Intellectual Assets in Japan
View from the OECD
28-30 November 2005
Intellectual Assets Week of Japan
RIETI conference
Nobuo TANAKA
Director for Science, Technology and Industry
OECD
1 1
I. Why does the OECD study
Intellectual Assets?
2 2
OECD Project on the Intellectual
Assets and Value Creation
Ministers meeting at the OECD in May of 2004 recognised:
“…the critical importance of ‘intellectual assets’, including
the human capital, innovation and business networks in
enhancing productivity and in sustaining growth in a
competitive global market. They proposed a programme of
work aimed at improving understanding of the
role of intellectual assets and their importance
to economic performance.”
3 3
Background:
Strong Japanese, UK, NLD & Nordic interest
Q
Q
Q
Q
Danish requirement of an intellectual capital
statement;
Overhaul of UK Company Law;
METI’s “Intellectual Property Disclosure Guidelines”
Motivating factors:
–
–
–
–
Ageing populations;
New competitors;
Outsourcing / off-shoring phenomenon;
IT driven productivity & complementary investments;
4 4
Background:
Previous OECD work on Intangibles
™
1962 Conference on Measurement of R&D (Frascati Manual);
™
1992 Technology and Economy Programme;
™
1998 Technology, Productivity and Job Creation project;
™
1999 Symposium on Measuring and Reporting Intellectual
Assets;
™
2001 Growth Study (“The New Economy: Beyond the
Hype”).
5 5
OECD members have shown divergent Economic Performance. But WHY?
Winners
and
Losers
Source:
OECD’s
Growth
Report,
“The
New
Economy
: Beyond
the
hype”
2001.
6 6
Current Ranking of GDP per capita Growth
7 7
Reason was ICT use, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and
Human Capital : Micro Economic Drivers of Growth = IA
C hange in PC intensity per 100 inhabitants,
1992-99
50
Pick-up in MFP growth and
increase in ICT use
40
Greenspan
noticed US
productivity
growth in late
1990s came
from
Intangibles.
U nited States
Sw eden
D enm ark
N orw ay
A ustralia
30
N etherlands
C anada
N ew Zealand
U nited K ingdom
20
Japan
France
G erm any
B elgium
Finland
Ireland
10
Italy
Spain
0
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
C hange in M FP grow th corrected for hours w orked
Note: Change in multi-factor productivity growth corrected for hours worked, average 1990s minus
average 1980s.
Source: OECD
8 8
How big are Intellectual Assets?
US
Source: Corrado, Huten & Sichel, 2004
NIPA = National Income and Product Accounts
9 9
US Labour Productivity
(AAGR, Output per hour worked)
Official series*
Including intangibles
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1973-1990
1990-1995
1995-2002
10 10
* Excludes software
Source: Corrado, Huten & Sichel, 2004
How big are Intellectual Assets?
Investment in knowledge
Investment in machinery & equipment
11 11
OECD STI Scoreboard 2005
As a percentage of GDP, 2002
12 12
OECD STI Scoreboard 2005
How big are Intellectual Assets?
The transition to a knowledge-based economy
Aggregate Market Value
(USA)
1978
Aggregate Market Value of
top 200 firms on the Tokyo
Stock Exchange（ 2001）
Microsoft
Corporation（2001）
1998
Intangible assets
17%
Intangible
assets
Intangible
assets
Tangible
assets
144 trillion yen (30%)
Intangible
assets
69%
Tangible
assets
83%
36.7 billion dollars
(94%)
324 trillion yen (70%)
Tangible
assets
31%
Tangible assets
2.3 billion dollars
(6%)
Source: Blair, et al.（2000）
METI, Japan
Source: METI Report, “Methodology of
‘Brand’ Valuation” (2002)
Source: Iwai (2003)
13 13
Winners
and
Losers (II)
GDP per capita levels and growth rates:
Gap vis-à-vis the US
US
US
Going for Growth – Economic Policy Reforms (2005), OECD
14 14
Micro Economic Drivers of Growth:
A Greek Temple of New Economy
Intellectual Assets
& Value Creation
R&D
Patents, brands, etc
Software
Human capital
Organisat’l capabilities
New Economy,
Knowledge-based Economy
Globalisation R&D
n
it o
a
v
o
n
In
HighlySkilled
an l
m ita
u
H ap
C
MNEs
Other Fundamentals
Security/safety
Trust
in New Technologies
Internet
e
ic
r
ir s s
p ic
ne
r
e
te am
/G
n
E yn
T
IC
D
T
Economic Fundamentals
15 15
Components of Intellectual Assets
R&D/ Innovation system
Q IPR: Patents, copyrights, brands, etc
Q Software / Business models /
Organisational capabilities
Q Human capital / Training
Q
16 16
1. R&D / Innovation system of Japan
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
High R&D Intensity
Business R&D driven
Globalisation of R&D : Increased Role of
MNE and mobile high-skilled workers
Entry of major new - R&D - players in the
world arena - China, India.
Is Japan’s “Closed” system sustainable?
Centralized system?
17 17
R&D Intensity: Business and public spending on
R&D as a percentage of GDP, 2003
Private R&D
Public R&D
Per cent
5
4
3
2
1
Source : OECD Main science and technology indicators database.
E
SW
FI
N
N
JP
CH
E
K
O
R
U
SA
IS
L
BE
L
D
EU
D
N
K
T
A
U
FR
A
G
BR
S
O
EC
D
A
U
N
LD
CZ
E
N
O
R
CA
N
IR
L
ES
P
IT
A
N
ZL
SV
K
H
U
N
PR
T
L
TU
R
G
RC
PO
M
EX
0
18 18
Share of multinational enterprises in R&D and turnover
Share of R&D expenditure and turnover of affiliates under foreign control in
total manufacturing R&D and turnover, 2002
R&D expenditure (%)
80
Hungary (3)
Ireland (1)
70
60
Czech Republic
50
Portugal (1)
Spain (1)
40
Sweden (1)
Canada
Italy (1)
United Kingdom (2)
30
Germany (1)
Netherlands (1)
France (1)
20
United States
Finland (1)
Turkey (4)
10
Poland
Japan (1)
0
0
10
20
30
40
(1) 2001, (2) 1999, (3) 1998, (4) 2000
Source: OECD, Activities of Foreign Affiliates database
50
60
70
80
Turnover (%)
19 19
R&D: Business, public, foreign... absorptive
capacity, impacts...
Q
Q
Business R&D is a key driver of productivity growth
Public R&D is also contributes to productivity growth
– Econometric studies (STI WP 2001/3 by D. Guellec et. al. ; M. Khan
2005)
Q
But a lot depends on countries’ absorption capacity
– Infrastructure, human capital
Q
Q
Foreign R&D plays an important role
Benefits of foreign R&D closely linked with openness
– Mobility of researchers and students, FDI, joint ventures, collaboration
Q
Q
Important to understand the interactions between different sources
of R&D funding or types of performers and over all absorptive
capacity
Impact of R&D and human capital on productivity growth differs
across countries.
20 20
Ireland: Success of Comprehensive Strategy for Growth
Model for a Region?
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Education reform to create skilled workers (English speaking
and relatively low-cost)
Trade Liberalization to enter EU in 1973
Attract Foreign Direct Investment in manufacturing (tax
incentives) and subsequently in services
Regulatory reform
Invest in R&D by Higher Education as well as Foreign Business
National = Regional Strategy in the expanding EU
Regions link each other beyond the Nation States. Seoul, Tokyo, Beijing,
Shanghai, Dalian, Hyderabad, Silicon Valley, San Jose, Austin, Catalonia,
Langedoc-Roussillon, Trentino etc compete and interact.
21 21
2. Intellectual Property Rights : What Patent
Statistics tell us.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Increasing worldwide trend in collaborative patenting
Strongly driven by patenting of ICT inventions, and also
biotechnology patents
Science systems under increasing pressure as private
stakeholders play increasingly strong role
Intensifying pressure to address trademark counterfeiting and
other IP infringements (OECD work on “ the Economic Impact of
Counterfeiting.”)
Some sectors move to more open / collaborative innovation
system away from “proprietary” system.
Challenge to Japan: Openness and De-Centralisation
Challenge to the current Intellectual Property Protection
Regime.
22 22
Triadic patents per working-age population, 2001
Number of patents in the triadic per million of working age population
Number of patents
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
JP
N
SW
E
CH
E
FI
N
T
BE
L
FR
A
D
N
K
LU
X
U
SA
N
LD
D
EU
U
A
BR
G
R
O
EC
D
O
N
IS
L
IR
E
S
U
A
N
CA
IT
A
R
O
K
ZL
N
ES
P
CZ
E
H
U
N
L
PR
T
G
RC
SV
K
PO
EX
M
TU
R
0
23 23
Share of patents held by foreigners
Foreign ownership of domestic inventions, 1999-2001.
Patent applications filed at the European Patent Office.
Source: OECD, Patent database
24 24
Share of patents registered abroad
Domestic ownership of inventions made abroad, 1999-2001.
Patent applications filed at the European Patent Office.
25 25
Source: OECD, Patent database
Share of patents1 with foreign co-inventors, 1999-2001
Share of patents with foreign coinventors
Luxembourg
Partner country:
United States
Partner country:
Main EU country
Partner country:
Japan
Belgium
53.2
Russian Federation
Germany
Belgium
Germany
Hungary
Germany
China
Germany
India
Germany
Ireland
Canada
United
Kingdom
Switzerland
United
Kingdom
Germany
Brazil
Germany
Austria
Germany
New Zealand
United
Kingdom
Germany
United Kingdom
Norway
Spain
Sweden
Australia
Germany
United
Kingdom
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Germany
Denmark
South Africa
Sweden
France
Netherlands
Germany
Finland
Germany
n.a.
United States
Sweden
Germany
Germany
Italy
n.a.
EU-25 (2)
Germany
OECD (3)
n.a.
Total (4)
Germany
Korea
Japan
%
0
15
30
45 0
Source: OECD, Patent database
Germany
%
15
30
45
0
% n.a.
15
30
45
0
15
26 26
30
%
45
OECD STI Scoreboard 2005
27 27
Regional share to national patents:
2001 - Asia and Oceania TL3
higher than 15%
between 7% and 15%
between 3% and 7%
between 1.5% and 3%
between 0.5% and 1.5%
lower than 0.5%
Source: OECD Territorial Database
Geographic
Intellectual
concentration of
Desert?
patents
Desert
OECD Regions at a
Glance 2004
28 28
Regional share to national patents:
2001 - North America TL3 (Canada TL2)
higher than 15%
between 7% and 15%
between 3% and 7%
between 1.5% and 3%
between 0.5% and 1.5%
lower than 0.5%
Regional share to national patents:
2001 - Europe TL3 (Poland TL2)
higher than 15%
between 7% and 15%
between 3% and 7%
between 1.5% and 3%
between 0.5% and 1.5%
lower than 0.5%
Source: OECD Territorial Database
Source: OECD Territorial Database
29 29
MATCHING AND LEARNING IN CITIES:
URBAN DENSITY AND THE RATE OF INVENTION
Gerald Carlino, Satyajit Chatterjee, & Robert Hunt*
(Ferrara OECD conference on IAVC Oct 2005)
30 30
3. Organisational Capabilities, Business
Models, Software
Q
Q
Q
Q
Growth increasingly driven by Services / New trend
of “Service Economy”
Investment in ICT is important but its use is more
important
Competitive forces of new entrants which are usually
more innovative. Role of Venture Capital
MNEs are generally more productive: Japan is not
using their capability.
31 31
OECD Service Study
The contribution of services to OECD economies is growing
(share of services in total employment, 1970-2002, in %)
80
75
Canada
70
France
Germany
65
Italy
60
Japan
UK
55
USA
50
Q
Q
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
45
Source: OECD STAN Database, 2004
Growing also in Japan
But Japan is still more manufacturing oriented than others
32 32
OECD Service Study
Services now account for almost all employment growth …
Contribution to aggregate employment growth, 1990-2002, percentage points
5
Market services
Other services
Manufacturing & other industries
in percentage points
4
3
2
1
0
Luxembourg
Ireland
Korea
Netherlands
Germany
New Zealand
Canada
Australia
Slovak Republic
United States
Spain
EU
Portugal
France
Italy
United Kingdom
Austria
Greece
Poland
Norway
Belgium
Denmark
Hungary
Japan
Sweden
Finland
-2
OECD
-1
Source: OECD STAN Database, 2004
33 33
OECD Service Study
… and for a considerable share of productivity growth
Contribution to aggregate productivity growth, 1990-2002, percentage points
Total services
Manufacturing and other industries
4.5
in percentage points
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Ita
ly
Au
s tr
Ne
ia
wZ
ea
la n
d
Be
l giu
m
Ja
pa
Lu
n
xe
mb
ou
rg
Po
r tu
ga
l
Ko
r ea
Ge
rm
an
y
Hu
ng
ar y
De
nm
a rk
F in
l an
d
Ca
na
da
No
rw
ay
Sw
ed
en
Au
s tr
Un
ali a
i te
d
Sl o
Sta
te s
va
kR
ep
ub
lic
Gr
ee
ce
Po
Un
l an
i te
d
dK
i ng
do
m
nd
s
rl a
nce
the
Ne
F ra
Sp
a
in
0.0
Source: OECD STAN Database, 2004
34 34
Relative price of services and GDP per capita
The relative price ratio adjusted for differences in the level of GDP per capita
Measured as the difference between the actual and the fitted value of the price ratio appearing in previous slide.
Going for Growth – Economic Policy Reforms (2005), OECD
35 35
U
OECD STI Scoreboard 2005
w
Ir e
la
n
l
d
ce
ay
re
e
or
G
N
d
r ia
an
ga
st
al
Au
Ze
r tu
n
ce
pa
Fr
an
Ja
ly
y
a
s
ai
n
Ita
an
Sp
er
m
re
nd
a
ar
k
ad
Ko
rl a
Po
G
he
m
iu
m
m
an
en
C
D
do
lg
d
li a
an
ra
ng
Be
Ki
st
Fi
nl
es
en
at
ed
St
Au
et
d
d
Sw
te
1995
ew
N
te
ni
1985
N
ni
U
Investment in ICT
As a percentage of gross fixed capital formation
2003
40
%
30
20
10
0
36 36
37 37
OECD STI Scoreboard 2005
OECD Service Study
ICT-using services have shown more rapid productivity
growth in some OECD countries
(contribution to average labour productivity growth, in per cent)
1990-95
1.4
1.2
Countries where productivity growth improved
1996-2002*
Countries where productivity growth
deteriorated
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
Un
i te
d
St
at
es
A
u
Un
st
ra
i te
li a
d
Ki
ng
do
m
Ir e
lan
Sw d
ed
e
Ca n
na
d
De a
N e nm a
th
r
er k
la
nd
Fi s
nl
an
d
Sp
a
No in
rw
ay
Au
st
r ia
Ko
re
a
J
Ne
ap
an
w
Ze
al
an
d
I ta
l
G
er y
m
an
y
Fr
an
ce
-0.6
Source: OECD, STAN Database, September 2004.
Q
But this effect has remained relatively modest in Korea
38 38
39 39
OECD STI Scoreboard 2005
OECD Compendium of Productivity Indicators 2005
40 40
Inward FDI (per cent of GDP)
Source: OECD Economic Surveys – Japan (2004)
41 41
Contribution of multinationals to labour productivity growth,
1995-2001 (percentage points)
Manufacturing
Labour productivity growth
Services
Contribution of foreign affiliates
Labour productivity growth
Contribution of foreign affiliates
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Sweden
United Kingdom
Sweden
France
Hungary
Norway
Finland
Finland
Hungary
United States
Netherlands
United States
Netherlands
France
Japan
Spain
Portugal
%
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Japan
Portugal
%
-1
-1
OECD STI Scoreboard 2005
0
1
2
42 42
3
Ownership barriers to foreign direct investment, 2003
Index
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1. Index scale of 0-6 from least to most restrictive.
Source : OECD Economic Policy Reform, Going for Growth, 2005.
CA
N
TU
R
PO
L
IT
A
JP
N
A
U
S
M
EX
A
U
T
LU
X
SW
E
PR
T
O
EC
D
U
SA
N
O
R
H
U
N
CZ
E
CH
E
K
O
R
N
ZL
FR
A
SV
K
FI
N
EU
RC
G
D
N
K
N
LD
IR
L
IS
L
ES
P
BE
L
EU
D
G
BR
0.0
43 43
Venture capital investment flows as a percentage of
Average over 1995-2002
GDP
1
Per cent
Early stage
Expansion
Buy-outs and others
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
1. 1995-2001 for Australia, Japan, Korea and New Zealand. Countries are ranked
according to the sum of early stage and expansion.
Source : OECD venture capital database.
U
SA
IS
L
BE
L
SW
E
G
BR
N
LD
CA
N
FI
N
R
N
O
R
K
O
IR
L
ES
P
D
EU
FR
A
E
PO
L
CZ
CH
E
D
N
K
IT
A
JP
N
SV
K
A
U
T
N
ZL
G
RC
H
U
N
A
U
S
PR
T
0.0
44 44
4. Human Capital : The Key for Knowledge Economy
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Internationalisation of R&D: The Great Hunt for the
Best and the Brightest.
“The Flight of the Creative Class” by Richard Florida
Mobile High-Skilled Workers: Chinese and Indian
Researchers are key for American success.
Off-shoring of less-skilled job is neither substantial
nor crucial.
Are Japanese cities comfortable enough to attract the
World Creative Class?
45 45
na
da
Ja
pa
n
Ko
re a
F in
la n
Un
d
i te
dS
tat
S w es
ed
en
Ir e
la n
d
Sp
ai n
Au
s tr
a l ia
F ra
Un
nc
i te d
e
Ki n
g
Ne
w Z d om
ea
la
D e nd
nm
a rk
Ne
the
r
S w l an d s
i tz e
rl a
Ge nd
rm
an
Po y
la n
d
It a
ly
Me
xic
o
Tu
rk e
y
Ca
Rise in human capital
(% of population with tertiary level education, 2002)
per cent
60
OECD, Education at a Glance
25 to 34 year olds
45 to 54 year olds
50
40
30
20
10
0
46 46
PISA: Mean mathematics scores – overall (All)
Japanese 15 years old are doing well.
300
350
400
450
500
550
Hong Kong-China
Finland
Korea
Netherlands
Liechtenstein
Japan
Canada
Belgium
Macao-China
Sw itzerland
Australia
New Zealand
Czech Rep.
Iceland
Denmark
France
Sw eden
Austria
Germany
Ireland
Slovak Rep.
Norw ay
Luxembourg
Poland
Hungary
Spain
Latvia
USA
Russian Fed
Portugal
Italy
Greece
Serbia
Turkey
Uruguay
Thailand
Mexico
Indonesia
Tunisia
Brazil
OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 2.5c, p.356.
600
47 47
Highly skilled Migrants
Immigrants as a % of highly skilled native
population
Emigrants as a % of highly skilled in the
country of origin
Main
Destinations
48 48
OECD STI Scoreboard 2005
49 49
Luxembourg
Australia
Switzerland
New Zealand
Canada
Austria
Germany
United States
Sweden
Belgium
Ireland
Greece
Netherlands
France
United Kingdom
Norway
Denmark
Portugal
Spain
Czech Republic
Italy
Hungary
Finland
Slovak Republic
Poland
35.0
Turkey
40.0
Mexico
Japan
Korea
International Migration
Percentage of foreign-born persons and of foreigners in the total population in OECD countries,
circa 2001
Percentage foreign-born
Percentage foreigners
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Number of S&E doctorates awarded to non US citizens in the
US, by citizenship, 2000-03
Chinese Taipei
442
3 biggest European
(Germany, France, UK)
386
Korea
961
Africa
341
Europe (excl. 3 biggest)
1 220
Turkey, 374
Canada, 325
South America (excl. Brazil),
352
Other
2 344
Thailand, 311
Mexico, 219
West Asia (excl. Turkey)
1 291
Japan, 202
Pacific / Australasia, 145
Other East Asia, 136
Brazil, 107
Other countries, 173
China
2 501
9 486 S&E doctorates awarded to foreign students
in 2003 in the United States
50 50
Source, National Science Foundation (US), Science & Engineering Doctorate Awards 2003
Top 20 places of origin of foreign scholars in the US,
Headcount, 2003-04
France
2 842
Israel
1 409
Russia
2 403
Chinese Taipei
1 347
Brazil
1 341
Italy
2 317
United Kingdom
3 117
Spain
1 893
Canada
4 125
Germany
4 737
Japan
5 627
Other
26 874
India
6 809
Other
16 611
Turkey
1 215 Australia
1 197
Mexico
1 032
Netherlands
975
Poland
927
Argentina
820
Korea
7 290
China
14 871
82 905 foreign scholars working in the
United States academia in 2003/04
Source: OECD, based on Institute for International Education
51 51
Urgent Need for Reform of Language Education
TOEFL average scores (99-00)
Comparison
ComparisonofofTOEFL
TOEFLaverage
averagescores
scoresby
byCountry
Country
583
Butan
581
India
566
Philippines
559
China
Nepal
556
Sri Lanka
555
541
Pakistan
510
535
Malaysia
505
533
S.Korea
504
530
Vietnam
Indonesia
525
HongKong
524
Bangladesh
516
Taiwan
515
Afganistan
512
Thailand
511
N.Korea
509
Mongolia
508
Macao
505
Japan
Japan
504
501
500
499
495
493
490
498
496
494
490
485
480
91-93 92-94 93-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00
498
Myanmar
「TOEFL Test and Score Data Summaries」
475
Cambodia
473
Laos
400
Japanese TOEFL scores
450
500
550
600
52 52
53 53
II. Comprehensive and
strategic approach for more
open innovation system in
Japan
54 54
1. Recognise the importance of Intellectual
Assets in the Knowledge-based Economy
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Awareness of IA
IA Management tools
Promote Innovation-Friendliness Test of all social
and economic systems, e.g. EU’s Lisbon Agenda.
Guidelines for IA reporting for corporations
Review of IPR regime
Policy Mix of Innovation
Evaluation Mechanism
55 55
2. Open Innovation System: Use MNEs
Q
Q
Remove unjustified barriers to FDI flows in order
to bring in R&D investments and new technology
by reforming domestic regulations and licensing
requirements that prevent foreign firms from
entering domestic markets. Further, activate the
merger and acquisition market through regulatory
reform.
Increase mobility of high-skilled workers /
researchers into Japan.
56 56
3. Improve access to early stage financing
capital
Q
Promote financial markets reforms that facilitate
the development of venture capital funds and
access to new sources of finance by technologybased SMEs.
57 57
4. Make the higher education system more
responsive to business needs
Q
Improve the match between business needs and
human resources development in higher
education institutions by enhancing industryuniversity co-operation in areas related to
management of technology and core engineering
disciplines.
58 58
5. Promote innovation in services
Q
Strengthen innovation in the service sector by
designing policies to broaden opportunities for
this sector to participate in innovation
programmes
Q
Encourage the development of regional clusters
through decentralisation.
59 59
Factors contributing to Innovation performance
Economics Department project “Innovation Policies”
Table A3.3 Decomposition of R&D intensity relative to OECD average in the year 2000 (%, multiplicative)
Deviation from
OECD Average User Cost
Explanatory Factors
Financial
Factors
Exchange
Rate
NonBERD
Academic
Links
Subsidies
Scientists
PMR
Residual
Foreign
Exposure
IPR
Import Comp
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
-38.4
1.3
27.0
-7.4
1.6
0.0
-3.0
1.7
1.1
-15.5
-3.9
3.1
7.2
3.5
0.5
0.3
11.2
-1.8
-11.6
6.5
-0.8
-9.2
13.5
7.9
-1.3
-0.2
1.8
-1.3
-25.4
-4.1
1.3
-5.3
9.8
-1.2
-2.4
3.5
-49.1
21.3
107.0
18.3
-0.3
-7.8
1.7
3.9
-0.1
0.0
-0.6
-0.5
7.9
8.0
-3.9
11.1
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
31.6
106.6
19.6
50.3
2.8
-0.2
-1.9
-5.0
-10.1
1.6
0.8
-2.7
-2.9
3.5
2.4
-2.4
5.4
28.2
11.4
3.6
-9.9
3.5
-13.1
-5.5
1.0
-3.4
6.6
3.4
-4.7
39.6
-7.1
6.6
-1.1
1.7
-6.3
4.4
55.7
5.9
-20.9
-24.5
-0.3
-0.3
1.9
-5.3
0.1
-0.4
0.1
0.0
9.3
12.2
-4.9
7.1
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Netherlands
-29.1
-54.2
82.0
-5.0
6.4
-2.6
-2.2
4.6
1.3
-3.4
-1.4
-0.9
6.9
0.4
-6.2
-0.2
-27.4
-13.2
15.7
8.6
22.8
-3.5
-9.8
20.5
-2.0
-0.5
-1.2
-2.3
-2.2
-35.3
61.2
-21.9
-8.4
-8.7
-1.0
-1.3
140.7
-29.8
-70.5
110.1
2.7
-2.4
-0.3
-3.0
0.3
0.0
-0.3
-0.1
48.1
0.3
7.5
-1.7
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
-19.5
-80.9
-56.9
153.8
-5.2
5.6
11.4
-4.2
12.9
-4.2
-3.0
3.5
-3.9
-1.5
-2.5
3.8
-1.1
-9.7
-20.3
22.2
13.9
-8.1
5.7
-12.1
-5.4
-0.4
1.3
3.5
17.5
-44.5
-34.5
50.7
3.6
-8.6
-2.5
4.3
5.0
-7.0
-11.9
18.8
3.2
21.5
2.4
-3.0
-2.0
2.0
2.1
-0.1
-33.2
10.3
15.8
-7.4
62.2
3.7
75.2
-2.8
-3.6
-1.8
17.6
13.4
3.9
-3.2
-4.2
-0.4
-2.0
-5.3
-2.2
-4.4
2.1
-3.1
0.2
4.1
-3.1
12.9
-10.3
91.1
-5.4
12.9
10.3
110.4
-10.3
-70.2
1.7
-0.3
-13.2
-0.4
0.2
-1.0
-23.4
4.3
8.3
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States
All calculations are based on the coefficients reported in Column [3] of Table A3.2.
Non-BERD refers to the non-business R&D as a share of GDP. Academic links and subsidies refer to the combined effect of the two separate business funding and subsidy terms
Foreign exposure includes the impact of the foreign R&D stock terms and the openness term. Financial factors combines the profit share and financial market size variables.
60
60
Source: OECD, Economics Department, internal document “Innovation Policies: Innovation in the Business Sector”, Feb ’05.
III. Current OECD Project Formation
on Intellectual Assets and Value
Creation
61 61
OECD’s Multi-disciplinary Approach
™
DSTI: Measurement and Impact Analysis
– Survey of various approaches and estimates;
– New work on the international flows of IA;
– Analysis of the relationship between various intellectual assets and
economic performance (impacts) (firm- and economy-wide level)
™
EDU: Human Capital
– Examine (a) how more refined measures of human capital stock
shed light on value creation; and (b) the impact of selected policies
on value creation (as proxied by rates of return)
– Review good practices of enterprise disclosure of information on
stocks of human capital and their contribution to value creation by
the firm.
™
DAF: Non-Financial Reporting
– Corporate Reporting and corporate governance
62 62
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Definition and
Measurement
Analysis of Impacts
Corp.Governance,
Reporting,
Investment and
Financing
R&D
Human Capital
Intellectual Property
(e.g. patents,
brands)
Software &
Organisational
capabilities
63 63
Key Themes for OECD’s IA-VC project
Q
Analysis and policy implications will be at both the
firm- and the economy-wide-level;
Q
Exploit voluminous previous work on measurement
and classification and will instead focus on valuation
of these assets (separation of high- from low-value);
Q
Analyse their impact on outcomes like profits, share
prices, productivity, economic growth;
Q
Seek to identify means by which firms can harness
these assets for performance in the KBE.
64 64
Basic Outline
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Measurement
2.1 Economy wide estimates: R&D, HC, patents, software-org.
2.2 Firm estimates: R&D, HC, patents, software-org.
3.0 Impacts of IA
3.1 Economy-wide: R&D, HC, patents, software-org.
3.2 Firm: R&D, HC, patents, software-org.
4.0 Reporting
5.0 Implications for Policy Makers
65 65
STI Work Modules
Q
Q
Q
Q
Literature survey on impacts of IA on
economic performance;
Impact on Productivity:
– Business and Public R&D
– Knowledge Spillovers (proxied by patents)
– Human Capital
Tax treatment of Business Investments (Bindex)
Software and organisational capabilities
66 66
IA-VC EVENTS
Q
6 October 2004: OECD Forum on Valuation and Licensing of
Intellectual Assets, Paris;
Q
25 March 2005: OECD Internal Seminar on The Contribution of
Intangible Investments to US Economic Growth, Paris;
Q
29-30 March 2005: Forum on the Internationalisation of R&D,
Brussels;
Q
30 June – 1 July 2005: Economic Valuation and Exploitation of IP
with EPO, Berlin;
Q
20-22 October 2005: International Conference on Intellectual Assets,
Ferrara;
67 67
Main Conclusions of the Berlin Conference on IP
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
The economic value of patents is increasing.
Firms exploit the value of their patents through multiple channels.
Efforts are needed to make the contribution of patents to economic
value more visible.
Markets for technology offer significant social and economic benefits,
but are developing unevenly across the OECD.
A range of intermediaries help technology markets to function
smoothly.
Public institutions have an important role to play.
–
–
–
–
Q
Q
Improving the administration of patent systems:
Providing information to markets.
Education and training.
Supporting patent management in the public sector.
Improved data collection, diffusion and analysis are needed.
Greater international and domestic policy dialogue should be
encouraged.
( Presentations are available at : www.oecd.org/sti/ipr )
68 68
INTERNATIONAL POLICY CONFERENCE
“Intellectual Assets and Innovation:
Value Creation in the Knowledge Economy”
Ferrara, Italy, 20-22 October 2005
www.ferraraonintangibles.net/OECD-FerraraIntangiblesConference
69 69
Preliminary Messages on IAVC at the Ferrara
Conference
Q
There is renewed interest in IA and their role in VC
–
–
–
–
Q
in the context of increased globalisation
as strategic assets
w/ increased emphasis on openness of economies to new ideas
w/ company examples of fundamental restructuring which seizes IA as
primary source of profit (e.g., Philips, iPod)
OECD goal: to objectively evaluate importance of IA
– in light of speculative bubbles (dot.com, current housing one?)
– to provide analysis which identifies the function of IA as part of the
corporate value creation
Q
Q
Q
So far: no clear evidence of a market failure
But awareness may be an issue in large parts of OECD business
community (what is the situation in Japan?)
Lack of sufficient information on IA can have serious economic
consequences
70 70
Conclusion
Restructuring or Boneyard:
The Need for Speed
While restructuring our Company in the 1980s, we spent much
of our time talking about the accelerating pace of change: in world
politics, in technology, in product introduction and in the increasing
demands of customers. We don’t have to do that anymore. Change
is in the air. Newspapers and networks hammer it home daily. GE
people today understand that pace of change, the need for speed,
and the absolute necessity of moving more quickly in everything we
do, from inventory turnover, to product development cycles, to a
faster response to customer needs. They understand that slow-andsteady is a ticket to the boneyard in the 1990s.
“To Our Share Owners” (1990 Annual Report ) of GE
71 71
Thank You!
Nobuo TANAKA
Director for Science, Technology and Industry
OECD
nobuo.tanaka@oecd.org
www.oecd.org/sti
72 72