The influence of intangible forms of capital on farms Vliv nehmatatelných forem kapitálu na fungování zemědělských podniků M. LOŠŤÁK Czech University of Agriculture, Prague, Czech Republic Abstract: Intangible issues, which are often very difficult to be quantified become more and more the field of interest of social sciences. There are many research works demonstrating that various types of knowledge, institutions, social ne- tworks, and social relations have a great influence on human activities as for efficient achievement of the actors’ goals. This paper relates expert knowledge (shaping professional qualification) to human capital and tacit knowledge (understood as a broader, general, and contextual knowledge) to cultural capital. Both forms of capital exist in their primary form only in concrete individual persons. Concerning collective persons (firm, community), cultural and human capitals are transfor- med into intellectual capital. Work with specific knowledge, tacit knowledge and capitals corresponding to them shows the role of social networks and social capital in their organization. Using the analysis of two farms based on natural experi- ment, the paper demonstrates the role of tacit knowledge and cultural capital (opposing to the overestimated role of expert knowledge and human capital). The conclusions outline social determination of both types of knowledge through social networks and social capital needed for an efficient work of a farm. Key words: social capital, cultural capital, human capital, intellectual capital, expert knowledge, tacit knowledge, social networks Abstrakt: Nehmatatelné a často obtížně kvantifikovatelné záležitosti se stále více stávají předmětem zájmu sociálních věd. Jak ukázala řada výzkumů, znalosti, vědění, instituce, sítě a sociální vztahy obecně mají nezanedbatelný vliv na působení různých aktérů ve sféře hospodářské či sociální a na efektivní dosahování jejich cílů. Tento článek vychází z propojení znalostí (formujících profesionální kvalifikaci) s lidským kapitálem a vědění (chápané jako širší obecné a kontextuální vě- domosti) s kulturním kapitálem. Obě formy kapitálu jsou ve své primární podobě přítomny pouze v konkrétních osobách. U kolektivních osob (podnik, obec) jsou transformovány do kapitálu intelektuálního. Při práci se znalostmi a věděním a odpovídajícími kapitály je ukázána také úloha sociálních sítí a sociálního kapitálu v jejich organizaci. Na základě analýzy dvou zemědělských podniků za využití metody přirozeného experimentu je demonstrována úloha vědění a kulturního kapitálu (oproti přeceňované úloze znalostí a lidského kapitálu). Závěr přibližuje sociální determinaci vědění a znalostí prostřednictvím sociálních sítí a sociálního kapitálu a naznačuje možnosti jejich využití pro efektivní fungování zeměděl- ského podniku. Klíčová slova: sociální kapitál, kulturní kapitál, lidský kapitál, intelektuální kapitál, znalosti, vědění, sociální sítě The contemporary world faces many processes, which to modern society. That is why some writers use also shape it into a new form. Ambiguous influences of the term “post-modern society” (e.g. Bauman 1995) globalization (e.g. Giddens 1998, 2000; Bauman 1999, to emphasize the essential nature of change into the 2002), growing risks which we are exposed to through new type of society in which modernity is replaced by our own activities depending on the locally disem- post-modernity. Although not all authors accept and bedded expert systems typical for so-called reflexive share this term and ideas about fundamental transition modernity (Beck 2004; Giddens 1998), processes like of society (see Ritzer 1997: 143), there exists a general ICTs development, cloning, discussed impacts of GMOs agreement that we experience deep changes of society confirm this sentence. The result is the situation when we live in. The discussion is rather about the degree of the entire society (incl. its rural segment) experiences how fundamental these changes are. Nevertheless, as changes which are considered by some authors as being Bělohradský (Bělohradský 2002) points out, the para- similar to the fundamental transition from traditional digm of modernity in the frame of which the scientists AGRIC. ECON. – CZECH, 52, 2006 (6): 251–262 251 discover unchangeable laws of nature, engineers us- to be a scientific paper, it is necessary to bring new and ing scientific achievements develop better and fairer non-trivial findings. It is obvious that tacit knowledge world for everyone and order beats the chaos is already and expert knowledge are important in whatever type over. In the contemporary world (called post-modern of activities and they are important for the work of or not), other principles are valid. Order and chaos any farm. This fact is not necessary to explain in are complementary, an observer sets up what s/he details again. Moreover, this issue has been already observes through his/her observation, every value is deeply addressed and commented in this journal (see limited in history, and discrepancies and contingency for example Tichá 2001; Hron 2004). The papers of cannot be removed. Tichá and Hron also indicate that expert knowledge It means that not any more the precise, concrete, and tacit knowledge are somehow bound (in a sense clear, stable and tangible so-called objective elements they are formed and constrained by structures). It based on the belief in the power of reason (Bacon’s means they are organized and coordinated in a cer- “knowledge is power”) are considered the only crucial tain way. The reason is that expert knowledge and factors for the work of the systems. On the contrary, tacit knowledge should have such features (order) also the intangible factors which are difficult to be which enable successful activities of all participating measured or visualized (they are “invisible”) are re- actors. It is because the power of expert knowledge ferred as being important for the development. Just and tacit knowledge could be rationally exploited by to mention North’s (North 1994: 754) efforts to set up any individual to achieve his/her goals, however, the economic theory of dynamics showing that socially result of the activities of many such actors need not constructed institutions and time are important to be always the benefit and welfare of all involved. understand economic changes and to provide the back- The backgrounds of this paper are skeptical, similarly ground for an economic policy aiming at improving as institutional economics is skeptical (see Mlčoch economic efficiency. The nature of intangible factors 1996: 5) in the conviction that the competition of is not of the traditional objective origin or being in- atomized individuals endowed with unlimited ra- dependent on actors. It is because they are generated tionality (unbounded expert and tacit knowledge) and constructed by actors in their activities, which results in itself in the best of the possible worlds. are implemented in the field of other actors. This assumption is not real. Every expert and tacit In such turbulent world, the production factors knowledge is bound (both by capacities of our brain are not only labour, land and capital (more or less and by the societies and ties we live in – i.e. expert tangible factors of production) but also technology and tacit knowledge are determined both biologi- and organization (Swedberg 2003: 58). The last two cally and socially). It is why the Nobel Prize winner elements take us close to flexible, relative, often in- in economics J. Stiglitz (2003: 23) insists we should tangible products of social construction: technologies study people and economics as they are, not as we to knowledge (because technologies are developed would like them to be. This challenge is in accordance using knowledge) and to knowledge economics, and with the words of another Nobel Prize winner in eco- organizations to social networks or social relations nomics R. Coase (1994: 721). When he got the prize, (because organizations are established upon institu- he claimed to investigate the world with non-zero tionalized social relations) and to network econom- transaction costs. He appealed to study of the real ics. However, what is not evident yet are the links world (i.e. the world of transaction costs). If we are between knowledge and networks (social relations). not investigating such a world, if we do not put the This paper will address this topic. actors into the networks of social relations and into institutions, which influence our knowledge, we are in the unreal worlds of zero transaction costs. OBJECTIVES OF THE PAPER AND METHODS The goal of this paper is to show how expert and USED tacit knowledge are socially determined and how important is this determination in the work of farms. If this paper would not include the words “intan- Social determination influences the features of both gible forms of capital” in its title, its objectives can types of knowledge and the ways of their use 1. In the be worded in an easy way: to show the role of expert other words, the objective of this paper is to show the knowledge and tacit knowledge in the farms. However, links between various types of knowledge and its social 1 To show biological determinants would require other approaches, other forum, and other journal. However, it is expert and tacit knowledge that might serve as a bridge to join social and natural sciences. It can be an interesting challenge for the scientists. 252 AGRIC. ECON. – CZECH, 52, 2006 (6): 251–262 context influencing in the form of social networks the is close to qualitative approaches is sociology (see knowledge. It will contribute to demonstrating what Disman 1993; Majerová, Majer 1999) or to historical issues create the order of expert and tacit knowledge and social methodological approaches in economics in the way they are exploitable (not ill exploitable) (see Swedberg, Granovetter 1992: 3). because various actors in the market have various The comparison of two farms will be used to achieve (and imperfect) information (i.e. also various tacit the outlined objective of the paper. These farms oper- and expert knowledge). Such information asymmetry ate in the same village. After 1989, their chances were has deep impacts on the economics (Stiglitz 2003: 23). equal and they could be of the same legal type of busi- Therefore, this text will show how a broader social ness, for instance. However, one was privatized from context (not only biological and psychological capac- state farm into joint-stock company, which changed ity of our brain) creates such features of knowledge, its institutional owners several times. The second which can be utilized in economic activities. was transformed from the former United Agricultural Because the paper is written in social sciences, it Cooperative into agricultural trading cooperative of is not possible to comply fully with the sometime owners. Comparing these farms and analyzing the required structure of the text (goals and methods- role of expert and tacit knowledge in their work, the material-results-discussion-conclusion) which is paper will highlight the social determination of the rooted in the writings originating in natural sciences. knowledge existing in investigated farms and will Moreover, it is difficult to use some of the established show how the knowledge is used and exploited for methods of natural sciences (and the mentioned the benefits of the farms and the community. structure of the text responds to the methods used). The appropriateness of using the quantitative oriented directed experiment exploited by natural sciences THEORETICAL BACKGROUND (HUMAN, can be doubted above all because experimenting CULTURAL, INTELLECTUAL AND SOCIAL with people would be the evidence of use (better to CAPITAL) say misuse) of unbounded reason as it was proved in various totalitarian regimes. 2 However, what is The previous text used terms expert knowledge possible to use, it is the natural experiment of a non- and tacit knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary to quantitative nature. It is the experiment, which uses frame them into a certain context and outline their certain situation when natural evolution resulted in differences. bifurcation of investigated objects under the influ- Expert knowledge will be understood (according ence of circumstances, which were not a generated to Bělohradský 2003: 5) as achieved results of the by the researcher. Not an external involvement of specific education process, which are fragmented the researcher but general social and economic de- into various areas of expertise. A person possesses velopment resulted in the possibility to compare two expert knowledge as the specific form of knowledge. various systems. Of course, it is necessary to analyze It shapes the nature of human qualification and forms both compared settings in details, and a scientist human capital because such capital reflects technical cannot intentionally intervene into these settings. On knowledge and skills (Lin 2001: 190) considered as the other hand, no scientific work is immune from expertise acquired trough education. Human capital is some degree of intervention into investigated objects; always tied to (embodied in) a concrete man/woman therefore, the experimental nature of method used and represents the sum of immaterial wealth owned is not under question. With the background in eth- by a man/woman and used by him/her to acquire nomethodology (its contextuality) as it was outlined certain income from his/her activities. According to by H. Garfinkel and J. Sacks (1990) and in heuristic G. Becker (Becker 1994: 732–734), who coined the intervention investigation method (acknowledging concept of human capital, the individuals themselves some degree of intervention into the investigated decide about the investments into this capital through objects) as it was developed by J. Kabele (1999b), this qualification and medical care. The income of such text will use the natural experiment of the qualita- a person depends on how much did s/he invested tive type. It is because of the natural character of the into his/her human capital, and how high (valuable) circumstances when specific and unique situations did s/he make this capital to be measured on labour (which are difficult to be quantified using statistics) market. Human capital as the set of expert knowl- are concerned. Such methodological background edge, skills and abilities which have ideal features 2 The question of impossibility to use directed experiments in economics (and also in other social sciences) is addressed by J. Stiglitz (2003: 23) AGRIC. ECON. – CZECH, 52, 2006 (6): 251–262 253 cannot be separated from (deprived from) a concrete the outcome of investments into people in the past, man/woman as it can be done in the case of financial especially by their families. Therefore, their knowl- or material wealth (Becker 2002). For instance, to edge does not depend only on the biologically given separate the knowledge from a person, the knowledge capacities of a person developed through his/her must be materialized. However, then it loses the na- investments in health or education but also on his/her ture of human capital and becomes material wealth. social status rooted in family background. Acquired Knowledge is something an individual uses to enter knowledge is therefore influenced by a wider social labour market. It is his/her private good into which a context and therefore by another form of immate- person invests to get certain return on labour market rial capital than the human one. It is why Bourdieu in the form of certain income. (1983: 185-190) thinks about cultural capital with its Opposing to expert knowledge, tacit knowledge three components: will be understood as the sum of general achieved – embodied in an individual – embodied state of results of the whole socialization (not only education) cultural capital (external wealth converted during process that are in possession of a person. Comparing certain time into integral part of the person /habi- with expert knowledge, tacit knowledge is rather a tus/ which cannot be transmitted instantaneously public good because more than with qualification to other people because it is always joined with and investments into the qualification (specialized its bearer); education of a person) it is linked with socialization. – objectified – objectified state of cultural capi- In the socialization process, sometimes seemingly tal (material objects and media which are already useless and general skills are formed through various transmissible in their materiality; but to use them agents (not only through schools but also, and above after transition, an individual needs to have the first all, through family or peer groups). Referring to public element – embodied in him/her; simply speaking, goods concept (Samuelson and Nordhaus 1992: 311; without skills to understand, which are available developed by Bělohradský 2002), the typical features only to each person, it is not possible to read the of tacit knowledge in its personal form are: book which includes the objectified cultural capital – It cannot be delivered to individuals in a limited of other people); amount according to the amount of payment (de- – institutionalized – institutionalized state of cultural livered to one, it must be delivered to all, otherwise capital (objectifies embodied element of cultural the system does not work). capital in the direction of relative autonomy of its – None can be excluded (with eligible costs) from bearer; they are, for example, academic qualifica- consuming tacit knowledge. tions /like human capital/ which enable to distin- – Consumption of tacit knowledge by a person “A” guish the formally embodied element of cultural does not decrease the possibility of the other people capital of an autodidact from those who passed to consume the same good. Socialization generates the specialized education; this element influences tacit knowledge (comparing to simple expert educa- social stratification). tion, which generates expert knowledge). Cultural capital therefore includes also human Tacit knowledge means to think independently. It capital as P. Bourdieu (1998) documents it in the case means (Bělohradský 2003: 5) to be skilled in process- of education. What economizing understanding of ing the information using the categories as semantic human capital considers as talent or skills (self-interest oppositions and to be skilled in distinguishing be- of an actor), can be much better understood as the tween the specific contexts of information and their result of cultural function of “teaching” in the family. general sense. Tacit knowledge understood in this The students from the “right family” are taught not in way is more efficient to join with cultural capital. school but by their parents when they are fostered up Such capital (according to Lin 2001: 43, 190) means to get “all they need” for the life in the society (this is the resources acquired through social identification “the sense for the game” which forms the habitus of and reciprocal recognition. A French sociologist P. acting individuals, as Bourdieu writes). The educa- Bourdieu has developed cultural capital as a term. tion in schools depends more than on individuals and Similarly like human capital, cultural capital is bound their free wills on cultural capital, which the family to an individual. However, it differs from human capital invested into its children in the form of tacit knowledge (based on the research of P. Bourdieu) in the way that about culture and its symbols in which s/he grows knowledge which people acquire is not influenced up. That is why tacit knowledge should be included only by what people invest into this knowledge but into cultural capital, which involves the dimension of also by their origin – i.e. by certain capital which is family background. Not only direct investments but 254 AGRIC. ECON. – CZECH, 52, 2006 (6): 251–262 also the family background (defining what symbols acts in some way and therefore any of them can be we learnt and were taught in the family) influences considered as actor. It is why during the research the our chances in the society. In this case, the sources respondents refer to their farms as the actors with acquired through social identification, identity and many attributes of human life. Many times the farms reciprocal recognition and acknowledgment by other referred in the interviews are endowed with life (“our (which is related to the theories of social status and farm lives”), thinking (“the farm found that”), emo- social roles) are concerned. More than qualification tions (“the farm feels”), and the abilities to act (“the it is general education, socialization and the skills to farm made, did”). work with information, which are different in vari- When dealing with individual persons, we speak ous cultures that are of the interest to understand about cultural and human capitals that are bound to a the knowledge. concrete individual because in their ideal form these Human and cultural capitals are composed of capitals are not transmittable. However, the question sources, which are primary possessed by individu- arises: when speaking about a collective person, does als (it is the wealth in “his/her head”). Persons can there exist any other form of capital, which would dispose of these forms of capital in various ways (in correspond to this existing at individual persons? the case of human capital the freedom in disposing Gradually it is established the concept of intellectual is emphasized, in the case of cultural capital, which capital. It is also called knowledge capital (more about includes also human capital, social determination of knowledge capital see Hron 2005: 21). This form of disposing of this capital is emphasized). capital works with the objectified and materialized Despite the outlined differences between cultural elements of human and cultural capital. They are the and human capital, both types of capital have in objectified and institutionalized elements of cultural common the fact they are closely bound to a concrete capital. Intellectual capital can be defined (see Tichá person (they are embodied in an individual) and 2005) as the difference between market and accounting without their objectification and institutionaliza- value of a company/farm. This difference is related tion (e.g. in the form of materialization), they are to the intangible assets of the company/farm. These not transmittable. Individuals in their activities use assets consist also of cultural and human capital of cultural capital and its part – human capital. The the workers in the company/farm. The intellectual materialization of these capitals is achieved through capital also includes customer capital (long-time objectification and institutionalization, which are relations of the company/farm with its the most later legitimized. These processes are described by important customers – i.e. the objectified form of Berger and Luckman (1999: 51–127) and they are human capital known as the expert knowledge about known as social construction of reality. the consumers and their needs which is materialized Every human activity as the human externalization in the form of consumers studies etc.) and organi- (humans cannot exist without any activity only to zational capital (e.g. patents, intellectual property, be closed in themselves) requires from every man/ databases and cultural aspects – like the culture of women the habitualization of his/her activities. sharing the knowledge – i.e. the materialized and Habitualization results in the institutionalization objectified elements of cultural capital). The last ele- of activities because the habitualization is the back- ment of intellectual capital (organizational capital) ground of institutions that govern human activities is sometimes labeled as structural capital. through the patterns of behaviour, which were set up Intellectual capital means the intangible and “in- earlier (Berger, Luckman 1999: 58). This is the way visible” assets of collective persons (in the general aiming us out of the individual persons. From this form of expert knowledge and tacit knowledge, or in point of view, we can address the issues asking how the concrete form of science, innovation research, to deal with the situation when we are considering programmes and others). Collective persons use this the group of people, e.g. a social entity understood asset to achieve their goals. It means an intellectual as a collective person for whom the concepts of cul- capital is used on the level of collective persons and tural and human capital as strongly bounded to in- individual person uses cultural capital (which includes dividuals cannot be applied 3. It is because a family, the human capital) when both types of persons act community, region, the state, company or a farm (Figure 1). What is always necessary, it is the goals 3 The division into individual and collective persons is used by Kabele (1998: 177, 369) when he analyzes social changes and shows that also such social entities as organizations, groups or societies can be understood as persons who move with conscious and are also the actors, co-movers of the events. That is why collective persons become a significant element of an order into which unclear events are figured during the situations of social changes. AGRIC. ECON. – CZECH, 52, 2006 (6): 251–262 255 of action and the very action should bring the ben- own capitals – a sort of “credential” that entitles the efits for those who are concerned and for those who group members to the credit in various sense of this prepare these actions. Therefore, also various above word (trust, honesty etc.). The profits accruing from discussed forms of capital necessitate their coordina- the membership in the group are the fundamental of tion, moreover, if the collective persons are concerned. solidarity, which increases and multiplies these ben- That is why for the efficient use of intellectual capital, efits. What is important, it is the fact these relations which is based on cultural and human capitals, also can exist only in the situation of human activities. It other conditions are needed. means social capital is available only when it is used When asking what defines the use of human/cultural (Falk, Kilpatrick 2000: 103–104). and intellectual capitals in society and the way in Social capital in Bourdieu’s understanding is not which theses capitals become the assets of the whole reducible into economic or cultural capital but also it society, then the answer is social capital. Although this is not independent fully on these capitals because it term was probably used for the first time in 1916 by works as the multiplicator for economic and cultural the supervisor of rural schools in West Virginia L.J. capital of an individual person. Social capital is for Hanifan (quoted according to Putnam 2000: 19), it Bourdieu a rather private good because it brings the was introduced into scientific discourse by the works profit mostly for the individuals (Sedláčková, Šafr of P.F. Bourdieu. However, even in his works in the 2005: 5). In the same time it represents structural 1970s, this concept was residual category (Swain 2003: form of this capital (ibid: 5). It is because social capi- 188–189). What is interesting, it is the first Bourdieu’s tal is for Bourdieu above all about the achievement work in which he precisely conceptualizes the concept of the higher position in diversified social struc- of social capital was originally published in German. ture. Therefore, in Bourdieu’s understanding it has Bourdieu (Bourdieu 1983: 190) defines social capital in the competitive nature (Lee, Árnason, Nightingale, this work as the aggregate of the actual and potential Sucksmith, 2005: 270–271). resources, which are linked to possession of a durable Comparing with Bourdieu who introduces the network of more or less institutionalized relations of concept of social capital into the discourse in social mutual acquaintance and recognition – or in other sciences and relates it to an individual and the competi- words to membership in a group. Looking from the tion in social field, there is another understanding of point of view of the groups (collective persons) such social capital. R. Putnam (Putnam 1993, 2000; Putnam, capital gives, according to Bourdieu (ibid: 191), the Feldstein 2003) coins this second view. They were his group members certain background in the collective thoughts about social capital published in the 1990s, Scheme 1: Relations between human, cultural, and intellectual capitals INDIVIDUAL (concrete person) possesses: HUMAN CAPITAL: CULTURAL Expert knowledge CAPITAL: acquired in education tacit knowledge acquired in socialization Influence action of individual and Both capitals are primarily embodied in man/woman collective persons Objectification and institutionalization (done in social constructivism) of cultural (and its part human) capital take it out of individuals and create the basis for: INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL (the level of COLLECTIVE PERSONS) Figure 1. Relations between human, cultural, and intellectual capitals 256 AGRIC. ECON. – CZECH, 52, 2006 (6): 251–262 which significantly influenced the works dealing with has to be given. It is also necessary to accept the gift regional, rural or community development. Finally, under these circumstances. The acceptance of the developing Putnam’s views, social capital became gift makes the commitment that the gift has to be one of the most important conditions, as stated by (under other or similar circumstances) returned (the the World Bank, for the successful implementation commitment to return the gift in the future). Such of the development of certain localities. 4 relations tie and glue the whole society (therefore In Putnam’s work from 1993 “Making Democracy Mauss speaks about total commitment).5 Work”, social capital is a sort of “appendix” to in- In Putnam’s latter works “Bowling Alone” from vestigate the role of citizenship and institutions 2000 and “Better Together” from 2003, the term of in regional development. Putnam (1993: 163–185) social capital becomes central. Putnam develops here outlines this concept at the end of his book when the concepts of bonding (exclusive) and bridging he considers the reasons of various efficiency and (inclusive) social capital (Putnam 2000: 22–24; 2003: performance of regions in Italy. The reason he sees 2–3, 279–282). Bonding social capital is oriented in civic engagement. It is based on the cooperation into the groups. Its tendency is to support exclusiv- of equal partners and traces the roots to the social ity and homogeneity of groups. It refers to the rela- capital. Voluntary cooperation is (Putnam 1993: 167) tions of individuals or the groups, which have much “easier in a community that has inherited a substan- in common. It can be used to explain the specific tial stock of social capital, in the form of norms of reciprocity and mobilization of solidarity (here is the reciprocity and networks of civic engagement. Social place especially for the dark sides of social capital capital here refers to features of social organization, which Putnam finally acknowledges in the form of such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve bribery, nepotism etc.). On the other hand, bridg- the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated ing social capital aims out of the groups. It refers actions.” Spontaneous cooperation, which assumes to the relations of individuals. These relations link equal partners, is facilitated by social capital. individuals or groups across greater social distances. The most important norm, which increases the Bridging social capital is related to the generalized amount of social capital and in this way lowers trans- reciprocity; it provides the links with external assets action costs of collective action, is in Putnam’s view and information diffusion. Putnam (2000: 22–23) (Putnam 1993: 171–173) the reciprocity. Similarly as writes in the illustrative way that while bonding so- M. Shalins in his Stone Age Economics, he distinguish- cial capital is a sort of sociological super-glue which es the balanced (specific) and diffused (generalized) ties and bounds all people together (it is a sort of reciprocity. The first means “simultaneous exchange Durkheimian mechanical solidarity), bridging social of items of equivalent value” (for example like the case capital is a sort of sociological WD-40. Those who when office-mate before the Christmas exchange each are lay repair people know this spray stops jar, cleans other their Christmas bakery). Generalized reciprocity and protects, eliminates moisture, and facilitates the “refers to a continuing relationship of exchange that work of rusty mechanisms. Looking from the point of is at any given time unrequited or imbalanced, but it view of social sciences, bridging social capitals is this involves mutual expectations that a benefit granted type of capital which lowers transaction costs, facili- now should be repaid in the future.” tates the coordination of actors in the field of other The norm of generalized reciprocity is very similar actors who are not the members of the same group. to Mauss’s (Mauss 1999: 12–14; 24–27) total com- Bonding social capital can (due to its background mitment when he describes the gift. Under certain in the homogeneity group) facilitate the strategies circumstances (in certain social context), the gift of linkages. However, if the society is based only on 4 According to the World Bank (The Initiative on Defining, Monitoring and Measuring Social Capital /Overview and program description/ 1998) social capital includes institutions, relations, attitudes and values which govern the in- teractions among people and contribute to social and economic development. Social capital is not simply the sum of institutions that underpin the society but it is also the glue, which holds the society together. It includes shared values and norms for social action, which exist in personal relations, trust, and general sense for civic engagement and responsibility. All it makes the society to be more than the sum of individuals. Without certain sense of a com- mon identification with the forms of governance, organization and coordination, without cultural norms and “rules of game” it is difficult to imagine working and functional society. 5 It is interesting Putnam never mentions Mauss’s “Essay on Gift”, albeit Mauss has already in the 1920s described the mechanism, which is much more latter re-discovered by Putnam as basic element of social capital in his understanding (general reciprocity). AGRIC. ECON. – CZECH, 52, 2006 (6): 251–262 257 this form of capital, it risks being similar like Bosna capital is the wealth of (assets in) our social relations or Belfast (Putnam 2003: 279–280). That is why the (contacts). It is based both on (1) competitive nature existence of bridging social capital is necessary. of social status (who are we in the social hierarchy The paper has already noted that Bourdieu un- and how we enter from these hierarchical positions derstands social capitals as a vertically hierarchical into the relations with others – it is also related to private good bound to an individual person who tacit knowledge and expert knowledge), (2) and the uses social capital to change his/her positions in the amount of mutual trust in the relations with other social field (based on composition of economic and people, existing social norms, formal and informal cultural capital because these capitals influence the social networks used to access resources or to solve habitus /way of action/ of an individual). Such social the problems, which create social cohesion (how do capital can be used for the analysis of what Durkheim we enter into equal relations with others, what is considers organic solidarity as the tool organizing the also based on our tacit and expert knowledge). Social collective action of people. Putnam’s understanding capital means the sources acquired through social differs. His social capital is horizontally equal (based networks and social relations (it is the “wealth of on reciprocity). It is closer to Durkheim’s understand- our relations”). The existence and the scope of social ing of mechanical solidarity, which also establishes capital (for the possibilities of its measurement see for the order of collective action (in different way than example Lošťák 2005, Putnam 1993, 2000, Sedláčková, organic solidarity that is based on division of labour). Šafr 2005) influences the coordination of collective Putnam’s social capital is rather a public good of the actions. Social capital is referred to when explained collective person. More than in Bourdieu’s concept, succes of industrial clusters or addressing so-called it is related to cognitive issues – it is derived from network economics (Swedberg 2003: 65–69). This ideas retained by culture – such as internalized values, paper is founded upon the hypothesis that they are norms, opinions, beliefs (Sedláčková, Šafr 2005: 5). social capital and social networks, which determine Such social capital is more of the cooperative nature, our expert and tacit knowledge and it this way, they which can, however, sometime results in its “dark create the order of the knowledge and influence the side” (Putnam 2000: 350–363). This side relates to the way of its use in action. closed social networks, corruption, mafia, nepotism This text has already indicated that social capital is (especially if bonding social capital dominates without the wealth (assets) of both an individual and a collec- balancing by the bridging social capital). tive entity (see Lin 2001, Hudečková, Lošťák 2003). It The reason of this paper is not to provide the criti- means that the benefits from institutionalized social cism of Putnam’s ideas. N. Swain (Swain 2003: 193–196) relations representing embedded resources can use does it, for instance. He points out to a rather non- both an individual within the collective and the whole historical use of some facts and certain romanticism collective. When speaking about collective persons in ideas that the collective social capital of the whole (this view will be important because of the empiri- communities will be the fundamental tool, which will cal analysis done in this text), social capital is a sort undoubtedly result in their development. For instance of “aggregation of valued resources (e.g. economic, in “Bowling Alone” Putnam (Putnam 2003: 402–414) political, cultural, or social, as in social connections) abiding with his romantic ideas ends the book with of members interacting as a network or networks” the suggestion how to remedy America where the (Lin 2001: 26). Social networks are understood as the activities at the end of the 20 th century were strongly “channels of mutual influence” (Kabele 1999a: 49). individualized (also bowling is not played together These channels are various because also the social in teams but individually). Putnam sees the remedy networks penetrate in different ways, often irregu- in the implementation of the programme, which will larly and in various degrees into different sectors of create social capitalists who will save America (Swain economic life (Granovetter 1992: 61–62). This hetero- 2003: 196). Such programme could be based on the geneity is influenced also by the nature of relations in experience form American Gilded Age (1870–1900) the networks. Mark Granovetter (cf. Swedberg 2003: and the Progressive Era (1900–1915). 124–125) in his analysis of social mechanisms through Into the field marked by the concepts of social capital which people get job distinguishes two types of social developed by P. Bourdieu and R. Putnam considered ties. Strong ties are typical for people who know each as two points of dichotomy, other understandings of other almost on an intimate level. These people have social capital developed by authors like J. Coleman, the tendency to share the same types of information. G. Becker, F. Fukuyama or A. Giddens can be placed. Therefore, they mostly cannot help their group-mates Because the aim of this text is not outline social capital with new information or the advice where to get a in details, there is the summary of this concept. Social new job because they share similar knowledge. Strong 258 AGRIC. ECON. – CZECH, 52, 2006 (6): 251–262 ties are close to Putnam’s bonding capital. On the we found the differences in the tacit knowledge related other hand, the weak ties are typical for people who to the knowledge of the general context of what is know each other rather casually. Thanks to these ties, going on. The differences in tacit knowledge brought people have the access to different expert and tacit us to the concepts of cultural capital. knowledge. It might be more useful for somebody who What were the issues? Because the paper is lim- has just found out s/he needs to get answers for ques- ited in size, only one finding will be presented. The tions or to get a job. Granovetter speaks here about interviewed people in the Agricultural cooperative strong weak ties. The most important elements of had no information (in the sense of tacit knowledge) weak ties are the bridges, which enable the transmis- about the operation of the limited liability company sion of information generated on the basis of weak (composed of 3 Austrians and their Czech relative) ties. The bridges are the people who span separated in investigated region. This company bargained with worlds of strong ties (Kabele 1999a: 69). Here we are local owners about buying their fields. The Farm (joint closer to Putnam’s bridging social capital. However, as stock company) has already had this information. Its Granovetter demonstrates, people to get the jobs use director told us: “A half year ago we made measures the networks of weak ties. It means they are also used to deal with the potential problems emerging from in the competition within the Bourdieu’s social field situation when our renters sell their field to this com- (in a sense of achieving higher social status) which pany.” The Farm started an intensive negotiation with brings these ties close to the Bourdieu’s concept of the owners about the purchase of their field by the social capital. Farm to secure the land ahead of the limited liability company. The members of the top management also started to purchase the state land as natural persons. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This land they rented to the Farm they control as shareholders. The Agricultural cooperative got the As the paper has already outlined above, in inves- information about the limited liability company from tigated community there are two farms. They will be the members of our research team. A coop chairper- compared to achieve the goals of this paper. Their son told us: “It is very interesting, it is serious, and it short characterization is outlined in Table 1. can bring us problems.” This situation generated the During the research formed within the institutional research question. What accounts for the different research “Efektivní integrace českého agrárního sek- tacit knowledge existing among the members of the toru v rámci evropských struktur – předpoklad trvale farms in one community? Why the representatives udržitelného rozvoje“ (Effective integration of the of one agricultural holding had the tacit knowledge Czech agrarian sector into European structure – the necessary for developing future strategies of their condition for sustainable development, funded by the business and another did not posses such tacit knowl- Czech government), also the issues of availability of (in edge? What is even more paradoxical it is the fact, the sense of the access to) information (information that tacit knowledge can be considered as public good includes expert and tacit knowledge) and the use of but one agricultural holding was excluded from its various information were investigated. use. The reason of the different ownership structure The representatives (top management) of both coop (Cooperative vs. Joint Stock Company) was not fully and the joint stock company farm were typified by a satisfactory to explain the questions. very similar expert knowledge (in the sense of quali- Because the previous text suggested expert and tacit fication related to human capital). It confirms similar knowledge are socially determined by social capital, education structure in both farms and the structure of which is founded upon social networks, these issues specialization of workers reflecting similar qualifica- started to be investigated in details in both agricultural tion structure of both agricultural holdings. However, holdings. The outcome indicated the local Agricultural Table 1. A short description in investigated farms in the community Agricultural trading cooperative (Zemědělské obchodní družstvo): uses this name since November 1992; 1 478 ha of land (18.5 ha/worker); animal and plant production, off-farm activities; in 2000 the coop top management retired and a younger staff has been elected to manage the cooperative Farm, joint stock company (Statek, a.s.): uses this name since November 1992; 2 850 ha of land (22 ha/worker); plant and animal production, off-farm activities; in 1999 four members of top farm management bought the shares from the previous owner – an investment company AGRIC. ECON. – CZECH, 52, 2006 (6): 251–262 259 trading cooperative is still rather a sort of “extended purchasing the land by the limited liability company family” which is closed and rotates around established could result in serious problems in its future strategy), durable networks (understood as the Granovetter’s but only its part concentrated around the farming strong ties or the Putnam’s bonding capital) of a group joint stock company. It is because social networks of local protestants who were always important actors and social capital are used also for achieving certain of local farming. The Farm, joint stock company, is a positions in the social field of competing actors. group “of functionally depended people”. This group Social capital coordinates in such a case the use of is open to the surrounding world and moves in chang- economic and cultural capital. Only in the moment ing social relations. It responds to the Granovetter’s when such competitive individualism of actors pursu- weak ties or the Putnam’s bridging social capital. ing their own goals turns into devastating features (all It is important to note that there are no significant want to achieve the benefits but the result is all are persons between the two agricultural holdings – the loosing), the power of the social capital outlined by bridges. The researchers became such bridges during Putnam is more evident. This form of social capital their investigation. Based on the network analysis of coordinates the action not structurally being bound the coop they were the hubs, which established with to the individual but in a cognitive way being bound the coop the weak ties that are important for the to the collective. That is why social capital has to be transmission of knowledge form outside strong ties. seen not only as the mechanism facilitating collective The fact that there are no bridges between the two action through the support of cooperation but also as holdings suggests there is a competition between them mechanism used in competition. In the second case, and they want to protect their intellectual capital. It the result of social capital use can be negative when also means social capital is not used for the benefits all participants of action are losers at the end. Such of the whole community (as Putnam would suggest) understanding of social capital is missing in Putnam’s but for the benefits of one individual in the detriment work. He stresses only the collective dimension and of others. Such situation is close to the Bourdieu’s it makes for him problems to deal with “dark side” of understanding of social capital. social capital. These circumstances are often neglected when social capital is considered as a sort of remedy to help Czech farming not only on the practical level CONCLUSIONS (various supports to producers group and collective marketing initiatives) but also on the theoretical level The analyzed case confirmed social determination (see Chloupková, Bjørnskov 2002). of tacit knowledge. They are social networks, which The analyzed case also demonstrated that only the influence the access to the information based on human capital concept is not enough for an efficient tacit knowledge as for the information about broader work of farms. Not only expert knowledge, talent, pro- context of activities. It is tacit knowledge, which is fessional skills are important but also social networks in available in the social networks. The character of which we exist and through which we have an access to the networks influences also the character of tacit the information (if the networks have features of weak knowledge. If tacit knowledge is a sort of public good ties and if there are sufficient bridges) are significant. then also the character of social networks and the The case showed that the concept of human capital is character of social capital are very important as for very limited to explain all skills. That is why it is also the access to this good. In this way, we should work useful to work with the concept of tacit knowledge with weak networks as Granovetter suggests and with and its relation to cultural capital of persons in social bridging social capital developed by Putnam. Weak networks and intellectual capital of collective persons social networks and bridging social capital are even when doing economic analysis of the farms. Cultural more important for the use of tacit knowledge, if an capital according to the findings of this text is not actor should act in a very turbulent milieu where a rooted only in education in family and schools but can person competes for higher social positions and uses be formed also by other social groups the individual is social capital also in Bourdieu’s understanding. Social a member of and in which s/he multiplies what s/he networks shape social capital both on collective level received in family and education. (often related to R. Putnam) and on the level of an The case in the investigated community brings us individual (often referred to P. Bourdieu). The analyzed also back to Granovetter’s (1992: 53–54; 57–63) con- case indicated that compared with Putnam’s ideas, the cept of embeddedness. In this concept Granovetter benefits from social networks (and even from bridging develops Karl Polanyi (1992) 6 . Our activities, in- social capital) use not the whole community (for the cluding economic ones, are always in some way agricultural cooperative the lack of information about embedded in some form of social structure. Social 260 AGRIC. ECON. – CZECH, 52, 2006 (6): 251–262 structures, including social networks influence Becker G. (2002): Human Capital. [on-line] The our actions. The actions in modern society are Concise Encyclopedia of Economics [quoted founded on rational choices, which are based on 2005-10-24]. Available at <http://www.econlib. expert knowledge and tacit knowledge used by the org/library/Enc/HumanCapital.html>. actors. These forms of knowledge through their Bělohradský V. (2002): Malý příruční slovník globa- projections into activities create also the structures lizace: deset hesel k porozumění a obraně. Salon in which people act. We can see here the duality (literární příloha Práva), č. 285 (14. září 2002). of action and structures which Giddens’ theory of Bělohradský V. (2003): Je vzdělání na cestě stát se structuration (Giddens 1984) or Bourdieu’s theory zbožím? Právo (1. 9. 2003). of social field and habitus (Borudieu 1998) aim to Berger P. Luckman T. (1999): Sociální konstrukce bridge over. Without connecting social capital with reality (pojednání o sociologii vědění). Centrum these theories, the analysis of social capital in not pro studium demokracie a kultury. Brno. completed. It does not show all the possibilities Bourdieu P. (1983): Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles social capital have in operation of the farm when Kapital, soziales Kapital. In: Kreckel R. (ed.): So- joining this capital with expert knowledge and ziale Ungleichheiten (Soziale Welt, Sonderheft 2). tacit knowledge. The type of information we have Otto Schartz & Co., Goettingen, pp. 183–198. and we are able to use depends also on the type Bourdieu P. (1998): Teorie jednání. Karolinum, Pra- of social networks (structures) we are members ha. of. Because social networks are important condi- Coase R. (1994): Institucionální uspořádání výroby. tion for creating social capital, an important role In: Jonáš. J a kol.: Oslava ekonomie (přednášky of this capital in the abilities to acquire and to laureátů Nobelovy ceny za ekonomii). Academia, use expert and tacit knowledge is obvious. Social Praha, pp. 716–724. capital influences the knowledge we have (see for Chloupková J, Bjørnskov Ch. (2002): Could social example Putnam 1993: 164–166; 173–174 about capital help Czech agriculture. Agricultural Eco- the knowledge about others). The structuration nomics – Czech, 48 (6): 245–249. of our activities is efficient and results in benefit Disman M. (1993): Jak se vyrábí sociologická znalost. of all participants, if it is based on social capital. Karolinum, Praha. However, this capital does not need to be considered Falk I., Kilpatrick S. (2000): What is Social Capital? only in the sense of Putnam’s ideas as possessed by A Study of Interaction in a Rural Community. a collective. It can be also understood as the assets Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (1): 87–110. of an individuals (in the sense of contacts which Garfinkel H., Sacks H. (1990): On Formal Structures in their sum structure the society) as P. Bourdieu of Practical Action. In: Coulter J. (ed.): Ethno- views this capital. Such approach even enables to methodological Sociology (bibliography compiled work more with the concept of cultural capital that by Fehr B.J. and Stetson J. with the assistance of is closer to the concept of tacit knowledge. Mizukawa Y). Vt.: Edward Elgar Pub., Brookfield, pp.337–366. Giddens A. (1984): The Constitution of Society: Out- REFERENCES line of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge. Bauman Z. (1995): Úvahy o postmoderní době. So- Giddens A. (1998): Důsledky modernity. Sociologické ciologické nakladatelství, Praha. nakladatelství, Praha. Bauman Z. (1999): Globalizace. (Důsledky pro člo- Giddens A. (2000): Unikající svět. Sociologické na- věka). Mladá fronta, Praha. kladatelství, Praha. Bauman Z (2002):. Tekutá modernita. Mladá fronta, Granovetter M. (1992): Economic Action and Social Praha. Structure: The problem of Embeddedness. In: Beck U. (2004): Riziková společnost: na cestě k jiné Granovetter M., Richard Swedberg R. (eds): The modernitě. Sociologické nakladatelství, Praha. Sociology of Economic Life. Westview Press, pp. Becker G. (1994): Ekonomický způsob pohledu na ži- 53–81. vot. In: Jonáš J a kol.: Oslava ekonomie (přednášky Hron J. (2004): New economy and manager behav- laureátů Nobelovy ceny za ekonomii): 727–746. iour changes. Agricultural Economics – Czech, Academia, Praha. 50 (1): 9–12. 6 Polanyi shows that economic life faces various institutions; many of them are different from the market. Human life is also embedded in these non-market institutions that influence economic life. AGRIC. ECON. – CZECH, 52, 2006 (6): 251–262 261 Hron J. (2005): Znalostní a strategický management. Polanyi K. (1992): The Economy as Instituted Pro- In: Agrární perspektivy XIV. Znalostní ekonomika. cess. In: Granovetter M., Swedberg R. (eds.): The Sborník prací z mezinárodní vědecké konference Sociology of Economic Life. Westview Press, pp. I. Česká zemědělská univerzita, PEF, Praha, pp. 29–51. 19–24. Putnam R. (1993): Making Democracy Work: Civic Kabele J. (1998): Přerody (Principy sociálního kon- Tradition in Modern Italy. University Press, Prin- struování). Karolinum, Praha. ceton. Kabele J. (1999a): Teoretická východiska zkoumání Putnam R. (2000): Bowling Alone (The collapse and lokální vlády. In: Filipov II (informatoria katedry revival of American Community). New York: Si- sociologie Institutu sociologických studií Fakulty mon & Schuster. sociálních věd Univerzity Karlovy v Praze). Insti- Putnam R. Feldstein L. (2003): Better Together (Resto- tut sociologických studií Fakulty sociálních věd ring the American Community). Simon & Schuster, Univerzity Karlovy, Praha, pp. 9–110. New York. Kabele J. (1999b): Metodologie intervenčního heu- Ritzer G. (1997): Postmodern Social Theory. The ristického vyšetřování. In: Filipov II (informatoria McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. katedry sociologie Institutu sociologických studií Samuleson P., Nordhaus W. (1992): Economics (Four- Fakulty sociálních věd Univerzity Karlovy v Praze). teenth Edition). McGraww-Hill. Inc. Institut sociologických studií Fakulty sociálních Sedláčková M., Šafr J. (2005): Měření sociálního věd Univerzity Karlovy, Praha, pp. 113–136. kapitálu (koncepty, výzkumné projekty a zdroje Hudečková H. Lošťák M. (2003): Social capital in dat). SDA-Info (Informační bulletin Sociologického the change of the Czech agriculture. Agricultural datového archívu), 7 (1): 4–11. Economics – Czech, 49 (7): 301–309. Stiglitz J. (2003): Oslava iracionálna. Ekonom, 47 Lee J., Árnason A., Nightingale A., Sucksmith M. (51–52): 23. (2005): Networking: Social Capital and Identities in Swain N. (2003): Social Capital and its Uses. Archives European Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis, Europeennes do Sociologie, 44 (2): 185–212. 45 (4): 269–283. Swedberg R., Granovetter M. (1992): Introduction. In: Lin N. (2001): Social Capital (A theory of Social struc- Granovetter M., Swedberg R. (eds.): The Sociology ture and Action). Cambridge University Press. of Economic Life. Westview Press, pp. 1–26. Lošťák M. (2005): New possibilities of identifying Swedberg R. (2003): Principles of Economic Sociol- social capital for its use in sustainable rural de- ogy. Princeton University Press. velopment. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 51 The Initiative on Defining, Monitoring and Measuring (2):57–63. Social Capital (Overview and program description). Majerová V., Majer E. (1999): Kvalitativní metody (1998): [on-line], available at <http://siteresources. v sociologii venkova zemědělství. Credit, Česká worldbank.org/intsocialcapital/Resources/Social- zemědělská univerzita, Praha. Capital-Initiative-Working-Paper-Series/SCI-WPS- Mauss M. (1999): Esej o daru, podobě a důvodech 01.pdf> [quoted 2005-12-27] směny v archaických společnostech. Sociologické Tichá I. (2001): Knowledge: a source of competitive nakladatelství, Praha. advantage in global economy. Agricultural Eco- Mlčoch L. (1996): Institucionální ekonomie (učeb- nomics – Czech, 47 (4): 141–144. ní text pro studenty vysokých škol). Karolinum, Tichá I. (2005): Intelektuální kapitál: mikroekono- Praha. mická past a jak z ní ven. In: Agrární perspektivy North D. (1994): Vývoj ekonomické výkonnosti v čase. XIV. Znalostní ekonomika. Sborník prací z mezi- In: Jonáš. J a kol.: Oslava ekonomie (přednášky národní vědecké konference II. Česká zemědělská laureátů Nobelovy ceny za ekonomii). Academia, univerzita, PEF, Praha, pp. 1125–1128. Praha, pp. 754–765. Arrived on 12th April 2006 Contact address: Michal Lošťák, Czech University of Agriculture, Kamýcká 129, 165 21 Prague 6-Suchdol, Czech Republic tel. +420 224 382 311, e-mail: [email protected] 262 AGRIC. ECON. – CZECH, 52, 2006 (6): 251–262