IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Intangible Assets, Resource Allocation and Growth: A Framework for Analysis


  • Dan Andrews


  • Alain de Serres



This paper explores the growing importance of intangible assets as a potential source of innovation and productivity gains, and the contribution of efficient resource allocation to this process. Realising the growth opportunities implied by intangible assets depends on the ability to reallocate labour and capital to their most productive use, which is determined by the design of framework policies. The redeployment of tangible resources takes on heightened importance given the inherent difficulties in allocating intangibles efficiently. Indeed, the characteristics of intangible assets create market imperfections, which hinder the allocation of new ideas to where they can be developed most efficiently. While a number of policy instruments are typically deployed to address these market failures, the paper also explores how the growing importance of intangible assets is affecting the suitability of these policy tools. In turn, a number of policy issues are identified, spanning the financing of start-up firms, the treatment of intangibles in corporate valuation and accounting frameworks, competition policy in the digital economy and the role of intellectual property rights frameworks in rapidly growing domains such as information technology. Les actifs intangibles, l'allocation des biens de production et la croissance : Un cadre d'analyse Cette étude examine le potentiel des actifs intangibles comme source d’innovation et de gains de productivité, ainsi que la contribution de l’allocation des ressources à ce processus. Afin de réaliser les opportunités de croissance offertes par les actifs intangibles, il est nécessaire de pouvoir redéployer les ressources en capital et en travail pour les utiliser de la manière la plus productive. Le redéploiement des ressources tangibles est d’autant plus important que les actifs intangibles peuvent êtres difficiles à allouer de manière efficiente. En effet, leur caractère immatériels entraîne des défaillances de marché qui font en sorte que l es idées les plus innovantes ne sont pas toujours développées là où leur potentiel commercial peut être exploité de manière optimale. Cette étude explore dans quelle mesure l’efficience des politiques publiques mise en place pour pallier aux défaillances des marché est mise en cause par l’importance croissante des actifs intangibles. Les champs de politiques publiques jouant un rôle déterminant incluent le financement des nouvelles entreprises innovantes (start-up), le traitement des actifs intangibles dans la comptabilité et l’évaluation financière des entreprises, l’application des politiques de concurrence à l’économie numérique ainsi que cadre législatif visant à protéger les droits de propriété intellectuelle.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Andrews & Alain de Serres, 2012. "Intangible Assets, Resource Allocation and Growth: A Framework for Analysis," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 989, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:ecoaaa:989-en

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Jens Boysen-Hogrefe & Dominik Groll, 2010. "The German Labour Market Miracle," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 214(1), pages 38-50, October.
    2. Helene Dearing & Helmut Hofer & Christine Lietz & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer & Katharina Wrohlich, 2007. "Why Are Mothers Working Longer Hours in Austria than in Germany? A Comparative Microsimulation Analysis," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 28(4), pages 463-495, December.
    3. Marin, Dalia, 2004. "'A Nation of Poets and Thinkers' - Less So with Eastern Enlargement? Austria and Germany," Discussion Papers in Economics 329, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    4. Michael C. Burda & Jennifer Hunt, 2011. "What Explains the German Labor Market Miracle in the Great Recession," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 42(1 (Spring), pages 273-335.
    5. Hermann Gartner & Sabine Klinger, 2010. "Verbesserte Institutionen für den Arbeitsmarkt in der Wirtschaftskrise," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;German National Library of Economics, vol. 90(11), pages 728-734, November.
    6. Hans Fehr & Manuel Kallweit & Fabian Kindermann, 2011. "Should Pensions be Progressive? Yes, at least in Germany!," CESifo Working Paper Series 3636, CESifo Group Munich.
    7. Martin Werding, 2008. "Ageing and Productivity Growth: Are there Macro-level Cohort Effects of Human Capital?," CESifo Working Paper Series 2207, CESifo Group Munich.
    8. repec:dau:papers:123456789/11049 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Stefan Arent & Wolfgang Nagl, 2010. "A Fragile Pillar: Statutory Pensions and the Risk of Old-Age Poverty in Germany," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 66(4), pages 419-441, December.
    10. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2008. "Introducing Family Tax Splitting in Germany: How Would It Affect the Income Distribution, Work Incentives, and Household Welfare?," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 64(1), pages 115-142, March.
    11. René Fahr & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Did the Hartz Reforms Speed-Up the Matching Process? A Macro-Evaluation Using Empirical Matching Functions," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 10, pages 284-316, August.
    12. Jonathan Coppel & Jean-Christophe Dumont & Ignazio Visco, 2001. "Trends in Immigration and Economic Consequences," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 284, OECD Publishing.
    13. Anna Mayda, 2010. "International migration: a panel data analysis of the determinants of bilateral flows," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 23(4), pages 1249-1274, September.
    14. Stephan Dlugosz & Gesine Stephan & Ralf A. Wilke, "undated". "Fixing the leak: Unemployment incidence before and after the 2006 reform of unemployment benefits in Germany," Discussion Papers 09/10, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    15. Christian Merkl & Dennis Wesselbaum, 2011. "Extensive versus intensive margin in Germany and the United States: any differences?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(9), pages 805-808.
    16. Isabell Koske & Jean-Marc Fournier & Isabelle Wanner, 2012. "Less Income Inequality and More Growth – Are They Compatible? Part 2. The Distribution of Labour Income," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 925, OECD Publishing.
    17. Philip Martin, 2003. "Managing International Labor Migration in the 21st Century," South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, Association of Economic Universities of South and Eastern Europe and the Black Sea Region, vol. 1(1), pages 9-18.
    18. John Heywood & Uwe Jirjahn & Georgi Tsertsvardze, 2010. "Hiring older workers and employing older workers: German evidence," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 23(2), pages 595-615, March.
    19. Bellmann Lutz & Gerlach Knut & Meyer Wolfgang, 2008. "Company-Level Pacts for Employment," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 228(5-6), pages 533-553, October.
    20. Joaquim Oliveira Martins & Frédéric Gonand & Pablo Antolín & Christine de la Maisonneuve & Kwang-Yeol Yoo, 2005. "The Impact of Ageing on Demand, Factor Markets and Growth," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 420, OECD Publishing.
    21. C. Katharina Spieß, 2011. "Vereinbarkeit von Familie und Beruf – wie wirksam sind deutsche „Care Policies“?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 12(s1), pages 4-27, May.
    22. Zwick, Thomas, 2011. "Why training older employees is less effective," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-046, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Åsa Johansson & Yvan Guillemette & Fabrice Murtin & David Turner & Giuseppe Nicoletti & Christine de la Maisonneuve & Philip Bagnoli & Guillaume Bousquet & Francesca Spinelli, 2013. "Long-Term Growth Scenarios," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1000, OECD Publishing.
    2. repec:esr:resser:bkmnext336 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Siedschlag, Iulia & Di Ubaldo, Mattia, 2017. "The impact of investment in knowledge-based capital on productivity: firm-level evidence from Ireland," Papers WP556, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    4. Åsa Johansson & Yvan Guillemette & Fabrice Murtin & David Turner & Giuseppe Nicoletti & Christine de la Maisonneuve & Guillaume Bousquet & Francesca Spinelli, 2012. "Looking to 2060: Long-Term Global Growth Prospects: A Going for Growth Report," OECD Economic Policy Papers 3, OECD Publishing.
    5. Aloysius Ajab AMIN, 2015. "An incentive compatible model for eliciting firms’ production function in a development process," Journal of Economics Library, KSP Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 93-101, June.
    6. Sebastian Beer & Jan Loeprick, 2015. "Profit shifting: drivers of transfer (mis)pricing and the potential of countermeasures," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(3), pages 426-451, June.
    7. Siedschlag, Iulia & Lawless, Martina & Di Ubaldo, Mattia, 2017. "Investment in knowledge-based capital and its contribution to productivity growth: a review of international and Irish evidence," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number BKMNEXT336.
    8. Dan Andrews & Chiara Criscuolo, 2013. "Knowledge-Based Capital, Innovation and Resource Allocation," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1046, OECD Publishing.

    More about this item


    actifs intangibles; croissance; growth; innovation; innovation; intangible assets; reallocation; redéploiement;

    JEL classification:

    • L20 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - General
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • O40 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:oec:ecoaaa:989-en. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.