Intangible capital and business productivity

Abstract

The importance of intangible capital as a driver of productivity growth is recognised at both macroeconomic and microeconomic levels. However, in general, there is a lack of strong empirical evidence in the relevant literature on the connection between micro and macro approaches. This study integrates both perspectives to analyse how internal and external intangible capital influence the productivity of companies and, therefore, economic growth. A model is estimated in which the total factor productivity of companies is explained through their internal and external intangible capital. To this end, regional characteristics are considered in terms of technological endowment, human capital, and entrepreneurial capital. In addition, other agglomeration economies such as regional specialisation and regional productive diversity are also considered. In the empirical application, a panel of companies from the seventeen Spanish regions over the period 2006-2015 is used. The findings suggest that there is a positive effect of intangible capital on companies' productivity and evidence of a spillover effect as a result of local intensities of intangibles.

Non-Financial Enterprise Financialization, Product Market Competition, and Total Factor Productivity of Enterprises

“…It is elicited that the rising level of non-financial enterprise financialization significantly lowers down total factor productivity of enterprises, and furthermore, the decrease in productivity mainly arises from technical innovation investments that are “crowded out” by non-financial enterprise financialization. This finding basically matches up with viewpoints proposed by Bellocchi et al (2020), Stockhammer (2004), and Campling (2020), Aalbers (2008), Lashitew (2017), and Rico and Cabrer-Borras (2020). As for those conclusions in some studies contained in literature documents regarding micro enterprise financialization, they appear contradictory with the conclusion in this paper, for they indicate that the increase in corporate productivity could stem from corporate investments in R&D, innovation and real business that are stimulated by corporate allocation of financial assets for the purpose of great returns and alleviated financing constraints (Akbar et al, 2017; Mannasoo et al, 2018; Nasir et al, 2021; Thomas et al, 2015).…”

“…As for adverse viewpoints, enterprise financialization obviously imposes the “crowding-out” effect upon enterprises’ investment in main businesses and innovation (Stockhammer, 2004), while the decreasing funds for real investment and R&D greatly lowers down enterprises’ capabilities of innovation (Nguyen et al, 2020). Consequently, the development of enterprises in main businesses will be impaired (Aalbers, 2008), and the improvement in total factor productivity of enterprises will be held back (Bellocchi et al, 2020; Rico & Cabrer-Borras, 2020).…”

Workplace change within the COVID-19 context: a grounded theory approach

“…In general, it has been observed that rationality, in its pursuit of efficiency, has been accompanied by a gradual dehumanization of organizations (Ritzer, 2005) which threatens employees' sense of identity and their relationships with others (Gill, 2019). On the other hand, it has been found that internal and external intangible capital influences the productivity of companies and, therefore, economic growth (Rico & Cabrer-Borr as, 2020).…”

Does low birth rate affect China’s total factor productivity?

“…Regarding the influence of age composition and human capital on TFP, Ji and Lai (2015) found that improving human capital allocation efficiency is the best way to TFP growth. Paz and Bernard ı (2020) thought that intangible capital (human capital) has a positive effect on companies' productivity as well as a spillover effect. Ilmakunnas et al (2004) used matching data on Finnish manufacturing enterprises and workers to examine the impact of workers' personal characteristics on labour productivity.…”