IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nsr/escoed/escoe-dp-2022-20.html

The 'F Words': Why Surveying Businesses About Intangibles is so Hard

Author

Listed:
  • Josh Martin

  • Cain Baybutt

Abstract

The role of intangible assets in creating value in the modern economy is increasingly recognised, but measurement of their value and contribution are still in their infancy. This reflects a number of measurement challenges, which we characterise as 'the four F words'. First, data on intangibles are often not retained by businesses, as business accounting poses high hurdles for these assets to be recorded, and they usually cannot be used as debt collateral. As a result, businesses rarely have the information available to respond to business surveys, and often appear to give 'inconsistent responses' to survey questions: these intangible assets can be forgotten by businesses. Second, since surveys on intangible assets are often carried out under the auspices of 'research' or through surveys on 'innovation', rather than official investment surveys, businesses may be primed to respond in one way or another. Thus, the framing of surveys on intangibles might be especially important. Third, definitions of intangible assets vary from researcher to researcher, and can often overlap or be unclear. While those assets included in the National Accounts have precise definitions, those measured outside the boundary do not. These terms, for businesses and researchers, are fuzzy. Finally, unlike most investments, the creation of intangible assets can take a long time. Most tangible assets can be made and purchased reasonably quickly, and/or the purchase date is clear for the business. In the case of intangibles, especially own-account investment (which is especially common for intangibles) the production process can be gradual over many periods. Asking businesses to provide investments in any given period might thus cause problems; the frequency of surveys could therefore be key. We establish these characteristics and demonstrate their impact on the quality of data on intangibles collected through business surveys in the UK through a range of data sources and microdata linkage. We draw on this research to propose modifications to surveys on intangible investment that might yield superior data.

Suggested Citation

  • Josh Martin & Cain Baybutt, 2022. "The 'F Words': Why Surveying Businesses About Intangibles is so Hard," Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE) Discussion Papers (2017-2023 papers hosted by The National Institute of Economic and Social Research) ESCoE DP-2022-20, Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE).
  • Handle: RePEc:nsr:escoed:escoe-dp-2022-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://escoe-website.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/18143015/ESCoE-DP-2022-20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carol Corrado & John Haltiwanger & Daniel Sichel, 2005. "Measuring Capital in the New Economy," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number corr05-1.
    2. Martin, Josh, 2019. "Measuring the Other Half: New Measures of Intangible Investment from the ONS," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 249, pages 17-29, August.
    3. Josh Martin, 2019. "Measuring the Other Half: New Measures of Intangible Investment from the ONS," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 249(1), pages 17-29, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Josh Martin, 2022. "Methodological Developments for the Estimation of Own-account Software Investment in the UK," Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE) Discussion Papers ESCoE DP-2022-25, Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter Goodridge & Jonathan Haskel, 2023. "Accounting for the slowdown in UK innovation and productivity," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(359), pages 780-812, July.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Poquiz, John Lourenze, 2025. "Measuring the depreciation of intangibles using Search Volume Data," Discussion Papers escoe-dp-2025-02, Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence.
    5. Josh Martin & Rebecca Riley, 2025. "Productivity measurement: Reassessing the production function from micro to macro," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 246-279, February.
    6. Marie Bjørneby & Simen Markussen & Knut Røed, 2023. "An imperfect wealth tax and employment in closely held firms," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(358), pages 557-583, April.
    7. Bakhshi, Hasan & Coyle, Diane & Lawton, Ricky, 2023. "Issues in Valuing Cultural and Heritage Capital in the National Accounts," Discussion Papers escoe-dp-2023-04, Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence.
    8. Josh Martin, 2022. "Methodological Developments for the Estimation of Own-account Software Investment in the UK," Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE) Discussion Papers ESCoE DP-2022-25, Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE).
    9. Robin Döttling & Tomislav Ladika & Enrico Perotti, 2016. "The (Self-)Funding of Intangibles," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-093/IV, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Kyoji Fukao & Cristiano Perugini, 2021. "The Long‐Run Dynamics of the Labor Share in Japan," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 67(2), pages 445-480, June.
    11. Segol, Matthieu & Kolev, Atanas & Maurin, Laurent, 2021. "The impact of bank loan terms on intangible investment in Europe," EIB Working Papers 2021/05, European Investment Bank (EIB).
    12. Qing Li & Long Hai Vo, 2021. "Intangible Capital and Innovation: An Empirical Analysis of Vietnamese Enterprises," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 21-02, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    13. Charles, Steindel, 2010. "The Financial Crisis and the Measurement of Financial Sector Activity," MPRA Paper 27240, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Ellen R. McGrattan & Edward C. Prescott, 2012. "The Labor Productivity Puzzle," Book Chapters, in: Lee E. Ohanian & John B. Taylor & Ian J. Wright (ed.), Government Policies and the Delayed Economic Recovery, chapter 6, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
    15. A. Bonaccorsi & S. Giannangeli, 2010. "One or more growth processes? Evidence from new Italian firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 137-152, September.
    16. Nicholas Bloom & Jonathan S. Hartley & Raffaella Sadun & Rachel Schuh & John Van Reenen, 2025. "Management and firm dynamism," CEP Discussion Papers dp2102, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    17. Haskel, Jonathan & Wallis, Gavin, 2013. "Public support for innovation, intangible investment and productivity growth in the UK market sector," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 195-198.
    18. Anmol Bhandari & Ellen R. McGrattan, 2017. "Sweat Equity in U.S. Private Business," Staff Report 560, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    19. Toma Lankauskiene, 2021. "Labour Productivity Growth Determinants in the Manufacturing Sector in the Baltic States," ConScienS Conference Proceedings 025tl, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies.
    20. Joel M. David & François Gourio, 2023. "The Rise of Intangible Investment and the Transmission of Monetary Policy," Chicago Fed Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, vol. 0, pages 1-8, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • E22 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Investment; Capital; Intangible Capital; Capacity

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nsr:escoed:escoe-dp-2022-20. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ESCoE Centre Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/escoeuk.html .

    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.