David A Griffith, Goksel Yalcinkaya, Roger J CalantoneAbstract:Abstract This study examines whether marketing capabilities consistently mediate Intangible Capital on performance across institutional environments. A partial test of resource-advantage theory is conducted, examining the relationship between four Intangible Capital elements on marketing capabilities and consequent firm performance. The results, based upon samples of 239 importers in Japan and the U.S., indicate that human Capital and relational Capital influenced marketing capabilities, and that marketing capabilities influenced performance similarly across institutional environments. Organizational Capital, however, was found to only influence marketing capabilities for U.S. importers. Furthermore, our results indicate full mediation in both samples. Implications for academics and practitioners are presented.