No abstract

No abstract

A missing link in economics has been what Veblen in 1908 termed intangible capital. This includes common norms, trust and high levels of cooperative performance. Intangibles are invisible to the eye and not easily measured in quantitative terms. They nevertheless involve visible, socioeconomic outcomes and should therefore rightly be seen as productive, like tangibles. Thus, uneven levels of intangible capital would explain Differential Economic Performance (DEP) between, say, two firms containing exactly the same stock of physical, economic and human capital. Despite this common sense observation, most economists have failed to see that 'there's more to the picture than meets the eye', as Neil Young once sang. We use statistical, historical and fieldwork data from two Danish, marginal rural communities both rich on intangible capital. This to show how intangible capital in the form of social, organisational and cultural capital is accumulated and utilised in situ, at the microlevel. We suggest that the difference between these two, very similar communities should be explained in their varying ability to utilise local stocks of tangible and intangible capital. Drawing on seminal ideas from ], we want to develop a 'total capital' assessment tool for mapping and measuring socioeconomic development in marginal rural communities. In this way, we hope to count in 'all' capital as Schultz [Investment in human capital. In: Kiker, B.F. (Ed.) Investment in Human Capital. Columbia, 1971, pp. 3-21] prophesised. This in order to explain what we term Differential Local Development (DLD), where 'good', sustainable development is associated with high economic performance and increase in population. r

There was no evidence that long working hours alone resulted in higher injury rates. Low self-perceived health, lack of use of personal protection and lack of occupational safety on board were significantly related to an increase in the injury risk.

No abstract