No . 132 / 2015 Social capital as a key driver of productivity growth of the economy : across-countries comparison

The aim of this work was to show the possible impact of social capital on productivity of the economy. That impact can be measured by such indicators of productivity of the economy as used in our study: the GDP, the total value added of the economy (TVE), and the GNI per total labour force. Thus, this paper was organized as follows: its first part presents the relationship between the development of social capital and productivity growth of the country in the light of the economic development theory. In this context it is pointed out that the significance of social capital as a component of the productivity potential of a given country increases when such country moves to the next stages of economic development. Therefore, social capital becomes a very important driver of the upgrading of national incomes in those countries, in which competitive advantages are based primarily on intellectual capital assets. The other part of the paper describes the methodology and the results of a research conducted on a group of 100 countries in the years 2012-2013 with an aim to illustrate the link between social capital and productivity of the economy as a whole referred to, or indicated, in the first part of the study. The results of the research allowed us to formulate a conclusion that without an appropriate ethical behaviour, not only in business, the productivity growth is hampered because it translates into a lower level of trust and unwillingness to cooperate. In other words, as, among others, W. Bartoszewski stressed, "it is worth to be decent".


Introduction
Social capital as an element of intellectual capital includes, according to specialists working for the World Bank, various institutions, linkages and relationships, norms and customs that determine the quality and quantity of a society's social interactions (http:web.worldbank.org/wbsite/external/topics/exttsocialcapital (1.03.2015)).Social capital understood in this way is an important component of a country's soft environment, which determines the further increase in the welfare level through facilitating cooperation and collective action.Cooperation requires the creation of various types of networks and the development of trust.P. Streeten (2002, p. 10) stresses that the ability to associate depends on the degree to which communities share norms, and out of such shared norms grows trust.For F. Fukuyama, trust is the existing belief in a given community that other members of that group are characterized by honesty and cooperative behavior based on shared values and principles (Fukuyama, 1997, p. 38).
In this work social capital is regarded as one of key drivers of the country's productivity growth through its impact on the welfare level of the economy.The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) stresses that a good understanding of the role and drivers of productivity growth is crucial to strengthening the recovery and improving growth and living standards in the longer term (OECD, 2013, p. 7).Therefore, the article discusses social capital in the light of its influences on the formation of the productive potential of the economy.It should be pointed out that the significance of social capital as a component of the productivity potential of a given country increases with moving by this country to the next stages of economic development.In other words, social capital becomes a very important driver of the upgrading of the national income in the countries in which competitive advantages are based primarily on intellectual capital assets.
The aim of this work is to show the possible impact of social capital on productivity of the economy.This paper is organized as follows.Its first part presents the notion of social capital and the link between development of social capital and productivity growth of the country in the light of the economic development theory.
The second part describes the methodological assumptions, the materials and the results of own research conducted on a group of 100 countries in the years 2012-2013.The aim of this research was to illustrate the mentioned links between social capital and productivity in the first part of the study.Based on the data sets of international institutions such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Legatum Institute (LI), and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the relationship among indexes of social capital and its selected dimensions as well as indicators of productivity of the economy as a whole, including the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value added of the economy (TVE), and the Gross National Income (GNI) per total labour force, are analyzed.All those are based on statistical methods.

Social capital and productivity growth
The concept of social capital has been developed by many researchers; hence there are many definitions and explanations of this category.It should be emphasized in this place that the introduction of a category of social capital into economic science has enriched the latter with a sociocultural context.The main areas of research into social capital have been set out, inter alia, by such great sociologists and economists as P. Bourdieu, J. Coleman, R. Putnam, D. North, M. Olson, S. Knack and F. Fukuyama.
Interesting and useful for further analysis seems to be the approach adopted by J. Coleman who describes social capital primarily as a social structure (network) made up of a variety of communities.He treats social capital as every aspect of an informal social organization that creates productive resources for one or more entities.Thus, social capital consists of institutions that enhance the benefits of an individual with cooperation and exchange (Coleman, 1988, p.95;Wildowicz-Gigiel, 2008, pp. 7-8, Libertowska, 2014, p. 96).
P. Bourdieu, in turn, defines social capital as the bonds and obligations based on reciprocity relations of human beings, which may be institutionalized in the form of social trust.R. Putman, the biggest promoter of social capital, understands it as "the totality of norms, networks, mutual trust and loyalty that occur in a particular social group".He defines social capital as connections between individuals, norms and trust that arises from these relationships and can increase the productivity of a society by facilitating the coordination of activities (Przygodzki, 2004, pp. 94-95;Gajowiak M., 2011, p. 57;Majewska, 2012, pp. 205-206;Majewska, 2013 a, p. 254).
F. Fukuyama was investigating social capital from a cultural perspective.A key category for him was trust.He stressed the economic dimension of trust and social capital.This approach to social capital has influenced our understanding of social capital presented in this article, because it takes into account the differences in the level of economic development of regions and countries.
In yet another explanation of social capital, the ability of people to cooperate and this cooperation being based on ethical norms and values shared by all members of a community (group) is emphasized.Social capital is therefore an immaterial effect of a collective action, the common goodboth public and private.
Finally, we can say that social capital consists of norms and networks that support cooperation.Also the OECD's definition of social capital states that it "networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate co-operation within or among groups" (Gellauff, 2003, pp. 1-2).The synergy effect, which occurs as a result of these links, and continued innovations lead to a more efficient use of production factors.In modern economies, social capital is one of the most important determinants of socio-economic development of countries.
Sociological theory distinguishes between two types of networks: bonding and bridging.Bonding, or strong-ties networks, consist of a closely knit set of connections within a specific group of people who are well aware of one another's behaviour and reputation.These connections generally exist for a long period of time.
Bridging, or weak-ties networks, are much "thinner".Contacts last shorter but extend to a larger group of people.People in bridging networks more easily connect with outsiders.Because of two types of networks, there are also two kinds of social capital.The main differences between the bonding and bridging social capital are the following (see : Gelauft, 2003, pp. 4-5): -The bonding social capital is characterized by relatively low transaction costs required to make relationship-specific investments within groups, and it is relatively easy to guarantee confidentiality.This situation creates economies of scale: information asymmetry is low, and it takes less effort for people to get acquainted with one another.Members of a group feel solidarity and are willing to help one another in difficult situations.On the other hand, however, antagonisms between group members and outsiders may appear, which may, consequently undermine standards that are appropriate for this particular group.-Within the bridging social capital, members have more trust in people (which also more rapidly extends on people) from other places or other cultures or to people with other ideas.This characteristic increases the flexibility in building relationship-specific investments, generates diversity and reinforces motivation for innovation and entrepreneurship.The long term trends show a shift from a bonding to a bridging social capital.
At the micro level (the level of a unit) the analysis focuses on the study of attitudes, relationships, norms and behaviours among individuals or groups who are in close relationships with one another (neighbourhood).The most important category which is analyzed at this level is cooperation.The unit is then examined in terms of its individual benefits from participating in networks of social relations.
At the meso level (the level of organization or community) the subject of the analysis is a group (social institution), which helps to build a greater community network and can benefit from its social capital.In this approach, social capital is a resource, which is conditioned by the existing social bonds.
And finally, at the macro level, social capital is treated as a public good and analyzed in relation to the whole of the society.Consequently, the political, social and cultural elements of the environment are taken into account, and the impact of formal institutional structures on the economic situation of society, welfare and the level of satisfaction is examined.Other important areas of study include an analysis of the credibility of a State, the scope of civil liberties available to citizens, the existence or lack of corruption and the efficiency of the administrative system of a given State.
To summarize, social capital can be viewed as the ability of a country to cooperate and work together in order to realize the common purpose of a given community or network.Social capital consists of such dimensions like (see: http:web.worldbank.org/wbsite/external/topics/exttsocialcapital)): -different kinds of networks and collective actions, -values and attitudes such as trust, solidarity, honesty, fairness, egalitarianism, sense of unity, equality of treatment, -information and communication technology facilitating collaboration and increasing the transparency of government decisions, -organizational structures, arrangements and solutions for cooperation between the private and public sectors.The development of social capital may give many benefits.For example, social capital reduces transaction costs, corruption and the scope of social exclusion.Social capital also increases the degree of transparency and accountability of economic policy through the wider access of enterprises and citizens to information.It also strengthens cooperation between the public and private sector, which reduces the waste of public funds and increases the efficiency of jointly-implemented projects.Additionally, social capital facilitates knowledge diffusion and sharing.Those benefits of formatting social capital lead to the productivity growth of the economy (see : Czapiński, 2014, p. 320;Majewska, 2013 a, 255-256;Josten, 2013, pp. 5-8;http:web.worldbank.org/topics/social development (1.03.2015)).
However, obtainment of the above mentioned benefits of social capital depends on the level of economic development.For example, the level of trust is correlated with GDP pc, which indicator is often used as a proxy of prosperity.At the early stages of development, in countries that are only beginning to implement an industrialization strategy, industry located in rural areas (textile and food) is usually first to develop, and investments in more manufactured goods industries are being made much more later, first, simply to fulfil the needs of the internal market.That is why investments in human capital are so important.Governments of developing countries should also support domestic producers by making it possible to invest into different types of hard infrastructure and develop capital goods industries.
Only then will those economies start to open to foreign markets on a greater scale.In order to cope with international competition, domestic producers must implement technological improvements and learn from the rest of the world, absorb new knowledge, and, as a result, increase productivity, building together with the government a public and business environment in order to upgrade the prosperity of their own country.Thus, in such cases, human capital begins to become the main driving force of productivity growth.
When it comes to medium-income countries, the economic policy of their respective governments should, among other things, focus on the strengthening of the industrial base and support domestic businesses in their innovation activities that require a good quality human capital.In these activities, what becomes an increasingly important task is the shaping of the socioeconomic structure of the economy, as its competitive advantages should change its character, in order to the help a given country could to maintain its productivity growth, and hence prosperity.
Due to the implementation of appropriate development strategies, comparative advantages can transform those based on raw materials and cheap labour in the direction of those based on capital and technology.Passing on to the next stages of economic development, frequently referred to the knowledge economy, is closely related to the higher level of intellectual capital, of which an important part is social capital.Summing up, there is a systematic relationship between the socioeconomic structure of the country, the nature of the sources of productivity growth, and the kind of political economy, which in turn reflects its level of economic development.For example, in the opinion of J. Czapiński, the important role of a human capital as a factor of wealth growth in poorer countries explains why Poland has been so far developing at a good pace, irrespective of its low level of social capital.As Czapiński sees it, the continuation of investments in human capital may turn out insufficient to sustained development (see : Czapiński, 2014, pp.323-333;Jantoń-Drozdowska & Majewska, 2013, pp.45-48;Rizwan et all., 2011, pp.270-277).
Failure to take into account the above-mentioned interactions (widely presented in literature on the achievements of the later stages of economic development) in research methodology could lead to a controversial conclusion that social capital does not increase productivity.This does not mean, however, that in an economy where the level of social capital is too low, or if there is so-called negative social capital, as is in the case of corruption and nepotism, its impact on productivity does not appear, or will not be an impediment to economic development (see for example : Streeten, 2002, p. 11-13).

Methodology and materials of the research
The study covered a group of 100 countries included in the rankings of the World Economic Forum, the Legatum Institute and the UNCTAD statistics.The research period covered the years 2012-2013 as it was possible to obtain for that period the latest dataset which allowed us to estimate all selected indicators for the analysis of social capital and productivity for the economy as a whole.
The productivity measures for the total economy in our study are the GDP per total labour force (GDP pe), the present Total Value Added of the economy per total labour force (TVE pe) and the nominal GNI per total labour force (GNI pe).Gross National Income is defined as GDP plus net receipts from abroad of wages and salaries and of property income plus net taxes and subsidies receivable from abroad (see: OECD, 2013, pp. 14-32).The three indicators of economic performance and income levels of a given country: GDP, TVE, and GNI are expressed in current prices converted to U.S. dollars at official exchange rates.They are sourced from the UNCTAD statistics reports, such as total labour force data.The UNCTAD defines total labour force as persons aged 15 and older who are engaged or seeking work.Thus, the estimates of total labour force can be treated as potential employment of the economy.
This variable of potential employment of the economy has been decided upon since it was impossible to obtain data free on real employment and hours of work for such a large set of countries from other sources, such as for example the OECD or the International Labour Organization.The indicators of productivity level of the economy are calculated by dividing the GDP, TVE and GNI of a given country by its total labour force (http:// unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/reportFolders/reportFolders.aspx).This dataset is presented in Table 1.The surveyed countries are presented according to the level of GNI pe from the highest to the lowest position in this indicator of productivity in 2012.The comparison of three productivity indicators shows big differences in their highs across the surveyed countries.While only 26 countries displayed the productivity level measured by three indicators higher than USD 50 000 per employee in 2012, 51 countries achieved the productivity level lower than USD 20 000 per employee.One of the many possible factors causing the observed divergence in productivity levels, can be social capital.It role in driving the economic growth and changes in living standards, hence prosperity, is still growing in the present world economy.
Specialists working for the independent British research center the Legatum Institute argue that social networks and the cohesion that a society experiences when people trust one another have a direct effect on the prosperity of a country.Firstly, as a synthetic index of social capital in a given country, has been selected the index of the Legatum Institute.It is a part of the aggregate indicator of economic prosperity and quality of life.The Legatum Social Capital Index measures countries' performances in two areas: social cohesion and engagement, as well as community and family networks.In order to estimate this social capital index, the Legatum Institute assesses how factors such as volunteering, helping strangers, or donations to charitable organizations influence the economic and life satisfaction of the populace as a whole.The index also includes such dimensions of social capital as the levels of trust in a society, the manner in which citizens believe they can rely on others, and how marriage and religiosity provide support networks that improve wellbeing (http://www.prosperity.com/social.aspx(1.03.2015).
The authors have added their own social capital index based on the indicators published in The Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014.This year's Report features a number of 148 economies, and contains a detailed profile for each of the economies included in the study, as well as an extensive section of data tables with global rankings covering over 100 indicators.The indicators sourced from The Global Competitiveness Report included in our proposition of a social capital index, come from the executive opinion survey the participants of which are business executives.Respondents estimate the presence of a given factor in their country on the seven-point scale, where 1 refers to the lowest level of this factor, and 7 the highest (the best situation).Therefore, this aggregate social capital index puts more emphasis on the level of social capital from the business sector point of view than the Legatum Social Capital Index, and is called by authors the Business Social Capital Index.In constructing our aggregate index, and thus in the selection of variables, we remembered of the recommendation that individual indicators should describe different aspects of the analyzed phenomenon.Therefore, the two analyzed indexes of social capital, that is the Legatum Institute's one and ours, are mutually complementary, creating together a more comprehensive overview of the social capital level in a given country.
The  , 2013, p. 537).Each component of the Business Social Capital Index has been assigned a weighting 0.166 (16.66%), which means that it is a symmetrical weighted aggregate index.The Business Social Capital Index was calculated according to a typical procedure.For each country, the total value of this index was calculated by summing the results of multiplying the 2012-2013 average values of 6 indicators presented in the World Economic Forum's annual Global Competitiveness Reports by the weight assigned to them (see: Archibugi & Coco, 2004, p. 175-179;Majewska, 2013 a, pp. 258-259).
Next, Spearman's rank and Pearson's linear correlation analysis were carried out to examine the relationship between social capital and productivity for the surveyed economies and for each distinguished group.Due to the above stressed fact that the role of social capital as a component of the productivity potential of a given country increases with achieving by this country the next stages of economic development, the 100 countries were divided in two groups composed of 50 economies each, according to their social capital level.First, in the Spearman's rank correlation analysis, the social capital level was measured the average position of its aggregate indexes.Then, in the Pearson's linear correlation and a cluster analysis, the sum of values of social capital indexes was measured.In the case of Spearman's rank correlation analysis, there was no need to normalize the data, because that analysis is carried out for the examined variables describing the 100 countries expressed in their positions according to these variables in the rankings considered in our study (see Table 2).Whereas all variables included in the Pearson's linear correlation and cluster analysis were transformed into natural logarithms, which is the recommended procedure in such studies (see.: Majewska, 2013 b, pp.177-178).
Then a cluster analysis was performed too, as it allowed examination of similarities and dissimilarities regarding the indicators of productivity and social capital's dimensions between the analysed groups of countries.The cluster analysis was carried out with the help of an agglomeration method based on Chebyshev and 1-r Pearsona distances for grouping the features of a selected group of countries.The Chebyshev measure is a generalized version of Euclidean distance between variables, and it normalizes the differences in distances to the extent necessary for the identification of similarities and dissimilarities between the characteristics of countries divided into different social capital-level groups.In the case of 1-r Pearson measure of distance, variables are grouped for a given set of countries by way of inclusion of the Pearson's multiply correlation coefficients among a number of variables that are analyzed simultaneously.The coefficient of multiple correlation is a measure of how well a given variable can be predicted using a linear function of a set of other variables.This kind of measure of distance allows to present the results of the multidimensional relationships between the variables of productivity and social capital.The results of the two kinds of cluster analysis have been presented graphically in a dendrogram the branches of which represent distances between the examined variables for selected groups of countries.

Results of a research into the link between the level of social capital and productivity growth
In order to ensure comparability of data from different sources it was decided to compile the positions occupied by a given country of concerned rankings of social capital and productivity.Table 2 shows the positions of 100 countries obtained in analyzed rankings for the years 2012-2013.First place achieved by a country in all selected rankings means or the highest level of productivity indicator or the highest scale of social capital development (or its dimension like ethical behavior of firms) across surveyed economies.For example, in the Legatum Institute ranking of social capital (39 rank) and ethical behavior of firms (43), Poland achieved the best position, while it was placed in the worst for the indices of transparency of government policymaking affecting business activities (86) and for the state of cluster development (81).Therefore, in the Business Social Capital Index Poland attained much lower position -69.
In 2012 the top 5 countries in the LSCI ranking were Norway, Denmark, Australia, the New Zealand, Finland, whereas the five countries classified at the lowest positions were Bangladesh, Turkey, Rwanda, Pakistan, and India.According to the BSCI ranking leaders in 2012-2013 were Singapore, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, while the last five places were occupied by Greece, Nepal, Argentina, Algeria, and Venezuela.As regards the level of social capital, the measured average position in two its aggregate indexes, in the researched period among the top 5 countries were Norway, Finland, the New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Sweden.In 2012, the bottom 5 countries according to this indicator were Mozambique, Algeria, Nepal, Romania, Bangladesh.In 2012-2013 public trust in politicians was the highest in Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Norway, the New Zealand, Sweden, and the lowest in Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Paraguay, Czech Republic, Argentina.In transparency of government policymaking affecting business activities, the best results across the surveyed countries achieved Singapore, Finland, Hong Kong, the New Zealand, and Switzerland.For businesses to obtain information about changes in government policies and regulations affecting their activities were the most difficult in Mali, El Salvador, Italy, Argentina and Venezuela.
In 2012 to the five countries classified at the highest positions in the ranking of ethical behavior of firms were the New Zealand, Finland, Singapore, Switzerland, and Norway.The lowest places in this dimension of social capital occupied Romania, Venezuela, Paraguay, Argentina, and Bangladesh.According to the cooperation in labor-employer relations ranking leaders in 2012 were Switzerland, Singapore, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands.The most confrontational labor-employer relations occurred in Romania, Argentina, Nepal, Venezuela, and the South Africa.
In 2012 to the top 5 surveyed countries, where the state of cluster development were the most widespread in many fields, belonged Taiwan, Italy, the United Arab Emirates, Germany, and Switzerland.In this dimension of social capital the ranking bottom reached Zimbabwe, Ukraine, Mongolia, Venezuela, and Moldova.In 2012 the five countries classified at the highest positions in the extent of university-industry collaboration in R&D were Switzerland, Finland, the United States, Singapore, and the United Kingdom.The lowest places in this dimension of social capital attained Nepal, Moldova, Egypt, Bangladesh, Algeria.Table 3 presents the results of the research obtained from estimating Spearman's rank correlation between positions of surveyed countries in rankings of social capital indexes, its dimensions, and productivity indicators in the years 2012-2013.In the case of a whole set of countries and a group of countries with the higher level of social capital all correlation coefficients are positive and statistically significant on the level 0.05.However, for a group of countries with the lower level of social capital all correlation coefficients are not statistically significant on the level 0.05.The same results obtained with the help of the method of Pearson's correlation analysis (Table 4), which was performed additionally to increase the reliability of the outcomes.In the case of Pearson's correlation analysis were correlated the values of social capital and productivity variables.Reminding, the values of variables have been previously standardized, and countries were divided into two groups of higher or lower level of social capital according to the sum of the values of LISCI and BSCI.
The values of Spearman's rank correlation coefficients show that the higher position of a given country according to the level of social capital, the better place in the rankings of productivity.The considered links between an increase in social capital and a higher level of productivity has been confirmed also by Pearson's linear correlation analysis.Moreover the research results have indicated that according to the theory of economic development path of a country, the significant impact of social capital on the level of prosperity appears only after a country has accumulated a sufficient stock of it.This requires different kinds long-term transformations in soft and hard infrastructure of the national economy.
An important component of such soft infrastructure is just social capital, including examined in this study its dimensions.The values of correlation coefficients presented in Table 3 and 4 indicate that the strongest interactions occur between the level of productivity and such dimensions of social capital as ethical behavior of firms and university-industry collaboration in R&D.The values of correlation coefficients are the lowest for the cooperation in labor-employer relations and transparency of government policymaking affecting business activities.Two separate cluster analyses were made to check whether the above introduced characteristics of interactions between the productivity and social capital levels took place for the two groups composed of 50 economies divided according to the social capital level.In this case the social capital level was measured by the following proxy -the sum of values of social capital indexes.The results of the cluster analysis here show which clusters of variables are more typical for these groups of countries.
The cluster analyses confirmed that for a group of countries with higher level of social capital are the strongest links between social capital and its dimensions and the value of productivity indicators than in the case of a group of countries with lower level of social capital.In two groups of analyzed countries we deal with one main clusters of productivity variables joined, at different longer nodes, by the second main cluster contained the variables of social capital.In the examined countries with higher level of social capital the variables of social capitals and the productivity indicators are closer in terms of distances between them.It is more visible in the case of 1-r Pearson measure of distance.2013, pp. 413, 421, 426, 488, 526, 537; http://unctadstat.unctad.org/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx.(1.03.2015).
Countries with higher level of social capital demonstrate therefore explicitly a larger similarity of analyzed features.Indicators of social capital and productivity change in a similar manner, and almost all at once, and their changes are correlated with each other.In other words, the variables that we have examined may influence one another more strongly in the group of countries with higher level of social capital than in the group of countries with lower level of social capital.
The results of our study again suggest that social capital in the high-income countries is more important element increases the productivity, comparing to countries with lower its level, where the drivers of productivity growth, and thus prosperity, are still different, which is explained by the economic development theory (see Introduction).  2013, pp. 413, 421, 426, 488, 526, 537; http://unctadstat.unctad.org/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx.(1.03.2015).

Conclusions
The results of our study have shown that social capital is an important source of raising productivity of the national economy, provided that the country is already in a later stage of economic development.This is related to the fact that the previous growth drivers of wealth, associated mainly with the improvement of hard infrastructure and revenues from foreign trade based on labour-intensive and capital-intensive comparative advantages, have been diminishing.
To ensure further growth in productivity, certain actions will necessary, including actions aimed at the development of a soft business environment, strengthening of cooperation between the public and private sector, higher professionalization and better transparency of state policies.All these help to rebuild trust in socio-economic relations, but requires the promotion of ethics, fairness, and well understood social justice.This happens because without honesty and ethical behaviour, there is no trust, and without trust, there is no real cooperation and integration, or, consequently, resulting from them different types of synergies.Our research has led us to the conclusion that without appropriate ethical behavior productivity growth will be hampered, because it translates into a lower level of trust and unwillingness to cooperate.In other words, like for example W. Bartoszewski stresses, "it is worth to be decent".

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Dendrogram for Selected Variables of Surveyed Countries Clustered Using Chebyshev Distance in 2012-2013

Table 2 .
Countries' positions in different social capital and productivity rankings in 2012-2013

Table 3 .
Spearman's rank correlation coefficients across various indexes of social capital and productivity for a given group of researched countries in 2012-2013

Table 4 .
Pearson's correlation coefficients across various indexes of social capital and productivity for a given group of researched countries in 2012-2013 SSCI -Sum of Legatum Social Capital Index and Business Social Capital Index.