Measuring The Income To Intangibles In Goods Production A Global Value Chain Approach

Today’s production processes are fragmented across countries and industries. Intangibles play an important role, but their measurement is elusive. This paper proposes a new empirical framework to measure factor incomes in production that spans industries and countries.

Today's production processes are fragmented across countries and industries. Intangibles play an important role, but their measurement is elusive. Their use is not bound by a location and they can be shared across plants. We propose a new empirical framework to measure factor incomes in production that spans industries and countries. We define intangible capital income residually as the difference between the value of a final product and the costs of all tangible factor inputs (capital and labour) in any stage of production. We bring this to the data using the WIOD and additional national account statistics on capital stocks. For manufactured products we find that the share of intangible capital income in final output increased rapidly since 2000, levelling off after 2008. In 2014 it stood at about 31 per cent. This is much higher than the tangible capital income share (18 per cent). For pharmaceuticals, furniture, textiles and food the intangible income share remained roughly constant over 2000-2014. In contrast the share increased rapidly for machinery and equipment products until 2008, slightly declining afterwards. We find that across all products about one quarter of the intangibles incomes is realised in the distribution stage (from factory to consumer). One quarter is realised in the final production stage and half in other production stages. The latter has increased in particular in the early 2000. We discuss measurement problems and stress the explorative nature of the exercise.

The World Intellectual Property Report 2017 examines the crucial role of intangibles such as technology, design and branding in international manufacturing. Macroeconomic analysis is complemented by case studies of the global value chains for three products – coffee, photovoltaic energy cells and smartphones – to give an insightful picture of the importance of intellectual property and other intangibles in modern production.

The paper describes: a) the coffee industry and its GVC structure; b) the role that intangible assets play in value creation from both the supply and demand perspective; and c) the current and potential role of intellectual property tools in creating and retaining value, as well as providing economic upgrade options.

This report uses data on individual smart phones as well as industry data to identify which smartphone firms capture the most value. It finds that Apple captures most of the industry profits, thanks to its high prices, large profit margins and the volume of iPhone sales worldwide. Apple’s success is explained as a result of its ability to develop its own intellectual property (IP) and take advantage of IP created by suppliers through a strategy of selling only a few models at high prices compared to competitors.

A radical shift is underway in global value chains as they increasingly move beyond traditional manufacturing processes to services and other intangible assets. Digitization is a leading factor in this transformation, which is being accelerated by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The Global Value Chain Development Report, the third of a biennial series, explores this shift beyond production. The report shows how the rise of services value chains offers a new path to development and how protectionism and geopolitical tensions, environmental risks, and pandemics are undermining the stability of global value chains and forcing their reorganization geographically. It is co-published by the WTO, the Asian Development Bank, the Research Institute for Global Value Chains at the University of International Business and Economics, the Institute of Developing Economies, and the China Development Research Foundation.

Global value chains (GVCs) powered the surge of international trade after 1990 and now account for almost half of all trade. This shift enabled an unprecedented economic convergence: poor countries grew rapidly and began to catch up with richer countries. Since the 2008 global financial crisis, however, the growth of trade has been sluggish and the expansion of GVCs has stalled. Meanwhile, serious threats have emerged to the model of trade-led growth. New technologies could draw production closer to the consumer and reduce the demand for labor. And trade conflicts among large countries could lead to a retrenchment or a segmentation of GVCs. World Development Report 2020: Trading for Development in the Age of Global Value Chains examines whether there is still a path to development through GVCs and trade. It concludes that technological change is, at this stage, more a boon than a curse. GVCs can continue to boost growth, create better jobs, and reduce poverty provided that developing countries implement deeper reforms to promote GVC participation; industrial countries pursue open, predictable policies; and all countries revive multilateral cooperation.

Over the last two decades, world trade and production have become increasingly organized around global value chains (GVC). Recent theoretical work has shown that countries can benefit from participation in GVCs through multiple channels. However, little is known empirically about the economic importance of supply chains. We use the Eora MRIO database to compute different measures of GVC participation for 189 countries and illustrate global patterns of supply chains as well as their evolution over time in order to contribute to this topic. We find that GVC-related trade, rather than conventional trade, has a positive impact on income per capita and productivity, however there is large heterogeneity and the gains appear more signifcant for upper-middle and high-income countries. We document that “moving up” to more high-tech sectors while participating in major supply chains does take place but is not universal, suggesting other factors matter. We confirm the findings of the standard gravity literature for GVC trade; highlighting the key role of institutional features such as contract enforcement and the quality of infrastructure as determinants of GVC participation.