scholarly journals The Contribution of Intangible Assets to Sectoral Productivity Growth in the EU

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Niebel ◽  
Mary OOMahony ◽  
Marianne Saam
Keyword(s):  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Intangible Assets ◽  
Sectoral Productivity ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals The Contribution of Intangible Assets to Sectoral Productivity Growth in the EU

2016 ◽  
Vol 63 ◽  
pp. S49-S67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Niebel ◽  
Mary O'Mahony ◽  
Marianne Saam
Keyword(s):  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Intangible Assets ◽  
Sectoral Productivity ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals Intangible investment in the EU and US before and since the Great Recession and its contribution to productivity growth

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Corrado ◽  
Jonathan Haskel ◽  
Cecilia Jona-Lasinio ◽  
Massimiliano Iommi
Keyword(s):  
Great Recession ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Intangible Assets ◽  
Employment Protection ◽  
National Account ◽  
The Great Recession ◽  
Capital Deepening ◽  
The Us ◽  
Intangible Investment ◽  
The Eu

This paper uses a new cross-country cross-industry dataset on investment in tangible and intangible assets for 18 European countries and the US.  We set out a framework for measuring intangible investment and capital stocks and their effect on output, inputs and total factor productivity. The analysis provides evidence on the diffusion of intangible investment across Europe and the US over the years 2000-2013 and offers growth accounting evidence before and after the Great Recession in 2008-2009. Our major findings are the following. First, tangible investment fell massively during the Great Recession and has hardly recovered, whereas intangible investment has been relatively resilient and recovered fast in the US but lagged behind in the EU. Second, the sources of growth analysis including only national account intangibles (software, R&D, mineral exploration and artistic originals), suggest that capital deepening is the main driver of growth, with tangibles and intangibles accounting for 80% and 20% in the EU while both account for 50% in the US, over 2000-2013. Extending the asset boundary to the intangible assets not included in the national accounts (Corrado, Hulten and Sichel (2005)) makes capital deepening increase. The contribution of tangibles is reduced both in the EU and the US (60% and 40% respectively) while intangibles account for a larger share (40% in EU and 60% in the US). Then, our analysis shows that since the Great Recession, the slowdown in labour productivity growth has been driven by a decline in TFP growth with relatively a minor role for tangible and intangible capital. Finally, we document a significant correlation between stricter employment protection rules and less government investment in R&D, and a lower ratio of intangible to tangible investment.

scholarly journals Intangible Assets and Labor Productivity Growth

Economies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Carolina Hintzmann ◽  
Josep Lladós-Masllorens ◽  
Raul Ramos
Keyword(s):  
Labor Productivity ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Intangible Assets ◽  
Manufacturing Sector ◽  
Intangible Asset ◽  
Labor Productivity Growth ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Different Types ◽  
European Economies ◽  
D Investment

We examine the contribution to labor productivity growth in the manufacturing sector of investment in different intangible asset categories—computerized information, innovative property, and economic competencies—for a set of 18 European countries between 1995 and 2017, as well as whether this contribution varies between different groups of countries. The motivation is to go a step further and identify which single or combination of intangible assets are relevant. The main findings can be summarized as follows. Firstly, all the three different categories of intangible assets contribute to labor productivity growth. In particular, intangible assets related to economic competences together with innovative property assets have been identified as the main drivers; specifically, advertising and marketing, organizational capital, research and development (R&D) investment, and design. Secondly, splitting the sample of European Union (EU) member states into three groups—northern, central and southern Europe—allows for the identification of a significant differentiated behavior between and within groups, in terms of the effects of investment in intangible assets on labor productivity growth. We conclude that measures promoting investment in intangibles at EU level should be accompanied by specific measures focusing on each country’s needs, for the purpose of promoting labor productivity growth. The obtained evidence suggests that the solution for the innovation deficit of some European economies consist not only of raising R&D expenditure, but also exploiting complementarities between different types of assets.

scholarly journals The Decline of British Manufacturing, 1973–2012: The Role of Total Factor Productivity

2019 ◽  
Vol 247 ◽  
pp. R19-R31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Harris ◽  
John Moffat
Keyword(s):  
Total Factor Productivity ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Intangible Assets ◽  
Factor Productivity ◽  
Tfp Growth ◽  
Manufacturing Productivity ◽  
Plant Level

This paper uses plant-level estimates of total factor productivity covering 40 years to examine what role, if any, productivity has played in the decline of output share and employment in British manufacturing. The results show that TFP growth in British manufacturing was negative between 1973 and 1982, marginally positive between 1982 and 1994 and strongly positive between 1994 and 2012. Poor TFP performance therefore does not appear to be the main cause of the decline of UK manufacturing. Productivity growth decompositions show that, in the latter period, the largest contributions to TFP growth come from foreign-owned plants, industries that are heavily involved in trade, and industries with high levels of intangible assets.

Growth and Productivity Accounts from EU KLEMS: An Overview

2007 ◽  
Vol 200 ◽  
pp. 64-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel P. Timmer ◽  
Mary O'Mahony ◽  
Bart van Ark
Keyword(s):  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
The Us ◽  
Eu And Us ◽  
The Eu

This paper gives an overview of the construction of and preliminary results from the EU KLEMS database which contains industry estimates of output, input and productivity growth for EU countries. The paper begins with a discussion of methodology and data sources covering output and intermediates, capital and labour services. The content and scope of the database is then briefly described. This is followed by a discussion of preliminary results focusing on comparisons between the EU and US. These confirm the relatively poor productivity performance of the EU relative to the US since the mid-1990s, mostly driven by low productivity growth in market services.

scholarly journals Rola dużych gospodarstw rolnych we wzroście produktywności pracy rolnictwa polskiego na tle sytuacji w innych wybranych krajach Unii Europejskiej

2018 ◽  
Vol 105 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wojciech Józwiak ◽  
Zofia Mirkowska ◽  
Wojciech Ziętara
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Labor Productivity ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Large Farms ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Group 1

The study focuses on the analysis of labor productivity in Polish agriculture in 2005 and 2016 in comparison to selected EU-15 countries (group 1) and some countries that joined the EU after 2004. In group 1, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany are included, while in group 2 - the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Hungary. The analysis particularly considers the role of large farms, the size of which was contractually agreed at 30 ha of UAA. The aim of the study was to determine the impact of large farms on the level of labor productivity in total farms and to determine the possibility of reducing the differences between labor productivity in Polish large farms in relation to analogous farms in EU-15 countries, and determining whether changes occurring in Poland differ from those occurring in large farms in other post-socialist countries. In both groups of countries there was a decrease in the number of farms and an increase in labor productivity in agriculture in general and in surveyed classes in large farms. In the countries of group 2. the rate of labor productivity growth was higher than in group 1. However, it slightly reduced the differences. Labor productivity in agriculture in the countries of Group 1 was significantly higher than in Group 2. The increase in the number and share of large farms in the structure of farms was positively correlated with labor productivity in agriculture.

Environmental Policies, Innovation and Productivity in the EU

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 615-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. De Santis ◽  
C. Jona Lasinio
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Environmental Regulation ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Policy Instruments ◽  
Environmental Policies ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Porter Hypothesis ◽  
European Economies ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Productivity Enhancement

In this paper we test the narrow Porter hypothesis on a sample of European economies in the period 1995–2008. We focus on the channels through which tighter environmental regulation affect productivity and innovation. Our findings suggest that the “narrow” Porter Hypothesis cannot be rejected and that the choice of policy instruments is not neutral. In particular, market based environmental stringency measures seem to be the most suitable to stimulate innovations and productivity growth. Consistently with the strategic reorientation of environmental policies in the European Union since the end of the eighties, our results indicate that the EU might privilege the market based instruments in order to meet more effectively the 2030 targets, especially through the channels of innovation and productivity enhancement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document