IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v26y2017i3p517-534..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An assessment of how well we account for intangibles

Author

Listed:
  • Gaétan de Rassenfosse

Abstract

Estimates of intangible capital stock are of prime importance for accurate measurement of productivity growth. Aggregate intangible capital stock is usually estimated using the so-called Corrado-Hulten-Sichel (CHS) new growth accounting framework. Yet this framework has not received much academic scrutiny to-date. This article proposes a validity test of two intangible investment series in the CHS framework, namely “brand equity” and “architectural and engineering designs.” The test involves assessing the extent to which these intangible investment series explain the demand for trademarks and design rights. The econometric analysis is performed on an unbalanced panel of 32 countries from 1980 to 2010. The results suggest that brand equity investment is a powerful predictor of trademark applications. However, investment in design activity is not correlated with the count of design rights, which I take as evidence that current methodologies do not account well for design activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "An assessment of how well we account for intangibles," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(3), pages 517-534.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:26:y:2017:i:3:p:517-534.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dtw034
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephen Petrie & Mitchell Adams & Ben Mitra‐Kahn & Matthew Johnson & Russell Thomson & Paul Jensen & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2020. "TM‐Link: An Internationally Linked Trademark Database," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 53(2), pages 254-269, June.
    2. Kristof Van Criekingen & Carter Bloch & Carita Eklund, 2022. "Measuring intangible assets—A review of the state of the art," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 1539-1558, December.
    3. Schubert, Torben & Jäger, Angela & Türkeli, Serdar & Visentin, Fabiana, 2020. "Addressing the productivity paradox with big data: A literature review and adaptation of the CDM econometric model," MERIT Working Papers 2020-050, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    4. D’Agostino, Lorena M. & Schiavo, Stefano, 2024. "Using trademarks to fend off import competition: Evidence from the top R&D-spending companies," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(1).
    5. Nasirov, Shukhrat, 2020. "Trademark value indicators: Evidence from the trademark protection lifecycle in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    6. King Carl Tornam Duho, 2022. "Intangibles, Intellectual Capital, and the Performance of Listed Non-Financial Services Firms in West Africa: A Cross-Country Analysis," Merits, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-25, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • E01 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General - - - Measurement and Data on National Income and Product Accounts and Wealth; Environmental Accounts
    • E22 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Investment; Capital; Intangible Capital; Capacity
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:26:y:2017:i:3:p:517-534.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.