Academic journal article Business: Theory and Practice

Comparative Evaluation of National Intellectual Capital Measurement models/Valstybes Intelektinio Kapitalo Vertinimo Modeliu Lyginamoji Analize

Academic journal article Business: Theory and Practice

Comparative Evaluation of National Intellectual Capital Measurement models/Valstybes Intelektinio Kapitalo Vertinimo Modeliu Lyginamoji Analize

Article excerpt

Introduction

A country's wealth is more and more dependent on its ability to perform high value added functions including the ability to create innovations. NIC creates value through innovation, where large or small changes done for processes, services or products results in creation of new value, so contributing to the growth of the wealth of nation (Chew et al. 2014). Intangible investment influences establishment and improvement of global value chains driving fragmentation of production through outsourcing and off-shoring. Specialization on high value added functions is possible only if a country fosters a high level of intellectual capital. The World Bank (2006, 2011) capital structure analysis performed in over 100 countries over a 10-year period from 1995 to 2005 shows that intangible capital (human capital, social capital, and the quality of institutions) makes up to 60-80 percent of total wealth. In advanced economies of OECD countries intangible capital is the only significant factor of production (World Bank 2011: 120). Findings also suggest that investments in human capital, strengthening institutions and developing the capacity to generate and use knowledge leads to wealth creation. Many researches investigating the influence of national intellectual capital (NIC) on economic growth also confirm a positive effect of NIC on countries' wealth. Bontis (2004) performed an analysis of NIC in Arab states (21 countries), which showed that NIC accounted for nearly one-fifth of the explanatory power for financial wealth of the Arab region. Lin and Edvinsson (2011) performed a NIC analysis covering 14 years (1995-2008) for 40 countries, which showed that there was a strong correlation of 0.88 between intellectual capital and GDP per capita (PPP) in real dollars in these countries. Ruiz, Navarro and Pena (2011a) analysed NIC and GDP relations in the years 2000, 2005 and 2008 for 72 countries. The results confirm the existence of a positive relationship between GDP and the measure of intellectual capital, which shows non visible wealth of a country. Weziak (2007) confirms the fact that there are important connections between intellectual capital and GDP per capita in the European countries. These researches show that intangible factors are very important for national wealth creation and highlight the need for their better measurement and management models.

Recent NIC research shifts the focus of intellectual capital within a firm to a longitudinal focus of how intellectual capital is utilised to navigate the knowledge created by countries, cities and communities (Dumay, Garanina 2013). Serenko and Bontis (2013) identify that intellectual capital research is at the theoretical consolidation stage of prescience and is progressing toward becoming a reference discipline. Intellectual capital research has already overcome the first stage of development and its concepts and importance to economy is recognized (Dumay, Garanina 2013). There is an increasing part of literature in the field which develops second stage research with a focus on developing models how NIC is measured and reported, and there is only a small number of papers in the third stage, which examine NIC in practice and its management questions. Obstacles of NIC measurement are still one of the most important questions to be solved. It is believed that an ability to measure NIC could help to improve management practices of NIC (Koch 2011). On the country level it means a more effective distribution of investments in intangibles in order to create the well-being. Salonius and LSnnqvist (2012) identify that policy makers in Finland would appreciate a more conceptualized model of NIC, which could help them to make decisions. Even though NIC is very difficult to capture and measure (Weziak 2007), its value could serve as an extension of GDP that may predict future national wealth.

Still the basic methodological problems of intellectual capital research have not been solved. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.