Capitals, assets, and resources: some critical issues¹

Abstract

This paper explores the potential of Bourdieu's approach to capital as a way of understanding class dynamics in contemporary capitalism. Recent rethinking of class analysis has sought to move beyond what Rosemary Crompton (1998) calls the 'employment aggregate approach', one which involves categorizing people into class groups according to whether they have certain attributes (e.g. occupations). Instead, recent contributions by Pierre Bourdieu, Erik Wright, Aage Sorensen, and Charles Tilly have concentrated on understanding the mechanisms that produce class inequalities. Concepts such as assets, capitals and resources (CARs) are often used to explain how class inequalities are produced, but there remain ambiguities and differences in how such terms are understood. This paper identifies problems faced both by game theoretical Marxism and by the rational choice approach of Goldthorpe in developing an adequate approach to CARs. It then turns to critically consider how elements of Bourdieu's approach, where his concept of capital is related to those of habitus and field, might overcome these weaknesses. Our rendering of his arguments leads us to conclude that our understanding of CARs might be enriched by considering how capital is distinctive not in terms of distinct relations of exploitation, but through its potential to accumulate and to be converted to other resources. This focus, we suggest, sidesteps otherwise intractable problems in CAR based approaches.

Education and Class-formation in 20th Century Ireland: A Retrospective Qualitative Longitudinal Analysis

“…Nevertheless, the political culture of the state strongly favoured rural property holders, and as we will see, this was a period of 'primitive accumulation' of political and cultural assets (Savage et al 2005) by farmers that allowed them to capture subsequent opportunities for social mobility through education. By contrast, landless agricultural labourers and urban manual workers were effectively shut out from the project of this state during this period.…”

Global ends, local means: Cross-national homogeneity in professional service firms

“…Indeed, it has been argued that, in the case of crossnational research, institutional analysis tends to favour the highlighting of national differences (Smith and Meiksins, 1995). Bourdieusian, rather than instutionalist, field analysis emphasises stratification (Savage et al, 2005) or processes of domination as opposed to a more benign coexistence of multiple logics. In this respect, attention is paid to the way in which powerful actors come to dominate global fields and facilitate the privileging of certain factors over others (Go, 2008).…”

Inequalities and the Brazilian New Democracy: Income Distribution Between Classes in Recent Decades

“…Setting out from the premise -backed by theory and also by important empirical studies carried out in the last few years -that analysing the movement of income inequality between classes is relevant, we can therefore ask: Here I interpret the NVS schema through an approach that has been defined as CARs, an abbreviation for Capitals, Assets and Resources (Savage & Devine, 2005). This contrasts with the now classic employment aggregate approach (Crompton, 1998), placing less emphasis on the division of labour and concentrating on the mechanisms and effects through which classes are produced through the actions of individuals sustained by different capitals, resources or assets.…”