Resource Types: Physical, Mental, Spiritual Prout recognises the existence of mental and spiritual resources in addition to the physical and financial resources recognised by traditional economics. Prout goes further and attempts to manage these resources in a rational way. For this it is necessary to expand on the concept of spiritual capital. The traditional resources considered by economists are broadly classified as land, labour and capital. Capital is a product of human effort whereas the other two are considered gifts of nature. However the distinction is not black and white. Investment in public health services and a clean environment increases human well being and therefore labour productivity. Thus in a broader sense, economists also talk about human capital and even social capital. Capital is also defined by who owns it, for example, publicly owned, privately owned and household capital. In a Proutist classification of capital, it would be more accurate to assign the 'private' component to 'business', where the businesses are either: - publicly owned for or by key industries; - cooperatively owned; or - privately owned. Household capital consists of people's cars, houses and the furniture and utilities contained within them. Note the distinction between public capital owned by key industries and public capital used for non-commercial purposes such as public parks and government buildings. There are many other ways of classifying capital depending on the purpose at hand. Prout distinguishes physical, mental and spiritual capital. Sarkar defines capital as "wealth in potentiality", that is, something that has the potential to become valuable for human beings if it is correctly utilised. A unique concept to explore is that of spiritual capital. Spiritual capital is an idea whose time has come. Sarkar first introduced the idea in 1959. It is clear that he does not consider spiritual capital to be peripheral or of interest only to wealthy nations that are spiritually bankrupt. Rather, spiritual capital is the core of an economic system. Spiritual capital may be considered from a micro-economic point of view and a macro-economic point of view. From a micro-economic point of view, we begin by recalling two great scandals to hit the US economy in the last 20 years - the savings and loans scandals of the late 1980s and the Enron and other scandals of the late 1990s. In the fallout from the Enron scandal, many books about ethics in business appeared on the shelves of university bookshops. The basic message is that businesses must not only practice ethics but be seen to be practicing them. Enron declared a commitment to honesty and integrity in its mission statement but ignored them in practice. There is now talk about a fourth bottom line: ethics; in addition to finance, community and environment. And all four would require auditing. In fact, Prout would establish an independent part of government whose function would be to collect statistics and audit government and government business accounts. Solutions would also be necessary to remove the conflict of duties involved in having private companies audit private companies where there are interlinkages creating conflicts of interests. Another commentator on the Enron scandal, sociologist Paul Wong (Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, Canada) declares that all businesses need to be strong in four kinds of capital - financial, technological, human and social-spiritual. Enron was apparently strong in the first three but bankruptcy in social-spiritual capital was its undoing. Additional books are now appearing about designing the workplace to enhance the human spirit. The idea is that when a business invests in the spiritual welfare of its employees, the result is financially beneficial for all. We turn now to the macro-economic dimension of spiritual capital. There are different definitions of community - ours is to have a "Living Economy". Each definition, however, involves the interconnectedness of people and today various social disciplines are trying to give more concreteness to the concept. Tim Hazeldine, Professor of economics at Auckland University, defines social capital using words such as 'empathy' and 'sympathy'. The most reputed account to date appears in the book, "Bowling Alone" by Robert Putman. According to Putman, one measure of social capital is our involvement in clubs and societies, especially those that consciously build community. He notes that since the late 60s, early 70s, American involvement in community activities has progressively declined. Words such as 'empathy', 'sympathy' and 'trustworthiness' are typically used to define social capital and these can be considered proto-spiritual or quasi-spiritual qualities. Hazeldine argues that social capital encapsulates the cultural, social, moral and spiritual wealth of a country. Social capital cements communities and even economic markets. The neo-liberal economic agenda does not so much ignore social capital, as consume and destroy it. Thus it destroys the social foundations upon which healthy economic activity depends. In this sense, neo-liberalism treats social capital in the same way it treats environmental resources, as something free for the taking. Consequently neo-liberalism cannot survive in the long term - it is not sustainable. Phillip Perez, a former minister and governor of the central bank in Venezuela frequently uses the term 'solidarity' in his economic writings. He uses the term in much the same way that other economists use the concept of social capital. He regards solidarity as a resource or form of wealth that can be actively generated and nurtured - even if supramundane. It manifests within a person as the attitude that I do not steal from a person when I hold them in esteem. I like to serve people whom I value. Perez even applies the multiplier concept to 'solidarity' - solidarity builds on solidarity. It can be promoted, he argues, through establishing cooperatives and other equal opportunity programs. A strong cooperative sector is vital for society as it best allows for social and spiritual potential and thus its resultant capital to develop.