[PDF Download] Intangible assets, productivity and economic growth (routledge studies in the economi
Assets, Productivity and Economic Growth (Routledge Studies in the Economics of Business and Industry) 1st
Edition Carter Bloch
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/intangible-assets-productivity-and-economic-growth-r outledge-studies-in-the-economics-of-business-and-industry-1st-edition-carter-bloch/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Data Driven Decisions: Systems Engineering to Understand Corporate Value and Intangible Assets 1st Edition Jahani
Empirical Studies on Economics of Innovation, Public Economics and Management : Proceedings of the 18th Eurasia Business and Economics Society Conference 1st Edition Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin
Business Challenges in the Changing Economic Landscape - Vol. 1: Proceedings of the 14th Eurasia Business and Economics Society Conference 1st Edition Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin
The hegemony of growth the OECD and the making of the economic growth paradigm First Paperback Edition Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development.
Intangible Assets, Productivity and Economic Growth
This book advances our knowledge on intangibles and their role in productivity growth, presenting a unique multi-level perspective. It encompasses micro, meso, and macro approaches that build upon firm-, industry-, and country-level data and introduces novel layers of analysis.
A variety of empirical instruments are used in the book, such as a largescale international survey, input-output analysis, register data, etc., thus displaying fresh, comparative evidence for Europe, the USA, China, Korea, and Japan. The book also examines the subject within the global value chain context, which is one of the most relevant phenomena of recent decades, and assesses cross-country trends, drawing on a unique industry-level database of intangible assets, based on production input data from all over the world.
The book offers new insights on how to measure intangibles, how they contribute to productivity growth, and how policy can help foster intangibles investments and growth. It will therefore be of great interest to scholars, researchers, and advanced students in the fields of economic growth, innovation, technology, and business management.
Carter Bloch is Professor and Center Director at the Danish Center for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Aimilia Protogerou is Assistant Professor of Business Strategy and Innovation Management at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece.
Nicholas S. Vonortas is Professor of Economics and International Affairs and Associate Dean for Research, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Routledge Studies in the Economics of Business and Industry
The Economics of Corporate Trade Credit in Europe
Julia Koralun-Bereźnicka and Dawid Szramowski
The Economics of the Global Oil and Gas Industry
Emerging Markets and Developing Economies
Edited by Joshua Yindenaba Abor, Amin Karimu and Runar Brännlund
The Professional Standards of Executive Remuneration Consultants
Calvin Jackson
International Trade and the Music Industry
Live Music Services from the Caribbean
Lisa Gordon
Sustainability Management in the Oil and Gas Industry
Emerging and Developing Country Perspectives
Edited by Joshua Yindenaba Abor and Amin Karimu
Economic Policy, COVID-19 and Corporations
Perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe
Edited by Katarzyna Mroczek-Dąbrowska, Aleksandra Kania and Anna Matysek-Jędrych
Artists and Markets in Music
The Political Economy of Music During the Covid Era and Beyond
Cameron M. Weber, Ying Zhen and J. J. Arias
Intangible Assets, Productivity and Economic Growth
Micro, Meso and Macro Perspectives
Edited by Carter Bloch, Aimilia Protogerou and Nicholas S. Vonortas
For more information about this series, please visit www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Studies-in-the-Economics-of-Business-and-Industry/book-series/ RSEBI
Intangible Assets, Productivity and Economic Growth
Micro, Meso and Macro Perspectives
Edited by Carter Bloch, Aimilia Protogerou and Nicholas S. Vonortas
First published 2024 by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
The right of Carter Bloch, Aimilia Protogerou and Nicholas S. Vonortas to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-032-34867-4 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-34868-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-32422-5 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003324225
Typeset in Sabon by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)
Access the Support Material: www.routledge.com/9781032348674
List of figures vii
List of tables ix
List of contributors xi
1 Introduction: Setting the stage, linking intangible assets to productivity 1
CARTER BLOCH, AIMILIA PROTOGEROU AND NICHOLAS S. VONORTAS
2 The productivity puzzle in the context of (new) growth determinants 11
TJAŠA REDEK, POLONA DOMADENIK MUREN, EVA ERJAVEC, MATJAŽ KOMAN, ČRT KOSTEVC, JOŽE SAMBT, ROK SPRUK, VESNA ŽABKAR, DAŠA FARČNIK AND TANJA ISTENIČ
3 Intangibles and their contribution to productivity: An overview 34
CARTER BLOCH, FELIX ROTH, KRISTOF VAN CRIEKINGEN AND HANNU PIEKKOLA
4 Intangible capital and labor productivity growth revisited 56 FELIX ROTH
5 Intangibles: A challenge to policy decision makers 84 SARADA DEVI GADEPALLI, JAKOB EDLER AND JOSEPH LAMPEL
6 Intangible assets and productivity: An occupation-based approach 103 HANNU PIEKKOLA, CARTER BLOCH, MARINA RYBALKA AND TJAŠA REDEK
7 Gender and age productivity–wage gaps in innovative work 128
DAŠA FARČNIK, TJAŠA REDEK, CARTER BLOCH, HANNU PIEKKOLA, MARINA RYBALKA AND TANJA ISTENIČ
8 Intangible assets investments in Europe: Findings from the Globalinto large-scale business survey 150
YANNIS CALOGHIROU, AIMILIA PROTOGEROU, PANAGIOTIS PANAGIOTOPOULOS AND MOJCA BAVDAŽ
9 Organizational capital, allocation of intangibles, and firm performance: Evidence from the Globalinto intangible survey 174
HANNU PIEKKOLA
10 Intangible-driven productivity growth: the role of ICT capital and effective labour 196
ARVID
RAKNERUD AND MARINA RYBALKA
11 ICT externalities: measurement issues and their effects on output growth 222
KEUNGOUI KIM, AHMED BOUNFOUR, ALBERTO NONNIS AND ALTAY ÖZAYGEN
12 Mapping the flow of intangibles in domestic and global value chains 241
PETROS DIMAS, DIMITRIOS STAMOPOULOS AND AGGELOS TSAKANIKAS
13 The role of intangibles and global value chains for productivity: Evidence from the EU 267
PETROS DIMAS, FELIX ROTH AND AGGELOS TSAKANIKAS
14 Promoting intangible investments and productivity: The role of policy
CARTER BLOCH, AIMILIA PROTOGEROU AND NICHOLAS S. VONORTAS
2.1 Ratio of GDP per hour worked of EU27 and Euro area to the USA in % 12
3.1 Labor productivity growth in the EU19 and USA (%), 1995–2018 36
4.1 Business intangible capital investment, EU10, 1995–2018 68
4.2 Business intangible capital investment, goods vs. services sectors, EU-10, 1995–2018 69
4.3 Business intangible capital investment across sub-sectors, EU-10, 1995–2018 70
7.1 Wage age differential for employees under 35 years vs. 35–49 years, by intangible occupations and country 137
7.2 Wage age differential for employees aged 35–49 vs employees 50+, by intangible occupations and country 138
7.3 Gender wage differentials by intangible work occupations and country, for workers under 35 years, for 35–49 years, for 50+ years 139
7.4 Age-related productivity differentials for employees under 35 years vs 35–49 years, by intangible occupations and country 140
7.5 Age-related productivity differentials for employees aged 35–49 years vs 50+ years by intangible occupations and country 141
7.6 Productivity–wage age differentials for employees under 35 years vs 35–49 years by intangible occupations and country 142
7.7 Productivity–wage age differentials for employees aged 35–49 years vs 50+ years by intangible occupations and country 143
8.1 Framework for questionnaire development 152
8.2 Firms with intangible investments and investment intensity by asset type 155
8.3 Firm distribution regarding their total intangibles’ investment 157
8.4 Total spending on intangibles as % of turnover by sectoral group 157
8.5 Impact of Covid-19 on intangible assets spending by asset type, 2020
8.6 Digital transformation strategy orientation of firms as an outcome of the Covid-19 crisis 166
9.1 Intangibles by turnover and fixed asset turnover by technology type 183
10.1 Employment share (in person-years) for each type of intangible labour for Norway, 2008–2019
11.1 Outward and inward ICT externalities
12.1 Knowledge transaction between a knowledge-producing upstream sector (KP) and a knowledge-consuming downstream sector (KU)
207
229
244
12.2 Intangible inputs table format by country 246
12.3 Intensity of intangible inputs by origin for the global sample of economies, 2000–2014 (series avg.) 249
12.4 Scatterplot of intangible inputs intensity (domestic and imported) in 2000 and 2008 251
12.5 Scatterplot of intangible inputs intensity (domestic and imported) in 2008 and 2014 252
12.6 Imported intangible inputs intensity in the aggregate Europe, Americas, and Eastern Asia regions, 2000–2014 253
12.7 Intensity of intangible inputs by origin (domestic and imported) and manufacturing sector in the period 2000–2014 (series avg.) 257
13.1 Scatterplot of the intensity of domestic (dots) and imported (diamonds) intangibles (ratios) in the years 2000 and 2014 278
3.1 Existing cross-country studies at the macro level
3.2 Analytical summary of the cross-country sectoral studies at the meso level
4.1 Measuring business intangibles in the EU KLEMS 2021 dataset 59
4.2 Summary of cross-country aggregate and sectoral studies on intangibles and productivity growth
4.4 Intangible capital and labor productivity growth, LSDV and System GMM estimation at the country and sectoral level, EU-10, 1995–2018
4.5 Intangible capital and labor productivity growth, LSDV and System GMM estimation at the sectoral and sub-sectoral level, EU-10, 1995–2018
5.1 Dimensions of intangibles and their classification basis
5.2 Systems problems – A brief overview
6.1
6.2 Combined multipliers (labor shares and factor multipliers)
6.3 Intangibles work share of all work by intangible type, %
6.4 Expenditure and value of OC, R&D, and ICT per employee
6.5 Random-effects estimates of production function with intangible capital and IBTC
6.A.1 Industries by technology type (firms with at least five employees on average in the selected industries)
6.A.2 Summary and IBTC
7.1
7.A.1
7.A.2
8.1 Achieved sample targets by country, sectoral group, and firm
8.2
8.3
8.5 Design use and intangible investments 160
8.6 Development of digital capabilities, use of digital platforms, and intangible investments 161
8.7 Conditional probabilities for the innovation introduced 162
8.8 Average spending on intangibles by innovation type 163
8.9 Impact of Covid-19 on economic performance and intangible investments 165
8.10 Spending on ICT infrastructure during the Covid-19 crisis by digital transformation performance 165
9.1 Descriptive statistics of model variables 182
9.2 Tobit model for organizational investment (OC) per turnover 184
9.3 Performance: productivity, profit margin from IC and fixed asset turnover
9.4 OLS for annual employment and productivity growth over three years, 2017–2020 and 2019–2020, in % 189
10.1 Summary statistics for key variables in the production function 205
10.2 Total ICT capital stock and different ICT assets per labour input by industry group 206
10.3 Average employment shares for each type of intangible labour, by industry group, % 207
10.4 Random-effects estimate of production function parameters 209
10.5 Fixed-effects estimate of production function parameters 211
10.A.1 Robustness of results with respect to inclusion of interaction terms, operationalisation of ICT capital, sample selection criteria and winsorisation
11.1 List of ICT externalities
11.2 Data sources
11.3 Production function estimation using a fixed-effects model 233
12.1 Share of imported intangible inputs from the Euro Area relative to total intangibles inputs, per type of intangible input, for each EU-27 economy and the UK, 2000–2014 (series average) 254
12.A.1 Detailed description of variables included in the inputs side of GIOID. Adapted from Dimas et al. (2022a) 260
12.A.2 Detailed description of variables included in the outputs side of GIOID. Adapted from Dimas et al. (2022a) 261
12.B.1 List of manufacturing sectors included in Case Study 4 261
13.1 Summary statistics 273
13.2 Average annual growth rate for labor productivity, total intangibles’ intensity and aggregate GVC participation for the EU-27 and the UK, 2000–2007, 2008–2010 and 2011–2014
13.3 Pairwise
13.4
Contributors
Mojca Bavdaž is an associate professor at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Her research focuses on official statistics, measurement in economics, and related data collection (business data collection methodology, survey methodology, qualitative research).
Carter Bloch is Professor and Center Director of the Danish Center for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark. His research interests include innovation analysis and policy, research evaluation, and research careers and funding.
Ahmed Bounfour is a professor at Université Paris-Saclay, France, where he founded and holds the European Chair on Intangibles, and Research Director at RITM. He is a leading scholar in intangibles research and policy.
Yannis Caloghirou is Professor Emeritus of the Economics of Technology and Industrial Strategy at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece. He has published extensively in international journals on issues revolving around the economics of innovation, science, technology, and industry.
Petros Dimas is a postdoctoral researcher at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece. His research focuses on global value chains, intangible assets, industrial policy, and structural competitiveness.
Jakob Edler is Executive Director of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI Karlsruhe, Germany, and professor of innovation policy and strategy at the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR), UK. His research interests lie in the analysis and conceptualization of governance and policy in science and innovation.
Eva Erjavec is a young researcher and PhD student at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Her research interest are intangible capital and investments in intangible capital in the private and public sectors.
Daša Farčnik is an assistant professor of economics at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Her research interests are educational and labor economics, human capital investments, and tourism.
Sarada Devi Gadepalli is a research associate at the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR) University of Manchester, UK. Her main research interest is in understanding the role of firms in societies, innovations for base-of-the-pyramid (BoP) markets, and the role of public policy.
Tanja Istenič is an assistant professor of economics at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Her research interests include labor market analysis, intergenerational transfers and financial sustainability of the public sector, and gender (in)equality.
Keungoui Kim is an assistant professor at Handong Global University, South Korea. His research interests are technology innovation and convergence, computational social science, natural language processing, industry dynamics, and digitalization.
Matjaž Koman is an associate professor of economics at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. His research focuses on the economics of transition and labor economics, with special emphasis on firm behavior, and firm productivity and ownership issues.
Črt Kostevc is a professor of international economics at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. His research interests are in trade and firm heterogeneity, firm dynamics and innovation, productivity analysis, and foreign direct investment.
Joseph Lampel is Eddie Davies Professor of Enterprise and Innovation Management at Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK. Main research areas include strategic management, business innovation strategy, and innovation management.
Polona Domadenik Muren is a professor of economics at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. She has published papers in refereed journals (Journal of Business Ethics, International Journal of Manpower, Journal of International Business Studies, Review of Development Economics, and others).
Alberto Nonnis is a postdoctoral researcher at Université Paris-Saclay. His research interests include innovation, intangible capital, macroeconomics, and climate change economics.
Altay Özaygen is a research associate at Institut-Mines Télécom Business School, France. He is an expert in social network analysis, open innovation, patent analysis, and management of innovation.
Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos is a postdoctoral researcher at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece. His research interests revolve around the organizational resources and dynamic capabilities of public organizations, eGovernment, and public procurement for innovation.
Hannu Piekkola has been professor of economics at the University of Vaasa, Finland since 2007 and is the coordinator of EU Horizon Globalinto and the 7th EU Framework Program Innodrive.
Aimilia Protogerou is an assistant professor of business strategy and innovation management at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece. Her research interests revolve around strategic management of technology and innovation, cooperative research and development, innovation networks, knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship, and related policies.
Arvid Raknerud is a researcher at Statistics Norway. His main research fields are firm behavior, investment dynamics, policy evaluation, innovation entrepreneurship, environmental economics, and labor supply and demand.
Tjaša Redek is a professor of economics at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Her research interests are in intangible capital, new technologies, firm performance and human capital, and labor market issues.
Felix Roth is a senior research fellow and senior lecturer in the Department of Economics at the University of Hamburg, Germany. His research concentrates on the relationship between intangible capital and growth.
Marina Rybalka is a researcher at Statistics Norway and mostly works with empirical analyses of firm behavior, industrial organization and development. Her research interests are innovation, industry dynamics, digitalization, and policy evaluation.
Jože Sambt is a professor of economics at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. His research interests include intergenerational transfers, long-term sustainability of the economy and public system, and demography and labor market issues.
Rok Spruk is an associate professor of economics at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. His field of research includes methods of causal inference, economic growth and development, and the empirical political economy.
Dimitrios Stamopoulos is a research associate and PhD candidate at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece. His research focuses on economic modeling for the study of global value chains, intangible assets, and energy policy.
Aggelos Tsakanikas is an associate professor of technology and innovation economics at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece. His main research interests lie in the fields of technology and business strategy, innovation economics, entrepreneurship and related policies.
Kristof van Criekingen is a researcher at the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office. His main research interests are R&D, and innovation analysis and policy.
Nicholas S. Vonortas is a professor and Senior Associate Dean at The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. His teaching and research interests are in industrial organization, the economics of technological change, and technology and innovation policy and strategy.
Vesna Žabkar is a professor of marketing and former vice dean for research at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Her research interests include the role of marketing within companies, sustainability, brand reputation, and cross-cultural consumer research.
1 Introduction
Setting the stage, linking intangible assets to productivity
Carter Bloch, Aimilia Protogerou and Nicholas S. Vonortas
1.1 Introduction
An intangible asset is an asset that is not physical in nature, but has long-term value for a business. Some of these intangible assets are in the form of registerable intellectual property, such as patents and trademarks, but others are more difficult to capture. They can be ideas, knowhow, brands or reputation, or software. They can be new products or processes, organizational capabilities, or virtual platforms for firms to launch and promote their products. In essence, they can be anything that is not physical but can contribute to the generation of future value.
The concept of intangibles is not new. Discussion of intangible assets can be traced at least back to Veblen (1908, p. 105) who defines intangible assets as “immaterial items of wealth, immaterial facts owned, valued, and capitalized on an appraisement of the gain to be derived from their possession”. Nevertheless, it was not until the information technology productivity “boom” of the 1990s (Brynjolfsson et al. 2002) and the contributions of several authors (e.g., Nakamura 1999; Lev 2001) and especially Corrado et al. (2005, 2009), who clearly defined three intangible assets categories of computerized information, innovative property, and economic competencies, that the stream of literature examining their role and impact as soft growth factors began. Arguably their role and importance for the economy and for the effectiveness of policy have changed dramatically over time, most notably over the last two decades. A relative shift from physical to intangible means of production has been taking place over time (e.g., Haskel and Westlake 2018; Crouzet et al. 2020; Corrado et al. 2018). This shift means that it is increasingly difficult to measure value and economic trends without knowledge of intangibles. Nakamura (2010) convincingly makes this point, showing the increasing importance for the US economy of intangible investments, which overtake tangible investments around 2000.
At the firm level, the valuation of companies has become increasingly difficult to undertake on the basis of tangible assets alone (European Commission 2013; Thum-Thysen et al. 2021). With the advent of the internet this became apparent for IT companies but it is by no means limited to a single sector
(Haskel and Westlake 2018; Corrado et al. 2022). Increasingly, there is an intangible element in most, if not all, tangible products and capital. This might be software, a brand, or some intangible function or service that is attached to it. Services are inherently intangible and have grown massively in the last 20 years. The service sector now dwarfs manufacturing in most countries, and it is hard to find any industry that does not at least partially offer services alone or ones that are connected to their tangible products.
While a whole industry has sprung up to advise private-sector businesses how to place value on their intangibles,1 such efforts are mostly ad hoc and tailored to the needs of particular customers. The nature of intangibles continues to pose a number of challenges for how we measure investments and factors of production, for analysis of the drivers of innovation and productivity, and for policy that seeks to foster knowledge creation, innovation, and economic growth, and increasingly also to address key societal challenges.
1.1.1 Need for data and measurement
Our understanding of the relation between intangibles and productivity is hampered by limitations in measurement and related challenges. These include addressing the restrictive treatment of intangible investments in accounting regulations and in national accounts, the conceptualization of intangibles, data collection, and the construction of measures of intangible assets. While these issues are quite diverse, and to some degree have been addressed in separate strands of literature (OECD 2018; Corrado et al. 2022; Thum-Thysen et al. 2021; Lev and Gu 2016; Montresor and Vezzani 2016), they are also very much interrelated, and have in common that they deal with the conceptualization and measurement of intangibles.
Over the last 20 years, work on intangibles measurement has made significant progress in demonstrating how intangible assets contribute to productivity and how the exclusion of intangibles as investments has led to a systematic underestimation of productivity growth (Corrado et al. 2005; Nakamura 2010). There is however still a great need for advancing methodologies, introducing new statistics, and harmonizing approaches across countries.
There is a large gap between the broad measurement of intangible assets in many studies, such as Corrado et al. (2005), and the more limited set of intangibles that are treated as capital formation in accounting practices or national accounts. While the treatment of intangible assets in national accounts was expanded in 2008 to include research and development (R&D) (United Nations 2009), this definition is still much more restrictive than broader economic conceptualizations of intangibles, which have been shown to be positively related to future value creation. Accounting standards for financial reporting are even more restrictive, even though by the early 2000s there was a growing consensus among business economists that firms were spending significantly on intangibles, that these assets were far more than
R&D and software, and that this new type of investment was not recorded in firms’ balance sheets (Lev 2001; Le Mouel 2022; Bavdaž et al. 2023). These rules stem from an economic view of intangibles that underestimates both intangible assets and productivity growth.
1.1.2 Analyzing the relation between intangibles and productivity
It is not only important to measure intangibles; we also need to understand their role in economic and societal development. A main challenge for analysis is the so-called “productivity puzzle” in EU countries and beyond, i.e., the slowdown in productivity growth despite apparent increases in knowledge creation and innovation (Goldin et al. 2023; Gordon 2016; Crouzet and Eberly 2021; Brynjolfsson et al. 2021). The relation between innovation and productivity is complex and can be influenced by a number of supply and demand factors – factors which are behind the many possible explanations that have been proposed for productivity slowdowns and possible policy responses.
One possible explanation is that opportunities for innovation and productivity growth have declined; that the potential gains from innovation are now smaller and require stronger capabilities and greater effort to be realized (Cowen 2011; Gordon 2016). This explanation motivates a number of additional issues in order to better understand – and promote – innovation and its returns.
Among these are measuring intangibles investments in broad terms, as well as their impact on innovation and productivity. There are also a number of dimensions that influence the economic impact of technological change and innovation, such as the rate of innovation, diffusion, and novelty. Furthermore, gains from innovation which depend on competences to exploit and absorb them may differ across the value chain. Global factors can be very important here, as are demographics and ICT (Brynjolfsson et al. 2021).
Work by the OECD argues that innovation at the frontier has not diminished, but the gap between the most advanced firms and all others has greatly expanded in the 2000s, suggesting that productivity slowdowns may reflect slowed diffusion of new technology and innovations (Andrews et al. 2015). This builds on the main, supply-side explanation, arguing that the rate of technological change is not weakened, but diffusion (and thus exploitation) is lagging. This points back to global knowledge flows and also competences, where firms from emerging countries may now be more capable of exploiting new technologies (at different stages of the value chain) than earlier.
Others argue that opportunities have not diminished, and that in particular information and communication technology (ICT) continues to offer great potential for innovation and productivity growth (Brynjolfsson and McAfee 2011, 2014; Brynjolfsson et al. 2017). However, as technologies and their applications become more complex, the need to exploit advances in ICT is growing in importance, and demands for organizational and other
capabilities needed to develop and apply new ICT-based applications are increasing. For some firms, ICT development is central, but for most of the economy, harnessing the gains from ICT is a question of adoption, adaptation, and application. Both micro-level and industry-level aspects are important here for understanding the role of ICT in productivity growth.
1.1.3 Intangibles and policy
The different nature of intangibles and the changes in the economy that have accompanied the growing importance of intangible investments pose policy adaptation challenges. Prominent among these is appropriability. While the benefits of some intangible investments may be secured through formal instruments such as patents or trademarks, this becomes much less possible in many other cases. Intangibles are generally non-rivalrous, meaning that their use by one firm does not necessarily prohibit their use by others, which dampens incentives for private investment (Haskel and Westlake 2018). In order to encourage investment, it is important that firms are able to gain an advantage from their investments. In addition, intangibles are broad in nature, including both technical and non-technical components (Montresor and Vezzani 2016; Roth et al. 2022), whereas research and innovation policy has typically focused on promoting scientific innovation (Corrado et al. 2022).
Furthermore, different types of intangibles often appear to be interconnected, both with other intangibles and with tangible assets (Thum-Thysen et al. 2021). Understanding and promoting these synergies is a key challenge for policy. Finally, these changes have implications for both the financing of innovation investments and the required infrastructure. While we can begin to outline these challenges for policy, policy design still requires a better understanding of the role that intangibles play for individual firms, industries, and the economy (Haskel and Westlake 2022).
1.2 Overview of the book
The purpose of this book is to explore new approaches to measuring intangibles and productivity, and how these measures can be used to investigate key issues concerning the role of intangibles for productivity growth. The book offers new insights on how to measure intangibles, how they contribute to productivity growth, and how policy can help foster intangibles investments and growth.
The book builds on novel work from the EU Horizon2020 GLOBALINTO project (see www.globalinto.eu). This includes the development of an occupation-based approach that allows for the measurement of intangibles investments at the firm level, a large-scale international survey of intangibles with special coverage of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on managerial strategies and intangible investments, and an industry-level database of
intangible assets based on production input data from all over the world. These data sources provide a number of opportunities to investigate key issues concerning the role of intangibles at the micro, meso, and macro level. All three levels are important, with aggregated levels for international comparison and micro levels providing the granularity needed to understand firm strategies for intangible investments and innovation.
The focus of GLOBALINTO, both in measurement and analysis, has been on the role of intangibles, their sustainable measurement, their accumulation and diffusion, and their use in generating innovation and productivity growth. This includes: developing new measures of intangibles and advanced methods to link data and construct them; utilizing this new data to analyze the various potential explanations of the productivity puzzle, at both micro and macro levels; and conducting analyses of existing economic policies and their role in promoting intangibles investment, innovation, and productivity growth.
1.2.1 Setting the stage – reviewing existing work on intangibles and productivity
The first section of the book sets the stage for work on the role of intangibles in productivity. The slowdown in productivity poses challenging questions and can potentially be due to a complex set of factors. Chapter 2 offers an extensive review of the factors that can influence productivity growth. The authors highlight the role of both external and firm-related productivity determinants. Among the external productivity determinants, factors such as the institutional environment in the broadest context, macroeconomic characteristics, technological and the business environment in general, international links, policy measures, and many other factors affect the firm’s performance and its behavior. At the firm level, labor and human capital, R&D, the amount and composition of capital, allocation of resources, use of new technologies, intangible capital accumulation and structure, and others are important. The authors conclude that working with this complexity of determinants requires a holistic approach and strong coordination between different policies.
Chapter 3 reviews the literature on the measurement of intangibles and their contribution to productivity growth. It covers central work within intangibles measurement, which has both sought to broaden the concept of intangible assets and to expand approaches to cover different levels of aggregation, with a growing focus on the micro level. The chapter reviews recent work that estimates the contribution of intangible assets to productivity growth and examines how the impact of intangibles has developed over time and across countries and industries. While many challenges remain, much progress has been made at different levels of aggregation.
Chapter 4 revisits the question of the effect of intangible capital on labor productivity growth, comparing current analysis with earlier attempts to
evaluate the effect of intangible capital on labor productivity growth. The results show that intangible capital deepening accounts for around 40% of labor productivity growth at both the aggregate and sectoral levels. The chapter also finds that the positive effect of intangible capital on productivity growth at both levels of aggregation is driven by investment in economic competencies, which is the only form of intangible capital not recognized in national accounts. Finally, the results reveal significant differences between sectors regarding investments and productivity effects of different intangible types. These findings have important implications for EU industrial policies and are directly relevant to the EU's efforts to close its productivity gap visà-vis the US.
Chapter 5 provides a detailed look at the dual nature of intangibles and their implications for policy. Characteristics such as non-separability and synergies make intangibles inimitable resources of the firm, leading to competitive advantages. At the same time, the partial excludability, transferability, and non-rivalrous characteristics of intangibles encourage spillovers and limit firms’ ability to appropriate all profits from their intangible resources. This duality in the nature of intangibles points to different rationales for policy intervention. Any policy intervention needs to consider the trade-offs and tensions that can occur within and between policies while a framework for policies for intangibles is being developed.
1.2.2
Exploring the role of intangibles investments at the firm level
Understanding strategic decisions on intangible investments and their impacts at the firm level is central to work on intangibles and productivity. However, this work has been hindered by a lack of suitable measures. The second section of the book presents two state-of-the-art approaches to measure intangibles, one based on registered data and the other based on a new survey, along with analysis of central factors in the relation between intangibles and productivity.
Chapter 6 describes a new occupation-based approach for the firm-level measurement of intangibles, using linked employer–employee data, and applies the approach to productivity analyses in four countries, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Slovenia, over the period 2000–2019. Intangible investments are estimated based on specific (innovative) occupation-related labor costs combined with intermediate and tangible capital used in intangible capital creation. Intangible capital is broadly defined as of three types: R&D, ICT, and organizational capital.
Chapter 7 draws on the occupation-based database described in Chapter 6 to examine wage and productivity differentials across gender and age groups. The chapter shows a large wage differential between the youngest and middle-aged working groups, with much smaller (but generally still positive) differentials between the middle and oldest-aged working groups. This reflects that wage progression is strongest in early to mid-career and weaker
in the later years of working life. However, the results do not show any clear pattern in wage differentials across countries when comparing intangible and non-intangible work occupations.
1.2.3 Large-scale survey of intangibles investments
Chapter 8 presents a more direct and detailed approach using a dedicated survey of intangibles investments. The occupation-based approach described in the previous two chapters seeks to proxy intangible capital investments based on analysis of occupations and production function estimations for intangibles-producing industries. A key advantage of this approach is that it can be applied on existing data. In contrast, the Globalinto Business Survey, carried out in seven European countries during late fall 2020 and early spring 2021 as part of the EU Horizon2020 GLOBALINTO project (Caloghirou et al. 2021) offers a unique dataset that can provide evidence-based implications for informing both public policies (at an EU and national level) and business strategies. In particular, the survey provides evidence on businesses' spending on a wide array of internally developed and externally acquired intangible assets, contributing to the improvement of the micro-level measurement approach. It also examines the factors influencing intangible investments and the impact of these investments on business performance. Moreover, it explores the impact of the Covid-19 disruption on intangible investments, and firms’ digital strategy and capabilities.
Chapter 9 builds on this Globalinto Business Survey data in order to focus on the role of organizational capital investment in firm performance and how it is linked to other intangibles investments, human capital, and organizational capabilities for change. The chapter in particular highlights the role of external investments in organizational capital and in organizational agility. Organizational capital as part of intangibles (including branding, design, and special-purpose ICT) is shown to improve productivity, profit margins, and financial solvency, while R&D has an independent positive effect on all these three measures of firm performance.
1.2.4 The role of ICT
Information and communication technology (ICT) is widely recognized as a general-purpose technology (GPT), that is, a technology that can produce or invent with both economic and social effects, decreasing the price of products and facilitating the introduction of new products, technologies, and services across industries. The next two chapters zoom in on the role of intangible ICT investments for productivity.
Chapter 10 expands on the firm-level occupation-based dataset for Norway, with detailed data on investments in ICT. The chapter assesses the importance of ICT and other intangible capital, such as R&D and organizational capital, for firm-level labor productivity. The results show that effects
on productivity are highest for ICT, and that positive interaction effects between ICT capital and specific labor skills contribute considerably to the overall impact of ICT on output and productivity.
Chapter 11 focuses on an important characteristic of ICT investment, which is that it propagates through the economic system through externalities, such that firms and industries can take advantage of investment made by other firms and industries. Based on an industry-level panel of 15 European countries, the chapter examines the role of ICT externalities, both nationally and internationally, and within and across industries. The results highlight the presence of high externalities of different types, with domestic externalities being most effective in impacting productivity. Furthermore, at the industry level, spillover effects appear to be more important than the effects of direct investments in ICT.
1.2.5 Global value chains and knowledge flows
Business activities are rarely confined within single national borders and are instead involved in complex global value chains that create both interdependence and international exchange of knowledge. Aggregated data on the flow of intangibles between countries and industries can provide valuable evidence on the role of global value chains and knowledge flows for productivity. Drawing on a novel industry-level database of intangible assets based on production input data from all over the world, the next two chapters explore these issues.
Chapter 12 provides the theoretical underpinnings and examines the key dimensions of the GLOBALINTO Input-Output Intangibles Database (GIOID), a novel dataset that adopts a different lens on the measurement of intangibles, by placing emphasis solely on externally purchased intangibles and treating them as intermediate inputs (producer services). The key contribution of this dataset – which is highlighted in this chapter – is the introduction of the origin dimension, as external intangibles can be acquired by both domestic and foreign intangibles-producing sectors. The chapter maps production linkages and patterns of trade in intangibles across different countries and regions of the world, including Europe, the Americas, and Eastern Asia.
Chapter 13 investigates the contribution of intangible inputs and participation in global value chains (GVCs) to labor productivity at the national level for the EU-27 and the UK during the period 2000–2014. The chapter accounts for the origin of intangibles and the different productivity effects associated with domestic and imported intangible inputs. Furthermore, it distinguishes between the effects of backward participation (that is, upstream production linkages with foreign suppliers) and forward participation in GVCs (corresponding to downstream production linkages with foreign clients). The empirical results indicate that increased intensity of intangible inputs and GVC participation can lead to productivity gains, but these gains are mainly attributed to domestic intangible inputs and forward participation in GVCs.
Note
1 A simple Google search with terms such as “intangible asset valuation” will persuade the reader.
References
Andrews, D., Criscuolo, C., and Gal, P. (2015) Frontier firms, technology diffusion and public policy: Micro evidence from OECD countries. OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 2. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Bavdaž, M., Bounfour, A., Martin, J., Nonnis, A., Perani, G., and Redek, T. (2023) Measuring investment in intangible assets. In: Snijkers, G., Bavdaž, M., Bender, S., Jones, J., MacFeely S., Sakshaug, J. W., Thompson, K. J., and van Delden, A. (eds) Advances in Establishment Statistics, Methods and Data Collection, pp. 79–104. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L. M., and Yang, S. (2002) Intangible assets: Computers and organizational capital. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2002(1), 137–181.
Brynjolfsson, E. and McAfee, A. (2011) Race Against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy. Lexington, MA: Digital Frontier Press.
Brynjolfsson, E. and McAfee, A. (2014) The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., and Syverson C. (2017) Artificial intelligence and the modern productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics (No. w24001). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., and Syverson, C. (2021) The productivity j-curve: How intangibles complement general purpose technologies. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 13(1), 333–372.
Caloghirou, Y., Protogerou, A., Panagiotopoulos, P., and Tsakanikas, A. (2021) Deliverable 4.4: Final report describing the survey results and methodology. WP4: Large scale pilot survey of intangible investments, GLOBALINTO: Capturing the value of intangible assets in micro data to promote the EU's growth and competitiveness, an Horizon 2020 project (2019–2022).
Corrado, C., Haskel, J., Jona-Lasinio, C., and Iommi, M. (2018) Intangible investment in the EU and US before and since the Great Recession and its contribution to productivity growth. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 2(1), 11–36.
Corrado, C., Haskel, J., Jona-Lasinio, C., and Iommi, M. (2022) Intangible capital and modern economies. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 36(3), 3–28.
Corrado, C., Hulten, C., and Sichel, D. (2005) Measuring capital and technology: An expanded framework. In: Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pp. 11–46. University of Chicago Press.
Corrado, C., Hulten, C., and Sichel, D. (2009) Intangible capital and US economic growth. Review of Income and Wealth, 55(3), 661–685.
Cowen, T. (2011) The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will (eventually) Feel Better. USA: Dutton.
Crouzet, N. and Eberly, J. (2021) Intangibles, markups, and the measurement of productivity growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 124, S92–S109.
Crouzet, N., Janice, C., Eberly, J. C., Eisfeldt, A. L., and Papanikolaou, D. (2020) The economics of intangible capital. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 36(3), 29–52. European Commission. (2013) Investing in intangibles: Economic assets and innovation drivers for growth. Flash Eurobarometer No. 369. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry.
Goldin, I., Koutroumpis, P., Lafond, F., and Winkler, J. (2023) Why is productivity slowing down? Journal of Economic Literature forthcoming. https://www.aeaweb. org/articles?id=10.1257/jel.20221543&&from=f
Gordon, R. J. (2016) Perspectives on the rise and fall of American growth. American Economic Review, 106(5), 72–76.
Haskel, J. and Westlake, S. (2018) Capitalism without Capital. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Haskel, J., and Westlake, S. (2022) Restarting the Future: How to Fix the Intangible Economy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Le Mouel, M. (2022) Measuring the intangible economy to address policy challenges. Working Paper 03/2022, Bruegel.
Lev, B. (2001) Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Lev, B., and Gu, F. (2016) The End of Accounting and the Path Forward for Investors and Managers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Montresor, S. and Vezzani, A. (2016) Intangible investments and innovation propensity: Evidence from the Innobarometer 2013. Industry and Innovation, 23(4), 331–352.
Nakamura, L. I. (1999, July) Intangibles: what put the new in the new economy? Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 3–16.
Nakamura, L. I. (2010) Intangible assets and national income accounting. Review of Income and Wealth, 56, S135–55.
OECD/Eurostat. (2018) Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th ed. Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg: The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing.
Roth, F., Sen, A., and Rammer, C. (2022) The role of intangibles in firm-level productivity – evidence from Germany, industry and innovation. Industry and Innovation. doi:10.1080/13662716.2022.2138280
Thum-Thysen, A., Voigt, P., and Weiss, C. (2021) Complementarities in capital formation and production: Tangible and intangible assets across Europe (No. 2021/12). EIB Working Papers.
United Nations (2009) System of national accounts 2008 (2008 SNA). New York: UN.
Veblen, T. (1908) On the nature of capital: Investment, intangible assets, and the pecuniary magnate. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 23(1), 104–136.
2 The productivity puzzle in the context of (new) growth determinants
Tjaša Redek, Polona Domadenik Muren, Eva Erjavec, Matjaž Koman, Črt Kostevc, Jože Sambt, Rok Spruk, Vesna Žabkar, Daša Farčnik and Tanja Istenič
2.1 Introduction
The European Union and other developed countries have been struggling with declining and sluggish productivity growth compared to emerging economies. The struggle has been intensified by short-run macroeconomic, political, and other factors. The European Union is not unique in its experience. The trends in labour productivity globally show that (Redek et al. 2019): (1) developed economies have been significantly lagging in productivity growth behind the emerging markets; (2) the gap between European economies (the EU) and the USA is still large, despite the gradual decrease in the post-crisis period; (3) productivity growth in both the Euro area and the EU-28 has been slowing since the second half of the 1990s, with this trend not being overturned by the 2004 EU expansion; and (4) the differences in productivity levels within the EU remain large notwithstanding the decline in the productivity gap.
The crucial question is how to boost productivity growth. Productivity is the outcome of a complex set of external and firm-specific factors. Among the external productivity determinants, factors such as the institutional environment in the broadest context, macroeconomic characteristics, the technological and business environment in general, international links, policy measures, and many other factors affect the firm’s performance and its behaviour. At the firm level, labour and human capital, R&D, the amount and composition of capital, allocation of resources, use of new technologies, intangible capital accumulation and structure, and others are important.
This chapter highlights the role of the above-mentioned productivity determinants to provide an in-depth understanding of each of them and to highlight the position and specific role of intangible capital, which aligns with the core interest of this book.
2.2
Recent trends in productivity
In 2021 the average GDP per working hour in 2015 prices (PPP) was US$60.8 in the Euro area (19 countries) and US$55.3 in the EU27, while in the USA it reached almost US$75 (OECD 2022). Cumulatively, from 1995, when the Euro (19) area was at 97.3% of the US level, it dropped to only 81.2% of the
EU27 to US Euro19 to US
Figure 2.1 Ratio of GDP per hour worked of EU27 and Euro area to the USA in % (in US$, constant 2015 prices, PPP)
Data: OECD 2022
US level in 2015, measured by GDP per hour worked (PPP). The EU27 lost ten percentage points in the same period (Figure 2.1). In addition, productivity growth has been systematically lower in the Euro area than in the USA. Before the 2009 crisis (1995–2008), productivity growth was, on average, 2.2% per year in the USA and only around 1.1% in the Euro area. Between 2010 and 2021, productivity growth declined significantly in both regions but remained just above 1% in the USA and dropped to just below 1% in the Euro area. In the past decade, the EU27, on average, grew compared to the USA. Before 2009, the productivity growth gap was around ½ percentage point (OECD data, own calculations, Figure 2.1).
Recent OECD data (2022) show that the productivity gap between the USA and the EU, as well as the Euro area, remains high. The EU27 and Euro area gap with the US expanded significantly, especially between 1995 and 2010. Irrespective of the very slight drop in the recent post-crisis period, the EU27 remains around 30% less productive than the USA, and the Euro area is around 20% less productive than the USA (Figure 2.1).
2.3 Productivity determinants
Productivity growth at the aggregate level reflects complex dynamics and interplay between numerous variables. These variables can be divided into (1) those that stem from the business environment and are more or less exogenous to firms and (2) those which can be affected by firms and are thus firm specific. These variables are studied in more detail in the following sub-sections.
2.3.1
Institutions and productivity growth
The institutional framework’s impact on labour productivity has long been recognized (Acemoglu 2010). It imposes formal and informal constraints on economic agents, thereby shaping the incentives to engage in productive activities, and matters for agent-specific transaction costs and economic outcomes such as productivity and the unemployment rate (North 1987). Institutions can be divided into economic and political ones (Acemoglu and Johnson 2005), which affect human, business, and societal behaviour and thereby also productivity.
To date, the empirical evidence shows that labour market institutions have a strong impact on firm-level and aggregate productivity growth (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012; Barro 1996; Rodrik et al. 2004). Barro (1996), for example, showed that increased political freedom and democracy are positive for growth. However, the relationship is not linear. Alesina et al. (1996) highlight the negative relationship between economic performance and the high probability of government failure (collapse). Spruk (2016) investigates de facto institutional differences over de jure institutions as causes of divergent growth and development and shows in a large sample of countries over almost 200 years that “institutional differences account for up to two-thirds of within-country development path and up to 83% of between-country development gaps”, which confirms Acemoglu’s (2010) proposition that institutions are, besides geography and luck, the fundamental cause of growth, while capital and labour accumulation are “correlates” to growth. Legal institutions are an important driver of labour productivity growth, causing differences through transaction costs, security of property rights, quality of corporate governance, distribution of bargaining power between employers and employees, and contracting laws (Porta et al. 2008). Institutions also directly impact labour productivity and firm performance via the labour market (Blanchard 2017) by inducing the persistence of labour market rigidities like excessively generous unemployment insurance, high employment protection, and high minimum wages. This is, for example, regarded as a pivotal mechanism in the slow productivity growth in the EU15 compared to the USA (Bertola and Rogerson 1997; Siebert 1997).
2.3.2
Macroeconomic environment
Macroeconomic stability and a growth-supporting macroeconomic environment are identified in the literature as core elements for sustainable, persistent growth and successful implementation of industrial policies in support of productivity growth (Stiglitz and Greenwald 2014). A favourable macroeconomic environment is one with stable prices, balanced budgets, and declining government debt, since this increases business confidence, contributes to lower costs of capital, and promotes investment (Centre for the Study of Living Standards 1998). The literature argues that high public debt (and related spending), like inflation and an increasing budget deficit, stifles
private investment in the long run (Afonso and Jalles 2013; Teles and Mussolini 2012; Tsionas 2003).
Demand-side economists consistently stress the role of demand-side policies in supporting aggregate spending and helping to keep the economy functioning near its full potential (Centre for the Study of Living Standards 1998). Abiad et al. (2016) argue that increased public investment is positively related to output and that, in the long term, it crowds in private investment and reduces unemployment. Fournier (2016) argues that public investment positively impacts long-term growth and highlights the composition of public investments, primarily the role of public investment in health and in R&D.
Financial development from its low levels leads to higher capital accumulation and results in economic growth, but in a well-developed financial system, the provision of financial capital may become inefficiently high, causing either a positive or negative impact on growth (Cournède et al. 2015).
Empirical studies (see Heil 2017 for a literature review) suggest that financial development from a low level improves economic growth by reducing capital constraints and allowing allocation to productive enterprises. However, this effect diminishes as the provision of finance rises. Access to finance is also important. Dethier (2011) examined 98 countries and found that access to finance was ranked as either the biggest or second-biggest obstacle by firms in Eastern Europe and Central, East, and South Asia. Warusawitharana and Levine (2012) establish that financial frictions inhibit firm-level productivity growth, while Heil (2017) states that inefficiencies in finance (due to low financial development or financial frictions, e.g., limits on contract monitoring, collateral constraints) slow economic growth and reduce productivity growth. Andrews et al. (2014) show that costly bankruptcy regimes lead to less favourable responses of firm capital to patenting.
2.3.3 International trade, exchange rates, FDI, and productivity
The European “convergence machine” (Gill and Raiser 2012) was largely fuelled by trade and its effects within the sizeable European community, especially due to the large 2004 EU expansion, although its impact on economic convergence has been declining (Ridao-Cano and Bodewig 2019). International linkages via several channels have long been shown to impact productivity and growth, primarily because of trade, FDI, and other related factors. Palley (2011) lists three strains in the literature that support the export-led hypothesis. The first follows the standard Heckscher–Ohlin model, the second adds that openness helps control rent-seeking behaviour, and the third strain, which has become very popular, stresses that trade is linked to knowledge spillover, technology transfer, learning, and innovation, all of which increase productivity and its growth. Exports are, for several reasons, perceived as a key driver of growth, especially in small, open, and catch-up economies. First, exports represent a large share of aggregate demand (GDP) and can, as such, contribute to overall economic dynamics, also stimulating investment and productivity.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
T P G B H
B : R
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
Title: Heilige Banden: Roman
Author: Abraham Anthony Fokker
Release date: June 23, 2022 [eBook #68381]
Language: Dutch
Original publication: Netherlands: C.A.J. van Dishoeck, 1903
Credits: Jeroen Hellingman and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net/ for Project Gutenberg (Prepared from scans kindly made available by the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague) *** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HEILIGE BANDEN: ROMAN ***
[Inhoud]
[Inhoud]
HEILIGE BANDEN
[Inhoud]
LEIDEN: STOOMBOEKDRUKKERIJ VAN L. VAN NIFTERIK HZ.
[Inhoud]
HEILIGE BANDEN
A. A. FOKKER (KARAMATI)
UITGEGEVEN IN 1903 DOOR C. A. J.
VAN DISHOECK TE BUSSUM.
ROMAN VAN
[Inhoud]
I.
Paula stond op van haar stoeltje in de studeerkamer van haar man. Ze had er met hem koffie gedronken, zooals ze dat gewoon waren sinds jaren, na den eten. Hij had intusschen wat zitten bladeren in een oud manuscript, een bijna vergeten stuk werk uit een portefeuille met half voltooide of afgekeurde opstellen, die hij toevallig weer in handen gekregen had. Nu en dan hadden ze een woord gewisseld. Zij had zich verveeld.
„Kom, ik ga ’s naar Louise. Ik moet haar kindje eens zien,” zeide zij, trad op hem toe, en gaf hem een tikje tegen de wang.
„Blijf je lang uit?” vroeg hij, op eens geheel aandacht.
Ze lachte even. Ze wist dat hij haar vooral ’s avonds moeilijk missen kon.
„O, nee, een oogenblik. Ik ben terug vóor de thee; maak je maar niet ongerust. Daag!”
„Goed, goed, tot straks!” [2]
Weg was ze.
Hij keek haar na, en bleef staren naar de deur waardoor ze heen was gegaan.
Ze waren dertien jaar getrouwd, en nòg was hij verliefd. Hij begreep het soms zelf niet.… Hij, de ernstige man van studie, reeds de veertig voorbij, nog verliefd als in de eerste dagen van hun huwelijk!
’t Was hem nu weer duidelijk op dat oogenblik: die vrouw was een element in zijn leven dat hij niet missen kon. Hij kon zich het leven niet buiten haar denken, zij was hem dierbaar en onontbeerlijk als het licht zijner oogen. Neen, meer nog; want blind zou hij nog aan ’t leven hechten, zonder zijn Paula scheen het hem waardeloos. En zij had hem immers lief, het bekoorlijke vrouwtje dat zijn bestaan doorzonde.
Ondanks haar vier-en-dertig jaren was ze altijd even aantrekkelijk voor hem. Hij kende geen gebaar van haar, geen houding, geen stemgeluid, dat hem ooit mishaagd had, en haar schoonheid was hem telkens en telkens weer een bron van nieuw genot.
Droomerig staarde hij vóor zich uit, half omgedraaid in de bureaustoel. Haar beeld was nog niet weggewischt van zijn geest: hij zag haar nog, zooals ze, bevallig als altijd, met een beminnelijk lachje weggewipt was, luchtig als een vogeltje, en toch met volkomen zelfbewuste bewegingen.
Hij was toch een zondagskind! Hij.… zoo’n [3]vrouwtje!.… En hij dacht aan al de moeilijkheden die indertijd hun huwelijk in de weg hadden gestaan, haar aanvankelijke tegenzin, zijn aanhouden. En thans, ná zooveel jaren nog geluk.… Hij was vader, sinds het tweede jaar van hun echt, en het nieuwe geluk had zich naast het oude gesteld, had het aangevuld en verhoogd, zonder het in ’t minst te verdringen. Hun eenigst kind was een meisje van elf jaar, en zijn verlangen naar een zoon was na korte vervulling—’t ventje was nu vijf jaar geleden na dertien maanden levens gestorven—verder onbevredigd gebleven. Ander verdriet had hij nooit gekend, en ’t gemeenschappelijk leed had man en vrouw immers dichter bijeen gebracht, als dat mogelijk was.… O, geen twijfel: hij was gelukkig. Hij.… En ’t kwam hem voor de zooveelste maal vóor de geest, hoe weinig aantrekkelijk hij als man wel moest wezen. Hij was ernstig en
in zich zelf gekeerd, een man van studie en huiselijke neigingen, en .… waarlijk geen verschijning om een vrouwenhart in gloed te zetten. Men moest hem kennen, goed kennen. Ja, dat wàs ’t: zij kènde hem, en daarom had ze hem lief.… Dat pleitte voor haar degelijkheid. Ze had best andere, even goede partijen kunnen doen. ’t Is waar, hij was „knap”, maar de meeste vrouwen hebben dat woord, op een man toegepast, liever in de andere beteekenis. Hij was professor op zijn acht-en-twintigste jaar, en had wat geld. Doch wat zou dat?
Paula [4]had hem zeker niet daarom genomen, al waren haar ouders vrij onbemiddeld; zij de gevierde, mooie, geestige Paula Lindes.
De bureau-stoel kraakte. Larsen’s blik dwaalde naar de andere zijde van ’t ruime studeervertrek. Daar stond Paula’s schrijftafeltje. ’t
Paste eigenlijk niet in de strenge eenvoud der omgeving: ’t stond daar als het beeld van haar losse gratie tegenover de ietwat logge ernst van zijn wezen. Zij had het meubeltje boven laten brengen uit haar „pruilkamertje”, voor de gezelligheid, om meer bij hem te zijn, zooals ze zeide.
Als onwillekeurig aangetrokken, richtte Larsen zich op, en ging naar het schrijftafeltje toe.
O, er was niets bizonders aan te zien. Hij had het honderd malen gezien. Zij had er in zijn bijzijn nu reeds tientallen geurige briefjes aan vriendinnen en verwanten aan zitten afpennen, haar werk slechts afbrekend om nu en dan guitig op te kijken, en hem, quasi ruw, toe te roepen:
„Zeg’s, geleerde, s l e p e n met twee e’s of met éen? Kom, gauw ’s wat!” of iets dergelijks.
Ze had immers ook geen geheimen voor hem.… Aan ’t tafeltje was niets bizonders, evenmin als aan de inhoud der laadjes. Hij kende al haar brieven. Hij keek ze voor haar na, steeds. Bij al haar
ontwikkeling had de spelling van haar moedertaal haar steeds [5]moeilijkheden in de weg gelegd. Ze vond die „stupide”, en „kon er geen touw aan vastknoopen”. Ze was te levendig, ongedurig, zenuwachtig, om ooit de ingewikkelde regels onzer orthografie behoorlijk uit een te houden. En op „Kollewijnsche” manier te spellen vond ze te „burgerlijk” of „kruidenierachtig”, wat bij haar op ’t zelfde neerkwam.
Wat kon ze ’n brieven schrijven! Zes kleine, geurige, rooskleurige of roomgetinte velletjes waren in een ommezien vol gekrabbeld. En wat een hand! Zes regels op een bladzijde. O, hij zag haar zitten, met het gitzwarte haar in een sierlijke dikke wrong, waarin éen fraaie haarnaald haar fonkelend knopje vertoonde, de „dolle” haartjes in de nek, en dan ’t enkele lokje, dat vóor over ’t voorhoofd neerviel, en telkens met een driftige beweging werd weggetrokken, tusschen twee vurige adjectieven eener ontboezeming in. Dan haar plotseling zich omwenden, om een vraag te doen, of naar „hem” te kijken, uit pure ongedurigheid: de pen balanceerend tusschen wijs- en middenvinger der linkerhand, de rechterarm languit over de leuning van haar stoeltje geslagen, met groote, kinderlijk open blik en iets sterk verwachtends in de oogopslag als van een paardrijdster, die zich plotseling voorbereidt tot een sprong door een hoepel.
Hij had dikwijls opgezien van zijn werk, als zij zoo opkeek, de verliefde „lobbes”, zooals zij hem noemde. [6]En had hij haar dan in stilte gadegeslagen, wanneer ze half omgewend in gepeins zat met de saamgeknepen lipjes, waarboven ’t fijne zwarte dons zoo aardig uitkwam. Soms had ze hem betrapt en, bruusk als altijd, had ze hem toegeroepen:
„Hei daar, ouwe jonge, eet me niet op met je oogen! Schaam je wat. Ga aan je werk.” En met een ruk zette zij zich dan weer aan haar brief, om voort te kriewelen in ritselende vaart.
Larsen zat voor het schrijftafeltje.
Waarom lustte het hem op dat oogenblik de laadjes open te trekken, éen voor éen, en er de bundeltjes veelkleurige brieven en briefjes uit te nemen? Om ze te lezen? Och, hij kende ze immers alle! Geleuter en gebabbel van vrouwtjes, overdreven uitingen van vriendschap, van verveling of ergernis, van vreugdetjes of smartjes van meest onbeduidende vrouwenleventjes! Om de geur in te ademen die Paula binnen haar fijne bewegelijke neusvleugeltjes liet dringen, om aan te raken wat haar poezele vingertjes betast hadden, om in dwaas verliefd doen te grasduinen in een atmosfeer van haar wezen.…
Droomerig nam hij pakje voor pakje uit de laadjes en legde ze weer neer, ordelijk, zooals ze gelegen hadden. Enkele losse brieven keek hij even in, nauw glimlachend nu en dan bij een woord, dat hij las— „l i e v e z o e t e P a u l e p o e t j e ”: dat was van [7]Louise, een brief van huis geschreven door Louise, toen ze haar zielsvriendin de eerste roes van ’t komend moederschap meedeelde—„d o e m ij n u i t b u n d i g e g r o e t e n a a n j e b e m i n d e z o o l t r e d e r o f h u i s b a n d ”: dit was van M a r g o t , die hem altijd op zoo’n vervelende manier „in ’t ootje” wilde nemen, en steeds meende daarin te slagen—och, hij gunde haar ’t genoegen: ze moest haar aardigheden met alle geweld luchten—en zoo ging het voort. Een enkel halfvoltooid briefje van Paula zelf, later afgekeurd: „Och, help me, red me, verlos me uit deze zee van verveling, die me overstelpt en verzwelgt! En mijn man, die zoo geleerd is en zoo degelijk en zoo ernstig! Kom bij ons eten: je m o e t , versta je? en vandaag nog.…” Wat had hij er om gelachen indertijd, en juist dit had haar ontwapend en haar van ’t zenden van ’t schriftuur doen afzien.
Een dwaas vrouwtje! En toch: hij wenschte haar zich niet anders. Zijn Paula was een geheel van dwaasheden en lieve
eigenschappen, die hij zich niet anders denken kon. Hij had zich geen moeite gegeven haar te leiden. Trouwens, had hij ’t gekund? Kon een man als hij een vrouw leiden? Hij lachte zelf om ’t idee. Wat schaadden hem haar kleine onvolkomenheden! ’t Is waar, in de dertien jaar van hun huwelijk was zijn kapitaal tot op de helft geslonken, [8]maar wat zou dat nog? Hij had immers nog voldoende, en nu was zijn traktement toch groot genoeg om bijna toe te komen. Anderen betaalden hun geluk wel duurder—of wat ze voor geluk aanzagen.
Een merkwaardig archiefje, dat van zijn vrouw.… Waarom hield ze die brieven alle bij elkaar? ’t Was toch alles, of grootendeels althans, nullig … Ja, maar ’t waren trouwe afdrukken van echt-vrouwelijk leven, ’t was natuur, al deed de weelderigheid aan tropische plantengroei denken; en uit alles steeg de bedwelming der elegante vrouw, als de geur eener grillige orchidee.
Aanbiddelijk, verrukkelijk, ondanks haar grilligheid, neen òm haar grilligheid. Want was ze niet edel en beminnelijk, bij al haar kleine tekortkomingen, niet ontoegankelijk voor ontheiliging als de bloem der diepe wouden, die slechts geurt en bloeit voor de gelukkige die haar vindt. Hij was die gelukkige. Hij was zoo zeker van zijn bezit, dat hij nooit jaloezie voelde bij al haar behaagzieke streekjes en aanstellerijtjes—hij kende ze, hij vond ze „lief”, o, „ergerlijk lief”, zooals hij ’t vaak noemde—hij was zóo overtuigd van de degelijke grondslag van haar karakter, dat hij bijna nooit boos werd om haar driftbuitjes, die nu en dan voorkwamen; hij lachte er om op goedige, lobbesachtige wijze. Dan vond ze hem „stupide”, en ook dit vond hij vermakelijk … [9]
Larsen had de beide laadjes doorsnuffeld, en schoof ze nu met kracht dicht.
Links van ’t bureautje hing een spiegel. Onwillekeurig viel zijn oog op zijn beeld, ’t Gebeurde niet vaak, dat hij in een spiegel keek, en de tegenstelling met Paula trof hem als iets grappigs. Hij zag zijn door ’t vele lezen en schrijven ietwat gekromde gestalte, zijn dun haar aan de slapen, het hoog voorhoofd, de borstelige wenkbrauwen—rood! evenals zijn baard en snor—zijn eenigszins breede neus, de vrij groote mond, als wegschuilend in ’t overvloedige baardhaar met de dunne op elkaar geknepen lippen met een trekje van goedige ironie, zijn moede blauwe oogen; ’t geheel wel forsch en mannelijk, maar hoekig en onbeholpen! Hij had iets van een beer, een „zooltreder”, zooals de would-be geestige Margot hem noemde: niet daarom alleen, maar ook omdat hij op zijn gemak gesteld was als alle geleerden, en thuis meestal op pantoffels liep. Hij zag ook de onberispelijkheid van zijn linnengoed—h a a r zorg, ondanks al zijn protesten!—de strik van zijn zwarte das—door haar gelegd! Nee, zeker, hij was niet terugstootend of onaangenaam.… maar toch welk een contrast tusschen die beiden! Hij glimlachte, kalm voldaan over zijn geluk, en wendde zich om.
Daar viel zijn blik op een wit stuk papier onder ’t bureautje van zijn vrouw. O, hij had bij ’t dichtschuiven [10]der lade een briefje er uit laten vallen. ’t Had tusschen tafel en lade beklemd gezeten.
Hij raapte ’t op. ’t Was in elkaar gevouwen, en hij opende het, als ongedachtig. ’t Was een oude brief, reeds geel geworden.
De inhoud boeide hem onmiddellijk op onweerstaanbare wijze. Hij zette zich weer op de stoel vóor ’t bureautje, boog zich voorover, en steunde het hoofd op éen arm.
’t Papier ontgleed aan zijn vingers, en viel op de grond.
Wat stond er eigenlijk? ’t Schemerde hem vóor de oogen en hij beefde. Zenuwachtig bukte hij zich, en hervatte de lectuur, ontdaan,
een ander mensch dan te voren.
Dan liet hij ’t vóor zich vallen, boog geheel voorover, de beide handen krampachtig aan ’t hoofd gedrukt.
„Mijn God, mijn God!” kermde hij.
Hij was geen man van hevige gemoedsuitingen. Zijn zielsleven was tot dusverre zoo kalm, zoo vredig en ongestoord geweest; en al wat daar in zijn binnenste omging kwam zoo zelden aan de oppervlakte.
In zijn oogenblikken van hoogste intimiteit bleef hij schijnbaar onbewogen. Toch was zijn gevoeligheid groot, zijn ontvankelijkheid voor indrukken fijn ontwikkeld. Wat anderen koud liet deed hem vaak pijnlijk [11]aan, wat anderen onverschillig voorbijgingen was hem dikwijls genot. Hij voelde diep, al uitte hij weinig. Vereering was daarom bij hem verafgoding, liefde aanbidding. Zijn liefde voor Paula was hem heiliger dan het heiligste, samenhangend en innig verbonden met de edelste aandoeningen zijner ziel, neen, éen daarmee, ’t Geloof in haar was ’t geloof in ’t schoone en reine. Al was hij ’t zich niet volkomen bewust, hij had de dichter kunnen nazeggen:
Ton nom est ma prière de la nuit et du jour!
Paula was wat wuft, wat lichtzinnig, wat dol soms, goed, maar.… ze was immers rein als een engel, de belichaming van wat aanbiddelijk is in een vrouw. En die overtuiging had hem gelukkig gemaakt, nu dertien jaren lang, was zijn kracht geweest en zijn trots …
Hij zag ze thans vóor zich, die dertien jaren van slechts kort gestoorde levensvreugde, al de herinneringen doorliepen zijn geest als een verbijsterende fantasmagorie, scherp omlijnd en voorbij snellend als een koortsdroom. Hij doorleefde nog eens al die onvergetelijke gebeurtenissen van zijn huwelijksleven, van ’t
oogenblik dat hij Paula zijn eerste kus gaf, tot nu. En ’t was of thans de reeks afsloot; en ’t slottafereel der afgerolde jaren week en week terug in zijn voorstellingsvermogen met wondere snelheid. [12]
Tusschen nu en straks—nauw vijf minuten!—lag een eeuwigheid voor hem.
Hij richtte het hoofd op, als verdwaasd. Zijn haren waren verward, hij staarde rond, wezenloos, zonder gedachte dan deze éene, die hem waanzinnig maakte:
„’t Is uit, mijn God, ’t is uit, voor goed!”
En toch, ’t was ongelooflijk, ’t kon, ’t mocht niet waar zijn. ’t Kon er niet staan, ’t was een zinsbegoocheling, hij moest gedroomd hebben.
Wederom greep hij naar de brief, en voor de derde keer las hij de woorden, die in zijn gemoed brandden met onduldbare smart:
Liefste, ’t Kan niet langer zoo. Dit leven is mij een hel geworden en ik ga heen, zooals ik je gezegd heb O, Paula, hoe kàn je anders van mij verwachten, hoe kan je van me vergen dat we dat komediespel nog éen dag langer voortzetten? ’t Is mij onbegrijpelijk, hoe ik het nog deze maand heb kunnen uithouden. Ons kind te zien en mij te verheugen in ’t bezit van zulk een schat, ’t pand van onze liefde, en steeds te huichelen, alsof z ij n vadervreugde mij een verkwikkelijk schouwspel was; aan te zien dat hij, mijn weldoener, degeen aan wie ik alles te danken heb, zich gelukkig waant, en mij in zijn hartelijkheid over [13]zijn geluk spreekt in geestdriftige woorden, alsof ik erin deelen moest; terwijl hij anders zoo gesloten is tegenover anderen.… o, ’t is mij onmogelijk verder. Ik kan hem de hand niet meer drukken, en hem in de trouwe oogen zien, zonder dat mijn geweten mij voor een verrader, een ondankbare huichelaar scheldt.
Ik ga naar Indië. Je weet dat ik er hem over gesproken heb, en dat hij mijn plan goedkeurt Ik heb hem gezegd dat ik haastig weg moest, omdat de maatschappij, die mij door zijn tusschenkomst uitzendt, mijn diensten eerder noodig had dan ik oorspronkelijk dacht—een plotseling telegram uit Indië en ik zou na de noodige besprekingen te Amsterdam, nog eens terugkomen, om afscheid van jou en D i d i te nemen. Ik doe ’t echter niet, en ik zal wel een uitvlucht vinden, en hem uit Amsterdam schrijven, dat ik tot mijn grooten spijt niet meer kan terugkomen.
Draag je smart zoo goed je kunt En, o Paula, wees goed voor h e m Tracht h e m lief te hebben en mij te vergeten Ik ben een onwaardige en h ij is zoo goed! Mijn God, als ik denk dat zijn goedheid zóo vergolden is!
’t Ga je goed in je verdere leven Vergeet mij en mijn liefde Ik zal als een man strijden tegen het misdadige gevoel en ’t overwinnen, om eindelijk na [14]jaren van boete mij waardig te maken, om hem terug te zien en om vergiffenis te smeeken.
R
Weder zonk Larsen’s hoofd neder, en in doffe wanhoop snikte hij ’t uit, verplet, vernietigd. [15]
