2015Journal of Economic IssuesRequires access

The Commodification of Social Relationships: What Is Capital?

Timothy A. Wunder

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

:Mainstream economics relies on a production function definition of capital, wherein the payments to capital represent a return to its usefulness. This vision of capital contrasts with more heterodox definitions, clarifying that capital actually represents social relations of power. Mainstream economic texts and prominent practitioners continue to give the production function view central importance in the theories they advance. An issue arises for those who espouse the mainstream view, when looking at certain types of non-collateralized debt obligations, such as student loans. If those owning student debt own capital, which seems true, then what exactly do they own? Using student debt as a crucible, I explore the issue of which definition of capital has better explanatory power. I endeavor to demonstrate that capital can only be capital when the state’s use of force can be called upon by the owner of that capital to divert income to the capital owner’s use.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

:Mainstream economics relies on a production function definition of capital, wherein the payments to capital represent a return to its usefulness. This vision of capital contrasts with more heterodox definitions, clarifying that capital actually represents social relations of power. Mainstream economic texts and prominent practitioners continue to give the production function view central importance in the theories they advance. An issue arises for those who espouse the mainstream view, when looking at certain types of non-collateralized debt obligations, such as student loans. If those owning student debt own capital, which seems true, then what exactly do they own? Using student debt as a crucible, I explore the issue of which definition of capital has better explanatory power. I endeavor to demonstrate that capital can only be capital when the state’s use of force can be called upon by the owner of that capital to divert income to the capital owner’s use.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

:Mainstream economics relies on a production function definition of capital, wherein the payments to capital represent a return to its usefulness. This vision of capital contrasts with more heterodox definitions, clarifying that capital actually represents social relations of power. Mainstream economic texts and prominent practitioners continue to give the production function view central importance in the theories they advance. An issue arises for those who espouse the mainstream view, when looking at certain types of non-collateralized debt obligations, such as student loans. If those owning student debt own capital, which seems true, then what exactly do they own? Using student debt as a crucible, I explore the issue of which definition of capital has better explanatory power. I endeavor to demonstrate that capital can only be capital when the state’s use of force can be called upon by the owner of that capital to divert income to the capital owner’s use.

Key concepts: Individual capital, Financial capital, Economics, Economic capital, Capital (architecture), Social reproduction, Means of production, Mainstream

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Commodification of Social Relationships: What Is Capital? — Research Paper | ScholarLens