Evolution of Perceptions about the Essence of Capital as a Scientific Category and a Factor of the Socio-Economic Development
The article’s objective is to investigate the logic of evolution in the essence and forms of capital under the impact of the changing sources and factors of socio-economic development and social wealth.
The visions of capital prevailing from the middle of the eighteenth till the middle of the nineteenth century are analyzed, to demonstrate that although the classical tradition did not deny the impact of out-of-economic factors on the economy as a whole and the human behavior in particular, the analysis focused on the purely economic factors of growth and distribution of the social wealth.
The paradigm of the classical school was changed in the end of nineteenth century by the emerging institutional theory: factor theories of economic growth were replaced by substantiations of multidimensional sources of socio-economic development. The twentieth century was marked by the two achievements: (i) the understanding that the social wealth could not be confined to the material wealth; (ii) a new vision of a mix of factors behind the socio-economic development: natural, technical and technological, and institutional, with research focus gradually shifting from material factors to information and institutional ones.
The following significant move in the vision of capital was the line drawn between the notions of “economic growth” and “economic development”: emphasis on economic growth as the fundament of development made the economic theory inapplicable in studies of broader development perspectives.
A new phase in the economics started in 70s of the twentieth century, with rise of the neo-institutional theory assuming that the material welfare of a nation could not be gained by means of traditional production factors and capital accumulation without a highly developed institutional structure of the society.
The philosophical and economic rediscovery of capital was made by the neo-classical school: by treating capital as a way of value utilization rather than a tangible form, it denied a criterion of capital commonly adopted in the political economy of earlier times, i. e. its alienability, together with the materialistic approach to interpretation of capital. The set of capital parameters was expanded by including in it skills and qualifications (human capital), social relations and networks (social capital), political and economic institutes (institutional capital), and, eventually, intellectual objects of intangible nature. It shows that the forms of capital were transforming from tangible (material) to human and intellectual (intangible) ones. This phase is marked by rise of the theory of human capital, reflecting the cardinal change in the role of the human factor and its impact on science and technology development, production processes and labor productivity. The notion of “social capital” was introduced in economics by abandoning out-dated visions of capital as a purely materialistic phenomenon associated with the material production processes and adopting to broader concept related with social development, with emphasis changing from links of humans and wealth to relations between humans in a broader humanistic sense.
Tagarov Zh. Z. (2007). Nekotoryye osobennosti razvitiya ekonomicheskoy nauki v novoye i noveysheye vremya [Some peculiarities in the development of economic science in the modern and post-modern era]. Istoriko-ekonomicheskiye issledovaniya – Economic history studies, vol., 8, No 3, 5–25 [in Russian].
Mayburd E. M. (2000). Vvedeniye v istoriyu ekonomicheskoy mysli. Ot prorokov do professorov [Introduction in the history of economic thought/ From prophets to professors]. Moscow: Delo [in Russian].
Lytvynenko N. I. (2015). Instytutsionalni skladovi sotsialno-ekonomichnoho rozvytku krainy [Institutional components of the socio-economic development of a country]. Donetsk: National Mining University [in Ukrainian].
North D., Thomas R (1973). The Rise of Western World: A New Economic History. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kozlovski P. (1997). Kultura postmoderna [The culture of post-modern]. Moscoe: Respublika [om Russian].
Acemoglu D., Robinson J. (2016). Chomu natsii zanepadaiut [Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty]. Transl. from English. Кyiv: Nash format [in Ukrainain].
Bell D. (2004). Gryadushcheye postindustrialnoye obshchestvo. Opyt sotsialnogo prognozirovaniya [The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting]. Transl. from English. Moscow: Academia [in Russian].
Skvortsova V. A., Skvortsov A. O. (2015). Evolyutsiya kapitala v protsesse obshchey evolyutsii sotsialno-ekonomicheskoy sistemy [The evolution of capital in the process of overall evolution of the socio-economic system]. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Obshchestvennyye nauki – Bulletin of higher education establishments. Social sciences, 2(34), 216–224 [in Russian].
Schumpeter J. (1982). Teoriya ekonomicheskogo razvitiya [The theory of economic development]. Transl. Moscow: Progress [in Russian].
Blaug M. (1994). Ekonomicheskaya mysl v retrospective [Economic theory in retrospect]. Transl. from English. Moscow: Delo Ltd [in Russian].
Galperin V. M., Ignatyev S. M., Morgunov V. I. (1994–1997). Mikroekonomika [Microeconomics]. 2 vols. S.-Petersburg: Economic school. 1994–1997.
Fisher I. The Nature of Capital and Income. New York and London: Macmillan, 1927. 427 р.
Dewey D. Modern Capital Theory. NewYork – London: Columbia University Press, 1965. 238 р.
Kendrick G. (1978). Sovokupnyy kapital SShA i ego formirovaniye [The formation and stocks of total capital]. Transl. from English. Moscow: Progress [in Russian].
Becker, G. A Theory of Social Interactions // Journal of Political Economy. 1974. Vol. 82. No 6. P. 1063–1093.
Hernando de Soto (2004). Zagadka kapitala. Pochemu kapitalizm torzhestvuyet na Zapade i terpit porazheniye vo vsem ostalnom mire [The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else]. Transl. from English. Moscow: Olimp-Biznes [in Russian].
Hirshleifer J. (1070). Investment, Interest, and Capital. Englewood Cliff, Prentice-Hall Inc.
Lucas R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3–42.
Martsinkevich V. I. (1991). SShA: Chelovecheskiy faktor i effektivnost ekonomiki [The U.S.: the human factor and the economic effectiveness]. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].
Toffler E. (2003). Metamorfozy vlasti: znaniye. bogatstvo i prinuzhdeniye na poroge KhKhІ veka [Metamorphoses of the power: Knowledge, wealth and force on a threshold of the 21st century]. Transl. from English. Moscow: “Izdatelstvo ACT” [in Russian].
Slipushko O. M. (2000). Tlumachnyi slovnyk chuzhomovnykh sliv v ukrainskii movi [The dictionary of foreign-language words in the Ukrainian language]. Kyiv: Krynytsia [in Ukrainian].
Radayev V. V. (2003). Ponyatiye kapitala, formy kapitalov i ikh konvertatsiya [The notion of capital, forms of capitals and their conversion]. Obshchestvennyye nauki i sovremennost – Social sciences and modernity, 2, 5–16 [in Russian].
Bourdieu P. (2002). Formy kapitala [Forms of capital]. Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya – Economic sociology, vol. 3, No 5, 60–74 [in Russian].
Polishchuk E. A. (2005). Chelovecheskiy kapital v ekonomike sovremennoy Rossii: formirovaniye i realizatsiya [The human capital in the economy of modern Russia: formation and realization]. Izhevsk: Izhevsk State Technical University [in Russian].
Where is the Wealth of Nations? Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2006. 208 p.URL: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/2145781110886258964/20748034/All.pdf.
Abstract views: 285 PDF Downloads: 193