Regional intellectual capital (RIC) indicators in Indonesia

Ulum, Ihyaul; Mudrifah, Mudrifah; Sulistyono, Setyo Wahyu Article Regional intellectual capital (RIC) indicators in Indonesia Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Ulum, Ihyaul; Mudrifah, Mudrifah; Sulistyono, Setyo Wahyu (2023) : Regional intellectual capital (RIC) indicators in Indonesia, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 10, Iss. 1, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/294217 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Regional intellectual capital (RIC) indicators in Indonesia Ihyaul Ulum, Mudrifah Mudrifah & Setyo Wahyu Sulistyono To cite this article: Ihyaul Ulum, Mudrifah Mudrifah & Setyo Wahyu Sulistyono (2023) Regional intellectual capital (RIC) indicators in Indonesia, Cogent Business & Management, 10:1, 2163557, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 © 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 20 Feb 2023. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1224 View related articles View Crossmark data ACCOUNTING, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & BUSINESS ETHICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE Regional intellectual capital (RIC) indicators in Indonesia Ihyaul Ulum 1 *, Mudrifah Mudrifah 1 and Setyo Wahyu Sulistyono 2 Abstract: This study aims to identify acceptable RIC indicators for Indonesian conditions. The article discusses RIC indicators developed from NICs modified from Bontis’s and tailored to the requirements of Indonesia. The research was carried by utilizing data from IC disclosures in 38 Indonesian areas. There are three phases to the process. The first process is in-depth interviews, followed by focus group discussions (FGD), and finally by rediscussion. As a result, human capital in Indonesia, as measured by education, knowledge, and competence, is an example of capacity at the regional level. Customer or national loyalty, exposure to navigation, flexibility, and adaptation are key capital market points in Indonesia. Human capital in Indonesia is an example of capability, as measured by education, knowledge, and competence. Customer or national loyalty, exposure to navigation, flexibility, and adaptation are key capital market points in Indonesia. Meanwhile, the corporate environment, government presence, and knowledge transfer are used to assess process capital. GDP is a proxy for regional financial capital. The renewal capital index is based on basic research, R&D investment, and employer-university partnership. The model is unique in that it includes regional economic capital. The RIC indicators presented in Indonesia’s regions provide the user with numerous options, and the choice can be based on practical considerations such as the availability of needed data, the ease of implementation of the model, or the extent of complexity. Subjects: Business, Management and Accounting; Accounting; Government & Non-Profit Accounting Ihyaul Ulum ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ihyaul Ulum is a professor at Accounting Department, University of Muhammadiyah Malang (UMM), Indonesia. He currently holds the position as Director of Professional Certification Body at UMM. His main research interest include: intellectual capital, intellectual capital disclosure, intellectual capital performance, and public sector accounting. He is the founder of MVAIC (modified value-added intellectual coefficient) and the framework of intellectual capital disclosure for Indonesian university. Mudrifah Mudrifah is a lecturer in the Accounting department, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Muhammadiyah Malang. His research focuses on Public Sector Accounting, primarily Intellectual Capital and Public Sector Performance. Setyo Wahyu Sulistyono is a lecturer at the Department of Economics Development at the University of Muhammadiyah Malang. Currently actively developing research in the field of regional economics. Ulum et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2163557 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 Page 1 of 16 Received: 02 November 2022 Accepted: 23 December 2022 *Corresponding author: Ihyaul Ulum, Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, Indonesia E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Collins G. Ntim, Accounting, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Keywords: intellectual capital; human capital; market capital; process capital; renewal capital index; regional intellectual capital; regional economy capital; country of Indonesia 1. Introduction Creating strategies for managing intellectual capital at the regional level has become a hot subject due to its increasing significance of it as a driver of economic progress. (Secundo et al., 2020; Song et al., 2021). Regional Intellectual Capital (RIC) is now an element of the nation’s most important resource and productivity because it embodies the intangible values of individuals, businesses, institutions, communities, and regions that have essentially become a source of wealth and the development of future prosperity (Bontis, 2004). Moreover, The Public Organization has recognized the value of RIC investment in affecting economic development, job creation, and quality of life at the local level—where it is most accessible to society (Cerisola & Panzera, 2021; Shao & Razzaq, 2022). As a result, researchers have studied assessing RIC during year 2012–2022 (Bontis, 2012; Chao et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2021; Roze, 2021; Vo & Tran, 2022). They even consider and admit that there is a need to determine resources, as (Bontis, 2004) emphasized. However, in the last ten years, different ideas on the measurement of Intellectual Capital have been implemented at the Regional and even National Levels (Sweden, Denmark, Israel, the Arab region, Nordic countries, EU projects, etc.), still not included in any sample (Shkola et al., 2021). Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to assess the National Intellectual Capital in Indonesia, a developing country, by comparing the assessment results with other developing countries. The following steps must be carried out in order to meet the research’s goals: (1) Regional Intellectual Capital valuation methodology; (2) RIC assessment techniques; (3) mapping RIC indicators for developing countries; (4) The value of the RIC level of Developing Countries compared to the RIC level of Indonesia compared to the indicators of wealth and competitiveness of other emerging countries: GDP per capita, Human Development Index (IPM), and World Ranks. Therefore, one of the most famous and popular indicators used to measure National Intellectual Capital is the Intellectual Capital Index (NICI) which Bontis introduced in 2004. The National Intellectual Capital Index (NICI) is a guideline that has emerged over the last ten years—based on the essence of the critical methodology. The NIC indicators have been reduced to the RIC level. As for RIC, for the most part, the author employs a group of quantitative and qualitative indicators, which are usually grouped into five applicable categories: intellectual capital: Human capital, market capital, process capital, renewal capital and regional capital. If there are different composite indices, they will be calculated and connected causally with subsequent economic performance. In the end, different recommendations and suggestions will be given to the results obtained. The most recent research examined by (Mačerinskienė et al., 2019; Švarc et al., 2020; Vo & Tran, 2021) on a series of indicators that explain NIC is proposed. Furthermore, RIC indicators that are derived from NIC are determined based on a variety of criteria. The first is Popularity, the second is strong in reasoning despite various studies, the third is individual wisdom, the fourth is the interrelationship between the Intellectual Capital index and the productivity of a region, and others. Accuracy and correctness are certainly desired basic characteristics, however applying highly valid indicators in big sample studies frequently runs into issues with data availability (Januškaitė & Užienė, 2018). Trequattrini et al. (2018) found that the concept of local IC in an educational perspective is to appreciate the function of entrepreneurship-based universities in building and increasing resources to realize a region. However, the findings suggest that governments need to design focused policies that give higher priority to nurturing local entrepreneurs, promoting successful entrepreneurial role models, and removing bureaucratic barriers to provide more accurate data. In several other previous studies, indicators of intellectual capital are frequently discussed in relation to economic productivity, which is seen to be interconnected with and highly dependent on both intellectual capital and economics (Diebolt & Hippe, 2022). Asgari Seymareh and Ulum et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2163557 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 Page 2 of 16 Armanmehr (2020) found that the system dynamics model indicates the positive and small impact of intellectual capital on Iran’s economic growth. The reason for the small impact of intellectual capital on growth is the lack of infrastructure and complementary conditions that can be provided with appropriate planning and policies. Abdouli and Omri (2021) found that bridging social capital is fundamental for stimulating economic growth, especially in low-skilled regions in 190 regions of 21 EU countries. Other study using a dynamic model based on the system generalized method of moments (SGMM) and analysed a balanced panel data covering 35 countries from 1980–2008 in Sub- Saharan Africa (SSA) has been done by (Abdouli & Omri, 2021), the empirical results show that the two measures of human capital have positive effects on economic growth. Hamidi et al. (2019) builds on Metropolitan Compactness Index (MCI) and examines the relationship between regional compactness and Regional Innovation Capacity (RIC) in the US. Findings indicate that all three indicators of RIC are positively associated with MCI. However, in this study, characteristics that are not directly related to IC, such as the number of natural resources or the success of the national strategy, transportation statistics, and transparency of community satisfaction data are included since they can have an impact on economic productivity. Additionally, according Ali et al. (2018), each nation has a distinct knowledge base based on its degree of Intellectual Capital stock and particular economic performance (GDP). In this study, a combined index in a knowledge platform owned by Indonesia as an emerging country and integrating several indicators of intellectual capital at the regional level will provide valuable information for other emerging countries. 2. Theoretical background 2.1. Literature review Intellectual capital is information and knowledge that can be applied to a job to create value within the company (Bontis, 2001; Moon & Kym, 2006). In general, intellectual capital is divided into three components: customer capital, human capital, and structural capital. VAIC (value-added intellectual coefficient) is a method developed by Public, 1998, and VAIC is a tool used to measure the company’s intellectual capital performance. The three components of VAIC are value-added capital employed (VACA), value-added human capital (VAHU), and structural capital value-added (STVA; Batubara et al., 2021; Yudawisastra et al., 2018). Several academic researchers (Cohen et al., 2014; Hermanto et al., 2021; Pulic, 2012; Sudarsanam et al., 2012) have discussed intellectual capital from a financial perspective, and there are experts who immediately include the country at the conceptual level. Understanding the synergistic modulation link that may add value to each sub-component of intellectual capital is critical to deciding success. Other than increased money, increasing a nation’s intellectuality may enhance people’s lives in a variety of ways. In a country, intellectual capital encompasses the unseen values of individuals, businesses, organizations, communities, and places that may now generate more income. Intellectual capital is examined more comprehensively. Not just as a company’s asset bound in commercial relationships and the environment but also as intellectual property. A community’s capital is tied to relational and geographical closeness. As a result, the concept of national intellectual capital emerged due to this tendency. Define the NIC as all intangible resources accessible to a country or area that give rise to economic activity perceived convenience and which, when combined, can yield future advantages (Bontis, 2012; C. Y.-Y. Lin & Edvinsson, 2010). Several national intellectual capital structural models exist. First, consider intellectual capital. Scandia Navigator’s model, presented by Edvinsson and Malone (1997), is frequently used for national intellectual capital analysis (Bontis, 2004; Edvinsson & Dumay, 2013; Gogan, 2014; Saddam & Jaafar, 2021). The intellectual capital model provided by Scandia Navigator IC components are organized in a hierarchical system. This structural model includes Human capital is separated from intellectual capital, which is then separated from structural capital; market capital is separated into organizational capital, and organizational capital is eventually divided be the capital of renewal and the Ulum et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2163557 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 Page 3 of 16 capital of process This hierarchical structure aids in the identification of distinctions. The significance of component capital type for the ultimate value of national intellectual capital can assess the country’s four categories of capital (people, market, renewal, and process) intellectual capital. Furthermore, the model in this article is built to measure at the regional level by including regional economic capital. 2.2. The regional intellectual capital (RIC) These invisible values are the root of the development of future well-being. For this purpose, it is vital to have a mapping system to describe the intellectual capital that will systematically take into account and follow the evolution of intellectual development. The following structures have been processed from a national-level perspective to a regional level: current market value of regional wealth, current financial capital, financial wealth, regional property, financial property, intellectual capital, human capital, market capital, renewal capital, process capital, and regional economy capital. The system used to describe the construction of national intellectual capital can be presented in a modified intellectual capital navigator for the regional level. Although intellectual capital literature covers only the past ten years, the regional view on this phenomenon remains in its infancy (Kuzkin et al., 2019). The countries that have measured and examined the development of their intellectual capital are Europe (Kuzkin et al., 2019) and Asia (C. Y.-Y. Lin & Edvinsson, 2010) before Indonesia did so. This paper aims to find RIC indicators that are suitable for Indonesian conditions. 2.3. The country of Indonesia There are still few reports or research on intellectual capital development published, especially for the territory of Indonesia or any Indonesian country personally. This study aims to fill that void and initiate a process whereby the evaluation of Intellectual Capital for the Indonesian region becomes a critical policy intervention. Although Indonesian countries have never been examined through the lens of the intellectual capital framework, there have been independent evaluations of several sub-components of intellectual capital from various organizations, including the United Nations and Bank Indonesia or the World Bank. In carrying out the modernization of the Indonesian state, it must have the following principles: (1) Human investment through education and training; (2) View workers as intellectual assets; and (3) Embed and maintained innovation. Increasing the spirit of cooperation between workers and citizens as the basis for effective collective performance, especially now that modernization is no longer a luxury but an inevitable necessity for countries that work intending to achieve prosperity and welfare for their people. The challenge visible in Indonesia is that Indonesia is a developing country with abundant natural resources and contributes significantly to the pace of its economy, which affects its level of wealth. The country of Indonesia is a country with a high level of import demand because it is a country that produces abundant natural wealth, which results in sustainable growth in import demand and a rapid increase in the level of consumer education, with consequent demands for high-quality and sophisticated products. Consumers in Indonesia are not only domestic or local communities but also consumers from various countries. However, even though import activities in Indonesia are high, export activities also increase, considering that Indonesia is a developing country. In short, the lack of diversification in the Indonesian regional economy must be explored to regulate the movement of needs with a comprehensive meta-policy for its development and to renew intellectual capital in the Indonesian region. The following considerations encourage intellectual development in Indonesia: a lack of a diverse industrial base in practically all parts of the nation, the necessity for a robust education system, and an insufficient education output to meet market demand. As a result, the regional-level model in Indonesia is presented as follows: Ulum et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2163557 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 Page 4 of 16 National Wealth Financial Wealth Intellectual Capital Human Capital Sturctural Capital Market Capital Organizational Capital Renewal Capital Process Capital Regional Economy Capital Picture 1. RIC in Indonesia. 2.3.1. Human capital Human capital includes knowledge, wisdom, expertise, intuition, and the ability of individuals to realize national tasks and goals (C. Y. Lin, 2018). This focal area also includes the values encompassed within the culture and philosophy of the nation (Chijioke & Amadi, 2019; Okumura & Deguchi, 2021). Human capital constitutes a population’s total capabilities as reflected in education, knowledge, health, experience, motivation, intuition, entrepreneurship, and expertise. In addition, a highly skilled labor force, the availability of scientists and engineers, a female labor force, and health (life expectancy, physicians) are also good indicators. 2.3.2. Market capital Market capital refers to the available assets embodied in the nation’s relationship with the international market (Dahlhaus & Vasishtha, 2020). It is the aggregate of a country’s capabilities and successes in providing an attractive, competitive solution to the needs of its international clients, a country’s investment, and achievements in foreign relations, coupled with its exports of quality products and services. The assets in this focal point include customer or national loyalty, openness to globalization, flexibility and adaptability, the resilience of the economy, and the satisfaction expressed by strategic customers and national trading partners. 2.3.3. Process capital Process capital is the cooperation and flow of knowledge that require structural intellectual assets, such as information systems, hardware, software, databases, laboratories, national infrastructure (Tzu-Yorn & Sandui, 2017). Regional infrastructure includes transportation, information technology skills, communications and computerization, technological readiness and telecom services, personal computers, cellular subscribers, cyber security, quality scientific research institutions, Ulum et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2163557 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 Page 5 of 16 knowledge transfer, the legal environment for entrepreneurship, minimum number of days to start a business, quality management system, agricultural productivity. 2.3.4. Financial capital Financial capital refers to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), external debt, industrial production by major branches and inflation (Badwan & Atta, 2021; Ulum et al., 2017). Financial Capital Inflows of the most important resources that the country needs and lacks to all Developing Countries at present, and also, the country’s scarce resources to more efficient Sectors of the Economy, causing (GDP) Growth. 2.3.5. Renewal capital Renewal capital refers to a nation’s capabilities and real investments made to increase its competitive strength in future markets, which, in turn, encourages future growth (C. Y.-Y. Lin & Edvinsson, 2011). Renewal and development assets include investments in research and development, patents, trademarks, start-up companies, the number of scientific publications, the number of patents registered in the US, EPO patent applications, total expenditure on R&D, and capacity for innovation (C. Y. Lin, 2018). 2.3.6. Regional economy capital Regional Economy capital is defined as the system of territorial assets of economic, cultural, social and environmental nature that ensures the development potential of places. The potential of this concept resides in the recognition of possible interactions between factors of different nature (Faggian et al., 2019). In the context of the regional economy, industrial competitiveness, centers of industrial activity, economic business, and the determination of economic shifts are important things that must be identified. 3. Methods In the context of the regional economy, the evaluation of regional intellectual capital is complex because nothing is measurable metric parameters which allow us to measure these objects directly (Frondizi et al., 2019). The RIC indicators are based on assessing regional resources that can be measured directly and are available in Indonesia. Such an approach evaluates abstract concepts such as competitiveness (Brankovic et al., 2018), quality of life, and a leading economic property (Uysal & Sirgy, 2019). The subjective approach to measuring comes in two areas when utilizing this measurement. First, the RIC value will be determined by the indicator used to assess each notion. Due to the measuring model being tailored to the country of Indonesia, which is a developing market. Furthermore, the indicators chosen represent the most relevant characteristics of the period under consideration. The characteristics of regional intellectual capital and its importance have changed with the level of development of a region in Indonesia. The measures used need to be adjusted to track it. As for industrial competitiveness, industrial activity, economic business, and economic shifts are essential things that must be identified. Finally, the research is planned to be carried out in three stages. First, in-depth interviews. In in-depth interviews, opinions from experts in their fields will be explored across academic studies to obtain as much input as possible about the right size and parameters to describe RIC. Second, focus group discussion (FGD). The FGD will be conducted with a minimal group to map the results of the in-depth interviews. The output of this stage is a draft RIC. Third, rediscussion. The RIC draft produced in the second stage was sounded and re-discussed with the parties involved in the first stage before being published. 4. Findings Studies with previous IC models have created a widely accepted taxonomy with three main components: HC, SC, and RC (Dženopoljac et al., 2016). Canibano, L., García-Ayuso, M., & Sánchez, M. P. (2000). proposed a three-step system for evaluation and management of corporate IC: Identify the company’s strategic and critical objectives intangibles, then define Ulum et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2163557 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 Page 6 of 16 Table 1. Modified RIC indicators in Indonesia No Indicators Measurement A Human Capital 1 Skilled Labor 1. Number of literate people 2. Number of people who have and attend structured formal and nonformal training 2 Employee Training 1. Number of people who access formal education 2. Number of people accessing health 3. Life expectancy 4. International Labour Organization (ILO) policies 3 Literacy Rate Population 1. Number of literacy 2. Demographic data a. Total population b. Density c. Productive age people 4 Higher Education Enrollment 1. The data on education level taken 2. Number of schools available 5 Pupil-Teacher Ratio 1. Number of schools available 2. Number of available teachers 3. Number of people who are currently studying 4. Student-to-teacher ratio 6 Internet Users 1. Number of internet service users 2. Number of mobile phone users 3. Number of telecommunications operating companies 7 Public Expenditure On Education 1. GDP 2. Education Expenditure Allocation B Market Capital 1 Cross-Border Venture 1. Number of Net export 2. Number of Net import 3. Realization of receipts through customs 2 Transparency 1. Community satisfaction index 2. NGO data (Continued) Ulum et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2163557 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 Page 7 of 16 Citation information Cite this article as: Regional intellectual capital (RIC) indicators in Indonesia, Ihyaul Ulum, Mudrifah Mudrifah & Setyo Wahyu Sulistyono, Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2163557. References Abdouli, M., & Omri, A. (2021). Exploring the nexus among FDI inflows, environmental quality, human capital, and economic growth in the Mediterranean region. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(2), 788–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00641-5 Ali, M., Egbetokun, A., & Memon, M. H. (2018). Human capital, social capabilities and economic growth. Economies, 6(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/ economies6010002 Asgari Seymareh, E., & Armanmehr, M. (2020). Investigating the effect of intellectual capital on iran’s economic growth (System dynamics approach). Journal of Economics and Regional Development, 27(19), 19–48. https://doi.org/10. 22067/erd.2020.39492https://doi.org/10.22067/erd. 2020.39492 Badwan, N., & Atta, M. (2021). Financial capital inflows, manufacturing exports and economic growth in Palestine: A threshold regression analysis. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 21(3), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2021/ v21i330362 Batubara, S. M., Sahari, S., & Jais, S. (2021). Evaluationvalue added intellectual coefficient (Ev-VAIC) model expansion: The new measurement model for intellectual capital. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Science, 10(4), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARAFMS/v10-i4/8173 Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: A review of the models used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00053 Bontis, N. (2004). National intellectual capital index: A united nations initiative for the Arab region. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 13–39. https://doi.org/10. 1108/14691930410512905 Bontis, N. (2012). National intellectual capital index: The benchmarking of Arab countries Intellectual capital for communities (pp. 113–138). Routledge. Brankovic, J., Ringel, L., & Werron, T. (2018). How rankings produce competition: The case of global university rankings. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 47(4), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-2018-0118 Canibano, L., García-Ayuso, M., & Sánchez, M. P. (2000). Accounting for Intangibles: A Literature Review. Journal of Accounting Literature, 19, 102–130. Cerisola, S., & Panzera, E. (2021). Cultural and creative cities and regional economic efficiency: Context conditions as catalyzers of cultural vibrancy and creative economy. Sustainability, 13(13), 7150. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137150 Chao, L., Xiao, L., & Lingyu, X. (2015). The influence of regional intellectual capital on regional economic development-evidence from China. International Journal of u-and e-Service, Science and Technology, 8 (6), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijunesst.2015.8. 6.10 Chijioke, A. K., & Amadi, A. I. (2019). Human capital investment as a catalyst for sustainable economic development in Nigeria. International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, 5 (5), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.18775/ijmsba.1849- 5664-5419.2014.55.1002 Cohen, S., Naoum, V.-C., & Vlismas, O. (2014). Intellectual capital, strategy and financial crisis from a SMEs perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(2), 294–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2013-0110 Dahlhaus, T., & Vasishtha, G. (2020). Monetary policy news in the US: Effects on emerging market capital flows. Journal of International Money and Finance, 109, 102251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2020. 102251 Diebolt, C., & Hippe, R. (2022). The long-run impact of human capital on innovation and economic growth in the regions of Europe. In Claude, D. & Ralph, H. (Eds.), Human capital and regional development in Europe (pp. 85–115). Springer. Dženopoljac, V., Janoševic, S., & Bontis, N. (2016). Intellectual capital and financial performance in the Serbian ICT industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(2), 373–396. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-07-2015- 0068 Edvinsson, L., & Dumay, J. (2013). IC 21: Reflections from 21 years of IC practice and theory. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 163–172. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14691931311289075 Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower. HarperCollins. Faggian, A., Modrego, F., & McCann, P. (2019). Human capital and regional development. Handbook of Regional Growth and Development Theories. https:// doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs050 Frondizi, R., Fantauzzi, C., Colasanti, N., & Fiorani, G. (2019). The evaluation of universities’ third mission and intellectual capital: Theoretical analysis and application to Italy. Sustainability, 11(12), 3455. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123455 Gogan, M.-L. (2014). An innovative model for measuring intellectual capital. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 124, 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2014.02.477 Hamidi, S., Zandiatashbar, A., & Bonakdar, A. (2019). The relationship between regional compactness and regional innovation capacity (RIC): Empirical evidence from a national study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 394–402. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.026 Hermanto, Y. B., Lusy, L., & Widyastuti, M. (2021). How financial performance and state-owned enterprise (SOE) values are affected by good corporate governance and intellectual capital perspectives. Economies, 9(4), 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/ economies9040134 Januškaitė, V., & Užienė, L. (2018). Intellectual capital as a factor of sustainable regional competitiveness. Sustainability, 10(12), 4848. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10124848 Kuzkin, Y., Cherkashyna, T., Nebaba, N., & Kuchmacz, B. (2019). Economic growth of the country and national intellectual capital (evidence from the post-socialist countries of the central and Eastern Europe). Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(1), 348–359. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(1).2019. 30 Labra, R., & Sánchez, M. P. (2013). National intellectual capital assessment models: A literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(4), 582–607. https:// doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2012-0100 Lazuka, V. (2012). National intellectual capital: Concept and measurement. Lin, C. Y. (2018). Intellectual capital of South Africa: A comparison with Poland and Romania. Journal of Ulum et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2163557 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 Page 14 of 16 Intellectual Capital, 19(3), 498–518. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JIC-12-2016-0146 Lin, C.-Y.-Y., & Edvinsson, L. (2010). National intellectual capital: A comparison of 40 countries. Springer Science & Business Media. Lin, C.-Y.-Y., & Edvinsson, L. (2011). Introduction of national intellectual capital national intellectual capital (pp. 1–6). Springer. Liu, C., Li, K., Jiang, P., Li, D., Su, L., Lu, S., & Li, A. (2021). A hybrid multiple criteria decision-making technique to evaluate regional intellectual capital: Evidence from China. Mathematics, 9(14), 1676. https://doi.org/10.3390/ math9141676 Mačerinskienė, I., Mačerinskas, J., & Aleknavičiūtė, R. (2019). Change of national intellectual capital in EU countries. Moon, Y. J., & Kym, H. G. (2006). A model for the value of intellectual capital. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 23(3), 253–269. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2006.tb00630.x Okumura, R., & Deguchi, H. (2021). Indicating human capital including non-economic value. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 18(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-020-00166-1 Orjala, H. (2021). Misled by data? Review of data sources in national intellectual capital research. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejkm.19.1.2243 Pulic, A. (2012). Value creation efficiency at national and regional levels: Case study—Croatia and the European Union Intellectual capital for communities (pp. 197–211). Routledge. Roze, N. (2021). Measurement of the intellectual capital of Russian regions. R-Economy, 7(2), 72–87. https:// doi.org/10.15826/recon.2021.7.2.007 Saddam, S. Z., & Jaafar, M. N. (2021). Modified Value-Added Intellectual Capital (MVAIC): Contemporary improved measurement model for intangible assets. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting Finance and Management Sciences, 11(1), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.6007/ IJARAFMS/v11-i1/9023 Secundo, G., Ndou, V., Del Vecchio, P., & De Pascale, G. (2020). Sustainable development, intellectual capital and technology policies: A structured literature review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119917. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119917 Shao, S., & Razzaq, A. (2022). Does composite fiscal decentralization reduce trade-adjusted resource consumption through institutional governance, human capital, and infrastructure development? Resources Policy, 79, 103034. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resourpol.2022.103034 Shkola, V. Y., Troian, M. Y., Domashenko, M. D., & Vavilichev, M. D. (2021). Global Competitiveness of the Economy and Intellectual Capital Index: Case of the EU Countries and Ukraine. Song, Y., Wei, Y., Zhu, J., Liu, J., & Zhang, M. (2021). Environmental regulation and economic growth: A new perspective based on technical level and healthy human capital. Journal of Cleaner Production, 318, 128520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021. 128520 Sudarsanam, S., Sorwar, G., & Marr, B. (2012). A finance perspective on intellectual capital Perspectives on intellectual capital (pp. 56–68). Routledge. Švarc, J., Lažnjak, J., & Dabić, M. (2020). The role of national intellectual capital in the digital transformation of EU countries. Another digital divide? Journal of Intellectual Capital. https://doi.org/10. 1108/jic-02-2020-00 Trequattrini, R., Lombardi, R., Lardo, A., & Cuozzo, B. (2018). The impact of entrepreneurial universities on regional growth: A local intellectual capital perspective. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(1), 199–211. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s13132-015-0334-8 Tzu-Yorn, K., & Sandui, M.-E. (2017). Process capital of Mongolia: Year 2005–2014. Journal of Economics and Political Economy, 4(3), 302–305. https://doi.org/10. 1453/jepe.v4i3.1403 Ulum, I., Kharismawati, N., & Syam, D. (2017). Modified value-added intellectual coefficient (MVAIC) and traditional financial performance of Indonesian biggest companies. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 14(3), 207–219. https://doi. org/10.1504/IJLIC.2017.086390 Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2019). Quality-of-life indicators as performance measures. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018. 12.016 Vo, D. H., & Tran, N. P. (2021). Measuring national intellectual capital: A novel approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-08- 2021-0110 Vo, D. H., & Tran, N. P. (2022). Measuring national intellectual capital and its effect on country’s competitiveness. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-08-2021-0110 Yudawisastra, H. G., Manurung, D. T., & Husnatarina, F. (2018). Relationship between value added capital employed, value added human capital, structural capital value added and financial performance. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 15(2), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(2).2018.20 Ulum et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2163557 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 Page 15 of 16 © 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: • Immediate, universal access to your article on publication • High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online • Download and citation statistics for your article • Rapid online publication • Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards • Retention of full copyright of your article • Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article • Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Ulum et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2163557 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2163557 Page 16 of 16