A Policy Framework for Knowledge-Based Capital
OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry
MIT Sloan School Center for Digital Business
in association with the
Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy of the National Academies
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Ave.
Washington, DC
December 3-4, 2012
Objective: Bringing together a group of leading academics and policy analysts, in an informal setting, this workshop aims to examine conceptual and policy frameworks for knowledge-based (intangible) capital. A deeper understanding of knowledge-based assets is a critical step toward advancing economic policy. Better understanding can help governments meet new economic challenges, avoid systemic dysfunction, and promote informed development and growth – rather than merely fine-tuning the status quo. The deliberations will feed into the conclusions of a wide-ranging two-year OECD project on knowledge-based capital and growth.
Introduction: the Agenda for Knowledge-based Capital and Intangible Assets |
Alistair Nolan, OECD |
Session 1: Intangible Assets in Corporate Reporting and National Accounts |
Work on intangibles has emphasised their growing importance in business investment, as a source of market value, and as a measure of national capacity and potential. But while transparency and accountability contribute to investor confidence and the efficient operation of markets, there are mixed motivations regarding what to reveal, when, and at what cost. Progress has been made with categorisation and measurement at the level of national accounts (the Corrado-Hulten-Sichel framework), but major questions remain. For example:
PanelistsChair: J. Steven Landefeld, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Carol Corrado, Conference Board and Georgetown University Margaret Blair, Vanderbilt University Mariagrazia Squicciarini, OECD
|
Session 2: Transformation of Ownership and Capital |
Analysis of intangible assets has focused on problems of tangibility and visibility while assuming that “assets” are exclusively owned. However, the non-rival nature of knowledge opens up many alternatives to unified control, while creative use of contracts, instruments, and special-purpose entities has introduced alternative means of partitioning assets and managing risk. Complex digital products, systems and ecosystems often feature variations on shared control such as modularity, platforms, and standards.
PanelistsChair: Dan Andrews, OECD Andrew Updegrove, Gesmer Updegrove LLP Carliss Y. Baldwin, Harvard Business School
|
Session 3: Digitisation |
Digitisation has played a multifaceted role in expanding the scope and significance of knowledge-based assets. Digitisation expands the nature of knowledge, extends the reach of information, and leverages the economic footprint of financial and knowledge-based assets. It invigorates social and relationship capital and generates consumer surplus. It has accelerated the creation, management and application of knowledge, lowered transaction costs, and enabled large-scale markets for financial and tangible products.
PanelistsChair: Detlef Eckert, European Commission Michael Mandel, Progressive Policy Institute Marshall Van Alstyne, Boston University/MIT John King, University of Michigan
|
Session 4: Human Capital: Fluidity in Space and Time |
Human capital is the earliest, most pervasive and most important form of knowledge-based capital – and is intimately linked to exploitation of other forms of knowledge-based capital. While human capital can be credentialed and contracted for, it is in large part latent, tacit, and imperfectly controlled. Many aspects and levels of human capital are often missed in the conventional discussion of jobs and skill, but deeper attention has been triggered by a wide set of policy issues that demand a broad perspective, including the growing stratification of skills and income; mobility across borders and employers; the need for adaptive and hybrid competencies; and the mixed effects of technology on the workforce.
PanelistsChair: Katharine Abraham, Council of Economic Advisers Javier Miranda, U.S. Census Bureau Kathryn Shaw, Stanford University
|
Session 5: Intellectual Property: Knowledge Assets, Regulatory Rights or Legal Obligations? |
In contrast to human capital, intellectual property appears to emulate many desirable characteristics of tangible assets. Patents, in particular, are codified, bounded, and tradable, although the value and role of patents is industry and context dependent. Patents also appear as embodiments of new knowledge that are intended to promote disclosure and knowledge transfer, yet transaction costs are high, boundaries are often ill-defined, and legal knowledge about patents must be mediated through specialists. While patents are visibly linked to products in some markets (pharmaceuticals), they are largely ignored prior to the threat of litigation in other markets (software).
PanelistsChair: Tony Clayton, United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Colleen Chien, Santa Clara University Peter S. Menell, University of California, Berkeley
|
Session 6: Taxing Intangibles in the Global Economy |
Conventions have evolved for tax treatment of tangible assets, such as distinctions between ad valorem and income taxes, active vs. passive income, and source vs. residence. Certain knowledge-based assets benefit from favoured treatment, while nominal and beneficial ownership can be readily transferred across borders, and the creative use of licensing to avoid taxes has recently attracted scrutiny. Yet intangible assets can be sources of income and economic advantage. Can – and should – they be better tied to territorial interests.
PanelistsChair: Rosanne Altshuler, Rutgers University Hugh Ault, Boston College Law School Mihir Desai, Harvard Business School Steven Clark, OECD
|
Session 7: Roundtable: Policy Design for Knowledge-based Capital |
Knowledge is acclaimed as a resource in many policy contexts, but the breadth and complex nature of knowledge makes it difficult to deal with knowledge-based capital as a coherent policy domain or within a manageable institutional framework.
|
PanelistsChair: Brian Kahin, MIT Joshua L. Rosenbloom, National Science Foundation Detlef Eckert, European Commission Charles Hulten, University of Maryland Stephen Merrill, National Academy of Sciences Matthew Gerdin, U.S. State Department
|
Closing Remarks and Next Steps |
Andrew Wyckoff, OECD |
Related Documents