CC BY
7BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
FIRUZA MAYILYAN
Doctor of Economics, Acting Head of the Chair of Theory of Economics of Armenian State University of Economics © https://orcid. org/0000-0003-0655-6176
LIANA ISAYAN
Postgraduate Student of the Chair of Theory of Economics of Armenian State University of Economics © https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0091-645X
ASSESSMENT OF BUSINESS SOCIAL CAPITAL THROUGH EXPERT SURVEY (BY THE EXAMPLE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA)
The relatively low level of trust and cooperation, as well as the analysis of its causes and effects continue to be extremely urgent issues in Armenia in the post-war and post-pandemic period. Though the level of social capital in a country can be assessed through various data (the World Values Survey, the Legatum Prosperity Index, the Caucasus Barometer (in case of Caucasian countries), social media connections or other data), in all these sources social capital is assessed on individual level, while the business sector -having central role in economic developments - is overshadowed. In this work, the assessment of the current level of business social capital in the Republic of Armenia, its causes and effects was carried out through an expert survey, as a result of which remarkable findings were obtained on the winning and losing directions of high cooperation and trust as well as in terms of identifying problems and their possible solutions as per expert opinions.
Keywords: trust, cooperation, business, social capital
JEL: A13, M14, M20
DOI: 10.52174/1829-0280_2021_6_46
Introduction. According to the results of The Legatum Prosperity Index 2021 (reference period: 2020), Armenia has registered a decline by the social capital pillar, ranking 93rd out of 167 countries (in 2019, Armenia was the 74th from 167 countries). Of course, as we have shown in our previous research1, the decline of social capital is a natural phenomenon in a post-war and post-pandemic society, but given its important role, especially in the transition to socio-economic recovery and development, it becomes urgent to study its causes and possible solutions. Here we analyze one aspect of social capital in the Republic of Armenia (RA) that has a direct impact on economic outcomes: business social capital2. The work addresses the mentioned issues by the following order: first, assessing level of business social capital in the RA, we discuss the answers to the questions about the level of cooperation by suggested directions, then answers to the questions about trust, the changes over time, the interaction of social capital with economic indicators, and finally the results of open-ended questions.
Literature Review. Despite the existence of a number of approaches to assess the multifaceted concept of social capital, analyses assessing one of the most important driving forces of the economy - business social capital - are few, and works assessing business social capital in Armenia are even rare. The latter is due to the lack of data, taking into account that the most popular surveys assessing social capital are for the individual level, and questions for individuals are limited at best to "What do you think about startups?", "Are businessmen respected in the society?" and a few similar questions.
Among the works analyzing social capital within business community in the Republic of Armenia, one can single out the "Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2019/20: Armenia National Report"3, where some discussed questions are also related to business social capital. In particular, one of the sections of the individuals survey, which deals with the assessment of the business value system, includes the following questions: "Many would prefer everyone to have equal living conditions", "Many consider starting a new business a desirable engagement", "People who are able to start a successful business, have a high status in society - are respected", "Stories about successful entrepreneurs are often in the media / on the Internet ", "There are many businesses whose main goal is to solve social problems". It should be noted that according to the results of the survey, the business value system in Armenia is more favorable than the average perception in the world, although by the answers to the statement "new business startups enjoy great respect" Armenia is in a middle position (the 32nd out of 50). Moreover, the latter from the observed economic and social indicators is significantly correlated only with the results of the question "Many
1 Isayan, L. (2020). Social Capital and the Spread of COVID-19 [Arm], Amberd Bulletin 2020/2 (3): 20-25. Yerevan. https://asue.am/upload/files/amberd/2020.2.pdf and Isayan L. (2020). Social Capital During and After the War: Loss of Trust or Social Cohesion? [Arm], Amberd Bulletin 2020/5 (6): 14-20, https://asue.am/upload/files/amberd/Sb|bLwqhp5.pdf
2 This work is part of a comprehensive study of RA social capital and its interaction with economic phenomena.
3 See Ameria LLC (2019). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2019/20: Armenia National Report. https://ameriaadvisory.am/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/GEM-EnglishFinal.pdf
would prefer everyone to have equal living conditions" (0.42). It is interesting that most of those who agree with the provision are from the rural communities of the settlement, with secondary education, mainly women and from the relatively low income per capita groups4.
Another work related to this topic is Melikyan's study on the interaction between corporate governance and social capital5. The results of the expert survey show that one of the reasons for resistance to the adoption of the core values of corporate governance is the "institutional deadlocks" that accompany the Armenian economy (corruption, shadow economy, non-competitive markets), which are caused by the mismatch between short-term and long-term interests, as well as misinterpretations of the existing economic model and the existing behavioral model. The long-term model of behavior is assessed as riskier in an uncertain and unstable economic situation, as well as in the atmosphere of distrust, and the results of the set goals become visible in the short-term model. In addition, no special moral distinction is made between legal and illegal actions when choosing the methods to implement them. The author concludes that one of the profound consequences of the failure of the long-term model of behavior is the loss of trust towards both the state and the law, as well as towards partners6. Note that this analysis is an attempt to enrich the few works on this key issues.
Research Methodology. In this paper, the assessment of business social capital in the Republic of Armenia is conducted through an online expert survey (period: September 2021). In case of 22 questions of the forty-question questionnaire it was required to evaluate the level of trust and cooperation in different directions on a scale of 1 to 10. The questionnaire also included open-ended questions and questions assessing attitudes constructed similar to the Likert scale. This method allows to systematically assess the issues on which there is a lack of quantitative data, which is the reason for the authors' choice.
Generally, there are different approaches for selecting experts, according to one of which experts are considered to be people who have professional / field / scientific knowledge or technical knowledge (for example, how to manage teamwork, how to write programs, etc.) or have remarkable assessments of the event, observations that are the result of professional, research or work experience. Note that in the framework of this analysis, we have been guided by the above-mentioned approach. In addition, the expert survey has subtypes, including the nominal group survey method, brainstorming, etc.7. Here we have used the method of individual expert survey, the guide of which is similar to the guide of indepth survey, except that the questions can be difficult, as the experts
4 See Ameria LLC (2019). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2019/20: Armenia National Report. https://ameriaadvisory.am/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/GEM-EnglishFinal.pdf. p. 41.
5 See Melikyan N. (2013). Corporate Governance as a Factor of Trust. CRRC-Armenia 2013 Proceedings of the Conference on Social Capital [Arm]. pp. 75-89. https://www.crrc.am/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CRRC-Social Capital-Conference-1 .pdf
6 Ibid.
7 See Balasanyan S., Vardanyan N. (2019). CSO Research Capacity Practice Development Guide. pp. 24-25. https://www.crrc.am/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Research Skills for CSOs.pdf
can answer difficult or very specific questions. This survey is conducted among 17 experts, including officials from the Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Finance, Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) Cooperation Association, business associations, investor associations, heads / experts of private business consulting companies, professors of business sciences and marketing; 75% of the experts carry out their main activity in the private sector, and 25% in the public sector, 62.5% of the participants belong to the 36-55 age group, and 37.5% belong to the 18-35 age group. Moreover, in the scope of the testing phase, the questionnaire was initially sent to 5 experts, whose answers did not reveal any significant problems in the questionnaire, and the total number of experts who received the questionnaire is 26 (participation rate - 65%) with an equal ratio of spheres of activity. Assessing the uncertainty about the independence of experts' opinions, it should be noted that the average standard deviation of the questions with 1 to 10 score answers is 0.38 (in the denominator we can take the average
1 .■ _ L] * 2
of the scores of the respondents, or —^— assuming that we are dealing with
a uniform distribution), which is a good result, given that when assessing the independence of opinions, it is necessary that the general variance be large, not vice versa8.
Analysis. The results of the survey will be presented below by the following grouping: answers to the questions about the level of cooperation, answers to the questions about trust, the changes over time, the interaction of social capital with economic indicators, and finally the results of open-ended questions.
Level of cooperation
According to the results of the expert survey, the situation in terms of cooperation, one of the most important elements of social capital, is as follows (Figure 1). On average, the highest level of cooperation, according to the experts, exists between the big business and the state, in the case of which, however, we have the largest deviation of answers (standard deviation) and mean absolute deviation from the median (MAD). We have the lowest score of the level of cooperation in terms of cooperation between the business and diaspora. Moreover, the experts opinion is consensual: in the case of cooperation with diaspora and foreign organizations, we have the lowest variation and the lowest mean absolute deviation from the median, which can also be seen from the graph by considering the interquartile interval (IQR) containing 50% of the answers. In connection with the latter, it should be noted that according to the results of the GEM national report, Armenia is in the middle position (the 21st out of 50) by the share of starting businesses expecting to sell their products abroad9. Therefore, from the point of view of promoting social capital, this is a
8 Maestas Ch. (2016). Expert Surveys as a Measurement Tool: Challenges and New Frontiers. The Oxford Handbook of Polling and Survey Methods, Edited by Lonna Rae Atkeson and R. Michael Alvarez, Online Publication Date: Jun 2016 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190213299.013.13.
9 Ameria LLC (2019). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2019/20: Armenia National Report, p. 100. https://ameriaadvisory.am/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/GEM-EnglishFinal.pdf,
really unrealized potential and hence it should be one of the most important targets to be addressed.
ÏO •
Source: the expert survey results.
Figure 1. Distribution of answers to the question "Please assess the level of cooperation in Armenia in the following directions"
According to the average assessment of experts, cooperation in the field of state-SMEs is weak. According to the experts, the connection is highly personalized and not coordinated when assessing the level of cooperation between the Ministry of Economy, SMEs, business associations, investors and organizations. It is mentioned that after the change of the minister and deputy ministers, for a long time there was no deputy minister or head of the department regulating the SME sphere. Speaking about the level of cooperation in the chain of labor market participants (ministry -> universities -> trade unions -> businesses), one of the experts noted that during his professional career, starting from 2006, he has never noticed the role of trade unions in the labor market or other sectors. The expert thinks that the trade unions in the current situation are atavism of the Soviet model, whose role is not clear in the created values chain.
The second highest level of cooperation - according to the results of the survey - is between the participants in the field of Information and communication technology (ICT). It should be noted that on the cooperation in the chain of participants in the ICT sector (Ministry of High-Tech Industry (Ministry of HTI) -> educational institutions -> ICT companies -> investors -> startups) experts note that the existence of associations provides a higher level of cooperation. According to the experts, this field has stood out with its professionalism. Since the beginning of the 2000s, one of the most successful unions in Armenia, the Union of Advanced Technology Enterprises (UATE), has
been operating, which took the role of a locomotive in the state-private communication. Due to the increase of cooperation within the sector and the involvement of the members of the sector in the formation of the current team of the Ministry of HTI, an existing cooperation has been established between the sector and the public sector. At present, educational institutions play a weaker role in this regard. They do not stand out with the necessary initiative. The culture of investors and startups has developed in the last few years and now this sub-sector is showing steady growth.
Level of trust
The situation in terms of trust is as follows (Figure 2).
II
1 Jj I J2 -s
.a .u s \ «a
s J í i 1 £ J
s o
2 3 s a
t
i
S
Source: the expert survey results.
Figure 2. Distribution of answers to the question "Please assess the level of trust in the Republic of Armenia in the following directions"
Strange as it may seem, financial institutions and banks are in the first place with an average rating of trust, which is probably due to the fact that it is compared with the trust mainly towards state structures, as well as the fact that the issue is discussed in the context of businesses social capital. And we have the lowest value of the average score in case of trust in state structures (relatively higher trust towards the judicial system which previously had the lowest score10). Moreover, here the opinions of the experts differ from each other. We have the largest variation and the largest mean absolute deviation from the median.
Dynamics
According to 60% of the surveyed experts, the cooperation between the state and business has improved or deteriorated over a specific period of time, and some believe that trust has increased from 2018 to the beginning of 2020: the formation of the new government in 2018 brought new hopes, but the
10 See, for example, Caucasus Barometer 2019 Armenia, https://caucasusbarometer.org/en/.
ineffective struggle against COVID-19, as well as the catastrophic results of the military escalation in Artsakh, stopped and even worsened the trust in state bodies.
■ has improved or deteriorated over specific period of time Source: the expert survey results.
Figure 3. Answers to the question "How do you think the atmosphere of trust and cooperation in the country has changed in the last 30 years according to the mentioned directions?" (a. between state and business, b. from the point of view of relations between organizations, c. between business and community)
Meanwhile, according to the other group of experts, the situation worsened right after 2018. One of the experts on business and community cooperation mentions that our society has different myths: on the one hand, doing business is considered honorable; on the other hand - inherited from the Soviet Union - the businessperson is considered a liar and a speculator. The results of the survey on attempts of businesses to solve public problems are as follows: the average score for individual support (for example, charitable) is 4.76 points, and for united, joint efforts is 4.47 points.
The interaction between social capital and economic indicators
The answers to the questions assessing the correlation between social capital and economic indicators are interesting. The majority of experts - 53% think that social capital in the country has definitely positive, while 35% think that it has a mainly positive impact on economic outcomes (economic growth, Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, etc.). The consensus (average) assessment of experts on the impact of social capital on economic growth is 0.47 (from -1 to 1 scale). In turn, the impact of economic outcomes on social capital was unequivocally assessed as positive by 41% of experts, by 41% - mainly positive, and by 17.6% -without any impact. The impact of economic growth on social capital was estimated at an average of 0.64. For comparison note that there are a lot of well known works studying and proving the existing interaction between the two11. In addition our analysis of the interaction between social capital indices and economic outcomes showed a significant correlation only in terms of GDP per
11 Knack, S. and Keeffer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation, Quarterly J. of Economics, v. 112, n. 4: 1251-1288, Inglehart, R, Baker, E. W. (2000), Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values. American Sociological Review Vol. 65, 9-51.
capita: 0.6612. In terms of income inequality, the impact of social capital was mostly negatively assessed by 83% of the participants, while the high level of social capital was considered by the majority of experts to have a mainly positive impact (bringing equality). The impact of social capital on income inequality is described by consensus assessment of -0.31, and the impact of income inequality on social capital is -0.31.
Open-ended questions on problems, reasons and solutions to the low level of social capital
Within the framework of the analysis, the experts were also asked open-ended questions about the obstacles to the high level of the social capital of the Republic of Armenia, on the problems and solutions behind them, the answers to which are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Answers to open-ended questions on the obstacles to raising social capital in the Republic of Armenia, their causes and priorities for overcoming problems
a. "Please mention at least three obstacles that prevent Armenia to rank better"
1. Unstable situation, 2. Unprofessional managers, 3. Lack of law
1. Lack of national ideology, 2. Systematic destruction of the educational sphere, 3. The indifferent attitude of the nation and government towards the homeland 1. State policy, 2. Traditional Soviet heritage, 3. Knowledge 1. Expenditures on education and the efficiency of the education system. 2. The inefficiency of the public administration system. 3. Cultural issues that affect the value system of society. 4. The passive attitude of the local government bodies in the issue of cooperation and dialogue with business.
12 Isayan L. (2021). Interaction between social capital and economic outcomes: Which elements of social capital lead to better economic results? [Rus] Научные исследования современных проблем развития России: цифровая трансформация экономики. Conference Proceeding.
b. "Please indicate at least three reasons for the existing obstacle / problems"
1. War, 2. Unfounded trust by ignorant rulers, 3. Populism 1. Lack of capital investments in education, 2. Underdevelopment of financial infrastructure and opacity of the economy, 3. Bureaucracy and indecision in the process of digitalization 1. Value system, 2. Culture
1. Systemic resistance to reform, 2. Non-inclusive economic growth, 3. National features
1. Indifference to the problems of others, 2. Lack of vision in people, 3. Jealousy and hatred
c. "Please indicate at least three priorities /solutions to the problem"
1. Investments in social capital, 2.Educational programs, 3. Regulation of mutual
assistance by the state
1. Implementation of relevant state policies
1. Promotion of the Christian value system, 2. Encouraging the perception of justice, 3. Generating a public demand for trust
1. Improving the legal framework, 2. Border security, 3. Subsidy:
1. Political will, 2. Ensuring equal economic opportunities, 3. Clarification of the
national vision
1. From the right economic policy to 2. cultural revolution
1.State ideology, 2. Long-term goals, 3. Strategy, 4. Sectoral policy, 5. Appropriate action plan.
1. Overcoming the political crisis, 2. Policy of balanced and balanced economic development
1. Education, 2. Literacy, 3. Entrepreneurship Source: the expert survey results.
It should be noted that if the answers to the questions on obstacles and problems are dominated by "education", 'quality of education", "state policy", "opportunity", "something less..." words, then in case of solutions the experts use the words "community", "trust", "responsibility" and "incentives" the most.
Conclusions. Assessing business social capital in Armenia through expert survey, we showed in this work that on average the highest level of cooperation -according to the experts - exists between the big business and the state, in the case of which, however, we have the largest deviation of answers. The second highest level of cooperation - according to the results of the survey - is between the participants in the field of ICT. Meantime, we have the lowest score of the level of cooperation in terms of cooperation between the business and diaspora which should be one of the most important targets to pay attention. Cooperation in the field of state-SMEs and in the chain of labor market participants is also weak. In terms of trust, we have the lowest value of the average score, and in case of trust in state structures the largest variation among answers can be seen. Moreover, the experts' opinions on the changes in the dynamics are divided into two parts. According to the first group, the situation has improved after the revolution, while the other part thinks that after 2018 we have a deterioration. When addressing main obstacles to the increase of social capital in Armenia the experts point education and opportunities. It is believed that with the help of the state incentives and policy, as well as investing in education and science the country may have more cooperating and trusting society and rank better by its social capital indicators, moreover, it may have positive impact on economic indicators.
In summary, it should be noted that the assessment of multielement social capital still allows a huge open field for analysis (eg. assessment of social capital inside the company, cooperation between the state, community, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), labor unions, etc.) which we will try to cover in our future works.
References
1. EVS/WVS (2021). European Values Study and World Values Survey: Joint EVS/WVS 2017-2021 Dataset (Joint EVS/WVS). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7505. Dataset Version 1.1.0, doi:10.4232/1.13670
2. Ameria LLC (2019). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2019/20: Armenia National Report. https://ameriaadvisory.am/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/GEM-EnglishFinal.pdf
3. Balasanyan S., Vardanyan N. (2019). CSO Research Capacity Practice Development Guide. pp. 24-25. https://www.crrc.am/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Research Skills for CSOs.pdf
4. Inglehart, R, Baker E. W. (2000), Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values. American Sociological Review Vol. 65, 9-51.
5. Isayan L. (2021). Interaction between social capital and economic outcomes: Which elements of social capital lead to better economic results? [Rus] Научные исследования современных проблем развития России: цифровая трансформация экономики. Conference Proceeding.
6. Isayan L. (2020). Social Capital During and After the War: Loss of Trust or Social Cohesion? [Arm], Amberd Bulletin 2020/5 (6): 1420. https://asue.am/upload/files/amberd/Sbqbl|iiiq|ip5.pdf
7. Isayan, L. (2020). Social Capital and the Spread of COVID-19 [Arm], Amberd Bulletin 2020/2 (3), 20-25. Yerevan. https://asue.am/upload/files/amberd/2020.2.pdf
8. Knack, S., and Keeffer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation, Quarterly .J of Economics, v. 112, n. 4: 1251-1288.
9. Legatum Institute (2019). The Legatum Prosperity Index 2019, Methodology Report, https://prosperitysite.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/7515/8634/9002/Methodology for Legat um Prosperity Index 2019.pdf
10. Maestas, Ch. (2016). Expert Surveys as a Measurement Tool: Challenges and New Frontiers. The Oxford Handbook of Polling and Survey Methods, Edited by Lonna Rae Atkeson and R. Michael Alvarez, Online Publication Date: Jun 2016 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190213299.013.13
11. Melikyan, N. (2013). Corporate Governance as a Factor of Trust, CRRC-Armenia 2013 Proceedings of the Conference on Social Capital [Arm], pp. 75-89. https://www.crrc.am/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CRRC-Social Capital-Conference-1.pdf
ihmhau tfU3hL3UL
£uijuiuyiuih[i u/byiwl/uih iptyit'UuiqftyiLiliuih huiiJuiiuuipuih[i iphyit'uuiqftyim.pjuih iphumpjuih LuiSp[inh[i i]uipfc[i u/ui2yinhuiliuiyiLip, iphyit'uuiqftyim.pjuih r).nliyinp
LhULU hUU3UL
£uijuiuyiLih[i u/byiLiliuih iptyit'UuiqftyiLiliuih huiiJuiiuuipuih[i iptyitiuuiq[iyim.pjuih iphumpjuih LuiSp[inh[i Luuu/[ipuihyi
fifrqbbufr ungfrwiwtywb qbwhwsnidp ifinp-
äwqfrswtywb hwpgdwb lifyngntf (« opfrbwtyntf).- <bm-^wmbpwqdjwh L hbmhwdwöwpw^wjhh dwdwhw^w2pgw-hnLd «-md 2wpmhw^md bh ^w^wqwhg wp^hw^wh hhd-hw^h^hphbp dhw[ ^uswhmpjwh L hwdwqnpöw^gmpjwh n^ wjhpwh pwpöp dw^wp^w^Q, ^.pw ^wmöwnhbph nL wq^.b-gnLpjrnhhbph ^bpinLÖnLpjnL^Q: föbL bp^pmd unghw|w^wh ^w-^hmw|.h dw^wp^w^Q ^wpbLh t qhwhwrnb[ <wdw2^wphwjhh wpdbphbph hwpgdwh, Uhqwpmd pwpqw^wödwh hhn-bfuh, Mn^wujwh pwpndbmph, unghw|w^wh gwhgbpnLd ^w^bph ^wd wjl rn^jwihbph d^ngn^, pn|np w^pjmphbpmd un-
ghw|w^wh qhwhwm^nLd t whhwrnw^wh dw^wp-
^.w^md, dhh^bn mhmbumpjwh 2wptfhg hwh^huwgn^ phqhbu hwm^wÖQ um^bp^nLd t: UnLjh w2^wrnwhpnLd «-md phqhbuh ung^w|w^wh ^w^hmw|.h wp^h dw^wp^.w^h, ^pw ^wmöwnhbph L wq^bgnLpjnLhhbph qhwhwmmdh ^pw^w-hwg^b t ^npöwq^mw^wh hwpgdwh d^gngn^, hh^h wp^jmh-fnLd urnwg^bL bh nL2wqpw^ m^jw|hbp ^h^hphbph pwgw-hwjmdwh L ^pwhg hhwpw^np |nLÖmdhbph wnmdn^:
^^ЬшршпЬр. Llusшhm.pJm.h, hшJшqnpдшl|gnLpJnLtl, pftqbbu, un-
JEL: A13, M14, M20
DOI: 10.52174/1829-0280_2021_6_46
ФИРУЗА МАИЛЯН
И.о. заведующего кафедрой экономической теории Армянского государственного экономического университета, доктор экономических наук
ЛИАНА ИСАЯН
Аспирант кафедры экономической теории Армянского государственного экономического университета
Оценка социального капитала бизнеса путем экспертного опроса (на примере Республики Армения).- Не
очень высокий уровень доверия и сотрудничества, анализ его причин и следствий продолжают оставаться чрезвычайно актуальными вопросами в Армении в послевоенный и постпандемический период. Хотя уровень социального капитала в стране можно оценить с помощью различных данных (Global Values Survey, Legatum Prosperity Index, Кавказский барометр, связи в социальных сетях или другие данные), во всех этих источниках социальный капитал оценивается на индивидуальном уровне, в то время как деловой сектор, играющий центральную роль в экономическом развитии, остается в тени. В данной работе оценка текущего уровня социального капитала бизнеса в Республике Армения, его причин и следствий проводилась посредством экспертного исследования, в результате которого были получены заслуживающие внимания результаты, направленные на выявление проблем и предложение возможных путей их решения.
Ключевые слова: доверие, сотрудничество, бизнес, социальный
капитал
JEL: A13, M14, M20
DOI: 10.52174/1829-0280_2021_6_46
