Regenerative Development:
The Art and Science of Creating Durably Vibrant Human Networks
Dr. Sally Goerner
We are searching for a path that will lead us beyond our current unsustainable economic system.
John Fullerton, Capital Institute
Regeneration refers to the self-feeding, self-renewing processes that natural systems use to nourish theircapacity to thrive for long periods of time and their ability to adapt to unexpected, sometimes threatening
circumstances. No system can sustain itself over the long-term, if it is not designed to continuously
regenerate.
Regenerative development uses the universal laws of systemic health and self-renewal to show how we
can develop durably vibrant socio-economic systems as well. It uses the empirical study of flow-networks
to make this idea precise.
This approach to development suggests new answers to a critical question for our uncertain times: Can thetools of development be used, not just for episodic interventions that provide short-term relief, but tobuild the long-term regenerative capacities of local communities and economies? In other words, can theenterprise networks we develop be both profitable and also serve as engines of long-term, regenerative
vitality?
This paper explores how Regenerative development backed by the empirical science of flow-networks
creates a holistic, humanistic, rigorous, and actionable theory of systemic economic health that.
·

Organizes much of what is already known in development into a working model of systemic healththat allows us to address the root causes as well as the symptoms of economic dysfunction;·

Identifies the key factors behind regenerative vitality including the relational structures and social
norms needed to create widespread well-being and abundant opportunities;·

Clarifies the connection between moral imperatives and the proper economic functioning;·

Provides effective measures and clear targets for key factors such as inclusivity, resilience, balance,
reciprocity, and circulation;

Regenerative vs Extractive Economies: A Contrast in Vision
We are the poorest urban county [in the US] not because we can’t produce wealth, but because wehaven’t built what we need to capture it. You spend your life enriching someone else, somewhere else.
Yorman Nunez, The Bronx Cooperative Development Initiative, 20131
We live in interesting economic times. Communism and socialism have failed, and events such as theglobal economic crisis of 2008 and the Greek debt crisis are generating concerns about the reigning
neoliberal capitalism as well. Indications of increasing public concern can be seen in the rise of Occupy
Wall Street and the economic populism tapped by players such as American presidential candidate Bernie1

http://fieldguide.capitalinstitute.org/bronx-cooperative-development-initiative.html

1©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

Sanders. But, until we can articulate an effective alternative to neoliberalism’s trickle-down approach, wewill be unable to channel these pressures and concerns into constructive and unified reform.
We believe Regenerative economics can provide the effective alternative we need, but we should also
note that, in most ways, it is not so much a new economic approach as it is a more accurate understandingof the conditions that support healthy free-enterprise economies. In turn, understanding the real conditions
for vitality clarifies both the causes of chronic poverty and the root problem with today’s trickle-down
approach. Thus, the science of flow networks distinguishes between two basic types of economic systems
with two fundamentally different theories of how to create lasting economic vitality:·

Extractive economies (strength-based) tend to treat most local, regional and even national economies
as places from which wealth – resources, money, labor, etc. – can be extracted. Extractive activities
are common because they help build strength and power by concentrating resources. In turn, size andpower helps make organizations more risk-absorbing, that is, it improves improve the organization’s
ability to withstand crises and absorb shocks.
Extractive theories tend to assume that vitality rises from the accumulation of wealth and power.
Their Achilles’heel is that overly concentrated wealth tends to corrupt critical institutions, pushingorganizations from governments and media to medicine and academia to place the interests of the richand powerful over pressing public needs and the institution’s actual role in service to society. Overtime, excessive extraction and corruption take their toll on the real economy. So, while accumulation
may indeed increase vitality in the short term, if economies extract too much, nourish internal
capacities too little, and allow corruption to continue unabated, they end up creating only the illusionof vitality, a shimmering bubble of elite wealth that masks an ever-more fragile real economy.

·

Regenerative economies (learning-centered) pump money, information, energy and resources backinto developing internal capacities and infrastructure (particularly the human kind), so as to maintain
vitality long-term. Regenerative economies are common, especially at the small-scale, because they
improve group innovation, productivity and learning. Instead of trying to absorb risks afterwards,
regenerative institutions are solution-seeking: they try to eliminate or mitigate risks before they
happen, as for example, trying to switch to renewable energy before fossil fuel reserves become
critical.
Regenerative theories tend to assume vitality comes from nourishing human networks and theircapacity to identify risks, develop solutions, and marshal resources to implement those solutions.
While this self-nourishing, solution-seeking approach tends to make economies more vibrant,
adaptive, and systemically healthy, its dependence on human-scale relationships and its inability tomaintain unity across scales makes it susceptible to shocks and power intrusions from stronger
entities.

The neoliberal capitalism, which dominates global economic policy, is extractive; it treats most local,
regional and national economies as places from which wealth – resources, money, labor, etc. – can betaken. Yet, many traditional economies, even of the free-enterprise variety, tend to be regenerative. In
regenerative economies businesses pour money into their people and factories, and governments pourmoney into education, infrastructure, and other constructive common-cause purposes. Here, people earn
their living in ways that are constructive, synergetic, and anchored in a culture based on common-cause.
In a series of books from the early 1960s to the early 2000s, author Jane Jacobs documents the existenceof such regenerative economies worldwide, while exploring the factors which make or break their vitality.
Mr. Nunez (opening quote) pinpoints the key idea behind Regenerative development. Instead of trying toincrease GDP or even jobs per se, Regenerative development takes a holistic-humanistic approach torevitalizing socio-economic networks by designing them to: 1) generate widespread, inclusive wealth; 2)2©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

capture it; and 3) return much of it to build and renew capacities in the system as a whole. The goal ofregeneration is to build long-term, cross-scale, economic vitality by arranging real-economy networks to
be naturally self-nourishing, self-correcting, and adaptive. The Bronx Cooperative Development Initiative(BCDI) summarizes the basic idea:
BCDI is guided by a deep intention to harness the essence of the people, resources, and place of theBronx, and to enable the members of the community to co-create the borough’s regeneration…
BCDI has undertaken considerable work in laying the ground for this more holistic approach,building a collaborative of organizations focusing on a regional development strategy to support
economic democracy in the borough, with shared ownership at the core of that vision. The
collaborative includes local business leaders, organized labor, anchor institutions, including hospitals
and universities, and the local zoo, as well as a diverse array of local nonprofits.2
The art of creating such durably vibrant networks is in line with a great deal of existing development
theory and practice. Indeed, over the decades, numerous theorists have pointed in a similar communitycentered, capacity-building, interdependent systemic direction. In Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen
argues that real development cannot be reduced simply to increasing basic incomes, but instead requires afocus on developing human capabilities, meaning the ability to transform resources into value-added
products. In Death and Life of the Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs (1961) explains how the intricate
human networks that grow up in certain places account for the vitality or lack thereof in urban centers. In
Governing the Commons, Elinor Ostrom (1990) outlines eight principles that allow groups to govern
common resources equitably and sustainably.
Indeed, since factors such as resilience, diversity, inclusive growth, and distributed empowerment are
central to regenerative vitality, growing interest in them suggests development practice is beginning toswing in a more regenerative direction. For instance, because distributed empowerment is a key factor ofsystemic health, the growth of stakeholder-owned networks, such as Mondragon in Spain, Organic Valley
Dairy in the US and Canada, and the Evergreen Cooperatives of Cleveland, indicate a regenerative trend.
A self-nourishing approach can even be seen emerging in finance, as shown in the story of Bendigo
Community Banks (BCB).3 Begun in the 1990s, BCB reflects a “self-organizing” response to the closingof over 2,000 bank branches in rural Australia. Suddenly cut off from access to financial capital, residents
and businesses of these communities appealed to Bendigo Bank to reestablish a banking presence in theseareas. Now 300 strong, the resulting bank model – part franchise and part cooperative – has helped revivethese communities, and given local leaders the business acumen and tools they need to sustain their own
regenerative process. Wheatley similarly shows that Community Currency initiatives have soared inrecent years in response to a “global demand for a resilient monetary system that supports sustainable,
complete communities.” 4

The Surprising Science of Flow: Holistic, Humanistic, Rigorous & Universal
Regenerative approaches offer new answers to a key question: How can we develop economic networks
that generate a broad range of desirable outcomes – from full employment and environmental health toresilience and inclusive well-being – in a reliable and lasting way? Regenerative economics uses theempirical science of flow-networks to make these answers precise. Not only does the science of flow
identify the critical factors, and offer precise targets of systemic health in a way that traditional statisticalmethods cannot, it also seamlessly integrates social and cultural factors into the economic equation.
2

http://web.mit.edu/colab/pdf/papers/MITCoLab_BCDI_Development_Study.pdf
See http://fieldguide.capitalinstitute.org/bendigo-community-bank-model-part-one.html
4Wheatley, J., Younie, C., Alajland, H. McFarlane, E. 2011. Calgary dollars: Economic and social capital benefits. International
Journal of Community Currency Research, 15 (A) p. 84.
33©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

This new understanding of economic vitality is derived from the study of flow-networks,5 meaning any
system whose existence arises from and depends on circulating energy, resources, or information
throughout the entirety of their being (Figure 1). Your body, for example, is an integrated network of cells
kept healthy by the circulation of energy, nutrients, and information. Ecosystems are invisibly connectedwebs of plants and animals that add to and draw from flows of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc. Banks areorganized monetary-flow systems, and economies are interlinked networks of people, communities,businesses and governments that contribute to and draw sustenance from the circulation of resources,
energy, information, and money. 6

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1. Three Flow-Networks: Economies, wetlands and metabolic networks.

Note that flow always moves in circular circuits that are often referred to as “cycles” as, for instance, with the
Carbon and Krebs cycles. The circular nature of such circuits means that all elements of the circuit must be present
and healthy for circulation and processing to work. In other words, every part of the whole must be healthy for thesystem to thrive.

Over the last 50 years, Systems scientists studying such networks have discovered that many flowprinciples (such as pressure and circulation) and patterns of network structure (such as hierarchy) apply
across fields. The discovery of universal patterns and principles explains why this rigorous research
applies as much to economic networks (Leontief, 1951; Boulding, 1981; Fischer-Kowalski et al., 1998;
Odum, 2007) as to ecosystems (Lindeman, 1942; Hannon, 1973; Odum, 1983).The result is a fullytransdisciplinary Systems Science that is surprisingly precise and predictive.
Energy dynamics make sense as the basis for a rigorous transdisciplinary science because they are:·

Universal – Energy dynamics apply to everything (literally) because energy is the primary driver of
all movement, growth and development. It fuels growth, drives development, and creates pressure forchange in everything from tornadoes and living organisms to human societies. Energy patterns andprinciples are therefore universal, applying equally to living, non-living and societal systems – e.g.,
metabolic systems, electrical circuits, and economic circulation.
Such universal dynamics explain why many of the same laws that govern health and development inecosystems and living systems apply to human networks such as economies and societies as well(Prigogine, 1980; Cvitanovic, 1984.) So, where ecologists taught us to see the natural world as a

5

The study of flow-networks is taking place in a wide variety of disciplines, including Energy Network Analysis, Selforganization Theory, Panarchy, nonequilibrium thermodynamics, ecological complexity, and many more. To encompass thisvariety, I will refer to the science using the umbrella term the "Energy Network Sciences" (ENS) or simply the science of flow.
6
Physicists see flow-networks as a natural result of the web of forces and flows that makes up the fabric of the universe. Here,“forces” refers to invisible binding ties such as gravity and electromagnetism, and “flows” refer to the flow of energy and, with it,
all other things including matter, money, resources and information. This all-embracing web of forces and flows forms anomnipresent, motivating and unifying meshwork that moves and shapes all things. Forces shape and bind all things; Flows
nourish and animate all that is.

4©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

series of nested networks of interdependent specialists through whose veins resources such as carbon,
oxygen and water transverse the globe, the generalized study of flow-networks explains why similar
images and principles apply to social and economic systems as well.
··

Dynamic – Instead of images of stasis – of automatic equilibrium and final perfect systems – energy’s
penchant for creating organization and driving change gives us new insights into how societies andeconomies change, what makes them healthy and what causes them to collapse.
Measurable – Many of these dynamic insights are both easy to see, and relatively easy to measure.
This measurability stems from the fact that many flow-factors – such as pressure and circulation (seeCarbon Flow in Figure 1b), and optimal network arrangements – such as intricacy and properly
balanced hierarchy – can be assessed by such simple concrete measures as magnitudes of flow,
number and diversity of organizations at each scale, and layout of where flow goes. We can also use
certain universal, optimal network patterns (which nature has selected over billions of years) we canto create mathematically-precise targets for network health (Figure 2.)

Figure 2. (Fractal) Branching Structures are measurable & common because they optimize cross-scale
flow. The familiar branching pattern, with a few large and successively smaller and more numerous components, isfound in a wide variety of systems because it optimizes circulation across scales. Nowadays we call it a fractal. Just
as ecosystems need to balance predator and prey, so we can assess systemic economic health by measuring its
balance of small, medium, and large components.

Yet, the science of flow also houses a holistic, humanistic bent that offers a more unified vision of muchthat what we already know about human systems. Most people find the rules of flow easy to follow
because they already understand how circulating systems such as ecosystems and living organisms work.
These laws also seem familiar because many regenerative insights are rediscoveries or validations ofideas and practices already well-known in development. Yet, regenerative economics also produces adistinctly different picture of vitality because regenerative flow differs dramatically from the heavily
extractive pursuits promoted by neoliberal economics.
This strange mix of well-known and unexpected comes from the fact that regenerative economics is not
so much a new approach as it is a new way of organizing and integrating the known facts of economic
life. In other words, like an optical illusion that can be seen in two ways, regenerative development is
novel because it organizes existing facts into a very different picture of how to create lasting socioeconomic economic vitality. This perceptual shift rests on three key changes:·

Analytic to Holistic (Systemic). Where most modern theories imagine economies are built of
independent agents following rational self-interest, Regenerative economics argues that economies
are actually built of interdependent specialists linked in common-cause networks. Systemic healthrequires systemic design because just as your body needs all its organs to be healthy, so too a societyneeds all its human capacities and institutions to be in full working order.
Because whole circuits only work when all parts are healthy, regenerative health depends much moreon where money goes and whether its impacts are constructive or destructive, short-term or lasting –5©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

than on how much money is exchanged (GDP). It is also particularly important for circulation andprocessing that specialists be arranged in a whole circuit: a set of circularly-connected value chainsthat link incoming resources and processing to final distribution and payment.
Systemic design involves a synergetic alignment of all parts. Instead of focusing on only one piece ofthe puzzle – say finance or environment – all sectors and factors must be designed to work together
because whole systems only work well when all parts are smoothly connected and productively
fulfilling their role. Cross-scale alignment and integration– that helps top, middle and bottom work
synergistically – is particularly important because critical functions are handled by organizations at
higher and lower levels, as well as by those at the same scale.
··

Money-centered to Human-centered – While money, profits, and environmental health are important
to health, the real engines of economic vitality come from the quality, adaptability, and strength ofhuman organizations. We say Regenerative economics is “humanistic” because it is “humancentered” , it places human organizations at the center of development design. Because humancapacities, institutions and organizations are central, regenerative development also emphasizes theneed to nourish the full range of capacities (particularly the human ones) including social, cultural,
intellectual, financial, material, living, etc.
Solely Self-interested to Common-Cause Culture – Instead self-interest alone driving vitality,
Common-cause culture is central to systemic health both because interdependent specialists must
work together, and because all members depend on the health of the whole as well as self-interest.
Common-cause values such as justice, fairness, freedom, and democracy tend to be selected over time
because they grease the wheels of synergetic cooperation. More traditional free-market values, suchas competition and rational choice, are still important, but they are anchored in an over-archingcontext of common-cause cooperation.

The science of flow adds several refinements to this basic holistic, humanistic vision.

How Do You Create Lasting Vitality? Lessons from the Science of Flow
Cities ... need all kinds of diversity, intricately mingled in mutual support. They need this so city life
can work decently and constructively, and so the people of cities can sustain ... their society andcivilization. ... I think that the science of city planning ... must become the science and art ofcatalyzing and nourishing diverse, close-grained working relationships that support each othereconomically and socially.
Jane Jacobs, Cities and the Wealth of Nations, 1984
The science of flow is beginning to turn new understandings of how the cosmos builds durably vibrantnetworks into a cogent set of laws of systemic health that can be applied to human systems as well. The
goal of Regenerative economics is to use these principles to replace today’s flawed economic ideology
with these more accurate rules of health and development.
So what makes economies vibrant? Key flow principles include:
CIRCULATION: In flow networks, just as blood must reach every cell in your body, so the robust crossscale circulation of money, resources, information etc. must reach and nourish every level and sector
because specialists at every level play important roles. The importance of circulation means that healthy,
inclusive growth will require ‘inclusive circulation,’the robust, cross-scale nourishing kind.
Ironically, the importance of robust circulation is both well-known and often ignored. Keynesians, forexample, point out that economic health in general is harmed when local monetary circulation goes down
6

©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

because lower wages, fewer benefits, and a larger slice of income going to rent means more money
flowing upward and less circulating horizontally. But, the neoliberal economists who dominate policy
discussions tend to see such issues as simply the detritus of unerring market forces.
In contrast, Regenerative economics sees problems such as: low wages, poor access to loans, chronic
poverty, a vanishing middle class, and the siphoning of wealth to upper levels – as signs of economic
necrosis, the slow starvation of economic tissue due to poor cross scale circulation with too much money
flowing to the top, and too little circulating throughout the rest of the real economy. It sees neoliberal propolicies – such as austerity for struggling nations; tax breaks for the wealthy; privatizing Commons; andtrade policies which outsource jobs to the lowest-wage nations – as exacerbating the circulation problem.
Strategies such as increasing the minimum wage help somewhat, but they are temporary, Band-Aid
solutions to the deeper problem of an increasingly frail real-economy with feeble job-creation due largely
to too much money flowing away from middle- and lower-scale real-economy organizations, and notenough flowing through them.
Since the starvation of wide swaths of economic tissue damages the health of the entire system, flowlogic sees signs of inequitable circulation not just as ethical issues, but as symptoms of economic disease.
SELF RENEWAL: Because circulation must reach all parts of the system, systemic health is more a functionof where money goes than of how much money is exchanged (i.e., GDP). The two key questions forregenerative health are: 1) how much energy (i.e., money, resources, and information) is directed towards
constructive activities like building a road, vs destructive ones like polluting the environment; and, 2)
how much is directed toward building and maintaining capacities. The latter is particularly critical. So,
just as your body turns the food you eat into the energy and nutrients you need to feed your brain andmuscles, so any society that wants to stay vibrant over the long-term had better pour money and resources
back into developing and endlessly renewing the human capital and material infrastructure that allows it
to function well.
The importance of self-renewing activities explains: why developing internal capacities is more important
than GDP growth per se; and why open and equal access to a wide range of essential Commons – fromeducation and healthcare to the environment and the Internet – is critical to economic health. It also
clarifies why reducing funds to education, road construction, healthcare and many other such criticalactivities harms the long-term economic health, and why forcing austerity on struggling nations makes
economies dangerously worse.
NETWORK STRUCTURE: Intricacy & Hierarchy; Balance & Integration – In flow networks, form andfunction are tightly connected. So, just as the structure of a bird’s wing serves the function of flight, so theway human organizations and institutions are structured has a profound effect on their functioning andhealth. Nature uses two familiar network structures – intricacy and hierarchy – to optimize cross-scale
circulation.

Intricacy – When organizations are small, nature uses an intricate weave of small, interconnected circuits(businesses and value chains) to support robust circulation at small, local scales. Intricacy is essential tolocal functioning because it increases local circulation in the form of wages, taxes, and scale-appropriate
services. The best way to increase intricacy is to increase the number and diversity of small-scale, local
businesses that both generate flow and circulate it largely within the local community. As Figure 3 shows,
the regenerative rule of thumb is that the more locally-rooted capacities and businesses an economy has,the more robust it will be long-term.

7©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

Figure 3. A Circulatory View of Vitality: Through-Flow to Regenerative (See Allenby & Richards, 1994)
In flow terms, the least vibrant economies are “through-flow” systems: ones with few locally-rooted capacities andbusinesses, and little reinvestment in local capacities. Such economies are generally built around the extraction ofsome set of resources by a more powerful outside entity (usually a corporation). Because through-flow economies
have few self-sustaining, locally-rooted circuits, once the outside entity is finished extracting, the local economy isleft moribund, unable to generate enough activity or pull in enough resources to thrive. This situation is easily seenin coal towns and corporate towns, but it is also visible in multinationals’ race-to-the-bottom pursuit of evercheaper labor. In contrast, regenerative economies such as New York or London have so many, interlocking,mutually-reinforcing, synergetic systems that the loss of one or two businesses makes little difference. Sucheconomies become economic engines that attract the resources – monetary, intellectual, labor, etc. – they need to
thrive. The ones that thrive long term also have governance systems which heavily invest in internal capacities.

Figure 4 Fractal Flow-networks with Hierarchical Branching
Pyramidal structures with a particular balance of small, medium, and large components are common because they
help optimize circulation across scales. Nowadays we call this balance a “fractal”.

Hierarchy and multiscale circulation – Intricacy works well at small-scales, where connections
remain tight, but the larger and more multiscale a society becomes the more complex its circulation needs
become. While multiscale communities still have small-scale needs for connection, communication andinternal circulation, they also have large-scale needs such as building highways and hospitals andtransporting high-volume resources across larger distances. Nature meets the need for multiscale
circulation by using intricate weave to maintain robust circulation at the small-scale, while using
hierarchical structures to connect organizations and speed movement across scales.
The familiar hierarchical (fractal) branching structures, with a large numbers of small elements at thebottom and successively larger and fewer elements moving towards the top, epitomizes this strategy(Figure 4). It is found in systems as diverse lungs, lightning bolts, trees, River deltas and the circulatory
systems precisely because it serves multiscale needs: connecting, catalyzing and fueling critical activities
at every level. The big, efficient conduits (arteries or rivers) provide the high-volume and speed needed
for rapid, cross-level circulation, while the many small elements (capillaries or wetlands) reach every
unique nook and cranny.

8©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

Since optimal network arrangements improve systemic health, the main implication here is that economic
networks seeking optimal health should mirror nature’s optimal structures. For instance, just as an
ecosystem must maintain a particular balance of predators and prey, so healthy economies must also
maintain a proper balance of small, medium, and large organizations. But, this basic rule also comes witha number of interesting corollaries:

The Goldilocks Rule: Why economies need organizations that are “just right” to meet each scale’s needs
Just as wetlands perform different eco-services than rivers and lakes, so like Goldilocks, healthy
economies need organizations that are “just right” to serve the needs of each scale. One reason a properbalance of small, medium, and large organizations is critical is that this arrangement supports sufficient
actors at each scale to perform that scale’s functions. Maintaining proper balance of power also helps
keep actors at any scale from doing excessive harm to other parts of the system.
In this view, healthy banking systems, for example, need a particular balance of small, medium, and largebanks because different size financial organizations are needed to serve the needs of each scale. In
Goldilocks terms, small banks are “just right” to serve local commercial needs because they know themarket and have a vested interest in the success of the loan. Large-scale banks are “just right” to serve
large-scale needs, but cannot effectively serve small-scale needs because they know little about the local
people or communities receiving small loans, and small loans are uneconomic for big banks anyway.
The concept of scale-appropriate entities actually has wide application. It explains, for example, why
maintaining sufficient diversity of perspectives and/or talents is critical to healthy functioning, and whyhiring local workers, who know and are well connected to the local community, has benefits forbusinesses that want to serve local needs effectively. Salingaros (2003) has even shown that cities work
best when their transit systems maintain a healthy balance of small, medium, and large pathways – i.e.,
walking paths, bike paths, small roads, medium roads and superhighways – because different scaleconduits catalyze different scale interactions – i.e., casual conversations to rapid transit.

Figure 5 The Goldilocks Rule: Having banks that are “just right” to facilitate activity at each scale
At the same time, the Goldilocks rule also explains why economic imbalances – such as too muchmonopolistic concentration – are dangerous. For example, the Goldilocks rule suggests the banking crisisof 2008 may have been due in part to massive imbalances caused by big banks gobbling up too manysmall banks. Big, powerful banks – like big predators – are perfectly capable of consuming or destroying
excessive numbers of small banks. As with the Bendigo banks, the loss of local bankers left no one who
knew or cared about the actual people or success of loans being made. The remaining banks also reduced
local circulation and increased extraction because they were primarily focused on moving money upward.

Balancing Resilience & Efficiency (The Window of Vitality) – The need to maintain a balance of small,medium, and large elements also explains why vitality also requires a balance of efficiency & resilience.
Resilience, the ability to spring back from crises, generally increases with diversity and the flexibility that
9

©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

goes along with small size. Efficiency, meaning ability to focus efforts and move large amounts ofmaterials, generally increases with the high capacity and streamlining uniformity that tends to go alongwith large size. Systemic health requires a balance of these two critical factors because both areimportant, but the characteristics that support them run in opposite directions. Too many small-guys withtoo little efficiency or capacity leads to economic stagnation due to lack of efficiency. Too muchmonopolistic concentration with too few small guys creates economic brittleness due to loss of resilience.
Consequently, Ulanowicz, et al (2009) showed that healthy ecosystems maintain a balance of resilienceand efficiency within a particular “window of vitality” that defines the optimal balance between these two
factors (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The Window of Vitality: Why systemic health requires a balance of efficiency & resilience
Because efficiency and resilience are both important to systemic health, healthy systems must maintain a balance of
resilience factors (small, diverse, flexible & densely connected) and efficiency factors (big, streamlined &powerful) within a Window of Vitality representing optimal network health.

COMMON CAUSE CULTURE: As mentioned earlier, Common-cause culture is critical to whole system
health because values such as justice, fairness, reciprocity, distributed empowerment, and democracy
grease the wheels of synergetic cooperation, and because interdependent members depend on the healthof the whole as well as each other. The importance of common-cause validates such classic strategies as:··

Empowering Education: If you want your economy to flourish far into the future, then you had bestenergize your “interdependent specialists” to think critically, creatively, and synergistically. William
Butler Yeats makes the point succinctly: “education is not a pail to be filled, but a fire to be ignited”.
Inclusive Participation & Empowerment – If you want your society to remain vibrant for long
periods, then you need to harness the energies and talents of all its members, not just the ones at the
top or in some loyal core group.

Yet, the fact that complex systems must balance many equally-critical but competing characteristics tostay healthy also adds a number of twists to this story of common cause. We’ve seen how balance works
in efficiency & resilience; it also plays out in:Balancing Competition & Cooperation – Both cooperation and competition are essential, but they too
can pull in opposite directions. Cooperation allows interdependent specialists to work together, andcompetition for excellence helps us build new businesses, find new ways and improve on existing ones.
But, competition practiced as predation is dangerous because it often destroys more than it improves.
When combined with excessive power, predatory competition both corrupts mainstay institutions, andcreates powerful extractive pulls that wreak havoc on economic root systems by destroying huge numbersof small and medium-sized businesses. In this way, the requisite balance of competition and cooperation
requires we be clear that “competition” does not mean a ruthless dog-eat-dog struggle or a predatory zerosum game with big guys destroying little guys, but rather a competitive striving for excellence taking
10©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

place on a fair playing field within an overarching cooperative context. Figure 7 from Mike Field ofDevelopment Alternatives, shows some of the forces driving a healthy balance of cooperation andcompetition, and their impact on venture capital effectiveness.

Figure 7. The forces driving the balance between healthy competition & cooperation
How the rules and relationships in interconnected systems influence venture-capital effectiveness.

Balancing Unity & Diversity – The unity provided by common cultural norms, language and practice isessential because it allows diverse specialist to work together. Humanity’s wide a variety of talents,
interests, beliefs, etc. is essential to filling niches and finding new ways. Too much unity (conformity)
suppresses diversity; too much diversity makes it hard to work together.

Balancing Freedom & Constraints (Laws) – Freedom empowers the diversity and flexibility we needfor learning. Constraining laws and norms keep free individuals and organizations from doing excessive
harm to others or the whole. Constraints are particularly important for extremely large, monopolisticorganizations because they have the power to drain and destroy huge swaths of the real economy. Whilecertain imbalances are clearly destructive – such as too much of authoritarian constraint, or too little
constraint for overly powerful entities – finding the optimal balance of freedom and constraint is anendless work in progress. Societies must constantly re-examine what balance works best as we evolve
better understandings about which types of freedoms and constraints best contribute or detract from longterm systemic health.

Balancing incentives to grow larger & to develop internally (positive & negative feedback) – Bothintricacy and hierarchy play important roles, but too much small-scale diversity leads to stagnation, while
too much hierarchical power and efficiency leads to brittleness through the destruction of smaller scale
players. The importance of balance explains why today’s extractive economies are “unsustainable”
because they incentivize extreme imbalances of size and power – i.e., gigantism, hyper-concentration of
wealth, and endless, overheated growth. Consequently, economies that want to remain vibrant must learn
to regulate growth by balancing pressures for growth in size (strength) with incentives to develop internal
capacities, diversity, and infrastructure (resilience and learning). In scientific terms this means balancing
positive and negative feedback: incentives to amplify growth and constraints that dampen it. Excessive
dampening growth stifles enterprise; excessive amplification creates overheated growth that will
eventually cause the organization to burst like a bubble.

Creating Self-Sustaining, Synergetic flows
What does all this theory mean for development? Many of the lessons coming from the science of flow
are already standard practice in development, including:11©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

·

Pouring energy into building human capacities and supportive infrastructure;·

Increasing internal circulation in local networks by building locally-rooted organizations;·Improving access to finance in undernourished sectors particularly in the lower- and middle
levels (for example, using public banking or micro-finance initiatives).

Yet, flow-logic also suggests some more unusual strategies particularly with regard to creating naturally
self-sustaining flows. As we’ve seen, flow networks thrive on common cause values; hence activity
should be aimed at reciprocity and synergy. Systemic health also requires flows be aligned to circulate
thoroughly, reinvest generously and naturally reinforce healthy patterns of behavior. Putting these factors
together suggests that network arrangements should be designed to be synergetic and self-reinforcing
because this is what make a system self-sustaining.
Self-reinforcing systems have outcomes are so logically-connected, and mutually-beneficial for theparticipants and the whole that they tend to maintain themselves naturally. Synergetic arrangements tend
to create a broad range of positive outcomes, which in combination with self-reinforcing alignments, tend
to create sustainable vitality that lasts for long periods. The transformative power of such self-sustaining,synergetic flow is both amazing and also easier to arrange than one might expect. All it takes is a little
creative connecting.
One of the best ways to increase synergetic flow at lower levels of the economy is to connect
underutilized resources with unmet needs. For example, Jaime Lerner, mayor Curitiba, Brazil
simultaneously solved problems (i.e., unmet needs) of poor education, ill health, low employment, anduncollected garbage accumulating in local favelas by aligning underutilized resources – including
unemployed residents in favelas , an underused municipal bus system; and abundant, cheap, local food –in ways that gave rise to naturally self-sustaining flow.
Lerner’s creative realignment began by giving residents free bus tokens in exchange for the garbage theycollected and sorted. Those who collected paper and cartons also received plastic chits they could
exchange for parcels of seasonal fruits and vegetables. Employment improved because residents could use
their bus tokens to commute to jobs father away. Homeless people and alcoholics were also employed at
the recycling plant, where they were also retrained on computers they rescued from the city’s bins. Healthimproved because the garbage was soon removed and fresh food was more readily available. Education
improved because a school-based garbage collection program supplied poorer students with notebooks. In
one three-year period 100 schools traded 200 tons of garbage for 1.9 million notebooks. Eventually
initiatives were created to finance affordable housing, the creation of green areas, and the restoration ofhistorical buildings. Floodplains surrounding the city were converted to parks with boating lakes that
acted as overspill areas. Housing was tackled in a similarly simple, yet revolutionary way. Land next tothe electricity company was converted into affordable-housing estates, and residents were encouraged todesign their interiors, so they felt more pride and ownership over their properties.
Not only were the human impacts of these synergetic alignments were profound, but the economic
outcomes were impressive in monetary terms as well. As Lietaer and Belgin note:
From 1975 to 1995, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Curitiba increased an average of 75%
more than its parent state Parana, and 48% more than the GDP of Brazil as a whole. The average
Curitibano earned more than 3 times the country’s minimum wage. If nontraditional monetary
gains such as exchange of garbage collection for provisions are taken into consideration, the real

12

©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

total income for residence was at least 30% higher still. The results in human terms – the renewalof dignity and hope for a better future – can only be imagined. 7
The impact on city life also transformed public opinion. As Lerner says, “Those that were most against us
transformed into our greatest supporters – they just needed to see the results. Now they are proud of theircity.”8Curitiba is also not the only example of the transformative power of synergetic flow. Nobel-prize winner
Wangari Maathai improved economic vitality and environmental health in Kenya simply by organizing
local women into “virtuous circles of empowerment” aimed at planting trees. The women earned income
from harvesting fruit and timber from the trees. Because they did not have to travel long distances for
firewood, women also had more time to care for their families. Soon, women had more time and money
to educate their children and often themselves as well. Started in 1976, the citizen-foresters of the Green
Belt Movement have now planted more than 20 million trees and thousands of families are healthier,happier, better fed, better educated, and more in control of their own lives.

Confronting the Paradigm Problem: How extractive biases keep us locked in line
Jaime Lerner’s Curitiba and Wangari Maathai’s Green Belt movement show the lasting benefits of selfreinforcing, synergetic arrangements. But, despite their power, such strategies are not widespread.
Instead, we seem to keep on using economic strategies that produce mostly limited, short-term benefits.
Why do we keep accepting unsustainable outcomes, when better ways have already been identified? The
most obvious answer is that we are using a faulty economic paradigm. The simplest answer to what’s
wrong with our current paradigms is that it’s excessively extractive and insufficiently regenerative.
The combination of excessive extraction and insufficient regeneration explains why so many cities andcountries are plagued by chronic, debilitating poverty which “growth” does nothing to alleviate. It also
explains why modern economies are often unstable and unsustainable. So, instead of the inevitableoutcome of unerring market forces, Regenerative thinking follows Daron Acemoglu and James
Robinson’s work in Why Nations Fail (2012) seeing signs such as entrenched poverty and a vanishingmiddle-class as indications of an extractive economy, one designed to support the process of wealthmoving upwards, with little channeled back into internal capacities. Using concrete examples such as
Nogales, Mexico, and Nogales, Texas – which are culturally and geographically identical, but politicallyand economically distinct – Acemoglu and Robinson demonstrate that real cause of chronic poverty lies
in how much the political system supports economic policies that encourage wealth to move upward(extractive) vs those designed to empower, develop, and circulate. These last are all characteristics of a
Regenerative economy.
Flow logic also adds a few refinements to this basic explanation. Economies that are overly extractive andinsufficiently regenerative have too much wealth going to the top and too little going everywhere else.
The resulting poor monetary circulation to the middle- and lower levels leads to economic necrosis, theslow starvation of wide swaths of economic tissue that damages the health of the entire system. Such
excessive extraction leads to the world we see all around us: bubbles of elite wealth hiding increasingly
fragile real economies. Starving economies rarely get better because the money and resources they need,and much of the wealth that they have created, are constantly being funneled away.
Unfortunately, failed paradigms, such as today’s neoliberal capitalism, are difficult to change for numberof reasons:

7
8

Bernard Lietaer and Stephen Belgin, New Money for a New World. 2012. p. 4.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2009/nov/05/jaime-lerner-brazil-green

13©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

·

Most people have faith in the dominant paradigm. They also see the world through its lens and find it
difficult to see the world differently;·

The better ways we need are hard to see because they are not presented in a clear, unified narrative;·

A powerful matrix of incentives and punishments create tremendous pressures to follow dominantbeliefs and practices regardless of whether one believes in them or not.

The matrix of rewards and punishment is particularly important. We’ve argued that economies are built of
networks of interdependent specialists. Institutional economics refines this basic model by adding theconcept of institutions – specialist subnetworks that serve some key social function, such as media,
finance, government, medicine, etc. Institutions each serve some core function of the social system, and asociety’s health largely depends on how well they play their authentic role in service to the larger society.
Economic health, for instance, depends on how well the finance system circulates money to fuelconstructive economic activity, and societal health depends on how well media disseminates accurate
information and supports effective discussion.
In turn, how well institutions play their role is largely determined by the cultural beliefs, values, norms or
biases held by the wider society. Most people and organizations follow the society’s dominant biases
because they are enforced by a matrix of rules, rewards, punishments, incentives, etc. which create
constant pressure to do so. For example, if a society believes win-lose competition creates the best of all
possible worlds, then its people salt incentives for competition everywhere. If a society believes GDP
growth leads to economic health, then its people create incentives to up GDP.
This matrix of incentives explains why the market’s “invisible hand” is not automatically optimal, butlargely determined by the society’s dominant paradigm and biases. For instance, Figure 8 from Mike
Field of Development Alternatives shows how Strategy biases for extractive vs value-add activities andRelational Network biases for Patronage vs merit-driven behaviors affect market inclusivity andresilience.

Figure 8. Effects of extractive vs value-add biases, and patronage vs merit-driven biases
So the deeper answer to why we keep using a failed economic paradise is that a matrix of rewards andpunishments keep us locked into these failed beliefs. How can we get out of today’s disastrous economic
lockstep? The first step is to find an articulate a better paradigm, but an equally critical step lies indeveloping different incentives.

14©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

Incentivizing Regenerative Behavior: A synergetic approach to transformation
Societies get the economy their biases encourage. In today’s case, our biases encourage extractive andself-serving processes such as maximizing profits for elites regardless of the harm done to anyone oranything else. Understanding the difference between regenerative and extractive economies helps us
identify the core problem. Understanding the role incentives play in determining behavior offers a newview of how to expedite reform.
Today’s neoliberal biases are driving global civilization towards disaster, and the incentives maintaining
this behavior will be hard to overcome. Yet, it is important to proceed anyway because the science of flow
suggests today’s rising pressures will eventually force us to either learn or collapse. During choice points
there is every reason to believe we can make the world better, and no reason not to try.
So, instead of seeing today’s free-market economy as the final economic system, the science of flow
views it as but one stage in a broader, ongoing process of cultural development. Over time, inadequate
understanding such as those we have today naturally generate both crises and pressures. In turn,
economic, social, and political pressures drive change, which eventually forces the society to choose tochange or collapse. In this way, today’s growing pressures are driving a learning challenge: a chance tocorrect what isn’t working before crisis turns to calamity.
Still, instead of beating one’s head against the walls of power, flow-logic suggests a more effective wayof bringing forth our next stage of development lies in “going with the flow”, that is, in channelingexisting pressures and energies towards more naturally self-sustaining synergy.
The process of realigning flows starts with a systemic assessment of where energies and pressures lie.
Knowing where pressure is building – whether from economic malaise, political oppression,
environmental ruin, or socio-economic instability – allows us to “connect unmet needs with underutilized
resources” in much the same way that Jaime Lerner did in Curitiba. Once pressures have been identified,those seeking lasting systemic shifts must then design a systemic approach to re-channeling existingpressures and restructure existing incentives to support regenerative norms. Lasting change will requirealigning incentives to be both synergetic and self-reinforcing – for example, more shared-valued fromtransactions. It will also require a matrix of everyday incentives that re-direct capacities and energies
towards a more regenerative way of life. While there are no pat answers, realigning activities to create
win-win flows may generate profound effects at little or no cost because the main ingredient is creativity.
Today, new methods for measuring systemic health also offer new hope for finding our way out.

Measuring Systemic Health: Tools to guide our steps
Over the last several decades, it has become clear that GDP growth primarily assesses accumulation of
wealth, not progress towards desirable goals such as good jobs, high employment, and widespread health.
Worse, undesirable outcomes including fewer jobs, lower incomes and increasing environmental
devastation often increase with GDP growth. In flow terms, GDP is a dangerous mis-measure of
economic health because it only registers how much money is exchanged, and ignores whether the overall
flow is constructive or destructive, capacity-building or -eroding. This blindness explains why efforts to:grow GDP; maximize profits; reduce taxes on the wealthy; and apply austerity to a struggling public,
usually do more harm than good. As Cobb, et al (1995) put it: “GDP not only masks the breakdown ofsocial structure and the natural habitats upon which the economy and life itself ultimately depend, worse,
it actually portrays such breakdowns as economic gain.”9Cobb, C., Halstead, T. & Rowe, J., 1995. “If the GDP is up, why is America down?” Atlantic Monthly, 276(4),October, p. 52.

915©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

Indicators of desirable outcomes, such as income level, do a better job of gauging economic health, butoffer little insight into how to create the kind of systemic vitality that would produce these outcomes on
an ongoing basis. Similarly, most economic theories focus on profits, margins, or revenues, but offer little
explanation for how to achieve or maintain desirable outcomes other than entrepreneurship, competition
and the invisible hand of markets.
Yet, while the problems of misleading measures and inadequate explanations are increasingly wellrecognized, the response so far has been to tinker at the margins of the current system. The science offlow opens new ground by showing how we can use the laws and structures of optimal flow to create
precise targets and measures of systemic health. Precise measures are possible because:··

Most of the factors that govern healthy flow – such as pressure, circulation and volume of flow – andthe main indicators of optimal structures –such as intricacy and fractal hierarchy – can often beassessed by mapping the layout and magnitudes of flows, and/or counting the number, size, diversity,and connectivity of nodes and connecting channels (Figure 8). Measurement simplicity is aided by thefact that many analogous metrics already exist. For example, the Multiplier Effect and measures of“stocks and flows” already chart the location and magnitudes of flow.
The optimal structural patterns nature has selected over billions of years represent targets for systemic
health. For example, as we’ve seen the specific balance of small, medium, and large found in fractal
hierarchies can serve as a target for systemic health because these pervasive arrangements create a
relatively-optimal system of cross-scale circulation.
These targets are measurable because, as scientists since the ancient Greeks have observed, nature’s
universal patterns are mathematically precise. For example, as Figure 2 shows, our fractal branching
structures only work when they maintain a particular power-law balance10 of small-, medium- andlarge-size components. This balance of sizes allows circulation to nourish functions at every level,
while keeping actors at any scale from doing excessive harm to another part of the system. We canuse this balance to assess economic health by measuring how closely an economy’s distribution ofsizes fits the optimal balance found in nature.

Figure 8. Measuring Network Health as a Function of
Network Structure and Volume of Circulation
Ecologists assess network structure by counting the number, diversity andsize (capacity) of all connections and components, in this case, alligators,
fish, etc. They measure flow principles such as circulation by monitoring
the volume of chemical flows: carbon, nitrogen, etc. The above chartshows carbon transfer in the cypress wetland ecosystem of south Florida(after Ulanowicz, et al., 1986).

Flow dynamics and measures are apropos of human systems because, as we’ve seen, they are highly
compatible with what we already know about human factors such as reciprocity, distributed
empowerment, fairness, etc. This compatibility allows us to incorporate existing measures of humanfactors into our understanding of systemic health without compromising rigor.
Fractal patterns are also apropos of human realities because, like snowflakes, they are simultaneously
universal and unique (general and specific). For example, all trees and lightning bolts have a fractal
branching pattern, but no two trees or lightning bolts are ever exactly the same. This combination of
10

By a "particular" balance we mean a particular "power law" balance, meaning the number of organizations at eachscale is a power law of the one below it. For example, 21, 22, 23, 24…

16©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

universal and unique explains why different types of system, such as living organisms and societies, andeach individual manifestation, such as London and Bangkok, always exhibit certain unique properties,
while also adhering to certain underlying universal patterns and principles. We can still use these patterns
to measure and diagnose health because, as Mandelbrot (1997) and others have demonstrated, underneathuniqueness, the fractal structure of things like trees, lungs and cotton prices on the stock market tell us agreat deal about leverage points, breakpoints, and the system’s underlying stability, robustness and health.
Still, just as there is no single measure of human health, so there is no single measure of systemic
economic health either. Nevertheless, the laws of systemic health coming out of the science of flow allow
us to identify a number of critical measures. Figure 9 lists the top 10 factors governing systemic health asdeveloped jointly by researchers from the Capital Institute, Towson University, and FHI 360. For
convenience, we group these factors into flow factors, cultural factors and structural factors:

Figure 9. Our “top 10”
measures of systemic health.

Factors 1 – 4 involve flow factors including
where flow goes and how it affects thesystem. Factors 5 – 7 are human factors, key
relationships that impact systemic behavior
and outcomes. Factors 8 – 10 are structural
factors, the balance of big and little,
resilience and efficiency, diversity andnumber that effect circulation and vitality.

MEASURES OF FLOW:
1. Robust cross-scale circulation: Assesses how rapidly and well resources reach all levels. Current
measures of flow include Flux Density, Multiplier Effects, wage levels, and Total System Throughput(which is the flow-network equivalent of GDP).
2. Regenerative return flows: Assesses how much money and other resources the system recycles into
building and maintaining its internal capacities including human capital as well as physicalinfrastructure. The Finn Cycling Index, for instance, measures how much of the system’s flow isrecycled into constructive internal processes.
3. Reliable Inputs: Assesses how much risk and uncertainty there is for the critical resource,
information, and monetary flows upon which the system depends.
4. Healthy outflows: Assesses how much damage the system’s outflows do externally.
MEASURES OF HUMAN FACTORS:
5. Degree of mutualism: assesses ratio win-win versus win lose relationships within the network. Is
currently measured as weighted relationships.
6. Constructive vs exploitative: assesses the level of value add and capacity building activities vs.
organizational draining or gradient degrading ones (extractive). Can be measured as a balance ofvalue-add and capacity-building activities vs organization- or gradient-degrading (exploitative) ones
7. Adaptability (place in the adaptive cycle): assesses the system’s readiness for change and its place ina classical S-curve cycle of development. Is currently measured using Fath’s adaptive cycle measures.
17©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

MEASURES OF STRUCTURE:
8. Number and diversity of roles: assesses both the diversity and number of players in different activities
critical to system functioning, for instance, the number of grocery stores, banks, hospitals, or schools
in a given area with a particular population.
9. Distribution of sizes, incomes or resources: assesses where money and resources go. Can be plottedusing weighted distribution of stocks or flows.
10. Balance of efficiency & resilience: assesses the balance between levels of diversity and flexibility(resilience) and streamlining of throughput (efficiency). Is currently measured using Ulanowicz’
Window of Vitality or robustness metrics.

Regenerative Development
In The Nature of Economies, Jane Jacobs suggests that economies are governed by the same rules
as nature itself. Jacobs’actual hypothesis, however, is that living organisms, ecosystems andeconomies are all types of flow networks – and that similar principles of growth and development
apply to them all.
Goerner, Fath & Fiscus (2014)11
Regenerative development’s goal is sustainable vitality – using nature’s laws of systemic health todevelop economies that produce lasting cross-scale vitality, and widespread social, economic andenvironmental health. This approach is not so much a new system of economics, but a new way oforganizing much of what we already know.
Regenerative logic is easy to understand because practitioners see the impact pressure, poor circulation,and excessive extraction have on human systems every day. It is surprising because it converts the usuallaundry list of desirable outcomes into a working model of a how to achieve those outcomes. It isshocking because it comes with effective measures of systemic health to guide our steps. The fact thatmany of its suggestions are rediscoveries of existing theory and practice suggests that the main challenge
facing practitioners will be perceptual, not factual.
We believe Regenerative development backed by the empirical sciences of flow can provide both abeacon of hope and a solid path to a better world. Here, the only lasting solution to societal sustainabilitylies in replacing today’s hyper-powerful, solution-blocking, extractive approach to economics withregenerative institutions pursuing inclusive vitality and effective collective learning aimed at the longterm health of civilization as a whole. Achieving this new paradigm will require a unified narrative ofregeneration that is both specific and measurable, accompanied by a matrix of incentives that channel
existing energies towards naturally synergetic and self-sustaining regeneration.

References
Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J. 2012. Why nations fail. New York: Crown Publishing Group, a Division of Random
House.
Allenby, Braden and Richards, Deanna. 1994. The greening of industrial ecosystems. Meeting of the Advisory
Committee on Industrial Ecology and Environmentally-Preferable Technology, National Academy ofEngineering (April 1, 1994). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Goerner, S., Fath, B. & Fiscus, D. 2014. “What energy network science can teach us about resilience and thelarger story of systemic health and development.” ( in Press);
11

https://www.regonline.com/custImages/390000/396930/Docs/GoernerFinalDraftWhatENScantellusaboutdevelopmentAug12201
4.pdf

18

©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org

Boulding, Kenneth E. 1981. Evolutionary economics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Cvitanovic, Pedrag. 1984. Introduction to Universality in Chaos. Bristol, England: Adam Hilger.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., W. Hüttler. 1998. Society’s metabolism: The intellectual history of material flow analysis
Part II: 1970-1998. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2S (Jan.), 107 – 137.
Hannon, B. 1973. The structure of ecosystems. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 41:535–546.
Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of the great American cities. New York: Vintage Books, a Division of Random
House.
Jacobs, J. 1984. Cities and the wealth of nations. New York: Random House.
Jacobs, J. 2000. The nature of economies. New York: Random House.
Leontief, W., 1951. The structure of the American economy: 1919-1939. Oxford University Press, New York.
Lindeman, R. L. 1942. The trophic dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23: 399–418.
Mandelbrot, Benoit B. 1997. Fractals and scaling in finance: Discontinuity, concentration, risk. New York, Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Odum, E.P. 1983. Systems Ecology: An Introduction. New York: John Wiley.
Odum, H. T. 2007. Environment, power and society for the 21st century: The hierarchy of energy, New York:
Columbia University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Prigogine, I. 1980. From being to becoming. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Salingaros, Nikos A. 2003. “Connecting the Fractal City,” Keynote Speech, 5th Biennial of Towns and Town
Planners in Europe (Barcelona, April 2003). Available online at
http://zeta.math.utsa.edu/~yxk833/connecting.html
Sen, Amartya. 1999. Commodities and capabilities. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ulanowicz, R. 1986. Growth and development: Ecosystems phenomenology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Ulanowicz, R., Goerner, S., Lietaer, B., and Gomez, R. 2009. Quantifying sustainability: Resilience, efficiency andthe return of information theory. Ecological Complexity, 6 (1), 27-36.

19©Capital Institute, www.CapitalInstitute.org