and beginning
earlier
specialization
apparent
had
BOhm-Baverk
and included
objects,
fellow
Olli
Department
HISTORICAL
IDEAS
University
Conceptual
In
the
already
social
Turunen
conceptions
1885
further
economists
of
and
of start
economists
interest
of
(1812—1878)
The
scale
such
capital
useful
modern
variety
publications
of
capital
Hildebrand
of
interest
from
lost,
OF
Karl
of
and
Jyvaskyla
as
of
the
thought
in
back
histories
History
personal
the
detrimental
state,
its
Knies
the
the
social
of
scope
SOCIAL
twentieth have
—
of
in
for
analytical
and
modern
in
origins
beginning
including
intangible
immaterial
the
peace,
and
ECONOMICS
that
used
confusing
— time,
been
capital,
and
of
of
Karl
concept
followed
properties
German
social
new
by
of
concepts
for
Ethnology
century.’
disciplines
Knies
presented
this
law,
value.
the
of
conveying
Wilhelm
while
research
CAPITAL
capital
capital,
the
of
capital
concept.
paper
the
national
by
social
(1821—1
economics
During
of
twentieth
and
Knies
Eugen
concept
intangible
Though
of
in
theories
the shows from
Roscher
in
such
capital
powers
These
social
the
considered
social
898)
honor,
general
the
von
century.
the
a
how
social
in
of
IN
conceptual
last variety
—
has
illustrative,
science
(1817—1894),
capital
in
capital
under
the Böhm-Baverk
1960s
disagreed
capital
and
nineteenth-century
generated
five
EARLY
the
the
sciences
such
Arguing nineteenth
virtue.
of
that earlier
decades,
took
onwards,
literature
the
nineteenth
by
histories
ideas,
applications
about
came these
same
place.
extending
a
that
as
Moreover,
Bruno
German
continuous
GERMAN
in
the
the
century,
new
as
capital;
close
usually
one
of
studies
term.
1888
word
well
social
concepts
century,
Hildebrand
should
ideas,
of
to
debate
historical it
—
Knies
the
as
the
Roscher
which
some
start
was
have
stream
capital
to
criticized
some
despite
idea
idea
look
when intangible
on
of
losing,
from
and
scholars
ignored
may
human capital
Turunen
von
the
the
the
his
be
or 47 considered crucial to the development of the modern social sciences.To offer insight into the nineteenth century discussion, this paper shows how the earlier German historical economists Wilhelm Roscher (1817—1894),Bruno Hildebrand (1812_1878)2 and Karl Knies (1821—1898)connected social phenomena to the concept of capital and to what degree it is possible to see their views through the contemporary concept of social capital. Furthermore, this paper argues that the assumption of a universal pre-1960s definition of capital, which Pierre Bourdieu and other social capital theorists then extended into new areas, could lead one astray. John Field has written that only in the 1960s was capital expanded to include people and their capacities, and that until the birth of the contemporary conception, social ties, as a form of capital, were simply a metaphor. In fact, human skillsand capacities, as well as social ties, networks and trust had3 already been definedas capital in the nineteenth century. This view had critics then, as there are critics of social capital theory now in the twenty-first century. Ernest Renan, a Frenchman, lectured in 18824 that “Anheroic past, great men and true glory are the social capital on which the idea of a nation is based.” The citation is one of 5 a a the first to use social capital similarly to the way it is used today. It describes bond, common history that binds a group of people and givesmeaning to their actions, although its use here seems to be metaphorical. In the political economy of the nineteenth century, social capital coincided with the term national capitaLBohm-Baverk (1851-1914), an Austrian theorist of capital and interest, used the term as a purely economic category of the means of production of a nation, i.e. machinery and infrastructure, as opposed to private acquisitive capital. Karl Marx’s use of the equivalent German term (gesellschaftlichesKapital)6 was similar. This usage has little to do with the current use of social capital, though if the 7term is understood as a collective good and means of production, an analogy is possible. The first modern use of the term was probably that of LydaJudson Hanifan in 1916in her work, TheRural SchoolCommunityCenter.Alex MacGihivray and Perry Walker have claimed that it was Hanifan who first used the 8term. The term,however,has actually been around longer, though the content has changed quite a bit. Robert D. Putnam’s reference to Hanifan seems more felicitous, since he emphasized that Hanifan’s definition anticipated virtually all of the crucial elements in later versions. Furthermore, Putnam stated that the term social capital was invented independently9 at least six times over the twentieth century, “each time to call attention to the ways in which our lives are made more productive by social 10ties.” There are, however, some mentions of social capital with modern nuances in the nineteenth century. First, there is the use in the political economy that observes social capital as an aggregate of individual capitals and often included public infrastructure (see Bohm-Baverk above). Usually,this referred to material goods or some kind of equivalent of GDP. However,Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809—1865)used social capital to describe the social aggregate of talent in individuals.” Second, the term social capital was sometimes used, albeit metaphorically, to mean things that bound people or a nation together, as was the case in LalorsCyclopediareferenced above. This use is found in various political and scholarly 12texts. Finally,the most modern of these uses, which appears mostly in fiction; 48 for example, Josiah Gilbert Holland (1819—1881),an American novelist and poet,
Essays inEconomic&Business History— VolXXVII,2009
Because
all
concept
and
general
confusion both
mental
Bourdieu’s
capital;
and
applied
Harm-Peer
extended
capital. German
discussions
capital
solve facilitating
and
connection the business
Kapital. possessing
available
universally
acquaintance authors
capital
organization, pastimes described
the
economic
C. A.
B.
Wilhelm
To
The
In
sum
term
the
in
capital
considered
Things,
Relations
Persons
the
discussions
in
justify
or
assets
production
was
public
science
Mental
these
of
The
price
first of
—
political
and
to
Adam
some
capital
were
problem
intellectual
that
capital,
a a
1980s
resources,
coordinated Zimmermann,
is
Pierre
something
that
mentioned.
an
of
Roscher
commodities
second
scene
movable
durable
bound
goods
such
social and
discussed section and
of
of
may
the
actor
capital.
between social
a
aspects.
capital
Smith’s
Bruno
capital
in
his
model
money,
source
recognition.”
personal
economist
as
concerning one
Bourdieu,
capital
idea
of
follow
where
relations
conjunction
could
section
through
saw
own
actual trust
to
form.’ 5
network
of capital,
collective
and
Physical
obtained
needs
consisted
actions.”
Hildebrand
in
as
them,
idea
Robert
persons of
that
of
the
this
as
times
and
if
into
be
the
accumulated
norms,
Muller
a
unmovable;
economic,
services;
or
social
glances
scientific
history
of
did
couple
his to
and
used
James
Roscher,
and
the
article it
third
money
virtual,
consisted
James
three
of
capital,
education
know
confounded
Putnam
through
Pierre
with
and/or
is
or
with
many
of
and
governance
current
divided
more
capital
for
a
worthwhile
briefly her
made
section.
idea
of
classes:
of
Coleman
precursor
Coleman
shows
concepts
capital.
cultural,
his
how
networks
that
what
production,
embodied
the
Bourdieu
and
social
Knies
of
things.
labor,
“unquestionably
or
of
a
has
capital,
for
mental
among
and
notion
national
network
at
the concept
accrue
he
experience
less
Section we
the
how
how
defined
These
people
relationships.’ 4
to
defined
whether
or
skills
social
earlier
are
defined and
that
to now
of
institutionalized
concepts
the
concluded
knowledge
in
of
moral
capital,
to
Hildebrand
Karl
Roscher
used
they
notice
of capital
German
of
distinctions
can
persons;
as
four
Robert
social
an
concept
and
call
of
capital social
writers. acquaintances.
economic
capital
Knies
and
in
social
individual
improve
in
are
humbler
character,
shows
human
symbolic
which
good
of
material
Adam
to
daily
capital,
part
connected
credit
that
Putnam
capital
historical
groups;
money
as
capital,
mental
criticized
of
capital
considerably.
To
could
a
descent”
how life.’ 6
are
the
capital
of
is
goods.
relationships
social
curious
Muller
and
origins.’ 3
understand
capital;
or
there
trust,
capital.
form
comparable
Roscher’s
comparable
efficiency
as
and
capital
Hildebrand
institutions;
as
science a
—
contribute
social
He
the
trust,
group
economists,
“features
capital
as a
Roscher
who
are
access
or
capital,
and
example
(1779-1829),
useful
noted
power
application
unkorperliches
Furthermore,
According
intemalized,
and
at
capital.
Here,
capital
of
concept
by
reputation,
are
impressive
least
of
Roscher’s
was
to
society
to
to
resource
physical
that
virtue
divided of
interest
tried
objects
to (Kraft)
Tunnen
mutual
almost
credit,
Pierre
of
social
social
social
three
who
and
The
our the
the
of
to
to
of
by
of
a 49 capital.He divided the capitalof nations into ten commodity classes) From theseclasses, immaterial or incorporealcapital is the most interesting. By7immaterial capital, Roscher meant customer and business relations and trust as well as acquisitions that were inseparable from the contribution of human work or skillsacquired through experience or education. The state and many other institutions such as the Church also fellinto the category of immaterial capital. Roscher’sconcept further included a characteristic that wassimilar to modern viewsof socialand human capital:when used,it wasnot dissipated, but exactlypreserved.’ Roscher8derived his category of goods referring to relations between persons and between persons and things from the Roman law.He mentions resincorporales,which in Roman civil law means things that cannot be touched: things that consist in rights, or which the mind alone can perceive.He believed that it was usually possible to evaluate these goods in a similarwayas material goods.Customer relationships,differentcontracts between the actors in the economy and trust between these actors were the descriptive examples used. In explaining the value of relationships, he considered that when a new entrepreneur bought a newspaper company,he did not buy mere appliancesor buildings but, above all, existing relationships with employeesand subscribers. Similarly,he noted that a theatre director’srelationship with a good actor was useful for both and thus, was also part of the director’sand actor’swealth.When describing the value of trust Roscher considered that a large part of a trading firm’svalue layin the confidenceand trust that it aroused in its customers, thereby relieving them of many worries and difficulties. Similarly,an army commander could do wonders with an army he himself organizedand trained, but he might be uselesswith a foreignarmy,perhaps in a foreigncountry.Roscher believedthat through the progress of culture people would become increasinglysociable, and therefore, these valuable relations would multiply. ‘Whenused commerciallyor as means of production, these economic goods constituted9 capital. For Roscher, institutions such as the state, the judiciary and the church were also immaterial goods because they created favorablecircumstancesand sustainabiity for the economy. He viewed the state as the most important economic good and the most important form of immaterial capital. When writing about usefulrelations as economic goods or as immaterial capital,°2 Roscher regarded the state mainly as the good management of public affairs. This multifaceted view of the state, institutions and circumstances as capital’2made his concept of capital vulnerable to attack because the concept indeed seems to lose its analyticalvalue when all existing social structures and institutions are seen as capital and the relational features of capital are forgotten. On the other hand, Roscheremphasizedthat the nature of capitaldepends on the point of 22view. Roschersawrelieffor underprivileged people as closelyconnectedwith religion.While he believed that it must be based on religion, mere ecclesiasticalpoor relief was not enough for the Germany of his 23time. Nevertheless,he stated:“The capital of the poor is the love of the 24faithful.” Though Roscher is speaking metaphorically, the same connection between capital — or at least social capital — and religion has been made in recent 25discussion. Putnam has also seen religious participation as an important factor in community life and its health. LikeRoscher,he sees faith-based organizations serving 50 civillifein two ways:first,by providing socialsupport for members and socialservicesfor
EssaysinEconomic&BusinessHistory— VolXXVII,2009
this,
Goethe’s economic
had
lcind goods
philosopher
surplus
of
in
practical judiciary,
unlike
the
central
own
bringing
relations
education
human
revenue
Roscher,
churches. values,
European the
order
the
However,
In
Roscher’s
no
ideas
persons
or
wider constructive
So beginning
Knies human
utilize.
of constituted
their which
Human
social
The
times.
that
stock
his
Roscher,
transition
natural
economic
to
encouraging
left
it
to
poem
and
in
and
domain
the
advantage
social
it
man.
Geld
the
sufferings
Religion
political
made
were
life
could
define
must
community;
poor-relief
Although
in
It
included
over
used
individuals,
and
industry.
or
for
individuals
church
institutions
state).
concept
social
is,
of
—“Were
their
mid
characteristics
The
inseparable
to
Knies compensated
life,
by
Knies,
them
therefore,
political
after treatment
not
then
position.
Man;
for
capital.
of
goods
end, the
economy
also
Credit
to
definition
altruism
too. 28
was
entirety
capital. and
study
varied
subsistence
accept.
scholars
placed
of
capital
In
an
obligatory things
and
economic be
not
that
had
and,
who
distinguish
in
also
appear
immaterial
Knies
as pleasures,
economist)
individual,
Karl
connection
When
an
held
in
the
parts
schooling
of
Economic any
capital.
is,
widely. 27
an
as
persons,
According
He and
second,
are
they
but depict
for a
unavoidable
political
that
in
of the
Knies
one
important eye
provider
agreed
a
connection,
as
here
by
general here
of
and
carried
capital
presented fostering goods
discipline,
also
expenses,
need,
study
made
akin
of
These
their
future
an
in
took
“economic the
capital
or
by
view
continuation
their
with
those
asserted
their
Knies
with
services
in
goods
economy
opposition
elementary,
as
to
were
make
to
would
of of
admitted
nurturing
further,
whole
bodies
them
principle
a
could
role
public
wages
the
prerequisite
civic
that
Knies,
body
social
capital
exchange
their
critical
social
fields
was
but
included
considered
descriptive
can
only
formed
subservient
sun,
as
in
capital,
had
then
it
recruitment
be
existence
or
that
goods”
the
parts,
or it
is,
needs
“producers:’
be
combating
goods,
services;
was
of this
another
the
that
view seen
capital,
led with
to
their
it
could
civic how
as
traditionally
understood
be
absolute
interest
base
value
its
could
most
their
what
importance
to not
is
already
but
that
and
at
based
as
and
that
Smith
of
significance
benefiting
intellect. 29 special
examples
as
views
skills,
comparable
most
not
to
private
of
of
this,
only
the
symbol
with
Roscher became
of
their
never
outside
political
should
things
among
accomplishments,
themselves
self-interest.
the
and
capital.
the
“consumers’
on
be
the
requirement
definitions
and
noted,
according
of
i.e.
all
knowledge the
another
definition
as
intellect
counted
a
spheres
goods
been
perceive
human
course,
ideas
of
that
economic
pure
by Turgot 3 °
the
of
“external”
be capital
objective
church capital, world,
defined
economy,
extended
capital
J.
to
the
“inculcating
how
whole
called
had
the
S.
and
now
(social
abstraction,
goods
the
to
outside
of
is
of
economic
as
character.
the Mill’s
by
could
which
people.” 26
of
etc.
to
but
duties
natural, which
that want
for
the
as
capital
activity
situation
capital.
described
goods,
trust,
qualities
capital,
society
the
capital
be
su&’ 31
to
from
from
was
a
relations),
with
not
the
the
concept,
costs
(British
defined
increase
areas
to capital.
will
Turunen
is
goods
of
some
moral
social
in
since
part
The
and
(the
was
but
For
the
his
of
in
of
of
of
as 51 Knies admitted the importance of administration and the state for 32economics, but these were unrelated to capital. He criticized Roscher’sview of the state as capital on several 33occasions. Knies also denied categories such as personal capital, which, in Roscher’sview,included the above-mentioned public goods.
[...] in political economy only economic goods should anywaybe understood as capital,but in no casehuman persons or something that is inseparable from them as persons, which is why ‘the worker ‘the special skills,knowledge and abilities’of man, alongwith the state,national feelingand the likeare necessarily out of the question. Neither does the languageof scienceneed the awkwardhelp of ‘so-called’personal capitalsor 34‘Quasikapitalien’. As we can see, Karl Knies disliked the forms and definitions of capital that disconnected it from its relation to money and material goods, made it dependent on point of view,made it possible for almost anything to be called capital and, in the end, made it possibleto seepeople as capital.The entanglement of political economywith the inner characteristics or inner goods of human beings led it into areas such as the mental or physical characteristics of the individual, which, according to Knies, could not be explained and understood by means of, or included in, the term capital. Nor did he see capital as being constituted by national feeling,which, if seen as devotion to the national community, could have some common footing with the concept of socialcapital. Bruno Hildebrand developed a stage theory, which, in his opinion, examined an area that was common to alleconomies. Vertheilurig(allocation or distribution), as opposed to production and consumption, was not dependent on labor, climate or the nature of the land, and he used this as the basis of his three different economic models.It wasthe social element in society,which made the division of labor possible. It tied together the two economic spheres of life,production and consumption. The three economic models that were based on the instrument of allocation and common to the development of every economy were the natural, money and credit 35economies. Through capital, the money economy not only revolutionized the entire process of production, but also affectedthe whole of sociallife.It freed people from the yoke of the soil and created a new socialclass of capitalists, which, unlike previous elites,was open to 36all. Financial power became increasinglytightly intertwined with scienceand thereby changedthe wholeprocessof life and 37production. Financial capacity,or capital, was distributed through credit: “Credit is trust in the fulfillment of a givenpledge,and at the same time the sum of those attributes on which this trust is 38based.” Here Hildebrand actuallygivesa formula for estimatingthe value of trust between two actors: trust is equivalent to the amount of credit one can get. According to Hildebrand, credit was something given not only to those who had something, but also to those who weresomething. He sawa person’smoral attributes as a possibledebt security,and therefore there could be revenuein trust — in trust in a person’s
52
Essays in Economic&BusinessHistory— VolXXVII,2009
capital
he
associations
social
mentioned
elsewhere”
as
and
Sociologist
therefore
Hildebrand. that
guarantors,
The
application trust
Single
men
created
without
science. 41
meaning,
and
and
Hildebrand
to
and being
their
through
capitalists
Hildebrand
credit future
considered
Hildebrand’s
efficient
areas
The
When
Hildebrand
now
idea
the
Hildebrand’s
the the
advantages
proletariat
financial
[...]
and
again
labor
structures,
through
able
institutions
economy:
an
achievements.
Bangladeshi
returns
pooL 4 °
hesitation.
intelligence
in
Yunus,
of
been
public
banks
which
as
The it
egocentric
through
and
James
credit
to
writing need.
has of
and
are
Roscher
micro-credit,
used
institutions
connected
an
united
amass
capacity
that
credit
realized
money
credit.
also
since
the
and
they
moral example
observed
of
third,
morality
and
in
“The
comes
Banks
capital
when
which Coleman
idea
both
trust
could
To
gulf
mental
an discussing
about
thereby
all
of attributed
as
yielded.
the
economist,
spread
interest
credit He,
economy
and
moral
Hildebrand,
character.
example
personal
in an
[Kapitalkraft]
In
a the
of
and
describing
close
the
between
as
based
of
for
people
highest
of
that
therefore, amassing
not
practice,
applicants
instrument
the
this
credit
and
a financial
mental the
used
earlier
the
credit
gave
to
institutions,
metaphor
However,
worth
him
economy
to
accomplish
if
last
the
a
value
dozens
on
moral
people
of
way,
brought
qualities
this
the similar
in
He
“the
Muhammad
the
rise
as
mobility
institutions
stage were
cooperation
epochs
moral
new
moral the
though
the
of
saw
talents
savings
considered
capacity
concept
personal
a
for
of
propertied
through to
of
rotating-credit
bonds:
of
man
of
in
mediator
were
obligations,
and
or
sense
the
trust
formations
role
of
an
the
the
loans
people
social
with
another
countries.
worth
it
qualities
analogy
of
this.
the
Muhammad
environment’s
economic
gains
atomized
with
and
to
its
nation, was
economic
embodiments
for
as
of
of
of
or
the Yunus,
were
economy,
forming
savings
the and
building
and
The
a
banks
new
the
social
and
nation,
classes
moral
between
the
form
possible
small
faculties
inner
context,
concept
for
could
expectations
economic
trust
trust
to
society
brought
With
worked
honesty, powers
the
power
associations
society.
way
developed
mental
the
be
glue
associations
of
development. 42
credit
“solidarity
and
he
Yunus
stability
stones. 43 capital
credit
was
in
the capital,
be
some
inspired
in trustworthiness
heart
of
of
the
to
used
and
in
used
Putnam. 46
of
of
and
for
those
writing
transformed by
capital,
a
life
The
mediators
powers
conscientiousness,
was
development
remove
capital?’ 39
haves
economy
credit
connection
hardly
social
good
immediately
of
the
the
expenditures.
a
the
and
that
in
or
an
credit
universalized of
cultivated
new
groups” who
the
as
by
to
contemporary
freedom
removal
term
and interesting about
Southeast
economy,
and
will, and
trustworthiness
that
combined
capital. 45
got
be
the
societal
kind
moral
had
between
economy
had
therefore,
precise,
social
of have-nots
mental
and
into
the
one
moral
monopoly
acting
in
with
of
nothing Hildebrand
and
also
distribute
of
of
the
idea
saw
attributes, could
life,
organism,
Asia
in
financial
He
relations
modern
the
the
the
trade. 44
the
mutual
realized
he
a
powers
Turunen
Credit
bound which
capital
credit, as
1970s.
them
social
but social
in
from
also
saw
and
rich
has
co
say
but
the
of
of
it
it 53 that trust gains the powerof capital.Loans,based on a guarantee of the moral qualitiesof the borrower, could, when distributed through credit institutions, efficiently allocate capital where it was needed. Furthermore, this would narrow the gulf between social classes.When Hildebrand applied the term capital directly to something beyond the material sphere,he connectedit with trust, obligations,self-government,associationallife and man’srise abovehis narrow concerns of self-interest. Hildebrand viewedpublic morals as comparable to intelligence,which increasedthe powers and capabilities of people. Since he ruled out natural laws from the sphere of political economy,public morality;or moral power,together with intelligence,becamethe soul of every national economic organism. Public morality increased a sense of duty, diligence, entrepreneurship, industriousness, mutual trust and self-sacrifice for the common good. Moral power ennobled individuals, taking them out of their bounded egoisticworld to the higher viewpoint of common welfare.It made people consciousof the connection between their actions and national work thereby giving their activitiesa higher goal and consecration, which further gratified them in their work and improved performance. 47 force as the mental capital of the people, which was Hildebrand described this moral not easyto create.Neither economic institutions nor administrativemeasures alonecould do so sinceit was a result of a long history filledwith experienceand an intensivenational culture, and it required a stable, free government.Where the state was based on distrust, where government extended its centralizedbureaucracy to everysphere of life,and where everything wasmade subject to license,there, neither mutual trust, nor personal or moral vigor nor a public spirit could flourish. Hildebrand believed in the self-governmentand self-helpof individuals and different spheres of society.Most importantly, when the state trusted its citizensand protected the above-mentioned rights as sacred, then not only did the abilityof the peopleto identifyand fulfilltheir central needs rise,but so did its support for the systemof government, self-sacrificefor the common good, and the moral, political and economic power of the whole nation. Mental capitalwasthe point of contact between the national economyand the whole state 48organism. Hildebrand sawthat trust inspired trust in society:“The stateharvested the fruits it had 49sown’ Asin his theory of the credit economy,there are some points of contact with the concept of socialglue in Hildebrand’s view of moral power as the soul of the economy and society. The main function of Hildebrand’s mental capital was its power to raise people from their egoistic world of self-interest. By giving meaning to their work and actions, it promoted efficiency,self-sacrificeand collaboration. Hildebrand was writing from the perspective of the nation; mental capital was “mental capital of nations.” Despite the principles of laissezfaire and hypothesesbased on natural lawthat aspired to removethis moral power, accordingto Hildebrand, it waspreciselythe soul of everyhealthy national economic organism. In short, Hildebrand’smental capital facilitatescooperation. This is also what5 James Coleman’ssocial capital does, but Coleman’stheory has its ancestry “laissez° faire” and hypotheses that Hildebrand would have seen as based on partly in natural laws.Coleman’stheory, on the other hand, is based on the rational choicetheory of economics, which sees individuals as rationally maximizing their own interest. Here, 54 cooperation is an exception to the broad rule of solitary action, and if it happens, it is in
Essays is Ecosomic&BusinassHistory— VolXXVII,2009
thereby
contributions
“emancipation
development, these
expanded
BegriffsnationalOkonomie. 54
used
the
causing
change
come
mental
Smith
human precise
metaphor,
common
mental Hildebrand’s were
unintentionally
gain.
this why
form
self-interested
seem Smith,
the
generally
and
regard
self-government
albeit
were
self-government;
could
the
capital,
Political
errors
To
To
When
eternal
interest
problem.
education, was
man
Whereas
answers
of closer
debates.
to
replaceable,
the
had
not
conclude,
summarize
capital,
giving or
Hildebrand’s
in
despite
the
and
German
“arose
reciprocity, be
of
culture
complementary,
to
made
quasi.
this
chooses
British
alone
or
discussing
confusion
trade-off
adhered
results
immense
to
of
social
include
mental
which
the
of
to
by
state
economy
man
Likewise,
with
James
as
Therefore,
modern
his
the
of
in
by
Roscher’s
the
the
as
create
and
it
could definition,
equivalent
false
an
without
were
up
much
of the
notion
to
Hildebrand’s
the
actors
capital
seeking
its
of must
trust
a
mental
to
unintended
question
stemmed
between
nineteenth
almost
collective Coleman
to (or
stable
cooperate
importance.
that
innovation,
impression
emphasis
affairs,
leading
result
concept
lagging
an traditional
ideas.
at
a
Roscher’s
the
moral)
to
and
be
surrounded
point,
of definition
proper
although
it
some
innovative
of
as
his
The
capital
government.
exercise
same
everything
they
sympathy, stated
is of
self-interest
of
Knies
he
Kapital,
civic
of
authorities.
own
from
action, denied
behind
no
the
term
instead
on
of
view
the
century
point
by consequence
what
nevertheless
capital
people
institutions
that
way
discussed
Hildebrand
Capital
public
replacing
uses
action,
cooperation
profit.
capital
wonder
proper
Hildebrand
that
may
it.
may
the
term
refers
on
environment.
the
nineteenth
the
as
various makes
usually
the
compensate
in Coleman’s
studies
that
of
of was
physiocrats,
neither
have
often
cooperation James
seeking
be
and
concept.
spirit
science, connection
was
Because
has
problem
seeking social
institutions,
the
from to
phenomena
the
or
that
could
a
man
and
presented
of
been the
the
with
one
in authors
tried
result
go
complementing
of
Coleman
term
and was
most
and
their
Roscher,
many
financial
the capital.
common
fact
economics
moral
their
expectations
unnoticed
he
Altho
the
look
of
immediate
be
happier for
by
Here,
access
modifiers writing
to
century
Bruno
of
even
capital,
saw
between the
rigorous and
pursuit
that
boundaries
greatest
seen
have
regarding
the
respects
show
mainly
further
his
ugh
interests
a
character,
that
saw
most
he
that
Still,
Hildebrand history
reciprocity,
to
the
came
difference. 52
good.
as
capital?’ 55
own
if
devised
about
Hildebrand’s
Knies
credit
used
have
social
in
that
since
of
the
are
productive.
taxonomy
the
achievements
gain.
like
one, nationalism,
controversial
human
and
is
based
than
whether
been
social
self-interest?’ 5 ’
proposal
to
social
Since
physiocrats
now
among
filled concept
the
science
usually Britain
did
of
science
enabled
immaterial,
and
though
he
obligations,
be
Social sometimes
differing
his
an
on
the
national
one
not
nor
capital
capital,
accused
considered
the described
capital
Somehow
human
with
attempt
own
of
It
the
as
mental
as
presupposed expect
concept
for
Later of
and
other
must
and
capital,
days
Knies
by
Hildebrand’s
is
the
freedom
of
an
concepts
an
capital
principle
experience, theories
and
immediate
possible
correcting
literature,
trust,
i.e.
humanity level. 53
education
as
education
concepts
personal,
capital
i.e. them
of
example:
analogy,
consider
on,
to
a
people,
Turunen
used
science
arising as
capital
called
Adam
in Adam
quick
these
to
were
social
solve
may
and
this
the
and
the
be
in
on
of
to
of
as
a
a 55 phenomena belonging to the social sphere is an invention of the twentieth century. This was also true when human capital reigned over the social 56sciences. These problems of conceptual history do not reduce the significance of social capital research, since it is a long way from a mere idea of social relations and trust as capital to effective theory, measurement and application. Furthermore, it would be tendentious to claim that the forms of intangible capital discussed here, or these ideas on the boundaries of the concept of capital, were somehow limited to the German-speaking world. The examples given in the introduction and also Roscher’sreferencesto French and English economists clearlyshow that this is not the case.
NOTES
1. Putnam, among others, has propagated the contribution of Hanifan from 1916. Robert D. Putnam, BowlingAlone:The Collapseand RevivalofAmericanCommunity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 19. Farr finds earlier relatively modern uses of the concept in John Dewey and Edward Bellamy. James Farr, “Social Capital: A Conceptual History:’ PoliticalTheory32, no. 1 (2004): 17—20.Some critical points by Ben Fine, “ElevenHypotheses on the Conceptual History of SocialCapital: A Response to James Farr:’ PoliticalTheory35,no. 1(2007): 47—53;James Farr,”In Search of Social Capital: A Reply to Ben Fine:’ PoliticalTheory35, no. 1 (2007): 54—61. Some scholars have sought to find social capital in works of the Scottish Enlightenment, but the connection with the concept of capital islost here: Lindsay Paterson, “CivilSocietyand Democratic Renewal:’in SocialCapital: CriticalPerspectives,ed. Stephen Baron, John Field and Tom Schuller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 2. WilhelmGeorgFriedrich Roscher(1848—1894)studied in Berlin at the guidance of August Boeckh and Leopold von Ranke. Professor of political science in Leipzig 1848—1894.Roscher is usually regarded as the founder of the Historical School and its methodological mentor. Karl Knies (1821—1898)was a professor in Freiburg and Heidelberg. His pupils include Max Weber. Bruno Hildebrand (1812—1878),professor in Breslau and Philipps-Universitat in Marburg. Theoretical main work Die Nationalökonomieder Gegenwart und Zukunfi (1848). Founded the first cantonal statistical office in Switzerland and started internationally influential Jahrbucherfür Nationalbkonomieund Statistik,later known as HildebrandsJahrbucher. 3. John Field, SocialCapital (London: Routledge, 2003), 11—12. 4. Knies offered fierce criticism, see section two. One present-day critic is Ben Fine: Ben Fine,SocialCapitalVersusSocialTheory:PoliticalEconomyand SocialScienceat the Turn of the Millennium (London: Routledge, 2001); Ben Fine, “ElevenHypotheses,”47-53. 5. “A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things which, in truth, make only one, constitute that soul, that spiritual principle. One is in the past, the other in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is the actual consent, the desire of living together, the disposition to continue to givevalue to the undivided inheritance they have received. Man is not improvised. The nation, like the 56 individual, is the outcome of a long past of efforts, sacrifices and devotion. The
Essays in Economic&Business History— VolXXVII,2009
14.
13.
12.
11.
9.
10.
8.
7.
6.
“The
Citations
Francis
Josiah Tyler,
Development The
possible
1902), Taylor
1875), For
Mass:
1896). good.
only
Inquiry Proudhon
Robert
individual
have
name
(New understood
Alex Putnam
Tom
Ground,”
Income used
Karl
in
us with
production.
1906), compositions
Eugen
the
Strechert
Joseph worship
of
are.
the
the
a
example,
Sorbonne
Philosophy
An
many
parallel
Marx,
Schuller
in
MacGillivray
nation
several
another,
York:
2006).
The
The
for
IX.3.
XI.8.
Gilbert
last wrote
composition
VI1.XXV.3.
BOhm-Bawerk,
Hopkinson
D.
Lalor
of
into
the
heroic
use
of
also
and
something,
&
in
the
Putnam,
resort, term
in
is
individual
Whence
Note
Simon
ancestors
Capital,
further
as
Co,
the
Lastly,
of
here
is
about
regarded
Social
the
(New
Coleman’s
terms
People Francis
(Oxford:
through
spoke
Holland,
in
more
depicting
past,
gives
based.”
her
‘social
Principle
of
1930),
also,” long
1882.
concerned
with
Also,
&
York: Smith,
and
the
production Human
the
Bowling
Capital:
of
trans.
husband’s
and
great
of
expressing
or of
Schuster,
but
is
us
capitals E.
run,
the
capital’ more
The
the
the
62—63.
Ernest
[.
Conformity “moral,
Oxford
average
the
Perry
Sevenoaks:
less
a
“Social
definition
Brewster
..]
Maynard,
an
the
the
a
of
men
Edward
The
total
concept
United
but
modern
Positive
concept
most
their
Right
Nature
Alone:
idea,
in
different
Critical
as
Whither
composition
invested
Walker,
For
Renan,
is
Fortunes
2000),
whatever
intellectual
University
the
and
of social
of
social
an
the
Capital
from
legitimate
acquaintance
this
States
and
wrote
social
these
quote:
Aveling
following
Merril,
Theory in: anarchist
The
A
and
thought
carries
true
(Philadelphia:
to
idea
Perspectives,
19.
capital
Story
capital
is
“Nation,”
compositions.
“Local
John
of
Pierre-Joseph
in
of
Environment
of Collapse
(New
averages,
wealth:’ a
includes
not
glory
we
in
Government,
See
a
Press,
that
Man:
more
Oliver
of
and
Moore
an
and
particular
of
Field,
of
1851 of
call
is
Capital,
also a
than
investigation’ of
of
Social
York:
idea, all;
are
that
Today
was
Co,
education term.
the
social
the
a
it,
2000),
plausible
in
and
a
Horn
Willford
that
ed.
our
footnote
all country,
in
Social
the
(Chicago:
a
the
Brief
Getz
1899).
really
social
theory,
Cyclopedia
Macmillan
community.”
total
political
Capital:
all
Proudhon,
Revival those
trans.
The
Stephen
(New
(New
branch
ancestors
If
social
every
capital,
trans. idea
(New
197.
branches
Capital,
&
Putnam’s
History
part
First capital
view.
Isbell
average
capital
increases
and
or
12
Buck,
William
remains
products
York:
York:
capital
wife
Charles York:
B.
of
Making
of
economist.
an
of
of
Baron,
and
delivered
of
with
American
&
R.
have
A
King,
production
What her
the
4,
was
abstraction.
of
Francis
of
Political may
Co.,
1851),
Grosset
term
C.
Tucker
in
C.
of
‘concept’
in
15
on
Smart
the
production,
this
social
same
made
the
H.
His
of
Scribner’s
Scribner’s
seen
their
this
it
John
and
The
1896,
is
1915),
make
which
same. is
Kerr
past
Work
as
alone
Property?
70;
wage
Perhaps
E.
Origin
Community
a
(Princeton,
page.
&
as
Science,
capital’ Wealth
23.
(New
us
branch a
individual
Field
label
Brewster,
have,
lecture
John
John
Dunlap,
the
industry
and
is a
We
what 10.
the
are
Turunen on
public
of
Sons,
to
sons,
York:
gives
may
best
and
or
Co.,
and
idea
and
one
the
we, M. the
M. An
ed. in
an
be
we
of
at
a 57 15. Mental capital: A. Idea capital: theory, art, moral, religion, national consciousness etc.; B. Knowledge capital: empirical and positivist Kulturwissenschaften,factual social knowledge about trade and finance; C. Science capital: mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, agronomy etc.; and D. Applied science capital: applied knowledge, technical know how. Physical capital: A. Experience and credit capital: institutions, moral values embodied in personal character but also property, real estates and possessions; B. Power (KraJt) capital: infrastructure, improvements; C. Production capital: means of production, industrial facilities, hand tools; and D. Money capital: finance capital, trade goods, all goods mentioned above if used in trade or as currency. Harm-Peer Zimmermann, Asthetische Aujklarung: Zur Revision der Romantik in VolkskundlicherAbsicht(Wurzburg: Konigshausen & Neumann, 2001), 451—459. 16. The content of the concept varied from concrete means of production through very abstract notions of social structure and organization to an all-embracing culture. Marie-Elisabeth HUger, “Kapital, Kapitalist, Kapitalismus,” in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe:HistorischesLexikonzur Politisch-SozialenSprachein Deutschland,ed. Otto Brunner, Werner Conze and Reinhart Koselleck(Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1982),399. 17. A. Bodenmeliorationen, B. Bauwerke, C. Werkzeuge, Machinen und Gerate. D. Arbeits- und Nusstiere, E. Verwandlungstoffe, E Hilfstoffe, G. Unterhaltsmittel, H. Handelsvorrate, I. Geld und K. Unkorperliche Kapitalien (Quasikapitalien). Wilhelm Roscher, Grundlagen der Nationalokonomie: Em Hand- und Lesebuchf fur Geschaftsmanner und Studierende, 24th ed. (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1906), 122—124. 18. Wilhelm Roscher, Grundlagender NationalOkonomie,122—124.See also footnote 8 on page 127. Roscher considered that the state was fundamental for economic activity. Institutions like the Church or theaters and museums do have an economic function (Zweck),but their other functions as a rule are more important. This is stated in a footnote, which refers to Knies’sGeldund Kredit,(Berlin: Weidmann, 1873—1876). 19. Wilhelm Roscher, Grundlagender Nationalokonomie,7. A general’s relations with his soldiers could also have an exchange value. Roscher used Italian mercenaries of the fifteenth century as an example; see footnote 6. 20. Wilhelm Roscher, Grundlagender Nationalokonomie,106 and 124. On the state as an economic good, see pages 7—9. 21. Roscher emphasized the role of the savings associations and funds as intermediaries between the capitalists and the poor workers and craftsmen. Wilhelm Roscher, Nationalokonomik des Handels und Gewerbfleisses:Em Hand- und Lesebuchfür Geschdftsmannerund Studierende, 7th ed. (Stuttgart: 1899), sections 155—160. 22. Wilhelm Roscher,GrundlagenderNationalokonomie,122—124. 23. Wilhelm Roscher, Systemder Armenpflegeund Armenpolitik,3th ed. (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger, 1906),67, 5. 13. 24. “Das Kapital der Armen sei die Liebe der Glaubigen,” Wilhelm Roscher, Systemder Armenpflegeund Armenpolitik,86. Citations from the German works translated by the author. 25. John A. Coleman, “Religious Social Capital: Its Nature, SocialLocation, and Limits:’in Religionas SocialCapital:Producingthe CommonGood,ed. Corwin Smidt (Waco,TX: 58 Baylor University Press, 2003), 33.
Essays in Economic&Business History— VolXXVII,2009
47.
46.
45.
44.
43.
42.
41.
40.
39.
38.
37.
36.
35.
34.
33.
32.
31.
30.
29.
28. 26.
27.
NationalUkonomie,
Bruno
reprint Journal
Robert
James
A
individual
organizations
credit were
und und
If
Bruno
John
to
Geldwirtschaft The
Bruno
Bruno
Nationalokonomie’
Bruno
Bruno
through
and
Iahrbucher
natural
Bruno
Karl
E.g.,
Schwetschlce, Anne-Robert-Jaques
Karl
Geld,
France.
“War’ Karl
Knies, Weidmann,
complicated Because
Karl
Robert
these
craftsman,
them
Gewerbfleisses,
Creditwirtschaft’
former
17.
Knies,
Knies, only
Field,
Knies,
Karl
Knies,
S.
because
42—44.
Hildebrand,
Hildebrand,
nicht
Hildebrand,
(Princeton,
D.
Das Hildebrand,
of
were
D.
Hildebrand,
economy,
Coleman,
Hildebrand,
credit
Hildebrand,
Sociology
it
the
Putnam
Knies,
members
Putnam,
fur
by
Social
Geld,
Die
Das
were
Das
das
was
1885),
Das
not
attempts
whose
organs
1883),
and
Nationalokonomie
unexpected
und and
property
Politische
Geld,
Geld,
Auge
43.
the
Das
available,
Capital,
Geld:
ambiguous
money
“Social
N.J:
962—963.
et
94,
“Naturalwirtschaft,
Zweiter “Naturalwirtschaft,
“Naturalwirtschaft,
24—25. associations
credit
Creditwirtschaft,”
“Naturalwirtschaft,
Bowling
Jahrbucher
only
106—107.
to
educators
of
al.,
42.
Geld, Turgot,
“Naturalwirtschaft, 40.
sonnenhaft,
22—23.
to
Supplement:
Princeton
Darlegung
“Die
get
credit.
“Die
Making
Oekonomie
solve
as
pledge 5.
Capital
as
and
sickness
institutions
38
Artikie,”
credit.
Alone,
a
a
medium
and
1727—178
and
Bruno
Gegenwartige
the
of
medium
für
Gegenwartige
that
proprietorship.
und
was
University
Democracy
the
in
41.
die
Wilhelm
der
79.
NationalOkonomie
social
changed
or
102—103.
Jahrbücher
the
vom
poor
Statistik 22.
Hildebrand,
were
his
Sonne
death
Geldwirtschaft
Grundlehren Geldwirtschaft
Geldwirtschaft
of
such
Geldwirtschaft
1,
of
Creation
problems
Geschichtlichen
exchange
ability
leading
and
Geldwirtschaft
big
exchange
Roscher,
Press,
as
konnt’
could
Work:
from
11(1864):
banking
carried
für
Aufgabe
Aufgabe enough
to
“Naturalwirtschaft,
of
Hildebrand,
“economist”
1994),
Nationalökonomie
in caused
destroy
writer
Civic
work,
von
es
Human
Nationalökonomik
und
in
und
credit
und
und
nie
und
the
3-4.
could
dem money
to
Standpuncte
167—17
Traditions
Statistik
had
erblicken.”
Creditwirtschaft,”
moral
der
Creditwirtschaft,”
Creditwirtschaft’ by
to
der
the
und
Creditwirtschaft,”
bear
economy.
Direct
Capital’
Gelde,
rapid
not
writer,
difficulties
pledge.
of
economy,
Wissenschaft
“Naturalwirtschaft,
1.
Wissenschaft
Creditwirtschaft,
obligation
such
I
help
the
trade
industrialization.
(1863):
in
2nd
Karl
(Braunschweig:
Geldwirtschaft
und
the
The
Modern
18th Co-operative
because
risks
des
of
ed.
Knies,
in
Statistik
American
and
definition
10—16.
imposed
goods
Handels
22.
Century
22.
19.
getting
helped
(Berlin:
Turunen
12—14
Italy,
trade
they
der
Das
der
in
I 59 (1863): 138—142. 48. Hildebrand, “Die Gegenwartige Aufgabe der Wissenschaft der Nationalökonornie, Zweiter Artikie,” 141—143. 49. Hildebrand, Die Gegenwartige Aufgabe der Wissenschaft der Nationalökonomie, Zweiter Artikie,” 141.“Staat erntet die Frucht seiner Saat.” 50. Bruno Hildebrand, “Die Gegenwartige Aufgabe der Wissenschaft der Nationalokonomie, Zweiter Artikle’ 140—141. 51. John Field, SocialCapital,24—25. 52. Bruno Hildebrand, “Die Nationalokonomie der Gegenwart und Zukunft,” in Die Nationalokonomieder Gegenwartund Zukunft und Andere GesammelteSchriften,ed. Hans Gehrig (lena: Fischer, 1922), 75—77. 53. John Field, SocialCapital,(London: Routledge, 2003), 9. 54. Ernst Helrnstädter, “Die Geschichte der NationalOkonomie als Geschichte ihres Fortschritts,” in GeschichtederNationalokonomie,ed. Otmar Issing (München: Vahlen, 2002), 6. 55. Waither Jacoby, Der Streit urn den Kapitalbegriff: Seine Geschichtiiche Entwicklung und Versuche zu Seiner Losung (lena: G. Fischer, 1908), 2. 56. B.F.Kiker,“The Historical Roots of the Concept of Human Capital” JournalofPolitical Economy74, no. 5 (1966).
Essays inEconomic&BusinessHistory— VolXXVII,2009