What is Alignment Capital?
Understanding how to match capital cycles with mission cycles—the key to long-term institutional success.
The 60-Second Version
Everything operates in cycles.
Politicians face 4-year cycles. CFOs face quarterly earnings cycles. Grant officers face annual budget cycles. Scientific research needs 10-20 year cycles. Climate adaptation needs 50-100 year cycles.
The problem: When short cycles control long-horizon work, things break. A hospital that needs a 30-year equipment plan gets funded in 1-year grants. Climate infrastructure that must last generations gets approved by politicians who won't be in office to see results.
Alignment Capital is a framework for designing capital that operates on the same timescale as the mission it serves—not the timescale of whoever provides it.
The Misalignment Problem
Most institutional failures aren't caused by lack of money or poor management. They're caused by temporal misalignment—capital cycles that don't match mission cycles.
Scientific Research
Breakthrough research often takes 15-20 years. Funding comes in 3-year grants. Scientists spend 40% of time writing proposals instead of doing science. Long-term projects get abandoned when priorities shift.
Climate Adaptation
Sea walls need to work for 100 years. Funding depends on 4-year electoral cycles. Projects get cancelled when governments change. Infrastructure falls into disrepair between administrations.
Healthcare Infrastructure
Hospital equipment lasts 10-15 years. Annual budgets create pressure to defer maintenance. Long-term planning becomes impossible when next year's funding is uncertain.
Education
Educational outcomes take 20+ years to fully manifest. School budgets are annual. Programs get cut before they can show results. Curriculum changes with each administration.
The pattern: In each case, the capital cycle (how often funding is renewed) is shorter than the mission cycle (how long the work needs to succeed). This mismatch creates fragility, waste, and failure—not because of bad intentions, but because of bad temporal architecture.
The Two Operators
Alignment Capital introduces two formal concepts for fixing temporal misalignment:
Decoupling Operator (Delta)
Separates capital from fragility cycles—political turnover, market volatility, donor preferences, administrative changes. The goal: capital that doesn't disappear when external conditions change.
Alignment Operator (Lambda)
Synchronises capital with mission cycles—asset lifetimes, research timelines, climate recurrence intervals. The goal: capital that operates at the same rhythm as the work it supports.
The Alignment Criterion
A system is aligned when it satisfies both Δ (decoupled from fragility) AND Λ (synchronised with mission). Most capital structures satisfy neither. Endowments satisfy Δ but not Λ. Grants satisfy neither. PSC satisfies both—it's decoupled from external cycles AND aligned with mission timelines through its recycling structure.
Four Types of Fragility
The Decoupling Operator must protect against four distinct fragility cycles:
Financial Fragility
Market crashes, recessions, credit crunches. When capital depends on market conditions, missions suffer during downturns—exactly when they're often needed most.
Political Fragility
Elections, regime changes, shifting priorities. Long-term projects need protection from short-term political calculations.
Capability Fragility
Staff turnover, institutional knowledge loss, leadership changes. Capital structures that depend on specific people create single points of failure.
Civic Fragility
Public opinion shifts, media cycles, stakeholder fatigue. Programmes that depend on sustained attention fail when attention moves elsewhere.
Matching Mission Cycles
Different missions operate on different timescales. Aligned capital must match these:
| Domain | Mission Cycle | Typical Funding Cycle | Misalignment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basic Research | 15-25 years | 3-year grants | 5-8× too short |
| Climate Infrastructure | 50-100 years | 4-year political | 12-25× too short |
| Hospital Equipment | 10-15 years | Annual budget | 10-15× too short |
| Forest Restoration | 30-80 years | Project-based | Variable, often 20×+ |
| Education Outcomes | 20+ years | Annual budget | 20× too short |
The Key Insight
When funding cycles are 10-25× shorter than mission cycles, long-term success becomes structurally impossible regardless of competence or resources. The system is designed to fail. Alignment Capital provides a framework for designing capital structures that match mission timelines.
PSC: The First Full Alignment Technology
Perpetual Social Capital is the first capital structure that fully satisfies both operators:
ΔHow PSC Decouples
- No donor renewal: Capital is a one-time gift that cycles permanently
- No political approval: Fund exists independently of government
- No market dependence: Not invested in volatile assets
- No key-person risk: System operates by rules, not relationships
ΛHow PSC Aligns
- Infinite horizon: Matches any mission timeline
- Natural recycling: Returns when recipients are ready, not on arbitrary schedule
- Asset-matched: Equipment funds cycle at equipment lifetime
- Adaptable: Different PSC funds can align with different mission cycles
Common Questions
Can't endowments achieve the same thing?
Endowments achieve decoupling (they're permanent) but not alignment. An endowment that only spends 5% annually can't fund a project that needs 100% of capital deployed. PSC provides full capital deployment while maintaining permanence through recycling—endowments provide permanence through non-deployment.
What if the mission changes over time?
Alignment Capital includes the concept of "cycle constitutions"—governance frameworks that can evolve while preserving core alignment properties. The fund's specific focus can adapt; what remains constant is the temporal structure that enables long-horizon work.
This seems theoretical. Is there real-world application?
The framework formalises patterns that already exist in successful long-horizon institutions. University endowments (partial alignment), sovereign wealth funds (decoupling), and community land trusts (mission alignment) all embody aspects of these principles. PSC combines them systematically for the first time.
How do you measure alignment?
The paper introduces formal metrics: fragility exposure (how vulnerable is capital to each fragility type), temporal match ratio (funding cycle ÷ mission cycle), and alignment score (combined measure of Δ and Λ satisfaction). These allow comparison of different capital structures.
Related Explainers
Read the Full Paper
Explore the complete formalisation with mathematical proofs and domain applications.
View PaperInstitutional Fragility Dashboard
Assess fragility exposure and alignment scores interactively.
View Dashboard