National intellectual capital assessment models: a literature review
| Pages | 582-607 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2012-0100 |
| Published date | 21 October 2013 |
| Date | 21 October 2013 |
| Author | Romilio Labra,M. Paloma Sánchez |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management |
National intellectual capital
assessment models:
a literature review
Romilio Labra
Institute of Agriculture Research, Santiago, Chile, and
M. Paloma Sa
´nchez
Department of Applied Economics, Autonomous University of Madrid,
Madrid, Spain
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on national intellectual capital (NIC)
in order to identify and compare the main models to measure and report IC at the country level
and to examine the differences from and similarities to the IC approach for firms.
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic literature review was carried out using three
scientific databases and the five most impor tant journals. Additional information was also reviewed.
The search covered the period from January 2000 to December 2012. The models to measure
intangibles were analyzed and compared using qualitative and quantitative techniques.
Findings – The literature review shows that although such literature is still nascent and relatively
scarce, there is growing interest in measuring, reporting, and managing IC for countries as a whole.
NIC studies have been published in a small number of journals and more theoretical work is required.
There are two main types of methods to assess and report on NIC. Despite the differences among
models, their findings tend to converge.
Practical implications – The information obtained contributes to the selection of models.
This selection can be based on pragmatic considerations, such as the availability of data.
Originality/value – There are several models to evaluate intangibles at the country level and
different ways to measure them. The paper offers comparative information about the models to aid
in selection for managing intangibles at the country level.
Keywords Knowledge, Intellectual capital, Assessment models, Intangibles,
Intellectual capital reporting
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Growth is an important objective of governments. In recent decades intangibles that
make up intellectual capital (IC) have become the most important resource for wealth
creation and national progress (Bounfour and Edvinsson, 2005; Lin and Edvinsson,
2008), even more than the tangibles (Nakamura, 2010). In the current social and
economic context, termed the knowledge economy, knowledge and infor mation are the
core competencies (Ghit¸iu-Bra
˘tescu et al., 2010) of nations pursuing development,
above capital (Pulic, 2005) or labor (Dunning, 2000; Amidon, 2001). According to Foray
(2004), knowledge is an essential good for the new economy: the knowledg e economy.
Empirical works show a strong relationship between intangible assets and national
economic development (St˚
ahle and St˚
ahle, 2006; Weziak, 2007; Corrado et al., 2009;
Lo
´pez et al., 2011). In addition, intangibles p ositively affect work productivity
(Nakamura, 2010) and provide the future profits of countries and their organizations
(Malhotra, 2003; Bontis, 2004).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 14 No. 4, 2013
pp. 582-607
rEmeraldGroup PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-11-2012-0100
582
JIC
14,4
The first studies related to IC were carried out at the level of firms and sought
to explain the market value of companies (Malhotra, 2003). Later, governments,
researchers, and international organizations developed new works to measure and
manage IC at macro level.
A literature review was conducted to identify the works related to IC at the macro
level and obtain an overview of intangibles. The specific objectives of this paper are:
to identify the main advances in IC studies; to identify the main models developed to
measure IC at the country level; and to characterize and compare the models.
The research questions are: What advances have been made in the last decade
in knowledge about IC at the national level? How is IC measured at the country level?
What kind of indicators, variables, and components are being used? What are the main
differences among models? What can be learned for futu re policies?
The paper is structured as follows. The second section summarizes the conceptual
framework and the underlying theories for IC analysis. Section 3 presents the
methodology applied. Section 4 presents the models analyzed an d initial findings
and compares the main characteristics of the models. Section 5 discusses the main
findings and categorizes the models according to their characteristics. Section 6 offers
some conclusions.
2. Conceptual framework and underlying theories
For governments, one of the most important tasks is to provide adequate conditions for
economic growth and improve the quality of life of its citizens.
The neoclassical economic model has been an impor tant theoretical framework for
the study of economic growth and the public policies of the last century. Under this
theory, capital and labor explain national growth and are characterized by their
exogenous nature (Solow, 1956). Studies in the 1950s by Robert Solow included
technological change among the variables explaining growth. Solow (1956) p ointed
out that capital is not the only factor determinin g productivity. Other variables are
important, such as research and education. The econometric model that Solow
presented in 1956 described technological progress as the most important factor for
a country’s economic growth (McQuinn and Whelan, 2007).
At the firm level and in the context of rapid technological change, wealth
creation depends on capabilities and entrepreneurial strategies (Teece et al., 2005).
According to Penrose (1955) growth potential is determined by a firm’s resources, which
are both tangible and intangible, the latter being the source of innovation capacity
(Morcillo, 2006).
Currently, intangible resources are the main source of wealth, prosperity, economic
growth (Dunning, 2000; Edvinsson and Kivikas, 2004; Corrado et al., 2009), and co re
competencies (Dunning, 2000; Contractor and Lo range, 2002; Ghit¸iu-Bra
˘tescu et al.,
2010), which has given rise to a new conceptual framewo rk, the knowledge-based
economy. Following David and Foray (2002) and Foray (2004), the knowledge economy
is the result of the creation and interchange of knowledge, where the information and
communications technologies sector is a key element, and intangible capital is more
important than tangible assets.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines the
knowledge-based economy as an economy directly based on the production,
distribution, and use of knowledge and information (OECD, 1996). This new
economy, as opposed to the neoclassical model, better explains differences among
countries in growth levels by using the knowledg e factor as a key element, together
583
NIC assessment
models
To continue reading
Request your trial