Abstract

The aim of the paper is to discuss the theoretical foundations of the natural capital concept within the ecological economics framework. The paper does not contest the need to recognize the contribution of ecosystems services to human well-being and social output, nor the issue of the economic evaluation of this contribution. What it intends to question is the reason why nature and natural resources are subsumed into the category of capital; in other words the suitability of the analogy proposed and developed mainly by Costanza and Daly. The paper argues that in this way a monistic distortion (by which everything is considered capital) is introduced and the reciprocal independence among factors of production as sources of value is eliminated. The paper also demonstrates that this view can be traced back to the economics of Irving Fisher, one of the most representative thinkers of the “marginalist revolution” in America.