Is it appropriate toward use the metaphor of money for social money as defined in the previous section? Hayami has an answer toward this question. Conventionally, money used by economic analysts as well as practitioners of social accounting, relates to the stock of goods at a certain point of time, which can be usable for future production. This encompasses not only producer goods such as machines and factories, but also the inventory of customer goods is included in this category. Human capital is also said to comprise the stock of skills and knowledge in person in humans which are utilized for future production. It appears that the same analogy can be applied to social capital. “Social contact conducive to developing cooperation” existing in society at a point of time can be measured a stock of resources, which contributes to increases in social product over time, as the anecdote of two-farmer cooperation has illustrated.
But the fact remains which measurement of social money is more difficult as compared toward either physical or human money. It is because of the ordinal attributes of social money – trust, fellow feeling, cooperation – which can hardly be through numerical numbers. More importantly perhaps, unlike the case of physical money, market price tags are not attached toward the components of social money for valuation as well as aggregation. However, as Hayami contends, the same difficulty plagues human money, albeit toward a lesser degree, while the acquisition costs of human money are hard toward estimate from market price data. “For this difficulty, Schultz (1961) proposed toward estimate human money from the side of its yields rather than its costs. Although difficult, the same approach will be necessary toward construct direct quantitative measures of social money, beyond making indexes using various indirect proxies”.
Negative Impacts of social money
While many of scholars dubbed social money as an important plank of progress, critics came up with some problems of social money which could go against individuals, the economy as well as society
Influential relationship between social money as well as household welfare
From the previous discussions, impressions about the different dimensions of social money - as well as how it varied across geographical spaces as well as among different socio-economic groups – could be captured. However, which does not help toward discern social money’s contribution toward the welfare of the household. Which needs, particularly, a focus on the connection between social money as well as earnings as the alternative of poverty as well as welfare of the family circle by using an econometric model? The form is premised on the assumption which like physical as well as human money, social money also generates measurable return (flow of income) toward the household. Further, social money is also not something which is “given” or can be “taken for granted”, it requires resources (time as well as efforts whether conscious or unconscious) toward be produced and can be consolidated, strengthened or weakened as well as even destroyed. Undoubtedly trust remained as the major building block of social money as well as it is maintained, nurtured as well as reinforced through interactions which occur for social, economic, religious, or cultural reasons. Therefore, income is function of social money, human, physical as well as financial money as well as hence, household income is dependent variable as well as social money as well as exogenous asset endowments of the household are the variables.
No comments:
Post a Comment