Editing Individual capital (section)

== Versus "human", "firm-specific", "individual social" ==

While conflated in many analyses with [[human capital]], the latter term includes [[social capital]] (human relationships) and instructional capital (abstract texts and training materials and so on) that are not tied to any one person, do not die with them or leave employment with them, and therefore cannot be equated with talent alone.{{fact|date=March 2019}}  In [[Intellectual capital|intangibles]] measurement, [[value creation]] and [[value reporting]] metrics require all assets with such different characteristics to be categorized as different [[capital asset]]s, so the more exact reference to the '''individual''' person is preferred.

Fusions of terminology are common.  Sociological analysts refer to  "individual-level elements of social capital" or "an individual's social capital" or just "individual social capital" while economic analysts often use the phrase '''firm-specific human capital'''.  In either case the clearly includes '''individual capital''' but also some "activity-", "community-" or "firm-specific" [[social capital]] (community trust) and instructional capital (shareable knowledge or skills).  This is easy to measure:  its yield is your salary in your current job.

To the degree this is consistent if you take other work nearby, this opens the questions of what is ''not'' "firm-specific" and whether a nation is just a bigger "firm":  Some analyses see [[political capital]], or just "influence" or "trust of professionals" as a full style of capital of its own.  Some [[list of ethicists|ethicists]], most clearly [[Jane Jacobs]], see this as simple [[Political corruption|corruption]].  Nonetheless, corruption clearly has a cash value, involves some creativity to arrange, and is a decision factor.  It is a skill like any other.