Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Víctor Raúl López Ruiz et al.
Table 4: Panel data relationships between intellectual capital components and GDP (per capita at
constant dollars)
Components
Qualifications
Motivation and
employability
Excess employability
Process
Relational
External and internal
Image
Research,
Development and
Innovation
Social and
Environmental
R 2
Regression 1:Human
Capital
Coefficient
(Elasticity)
15.54272
(0.804)
18.44895
(0.056)
T-Stat
49.15132
12.60838
Regression 2: Structural
Capital
Coefficient
(Elasticity)
0.083239
(0.047)
1.670248
(0.062)
0.050209
(0.0096)
9.360531
(0.114)
T-Stat
3.925446
5.644141
2.247112
3.800079
Regression 3: Intellectual
Capital
Coefficient
(Elasticity)
14.67855
(0.803)
0.056509
(0.048)
14.22958
(0.555)
14.34199
0.936433 0.937913 0.943563
Source: Own elaboration. Pooled Least Squares. Total panel observations: 216 (3x72).
6. Conclusions
T-Stat
43.84944
5.543384
GDP has traditionally been used to measure national economic development. However, in <strong>the</strong> current
knowledge economy, o<strong>the</strong>r factors have a great influence on growth and do not appear to be captured
by GDP. In this research, we have made an estimation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> national intellectual capital in monetary
terms. It allows comparing results obtained for different years. Moreover we have estimate <strong>the</strong> value
<strong>of</strong> this capital for each main component <strong>of</strong> it: human and structural capital.
In valuation <strong>of</strong> national intellectual capital we have used an objective weighting (applying a princiapal
componenet analysis) in <strong>the</strong> elaboration <strong>of</strong> efficiency indexes for each component that allow to obtain
unbiased efficiency indicators.
The more important results can be summarizing as:
First <strong>of</strong> all, national intellectual capital is a divergence factor in terms <strong>of</strong> economic growth in <strong>the</strong>
2000 decade, <strong>the</strong>refore if we use this measure <strong>of</strong> wealth in a nation <strong>the</strong> difference between
countries will be higher.
Second, <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital allows anticipating <strong>the</strong> economic crisis beginning in 2000. In this
sense, we can emphasize <strong>the</strong> important <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> structural capital in <strong>the</strong> economic situation in 2008.
It shows that governments have to make more attacks in <strong>the</strong>se aspects.
Finally, when we analyses each components <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se capitals we can obtain that <strong>the</strong> more
relevant factors in <strong>the</strong> economic growth are <strong>the</strong> human capital and within <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> qualification <strong>of</strong>
its inhabitants. In structural capital are Social and Environmental (SE) and Research,
Development and Innovation (R&D&I) more important factors.
7. Appendix 1
Table 2: Details: Human and structural capital per capita at constant dollars
Country
Human
Structural
Capital
Capital
2000 2005 2008 2000 2005 2008
Argentina 353.879 105.513 156.935 1733.046 662.123 447.331
Armenia 17.785 43.510 95.607 31.632 58.841 134.982
Australia 1139.616 1439.686 1764.437 12662.248 21984.754 16919.565
Austria 1388.202 1952.066 2400.163 4731.839 19475.706 10314.690
Belgium 1422.765 2101.469 2588.146 25175.212 19687.283 15744.644
194