Socio-Energetic Aspect of Human Capital Generation: Three Paradigms
Radiy Ibragimov
Research in the field of the human capital gained frontal character in domestic science. This research takes place in methodology too. In the process of development the calculate-formula of human capital has been steadily complicating since 1960, incorporating new indicators. Even this very complication has become the subject of discussions in the expert community, not to mention the need, justifiability and technological effectiveness of calculation of separate components of “the human development index”. The cross-disciplinary nature of human capital research has become the result of such complication. Sociologists, psychologists, experts in the field of IT developments, and others joined the discussion. The methodological basis of research and expert dialogue also extend respectively. For example, one can hear the opinions about the need to use qualitative methods for research of the human capital.
Multi–paradigm investigations become more and more obvious. While economists-libertarians were fiddling with macroeconomic indicators of education and income and extrapolated the results to a single person as a carrier of special capital, the speculative methodological nature of such procedures still could have remained in the shadow. But the more sophisticated the toy is, the easier it is to break it. It turned out that human capital has a complex structure. And the question about the core of human capital and its structural components depends on the system of axiomatic installations and terminology. That is to say, it depends on the paradigm consideration of the subject. The Marxist paradigm (the alternative to the libertarian one) was prior, historically speaking. The concepts of patrimonial essence of a person and workforce were introduced into scientific use one century prior to pioneers of the human capital research.
In my opinion, the greatest intrigue in a cross-paradigm polylogue is created by a vitalist paradigm. At least, exactly here it is possible to find the answer to the question, most inconvenient for the theory of human capital: if the intensity of educational practices and capitalization of a person are in a direct proportion, then how one can explain a notorious “syndrome of a mediocre pupil”? The article considers the importance of a motivation factor of passionarity in various paradigmal transcriptions.