The last chapter ended with two observations: we should not downgrade the role played by resources in the distribution of social and economic power; and if capabilities are important, it is against a background of what makes them possible, that is, the interaction of ecological and human-centred systems. By placing these observations together we arrive at the idea that ‘socionatural resources’ are crucial. This chapter uses this idea to develop a set of basic principles on which an initial definition of ecosocial poverty can be built.

Some propose that existing institutions and practices are largely sufficient: ‘ecological modernisation’. I argue, however, that making sufficient room for the intrinsic value of nature requires us to subject our social and economic systems to a more radical critique. This means exploring concepts such as exclusion and alienation, ‘domainship’ and socialisation. The chapter ends by offering the initial definition just mentioned. Our first task, however, is to understand what we mean by ‘resources’. As one of the most recent debates on this theme has concerned ‘assets’, for reasons that will become clear, I wish to start there.

Assets

Assets include external goods (home equity, property, savings, shares, inheritances and arguably jobs) and internal goods (education and training qualifications, skills and talents, confidence and motivation, work experience, cultural capital). Assets are thought to improve economic security, facilitate financial literacy, enable individuals to cope with risks, enhance personal development, encourage savings and other responsible habits, provide everyone with a stake in their society and invigorate social networks (Belsky and Retsinas, 2005; Paxton and White, 2006; Fitzpatrick, 2007, 2011a; Prabhakar, 2008).

Over the last quarter of a century assets have become crucial to many discussions of poverty (Oliver and Shapiro, 1990; Sherraden, 1991, 2002; Kober and Paxton, 2002; Schreiner and Sherraden, 2007; McKernan and Sherraden, 2008), because purely income-based approaches have been increasingly regarded as inadequate measures of deprivation. Resource ‘flows’ (income) may not fully capture a person's circumstances, that is, the overall ‘stock’ of resources they have available. In arguing for a broader conceptualisation of wellbeing, the capabilities approach converges with the view of those who defend ‘asset-based’ models (Sherraden, 2003, p 28).

‘Asset poverty’ is therefore a compelling concept that carries many implications for social policy (Haveman and Wolff, 2005, p 64). Most of those who recommend asset-based solutions to poverty do not advocate the dismantling of income-based policies.