Social Capital in Energy Enterprises: Poland’s Case

Social capital is currently perceived as one of the basic factors of economic development and economic success of enterprises. However, while there is already much research on social capital in enterprises, there has been little such research in the energy industry. The aim of the publication is to fill the gap in this regard. The basic question that the authors try to answer is whether there is a higher level of capital in energy companies compared to other industries, and if so, what the reasons are for this. Apart from answering this question, the authors present their own method of measuring the level of this capital. The first part of the article presents the results of a study on the level of social capital in Polish energy companies, whereas the second part compares the levels of social capital in energy companies and industrial companies in other sectors. According to the study, energy companies generally have higher levels of social capital than companies in other industries. It has been found, however, that individual forms of capital that comprise social capital differ. The most significant differences were observed in relational capital, followed by cognitive capital at a lower value and structural capital at the lowest. The survey also revealed that there is a difference in social capital levels among the researched professional groups: management, administration, and production.

The Components of Big Data and Knowledge Management Will Change Radically How People Collaborate and Develop Complex Research

Emerging as a rapidly growing field, big data is already known for promising success and having considerable synergies with knowledge management. The common goal of this collaboration is to improve and facilitate decision making, fueling the competition, fostering innovation, and achieving economic success through acquisition of knowledge to various applications. Knowledge in the entire world or inside any organization has already expanded itself in various directions and is exponentially increasing with time. To withstand the current competitive environment, an intensive collaboration of knowledge management with different approaches and algorithms of big data is required. Classical structuring is becoming obsolete with the increasing amount of knowledge components.

Anti-Meritocratic Economics in the Contemporary Era: The Issues with the Neoclassical Theory

No longer does society consider the full extent of the argument and consequences or benefits of a system change. All the record-breaking economic success of the last few decades simply furthers a divide between people/organizations that have money and people/organizations that need money. However, those that can view this divide assign the capitalistic system as the culprit when in fact it is the modern mutation of capitalism that is at fault. Within modern neoclassical economies, there is no form of value-based meritocracy between people and organizations.

Anti-Meritocratic Economics in the Contemporary Era: The Issues with the Neoclassical Theory

No longer does society consider the full extent of the argument and consequences or benefits of a system change. All the record-breaking economic success of the last few decades simply furthers a divide between people/organizations that have money and people/organizations that need money. However, those that can view this divide assign the capitalistic system as the culprit when in fact it is the modern mutation of capitalism that is at fault. Within modern neoclassical economies, there is no form of value-based meritocracy between people and organizations.

Perceptions and explanations of status in the United Arab Emirates: The role of ascribed and achieved characteristics

Ascribed and achieved characteristics influence individuals’ positions in a social hierarchy. I explore how status characteristics and status ideologies influence expectations about economic opportunities in the United Arab Emirates, a wealthy, highly diverse, and internationally stratified society where beliefs in meritocracy are nationally supported. In Studies 1 and 2, participants reported the extent to which they perceived various characteristics to influence an individual’s salary. Participants whose nationality placed them higher in the economic hierarchy expected achieved markers of status to play a larger role than ascribed markers in determining pay. Across groups, the more participants believed in meritocracy, the more they expected achieved markers to play a role. In Study 3, participants predicted the economic success of individuals who varied in ascribed and achieved characteristics. Across participant groups, both ascribed and achieved characteristics were expected to influence an individual’s economic success. Taken together, results suggested that both ascribed and achieved characteristics are expected to influence an individual’s position in the socioeconomic hierarchy, but only differences rooted in achieved characteristics are legitimized. Group differences and implications for system stability are discussed.