Which IC components explain national IC stocks?
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930710774867 |
| Date | 31 July 2007 |
| Pages | 444-469 |
| Published date | 31 July 2007 |
| Author | José Luis Hervas‐Oliver,Juan Ignacio Dalmau‐Porta |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance,HR & organizational behaviour,Information & knowledge management |
Which IC components explain
national IC stocks?
Jose
´Luis Hervas-Oliver
Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, and
Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA, and
Juan Ignacio Dalmau-Porta
Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
Abstract
Purpose – The paper seeks to provide a consistent theoretical framework to measure national
intellectual capital (IC) and also empirical evidence on the core factors which explain countries’ IC
stocks.
Design/methodology/approach – A multidisciplinary theoretical framework is provided to
underpin research on regional/national IC. Empirical evidence through multivariate methodology is
used in order to design a method to extract the national IC drivers which can explain countries’ IC
stocks in OECD countries in the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.
Findings – Theoretical bases of IC are presented to contribute to expanding territorial IC
fundamentals and a regional/national IC model is developed. Results show that technological
capability and the governmental policy oriented to business are both key factors in mapping the
position of the nation in the IC ranking and both are mainly responsible for the levels of countries’ IC.
Research limitations/implications – The sample was limited to OECD countries.
Practical implications – The paper is a very useful source of information for policymakers. The
paper also opens a necessary debate on the critical areas that need to be reinforced in order to develop
regional and national knowledge and national IC platforms. The IC index offered thus explains the key
areas in need of improvement in order to upgrade the national IC.
Originality/value – To date, no study has identified the critical IC areas, but rankings have been
drawn up with no conclusions at all. This exploratory study adds new empirical evidence to fill this
gap in the research.
Keywords Intellectualcapital, Strategic management, Government policy, Multivariate analysis
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
There are relatively few works on IC at the macro-economic level concerning the
intellectual capital of nations (Edvinsson and Bonfour, 2005; Bontis, 2004; Malhotra,
2003; Pasher, 1999; Rembe, 1999; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997), supra-nations
(Andriessen and Stam, 2005), regions (Viedma, 1999, 2002, 2003; Pulic, 2005; Robert
Huggins Associates, 2002; Martins and Viedma, 2004) and regional clusters (Hervas
and Dalmau, 2005; Smedlund and Po
¨yho
¨nen, 2005; Po
¨yho
¨nen and Smedlund, 2004).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
The authors are really thankful to the Institut Ignaci Vilallonga d’Economia I Empresa (IIVEE)
and Generalitat Valenciana (Accion Especial programme) for their financial support of this
research and the I þDþi Projectes per a equips d’investigadors emergents, GV/2007/196. They
are also indebted to the Institute for Management Development (IMD) for authorizing data
treatment for research purposes. They are also grateful to IMD for data usage authorization.
They also thank the ACLE from UPV for helping with translation. The usual disclaimers apply.
JIC
8,3
444
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 8 No. 3, 2007
pp. 444-469
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/14691930710774867
Nevertheless, on other economic topics there is a long tradition of measuring
competitiveness, as a way to understand and evaluate a nation’s success or wealth
creation capability. There are therefore unclear explanations as to the exact role that
national IC measurement is supposed to accomplish within national wealth creation
capability. Why, then, is it necessary to develop new ways of measuring national
wealth? In other words, what’s new about using national IC versus the concept of
competitiveness? Following Sta
¨hle and Po
¨yho
¨nen (2005, p. 575) it is clear that there is a
serious overlap between competitiveness and IC concepts, and the explicit aim of the IC
perspective, which is focused on knowledge-based value creation, has been partially
dismissed. In fact, if national IC definitions are studied, such as that given by Bontis
(2004, pp. 14-15) – “the intellectual capital of a nation includes the hidden values of
individuals, enterprises, institutions, communities and regions that are the curren t and
potential sources for wealth creation” – it is easily observed that the hidden values are
not clearly defined, nor is wealth creation defined, although it is supposed to be created
through knowledge. Thus, following Sta
¨hle and Po
¨yho
¨nen (2005), what the IC
community should look for is the national knowledge base. Otherwise, it could be
considered that IC is measuring practically the same thing as the well-established
competitiveness reports, such as those published annually by the Institute for
Management Development (IMD) or the World Economic Forum (WEF).
Following this chain of thought, several questions arise from the current research on
national IC. First, why is it important to measure this parameter? (Sta
¨hle and
Po
¨yho
¨nen, 2005; Scott and Rothberg, 2005). Second, could it have implications for
planning economic policy? (Scott and Rothberg, 2005). Third, what exactly is the
national knowledge base? And furthermore, following Sta
¨hle and Po
¨yho
¨nen (2005),
how important are indicators and how are they associated with economic performance?
In short, the research gap could be filled by the following question: does national IC
matter and which are the core indicators that define the national knowledge base? In
fact, it is necessary to reinterpret the role and the importance of IC components in
assessing and measuring the national knowledge base to determine whether national
IC really matters and which criteria can be used in applying national IC measures.
Thus, the objective of this work consists of finding empirical evidence on the core
national IC components or drivers which influence national IC and enable
knowledge-base upgrading to guarantee future national wealth in order to give
policymakers the key national IC drivers to improve nations’ knowledge bases.
Indirectly, this objective would give insights into the relationship between IC measures
and national wealth, which can be considered as the GDP. In addition, a theoretical IC
strategic framework is developed to define the national knowledge base and thus to
ensure a robust theory to underpin the empirical study.
To achieve the defined objectives this paper is structured as follows. In the second
section, after this introduction, an overview of the main models to measure IC and
competitiveness in nations and regions is offered in order to establish the proper
framework to offer a suitable composite index. The fourth section is dedicated to
carrying out a multivariate analysis and empirical evidence is given to supp ort results.
The final section contains the conclusion, discussion and implications of the research
provided.
National IC
stocks
445
To continue reading
Request your trial