Capital only has economic meaning if it is maintained. Capital maintenance concepts define the boundary between income and capital preservation, and therefore determine what may legitimately be consumed, distributed or taxed without undermining future economic capacity.
Five capital maintenance concepts are required for a coherent political economy.
1 - Financial capital maintenance
Financial capital maintenance holds that capital is maintained if the monetary value of the asset base is preserved.
Under this approach:
- Nominal or inflation-adjusted asset values define capital
- Asset price appreciation may be treated as income
- Financial returns dominate accounting and policy decisions
This approach abstracts entirely from productive capacity and environmental constraint. It enables capital distributions to be made while physical and environmental capital are depleted. It is the accounting foundation of financialised capitalism.
2 - Physical (real) capital maintenance
Physical capital maintenance holds that capital is maintained only if productive capacity is preserved.
Under this approach:
- Income exists only after depreciation, maintenance and renewal are fully provided for
- Asset price inflation alone does not constitute income
- Infrastructure, skills and organisational capacity must be sustained
This concept restores a link between income and real economic capability, but it remains incomplete because it treats the environment as external or inexhaustible.
3 - Environmental capital maintenance (embracing sustainable cost accounting)
Environmental capital maintenance holds that capital is maintained only if natural systems are preserved at levels consistent with their regenerative capacity.
Under this approach:
- The environment is treated as a capital stock, not a free input
- Environmental degradation constitutes capital consumption
- The sustainable cost of restoring ecosystems to safe operating limits must be recognised
Sustainable Cost Accounting makes this explicit by calculating the cost that would need to be incurred to prevent or reverse environmental harm. Where that cost is not provided for, apparent income is in fact the liquidation of environmental capital.
Environmental capital maintenance is not optional. Without it:
- Physical capital cannot be sustained
- Financial capital claims become fictitious
- Intergenerational equity is violated
From a Funding the Future perspective, environmental capital maintenance is prior to both physical and financial capital maintenance. No economy can be said to generate income if it is destroying the conditions of its own reproduction.
4 - Human capital maintenance
Human capital maintenance holds that capital is maintained only if people's physical, mental, educational and creative capacities are sustained and renewed over time.
Under this approach:
- Health, education, nutrition, housing security and rest are capital maintenance costs, not discretionary consumption
- Skills depreciation, ill health, burnout and exclusion constitute capital consumption
- Income exists only after the costs of maintaining human capability are fully provided for
Human capital is not self-renewing. It requires continuous investment across the life course. When wages, working conditions, public services or social protections are insufficient to sustain human capacity, apparent profits represent the extraction of value from people rather than genuine income.
Failure to maintain human capital results in declining productivity, rising healthcare costs, social fragmentation and political instability. These outcomes are not externalities: they are the predictable consequences of treating people as expendable inputs rather than as capital requiring care and renewal.
5 - Social capital maintenance
Social capital maintenance holds that capital is maintained only if the institutions, relationships and norms that enable cooperation, trust and democratic participation are preserved and strengthened.
Under this approach:
- Public institutions are treated as capital assets requiring upkeep, accountability and legitimacy
- Rights of representation, legal integrity and administrative competence are capital maintenance conditions
- Social trust, cohesion and shared purpose are recognised as economically productive capacities
Social capital is depleted by corruption, inequality, exclusion, privatisation of public purpose and the erosion of democratic accountability. When social capital is run down, economic activity becomes more extractive, more coercive and less resilient.
Apparent economic efficiency achieved through weakened regulation, degraded public institutions or suppressed democratic voice is therefore a form of capital liquidation. It transfers value from collective future capacity to present private gain.
NB It is expected that this entry will be expanded in due course.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:

Buy me a coffee!

Might Scottish independence encourage the governments, and other forms of governance, in England to improve the qualities of their functions?
I would hope so.
Makes sense to me. Very useful. Gives clear reasons why asset-stripping is so destructive, not just morally wrong.
Very useful indeed. Most of this was only hinted at when I studied Business and went on to teach it. That was 1980s mainly. It is completely logical and clear to me now, but if I revisted my alma mater and the college where I taught, I suspect most of it would be absent from the syllabus, even if the staff understood it and agreed with it. For many people, educators and accountants included, it’s a different perspective, and a one they should at least consider, if not embrace.
Thanks, and agreed.
In a world obsessed with a supposed lack of money, unable to realise the difference between money simply gone ‘out’ on a government ledger and debt, unable to tell us who is threatening us with debt sanctions, this is a salient entry to the glossary.
Thanks
I have not yet read the details (if anyone has a .pdf of this please send to me) but as someone past involved in management systems and ISO I have to say that management of ASSETS is covered in ISO 55001.
ISO gives Standards and best practice.
I reckon it could be applied to all asset categories, and used by local authorities, regional and national alike. And the politicians who steer them. This would lift accounting from “just looking at money” to being a practice of making visible the effects on our shared common concern – nature, minerals, people – and accounting for them.
We might not have to totally reinvent the wheel as the economy of care. Might.
You are right that asset management standards like ISO 55001 already push asset management beyond “just money”.
It starts from an important premise: assets exist to deliver purpose over time, and must therefore be maintained, not merely valued or traded. That instinct aligns closely with mine.
However, I think it’s important to stress the insufficiency of such standards on their own. ISO frameworks are tools, not guarantees. They only work if there is political clarity about which assets count, whose interests define value, and what outcomes matter. Without that, they risk becoming box-ticking exercises that legitimise extraction rather than prevent it — just as financial accounting has been.
So, ISO 55001 is not as an alternative to rethinking the economy, but as a useful operational layer once purpose is agreed. It can help implement care-based choices; it cannot substitute for them.