Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. The studies mentioned above have analysed the effect of intangible assets at the national or highly aggregated industry level. Our study, in contrast, takes a micro perspective and investigates how intangible assets affect productivity at the firmlevel. It is common knowledge that there is an extremely large heterogeneity in (labour) productivity at the firm level -even within the same industry. Productivity differences seem furthermore to be a persistent phenomenon (Doms and Bartelsman, 2000). These characteristics of firm-level productivity variation and persistence has aroused research into the underlying factors (Syverson, 2011). One argument that is put forward to explain these large productivity differences is the heterogeneity of firms' investments in intangible assets, which have been insufficiently taken into account in traditional productivity estimations. There is a substantial literature studying productivity effects of R&D, ICT and human capital in isolation (for recent surveys see Hall et al., 2010;de la Fuente, 2011; Abramovsky and Griffith, 2009). Less is known, however, about productivity effects of other types of intangible assets. We contribute to the literature by simultaneously investigating productivity effects of a comprehensive set of intangible assets following the conceptual framework of Corrado et al. (2009) and by asking whether different kinds of intangible assets are complements or substitutes. In particular, our econometric approach accounts for Innovative Capital (measured by current R&D expenditure, design & licenses expenditure, and patent stock), Human Capital (proxied by training expenditure and share of high skilled labour), Branding Capital (measured by marketing expenditure and trademark stocks), and Organizational Capital (proxied by the introduction of an organizational innovation). Using panel data for German companies covering the period 2006-2010, we can draw the following conclusions. First, even when controlling for a comprehensive set of intangible assets, we find strong positive productivity effects for R&D, brand capital and firm-specific human capital. However, due to collinearity the single effects turn out to be smaller compared to studies that use one type of intangible assets only. Second, we also find positive long-term productivity effects for firms investing in innovative capital and branding capital. That is both a firm's accumulated stock of granted patents and trademarks are conducive to current produc...

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. The Dynamic Relationship between Investments inBrand Equity and Firm Profitability:Evidence using Trademark Registrations January 2016Abstract Most marketing practitioners and scholars agree that marketing assets such as brand equity significantly contribute to a firm's financial performance. In this paper, we model brand equity as an unobservable stock that results from up to thirty years of past brand-related investment flows. Using firm-specific trademarks as investment proxies, our results show a significant long-run impact on financial performance. The dynamic profile of brand-related investments has an inverted-U shape that reaches its peak after eleven years. On average, it takes four years before brand related investments show a positive return, and investments older than nineteen years show no significant impact. For the median trademarking firm, brand equity contributes 265,000 Euro to annual profits.

This paper analyzes the use and effectiveness of patents and trade secrets designed to protect innovation. While previous studies have usually considered patents and trade secrets as substitutes for one another, we investigate to what extent and in what situations the two protection methods are used jointly. We identify protection strategies for single innovation firms and hence overcome the assignment problem of existing empirical studies, that is, whether firms using both protection methods do so for the same innovation or for different innovations. Employing firm panel data from Germany, we find fairly few differences between the determinants for choosing secrecy and patenting. Single innovators that combine both strategies, 39% of the group, tend to aim at a higher level of innovation and act in a more uncertain technological environment. Firms combining both protection methods yield significantly higher sales with new-to-market innovations, providing some evidence for a complementarity of the two protection methods.

Most marketing practitioners and scholars agree that marketing assets such as brand equity significantly contribute to a firm's financial performance. In this paper, we model brand equity as an unobservable stock that results from up to thirty years of past brand-related investment flows. Using firm-specific trademarks as investment proxies, our results show a significant long-run impact on financial performance. The dynamic profile of brand-related investments has an inverted-U shape that reaches its peak after eleven years. On average, it takes four years before brand related investments show a positive return, and investments older than nineteen years show no significant impact. For the median trademarking firm, brand equity contributes 265,000 Euro to annual profits.

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. Non-technical summaryIn Europe, policy has acknowledged that nowadays knowledge has become a key factor for firms to survive and grow in the increasingly globalised economy. This has found expression in the Lisbon agenda and also in the current EU2020 strategy that emphasizes that growth should be smart, sustainable, and inclusive. Smart growth means developing economies based on knowledge and innovations.A key characteristic of knowledge is its intangible nature which makes it hard to measure its amount, quality or effects. In a recent work, Corrado et al. (2005Corrado et al. ( , 2009 henceforth CHS) proposed an approach that defines three broad categories of intangible assets: Investment in computerized information (software, computerized databases), innovative property (e.g. R&D, copyright, licences, spending on new architectural and engineering designs) and economic competencies (brand equity, firm specific human capital and organizational capital). Using the CHS approach, evidence at the macro level has shown the importance of investment in intangible assets for economic growth in many countries around the world. But it has also been revealed that there is a large heterogeneity across countries and that European countries are lagging behind the US.Different reasons might explain this finding, leading to quite different policy conclusions. On the one hand European firms might invest less in knowledge capital than their US competitors within the same industry. On the other hand it might be explained by differences in industry structure and differences across industries in the amount and composition of intangible investment.This paper investigates the role intangible capital plays for economic growth in different sectors in Germany. It consists of two major parts. In the first part, we aim at measuring spending and investment in intangibles at the sector level. We provide different data sources, shed light on differences across sectors but also compare these figures with investment in physical capital and with investment in intangibles in the UK as European benchmark (see Marrano and Haskel 2006). In the second part, we explore the role of intangible assets for stimulating growth at the sector level by performing growth accounting analyses.We find that German firms have intensified their efforts to invest in intangible capital from 1995-2006 by 30% (computerized information: +100%, innovative property: +40%, economic competences: +25%). Nearly half of the inv...