1/n I do not like the phrases 'social capital' or 'natural capital'. Why not? A short but deep dive into the concept of capital: https://twitter.com/NatCapCoalition/status/1334801574481305601

2/n Let's first state a seemingly ridiculous question: is there any kind of capital without a human society? The answer is clear: no, there isn't.

3/n Next question: is there any kind of capital without ownership? Using the concepts of the national accounts, the answer clear again. 'Free game' or 'unpolluted air' are not considered to be capital even when we use capital (catalytic converters!) to 'produce' clean air.

4/n Cattle owned by a family which is part of an non-monetary nomadic tribe is however considered to be capital. As is a road owned by a modern government.

5/n As are patents. Or (yes, these exist) tradeable rights to produce manure. Capital is by definition (check the national accounts) bound to ownership. And its property to carry value from one period to another period (again, check the definitions of the NA)

6/n Now, (neoclassical) economists have taught people, using the Y = f(K, L) definition, to understand capital as a kind of physical item which can neatly be defined as well as estimated by its monetary value. Wrong.

7/n More on this here: https://www.routledge.com/Macroeconomic-Measurement-Versus-Macroeconomic-Theory/Knibbe/p/book/9780815353348

8/n Aside from all kind of technical problems one runs into when trying to estimate the present monetary value of something which has, by definition, a multi-period nature this value is also dependent on legal structures defining ownership.

9/n Manure (more precise: rights to produce manure) can only become capital when rules exists describing ownership en enabling a market of some kind.

10/n Patents are another example. The question 'how many periods do patents last' is decided by politicians and judges, not by nature.

11/n As the use of physical equipment is, to an extent, decided by the owner of the capital rights connected to this equipment. Meaning that the way labour is used is also connected to ownership of capital.

12/n The point: using the phrase 'natural capital' is reducing 'nature' to an owned monetary item (or at least to an owned physical item) and to embed its very concept as well as its use in a system of ownership with political and economic determinants.

13/n Example: big bucks can be made by private ownership of beaches and selling the entrance rights, turning nature into an asset on a balance sheet and use values of humans into a flow of income on a profit and loss account (and forget about biodiversity).

14/14 Using the (neoclassical) concept of 'capital' to describe nature will enable a juridical and political discourse enabling such a situation. Which is why we have to scuttle this concept and stop using phrases like 'natural capital'.