Advertisement

Capital as in capitalism, or capital as in capital goods, or both?

Article
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

Austrian economists employ two different concepts of capital. Sometimes they treat capital as a universal phenomenon of human action as such. Capital is then understood as a combination of heterogeneous capital goods that appear on the intermediate stages of the production process. In other instances, they understand capital as a homogeneous value magnitude expressed in money terms that is employed in business accounting. This paper argues that this practice not only creates terminological confusion, but leads to substantial misunderstandings when it comes to important theories held by the Austrian school. The point is exemplified by the Austrian theory of the business cycle.

Keywords

Capital Capitalism Capital goods Austrian business cycle theory 

JEL classification

B53 D24 P12 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Professor David Howden for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. He has further profited from discussions with several participants of the 2017 conference on “Perspectives of Integrated Austrian Theory” at the Universität Hamburg, Germany.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Böhm-Bawerk, E. v. (1889). The positive theory of capital. Translated by W. Smart. New York: G. E. Stechert & Co 1930Google Scholar
  2. Braun, E. (2015). Carl Menger's contribution to capital theory. History of Economic Ideas, 23(1), 77–99.Google Scholar
  3. Braun, E. (2017). The theory of capital as a theory of capitalism. Journal of Institutional Economics, 13(2), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cachanosky, N. (2015). Expectation in Austrian business cycle theory: Market share matters. The Review of Austrian Economics, 28(2), 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cachanosky, N., & Lewin, P. (2014). Roundaboutness is not a mysterious concept: A financial application to capital theory. Review of Political Economy, 26(4), 648–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cachanosky, N., & Lewin, P. (2016). Financial foundations of austrian business cycle theory. In S. Horwitz (Ed.), Studies in Austrian macroeconomics (Advances in Austrian economics, volume 20) (pp. 15–44). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, A. J., & Harcourt, G. C. (2003). Whatever happened to the Cambridge capital theory controversies? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(1), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2012). Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garrison, R. W. (2001). Time and money: The macroeconomics of capital structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hayek, F. A. (1935). Prices and production (2nd ed.). Kelly, New York: Augustus M.Google Scholar
  11. Hayek, F. A. (1941). The pure theory of capital. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Holcombe, R. G. (2015). Capital and labor, past and present, in the context of Piketty’s capital. The Review of Austrian Economics, 28(2), 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirzner, I. M. (1966). An essay on capital. In P. J. Boettke & F. Sautet (Eds.), The collected works of Israel M. Kirzner: Essays on capital and interest (pp. 14–133). Indianapolis: Liberty fund.Google Scholar
  14. Kirzner, I. M. (1976). Ludwig von Mises and the theory of capital and interest. In P. J. Boettke & F. Sautet (Eds.), The collected works of Israel M. Kirzner: Essays on capital and interest (pp. 134–146). Indianapolis: Liberty fund.Google Scholar
  15. Lachmann, L. M. (1978). Capital and its structure (2nd ed.). Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McNeel.Google Scholar
  16. Lewin, P. (2005). The capital idea and the scope of economics. The Review of Austrian Economics, 18(2), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewin, P. (2011). Capital in Disequilibrium (2nd ed.). Auburn: Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Lewin, P., & Cachanosky, N. (2017). Value and capital: Austrian capital theory, retrospect and prospect. The Review of Austrian Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-016-0374-8.
  19. Macaulay, F. R. (1938). The movements of interest rates, bond yields and stock prices in the United States since 1856. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  20. Menger, C. (1871). Principles of economics. Translated by J. Dingwall and B. F. Hoselitz. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute 2007Google Scholar
  21. Menger, C. (1888). Zur Theorie des Kapitals. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 17, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mises L. v. (1922). Socialism: An economic and sociological analysis. Transl. By J. Kahane. New Haven: Yale University Press 1951.Google Scholar
  23. Mises, L. v. (1949). Human action – A treatise on economics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Murphy, R. (2010). Lessons for the young economist. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  25. Rothbard, M. N. (1957). In defense of “extreme Apriorism”. Southern Economic Journal, 23(3), 314–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rothbard, M. N. (1962). Man, economy, and state: A treatise on economic principles. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute 2009.Google Scholar
  27. Samuelson, P. A. (1966). A Summing Up. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(4), 568–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Strigl, R. v. (1934). Capital and production. Edited by Hülsmann, J. G., translated from the German by M. R. Hoppe and H.-H. Hoppe. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Management and EconomicsClausthal University of TechnologyClausthal-ZellerfeldGermany

Personalised recommendations