Editing Individual capital (section)

== As recognized in theories of economics ==

Individual talent and initiative was recognized as an intangible quality of persons in [[economics]] back to at least [[Adam Smith]].  He distinguished it (as "[[Entrepreneur|enterprise]]") from [[labour (economics)|labour]] which can be coerced and is usually seen as strictly imitative (learned or transmitted, via such means as [[apprenticeship]]).

[[Marxist economics]] refers instead to "an '''individual's''' [[social capital]]—individuals are sources neither of creativity and innovation, nor management skill.   A problem with that analysis is that it simply cannot explain the substitution problem and lack of demand that occurs when, for instance, an understudy takes on a leading role, or a second author takes over writing a popular book series.  At the very least there must be some conditional, if not '''firm-specific''' then [[class struggle|"class specific"]], special ability to command premiums for outstanding personal performance.

[[Neoclassical economics]] by contrast refers to [https://web.archive.org/web/20030802115152/http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/human_capital.html "the individual in whom the human capital is ... embedded"], which implies a strong association of the individual with the instructional capital they learn from, with little or no [[social capital]] influence.  This is orthogonal to the Marxist view, but not necessarily opposed.

[[Human development theory]] reflects both distinctions:  it sees labour as the yield of individual capital in the same way that neoclassical [[macro-economics]] sees [[financial capital]] as the yield of the looser idea of [[human capital]].  But the [[rest problem]] and [[social welfare function]] selection, as well as the subjective factors in [[behavioral finance]], has led to a closer analysis of [[factors of production]].  In effect, the [[financial architecture]] is no longer trusted as an arbiter of the [[value of life]] as it was in [[neoclassical economics]].  [[Money]] is not seen as [[Value (ethics)|values]]-neutral, but as embodying a set of larger social choices about [[money supply]] rules, made by [[measuring well-being]] of whole populations.