Intellectual capital: national implications for industrial competitiveness

Kongkiti Phusavat · Narongsak Comepa · Agnieszka Sitko‐Lutek · Keng‐Boon Ooi

27 citations0/0 files storedIndustrial Management & Data Systems

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Intellectual Capital and Performance Analysis Economic Growth and Productivity Global Trade and Competitiveness

Abstract

Purpose The paper is based on a project with the Department of Industrial Work (DIW) in Thailand for promoting intellectual capital (IC), which aims to boost the country's long-term industrial competitiveness. The purpose of this paper is to focus on examining the interrelationships between IC and economic development (i.e. GDP per capita) in Thailand and other neighboring countries in Southeast Asia. The second objective is to identify the IC targets to help enable the DIW to propose future policy initiatives relating to IC. Design/methodology/approach The key steps include a selection of IC indicator(s) to assess IC impacts on the country's economic development. There are five countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand) to be examined for the IC impacts due to their economy sizes. The methodology involves statistical analysis for understanding the interrelationships and identifying the IC targets for Thailand and the future policy initiatives are derived through the review discussion with DIW administrators. Findings Initially, two IC indicators were selected. However, only National Intellectual Capital Indicator (NICI) was statistically significant to the GDP per capita. A further examination revealed that the NICI target for Thailand and a remaining three countries needs to reach 5.0, in order to move from the efficiency-driven to the innovation-driven stage. The economic development stages are outlined by the Global Competitiveness Report (published by World Economic Forum) which indicates a GDP per capita over $US 17,000. Originality/value The paper underlines the need for the DIW to continue a development of the IC-related performance indicators for local firms, in both manufacturing and service sectors. In the past, the DIW has encouraged them to primarily measure quality and productivity (including Economic Value Added) as their key non-financial area. The IC-related indicators may emerge as one of several alternatives for productivity and quality measurement.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

References

1997Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company's True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower 2007Strategic Brand Management 2004Intellectual Capital Profiles: An Examination of Investments and Returns*1999Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge 2005An empirical investigation of the relationship between intellectual capital and firms’ market value and financial performance 2006Knowledge-worker productivity: the biggest challenge 2000VAIC™ an accounting tool for IC management 1997Developing intellectual capital at Skandia

Cited by

2013The Web-Based Learning Program of Ergonomics as a Tool for Promoting Sustainable Well-Being at Work in a Large Company

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.