Intangible Assets and Labor Productivity Growth

We examine the contribution to labor productivity growth in the manufacturing sector of investment in different intangible asset categories¿computerized information, innovative property, and economic competencies¿for a set of 18 European countries between 1995 and 2017, as well as whether this contribution varies between different groups of countries. The motivation is to go a step further and identify which single or combination of intangible assets are relevant. The main findings can be summarized as follows. Firstly, all the three different categories of intangible assets contribute to labor productivity growth. In particular, intangible assets related to economic competences together with innovative property assets have been identified as the main drivers; specifically, advertising and marketing, organizational capital, research and development (R&D) investment, and design. Secondly, splitting the sample of European Union (EU) member states into three groups¿northern, central and southern Europe¿allows for the identification of a significant differentiated behavior between and within groups, in terms of the effects of investment in intangible assets on labor productivity growth. We conclude that measures promoting investment in intangibles at EU level should be accompanied by specific measures focusing on each country's needs, for the purpose of promoting labor productivity growth. The obtained evidence suggests that the solution for the innovation deficit of some European economies consist not only of raising R&D expenditure, but also exploiting complementarities between different types of assets

Empirical essays on labour productivity in EU manufacturing

[eng] The main objective of the present thesis is to analyze the underperformance of labour productivity growth in manufacturing in EU member states and the existence of persistent differences among them in the last decades in comparison to behaviour of other advanced economies as United States. This objective can be decomposed into three sub-objectives. So first, we conduct a comparative analysis of differences in labour productivity growth in manufacturing and next, we try to find out if the differences in labour productivity are due to changes in the industrial structure, to labour productivity deficiencies itself or a combination of both. Finally, in the context where knowledge is an important driver of economic growth and competitiveness in advanced economies, and as intangible assets are considered as “knowledge capital”, we examine the role of investment in intangible assets as contributor to labour productivity growth. The purpose is to identify which intangible assets contribute most to labour productivity growth. To this end, different methodologies have been implemented; firstly a decomposition of gross value added per capita in its main determinants, secondly, we computed two indexes: a structural change index and an index of differences in manufacture’s composition. Thirdly, two different methodologies consisting of a decomposition of aggregate productivity differences into different sources have been implemented. And finally, in order to estimate the contribution of an increase in investment in intangible assets to the growth of labour productivity, a production function Cobb-Douglas has been estimated. The main findings are as follows: differences in labour productivity between the “periphery” Spain and the “centre” Germany are cross-sectional as well as within sectors. Next, industry structure is changing too slowly and is misguided; it does not totally justify the gap in productivity between both countries. Thirdly, intangible assets belonging to the category economic competencies are the main drivers of labour productivity growth, but their effect is not homogeneous. Finally, the existence of heterogeneous effects of investment in intangibles should be taken into account in the design of strategic industrial policy measures

Usefulness of feedback in e-learning from the students' perspective

Purpose: Functionality of feedback in pedagogical processes has been broadly analyzed in face-to-face learning, although to a lesser extent than in the on-line learning. Narciss (2004, 2008) distinguishes two dimensions within the feedback, the semantic dimension and the structural dimension. This article aims to analyze, from the students' perspective, the semantic dimension of feedback in a virtual learning environment (VLE). Firstly, we analyze the importance that VLE students give to feedback and its degree of personalization. Later, the usefulness that students deem feedback should have, paying special attention to each of its semantic subdimensions (Narciss, 2004). Design/methodology/approach: A survey was conducted among students of Business Administration degree of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC). 182 students took part, separated into two groups (pilot and control). Findings: It has been proved that 90% of students give a great or very great importance to reception of feedback from their tutors, a relevance they consider to be higher than the one within a face-to-face environment. This percentage is around 75% with regard to the importance given to the level of personalization of feedback. The development of a factor analysis has revealed that usefulness of personalized feedback perceived by the students can be subsumed under two large dimensions: the one that facilitates learning (related to its semantic dimension) and the motivational one (by allowing an easier and more fluid communication with the tutor, contributing not to leave the course, etc.) The latter dimension has been also proved to be key in order to attain improvements in the students' satisfaction with the learning process. This research was funded by the Catalan government and the UOC, within the framework of projects to Improve Teaching Quality (ITQ). Originality/value: Implementing personalized feedback has a relevant impact on the student, who values it because it makes his learning process easier, richer and more significant. Moreover, it has a clear motivational effect over the student, which had not been sufficiently evidenced by other researches. Such effect needs not to be underestimated, particularly within an on-line environment, where dropout rate is usually high

Usefulness of feedback in e-learning from the students' perspective

Functionality of feedback in pedagogical processes has been broadly analyzed in face-to-face learning, although to a lesser extent than in the on-line learning. Narciss (2004, 2008) distinguishes two dimensions within the feedback, the semantic dimension and the structural dimension. This article aims to analyze, from the student's perspective, the semantic dimension of feedback in a virtual learning environment (VLE). Firstly, we analyze the importance that VLE students give to feedback and its degree of personalization. Later, the usefulness that students deem feedback should have, paying special attention to each of its semantic subdimensions (Narciss, 2004)

Usefulness of feedback in e-learning from the students’ perspective

Purpose: Functionality of feedback in pedagogical processes has been broadly analyzed in face-to-face learning, although to a lesser extent than in the on-line learning. Narciss (2004, 2008) distinguishes two dimensions within the feedback, the semantic dimension and the structural dimension. This article aims to analyze, from the student’s perspective, the semantic dimension of feedback in a virtual learning environment (VLE). Firstly, we analyze the importance that VLE students give to feedback and its degree of personalization. Later, the usefulness that students deem feedback should have, paying special attention to each of its semantic subdimensions (Narciss, 2004). Design/methodology/approach: A survey was conducted among students of Business Administration degree of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC). 182 students took part, separated into two groups (pilot and control). Findings: It has been proved that 90% of students give a great or very great importance to reception of feedback from their tutors, a relevance they consider to be higher than the one within a face-to-face environment. This percentage is around 75% with regard to the importance given to the level of personalization of feedback. The development of a factor analysis has revealed that usefulness of personalized feedback perceived by the students can be subsumed under two large dimensions: the one that facilitates learning (related to its semantic dimension) and the motivational one (by allowing an easier and more fluid communication with the tutor, contributing not to leave the course, etc.) The latter dimension has been also proved to be key in order to attain improvements in the students’ satisfaction with the learning process. This research was funded by the Catalan government and the UOC, within the framework of projects to Improve Teaching Quality (ITQ). Originality/value: Implementing personalized feedback has a relevant impact on the student, who values it because it makes his learning process easier, richer and more significant. Moreover, it has a clear motivational effect over the student, which had not been sufficiently evidenced by other researches. Such effect needs not to be underestimated, particularly within an on-line environment, where dropout rate is usually high.Peer Reviewe