In finance and accounting, capital generally refers to financial wealth, especially that used to start or maintain a business. It is assumed that other styles of capital, e.g. physical capital, can be acquired with money, so there is little need for any further analysis.
|Table of contents|
2 Broadening the definition of capital
3 See also
The Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk maintained that capital intensity within a certain industry as determined by consumer demand rather than the supply of saving, through the roundaboutness of production processes.
Broadening the definition of capital
Some economic theorists see capital as physical items such as tools, buildings and vehicles that are used in the production process. Other economists have focussed on broader forms of capital. For example, investment in skills and education can be viewed as building up human capital (or in more detailed analyses, building up individual capital using instructional capital, recognizing that both the individual and the instruction may benefit from the interaction).
Some theories use the terms intellectual capital or knowledge capital which lead to certain questions and controversies discussed in those articles. In general, intellectual capital is that which produces new "intellectual property", and that in turn is "whatever one can get paid royalties for". These are terms that rightly belong in law but mean little in economics.
In modern economic theories, the less controversial analyses break down each of the major factors of production as its own 'style' of capital, allowing for the capital appreciation and depreciation of each asset. Such analyses recognize four styles of capital, or in more detail, six:
Although it is still possible to calculate the macro economic idea of "human capital" as payments (like salary), it is rarely or not used when discussing the process of planning investment: for this it is broken down into the more specific styles, which are distinct when one considers the means of identifying them, investing in, and exploiting them. The term "human capital" may thus do more harm than good.
Another prompting for the more exact and deeper six-style analysis is that infrastructural capital has declined in financial value relative to intellectual rights, and natural resources have become more scarce. Meanwhile, both human development and biodiversity have become a main priority of government in every developed nation.
In part as a result, separate literatures have developed to describe both natural capital and social capital. Such terms reflect a wide consensus that nature and society both function in such a similar manner as traditional industrial infrastructural capital, that it is entirely appropriate to refer to them as styles of capital in themselves. In particular, they can be used in the production of other goods, are not used up immediately in the process of production, and can be enhanced (if not created) by human effort.
There is also a literature of intellectual capital and intellectual property law. However, this increasingly distinguishes means of capital investment, and collection of potential rewards for patent (imitative or instructional capital), copyright (creative or individual capital), and trademark (social trust or social capital) instruments. Literature that makes these distinctions tends to parallel the six-style analysis, which explains why three distinct bodies of law would have evolved in the first place.
Some analysts, e.g. Baruch Lev, claim there are seven styles of capital. It is not clear how his analysis relates to that of human development theory, as it arises from management accounting practices. It is not very widely used, not at all outside the US, and is under some suspicion as it emerged during the dotcom boom and did not specifically claim that those companies were grossly overvalued or corrupt, as later events proved them to be. This has led to speculation that political capital, or political influence or corruption, is his actual seventh factor. This is probably oversimplified, but calls for comprehensive accounting reform have reached the highest levels in the US, particularly in the wake of major accounting scandals, so it is hard to wholly dismiss this concern.