C1.2a Wealth Building for Resilience
Material Security. Can the system provide material necessities reliably and universally?
Pass threshold
≥$60,000 median net-wealth accumulation over 20 years for 70%+ of participants, in constant 2019 US dollars at purchasing-power parity
What it asks
Genuine asset building enabling ≥$60,000 median net-wealth accumulation over 20 years for 70%+ of participants, in constant 2019 US dollars at purchasing-power parity, for participants who engage with whatever wealth-building mechanism the system provides.
How it differs from nearby criteria
C1.2a from C1.2b. C1.2a asks only whether a genuine buffer-building mechanism exists and reaches a substantial share of participants — not whether the resulting distribution of wealth across the whole population is itself equitable or concentration-resistant (that is C1.2b's question, immediately below). A system can score well on one while failing the other: a system that lets most participants build savings through ordinary market mechanisms, but does nothing to prevent the top decile from pulling away, could plausibly pass C1.2a while failing C1.2b; conversely, Integral's ITC dissolution is close to the strongest possible C1.2b answer in the corpus while scoring 0.0 here, since credits that dissolve on use cannot function as anyone's buffer (Appendix E, Appendix H.7v2 below).
How it is measured
Wealth definition: net worth (total assets − total liabilities), including housing equity, retirement accounts, savings, investment accounts, business ownership and system-specific wealth mechanisms (e.g., PTF acres). Data: longitudinal tracking of the same households over 20-year periods in a household wealth survey (the Luxembourg Wealth Study, the Eurosystem Household Finance and Consumption Survey, or a national equivalent); for a design, the projected accumulation. Price basis: local-currency values are deflated to 2019 prices by the national consumer price index and converted at the World Bank's 2019 PPP conversion factor for private consumption; the figure is the one the Paper calibrated on 2019 US data. Median focus: the median, not the mean, to avoid skew from top wealth holders.
Indicators
Luxembourg Wealth Study; Eurosystem HFCS; national wealth surveys; World Bank WDI PPP conversion factor, private consumption (2019).
How scores are anchored
1.0, pass
A genuine, documented asset-accumulation mechanism reaching most participants. Market Socialism's published C1.2=1.0 rested on: "Cooperative membership provides ownership stake and wealth accumulation... members accumulate substantial wealth through capital accounts and profit distribution" — evidence that speaks almost entirely to the buffer-building question, making C1.2a≈1.0 the most defensible illustrative decomposition (see also Appendix H.8a).
0.5, partial
Some accumulation mechanism exists but is narrow, indirect, or held collectively rather than individually — real, but not clearly clearing the household-buffer bar as stated. Degrowth Economics' published C1.2=0.5 rested on: "Commons-based wealth (community land trusts, cooperatives) provides collective security. However, individual wealth accumulation is ideologically discouraged" — a genuinely different conception of security than a $60,000 household buffer, illustrating the 0.5 band well.
0.0, structural failure
No accumulation mechanism at all. Integral's published C1.2=0.0 (Appendix E) was justified entirely in resilience-buffer terms — "no accumulated cushion for medical emergencies, family disruptions, or temporary inability to contribute... cannot build assets to pass to children" — making this the cleanest possible C1.2a=0.0 case in the corpus: the evidence never engages the concentration question at all. Universal Basic Income's published C1.2=0.0 ("provides income but no wealth-building mechanisms... maintains wealth-excluded underclass") is a second clean example.
v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (K6, R2; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.
Normative roots
From N4 (Universal Wealth Access) + N3 (Coercion Minimization) — unchanged from legacy C1.2's derivation, since this sub-criterion inherits the resilience-buffer half of what legacy C1.2 asked..
Judgment calls on this criterion
How the systems score
1.0, pass
0.5, partial
Participatory Economics, Degrowth Economics, Nordic Social Democracy, Market Socialism, Sovereign Wealth Fund Statism, Islamic Finance, State Capitalism / Singapore, Status Quo Market Capitalism, State Capitalism / China, Stakeholder Capitalism, State Capitalism / Qatar, Libertarian Minarchism
0.0, structural failure
Integral, Georgism / LVT, Ostrom Commons, Mutual Credit / LETS, Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services, MMT + Job Guarantee, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Doughnut Economics, Centrally Planned Socialism
Sources
Definition: Paper Section 12.3; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V). Anchors: Paper Appendix H.7v2.