Modern Economy, 2013, 4, 576-583
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/me.2013.49061 Published Online September 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/me)
O
pen Access ME
Traditional Institutions and Knowledge of Siberian
Aboriginal Community
Svetlana Panakarova, Maxim Vlasov
Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yekaterinburg, Russia
Received March 10, 2013; revised April 10, 2013; accepted May 10, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Svetlana Panakarova, Maxim Vlasov. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons At-
tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is prop-
erly cited.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the perspectives of the use of traditional knowledge in national socio-economic
development in general and in the development of local communities of aboriginal nations of Siberia in particular. This
study aims to analyze the traditional economic activity with the help of the questionnaire of 1500 respondents (from
different ethnic groups) in different parts of the Siberian region—Khakasia. The results of empirical research have
shown that in Khakas communities traditional kinds of activity are extended and they are of great importance for people
as earlier. The comparative analysis of labor productivity in animal husbandry and wildlife management allows to draw
a conclusion of the positive influence of traditional knowledge in these fields of activity. Some clusters of traditional
economic institutions of the indigenous people of Southern Siberia have been identified such as: institutions for corpo-
rate property of land, institutions for private property of cattle, institutions for labor mutual aid, institutions for wander-
ing, institutions for communal managements. The results of evolution of traditional institutions and their current state
are presented. Even the transformed institutions are accepted by members of national communities as earlier. Therefore
they can become the effective instrument of social and economic development of indigenous people territories. The
spiraling process of traditional knowledge of Khakas people is explained in the SECI Model. According to the research,
regarding the Khakas community, the management process of knowledge has to include three types of economic agents:
local government authorities, entrepreneurs, members of Khakas community. Three strategies to manage the traditional
knowledge are recommended such as: animal husbandry development, commercialization of traditional wildlife man-
agement, realization of a state policy taking into consideration the existence of traditional institutions. The research
demonstrates the traditional knowledge may be the factor of economic increase and social development for local society.
Moreover, it is a national heritage and it needs to be managed.
Keywords: Indigenous People; Traditional Knowledge; Traditional Institutions; Socio-Economic Development;
Community
1. Introduction
This Traditional Knowledge refers to knowledge, capa-
bility, experience and wisdom that have been accumu-
lated, existed, survived or developed in accordance to the
ecological system, natural surroundings, society and cul-
tures. According to UNESCO the meaning of traditional
knowledge is similar to intangible cultural heritage: the
practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills
that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals
recognize as a part of their cultural heritage [1] (2003).
Knowledge is a process involving the social construction
of ideas about the external world that guide human action.
Traditional knowledge systems, locally rooted in a par-
ticular geography, are mostly culturally transmitted via
collective memory that is encoded in stories, myths, leg-
ends, songs, dances, rituals, and practices. Traditional
knowledge can be common knowledge, such as knowl-
edge about land-use or resource-use, practices, and may
be shared by the members of all the social groups within
a community [2] (2005).
The interest to intangible cultural heritage and tradi-
tional knowledge as factors in socio-economic develop-
ment has increased for last decades all over the world.
Unfortunately the capabilities of traditional knowledge as
resource in national and local sustainable development in
Russia are not realized to the full.
The purpose of the research is to discuss perspectives

S. PANAKAROVA, M. VLASOV 577
Open Access ME
of the use of traditional knowledge in national socio-
economic development in general and in the develop-
ment of local communities of aboriginal nations of Sibe-
ria in particular. Following ways of using of traditional
knowledge are potential for Russian economy and society:
a) Economic benefits and impact of traditional knowl-
edge:
 Tool for development of tourism and connected
branches;
 Way of increase of agricultural production and wild-
life management;
 Resource for development of alternative medicine;
 Tool for regional development;
 Creating jobs for Aboriginal people and migrants;
 Energy saving;
 Catalyst of technical innovation.
b) Societal benefits and impact of traditional knowl-
edge:
 Serving as a catalyst of intercultural dialogue;
 Promoting sustainability;
 Forging local and regional identity;
 Contributing to social cohesion;
 Enhancing quality of life for Aboriginal people and
migrants.
The research describes economic and social situation
of one of Siberian ethnic group—the Khakas people.
Khakas is an aboriginal ethnos of Southern Siberia whose
traditional employment is nomadic cattle breeding, hunt-
ing and gathering of forest product.
The structure of the paper is as follows: The second
section presents the problem definition and introduces
Khakas community background. The third section pre-
sents the research framework about traditional kinds of
activity of Khakas people. The fourth section presents the
results of the evolution-institutional analysis. The fifth
section presents the discussion about management of
knowledge in Khakas communities and the last section is
the conclusion.
2. Problem Definition
In 1991 the territory populated by Khakas people and it
got the status of a republic. The title ethnos (Khakas)
makes 12% of population of Khakasia or 65.4 thousand
persons. The contemporary ethnic composition of Kha-
kasia has been formed rather recently. The results of the
First Russian Population census in 1926 showed Khakas
had made 53% (44.2 thousand persons) of all inhabitants
of the territory. Population had sharply increased (3.1
times) from 1926 to 1939. It continued to improve fur-
ther because of inflow of labor migrants from other parts
of Russia. This influx of the Russian-speaking migrants
has provoked the acceleration of assimilation of the au-
tochthonic population. The government policy on indus-
trialization of Siberia has destroyed habitual life of the
aboriginal people and hasn’t offered any other alterna-
tives of employment. Physical and mental health of
Khakas have been dramatically decreasing in the Russian
reforms of the end of the 20th century [3] (2005). Khakas
people have poorly adapted to the new socio-economy
institutes and the alien means of generating livelihoods.
Social problems, including alcoholism, are prevalent in
the Khakas communities. In this connection Khakas
communities are characterized by the lowest level of eco-
nomic improvement and the life quality.
The government decisions of the period of a planned
economy on agro-industrial development Siberia have
negatively affected the environment of Khakasia.
Firstly, there was a campaign for tilling virgin soil in
1956-1961 when 46% of farmland of the Republic had
been ploughed. Such scale plowed land without local
agroclimatic features has led to heavy ecological conse-
quences. The steppe territories underwent the strongest
wind erosion and soon the arable land has been destroyed.
To this day 85% of an arable land are subject to a wind
erosion and about 30% are carried in the category of poor
(having 1.5% - 2% of a humus) [4] ( 2010). The area of
pastures was reduced therefore by many collective farms
(collective farms and soviet farms) which have been
compelled to overtake cattle for grazing in summertime
in a taiga. As a result of hundred springs and the wood
rivers have been trampled and have disappeared. A lot of
rare species of plants have stopped to exist.
Secondly, there was a campaign for development of
light industry in the 1960th when several powerful in-
dustrial complexes had been constructed. It was neces-
sary to increase a livestock of sheep for maintenance
complexes of raw materials (wool). The livestock of
sheep has increased 3.3 times in republic for 30 years and
has got about 1.5 mln in the 1990 (Table 1). The cattle
breeding was still extensive, therefore loading on pas-
tures was excessive and by the end of the 1990th it made
5 times more scientifically-proved norm. It has caused a
deep and scale degradation of the steppe territory of
Khakasia.
Thus various government policies that aim to modern-
ize, standardize, and scale up rural production as well as
increase manufacturing demand destroyed the system of
traditional knowledge which was existing for many hun-
dreds years in the Khakas territory. For generations, Khakas
Table 1. Livestock dynamics in Khakasia.
Livestock of everything (thousand)
1880-921917 1990 1995 2000 20052010
Equines 73.3 70.9 28.2 24.7 14.7 14.331.9
Cattle75.1 113.8257.8 179.1 134.3 139.2169.4
Sheep168.8 277.21488.8 543.7 156.8 78175.0

S. PANAKAROVA, M. VLASOV 578
have lived in natural ecosystems in which they have de-
veloped and practiced live-styles and belief systems that
draw upon their deep knowledge about local plants,
wildlife, and ecology. They used different strategies for
maintaining livelihoods including hunting, gathering,
nomadic grazing, fishing, and intensive agriculture. This
variety of strategy provided preservation of ecological
system.
3. Traditional Kind of Economic Activity
3.1. Traditional Agricultural Activity
The purpose of this abstract is to prove that traditional
knowledge of Khakas people remains in local communi-
ties on the contrary to assimilation and negative state
policy consequences for ethnos. This study aims to ana-
lyze traditional economic activity of Khakas with the
help of the questionnaire of 1500 respondents (Russian
and Khakas) in different parts of Khakasia.
The results of empirical research have shown that in
Khakas communities traditional kinds of activity are ex-
tended and they are of great importance for people as
earlier [5] (2011). In Khakas holdings the cattle breeding
still prevails (Figure 1). The livestock of Khakas hold-
ings is about 25% - 50% more than of Russian holdings.
The visible land-user differences exist between Kha-
kas and Russian holdings. The Khakas people are using
the smaller area of the land as fields and gardens than the
Russian and greater part of land as haymakings and pas-
tures.
The Siberian indigenous people show preference to
traditional kinds of agricultural activity. By the results of
research Khakas people want to be more included in cat-
tle-breeding activity than Russians (Figure 2).
3.2. Traditional Wildlife Management
Traditional wildlife management takes a significant place
in maintaining livelihoods inhabitants of Siberia. For
example about 40% citizens of Khakasia are involved in
to gathering. Figure 3 describes that there more Khakas
people than Russian which are involved into gathering.
Like in an agrarian activity, in traditional wildlife mana-
Figure 1. Shares of household economy are involved in tra-
ditional agricultural activity.
Figure 2. Shares of household economy are wanted to be
included in traditional agricultural activity.
Figure 3. Shares of household economy are involved in tra-
ditional wildlife management.
gement the question concerning their desire to be en-
gaged in any kind of activity has been asked to respon-
dents. Apparently in Figure 4, Khakas holdings have
more desire to be engaged in traditional kinds of wildlife
management than Russian. Gathering of wood mush-
rooms is the Exception (historically Khakas didn’t collect
and overwork mushrooms).
3.3. Labor Productivity in Traditional Kinds of
Activity
Comparative analysis of labor productivity in animal
husbandry and wildlife management allows to drawing a
conclusion of positive influence of traditional knowledge
on these fields of activity. Khakass holdings have more
labor productivity in comparison with the others in tradi-
tional kinds of activity such as: beef cattle breeding,
sheep-breeding, gathering eatable roots and plants, gath-
ering pine nuts.
On the contrary labor productivity of Khakas holdings
on the kinds of activity borrowed by Russian immigrants
is much less for example: pig-raising, potato cultivation,
vegetable growing, cultivation of fruits and berries (Ta-
ble 2).
4. Traditional Economic Institutions
4.1. The Concept of Institution
In the study of any of a wide range of economic ques-
tions, it is difficult to ignore the importance and influ-
ence of institutions. In fact, since the origins of modern
economic thought, this thesis has been accepted in dif-
Open Access ME

S. PANAKAROVA, M. VLASOV
Open Access ME
579
Table 2. The labor productivity Khakas holdings.
№ The kind of activity The holdings of region on the average (rubles in hour)Khakas holdings (rubles in hour)
Agricultural Activity
1. Beef Cattle Breeding 39.4 63.0
2. Dairy Cattle Breeding 48.9 38.0
3. Sheep Breeding 49.3 95.4
4. Pig Raising 29.8 21.7
5. Potato Cultivation 51.9 36.6
6. Vegetable Growing 18.9 15.3
7. Cultivation of Fruits and Berries 144.4 29.8
Wildlife Management
8. Gathering Mushrooms 47.6 47.6
9. Gathering Wild-growing Fruits and Berries 84.1 89.8
10. Gathering Eatable Roots and Plants 186.9 246.8
11. Gathering Pine Nuts 182.4 194
Figure 4. Shares of household economy are wanted to be
included in traditional wildlife management.
fering degrees by a significant number of currents and
theories. It was over a century ago that a system of con-
cepts varying considerably from the postulates of ortho-
dox neoclassic economic theory was established. The
given approach was introduced for the first time by Т.
Veblen “Why is economics not an evolutionary science?”
(1898) and “The place of science in modern civilization”
[6] (1919). Т. Veblen, having rejected the idea of a hu-
man being as an atomic economic agent, suggested a
notion of institutions as “sustained mentalities inherent in
large social communities”. Institutional economics had
further been comprehensively developed by J. Commons,
who was the author of transaction theory as any form of
transferring legal control from one person to another, and
who expanded Veblen’s theory of evolutional selection
of institutions, and also by W. Mitchell, who studied ap-
plied issues related to economic dynamics, including eco-
nomic cycle development.
Relevance of economic system development modeling
from the existing equilibrium positions to new quasi-
equilibrium ones caused establishment of evolutionary
economics. Theory of evolution embodied the basic
concepts of biological evolution theory by Ch. Darwin:
heredity, variability, selection. Establishment of the giv-
en theory had worked its way up from theoretical prem-
ises by Т. Veblen through evolutionary growth theory by
J. Shumpeter to the models of economic system evolu-
tionary growth by R. Nelson, S. Winter [7] (1982).
Т. Veblen was the first who suggested a more common
and compact notion of institutions. Hence, in the present
research work institutions will be referred to as well-
established principles of interaction between economic
agents.
There is another interpretation of institutions that can
be found in economic literature: it is not only principles
of interaction between economic agents, but also organ-
izational forms of economic agent union [8] (2006). Such
narrower interpretation of the notion of institutions re-
sults in the fact that establishment of certain organiza-
tions can be numerically estimated [9] (2003). In the
present paper we shall follow an interpretation of the
notion “institution”, which was suggested by G. Kleiner:
“institution is a system of principles including a based
principle and a set of mechanisms and valuable installa-
tions reproducing the given institution” [10] (2004).
It is essential to mention the fact that institutional in-
terpretation of economic systems cannot have a zero
level similar to neoclassic equilibrium position. The re-
search by G. Hodgson [8] (2006) demonstrated that a
substantial methodological issue regarding description of
evolutionary process of institutions is relative to any ef-
fort in terms of explanation of institution establishment
in the context of natural pre-institutional state. Such ef-

S. PANAKAROVA, M. VLASOV 580
Open Access ME
forts come to a deadlock due to the fact that they inevita-
bly have to admit initial presence of other institutions, for
instance, a language one. Hence, a remarkable feature of
the recent studies in the scope of neoinstitutional theory
was the recognition of several traditional economic in-
stitutions of indigenous people of Siberia for analysis.
Institutional function implies that a certain order or
relative stability can be obtained on a meso-economic
level with all the diversity and differences. Existence of
institutions assumes that regulations, restrictions, cus-
toms and ideas can bring a certain variant into individual
objectives and preferences by way of specific psycho-
logical and social mechanisms. Such variance might con-
tribute to establishment and stability of institutions [11]
(2010).
The present-day institutional economics claims three-
level schemes of economic system research. The first
level of the given scheme is occupied by an individual
represented in the institutional theory as homo institutius
(contract person) instead of homo economicus (economic
person) in the neoclassical theory. The second level cor-
responds to various institutional conventions, the third
one—to institutional environment [12] (2012).
Institutional description of economic system is based
on a methodological approach by D. North. It includes
the following key points [13] (1981):
1) only individuals may have their own interests and
pursue their own goals;
2) formal and informal cluster of institutions always sets
bounds to human interface and affects it;
3) formal and informal institution variations are always
a result of human interface in specific conditions.
In other words, on the one hand, an individual is
bounded to the existing institutional structure; on the
other hand, he can modify the given structure according
to his preferences.
Thus, the core of institutional description of economic
systems is evolutionary nature of institution structure
development. In this respect, the modern institution the-
ory is closely related to the evolution economic theory
and it can be considered as an integration, namely, insti-
tution-evolution theory.
4.2. Evolution of Traditional Institutions
The purpose of the present abstract is to reveal the fea-
tures of evolution of traditional economic institutions
caused by socio-economic and political changes at vari-
ous historical stages of Siberia.
In the course of research 5 clusters of traditional eco-
nomic institutions of the indigenous people of Southern
Siberia have been identified (Table 3).
The listed institutions are typical for the majority of
nomadic societies. However evolution of traditional in-
stitutions of Siberian nomads is unique, as it is strong
Table 3. The traditional economic institutions.
The economic institutionsThe traditional institutions
Institutions for corporate property of land
Institutions for property
Institutions for private property of cattle
Institutions for
attraction to work Institutions for labor mutual aid
Institutions for wandering
Institutions for interaction
between economic agentsInstitutions for communal managements
influenced by the Russian Empire policy at first and the
Soviet Union policy later [14] (2013).
The territory of Siberia was attached to the Russian
Empire in the 18th century. Since then traditional institu-
tions of Siberian indigenous people passed a difficult
way of evolution. There were some important periods of
institutional transformation such as: imperial policy of
resettlement of peasants from the Central Russia to Sibe-
ria (1890-1913th), revolution and military communism
(1917-1920th), Stalin collectivization and repressions
(1929-1938th), Soviet planned economy (1940-1990th),
market reforms (1990-2000th). These historical periods
were reflected in traditional institutions of indigenous
people of Siberia on a miscellaneous. The results of evo-
lution of traditional institutions and their current state are
presented in Table 4.
Thus, results of the evolution-institutional analysis al-
low to assuming that development of traditional eco-
nomic institutions in contemporary economy is possible.
Some institutes are defined which can increase economic
efficiency of traditional kinds of activity of Khakas peo-
ple such as:
1) Institutions for corporate property of land plus norms
of market transactions with the land for users;
2) Institutions for private property of cattle plus different
market norms of purchase and sale, rent, etc.;
3) Institutions for labor mutual aid involved different
types of the cooperative enterprises;
4) Institutions for communal managements involved
Institutions for communal managements.
Even the transformed institutions are accepted by mem-
bers of national communities as earlier. Therefore they
can become the effective instrument of social and eco-
nomic development of indigenous people territories.
5. Management of Traditional Knowledge
Nonaka and Takeuchi [15] (1995) proposed the SECI
process by explaining how knowledge can be transferred
and created. SECI is a spiraling process of interactions
between explicit and tacit knowledge. The interactions
between the explicit and tacit knowledge lead to the cre-
tion of new knowledge. a

S. PANAKAROVA, M. VLASOV
Open Access ME
581
Table 4. Results of evolution of traditional institutions.
Traditional institution Current institution
Title of institution
Based principle Reproducing set Based principle Reproducing set
Institutions for corporate
property of land
Land belongs to a kin
or a community
Norms of distribution of the
rights of possession or using
between families
Transformed: in the Constitution of
the Russian Federation the principle
of a private property on the land is
fixed; principles of municipal and
state property on the
land are formalized
Transformed: market
transactions with the land are
formalized; land users
are personified
Institutions for private
property of cattle
The cattle is a private
property of the head
of the family
Norms of kin mutual aid
(exchange, donation,
inheritance,
temporary using, etc.)
Remained without changes
Transformed: norms of kin
mutual aid were transformed to
market norms of purchase and
sale, rent, etc.
Institutions for labor
mutual aid
Joint agricultural
works, hunting,
gathering, etc.
Norms of planning,
organization and distribution of
result of joint activity
(usually depending on a
labor contribution)
Transformed: different types of the
cooperative enterprises
are formalized
Remained plus norms of
entrepreneurship
in market economy
Institutions for
wandering
Moving at a distance
of 10 - 50 km 2 - 4
times a year
Norms of management, use of
resources, interactions
Remained partially: moving 2 times
a year from winter house
to a yurta and back
Didn’t remain
Institutions for
communal managements
Kin and communal
management
Norms of decision-making,
prestigious economy,
punishment, responsibility,
communal self-government
Transformed: institution for
chieftains is formalized, the
institution of local
self-government is formalized
Remained partially: within
management of national local
communities
The spiraling process of traditional knowledge of
Khakas people can be explained in the SECI Model (Fig-
ure 5) also as it was made in research of P. Yodmongkon
and N. Chakpitak [16] (2011). According to the research,
regarding the Khakas community, the management proc-
ess of knowledge has to include three types of economic
agents: local government authorities, entrepreneurs, mem-
bers of Khakas community.
Socialization: the Khakas people, local government
authorities and entrepreneurs shared experiences (tacit
knowledge) through face to face communication. Each of
economic agents creates concrete knowledge: local gov-
ernment—about institutional structure Khakas commu-
nity, entrepreneurs—about using traditional institutions
in market economy, members of Khakas community–
about increasing efficiency of traditional activity.
Externalization: from the creating commercial firms
on exchanging experiences, economic agents are devel-
oping concepts, which embed the combined tacit knowl-
edge. And which enable its communication.
Combination: the Khakas people, local government
authorities and entrepreneurs are combining various ele-
ments of explicit knowledge which led to the proposal of
three major strategies to manage the traditional knowl-
edge (Figure 6).
Internalization: the explicit knowledge becomes a part
of the individual’s knowledge base. For example, the
entrepreneur receives knowledge for Khakas cattle breeder
who takes part in encouraging the communities to socio-
economic development. The Khakass people, local gov-
ernment authorities and entrepreneurs learn from each
other and find the new way of managing their traditional
knowledge together.
Therefore, traditional knowledge may be the factor of
economic increase and social development for the local
society.
6. Conclusions
The major points covered by this paper may be summa-
rized as follows, the traditional knowledge can be a fac-
tor of economic increase in local society if people man-
age it.
The results of empirical research have shown that in
Khakas communities traditional kinds of activity are ex-
tended and they are of great importance for people as
earlier. The comparative analysis of labor productivity in
animal husbandry and wildlife management allows to
draw a conclusion of the positive influence of traditional
knowledge in these fields of activity.
Some clusters of traditional economic institutions of
the indigenous people of Southern Siberia have been
identified such as: institutions for corporate property of
land, institutions for private property of cattle, institu-
tions for labor mutual aid, institutions for wandering,
institutions for communal managements. As exemplified
by our study, traditional institutions are accepted by
members of national communities as earlier.
Therefore they can become the effective instrument of
social and economic development of indigenous people
territories.
The spiraling process of traditional knowledge of

S. PANAKAROVA, M. VLASOV 582
Figure 5. SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995): Khakas community.
Figure 6. Strategies of traditional knowledge using.
Khakas people is explained in the SECI Model. Accord-
ing to the research, regarding the Khakas community, the
management process of knowledge has to include three
types of economic agents: local government authorities,
entrepreneurs, members of Khakas community. Three
strategies to manage the traditional knowledge are re-
commended such as: animal husbandry development,
commercialization of traditional wildlife management,
realization of a state policy taking into consideration the
existence of traditional institutions.
7. Acknowledgements
This paper is financially supported by the project Institu-
tional modeling of knowledge economy development on
the regional level (RFBR № 13-06-96024 r_ural_a)
REFERENCES
[1] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Or-
ganization, “Convention for the Safeguarding of the In-
tangible Cultural Heritage,” 2003.
www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/convention
[2] J. Xu, E. T. Ma, D. Tashi, et al., “Integrating Sacred
Knowledge for Conservation: Cultures and Landscapes in
Southwest China,” Ecology and Society, Vol. 10, No. 2,
2005, p. 7. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art7/
[3] A. Logacheva, “Khakassia—Perception the Population of
Open Access ME

S. PANAKAROVA, M. VLASOV 583
Open Access ME
New Living Conditions,” Sociological Researches, No. 9,
2005, pp. 82-85
[4] G. T. Kandalova, “How to Optimize the Use of Steppe
Pastures of Khakassia in Modern Conditions,” Steppe
Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 29, 2010, pp. 3-20.
[5] S. Panikarova, “Borders and Structure of Ethnoeconimy
of Region,” Regional Economy: Theory and Practice, Vol.
39, No. 222, 2011, pp. 39-47
[6] T. Veblen, “The Place of Science in Modern Civilization
and Other Essays,” Huebsch, New York, 1919.
[7] R. Nelson and S. Winter, “An Evolutionary Theory of
Economic Change,” Harvard University Press, Cambri-
dge, 1982.
[8] G. M. Hodgson, “What Are Institutions?” Journal of
Economic Issues, Vol. XL, No. 1, 2006, pp. 1-26.
[9] V. L. Makarov, “Institution Calculus,” Economics and Ma -
thematical Methods, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2003, pp. 14-37.
[10] G. Kleiner, “Evolution of Institutional Systems,” 2004.
[11] M. Vlasov, “Resource Differentiation of Knowledge,”
Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Knowl-
edge Management , Portugal, Vol. 1-2, 2-3 September 2011,
pp. 1057-1063.
[12] E. V. Popov and M. V. Vlasov, “Dependence of Research
Productivity on Transactional Costs,” Actual Problems of
Economic, Vol. 5, No. 131, 2012, pp. 427-437.
[13] D. North, “Structure and Change in Economic History,”
Norton, New York, 1982.
[14] S. V. Panikarova, “Stability Factors Institutions for Eth-
noeconomy of the Indigenous People (on the Khakass
Republic Materials),” Zhurnal Ekonomicheckoj Teorii,
No. 1, 2013, pp.108-114
[15] I. Nonaka and H. Takeichi, “The Knowledge-Creating
Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynam-
ics of Innovation,” Oxford University Press, New York,
1995.
[16] P. Yodmongkon and N. Chakpitak, “Applying Intellectual
Capital Process Model for Creating a Defensive Protec-
tion System to Local Traditional Knowledge: The Case of
Meahiya Community,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2010, pp. 517-534.