No abstract

Before economists and sociologists came up with their own definitions of the term ‘capital’, it was commonly understood as money invested in businesses by their owners or shareholders, and it continues to be understood this way in everyday business practice. In a recent article, Hodgson (2014) advises economists to return to this pre-Smithian usage of the term. This paper takes up Hodgson's demand and develops a theory of capital that is based upon this business notion of capital. It also argues that the Austrian theory of capital, if interpreted correctly, can serve as a starting point. Despite the conviction of its adherents to the contrary, the Austrian theory of capital is not universal or ahistorical, but dovetails with Hodgson's vision of an approach to capital that analyses historically specific features of capitalism.

The principles characterizing the traditional revenue-expense approach to accounting cannot be traced back to a distinct event. I argue that they are ecologically rational. Their functionality is the result of cultural evolution, not of unitary human design. This is the reason why the efforts to defend them against the balance-sheet approach endorsed by standard-setters have encountered severe difficulties. Only the latter is clearly based on a coherent model of the economy, namely neoclassical economics. I further argue that a solid basis for explaining the rationale of the culturally evolved accounting principles can be found in behavioral economics. These principles are in line with human behavior as found in numerous laboratory and field experiments. It is especially with respect to Prospect Theory that a close parallel can be identified. I combine this observation with a market process view of the economy. Financial accounting according to the balance-sheet approach does not add new information to the market process; it only summarizes on the firm level information provided by the market. In contrast, the revenue-expense approach provides private information to the market à la Hayek (1945). The revenueexpense approach thus turns out to be congenial to the organization of the market economy.

No abstract

Endres and Harper (2011) maintain that, within the Austrian tradition of capital theory, Carl Menger and Ludwig M. Lachmann form a distinguishable trajectory. Both these authors, they argue, consider capital as a heterogeneous structure of higher-order goods. In this comment, it is demonstrated that the opposite is true. Menger and Lachmann endorsed contrasting views on the nature of capital. Whereas Lachmann indeed adhered to a heterogeneous capital concept, Menger considered capital to be a homogeneous concept employed in economic calculation.