Loading...
Loading...
Institutions fail in predictable ways across finance, politics, technology, and culture. This work explains why—using the same mathematics.
"Institutional failure is not domain-specific. It follows invariant patterns that can be formalised, predicted, and prevented."
Banks fail like governments fail like universities fail like hospitals fail—not because of shared content, but because of shared structural vulnerabilities.
Institutional failure modes can be expressed as invariants—structural conditions that, when violated, produce collapse regardless of domain, culture, or context.
If failure is structural, so is regeneration. Institutions can be designed to maintain stability across the same conditions that cause collapse in others.
This framework models institutional function across five interdependent layers. Failure at any layer propagates upward; regeneration requires stability at each.
Meaning, interpretation, sense-making
Knowledge accumulation and transfer
Authority recognition and consent
Decision rights and power distribution
Cycles, horizons, rate structures
Key insight: Most reform efforts target upper layers (L4-L5) while ignoring foundational instabilities (L1-L2). This is why reforms fail—they cannot succeed on an unstable base.
Different domains exhibit different failure profiles, but all domains are vulnerable to the same categories.
| Domain | Temporal | Authority | Legitimacy | Learning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finance | ||||
| Politics | ||||
| Technology | ||||
| Education | ||||
| Healthcare |
Bars show failure vulnerability intensity (higher = more vulnerable). Finance struggles with temporal mismatch; politics with legitimacy erosion; technology with authority concentration.
This research program provides formal models for each institutional dimension.
Each dimension has dedicated papers, formal models, and practical frameworks
This is not a collection of papers. It is a unified theory with internal coherence:
Terms like 'authority', 'legitimacy', 'cycle', and 'rate' have precise definitions used consistently across papers
Papers build on each other. PSC requires AoE. IOA depends on temporal theory. GERC integrates multiple frameworks.
The theory makes specific, testable predictions about institutional behaviour under defined conditions
The same frameworks explain failure in finance, politics, technology, and culture
The goal is not to explain everything, but to explain the structural conditions of institutional stability and failure with mathematical precision.
The research program is organised into thematic series, each addressing a specific dimension:
Core theory and unified frameworks
Papers: FRS, PSC, GERC, UACC
Operating architecture and failure modes
Papers: IOA, GFI, COA
Regenerative capital and economic architecture
Papers: RCT, RCA, REA, AC
Authority, grievance, and consent
Papers: LGIT-1-4, CLS
Institutional memory and capability
Papers: ILA-1-3, IM
Meaning, interpretation, and AI governance
Papers: SGA, SF, INA
Commitment and behavioural architecture
Papers: AoE, CEA-1-2
Domain-specific applications
Papers: ACIJ, PPP, Climate, Libraries
Total scope: 50+ papers organised into 8 thematic series, with full cross-references and a unified glossary of ~200 formal terms.
Depending on your research interests, different entry points into the canon may be more relevant:
Foundations of Regenerative Systems: The core theory and unified framework
General Equilibrium of Regenerative Capital: Formalised in Arrow-Debreu style
Institutional Operating Architecture: Why institutions fail and how to prevent it
All papers organised by series with cross-references and dependency maps
If you are looking for:
This work is not for you.
If you want a unified formal theory of institutional failure and regeneration,
you are in the right place.