Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHodgson, G.M.
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-30T09:15:59Z
dc.date.available2014-09-30T09:15:59Z
dc.date.issued2014-09-30
dc.identifier.citationHodgson , G M 2014 , ' What is capital? Economists and sociologists have changed its meaning - should it be changed back? ' , Cambridge Journal of Economics , vol. 38 , no. 5 , pp. 1063-1086 . https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beu013
dc.identifier.issn0309-166X
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 7612881
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 829ec738-2f64-44cb-9907-bd740bb2b4b6
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84906885576
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/14498
dc.descriptionThis is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Cambridge Journal of Economics following peer review. The version of record: Geoffrey H. Hodgson, 'What is capital? Economists and sociologists have changed its meaning: should it be changed back?', Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.38(5):1063-86, September 2014, is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cje/beu013
dc.description.abstractThis article traces the historical usages of the term capital and the explosion of different types of supposed 'capital' in the twentieth century, including 'human capital' and 'social capital'. In medieval and early modern times, capital meant money investable or invested in business. This meaning persists in business circles today. In contrast, Adam Smith treated physical assets, machines and people as 'capital' and this different usage has dominated economics since. The pre-Smithian meaning referred to money or other saleable assets that could be used as collateral. This article questions the change in meaning by economists and sociologists and highlights the importance of collateralisable property for capitalism. 'Human capital' can only be collateral if the humans involved are slaves. 'Social capital' can never be used as collateral and it is not even owned. These important issues are masked by the broadened notion of 'capital'. Given the conceptual problems involved, economists and sociologists should consider returning to the pre-Smithian and surviving business usage of the term.en
dc.format.extent24
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofCambridge Journal of Economics
dc.rightsEmbargoed
dc.subjectCapital
dc.subjectCollateral
dc.subjectFinance
dc.subjectHuman capital
dc.subjectMoney
dc.subjectSocial capital
dc.subjectEconomics and Econometrics
dc.titleWhat is capital? : Economists and sociologists have changed its meaning - should it be changed back?en
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Accounting, Finance and Economics
dc.contributor.institutionSocial Sciences, Arts & Humanities Research Institute
dc.contributor.institutionHertfordshire Business School
dc.contributor.institutionCentre for Research on Management, Economy and Society
dc.contributor.institutionGroup for Research in Organisational Evolution
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.date.embargoedUntil2016-04-01
dc.relation.schoolHertfordshire Business School
dc.description.versiontypeFinal Accepted Version
dcterms.dateAccepted2014-09-30
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beu013
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2016-04-01
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue
herts.date.embargo2016-04-01
herts.rights.accesstypeEmbargoed


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record