Three Seas Economic Journal

77

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020

Corresponding author:
1 Central Ukrainian National Technical University, Ukraine.
E-mail: yurmala@gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0540-4429
2 Central Ukrainian National Technical University, Ukraine.
E-mail: alikanso@ gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4340-8105

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30525/2661-5150/2020-4-11

CURRENT STATE AND TRENDS OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY  
OF SOCIAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT OF UKRAINE

Yurii Malakhovskyi1, Ali Kanso2

Abstract. The purpose of the publication is to summarize the practice of quantitative assessment of the current 
state and trends in the change of social capital of national economy (SCNE) of Ukraine on the basis of the use of 
the index system, which comprehensively take into account numerous aspects of its functioning as a basic factor in 
ensuring stable competitiveness of the national economy (NE), high level of human development, key conditions for 
prosperity and well-being of all segments of the population. The results of the benchmarking of indices and analysis 
of the actual level of SCNE are based on data about the factors of current level of the national economy’s formation 
for individual countries in the process of ensuring in the strategic perspective the UN Sustainable Development 
Goals – Measuring Social Capital (SC) for Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). For SCNE of Ukraine is inherent 
in the simultaneous deep commitment of the domestic community to the values of survival (at the level of Russia, 
Moldova, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria) in combination with a high level of confession of secular rational values  
(at the level of Lithuania, South Korea, the Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark). Based on the above data, Ukraine 
has a low level of direct interpersonal social trust (the level of distrust/caution in relations practically exceeds it three 
times) combined with a low level of trust in political institutions. The necessary information for the assessment of 
the environment and the general level of development of SCNE of Ukraine is contained in the already mentioned 
international indices, which in their aggregate comprehensively characterize the subject of our research. 

Key words: social capital of national economy, structural, relational and cognitive components of social capital, 
state and tendencies of change.

JEL Classification: A13, C43

1. Introduction
The SCNE, as a set of structured socio-economic 

relations, is based on mutually recognized informal 
institutions: norms and values, the observance of 
which ensures the growth of personal productivity 
of members of formed social networks, effective 
coordination and cooperation of individual actions 
for mutual benefit, manifested in the optimization of 
costs from the specification of property rights, their 
effective transformation, intensification of the level 
of interaction by minimizing the value of market 
transactions. A comprehensive study of the field of 
interdisciplinary relations of the main categories, the 
study of the peculiarities of their use in the process of 
formation of social networks and interpersonal norms 
and values is the basis for the periodization of the main 
stages of development of techniques and means of 
regulatory influence on the phenomenon of SC by the 
state: the formation of approaches to understanding 

the essence of the phenomenon; in-depth study of 
manifestation forms; expanding the list of constituent 
elements; development of the theory of functioning 
at the micro, meso- and macroeconomic levels of 
the economy; development of innovative means of 
development regulation in order to maximize the 
contribution to the welfare of the population. 

The basic model of regulation of micro level’s SC 
involves the use of means of authoritarian influence 
on the formation and strengthening of the structural, 
cognitive and relational component of egocentric social 
networks. Two-component model of functioning 
of SC of macro- and mesoeconomic level as a set of 
norms, values, relationships, beliefs of the individual 
that facilitate joint activities, perception of assistance 
and support from the outside, reciprocity, willingness 
to share resources, trust between participants involves 
the use of means of regulatory influence on identified 
components of institutional actors of the public 



Three Seas Economic Journal

78

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020
sector (representatives of central executive bodies and 
local self-government), as well as stakeholders of the 
public sphere of mixed national economy with the 
separation of the structural and cognitive components 
in the functioning of social exclusive (bonding) 
social capital is a microeconomic social network of 
closely and strongly related individuals of egocentric 
homogeneous groups, which are formed in order to 
maximize the relief of the lives of community members 
in the everyday sense (“getting by life”) (Rui, Covert, 
Stefanone & Mukherjee, 2014). Sociable, inclusive 
(supporting) SC is a mesoeconomic social network of 
remote individuals, poorly connected through, at the 
same time, more significant than family, business ties 
between members of autogenic groups, which is used to 
advance in life (“getting ahead”), organizing a channel 
of “social elevator” (Villalonga-Olives, Adams & 
Kawachi, 2016). Linking SC is a polystructural 
sociocentric network of individuals united within the 
national economy who occupy different positions in 
hierarchical structures, whose membership promotes 
access to the benefits of personal/social well-being 
with the assistance of official institutions (Carillo 
Alvarez, Riera-Romani, 2017). 

The organizational and economic mechanism of 
regulation of the development of SCNE is defined 
as a structured system of behavioral aspects of 
the activities of subjects of public relations of the 
means of managerial and indicative influence on the 
configuration of regulatory objects subordinated 
to the purpose of implementation of social capital 
functions (Kanso, 2019). The complex nature of the 
organizational and economic mechanism is ensured 
by the inclusion of a number of substantive blocks in 
its composition. It was established that the potential 
ability of SC to maximize prolonged welfare reflects 
the established proportions between the attracted 
volumes of physical, natural, human, social, residual 
capital and the actual level of consumption of the 
population, and kinetic – formed under the influence 
of impulses of innovative social investment (Koval, 
Prymush, Popova, 2017). 

The purpose of the publication is to summarize the 
practice of quantitative assessment of the current state 
and trends in the change of SCNE of Ukraine on the basis 
of the use of the index system, which comprehensively 
take into account numerous aspects of its functioning 
as a basic factor in ensuring stable competitiveness 
of the national economy (NE), high level of human 
development, key conditions for prosperity and well-
being of all segments of the population.

2. Methodology
As an empirical base of the comparative positioning 

dynamics of the formation of SCNE of Ukraine, the 
World Value Survey (WVS-6) (World Values Survey: 

Round Six, 2014) data were adopted. Given that the 
WVS-6 studies contain a significant – 371 – number 
complexly structured in 13 domains of indices, for 
sufficient to formulate conclusions, the researchers 
limited themselves to the family, informal and formal 
types of social capital, as well as its social and structural 
dimensions. In the process of choosing the optimal list 
of indicators, the need for a clear distinction between 
structural, social (relational) and cognitive dimensions 
of the nature of social capital is taken into account. 
Structural measurement, as envisaged by the purpose 
and logic of the research, describes the existence of 
social connections between different institutional 
actors of the national economy and their characteristics 
(density, hierarchy), social (relational) (reflects the 
settings and sensations within existing connections, 
cognitive) representation, interpretation, system of 
values and codes, language shared by participants of 
social networks (CN) and which are most difficult 
to operate, because they relate to the general cultural 
context (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Baklanova, 
Petrova, Koval, 2020). In the course of generalization 
of relative indicators of evaluation of SCNE of Ukraine, 
the peculiarities of approach, known in scientific 
circles (Pichler & Wallace, 2007), are taken into 
account, which is based on the results of calculating 
the indicators of the Euro barometer and the Quality-
of-Life Research. To summarize the peculiarities of 
SCNE formation in Ukraine, a combination of WVS-
6 research results and approaches to the construction 
of quadrants of the Inglehart-Welzel matrix (WVS-6, 
2014) was applied.

3. Results
The results of the benchmarking of indices and 

analysis of the actual level of SCNE are based on data 
about factors of current level of the national economy’s 
formation for individual countries in the process of 
ensuring in the strategic perspective the UN Sustainable 
Development Goals – Measuring Social Capital (SC) 
for Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (Sustainable 
Development Goals, 2020).

The latest publications include data on the actual 
value of 9 SCNE indices – Human Development, World 
Giving, Happy Planet, Corruption Perception, Global 
Peace, Global Competitiveness, Legatum Prosperity, 
Social Progress, Enabling Environment, as well as GDP 
per capita according to the IMF (according to PPP) 
and SDGI Bertelsmann to determine the current level 
of sustainable development of 193 countries, including 
20 from the list of the most stable (Table 1).

Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index is 
determined taking into account the direct impact of 
SCNE on stabilization of the environment of the NE’s 
development and saving the nation’s natural capital 
(Table 2).



Three Seas Economic Journal

79

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020
Table 1
Top 20 most stable countries in the world in the Measuring SC for SDG

Country
Index

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Rank
Denmark 11 16 2 2 5 10 1 2 4 9 1 6 1
Norway 1 × 3 7 20 16 2 1 5 2 8 6 2
Switzerland 2 13 6 4 11 4 3 3 7 1 17 6 3
Iceland 6 × 4 11 1 24 10 6 8 6 14 8 4
New Zealand 14 3 8 1 2 18 7 7 1 24 11 9 5
The Netherlands 10 8 5 8 17 6 6 11 6 14 9 9 6
Finland 12 25 1 3 14 11 5 4 11 17 3 10 7
Sweden 8 29 7 4 18 9 4 5 9 12 2 10 8
Canada 13 6 9 12 6 12 14 9 2 21 20 11 9
Germany 4 18 17 9 22 3 8 8 25 18 6 13 10
Australia 6 4 11 12 13 14 17 12 3 13 38 13 11
Ireland 3 5 16 18 12 23 12 14 12 10 19 13 12
Austria 20 15 10 12 4 22 13 20 14 15 5 14 13
Great Britain 15 7 15 12 45 8 11 13 15 26 13 16 14
Singapore 9 46 34 4 7 2 16 27 × 11 66 20 15
Belgium 17 42 18 17 18 21 22 19 16 19 16 20 16
The USA 15 1 19 23 128 1 18 26 10 7 25 25 17
Japan 19 107 58 20 9 5 19 10 × 27 15 26 18
Spain 25 58 30 30 32 26 25 17 22 33 21 29 19
Chile 42 41 26 26 27 33 37 37 21 60 31 35 20
Ukraine 88 101 133 126 150 83 96 80 46 131 41 98 21

Source: Own calculation

Notes: (1) – Human Development (Human Development Reports, 2019); (2) – World Giving (World giving Index, 10th edition, 2019); 
(3) – Happy Planet (Helliwell, Layard, Sachs, 2019); (4) – Corruption Perceptions (Corruption Perception Index, 2019); (5) – Global Peace 
(Global Peace Index, 2019); (6) – Global Competitiveness (Global Competitiveness Index 4.0, 2018); (7) – Legatum Prosperity (The Legatum 
Prosperity Index, 2019); (8) – Social Development (Social Progress Index executive summary v.2.0, 2019); (9) – Favorable Environment 
(Enabling Environment Index, 2013); (10) – GDP per capita (PPP) (Gross National Income per capita, 2019); (11) – SDGI Bertelsmann 
(The SDG Index, 2019); (12) – average rank; (13) – position in the overall rating

Table 2
Positioning of SCNE in the process of determining GSCI of Ukraine

GSCI Component elements
Year

2012* 2013* 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019

Natural capital
Ukraine

35.3
126

31.6
149

44.6
103

44.6
95

43.9
92

44.0
85

45.2
80

on average** 40.7 51.0 46.6 45.4 44.1 42,9 43.7

Effectiveness of 
management

Ukraine × ×
47.6
71

46.9
87

47.2
100

47.1
100

on average × × 45.6 46.3 49,3 48.6

Intellectual capital
Ukraine

37.3
86

39.8
76

44.6
56

50.3
35

39.2
80

47.8
35

on average 38.1 38.6 37.5 37.4 37.2 35.5

Intensity and efficiency 
of resources use

Ukraine
43.5
106

39.5
147

31.7
145

34.4
156

39.5
152

42.2
147

on average 46.9 52.9 41.0 42,6 46.6 49.0

Social capital
Ukraine

48.5
48

53.7
42

42.4
75

46.5
54

45.3
57

41.3
87

on average 41.1 29.2 40.5 39.2 40.2 40.5

Stable competitiveness
Ukraine

40.6
74 (186)

41.0
102 (176)

42.2
83 (176)

44.6
64 (180)

43.0
91 (180)

44.7
74 (180)

on average 39.5 41.9 41.8 42.5 43.2 43.3
Source: The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index, 2019

Notes: numerator – the value of the indicator; denominator – rank of indicator;** is the average for the set of evaluated countries;
2012/2013* – estimated indicators – natural capital; intensity and efficiency of resource use; stable innovation and competitiveness (the data 
is given in the line “intellectual capital”); social cohesion (the data is given in the line “social capital”).



Three Seas Economic Journal

80

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020
The list and content of specific indicators used to 

evaluate SCNE continues to be constantly transformed. 
Since 2012, a kind of application for measuring the 

value of SKNE is found in Gross National Happiness 
(GNH) indicators. To measure it, a methodology for 
layout on 9 domains of 33 indicators of psychological 
well-being was developed. In list there are: health; time 
usage, education, cultural diversity and sustainability; 
good governance; viability of communal formations; 
environmental diversity and sustainability (Arsawan et 
al., 2020); living standards (Helliwell, Layard & Sachs, 
2019). According to the authors of this study, for an 
effective effect on the level of happiness and misfortune, 
it should be borne in mind that it is formed on the basis 
of the genetic characteristics of each individual. In 
addition, the person he or she becomes depends on the 
interaction of these genes with the environment he or 
she encounters. Together, genes and the environment 
define the main features of human life – both those that 
are very “personal” (mental and physical health, family 
experience, education, gender, age) and those that are 
recognized mainly as “external” (income level, work, 
community living, quality of management, prevailing 
values, religion). And these features, in turn, determine 
the well-being of a person (Petrova et al., 2020). 
Although work is an important part of social existence, 
human relationships are much wider and include 
relationships with family, friends and the community. 
This is obvious, because in the Maslow pyramid, the 
need for love and belonging arise immediately after 
the basic physiological needs and safety. That is, the 
sources of personality happiness include a set of social 
interactions through which people enter into mutual 
bonds. Accordingly, the quantity and quality of social 
relations in the community should be treated logically 
and logically as SC.

The Legatum Prosperity Index (LPI) (Table 3) 
enters its features in the calculation of SCNE. The basis 
of Ukraine’s rating is based on weight-equal drivers, 
which characterize: social cohesion; communal 
and family networks as a form of volunteer activity; 
assistance to those in need; philanthropy; perception 
of social assistance; trust in others; level of marriages; 
religious tolerance. 

Global Competitiveness Index 4.0 is formed 
according the World Economic Forum methodology 
by following list of indicators: favorable environment, 
human capital; market components; ecosystems.

Direct assessment of the country’s SCNE (indicator 
1.05) is carried out by the mentioned international 
institution in the process of calculating the element 
“Institution” of the first direction of calculations 
“Favorable environment”, starting from 2018. The 
method of quantitative determination of the indicator 
is linear regression, and the regressors are: the actual 
number of years of study, the Corruption Perception 
Index, general trust among the population, as well as the 
level of GDP.

The World Giving Index allows you to evaluate each 
country in three indicators – helping needy strangers; 
charitable donations; time devoted to volunteer 
activities (World giving Index 10th edition, 2019). It 
uses the opportunity to take into account gender and 
age aspects of philanthropy (Table 4).

The calculation of the SKNE Index as part of the 
World Giving Index, which shows the importance 
for different countries of indicators of the quality of 
economic development, functioning environment, 
quality of public administration (Bukanov et al., 
2019), functioning of the education system, health 
care, protection and safety, personal freedom, the 
formation of SKNE and the quality of functioning of 

Table 3
Rating of Ukraine in the process of calculating LPI indicators

Metrics
Year

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2018 2019
Total number of countries in the ranking 114 110 142 149 167
Cumulative rating of the country 69/86* 74 64 70 112 111/99* 96
Governance 98 99 121 120 130 129 81
Security 58 56 55 54 125 128 145
Personal freedom 71 98 107 91 95 90 85
Social capital 73 37 36 41 115 119 148
Quality of economic development × × × × × 97 99
Environment of business development × × × × × 106 71
Education × × × × × 43 37
Health × × × × × 137 114
Natural environment × × × × × 105 127
Investment environment × × × × × × 113
Development of market infrastructure × × × × × × 87
Living condition × × × × × × 69

Source: (The Legatum Prosperity Index, 2019)

Notes: according to LPI data listed according to the 2019 methodology 



Three Seas Economic Journal

81

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020

the environment, is based on the use of 104 indicators: 
Gallup World Survey, World Development Indicators, 
International Telecommunication Union, Fragile States 
Index, World Governance Indicators, Freedom House, 
World Health Organization, World Values Survey, 
Amnesty International, Center for System Peace.

In the end, Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation 
Index (BTI) comprehensively assesses political and 
economic transformations and the level of political 
leadership in Ukraine using criteria grouped by indicator 
groups (Table 5).

Additional information on the state of formation of 
individual elements of SCNE of Ukraine can be obtained in 
case of settlements on the method of calculating Freedom 
Index; Economic Freedom of the World; Compliance 
Summary Index ESF; S&P (Standard & Poor’s Ratings 
Services, 2019); Moody’s (Moody’s Investors Service, 
2019); World Bank Governance Indicator – Voice and 
Accountability (VA), Government Effectiveness (GE), 
Regulatory Quality (RQ), Rule of Law (RL), Control of 
Corruption (CC); World Factbook (World Factbook, 
2019); Freedom Barometer for Europe.

Table 4
Quantitative assessment of Ukraine’ SKNE in the process of WGI indicators’ calculating

Metrics
Year

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020

Index
rank 105 111 102 103 89 106 90 81 101
value 26 21 24 23 29 26 29 24

Donations
%

11 7 8 9 38 26 29 18
Volunteer hours 30 20 29 26 13 16 15 19
Help strangers 37 36 35 36 42 35

Source: (World giving Index 10th edition, 2019)

Table 5
Quantitative evaluation of Ukraine’ linking social capital in the process of BTI’ calculating

Indicators on 10-point scale
Year

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2019
Status index

Rating of Ukraine 37 … … … 36 of 129 41 of 162

The numerical value of the index 6.6 … … … 6.54
72.8 to 70.4 

for region in average
Political transformation (democratic status) SDG trends

Rating of Ukraine … 36 of 129
SDG 1 ↓

The numerical value of the index 6.9 6.1 6.8 6.9

su
bi

nd
ex

es

statehood 8.8 7.3
7.5

SDG 2 →
participation in political life 7.8 6.0 7.8 SDG 3 
rule of low 6.3 5.0 6.3 SDG 4 …
stability of democratic institution 6.5 5.5 7.0 7.5 SDG 5 →
political and social integration 5.8 5.3 5.5 5.8 SDG 6 →

Economic transformation (market status of the economy)
SDG 7 …

Rating of Ukraine … 43 of 129
The numerical value of the index 6.2 5.8 5.7 5.4 6.18 SDG 8  ↑

su
bi

nd
ex

es

stability 5.5 5.0 5.5 SDG 9 
welfare regime

6.0
6.0 6,5

6.5
SDG 10 …

private property 5.5 .0 SDG 11 ↓

socioeconomic level of development 5.0 6.0 5,0
SDG 12 …

Index of government
Rating of Ukraine … 49 of 129 SDG 13  ↑
The numerical value of the index 5.4 4.6 4.3 5.41 SDG 14 …

su
bi

nd
ex

es

subordinates to management procedures 6.0 5.7 4.7 5.7 SDG SDG 15 

resource efficiency 5.3 4.0 4.7 5.3 SDG 16 ↓

development of cooperation 5.8 5.0 5.4 5.8
SDG 17 …

international cooperation 7.0 6.7 6.0 6.7 7.0

Source: (The SDG Index, 2019)



Three Seas Economic Journal

82

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020

4. Discussions 
Cross-cultural research, regardless of the 

fundamental principles on which they are carried out – 
strategic or rational concepts (Hardin’s encapsulated 
interest; Stolle’s past experience, confidence in security 
(“assurance of security”) Yamagishi, Rosenberg’s 
“faith in people”); concepts of group identity (Tejfel-
Turner categorization theory, decategorization/
personalization/intergroup differentiation/universal 
identity of Gertner-Dovidio-Howlett); concepts of 
moral norms (Uslaner) – do not give an unambiguous 
answer to the question, which in quantitative terms 
is the level of generalized trust in the country, the 
contribution of this indicator to the formation of 
the level of well-being of its citizens. This is due to 
a wide range of reasons that explain the differences 
in approaches to understanding the term “majority” 
in different cultural traditions (ranges from in-group 
to out-group), differences in public trust indicators 
(absolute “trust in most people” as opposed to “trust 
in people, which you meet for the first time”), between 
the worldview “trust settings”, the norm that is 
assimilated in the process of socialization and remains 
unchanged throughout life, real behavior, which is 
determined by a situational assessment of the level 
of reliability of others, determination of the degree of 
risk, the likelihood of positive/negative consequences.

5. Conclusions
For SCNE of Ukraine is inherent in the simultaneous 

deep commitment of the domestic community to the 
values of survival (at the level of Russia, Moldova, 
Romania, Albania, Bulgaria) in combination with 

a high level of confession of secular rational values 
(at the level of Lithuania, South Korea, the Czech 
Republic, Germany, Denmark). Stronger and more 
reliable, such that the “moral trust” to the members 
of outgroups, which is inherent in more developed 
countries (Sweden, Norway), in which trust in 
strangers and the majority at the same time is relatively 
high, is contrasted with the mobile, more plastic and 
specific “rational trust” in the members of in groups 
(Tinidad and Tobago, Burkina Faso, Ghana, South 
Africa, Mali, France). This indicates the lack of cultural 
universality of this phenomenon. An outgroup that 
intensifies in a situation of tension or conflict may 
be interpreted as an indicator of tolerance. Ukraine 
is characterized by a specific development of trust 
categories both at the level of ingroups and outgroups, 
and the level of “moral” and “rational” trust in 
dynamics. Based on the above data, Ukraine has a low 
level of direct interpersonal social trust (the level 
of distrust/caution in relations practically exceeds 
it three times) combined with a low level of trust in 
political institutions. The necessary information for the 
assessment of the environment and the general level 
of development of the SKNE of Ukraine is contained 
in the already mentioned international indices, which 
in their aggregate comprehensively characterize the 
subject of our research. 

Acknowledgement
The paper was supported by Erasmus+ Project 

№ 609944-EPP-1-2019-1-LT-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP 
“Enhancing Capacity of Universities to Initiate and to 
Participate in Clusters Development on Innovation and 
Sustainability Principles”.

References:
Arsawan, I. W. E., Koval, V., Rajiani, I., Rustiarini, N. W., Supartha, W. G. & Suryantini, N. P. S. (2020). Leveraging 
knowledge sharing and innovation culture into SMEs sustainable competitive advantage. International Journal of 
Productivity and Performance Management. doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-04-2020-0192
Baklanova, O., Petrova, M., & Koval, V. (2020). Institutional Transmission in Economic Development.  
Ikonomicheski Izsledvania, 29(1), 68–91.
Bukanov H., Kolesnyk A., Tashkinova O., Kotlubai V., & Koval V. (2019). Social marketing in public administration 
of social service institutions. Revista Genero & Direito, 8(6), 457–468.
Carillo Alvarez, E., & Riera-Romani, J. (2017). Measuring social capital: futher insights. Gaceta Sanitaria, 31, 57–61. 
Corruption Perception Index (2019). Transparency International. Available at: https://www.transparency.org/en/
cpi/2019/results/ukr (accessed 09 November 2020).
Enabling Environment Index. A Civicus initiative (2013). The EEI. Available at: https://www.civicus.org
Global Competitiveness Index 4.0 (2018). World Economic Forum. Available at: https://reports.weforum.org
Global Peace Index. Measuring peace in a complex world (2019). Institute for Economics Peace. Available at:  
http://visionofhumanity.org
Gross National Income per capita. Atlas method and Purchasing power parity (international $) (2019).  
The World Bank. Available at: https://databank.worldbank.org/data/ 
Helliwell, J. F., Layard R ., & Sachs J. D. (2019) World Happiness Report. Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com
Human Development Reports (2019). United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Index 
Ranking. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/2019-human-development-index-ranking (accessed  
02 November 2020).



Three Seas Economic Journal

83

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2020
Inglehart, R ., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos, M., Norris, P.,  
Ponarin, E., & Puranen, B. et al. (eds.) (2018). World Values Survey: Round Six – Country-Pooled Datafile.  
Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. doi: 10.14281/18241.8
Kanso, A. (2019). Organizational and economic mechanism of regulation of social capital of the national economy. 
Black Sea Economic Studies, 43, 195–200.
Koval, V., Prymush, Y., & Popova, V. (2017). The influence of the enterprise life cycle on the efficiency of investment. 
Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 3(5), 183–187. doi: 10.30525/2256-0742/2017-3-5-183-187
Moody’s Investors Service (2020). Ratings Symbols and Definitions. Available at: https://www.moodys.com/sites/ 
products
Nahapiet. J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage.  
Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, no. 2: 242–266. doi: 10.2307/259373 (accessed 25 November 2020).
Petrova, M., Koval, V., Tepavicharova, M., Zerkal, A., Radchenko, A., & Bondarchuk, N. (2020). The interaction 
between the human resources motivation and the commitment to the organization. Journal of Security and 
Sustainability Issues, 9(3), 897–907. doi: 10.9770/jssi.2020.9.3(15)
Pichler, F., & Wallace, C. (2007). Patterns of Formal and Informal Social Capital in Europe. European Sociological 
Review, vol. 23, issue 4: 423–435. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcm013 (accessed 01 December 2020).
Rui, J. R ., Covert, J. M., Stefanone, M. A., & Mukherjee, T. (2014). A Communication Multiplexity Approach  
to Social Capital: On- and Offline Communication and Self-Esteem. Social Science Computer Review, 33(4). 
Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (2020). McGraw Hill Financial. Available at: http://www.maalot.co.il/
publications
Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. unescap.org. Available at: 
https://https://www.unescap.org/2030-agenda/sustainable-development-knowledge-platforms 0 (accessed  
28 November 2020).
The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index (2020). Solubility. Available at: http://solability.com/solubility/
sustainability-publications/the-global-sustainable-competitiveness-index-2 (accessed 24 November 2020).
The Legatum Prosperity Index (2019). Legatum Institute. Available at: https://prosperitysite.s3-accelerate.
amazonaws.com/1515/8634/9128/The_Legatum_Prosperity_Index_2019_Rankings_Table.pdf (accessed  
06 November 2020).
The SDG Index (2019). Sustainable Development Solution Network Bertelsmann Stiftung. Available at:  
https://s3.amazonaws.com
Villalonga-Olives, E., Adams, I., & Kawachi, I. (2016). The development of a bridging social capital questionnaire 
for use in population health research. Population Health, vol. 2. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.08.008
World Factbook (2018). Central Intelligence Agency. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/ 
download/download-2018/index.html 
World giving Index 10th edition (2019). Charities Aid Foundation. Available at: https://www.cafonline.org/
about-us/publications