Global Value Chains and Productivity Growth: Does Intangible Capital Matter?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the impact of participation in global value chains (GVCs) on productivity growth considering the mediating effect of investment in intangible assets. We explore the existence of synergies between intangible capital accumulation and GVC participation and their influence on productivity in a sample of nine European economies in 1998-2013. The analysis relates the macroeconomic literature on the impact of intangibles and GVCs on productivity growth to microeconomic studies about the functions of intangibles along the value chain. The existence of complementarities between intangibles and GVC participation and their productivity effects are tested in an augmented production function framework. We find: a) positive and statistically significant productivity impact of backward participation; b) the marginal effect of GVC participation on growth is greater in countries-industries with higher intensity of intangible capital; c) non-R&D intangibles, and particularly organizational capital, exert a significant conditional effect on backward participation strengthening the productivity returns of global production activity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it