Intangible capital and productivity at the firm level: a panel data assessment

References

• Aboody, D., and B. Lev. 1998. “The Value-Relevance of Intangibles: The Case of Software Capitalisation.” Journal of Accounting Research 36 (Supplement): 161–191. doi: 10.2307/2491312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baum, C. F., M. E. Schaffer, and S. Stillman. 2003. “Instrumental Variables and GMM: Estimation and Testing.” The Stata Journal 3 (1): 1–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bontempi, M. E. 2011. Construction of Disaggregated Tangible and Intangible Capital Stocks. A Comparison between Firm-Level and National Account Values. Mimeo: Department of Economics, University of Bologna.
   Google Scholar
• Bontempi, M. E., and J. Mairesse. 2008. Intangible Capital and Productivity: An Exploration on a Panel of Italian Manufacturing Firms. NBER WP Series, n. 14108, June. Cambridge: NBER.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, C. W., and P. H. Douglas. 1928. “A Theory of Production.” American Economic Review 18 (1): 139–165.
   Google Scholar
• Corrado, C., C. Hulten, and D. Sichel. 2005. “Measuring Capital and Technology: An Expanded Framework.” In Measuring Capital in the New Economy, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 65, edited by C. Corrado, J. Haltiwanger, and D. Sichel, 11–46. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corrado, C., C. Hulten, and D. Sichel. 2009. “Intangible Capital and US Economic Growth.” The Review of Income and Wealth 55 (3): 661–685. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4991.2009.00343.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crépon, B., E. Duguet, and J. Mairesse. 1998. Research, Innovation, and Productivity: an Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level. NBER WP Series, n. 6696, August. Cambridge: NBER.
   Google Scholar
• FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board). 1974. SFAS No. 2: Accounting for Research and Development Costs. Stamford, CT: FASB.
   Google Scholar
• FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board). 1985. SFAS No. 86: Accounting for the Costs of Computer Software to be Sold, Leased, or Otherwise Marketed, Vols 1 and 2. Stamford, CT: FASB.
   Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh, C., and M. Rogers. 2012. “Trade Marks and Performance in Services and Manufacturing Firms: Evidence of Schumpeterian Competition Through Innovation.” Australian Economic Review 45 (1): 50–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8462.2011.00665.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griliches, Z. 1979. “Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth.” The Bell Journal of Economics 10 (1): 92–116. doi: 10.2307/3003321
   Google Scholar
• Griliches, Z. 1984. R&D, Patents, and Productivity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griliches, Z. 1992. “The Search for R&D Spillovers.” The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94 (Supplement): 29–47. doi: 10.2307/3440244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griliches, Z. 1994. “Productivity, R&D, and the Data Constraint.” American Economic Review 84 (1): 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griliches, Z. 1998. R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griliches, Z., and J. Mairesse. 1984. “Productivity and R&D at the Firm Level.” In R&D, Patents, and Productivity, edited by Z. Griliches, 339–374. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (also NBER WP. n. 826, 1981, and pp. 100–133 of Griliches (1998)).
   Google Scholar
• Griliches, Z., and J. Mairesse. 1998. “Production Functions: The Search for Identification.” In Essays in Honour of Ragnar Frisch, edited by S. Strom, 169–203. Econometric Society Monograph Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, B. H., and J. Mairesse. 1995. “Exploring the Relationship between R&D and Productivity in French Manufacturing Firms.” Journal of Econometrics 65: 263–293. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01604-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, B. H., and J. Mairesse. 1996. Estimating the Productivity of Research and Development: An Exploration of GMM Methods Using Data on French & United States Manufacturing Firms. NBER WP Series, n. 5501, Cambridge: NBER.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, B. H., J. Mairesse, and P. Mohnen. 2010. “Measuring the Returns to R&D.” In Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, v. 2, Ch. 24, edited by B. H. Hall and N. Rosenberg, 1033–1082. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschey, M. 1982. “Intangible Capital Aspects of Advertising and R&D Expenditures.” Journal of Industrial Economics 30 (4): 375–390. doi: 10.2307/2097924
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Høegh-Krohn, N. E. J., and K. H. Knivsflå. 2000. “Accounting for Intangible Assets in Scandinavia, the UK, the US, and by the IASC: Challenges and a Solution.” The International Journal of Accounting 35 (2): 243–265. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7063(00)00048-0
   Google Scholar
• Hulten, C. R., and X. Hao. 2008. What is a Company Really Worth? Intangible Capital and the “Market to Book Value” Puzzle. NBER WP Series, n. 14548. Cambridge: NBER.
   Google Scholar
• International Accounting Standard Committee. 2004 Standard N. 38: Intangible Assets. London: IASC.
   Google Scholar
• Lev, B. 2001. Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lev, B. 2005. “Intangible Assets: Concepts and Measurements.” Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 2: 299–305, Elsevier Inc. doi: 10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00471-0
   Google Scholar
• Lev, B., and T. Sougiannis. 1996. “The Capitalisation, Amortisation, and Value-Relevance of R&D.” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 21 (1): 107–138. doi: 10.1016/0165-4101(95)00410-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mairesse, J., and J. Jaumandreu. 2005. “Panel Data Estimates of the Production Function and the Revenue Function: What Differences Does it Make?.” Scandinavian Journal of Economic 107 (4): 651–672. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9442.2005.00431.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mairesse, J., and B. Mulkay. 2008. An Exploration of Local R&D Spillovers in France. NBER WP Series, n. 14552. Cambridge: NBER.
   Google Scholar
• Mairesse, J., and M. Sassenou. 1991. “R&D and Productivity: A Survey of Econometric Studies at the Firm Level.” Science-Technology Industry Review, Paris, OECD, n. 8, 9–43 (also NBER WP Series, n. 3666, Cambridge).
   Google Scholar
• Stolowy, H., and A. Jeny-Cazavan. 2001. “International Accounting Disharmony: The Case of Intangibles.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 14 (4): 477–497. doi: 10.1108/09513570110403470
   Google Scholar
• Telser, L. G. 1961. “How Much Does It Pay Whom To Advertise?” American Economic Review 51 (2): 194–205.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, L. W. 1969. “Advertising, Profits, and Corporate Taxes.” Review of Economics and Statistics 51 (4): 421–430. doi: 10.2307/1926433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wooldridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, R. 2002. “Relative Value Relevance of R&D Reporting: An International Comparison.” Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting 13 (2): 153–174. doi: 10.1111/1467-646X.00082
   Google Scholar