Search results

This paper analyzes the productivity effects of structural capital such as research and development (R&D) and organizational capital (OC). Innovation work also produces innovation-labor-biased technical change (IBTC) and knowledge spillovers. Analyses use full register-based dataset of Finnish firms for the period 1994–2014 from Statistics Finland.

Intangibles are derived from the labor costs of innovation-type occupations using linked employer-employee data. The approach is consistent with National Accounting and offered as one method in OECD (2010) and applied in statistical offices, e.g. in measuring software. The EU 7th framework Innodrive project 2008–2011 extended this method to cover R&D and OC.

Methodology is implementable at firm-level and offers way to link personnel reporting to intangible assets. The OC-IBTC as well as total resources allocated to OC are relevant for productivity growth. The R&D stock is relatively higher but R&D-IBTC is smaller than OC-IBTC. Public policy should, besides technology policy, account for OC and OC-IBTC and related knowledge spillovers in the industries that are most important among the SMEs (low market-share-firms).

The data are based on remote access to Statistics Finland; the data cannot be disseminated.

Intangible assets are measured from innovation work that encompasses not only R&D work. IBTC is proxied in production function estimation by relative compensations on IA work. The non-competing nature of IAs is captured by IA knowledge spillovers. The sample sizes are much higher than in earlier studies on horizontal knowledge spillovers (such as for SMEs,) thus bringing additional generality to the results.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the economic performance of Norwegian crop farms using a stochastic frontier analysis.

The analysis was based on a translog cost function and unbalanced farm-level panel data for 1991–2013 from 455 Norwegian farms specialized in crop production in eastern and central regions of Norway.

The results of the analysis show that the mean efficiency was about 78–81 percent. Farm management practices and socioeconomic factors were shown to significantly affect the economic performance of Norwegian crop farms.

Farmers are getting different types of support from the government and the study does not account for the different effects of different kinds of subsidy on cost efficiency. Different subsidies might have different effects on farm performance. To get more informative and useful results, it would be necessary to repeat the analysis with less aggregated data on subsidy payments.

One implication for farmers (and their advisers) is that many of them are less efficient than the estimated benchmark (best performing farms). Thus, those lagging behind the best performing farms need to look at the way they are operating and to seek out ways to save costs or increase crop production. Perhaps there are things for lagging farmers to learn from their more productive farming neighbors. For instance, those farmers not practicing crop rotation might be well advised to try that practice.

For both taxpayers and consumers, one implication is that the contributions they pay that go to subsidize farmers appear to bring some benefits in terms of more efficient production that, in turn, increase the supply of some foods so possibly making food prices more affordable.

Unlike previous performance studies in the literature, the authors estimated farm-level economic performance accounting for the contribution of both an important farm management practice and selected socioeconomic factors. Good farm management practices, captured through crop rotation, land tenure, government support and off-farm activities were found to have made a positive and statistically significant contribution to reducing the cost of production on crop-producing farms in the Central and Eastern regions of Norway.