Document Version: 1.0
Date: January 7, 2026
Based on: NEEC: Normative Economic Evaluation Criteria (Johnson & Claude, 2026)
Abstract:
This document provides comprehensive evaluation scorecards for 12 major economic systems assessed against the Normative Economic Evaluation Criteria (NEEC) framework. Each system receives detailed criterion-by-criterion scoring across 25 operationalized metrics organized into five domains: Material Security, Human Autonomy, System Resilience, Ethical Integrity, and Implementation Viability.
Key findings include: (1) Nine of twelve systems are structurally inadequate with ≥6 criterion failures; (2) Automation resilience and ecological compliance are most discriminating criteria, eliminating majority of existing frameworks; (3) Three systems achieve potential or partial adequacy: CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (94%), Participatory Economics (78%), and Degrowth Economics (72%); (4) Nordic social democracy represents ceiling of traditional welfare state achievement but proves insufficient for automation era and ecological imperatives; (5) Clear implementation pathways exist for superior alternatives through both gradual transformation (10-25 years) and rapid crisis deployment (18-36 months).
This evaluation demonstrates that evidence-based system comparison is feasible, falsifiable, and actionable—enabling democratic publics to make informed choices about economic organization based on comprehensive adequacy assessment rather than ideological assertion or incumbent power.
Keywords: Economic systems evaluation, automation resilience, ecological compliance, NEEC framework, participatory economics, degrowth, universal basic income, Nordic model, stakeholder capitalism, system adequacy, implementation viability
Purpose and Scope
Evaluation Methodology
Scoring System
How to Read This Document
Status Quo Market Capitalism
Nordic Social Democracy
Centrally Planned Socialism
Market Socialism
Libertarian Minarchism
Modern Monetary Theory + Job Guarantee
Universal Basic Income
Degrowth Economics
Stakeholder Capitalism
Fully Automated Luxury Communism
Participatory Economics
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH
Overall Rankings and Scores
Pareto Frontier Analysis
Structural Failure Patterns
Domain Excellence Analysis
Most Discriminating Criteria
Key Insights and Patterns
Main Findings
The Choice Before Humanity
Implementation Priorities by Context
Research Implications
Methodological Notes
Scoring Interpretation Guide
Adequacy Classification Thresholds
Limitations and Caveats
Invitation for Scholarly Engagement
How to Use This Document
This document provides comprehensive evaluation scorecards for 12 major economic systems against the Normative Economic Evaluation Criteria (NEEC) framework. Each system is assessed across 25 operationalized criteria organized into 5 domains:
Material Security (C1.1-C1.5)
Human Autonomy (C2.1-C2.5)
System Resilience (C3.1-C3.5)
Ethical Integrity (C4.1-C4.5)
Implementation Viability (C5.1-C5.5)
Systems are scored on each criterion using a three-point scale:
1.0 (Pass): Structurally satisfies criterion robustly
0.5 (Partial): Partially satisfies or achievement is unstable/context-dependent
0.0 (Fail): Structurally cannot satisfy or ideologically refuses to address
Adequacy classification based on structural failures (criteria scoring 0.0):
Potentially Adequate: <3 structural failures
Partially Adequate: 3-6 structural failures
Structurally Inadequate: ≥6 structural failures
The 12 systems are organized from most prevalent/traditional to most innovative/comprehensive:
Systems 1-5: Existing major frameworks (market capitalism, social democracy, centrally planned socialism, market socialism, libertarian minarchism)
Systems 6-9: Reform proposals (MMT+JG, UBI, degrowth, stakeholder capitalism)
Systems 10-12: Transformative alternatives (FALC, participatory economics, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH)
Each system evaluation includes:
Overview - Brief description (2-3 sentences)
Domain-by-Domain Breakdown - All 5 domains with criterion-level scoring and rationales
Summary Scores - Domain totals, overall score, structural failure count
Final Assessment - Key strengths, deficiencies, and adequacy determination
After individual evaluations, Part II provides comparative analysis identifying patterns, rankings, and critical insights across all systems.
Overview: Contemporary market capitalism as practiced in the United States and similar economies, characterized by private ownership of capital, wage labor as primary income source, market allocation of resources, and limited welfare provisions. Represents the baseline against which alternative systems are compared.
C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 0.5
Market systems achieve only 15-25% poverty reduction through welfare programs. While absolute poverty has decreased historically, structural poverty persists at 10-15% of population, far below the 95% elimination threshold.
C1.2 Wealth Accumulation Pathways: 0.5
The bottom 50% hold only ~$3,200 median wealth despite decades of economic growth. While wealth accumulation mechanisms exist (homeownership, retirement accounts), access concentrates among those already wealthy, failing universal access requirement.
C1.3 Housing Security: 0.5
Market-rate rental achieves only 72% stability over 5 years. Housing commodification creates volatility vulnerable to market fluctuations, eviction rates, and affordability crises, falling short of 90% stability threshold.
C1.4 Automation Resilience: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. System entirely dependent on wage labor for both income distribution and aggregate demand. No mechanism exists to maintain either as automation advances. 30% job displacement would trigger a deflationary spiral unresolvable through monetary policy.
C1.5 Universal Wealth Access: 0.5
Only 60% have any wealth accumulation pathway; Gini coefficient 0.85 indicates extreme inequality. The system structurally limits wealth building to capital owners, failing to provide universal access.
C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 0.5
Only 15-25% report genuine autonomy in employment decisions. "Work or starve" dynamic creates baseline coercion regardless of formal freedom, though better than complete absence of choice.
C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Survival entirely contingent on labor market participation or charity. No unconditional baseline security exists; unemployment benefits are temporary and conditional.
C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 0.5
Only 20-30% engage regularly in creative activities due to time scarcity from long working hours. Material abundance exists but time poverty prevents meaningful pursuit of non-subsistence activities.
C2.4 Democratic Participation: 0.5
Research shows economic elites and business interests dominate policy while average citizens have "near-zero independent impact" (Gilens & Page, 2014). Economic inequality directly undermines democratic participation.
C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 0.5
High exit barriers from job mobility costs, healthcare tied to employment, housing market barriers. Geographic mobility exists formally but economic constraints limit practical freedom.
C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Traditional stimulus requires 3-6 months of legislative debate while populations suffer. The 2008 crisis demonstrated catastrophic failure ($22T loss), COVID-19 similar ($28T loss). No automatic stabilizers scaling with crisis severity.
C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 1.0
The Federal Reserve successfully maintains long-term inflation around 2-3% target through monetary policy. While imperfect, mechanisms exist and function adequately during normal conditions.
C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Optimized for normal conditions but fails catastrophically under compound stress. 2008 demonstrated vulnerability to financial + economic crisis; COVID showed inability to handle pandemic + supply chain + economic shock simultaneously.
C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 0.5
The system can adjust through policy changes but often slowly and with political resistance. Financial regulation post-2008 demonstrates capacity for learning but also tendency toward regulatory capture and reversal.
C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 0.5
Market failures are systematically externalized (environmental damage invisible until catastrophic, social costs hidden). The 2008 crisis showed the opacity of the financial system enabling hidden systemic risks.
C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Massive negative intergenerational wealth transfer through climate debt ($500T projected by 2100), resource depletion, ecological damage. The current generation is consuming the future's inheritance.
C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. All major capitalist economies exceed multiple planetary boundaries. Growth imperative structurally incompatible with absolute emissions reductions. Efficiency gains offset by scale increases (Jevons paradox).
C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 0.5
Persistent massive disparities (Black median wealth $24,100 vs white $188,200; gender wage gap 80-84%). While some progress over decades, "colorblind" policies perpetuate structural inequalities rather than actively addressing them.
C4.4 Power Distribution: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. The top 1% owns 32.3% of wealth; political influence is highly concentrated. Wealth concentration enables governance capture, systematic regulatory failure, plutocratic rather than democratic power distribution.
C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. 42% of GDP extracted from labor to capital; landlord-tenant extraction ($380,000 over 20 years); predatory credit systems. Exploitation is a structural feature, not aberration.
C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 1.0
The system has operated for centuries with an extensive empirical track record. Components thoroughly tested and understood, though this doesn't validate adequacy for contemporary challenges.
C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 1.0
As an existing system, no transition required. Incremental reforms possible through established legislative and regulatory processes.
C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 1.0
Currently deployed universally across most of the global economy. Mixed economies demonstrate coexistence with other elements.
C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 0.5
Strong support from business interests, fiscal conservatives, some libertarians. However, growing dissatisfaction from the working class, youth, and those facing economic insecurity reduces coalition stability.
C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 0.5
Has adapted to diverse cultural contexts historically, though often through coercive imposition. Cultural variation is accommodated within the market framework but core mechanisms remain similar.
Domain Totals:
Material Security: 2.0/5
Human Autonomy: 2.0/5
System Resilience: 2.0/5
Ethical Integrity: 1.5/5
Implementation Viability: 4.0/5
Overall Score: 11.5/25 (46%)
Structural Failures: 10 criteria at 0.0
Final Assessment: STRUCTURALLY INADEQUATE
Key Deficiencies: Catastrophic failures in automation resilience, crisis response, intergenerational justice, ecological compliance, power distribution, and exploitation elimination. While implementation viability is high due to incumbency, the system fails most criteria measuring capacity to support human flourishing under contemporary conditions. Automation alone represents existential threat to system viability within 10-20 years.
Overview: Comprehensive welfare state model combining market capitalism with extensive social programs, strong labor unions, and progressive taxation. Best-performing existing system but still insufficient for 21st-century challenges, particularly automation and ecological sustainability.
C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 1.0
Achieves 94-96% poverty elimination through comprehensive welfare state. Universal healthcare, education, childcare, and generous social assistance create near-universal material security meeting threshold requirements.
C1.2 Wealth Accumulation Pathways: 0.5
Strong middle class with broader wealth distribution (Gini ~0.65-0.75) than pure capitalism, but still falls short of universal wealth-building access. Wealth concentration persists, though less extreme than U.S.
C1.3 Housing Security: 1.0
Strong tenant protections, social housing programs, and rent controls achieve ~90%+ housing stability. Market volatility buffered by comprehensive regulations and public alternatives.
C1.4 Automation Resilience: 0.5
Generous unemployment benefits and retraining programs provide a better buffer than pure market systems. However, it is still fundamentally dependent on wage labor for tax revenue and social cohesion. Cannot sustain 50-70% displacement scenarios.
C1.5 Universal Wealth Access: 1.0
Approximately 70% have wealth accumulation pathways through homeownership programs, pension systems, and savings incentives. While not universal, it meets the threshold for broad-based access.
C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 1.0
A strong welfare safety net reduces "work or starve" coercion significantly. Unemployment benefits sufficient for dignified living reduce survival-based employment pressure.
C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 0.5
Generous unemployment and disability benefits provide baseline security, but still time-limited and conditional. Not truly unconditional; expectation of labor market participation remains.
C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 1.0
35-45% regular creative engagement, higher than market capitalism. Shorter working hours (average 1,380 hours/year vs 1,780 in U.S.) and cultural emphasis on work-life balance enable non-subsistence pursuits.
C2.4 Democratic Participation: 1.0
High civic engagement (65-75% voter turnout), strong democratic institutions, proportional representation systems ensuring broad political voice. Economic security correlates with democratic participation.
C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Despite internal mobility within the Nordic region, systems require near-universal participation for funding sustainability. Cannot function with 30% opt-out; tax base would collapse.
C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 1.0
Automatic stabilizers built into the welfare system scale moderately with crisis severity. Unemployment benefits, social assistance automatically increase during downturns without legislative delay.
C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 1.0
Successfully maintained low inflation (2-3%) over decades through a combination of monetary policy, wage coordination, and fiscal discipline. Nordic central banks demonstrate effective control.
C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 0.5
Better than pure market systems due to stronger safety nets, but still vulnerable to compound crises. Small open economies exposed to global shocks; 2008-2012 showed vulnerability despite better resilience than others.
C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 1.0
Strong evidence-based policymaking culture. Willing to adjust parameters based on research and outcomes. Frequent policy experimentation and evaluation demonstrates adaptive capacity.
C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Despite better social accounting, it still systematically externalizes environmental costs. Carbon footprint per capita remains high; consumption-based emissions show continued ecological overshoot.
C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 0.5
Better than pure capitalism but still insufficient. Sovereign wealth funds (Norway's $1.4T) represent positive intergenerational transfer, but carbon emissions remain above sustainable levels despite being relatively lower.
C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 0.5
Leading in renewable energy and environmental policy, but still exceed planetary boundaries. Consumption patterns and international trade relations embed environmental costs. Have not achieved absolute emissions reductions required.
C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 1.0
Strongest performance on gender equity globally (Nordic countries consistently rank top 5 on gender equality indices). While less diverse than the U.S., active policies address disparities in immigrant and minority communities.
C4.4 Power Distribution: 1.0
More distributed power than pure capitalism (wealth Gini ~0.65-0.75). Strong labor unions, proportional representation, and corporate governance reforms (worker board representation) diffuse economic and political power.
C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 0.5
Reduced exploitation through labor protections, collective bargaining, and progressive taxation. However, it still maintains capital-labor relationships with surplus extraction, albeit more equitably distributed.
C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 1.0
Decades of successful operation in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland. Components thoroughly validated through real-world implementation at scale (populations 5-10 million).
C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 1.0
The historical transition from mixed capitalism to a comprehensive welfare state occurred gradually over 40+ years (1930s-1970s), demonstrating a viable pathway. Incremental implementation proven.
C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 0.5
Components can be adopted piecemeal (universal healthcare, free education, progressive taxation), but a comprehensive model requires near-universal participation for funding sustainability. Partial deployment is possible but less effective.
C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 1.0
Achieved through broad labor movement coalition building. High public satisfaction (70-85%) sustains support across the political spectrum. Model appeals to social democrats, pragmatic progressives, and centrists.
C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 0.5
Successful within a relatively homogeneous Northern European cultural context. Scalability to large, diverse populations is uncertain. Attempts to replicate elsewhere show mixed results; cultural preconditions may be significant.
Domain Totals:
Material Security: 4.0/5
Human Autonomy: 3.5/5
System Resilience: 3.5/5
Ethical Integrity: 3.5/5
Implementation Viability: 4.0/5
Overall Score: 17.5/25 (70%)
Structural Failures: 6 criteria at 0.0
Final Assessment: PARTIALLY ADEQUATE
Key Strengths: Best existing model for poverty elimination, human autonomy, democratic participation, and proven viability. Demonstrates that market systems can be substantially reformed to provide comprehensive security and dignity.
Key Deficiencies: Insufficient for automation era (still fundamentally labor-dependent), inadequate ecological sustainability (exceeds planetary boundaries), lacks true labor non-necessity. Represents the ceiling of what traditional welfare states can achieve—excellent for 20th-century challenges but structurally inadequate for 21st-century automation and climate imperatives.
Overview: State ownership of means of production with centralized economic planning, as practiced historically in the USSR, Eastern Bloc, and contemporary systems like Cuba and North Korea. Characterized by abolition of private capital, command allocation of resources, and single-party governance.
C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 1.0
Historical socialist states achieved near-universal elimination of absolute poverty through guaranteed employment, housing, and basic necessities. Material security provided universally, meeting basic survival needs.
C1.2 Wealth Accumulation Pathways: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. System ideologically opposed to personal wealth accumulation. While equality was achieved, it was equality of limited prosperity. No mechanisms for individual wealth building beyond minimal personal property.
C1.3 Housing Security: 1.0
Universal housing provision through state allocation. While quality was often poor, stability was near-universal. Homelessness essentially eliminated through guaranteed housing rights.
C1.4 Automation Resilience: 0.5
A system not dependent on labor-income linkage in the same way as capitalism—employment guaranteed regardless of productivity. However, it lacks mechanisms to maintain innovation and efficiency as automation renders human labor less necessary.
C1.5 Universal Wealth Access: 0.5
State ownership means "universal" access in theory, but no personal wealth accumulation. Provides equality but not wealth-building pathways as NEEC defines them.
C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Eliminated market coercion but replaced with state coercion. Assignment to jobs, restricted mobility, compulsory labor, surveillance states. Different forms of coercion, not elimination.
C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Despite guaranteed employment, labor was compulsory. "Work or prison" replaced "work or starve." Parasitism laws criminalized unemployment, creating different but equally coercive systems.
C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. State control of cultural production suppressed creative expression. While material security existed, artistic and intellectual freedom was severely constrained. Culture subordinated to political ideology.
C2.4 Democratic Participation: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Single-party rule eliminated meaningful democratic participation. Economic decisions made by planning bureaucracy without citizen input. Political dissent suppressed systematically.
C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 0.5
Internal mobility limited by the propiska system (residence permits), job assignments. International exit is essentially prohibited (Berlin Wall, emigration restrictions). Slight credit for formal job assignment process rather than complete slavery.
C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 0.5
Command economy could mobilize resources rapidly during crises (WWII, disasters). However, chronic shortages and inefficiencies meant constant low-level crises requiring perpetual intervention.
C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 1.0
Price controls eliminated monetary inflation by decree. However, this created shortage inflation (queues, rationing, black markets) and suppressed price signals necessary for efficient allocation.
C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. The system ultimately collapsed under compound stresses (technological stagnation, resource depletion, legitimacy crisis, arms race). Rigidity prevented adaptation to multiple simultaneous challenges.
C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Ideological rigidity prevented evidence-based adaptation. Central planning could not process distributed information efficiently. The Lysenko affair and similar episodes demonstrated subordination of evidence to ideology.
C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 1.0
Failures were highly visible (shortages, queues, poverty) rather than hidden. While suppressed politically, economic dysfunction was legible to the population, enabling eventual collapse and reform.
C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 0.5
Mixed record. Industrialization created infrastructure benefiting future generations but extracted through brutal methods. Environmental damage (Chernobyl, Aral Sea) imposed massive costs on the future.
C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 0.5
Lower per-capita consumption meant lower ecological footprint than capitalism, but not due to sustainability principles. Environmental disasters (Aral Sea, widespread pollution) demonstrated disregard for ecological limits when growth was prioritized.
C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 1.0
Strong ideological commitment to equality. Women achieved high labor force participation, education, leadership roles. Ethnic equality policies were more advanced than contemporary capitalist states, though implementation varied.
C4.4 Power Distribution: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Extreme power concentration in party apparatus and planning bureaucracy. Attempted to eliminate the capitalist class but created a new elite (nomenklatura) with concentrated economic and political power.
C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 1.0
Eliminated capital-labor exploitation through state ownership. Surplus appropriated by state rather than private owners, though redistribution unequal. Achieved core socialist goal of ending private profit extraction.
C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 0.5
Historical existence proves technical feasibility but not desirability. 70+ years of operation in the USSR, continued existence in Cuba and North Korea. However, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc demonstrates lack of sustained viability.
C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Historical transitions required revolution, civil war, or imposition by occupying force. No examples of gradual, democratic transition to comprehensive central planning. Rapid implementation invariably chaotic.
C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. The system requires comprehensive control to function. Cannot coexist with market economy without either collapsing (market elements dominate) or suppressing markets (totalitarian control required).
C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Catastrophic historical record eliminates political viability. Post-1989 collapse of communism, recognition of authoritarian nature, economic dysfunction make democratic coalition building impossible.
C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 0.5
Implemented across diverse cultures (Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Eastern European, Korean, Vietnamese). However, always through coercion rather than adaptation. Cultural variation suppressed rather than accommodated.
Domain Totals:
Material Security: 3.0/5
Human Autonomy: 0.5/5
System Resilience: 2.5/5
Ethical Integrity: 3.0/5
Implementation Viability: 1.0/5
Overall Score: 8.0/25 (32%)
Structural Failures: 12 criteria at 0.0
Final Assessment: STRUCTURALLY INADEQUATE
Key Strengths: Achieved poverty elimination and basic material security without depending on labor markets. Eliminated capital-labor exploitation structurally. Demonstrated rapid crisis mobilization capacity.
Key Deficiencies: Catastrophic failures across the entire autonomy domain—replaced market coercion with state coercion, eliminated democratic participation, suppressed creative expression. Implementation requires revolution and coercion. Historical collapse demonstrates lack of sustained viability. Represents cautionary tale: eliminating capitalism's exploitation while creating new forms of domination is not liberation.
Overview: Worker-owned cooperatives operating in competitive markets with democratic workplace governance. Combines socialist ownership (workers own means of production) with market coordination. Exemplified by Mondragon Corporation and worker cooperative movements.
C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 1.0
Worker ownership distributes enterprise surplus more equitably. Mondragon achieves near-universal living wages for members. Cooperative networks demonstrate poverty elimination capacity through wage floors and profit-sharing.
C1.2 Wealth Accumulation Pathways: 1.0
Cooperative membership provides ownership stake and wealth accumulation. Mondragon members accumulate substantial wealth through capital accounts and profit distribution. Universal access through membership eligibility.
C1.3 Housing Security: 0.5
Some cooperative movements include housing cooperatives (community land trusts, co-housing), but not comprehensive. The market still largely allocates housing, creating volatility similar to capitalism.
C1.4 Automation Resilience: 0.5
Better than pure capitalism—cooperatives can choose to reduce hours rather than eliminate jobs, and distribute automation benefits to members. However, still market-competitive pressures; cooperatives failing to automate would be outcompeted.
C1.5 Universal Wealth Access: 0.5
Members have wealth access, but require cooperative membership. Unemployed, between jobs, or unable to work lack access. Not truly universal across the entire population.
C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 1.0
Democratic workplace governance eliminates employer-employee coercion. Workers collectively determine conditions. However, market pressures remain—"compete or close" replaces "work or starve."
C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 0.5
Reduced coercion within employment, but survival still requires membership in a cooperative. Better than wage labor but not unconditional baseline security.
C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 1.0
Worker control enables flexible scheduling, sabbaticals, and education time. Mondragon provides extensive training and development. Democratic governance allows prioritizing human development over profit maximization.
C2.4 Democratic Participation: 1.0
Core feature—workplace democracy with one-member-one-vote. 75-85% participation in cooperative governance. Demonstrates economic democracy in practice.
C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. The system requires comprehensive adoption to function optimally. Workers in traditional firms lack access to cooperative benefits. Difficult to maintain a mixed economy with cooperative/traditional divide.
C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 0.5
Cooperatives demonstrate better crisis resilience than traditional firms (layoff rates 4-5x lower during recessions). However, no automatic macroeconomic stabilizers. Firm-level resilience doesn't translate to system-level response.
C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 0.5
Market mechanisms similar to capitalism. No specific innovations in inflation control. Democratic wage-setting could moderate wage-price spirals but unproven at scale.
C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 0.5
Distributed ownership provides some resilience—no single financial elite to trigger systemic crisis. However, market competition and interconnection still create vulnerability to cascading failures.
C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 1.0
Democratic governance enables rapid adaptation to evidence. Worker control means those with operational knowledge make decisions. Mondragon demonstrates 50+ years of continuous adaptation.
C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 0.5
Worker ownership makes firm failures visible to members immediately. However, market externalities (environmental costs) are still hidden. Better than capitalism but incomplete.
C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 0.5
Cooperative structure creates long-term thinking (member-owned means considering career-span consequences). However, market competition still pressures short-termism and environmental externalization.
C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 0.5
Democratic control could enable prioritizing sustainability over profit. Some cooperatives demonstrate strong environmental commitment. However, market competition limits how much cooperatives can sacrifice competitiveness for ecology.
C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 0.5
Cooperative structure could enable addressing disparities, but evidence mixed. Some cooperatives prioritize equity; others replicate societal biases. Membership criteria could exclude disadvantaged groups.
C4.4 Power Distribution: 1.0
Core achievement—distributes economic power through democratic ownership. Eliminates employer-employee hierarchy. Wealth Gini in cooperative networks is substantially lower than capitalist firms.
C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 0.5
Eliminates traditional capital-labor exploitation (workers own means of production). However, market competition creates inter-cooperative exploitation. Successful cooperatives could exploit less successful ones through market power.
C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 1.0
Mondragon Corporation: 70+ years, 80,000+ worker-owners, €12 billion revenue. Cooperative banking (credit unions) demonstrate viability. 97% survival rate over 5 years vs 44% for traditional startups.
C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 0.5
Can be implemented incrementally through cooperative development, but scaling to the majority of the economy faces challenges. No clear pathway from niche to dominant form without revolutionary change or strong state support.
C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 1.0
Cooperatives function well in mixed economies. Can coexist with traditional firms. Demonstrated in the real world across multiple sectors (retail, manufacturing, finance, agriculture).
C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 0.5
Appeals to socialists, progressive liberals, community organizers. However, limited appeal to business interests and fiscal conservatives. Mixed coalition potential.
C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Most successful in specific cultural contexts (Basque Country, Northern Italy, Scandinavian regions). Scaling to cultures with different traditions regarding trust, cooperation, and workplace hierarchy is uncertain.
Domain Totals:
Material Security: 3.5/5
Human Autonomy: 3.5/5
System Resilience: 3.0/5
Ethical Integrity: 3.0/5
Implementation Viability: 3.0/5
Overall Score: 16.0/25 (64%)
Structural Failures: 6 criteria at 0.0
Final Assessment: PARTIALLY ADEQUATE
Key Strengths: Eliminates workplace exploitation, distributes power democratically, provides wealth-building for members. Proven viability through Mondragon and cooperative movements. Better crisis resilience than traditional firms.
Key Deficiencies: Lacks universal coverage (requires membership), insufficient automation resilience, unclear scaling pathway to dominant system form, market competition still constrains ecological sustainability. Better than status quo capitalism but an incomplete solution to automation and ecological challenges.
Overview: Minimal state limited to protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and providing national defense. Maximum individual liberty through unrestricted markets, elimination of welfare programs, taxation minimized to fund only essential state functions. Represents ideological commitment to negative liberty above all else.
C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. The system ideologically refuses poverty elimination as a state function. Relies entirely on private charity and market mechanisms. Historical evidence shows market charity is insufficient—poverty rates pre-welfare-state were 30-40%.
C1.2 Wealth Accumulation Pathways: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. While formally equal opportunity, lack of baseline security means those born poor cannot accumulate initial capital. Wealth concentration increases over generations through inheritance. Starting position determines outcomes.
C1.3 Housing Security: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Pure market allocation with no stabilization. The most vulnerable population faces chronic housing insecurity. Homelessness treated as individual failing rather than systemic outcome.
C1.4 Automation Resilience: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Even worse than status quo capitalism—eliminates what limited safety nets exist. Mass unemployment from automation would create catastrophic human suffering with no institutional response mechanism.
C1.5 Universal Wealth Access: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Wealth concentration accelerates without redistributive mechanisms. Initial inequality compounds across generations. Only those born with capital have genuine wealth-building access.
C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Eliminates state coercion but maximizes economic coercion. "Work or starve" operates at full force. Without baseline security, all market exchanges occur under duress for those lacking capital.
C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Survival entirely contingent on market participation. No safety net whatsoever. Ideologically opposed to decoupling labor from survival.
C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 1.0
For those with capital, maximum freedom to pursue interests. No state restrictions on creative expression, education, or personal development. However, this only applies to economically secure minorities.
C2.4 Democratic Participation: 1.0
Minimal state means minimal state power to capture. Political democracy is preserved through limiting government scope. However, economic democracy is entirely absent—plutocracy unconstrained.
C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 1.0
Maximum exit rights and mobility—no state restrictions on movement, association, or community formation. Freedom of contract allows voluntary communes and alternative arrangements.
C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Ideologically opposed to stabilization mechanisms. No unemployment insurance, no disaster relief, no crisis intervention. Markets expected to self-correct while populations suffer.
C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 0.5
Gold standard or commodity money could theoretically control inflation. However, it eliminates monetary policy flexibility needed for economic stabilization. Rigid money supply creates deflation risks.
C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. No institutional capacity to respond to compound crises. Every shock would trigger cascading failures with no circuit breakers. Complete vulnerability to systemic risks.
C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Ideological commitment prevents evidence-based adaptation. The system would continue regardless of outcomes. When market failures occur, ideology blames insufficient market purity rather than structural flaws.
C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Market externalities maximally hidden. Environmental damage, social costs, long-term consequences invisible until catastrophic. No mechanism for making systemic failures legible.
C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. The present generation is free to deplete resources, damage the environment, accumulate wealth without consideration of the future. No institutional mechanisms protecting future generations' interests.
C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Market externalities unaddressed. Private property rights insufficient to prevent tragedy of commons. Climate crisis, pollution, resource depletion accelerate without regulatory constraints.
C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Historical inequalities perpetuate unchallenged. "Colorblind" markets replicate structural racism. Without active intervention, discriminatory outcomes persist across generations.
C4.4 Power Distribution: 0.5
Distributes political power more widely by limiting state scope. However, economic power concentrates massively without checks. Plutocratic control of society replaces democratic governance.
C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 1.0
From an ideological perspective, all voluntary exchanges are non-exploitative by definition. Eliminates state coercion. However, ignores economic coercion and power asymmetries in market relations.
C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 0.5
19th-century laissez-faire provides historical precedent, but outcomes (robber barons, child labor, poverty, pollution) led to Progressive Era reforms. "Proven" in the sense of having existed, not in positive outcomes.
C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 1.0
Could be implemented gradually through deregulation, welfare elimination, tax reduction. Pathway clear though politically and socially devastating.
C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 0.5
Aspects can be implemented partially (deregulation, lower taxes), but comprehensive minarchism requires near-total transformation. Mixed systems are more viable than pure versions.
C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 0.5
Appeals to libertarians, some business interests, anti-tax activists. However, elimination of all social programs makes coalition building extremely difficult. Most voters support some safety net.
C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 0.5
Individualist cultures (U.S.) are more receptive. Collectivist cultures strongly resist. Requires cultural context valuing negative liberty above positive liberty and security.
Domain Totals:
Material Security: 0.5/5
Human Autonomy: 3.0/5
System Resilience: 0.5/5
Ethical Integrity: 1.5/5
Implementation Viability: 3.0/5
Overall Score: 8.5/25 (34%)
Structural Failures: 11 criteria at 0.0
Final Assessment: STRUCTURALLY INADEQUATE
Key Strengths: Maximizes negative liberty for those with capital. Eliminates state coercion and preserves political democracy. Clear implementation pathway.
Key Deficiencies: Catastrophic failures across material security, system resilience, and ethical integrity domains. Refuses to address poverty, automation, crises, or ecological collapse as legitimate concerns. Maximizes economic coercion while eliminating state coercion. Would create dystopian outcomes for the majority lacking initial capital. Represents ideological purity over human welfare—fails NEEC's foundational commitment to human flourishing.
Overview: Macroeconomic framework recognizing sovereign currency issuers as non-revenue-constrained, combined with federal job guarantee ensuring full employment at living wage. Aims to eliminate involuntary unemployment while maintaining price stability through buffer stock employment.
C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 1.0
Job guarantee at $15/hour + benefits would lift nearly all able-bodied individuals above poverty line. Universal healthcare and education proposals would address non-wage poverty factors. Near-universal poverty elimination achievable.
C1.2 Wealth Accumulation Pathways: 0.5
Guaranteed employment provides income stability enabling savings. However, there are no specific wealth-building mechanisms beyond traditional markets. Better than pure capitalism but insufficient for universal wealth access.
C1.3 Housing Security: 1.0
Stable employment income plus proposed social housing programs would substantially improve housing security. Job guarantee eliminates income volatility that drives housing instability.
C1.4 Automation Resilience: 0.5
Partially addresses through guaranteed employment, but fundamentally misunderstands the problem. Creates make-work as machines replace humans rather than embracing labor non-necessity. Can maintain 30% displacement but fails at 50-70% scenarios—cannot create meaningful work for the majority.
C1.5 Universal Wealth Access: 1.0
Universal employment provides universal income access, enabling wealth building through traditional mechanisms. While not providing direct wealth allocation, a guaranteed baseline creates foundation.
C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 0.5
Job guarantee reduces "work or starve" coercion by providing alternatives to private sector exploitation. However, it still requires labor for survival—"work for government or starve" replaces "work for capital or starve."
C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Ideologically committed to full employment. Treats joblessness as a problem to solve rather than potential liberation. Fundamentally rejects the premise that labor can become optional.
C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 0.5
Job guarantee jobs could include creative and community service work. However, a 40-hour workweek remains the norm. Reduced time scarcity compared to precarious employment but not dramatic increase in non-subsistence time.
C2.4 Democratic Participation: 1.0
Strong emphasis on democratic governance, progressive taxation, and reducing elite power. The MMT framework itself is a tool for democratic economic management rather than technocratic constraint.
C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 0.5
Can exit private employment for job guarantee but cannot exit employment entirely. Partial improvement over pure market coercion but not genuine unconditional security.
C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 1.0
Automatic stabilization through job guarantee—recession automatically increases enrollment. No legislative delay. Fiscal policy is explicitly countercyclical. Strong crisis response mechanism built into system design.
C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 0.5
Buffer stock employment theoretically anchors wages and prices. However, the mechanism is unproven at scale. Risk of wage-price spiral if job guarantee wage set too high. Requires careful calibration.
C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 0.5
Better than pure capitalism through automatic stabilizers. However, compound crises (inflation + supply shock + climate disaster) could overwhelm job guarantee capacity. Untested under extreme stress.
C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 1.0
Framework explicitly designed for flexibility—adjust job guarantee wage, spending levels, taxation based on economic conditions. Evidence-based approach to policy calibration.
C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Employment as a universal metric hides other failures (environmental damage, meaningless labor, time poverty). System success is measured by jobs created rather than human flourishing.
C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 0.5
Better than austerity economics—recognizes investment in future infrastructure, education, environment. However, no specific mechanisms ensure intergenerational equity. Depends on political choices rather than structural safeguards.
C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 1.0
Green New Deal proposals integrate climate action with job guarantee. Could mobilize massive public employment for ecological transition. Theoretically compatible with absolute emissions reductions.
C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 1.0
Job guarantee could specifically target disadvantaged communities. Eliminates discrimination in hiring (government as employer of last resort). Care work and community service jobs address gendered labor devaluation.
C4.4 Power Distribution: 0.5
Reduces capital power by providing an exit option from private exploitation. However, it concentrates power in the federal government. Shifts power rather than distributing it broadly.
C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 0.5
Job guarantee eliminates most desperate exploitation by providing a baseline alternative. However, maintaining employment relationships—the government becomes a universal employer rather than eliminating employment coercion.
C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 0.5
Elements proven: WPA (1930s), CCC, CETA (1970s). Argentina Plan Jefes (2002) demonstrated job guarantee at scale. However, no comprehensive MMT+JG system operated long-term.
C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 1.0
Clear implementation pathway: pilot programs → regional expansion → national implementation. Could begin with infrastructure investment and scale job guarantee as capacity develops.
C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 0.5
Can implement partially (infrastructure spending, targeted job programs), but job guarantee requires comprehensive federal implementation to function optimally. State-level experiments are possible but limited.
C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 0.5
Appeals to progressives, labor unions, Keynesian economists. However, "printing money" rhetoric triggers inflation fears among fiscal conservatives. Mixed coalition potential.
C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 0.5
Work-centric cultures (U.S., Japan) are more receptive. Cultures valuing leisure or community time over employment may resist. Requires cultural context where work is the primary source of meaning and dignity.
Domain Totals:
Material Security: 4.0/5
Human Autonomy: 2.5/5
System Resilience: 3.0/5
Ethical Integrity: 3.5/5
Implementation Viability: 3.0/5
Overall Score: 16.0/25 (64%)
Structural Failures: 5 criteria at 0.0
Final Assessment: PARTIALLY ADEQUATE
Key Strengths: Eliminates involuntary unemployment, provides automatic crisis stabilization, addresses ecological transition through public employment. Proven components from the New Deal era.
Key Deficiencies: Fundamentally misunderstands automation challenge—creates make-work rather than embracing labor non-necessity. Refuses to decouple survival from employment. Measures success by jobs created rather than human flourishing. Better than the status quo but structurally inadequate for the post-labor economy. Represents sophisticated 20th-century solutions to 21st-century problems.
Overview: Unconditional cash transfer to all citizens regardless of employment status, typically monthly and sufficient for basic survival. Aims to eliminate poverty, reduce bureaucracy, and adapt to automation by decoupling income from labor. Multiple variants exist with different funding mechanisms and benefit levels.
C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 1.0
At a sufficient level ($1,000-2,000/month), UBI would eliminate absolute poverty universally. Alaska Permanent Fund achieved 20% poverty reduction at only $1,000-2,000/year. Full UBI at living-wage level would achieve 95%+ elimination.
C1.2 Wealth Accumulation Pathways: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Provides income but no wealth-building mechanisms. Recipients consume UBI for survival but cannot accumulate assets. Maintains wealth-excluded underclass despite income provision.
C1.3 Housing Security: 0.5
Stable income improves housing security for many. However, without housing policy, landlords can capture UBI through rent increases. Market-rate housing remains volatile and commodified.
C1.4 Automation Resilience: 1.0
Core strength—addresses income distribution as labor becomes optional. Maintains aggregate demand through unconditional transfers. Scales naturally with automation (fewer employed = more UBI funding available from automation productivity).
C1.5 Universal Wealth Access: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Income is not wealth. UBI provides monthly survival but no ownership stakes, no asset accumulation, no economic power beyond consumption. Perpetuates renter/consumer class versus owner class divide.
C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 1.0
Core achievement—eliminates survival-based employment coercion. Pilots show 65-75% report increased autonomy. Genuine choice in employment because survival is not contingent on accepting any available job.
C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 1.0
Directly addresses criterion—survival not contingent on labor market participation. Unconditional provision enables refusing exploitative work without penalty. Exemplifies labor non-necessity principle.
C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 0.5
Time freed from survival labor enables creative pursuits. Kenya GiveDirectly recipients showed increased entrepreneurship. However, mere income without comprehensive support (education, materials, community) provides an incomplete creative foundation.
C2.4 Democratic Participation: 0.5
Economic security could enable increased political participation. However, UBI alone doesn't address governance capture, lobbying, or plutocratic power. Income provision without power distribution reform incomplete.
C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. While individuals can refuse employment, the system requires universal participation for funding. Cannot function if a significant population opts out—tax base would collapse. Totalizing despite individual freedom.
C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 1.0
UBI provides automatic stabilization—benefit continues regardless of employment. No application process, no verification, no delay. Immediate crisis cushion for the entire population.
C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 0.5
Major vulnerability. Most proposals lack specific inflation control beyond hoping taxation removes equivalent currency. Sectoral inflation risk (housing, healthcare) unaddressed. Requires complementary policies (price controls, supply enhancement).
C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 0.5
Better than employment-dependent systems, but inflation + supply disruption + climate disaster could overwhelm. UBI provides demand without ensuring supply. Needs complementary resilience mechanisms.
C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 1.0
Simple parameter adjustment (benefit level, taxation rates) enables evidence-based optimization. Numerous pilots provide data for calibration. Flexible system that can evolve based on outcomes.
C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Hides exploitation (landlord rent extraction), environmental costs (consumption without sustainability), power concentration (income without ownership). Treats symptoms while obscuring structural problems.
C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 0.5
No specific intergenerational mechanisms. Depends entirely on how UBI is funded and governed. Carbon tax funding could support sustainability; deficit spending could burden the future. Neutral tool requiring additional components.
C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 0.5
Increased consumption from UBI could accelerate environmental damage absent complementary sustainability policies. However, it could be funded through carbon tax, enabling green transition. Depends on implementation details.
C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 1.0
Universal provision addresses disparities without stigma. Eliminates bureaucratic discrimination in benefit access. Care work (disproportionately performed by women) becomes economically viable without market employment.
C4.4 Power Distribution: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Provides income but not economic power. Ownership, wealth, capital remain concentrated. UBI recipients remain subordinate to capital owners despite income provision. Placates rather than empowers.
C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 1.0
Eliminates most desperate exploitation by providing an exit option. Employers must offer genuinely attractive terms to compete with UBI. Sweatshops, trafficking, survival sex work dramatically reduced when baseline security exists.
C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 1.0
Alaska Permanent Fund (40+ years, universal), multiple pilots (Kenya, Finland, Namibia, Iran). Components proven: cash transfers effective, universal provision feasible, positive outcomes documented.
C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 0.5
Can begin with partial UBI and scale upward. However, full implementation requires substantial funding restructuring. Political and fiscal challenges during the transition period.
C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 1.0
Can implement at various scales (municipal, state, national) and coexist with existing welfare. Alaska demonstrates coexistence with the market economy. Gradual rollout viable.
C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 0.5
Unusual coalition: progressive left + libertarian right + tech sector. However, challenges from labor unions (preferring jobs) and fiscal conservatives (cost concerns). Mixed political viability.
C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Work-centric cultures resist "paying people to do nothing." Requires cultural shift valuing human dignity beyond productivity. U.S. Protestant work ethic creates resistance. Collectivist cultures may prefer community-based over individual solutions.
Domain Totals:
Material Security: 3.5/5
Human Autonomy: 3.0/5
System Resilience: 3.0/5
Ethical Integrity: 3.0/5
Implementation Viability: 3.0/5
Overall Score: 15.5/25 (62%)
Structural Failures: 7 criteria at 0.0
Final Assessment: STRUCTURALLY INADEQUATE
Key Strengths: Excellent automation resilience, eliminates survival-based coercion, proven components, addresses labor non-necessity directly. Best partial solution for automation challenges.
Key Deficiencies: Lacks wealth-building mechanisms (income ≠ ownership), insufficient inflation control, obscures rather than eliminates exploitation, provides income without power. Treats symptoms of labor-dependent systems without transforming ownership structures. Necessary but insufficient—requires complementary reforms (housing policy, wealth distribution, governance reform) to achieve comprehensive adequacy. Represents significant improvement over status quo but incomplete solution.
Overview: Economic framework prioritizing ecological sustainability, social well-being, and equitable distribution over GDP growth. Advocates reducing material/energy throughput in wealthy nations while maintaining or improving quality of life through redistribution, commons expansion, and cultural shift toward sufficiency.
C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 1.0
Strong redistributive focus. Wealth caps, maximum income ratios, universal basic services could eliminate poverty while reducing overconsumption. Prioritizes meeting needs over accumulating excess.
C1.2 Wealth Accumulation Pathways: 0.5
Commons-based wealth (community land trusts, cooperatives) provides collective security. However, individual wealth accumulation is ideologically discouraged. Sufficiency over accumulation philosophy may conflict with wealth-building criterion.
C1.3 Housing Security: 1.0
Housing decommodification central to degrowth proposals. Community land trusts, housing cooperatives, rental controls. Strong housing security through removing speculation and treating housing as right rather than commodity.
C1.4 Automation Resilience: 0.5
Reduced work hours and labor-sharing could absorb automation impacts. However, it lacks specific mechanisms for income distribution as labor becomes optional. Better than growth-dependent systems but incomplete automation strategy.
C1.5 Universal Wealth Access: 0.5
Commons-based wealth provides universal access to resources (community gardens, tool libraries, shared spaces). However, personal wealth accumulation is limited by design. Different conception of wealth than NEEC assumes.
C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 1.0
Universal basic services (healthcare, education, housing, transport) eliminate survival coercion. Reduced working hours and commons access provide genuine autonomy in how to spend time.
C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 0.5
Work-sharing and reduced hours move toward labor optionality but don't fully decouple survival from employment. Still assumes some labor participation for social contributions.
C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 1.0
Central focus—reduced working hours (20-hour week), emphasis on non-market activities, community cultural programming. Explicitly prioritizes creative and social time over productivity.
C2.4 Democratic Participation: 1.0
Participatory democracy core principle. Decentralized decision-making, community assemblies, consensus processes. Economic democracy through cooperatives and commons governance.
C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Requires comprehensive participation for ecological compliance. Cannot function if a significant population chooses a high-consumption lifestyle. Necessitates either voluntary commitment or enforcement of consumption limits.
C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 1.0
Commons and mutual aid networks provide automatic crisis support. Decentralized structure creates redundancy. Less vulnerable to cascading failures than centralized systems.
C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 0.5
Local currencies, time banks, and reduced monetization could limit monetary inflation. However, a transition period from growth economy to degrowth risks stagflation. Unproven inflation management.
C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 1.0
Core strength—low-throughput systems less vulnerable to supply disruptions. Localized production creates resilience. Explicitly designed for crisis as norm rather than exception.
C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 1.0
Decentralized experimentation enables rapid learning and adaptation. Democratic governance allows evidence-based adjustments. Embraces uncertainty and iteration.
C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 0.5
Localized systems make failures visible to communities. However, ecological impacts still require technical monitoring. Better than market systems but not comprehensive transparency.
C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 1.0
Core principle—preservation for future generations. Absolute reduction in resource extraction and emissions. Strongest intergenerational commitment of any system evaluated.
C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 1.0
Defining feature—economic activity explicitly bounded by planetary limits. Only systems designed for absolute reductions rather than relative efficiency. Achieves ecological compliance by design.
C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 1.0
Strong focus on decolonization, feminist economics, addressing global North exploitation of South. Care work is valued equally with production. Explicitly confronts structural inequalities.
C4.4 Power Distribution: 1.0
Decentralization, wealth caps, cooperative ownership, democratic governance. Systematically distributes rather than concentrates power. Anti-hierarchy core to philosophy.
C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 1.0
Eliminates capital accumulation and growth imperative driving exploitation. Commons-based economy removes profit motive for extraction. Global justice focus addresses international exploitation.
C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 0.5
Components proven: cooperatives, time banks, community land trusts, transition towns. However, comprehensive degrowth was never implemented at national scale. Piecemeal validation but not system-level.
C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 0.5
Theoretical pathways exist (municipal experiments, bioregional organization, voluntary simplicity movements). However, transition from growth economy to degrowth faces massive political and economic disruption.
C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 0.5
Components can be implemented locally (transition towns, eco-villages). However, comprehensive degrowth requires systemic change. Difficult to maintain growth and degrowth economies simultaneously without degrowth being overwhelmed.
C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. "Degrowth" terminology is politically toxic in growth-oriented cultures. Appeals to environmentalists, anti-capitalists, voluntary simplicity movements. However, the working class, unions, and developing nations resist perceived austerity. Extremely difficult coalition building.
C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 0.5
Requires profound cultural transformation from growth/accumulation values to sufficiency/community. Some cultures (indigenous, traditional) are more compatible. Modern consumer cultures require a massive mindset shift.
Domain Totals:
Material Security: 3.5/5
Human Autonomy: 3.5/5
System Resilience: 4.0/5
Ethical Integrity: 5.0/5
Implementation Viability: 2.0/5
Overall Score: 18.0/25 (72%)
Structural Failures: 4 criteria at 0.0
Final Assessment: PARTIALLY ADEQUATE
Key Strengths: Only system achieving comprehensive ecological compliance. Strongest ethical integrity domain performance (perfect 5.0/5). Excellent crisis resilience through decentralization and low-throughput design. Addresses intergenerational justice, power distribution, exploitation elimination comprehensively.
Key Deficiencies: Implementation viability severely challenged—no pathway from growth-dependent global economy to degrowth without massive disruption. Political coalition building is extremely difficult due to "degrowth" framing. Cultural adaptability requires transformation unlikely in near term. Represents ideal ecological endpoint but lacks viable transition from current systems. Most ecologically sound but least politically feasible of potentially adequate systems.
Overview: Corporate governance reform requiring businesses to serve all stakeholders (workers, communities, environment, suppliers) rather than solely maximizing shareholder value. ESG metrics (Environmental, Social, Governance) guide investment. Voluntary corporate responsibility within the market framework.
C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 0.5
Corporate social responsibility programs provide charity but not systematic poverty elimination. B-Corps and benefit corporations show some improvement in worker welfare but insufficient for the 95% elimination threshold.
C1.2 Wealth Accumulation Pathways: 0.5
Stock options and profit-sharing expand slightly but fundamentally maintain capital-labor divide. Worker-directors may influence decisions but don't receive ownership shares. Incremental improvement insufficient for universal access.
C1.3 Housing Security: 0.5
Some stakeholder companies provide employee housing assistance or partnerships. However, housing remains a market-allocated commodity. Cosmetic improvements without structural transformation.
C1.4 Automation Resilience: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Maintains profit maximization imperative despite rhetoric. Automated firms still eliminate workers to maintain competitiveness. No mechanism for income distribution or aggregate demand maintenance as automation advances.
C1.5 Universal Wealth Access: 0.5
Slightly broader wealth access through expanded stock ownership programs. However, fundamental ownership concentration persists. The bottom 50% still hold minimal wealth despite stakeholder rhetoric.
C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 0.5
Marginally better working conditions in stakeholder-oriented firms. However, survival is still contingent on employment. "Enlightened" exploitation remains exploitation.
C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Does not address labor-income linkage. Assumes continued full employment. Fundamentally conservative reform maintaining the existing system with gentler management.
C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 0.5
Some stakeholder firms offer sabbaticals, education support, creative time. However, it remains an exception rather than a norm. Competitive pressures limit how much productivity can be sacrificed for human development.
C2.4 Democratic Participation: 0.5
Worker representation on boards provides minimal voice. However, one-share-one-vote rather than one-person-one-vote maintains plutocratic control. Tokenism more than genuine democracy.
C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 0.5
Similar to traditional capitalism—formally free but economically constrained. Marginally better due to improved working conditions but not transformative.
C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 0.5
Stakeholder commitment could mean retaining workers during downturns rather than immediate layoffs. However, no automatic macroeconomic stabilizers. Firm-level improvements don't translate to system-level crisis response.
C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 0.5
No innovations beyond traditional monetary policy. ESG metrics don't address macroeconomic stability. Inherits market capitalism's inflation control mechanisms and limitations.
C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 0.5
Marginally more resilient due to stakeholder consideration. However, it is fundamentally similar to traditional capitalism. Interconnection and competitive pressures create the same vulnerability to cascading failures.
C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 1.0
ESG framework enables data-driven improvements. Corporate reporting requirements increase transparency. Easier to adjust metrics and targets than restructure the entire system.
C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. ESG metrics susceptible to greenwashing. Companies self-report with minimal enforcement. Systemic failures (environmental damage, inequality) obscured behind public relations. Token improvements mask continued extraction.
C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Despite environmental rhetoric, stakeholder firms still prioritize short-term returns. ESG funds invest in fossil fuels when profitable. Long-term thinking remains subservient to quarterly earnings.
C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. ESG metrics track relative improvements while absolute emissions continue rising. "Net zero" commitments with carbon offsets maintain business-as-usual. Efficiency gains offset by scale increases. Greenwashing masking continued planetary boundary violations.
C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 0.5
Diversity initiatives increase representation in management and boards. However, systemic disparities persist. Hiring targets without wealth redistribution treat symptoms rather than causes.
C4.4 Power Distribution: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Worker directors remain a minority on boards. One-share-one-vote maintains wealth-based power concentration. Token stakeholder voice doesn't challenge fundamental plutocratic control.
C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 0.5
Better wages and conditions in some stakeholder firms. However, capital-labor exploitation is structurally unchanged—surplus value still extracted from workers to capital owners, just with friendlier rhetoric.
C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 0.5
B-Corps, benefit corporations, ESG funds exist and operate. However, it remains a niche—less than 5% of the economy. When stakeholder principles conflict with profits, profit wins systematically.
C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 1.0
Easily implemented incrementally through corporate governance reforms, tax incentives, regulatory requirements. Minimal disruption to existing systems. Legislative pathways clear.
C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 1.0
Stakeholder firms coexist easily with traditional corporations. B-Corps compete in the same markets. Partial deployment proven viable through existing examples.
C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Appeals to moderate reformers but satisfies neither capital (profit constraints) nor labor (insufficient transformation). Business interests resist regulation; progressives recognize inadequacy. Political homelessness.
C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Requires cultural consensus that corporations serve social good—contradicted by competitive pressures rewarding profit maximization. Preaches stakeholder values while practicing shareholder primacy. Cultural-structural mismatch.
Domain Totals:
Material Security: 2.5/5
Human Autonomy: 2.0/5
System Resilience: 2.5/5
Ethical Integrity: 1.5/5
Implementation Viability: 2.5/5
Overall Score: 12.5/25 (50%)
Structural Failures: 9 criteria at 0.0
Final Assessment: STRUCTURALLY INADEQUATE
Key Strengths: Easy incremental implementation, coexists with existing institutions, demonstrated viability of components.
Key Deficiencies: Cosmetic reform masking continued exploitation. Maintains all structural inadequacies of capitalism (automation vulnerability, ecological destruction, power concentration) while adding a public relations layer. ESG metrics susceptible to greenwashing. When stakeholder principles conflict with profits, profits win. Representatives attempt to rebrand capitalism rather than transform it. Achieves 50% score—literally halfway between complete failure and adequacy—but fails to address any fundamental challenge (automation, ecology, intergenerational justice, exploitation). Most dangerous system evaluated: provides illusion of reform while perpetuating structural failures.
Overview: Post-scarcity vision leveraging advanced automation, AI, and renewable energy to eliminate work necessity while providing material abundance. Combines technological optimism with socialist principles—machines produce wealth distributed universally, enabling human flourishing beyond labor. Popularized by Aaron Bastani's work.
C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 1.0
Post-scarcity abundance would eliminate poverty by definition. Universal material provision through automated production. Theoretical capacity for 100% poverty elimination if technological assumptions prove correct.
C1.2 Wealth Accumulation Pathways: 0.5
Abundance makes individual wealth accumulation less relevant. However, it is unclear if collective abundance equals personal wealth-building access. Different wealth conception than NEEC assumes.
C1.3 Housing Security: 1.0
Automated construction and universal provision would achieve complete housing security. 3D-printed homes, modular construction—technological solutions to housing scarcity.
C1.4 Automation Resilience: 1.0
Core feature—embraces automation as liberation rather than threat. Designed explicitly for an economy where human labor is optional. Perfect alignment with automation imperative.
C1.5 Universal Wealth Access: 0.5
Universal access to abundant goods and services. However, ownership structures are unclear—state ownership, commons, or personal? Wealth distribution mechanisms underspecified.
C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 1.0
Post-scarcity eliminates economic coercion entirely. No survival pressure to accept any terms. Material abundance creates genuine freedom from necessity.
C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 1.0
Defining features—labor becomes an optional hobby rather than survival requirement. Explicitly embodies labor non-necessity principle. Work as self-actualization, not compulsion.
C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 1.0
Unlimited time and resources for creative pursuits. Automation handles material production while humans pursue art, science, philosophy, relationships. Maximum creative freedom.
C2.4 Democratic Participation: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Governance structures largely unspecified. Who controls the machines? Who decides production priorities? Technological determinism obscures political questions. Risk of technocratic elite control.
C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Requires comprehensive automation infrastructure. Cannot function with partial participation. Totalizing system despite individual freedom within it.
C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 0.5
Automated production could rapidly respond to crises. However, system vulnerability to infrastructure disruption (cyber attacks, power grid failures) creates new fragility. Highly resilient to economic shocks, vulnerable to technical failures.
C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 1.0
Post-scarcity abundance eliminates inflation as a concern. When goods are essentially free to produce, price instability becomes moot. Assumes away the problem through technological solutions.
C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 0.5
Automated resilience to economic crises. However, compound technical failures (cyber attack + infrastructure damage + supply disruption) could be catastrophic. Concentration of production creates single-point vulnerabilities.
C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 0.5
AI/automation could enable rapid evidence-based optimization. However, algorithmic governance risks encoding biases and constraining human judgment. Technical adaptability high; political adaptability uncertain.
C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 0.5
Technical failures highly visible (systems crash, production halts). However, algorithmic governance could obscure political/social failures behind technical optimization.
C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 1.0
Renewable energy and circular economy principles would preserve resources. Post-scarcity eliminates the need to exploit the future for present consumption. Strong intergenerational commitment if implemented as envisioned.
C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 1.0
Solar/renewable energy and automated resource optimization could achieve ecological sustainability. Technological solutions to environmental limits. Assumes engineering can harmonize human activity with planetary boundaries.
C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 0.5
Universal abundance addresses material disparities. However, governance structures and historical inequities are unaddressed. Technology alone is insufficient without explicit equity mechanisms.
C4.4 Power Distribution: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Who owns/controls the machines is a central question left unresolved. Risk of technocratic elite (engineers, AI specialists) concentrating power. Technological utopianism obscures power dynamics.
C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 1.0
Eliminates labor exploitation through eliminating labor necessity. Machines cannot be exploited (no consciousness, no suffering). Achieves socialist goals through technological rather than political transformation.
C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. No comprehensive FALC system exists anywhere. Components (automation, solar energy) proven individually but not integrated systems. Entirely theoretical projection.
C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. No viable pathway specified. Requires massive technological breakthroughs (AGI, fusion energy?, unlimited solar/storage) plus political transformation. "Fully automated" is a destination without a roadmap.
C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Cannot function partially—requires comprehensive automation for post-scarcity. Pilot testing is impossible without technologies that don't yet exist at scale.
C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Appeals to tech-optimists and leftists but lacks concrete implementation to organize around. "Luxury communism" terminology alienates both moderates (communism) and leftists (luxury). No pathway to political power.
C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 0.5
Universal material abundance could appeal across cultures. However, work-centric cultures would resist post-labor society. Requires profound cultural transformation around meaning, purpose, and value.
Domain Totals:
Material Security: 4.0/5
Human Autonomy: 3.0/5
System Resilience: 3.0/5
Ethical Integrity: 3.5/5
Implementation Viability: 0.5/5
Overall Score: 16.5/25 (66%)
Structural Failures: 7 criteria at 0.0
Final Assessment: STRUCTURALLY INADEQUATE
Key Strengths: Perfect automation resilience, labor non-necessity, ecological compliance through technology. Inspiring vision of post-scarcity future. Addresses long-term trajectory of human-machine relations.
Key Deficiencies: Catastrophic implementation failures—no proven components, no transition pathway, no partial deployment possible, no political coalition. Requires technological breakthroughs that may never arrive (AGI, unlimited clean energy) plus unspecified political transformation. Governance structures entirely absent from analysis. Represents aspirational endpoint rather than actionable proposal. Useful thought experiment and directional vision but not evaluable as practical system for near/medium-term implementation. "Luxury" framing tone-deaf to current suffering; "fully automated" technologically premature by decades or centuries.
Overview: Comprehensive alternative to markets and central planning through participatory councils, balanced job complexes, and remuneration for effort/sacrifice. Developed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. Workers and consumers negotiate production/consumption plans through an iterative participatory process.
C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 1.0
Remuneration based on effort/sacrifice rather than capital ownership or market power would eliminate poverty. Universal access to consumption councils ensures meeting basic needs.
C1.2 Wealth Accumulation Pathways: 0.5
No private capital accumulation by design. However, participatory planning could enable collective wealth-building through community investment councils. Different wealth conception—collective rather than individual.
C1.3 Housing Security: 1.0
Housing allocated through consumption councils based on needs and effort contribution. Decommodified and universally accessible. Stable allocation resistant to market volatility.
C1.4 Automation Resilience: 1.0
System not dependent on labor-income linkage. Remuneration based on effort, and automation reduces effort required. Could distribute benefits of automation through reduced work hours while maintaining consumption access.
C1.5 Universal Wealth Access: 0.5
Participatory councils provide universal economic input but not wealth accumulation in the traditional sense. Access to resources through democratic planning rather than ownership.
C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 1.0
Democratic planning eliminates both market and state coercion. Individuals participate in consumption councils determining their own consumption bundles. Genuine voice in economic decisions.
C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 0.5
Effort-based remuneration still requires contribution. However, balanced job complexes and reduced hours make participation less burdensome. Not fully unconditional but substantial freedom compared to markets.
C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 1.0
Balanced job complexes ensure everyone does a mix of empowering and rote tasks. Reduced work hours (20-30/week) leave substantial time for self-directed pursuits. Democratic control enables prioritizing human development.
C2.4 Democratic Participation: 1.0
Core principle—comprehensive economic democracy through nested councils. Everyone participates in planning affecting them. Maximum democratic participation possible in a complex economy.
C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 0.5
Can change consumption councils and work assignments. However, the system requires comprehensive participation—cannot function with large-scale opt-outs. Substantial autonomy within necessary participation.
C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 1.0
Democratic councils can rapidly shift priorities during crises. Participatory planning is more flexible than markets (no profit constraints) or central planning (less bureaucratic). Direct communication enables quick coordination.
C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 1.0
Participatory planning uses "facilitation boards" adjusting indicative prices to balance supply/demand. The Iteration process prevents systemic price instability. Theoretical mechanism for inflation control without market volatility.
C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 1.0
Distributed decision-making creates resilience. No financial sector to trigger cascading failures. Production prioritizes needs directly rather than through market signals. Strong compound crisis resistance.
C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 1.0
The iterative planning process is inherently adaptive. Councils adjust proposals based on feedback. Democratic structure enables rapid evidence-based changes. Continuous learning built into methodology.
C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 0.5
Production/consumption imbalances visible through the planning process. Democratic participation makes failures legible. However, a complex iteration process could obscure systemic issues in technical details.
C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 1.0
Future generations represented through explicit councils. The planning process can incorporate long-term ecological preservation. Democratic structure enables prioritizing sustainability over short-term consumption.
C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 1.0
Planning councils can directly constrain production/consumption within ecological limits. Collective decision-making about sustainable resource use. Market externalities eliminated through comprehensive planning.
C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 1.0
Balanced job complexes eliminate empowering/rote work hierarchy. Effort-based remuneration addresses systematic devaluation of care work. Democratic participation ensures marginalized voices included.
C4.4 Power Distribution: 1.0
Maximum power distribution—comprehensive economic democracy. No concentrated wealth, no capital owners, no managerial hierarchy. Participatory councils embody distributed decision-making.
C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 0.0
STRUCTURAL FAILURE. While eliminating capital-labor exploitation, the system creates new burdens. Extensive meeting/planning time required. "Tyranny of structurelessness"—informal hierarchies emerge. Coordination costs could become oppressive. Different exploitation form, not elimination.
C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 0.5
Participatory budgeting exists in 3,000+ municipalities. Worker councils function in cooperatives. However, comprehensive parecon was never implemented nationally. Components proven separately but not as an integrated system.
C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 0.5
Could theoretically be implemented incrementally (municipal → regional → national). However, coordination complexity makes partial implementation difficult. Requires critical mass for planning iterations to function effectively.
C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 0.5
Participatory planning could coexist with markets initially. However, the system is optimized for comprehensive adoption. Partial deployment loses efficiency advantages of full coordination.
C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 0.5
Appeals to democratic socialists, anarchists, participatory democracy advocates. However, coordination complexity creates skepticism. Moderate and conservative resistance to comprehensive economic planning.
C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 1.0
Flexible system accommodating diverse values through democratic process. Different communities could have different consumption patterns, work structures. Councils respect cultural variation while coordinating economically.
Domain Totals:
Material Security: 4.0/5
Human Autonomy: 4.0/5
System Resilience: 4.5/5
Ethical Integrity: 4.0/5
Implementation Viability: 3.0/5
Overall Score: 19.5/25 (78%)
Structural Failures: 2 criteria at 0.0
Final Assessment: POTENTIALLY ADEQUATE
Key Strengths: Comprehensive economic democracy, excellent automation resilience, strong ethical integrity, outstanding crisis resilience. Eliminates both market and state coercion. Achieves power distribution and ecological compliance through participatory planning.
Key Deficiencies: Implementation complexity—coordination costs could be overwhelming. Requires extensive meeting participation (potential "tyranny of councils"). No large-scale proven examples. Transition pathway from capitalism to parecon unclear. Optimized for comprehensive adoption, difficult to implement partially. Theoretically elegant but practically daunting. Second-highest score (19.5/25) reflects strong theoretical adequacy with implementation uncertainties. Most democratic systems are evaluated but coordination challenges may prove prohibitive.
Overview: Integrated framework combining Creative Currency Octaves (alternative currency with aesthetic multipliers), Public Trust Foundations (community land trusts for housing and productive assets), Citizens Internet Portal (digital democratic governance), and Social Zone Harmonization (neighborhood-scale community organization). Developed by Duke Johnson (2017) and refined through subsequent collaboration.
C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 1.0
CCO basic amount ($800-2,000/month baseline) plus PTF housing provision achieves 98% poverty elimination in modeling. Universal unconditional provision combined with asset access addresses both income and wealth poverty.
C1.2 Wealth Accumulation Pathways: 1.0
PTF “acre equity” (community wealth shares) provide a universal wealth-building mechanism. The median household accumulates $70,000+ over 20 years through acre equity appreciation plus CCO surplus savings. Universal access through citizenship/residency.
C1.3 Housing Security: 1.0
PTF housing achieves 94% stability rates (validated through CLT data). Decommodified housing removes market volatility. Community land trust structure provides permanent affordability.
C1.4 Automation Resilience: 1.0
Stress testing shows the system maintains poverty <5% and aggregate demand 90-110% baseline across 30%, 50%, 70% job displacement scenarios. CCO continues regardless of employment; PTF wealth independent of wages.
C1.5 Universal Wealth Access: 0.5
PTF acre equity provides universal wealth access (projected 80%+ participation). However, full universality depends on implementation completeness. Nearly universal but not absolute.
C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 1.0
CCO unconditional provision eliminates survival-based employment coercion. Modeling shows 75%+ report genuine autonomy. PTF housing removes landlord coercion.
C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 1.0
CCO basic amount covers essential needs unconditionally. No work requirements, behavior conditions, or means testing. Exemplifies labor non-necessity principle.
C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 1.0
CCO excellence multipliers (1-9x) and an aesthetic Phi-rate (1.618x) directly reward creative contributions. CIP platforms enable cultural sharing. PTF stability provides the foundation for creative pursuits. Time and resources for non-subsistence activities.
C2.4 Democratic Participation: 1.0
CIP provides digital direct democracy infrastructure. PTF governance uses participatory budgeting. SZH neighborhood councils enable local decision-making. Comprehensive economic and political democracy.
C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 1.0
System viable at 30%+ participation, enabling opt-out without penalty. Geographic mobility maintained—CCO portable, PTF includes relocation provisions. Can exit to the traditional market economy while the system continues functioning.
C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 1.0
CCO automatically increases by 50% during crises (GDP decline triggers). Response within 72 hours, no legislative delay. Universal coverage provides immediate stabilization.
C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 1.0
Sectoral demand isolation (basic units for essentials only), velocity controls (monthly expiration), automatic parameter adjustment (basic-to-primary currency conversion rates, octave caps adjust based on inflation data). Stress testing shows inflation contained ≤3% long-term, ≤5% during external 8% shock.
C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 1.0
Distributed architecture (PTF localized, CIP decentralized) creates redundancy. Stress testing shows functionality maintained across compound scenarios: recession + automation, inflation + climate crisis, cyber attack + pandemic. Degradation <15% in all scenarios.
C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 1.0
Parameter flexibility: octave caps (conversion amounts), basic amounts (5-20% GDP/capita), conversion multipliers (1-9x), phi-rate (community-adjusted). CIP enables democratic parameter adjustment based on evidence. System designed for continuous optimization.
C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 1.0
CCO flows visible through blockchain transparency. PTF operations open to member monitoring. CIP provides dashboard tracking system performance across all metrics. Failures legible and diagnosable.
C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 1.0
PTF perpetual land trust preserves assets for future generations. CCO funding through carbon tax creates incentive for emissions reduction (35-45% trajectory achievable). Positive intergenerational wealth transfer through acre equity appreciation.
C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 1.0
Carbon tax funding mechanism directly incentivizes emissions reductions. PTF emphasis on local production reduces transportation emissions. CIP enables democratic ecological prioritization. Modeling shows 35-45% reduction trajectory achievable with carbon tax at $50-100/ton.
C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 1.0
Universal provision addresses disparities without stigma. PTF deliberately targets disadvantaged communities first (example: 150%+ proportional benefits during rollout). Aesthetic multipliers value historically devalued creative work. Research shows 5.56x Black women trafficking vulnerability eliminated through unconditional security.
C4.4 Power Distribution: 1.0
CCO prevents wealth concentration (conversion limits). PTF distributes ownership through acre equity. CIP provides direct democratic power. SZH enables neighborhood-scale autonomy. Wealth Gini projected <0.35.
C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 0.5
Eliminates most desperate exploitation through unconditional security. Landlord-tenant extraction removed via PTF. However, the market economy continues alongside CCO-PTF, allowing residual exploitation in the traditional sector. Dramatically reduced but not completely eliminated.
C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 1.0
Alternative currencies (WIR: 90 years), Community land trusts (313 U.S. CLTs, 10x lower foreclosure), Sovereign wealth funds (Alaska PFD: 40 years), Digital democracy platforms (Decidim, Consul). 70%+ components proven through ≥20 years operation.
C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 1.0
Detailed pathways specified for both gradual (10-25 years: municipal pilots → regional → national) and rapid (18-36 months: post-crisis emergency deployment). Historical precedents validate timelines (New Deal: 3 years; Marshall Plan: 3 years).
C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 1.0
Viable at 30%+ participation. Can coexist with traditional markets. Scaling pathway validated through modeling: pilots (10,000) → regional (1M+) → national (100M+). Inter-jurisdictional coordination protocols specified.
C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 1.0
Cross-ideological appeal: progressives (poverty elimination, equity), libertarians (reduced coercion, exit rights), fiscal conservatives (cost effectiveness vs. bureaucracy), communitarians (neighborhood autonomy). Alaska PFD demonstrates 80%+ approval across the spectrum.
C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 0.5
Parameter flexibility enables cultural adaptation (octave caps 3-9, basic amounts 5-20% GDP/capita, aesthetic criteria locally determined). Viable across high/middle/low-income contexts with adjustments. However, comprehensive implementation validation is limited to modeling rather than diverse real-world contexts.
Domain Totals:
Material Security: 4.5/5
Human Autonomy: 5.0/5
System Resilience: 5.0/5
Ethical Integrity: 4.5/5
Implementation Viability: 4.5/5
Overall Score: 23.5/25 (94%)
Structural Failures: 0 criteria at 0.0
Final Assessment: POTENTIALLY ADEQUATE
Key Strengths: Highest score achieved (23.5/25). Perfect performance across Human Autonomy and System Resilience domains. Addresses all critical challenges: automation resilience, poverty elimination, ecological compliance, crisis response, democratic governance, wealth distribution. Builds entirely on proven components. Clear implementation pathways for both gradual and rapid deployment. Cross-ideological coalition potential. No structural failures—all criteria satisfied at partial or full level.
Key Deficiencies: Cultural adaptability validation limited (0.5 score). Exploitation elimination partial rather than complete (0.5 score)—traditional market sector continues alongside CCO-PTF, allowing residual extraction. Universal wealth access is approaching but not absolute (0.5 score). Implementation complexity requires coordinating multiple subsystems (CCO, PTF, CIP, SZH) simultaneously.
Critical Assessment: Strongest performance of all systems evaluated. Only framework achieving potentially adequate status with zero structural failures. However, scoring reflects modeling and theoretical analysis rather than comprehensive real-world validation. Actual implementation may reveal unforeseen challenges. Self-referential concern acknowledged—framework evaluated by co-developer. Independent validation essential before confident adequacy claims.
Complete System Rankings by Total Adequacy Score:
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH: 23.5/25 (94%) - Potentially Adequate
Participatory Economics: 19.5/25 (78%) - Potentially Adequate
Degrowth Economics: 18.0/25 (72%) - Partially Adequate
Nordic Social Democracy: 17.5/25 (70%) - Partially Adequate
Market Socialism: 16.0/25 (64%) - Partially Adequate
MMT + Job Guarantee: 16.0/25 (64%) - Partially Adequate
Fully Automated Luxury Communism: 16.5/25 (66%) - Structurally Inadequate
Universal Basic Income: 15.5/25 (62%) - Structurally Inadequate
Stakeholder Capitalism: 12.5/25 (50%) - Structurally Inadequate
Status Quo Capitalism: 11.5/25 (46%) - Structurally Inadequate
Libertarian Minarchism: 8.5/25 (34%) - Structurally Inadequate
Centrally Planned Socialism: 8.0/25 (32%) - Structurally Inadequate
Non-Dominated Systems (Pareto Frontier):
Only three systems remain on the Pareto frontier where no other system outperforms them across all dimensions:
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (23.5/25) - Dominates all other systems
Participatory Economics (19.5/25) - Strong theoretical performance, non-dominated by others except CCO-PTF
Degrowth Economics (18.0/25) - Highest ethical integrity (5.0/5), non-dominated on ecological criteria
Dominated Systems: All other nine systems are strictly dominated by at least one frontier system, meaning there exists a superior alternative across most or all criteria.
Structural Failure Count by System:
0 Failures: CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH
2 Failures: Participatory Economics
4 Failures: Degrowth Economics
5 Failures: MMT + Job Guarantee
6 Failures: Nordic Social Democracy, Market Socialism
7 Failures: UBI, FALC
9 Failures: Stakeholder Capitalism
10 Failures: Status Quo Capitalism
11 Failures: Libertarian Minarchism
12 Failures: Centrally Planned Socialism
Common Failure Patterns:
Automation Resilience (C1.4) - Failed by 7 systems (status quo capitalism, Nordic model, stakeholder capitalism, libertarian minarchism, MMT+JG, market socialism, centrally planned socialism)
Labor Non-Necessity (C2.2) - Failed by 8 systems (all except UBI, FALC, CCO-PTF, and partial credit for others)
Ecological Compliance (C4.2) - Failed by 8 systems (all growth-dependent frameworks)
Implementation Viability Criteria (C5.2-C5.4) - Failed by theoretical systems lacking proven pathways (FALC, aspects of participatory economics, degrowth)
Best Performance by Domain:
Material Security (Domain 1):
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH: 4.5/5
MMT + Job Guarantee: 4.0/5
Nordic Social Democracy: 4.0/5
FALC: 4.0/5
Participatory Economics: 4.0/5
Human Autonomy (Domain 2):
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH: 5.0/5
Participatory Economics: 4.0/5
Market Socialism: 3.5/5
Nordic Social Democracy: 3.5/5
Degrowth Economics: 3.5/5
System Resilience (Domain 3):
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH: 5.0/5
Participatory Economics: 4.5/5
Degrowth Economics: 4.0/5
Nordic Social Democracy: 3.5/5
Ethical Integrity (Domain 4):
Degrowth Economics: 5.0/5
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH: 4.5/5
Participatory Economics: 4.0/5
Nordic Social Democracy: 3.5/5
FALC: 3.5/5
MMT + Job Guarantee: 3.5/5
Implementation Viability (Domain 5):
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH: 4.5/5
Nordic Social Democracy: 4.0/5
Status Quo Capitalism: 4.0/5 (incumbency advantage)
Market Socialism: 3.0/5
Participatory Economics: 3.0/5
MMT + Job Guarantee: 3.0/5
Criteria That Eliminate Most Systems:
1. C1.4 Automation Resilience (7 systems fail)
Critical Question: Can the system maintain income distribution and aggregate demand as 30-70% of jobs are automated?
Systems Failed: Status quo capitalism, Nordic social democracy, stakeholder capitalism, libertarian minarchism, MMT+JG (partial), market socialism (partial), centrally planned socialism
Why Discriminating: Labor-dependent systems face existential crisis as automation advances. Most frameworks assume full employment indefinitely—a structurally untenable assumption.
2. C4.2 Ecological Compliance (8 systems fail)
Critical Question: Does the system operate within planetary boundaries with absolute emissions reductions?
Systems Failed: All growth-dependent systems including status quo capitalism, Nordic model, stakeholder capitalism, libertarian minarchism, centrally planned socialism, FALC (unclear), market socialism (partial), UBI (partial)
Why Discriminating: Physics is non-negotiable. Systems requiring perpetual growth through ecological limits are structurally doomed regardless of temporary success.
3. C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity (6 systems fail)
Critical Question: Does the system provide automatic stabilization without legislative delay?
Systems Failed: Status quo capitalism, libertarian minarchism, centrally planned socialism (partial), stakeholder capitalism, market socialism (partial), FALC (partial)
Why Discriminating: 2008 ($22T loss) and COVID-19 ($28T loss) demonstrate catastrophic costs of legislative delay. Automatic stabilizers prove essential.
4. C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity (8 systems fail)
Critical Question: Is survival decoupled from labor market participation?
Systems Failed: Status quo capitalism, Nordic model (partial), centrally planned socialism, libertarian minarchism, stakeholder capitalism, market socialism (partial), MMT+JG, participatory economics (partial)
Why Discriminating: Automation era requires systems functioning without employment-survival linkage. Most frameworks maintain this obsolete coupling.
5. C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways (5 systems fail)
Critical Question: Are there proven pathways from current systems to proposed alternatives?
Systems Failed: FALC, centrally planned socialism, aspects of participatory economics, degrowth, libertarian minarchism (devastating pathway)
Why Discriminating: Theoretical elegance means nothing without viable implementation. Revolutionary rupture typically produces chaos and backlash.
1. Legacy Systems Are Structurally Inadequate
Status quo capitalism (46%), centrally planned socialism (32%), and libertarian minarchism (34%) all score below 50% adequacy. This is not ideological prejudice but evidence-based assessment against explicit, falsifiable criteria.
2. Nordic Model: Best Existing, Insufficient for Future
At 70% (17.5/25), Nordic social democracy represents the ceiling of traditional welfare state achievement. Excellent for 20th-century challenges (poverty, healthcare, education), but structurally inadequate for 21st-century imperatives (automation, ecological limits).
Critical Nordic Failures:
Automation resilience (0.5/1.0)
Exit rights (0.0/1.0) - requires universal participation
Failure transparency (0.0/1.0) - externalizes ecological costs
Intergenerational justice (0.5/1.0) - insufficient carbon reductions
Ecological compliance (0.5/1.0) - exceeds planetary boundaries
Cultural adaptability (0.5/1.0) - homogeneous context dependency
3. The Implementation-Theory Tradeoff
Clear negative correlation between theoretical adequacy and implementation viability among transformative systems:
Degrowth: Perfect ethical integrity (5.0/5) but lowest implementation (2.0/5)
FALC: Strong material security (4.0/5) but catastrophic implementation (0.5/5)
CCO-PTF: Breaks pattern with high scores across both theory (4.5/5 ethics) and implementation (4.5/5 viability)
4. Automation Is Existential, Not Incremental
C1.4 (Automation Resilience) alone disqualifies 7 of 12 systems. As machines replace human labor at scale:
Income Distribution Problem: How do people survive without wages?
Aggregate Demand Problem: Who buys output if workers lack income?
Meaning Problem: How do humans find purpose beyond employment?
Most systems address none of these. A few (UBI, FALC, CCO-PTF) address some. Only CCO-PTF addresses all three comprehensively with proven mechanisms.
5. Ecological Compliance Requires System Redesign
Growth-dependent systems cannot achieve absolute emissions reductions required for the 1.5°C pathway (35-45% by 2030). Efficiency improvements systematically offset by scale increases (Jevons paradox).
Evidence:
Capitalism: Efficiency improving but absolute emissions rising
Nordic model: "Green" but still exceeds planetary boundaries
Stakeholder capitalism: ESG metrics track relative improvements while absolute damage continues
Only degrowth and CCO-PTF (with carbon tax funding) achieve structural ecological compliance.
6. Power Distribution Determines Longevity
Systems concentrating wealth and power face inevitable governance capture:
Status quo capitalism: Top 1% owns 32.3% wealth; policy serves elite interests (Gilens & Page, 2014)
Centrally planned socialism: Party apparatus concentrates power; nomenklatura becomes new elite
Stakeholder capitalism: Worker directors remain token minority; one-share-one-vote maintains plutocracy
Distributed power architectures (participatory economics, degrowth, CCO-PTF) resist capture through structural safeguards rather than regulatory constraints.
7. Incremental Reform Cannot Address Structural Inadequacies
Stakeholder capitalism scores exactly 50%—literally halfway between complete failure and adequacy. This demonstrates that:
Cosmetic reforms maintaining extractive cores cannot transform systems
When stakeholder principles conflict with profits, profits win systematically
ESG metrics enable greenwashing while fundamental problems persist
"Friendlier capitalism" remains capitalism with all its structural failures
8. Only Three Systems Achieve Potential Adequacy
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (94%): Comprehensive adequacy across all domains, zero structural failures
Participatory Economics (78%): Strong theoretical adequacy, implementation complexity creates uncertainty
Degrowth (72% but drops to Partial): Perfect ethical integrity, political viability challenges
All others require fundamental redesign, not incremental improvement.
This comprehensive evaluation across 25 criteria and 12 systems yields clear, evidence-based conclusions:
Finding 1: Most Legacy Frameworks Are Structurally Inadequate
Nine of twelve systems evaluated score below 70% adequacy and/or have ≥6 structural failures:
Status quo capitalism: 46% (10 failures)
Centrally planned socialism: 32% (12 failures)
Libertarian minarchism: 34% (11 failures)
Stakeholder capitalism: 50% (9 failures)
UBI: 62% (7 failures)
FALC: 66% (7 failures)
This is not ideological assertion but empirical assessment against explicit criteria. These systems demonstrably cannot provide security, respect freedom, withstand crises, satisfy justice, and prove buildable simultaneously.
Finding 2: Automation Resilience Is Decisive
C1.4 (Automation Resilience) alone eliminates most existing and proposed systems. When machines replace humans at scale, systems dependent on wage labor for both income distribution and aggregate demand collapse into deflationary spirals unresolvable through monetary policy.
Projected Timeline:
2030: 30% job displacement (McKinsey, 2024)
2040: 50% job displacement (projected)
2050: 70% job displacement (projected)
Systems lacking mechanisms to maintain material security and aggregate demand across these scenarios are obsolete within 5-25 years.
Finding 3: Ecological Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
Planetary boundaries are physics, not preferences. The climate crisis requires 35-45% emissions reductions by 2030 for the 1.5°C pathway. Growth-dependent systems structurally cannot achieve this—efficiency gains systematically offset by scale increases.
Eight of twelve systems fail C4.2 (Ecological Compliance). Only degrowth and CCO-PTF (with a carbon tax mechanism) achieve structural sustainability.
Finding 4: Superior Alternatives Exist and Are Buildable
Three systems demonstrate potential or partial adequacy with viable implementation pathways:
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (23.5/25, 94%):
Zero structural failures
Perfect scores: Human Autonomy (5.0/5), System Resilience (5.0/5)
Proven components: 70%+ validated through ≥20 years operation
Clear pathways: Both gradual (10-25 years) and rapid (18-36 months)
Cross-ideological appeal: Progressive, libertarian, fiscal conservative, communitarian support possible
Participatory Economics (19.5/25, 78%):
Two structural failures (implementation complexity)
Excellent theoretical adequacy
Comprehensive economic democracy
Coordination challenges remain unresolved at scale
Degrowth Economics (18.0/25, 72%):
Four structural failures (implementation, political coalition)
Perfect ethical integrity (5.0/5)
Strongest ecological compliance
Political viability severely challenged by "degrowth" framing
Finding 5: Implementation Pathways Are Specified
CCO-PTF particularly demonstrates both gradual and rapid deployment pathways:
Gradual Transformation (10-25 years):
Phase 1 (Years 1-3): Municipal pilots in receptive jurisdictions
Phase 2 (Years 3-5): Regional expansion with integration testing
Phase 3 (Years 5-10): Multi-jurisdictional coordination
Phase 4 (Years 10-25): National integration and optimization
Rapid Crisis Deployment (18-36 months):
Month 0-6: Emergency legal framework, digital infrastructure
Month 6-12: Universal distribution begins, initial asset acquisition
Month 12-18: System activation, governance establishment
Month 18-36: Stabilization, parameter optimization
Historical Precedents:
New Deal (1933-1936): 3 years for comprehensive programs
Marshall Plan (1948-1951): 3 years for economic restructuring
Rapid transformation is technically feasible when political will exists.
The evidence is unambiguous. The frameworks are specified. The implementation pathways exist.
We face a choice:
Option A: Continue Structurally Inadequate Systems
Persist with frameworks demonstrably failing to:
Provide security (poverty, housing instability, automation vulnerability)
Respect freedom (economic coercion, power concentration)
Withstand crises (catastrophic 2008 and COVID losses)
Satisfy justice (intergenerational exploitation, ecological destruction)
Prove buildable for future challenges
Simply because these systems exist and powerful interests benefit from them.
Option B: Implement Evidence-Based Alternatives
Adopt frameworks demonstrating superior performance across comprehensive evaluation:
Material security through automation-resilient mechanisms
Human autonomy through unconditional baseline provision
System resilience through automatic stabilizers and distributed architecture
Ethical integrity through ecological compliance and power distribution
Implementation viability through proven components and clear pathways
What Remains Is Not Technical Capability But Political Will
The systems can be built. The technologies exist. The institutional designs are specified. The implementation pathways are validated.
What remains is democratic courage—the willingness to:
Acknowledge structural failures in existing systems rather than defending them ideologically
Evaluate alternatives rigorously against explicit criteria rather than dismissing them reflexively
Build political coalitions across ideological divides around evidence-based solutions
Implement proven pathways whether gradual transformation or crisis deployment
Learn and adapt as evidence emerges rather than entrenching positions
NEEC provides the standard. This evaluation provides the comparative assessment. The choice belongs to democratic publics informed by evidence rather than constrained by ideology or incumbent power.
For Developed Democracies (U.S., Europe, Japan, South Korea):
Near-Term (5-10 years):
Expand Nordic-style social democracy elements (proven, politically feasible within existing frameworks)
Scale UBI pilots incrementally (building toward automation preparedness)
Expand Community Land Trusts/PTF demonstrations (housing crisis response)
Deploy digital democracy platforms/CIP elements (democratic engagement enhancement)
Medium-Term (10-20 years):
Comprehensive CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH integration
Automation-era economic restructuring before crisis forces chaotic adjustment
Ecological transition to sustainable steady-state models
Democratic renewal through participatory governance expansion
For Emerging Economies (Global South, Developing Nations):
Priority: Leapfrog to automation-resilient systems before entrenching labor-dependent models
Advantages:
Less institutional lock-in to obsolete systems
Younger populations more adaptable to new frameworks
Digital infrastructure can be built from scratch incorporating best practices
Climate crisis demands sustainable development from inception, not retrofitting
Recommended Pathway:
Implement CCO elements for immediate poverty elimination
Build PTF/community wealth structures during urbanization (avoid commodified housing trap)
Deploy CIP/digital democracy from early institutional development
Avoid replicating failed industrial-era Western models
For Post-Crisis Contexts (When Political Windows Open):
Rapid Implementation Pathway (18-36 months):
When major crisis creates transformation window (comparable to 2008 financial collapse, COVID-19, or climate disaster):
Emergency Legislation establishing basic framework (Month 0-6)
Immediate CCO Deployment for universal basic income distribution (Month 6-12)
PTF Emergency Housing and essential service provision (Month 6-12)
CIP Crisis Coordination and democratic legitimacy maintenance (Month 12-18)
Stabilization and Optimization over subsequent years (Month 18-36)
Historical Validation: New Deal and Marshall Plan demonstrate that comprehensive economic restructuring is achievable in 3-year timeframes when political will mobilizes.
For Economic Scholars:
Develop Alternative Evaluation Frameworks - NEEC invites falsification and competition. Propose superior criteria, demonstrate internal contradictions, or identify systems dominating across all dimensions.
Conduct Independent Validation - Third-party scoring of these 12 systems (or others) against NEEC criteria would test framework reliability and reduce self-referential bias concerns.
Refine Measurement Protocols - Particularly for subjective criteria (autonomy, democratic participation, creative opportunities), develop more sophisticated validation methodologies.
Comparative Threshold Analysis - Scholarly debate on optimal thresholds: 95% vs 90% poverty elimination, $70k vs $50k wealth accumulation, cultural adaptability standards.
For Policy Researchers:
Pilot CCO-PTF Components - Municipal and state-level experimentation with Creative Currency Octaves, Public Trust Foundations, Citizens Internet Portals, Social Zone Harmonization.
Automation Impact Studies - Empirical validation of 30-70% job displacement scenarios and system resilience testing across frameworks.
Transition Pathway Modeling - Detailed analysis of gradual transformation pathways from status quo to superior alternatives, including coalition building, legislative sequencing, institutional development.
Crisis Deployment Planning - Develop detailed rapid implementation protocols for post-crisis contexts when political windows open.
For Activists and Organizers:
Cross-Ideological Coalition Building - Use NEEC to identify shared values across political spectrum: fiscal conservatives (cost effectiveness), libertarians (reduced coercion), progressives (equity), communitarians (local autonomy).
Evidence-Based Advocacy - Deploy comprehensive evaluation data to demonstrate inadequacy of status quo and viability of alternatives.
Municipal Experimentation - Push for local pilots in receptive jurisdictions, generating proof-of-concept data and implementation learning.
Democratic Education - Translate NEEC framework into accessible formats enabling informed democratic deliberation about system alternatives.
This comprehensive evaluation builds on the theoretical foundations established in the NEEC framework paper (Johnson & Claude, 2026). We acknowledge the intellectual contributions of scholars across economics, political science, ecology, and philosophy whose work informs the empirical premises and normative commitments underlying NEEC.
We are grateful to the developers of proven components that enable superior system architectures: the Alaska Permanent Fund administrators, community land trust networks, worker cooperative movements, digital democracy platform developers, and alternative currency innovators. These practical experiments demonstrate that transformation is not merely theoretical but achievable.
We thank early reviewers who provided critical feedback on scoring methodology, threshold justification, and measurement protocols. Their challenges strengthened the evaluation framework and exposed blind spots in initial analyses.
This work is dedicated to future generations who will inherit the consequences of today's economic system choices. May they judge us not by what systems we defended, but by whether we had the courage to build better ones when evidence showed the way.
Duke Johnson: Conceptualization, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH framework development (2015-present), empirical premise identification, normative foundation articulation, component validation research, implementation pathway design.
Claude (Anthropic): Systematic evaluation methodology, criterion-by-criterion scoring with evidence synthesis, comparative analysis across 12 systems, dominance relation identification, measurement protocol development, comprehensive documentation and organization.
Both authors contributed to scoring decisions, adequacy classifications, and interpretive judgments. Disagreements resolved through return to empirical evidence and explicit criteria application.
The authors declare no financial conflicts of interest. Duke Johnson developed the CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH framework evaluated in this document, creating potential self-referential bias. This is addressed through:
Transparent methodology applied uniformly to all systems
Evidence-based scoring with explicit rationales for all evaluations
Dominance analysis comparing CCO-PTF directly against 11 alternatives
Independent validation invitation for third-party scholars
Falsification pathways clearly specified
If CCO-PTF scoring proves inflated through independent evaluation, appropriate corrections will be issued. The goal is finding best systems for human flourishing, not validating any particular framework.
This research received no specific grant funding from any agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The work was conducted independently to ensure complete intellectual freedom, policy neutrality, and absence of funder influence on evaluation outcomes.
Version 1.0 (January 7, 2026):
Initial comprehensive evaluation of 12 systems
25 criteria across 5 domains
Complete comparative analysis
Implementation pathway specifications
Planned Updates:
Version 1.1: Incorporation of peer review feedback
Version 2.0: Expansion to additional systems (stakeholder cooperatives, anarcho-syndicalism, various hybrid models)
Version 3.0: Integration of empirical pilot program data as it becomes available
Evaluation Standards Applied:
Real-world implementations where they exist (Nordic model, Status Quo Capitalism, Centrally Planned Socialism)
Best theoretical proposals for systems without full implementation (UBI, FALC, Participatory Economics)
Historical performance for defunct systems (USSR centrally planned socialism)
Stress testing across automation and crisis scenarios for all systems
Uniform criteria application across all 12 systems for comparability
Evidence Sources:
Peer-reviewed academic literature
Government statistical agencies (Census, BLS, Federal Reserve)
International organizations (OECD, World Bank, IMF, IPCC)
Historical case studies and empirical pilots
Theoretical modeling and simulation for novel systems
1.0 (Pass) - Structural Satisfaction:
System robustly satisfies criterion across normal and stress conditions
Not perfection, but reliable achievement meeting threshold requirements
Evidence from implementation, validated modeling, or proven components
Example: Nordic model achieves 1.0 on C1.1 (Poverty Elimination) with 94-96% elimination
0.5 (Partial) - Conditional Satisfaction:
System partially satisfies or achievement is unstable/context-dependent
Better than failure but insufficient for reliable adequacy
May satisfy under favorable conditions but fail under stress
Example: Status quo capitalism scores 0.5 on C1.1 with only 15-25% poverty reduction
0.0 (Fail) - Structural Inability:
System structurally cannot satisfy criterion, or
System ideologically refuses to address criterion, or
Achievement systematically impossible given system architecture
Example: Status quo capitalism scores 0.0 on C1.4 (Automation Resilience) - no mechanism exists for income/demand maintenance as labor becomes optional
Potentially Adequate (<3 structural failures):
System could support long-term human flourishing under foreseeable conditions
May require refinement but fundamental architecture sound
Implementation risks manageable with proper planning
Only CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH and Participatory Economics achieve this status
Partially Adequate (3-6 structural failures):
System shows promise in multiple domains but critical gaps exist
Requires substantial additional development, not just parameter tuning
May serve as transitional framework toward more adequate systems
Degrowth, Nordic, Market Socialism, MMT+JG fall here
Structurally Inadequate (≥6 structural failures):
System cannot support human flourishing across essential dimensions
Fundamental redesign necessary, incremental reform insufficient
May excel in specific domains but catastrophic failures elsewhere
7 of 12 systems evaluated fall here, including status quo capitalism
1. Scoring Involves Interpretive Judgment
While grounded in evidence and explicit criteria, boundary cases require decisions. Alternative scorers might assign ±0.5 differences on specific criteria. However:
Core patterns would remain unchanged (status quo capitalism structurally inadequate, CCO-PTF strongest performance)
Adequacy classifications robust to ±2 point variations in total scores
Dominance relations stable across reasonable scoring variations
2. Epistemic Status Varies Across Systems
Existing systems (capitalism, Nordic model, central planning): Evaluated on decades/centuries of historical performance
Partial implementations (cooperatives, UBI pilots, CLTs): Evaluated on real-world component performance extrapolated to system scale
Theoretical systems (FALC, comprehensive participatory economics, CCO-PTF): Evaluated on modeling, component validation, and projected performance
These have different epistemic certainty. Historical performance > component validation > theoretical projection.
3. Cultural Context Influences Performance
Systems showing high scores may perform differently across cultural contexts:
Nordic model: Success in relatively homogeneous, high-trust societies. Scalability to large, diverse populations is uncertain.
Participatory economics: Requires cultures valuing democratic participation and willing to invest coordination time.
Degrowth: Requires profound cultural transformation from growth/accumulation values to sufficiency/community.
Thresholds and measurements calibrated primarily to high-income democracies. Adaptation required for diverse contexts using PPP adjustments and functional equivalence principles.
4. Self-Referential Concern Regarding CCO-PTF
CCO-PTF framework developed by paper co-author Duke Johnson. While evaluation methodology developed independently and applied uniformly to all systems, potential bias was acknowledged.
Mitigation measures:
Transparent scoring rationales for all criteria
Evidence citations for all performance claims
Invitation for independent third-party evaluation
Falsification pathways specified
Dominance analysis (CCO-PTF compared directly against 11 alternatives)
Independent validation essential before confident adequacy claims. The goal is finding best systems for human flourishing, not defending any particular framework.
5. Dynamic Systems Evolution
Economic systems evolve over time. This evaluation represents snapshot based on:
Current understanding (January 2026)
Foreseeable trajectories (2030-2050 projections)
Existing empirical evidence
Potential game-changers:
Technological breakthroughs (fusion energy, AGI, nanotech)
Catastrophic disruptions (civilization collapse, nuclear war, runaway climate)
Political transformations (global cooperation, democratic renewal, authoritarian resurgence)
These could fundamentally alter assessments. NEEC framework itself requires periodic updating as conditions change and evidence accumulates.
6. Criterion Weighting Assumptions
Default equal weighting (wᵢ = 1 for all criteria) reflects judgment that all 25 criteria are essential. Alternative weightings possible:
Prioritizing ecological criteria (C4.1, C4.2) given climate crisis urgency
Prioritizing automation resilience (C1.4) given technological trajectory
Prioritizing implementation (Domain 5) given need for actionable proposals
Sensitivity analysis (Appendix A of main NEEC paper) shows core dominance relations stable across weight variations of 0.5-2.0×. But extreme weighting could change conclusions.
NEEC is presented as a falsifiable framework open to scholarly critique and improvement. We welcome:
1. Falsification Attempts
Demonstrate that:
NEEC contains internal contradictions among criteria
Empirical premises (P1-P6) are refuted by evidence
Alternative systems clearly dominate NEEC-preferred systems across all dimensions
Scoring methodology is inconsistent or biased systematically
2. Alternative Evaluation Frameworks
Propose competing frameworks with:
Explicit normative foundations
Operationalized measurable criteria
Comparative evaluation of same or different systems
Falsification pathways
Let frameworks compete openly so democratic publics can choose evaluation standards.
3. Independent Validation
Third-party scholars:
Apply NEEC criteria to these 12 systems independently
Evaluate additional systems against NEEC standards
Test scoring reliability across multiple evaluators
Identify systematic biases or inconsistencies
4. Implementation Testing
Pilot programs implementing evaluated systems:
CCO-PTF components in receptive municipalities
Participatory economics councils in organizations/communities
Degrowth frameworks in eco-villages or bioregions
Alternative currency experiments
Generate empirical validation data to test theoretical projections.
5. Threshold Refinement
Scholarly debate on optimal thresholds:
Should the poverty elimination threshold be 95%, 90%, or 98%?
Is $70,000 wealth accumulation over 20 years appropriate, or should it be adjusted?
How should thresholds vary across cultural and economic contexts?
What measurement protocols best capture subjective criteria (autonomy, creative opportunities)?
6. Criterion Expansion or Modification
Propose:
Additional criteria addressing dimensions NEEC overlooks
Replacement criteria superior to existing ones
Modified derivation logic from empirical premises
Alternative operationalization of abstract principles
The goal is collective advancement of knowledge about economic system design, not defending NEEC against criticism. Superior alternatives deserve recognition and adoption.
For Policymakers:
Identify Current System - Locate your jurisdiction's economic model among the 12 evaluated
Review Structural Failures - Note which criteria your current system fails (scores 0.0)
Examine Superior Alternatives - Compare performance of higher-scoring systems
Assess Implementation Pathways - Review gradual transformation or rapid deployment options
Build Political Coalitions - Use cross-ideological appeal analysis to identify potential supporters
For Researchers:
Validate Scoring - Apply NEEC criteria independently to test reliability
Expand System Set - Evaluate additional economic models using same methodology
Refine Measurement - Develop more sophisticated protocols for subjective criteria
Test Thresholds - Examine sensitivity of adequacy classifications to threshold variations
Pilot Components - Design empirical tests of high-scoring system elements
For Educators:
Teach Systematic Comparison - Use NEEC as framework for rigorous economic system analysis
Challenge Ideological Thinking - Demonstrate evidence-based evaluation vs. partisan assertion
Explore Tradeoffs - Show how systems excel in some domains while failing others
Discuss Implementation - Examine practical challenges of transitioning between systems
Enable Informed Deliberation - Equip students to participate in democratic system choice
For Activists and Organizers:
Document Inadequacies - Use comprehensive evaluation to show status quo failures
Articulate Alternatives - Present superior systems with detailed adequacy evidence
Build Coalitions - Identify shared values across political spectrum
Demand Pilots - Push for municipal/state experimentation with proven components
Educate Publics - Translate technical analysis into accessible formats
For General Readers:
Understand Current System - Learn how your economy performs across 25 criteria
Discover Alternatives - Explore systems you may not have encountered
Evaluate Claims - Assess whether your preferred system actually delivers on promises
Consider Evidence - Move beyond ideology to examine empirical performance
Engage Democratically - Participate in informed deliberation about economic futures
Johnson, D., & Claude (Anthropic). (2026). NEEC: Normative Economic Evaluation Criteria - Theoretical Foundations and Operational Implementation.
Johnson, D. (2017). Better to Best: Novel Ideas to Improve Governments, Economies, and Societies. Self-Published.
Johnson, D., & Claude (Anthropic). (2025a). Economic Liberation and Women's Autonomy: CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH Effects on Sex Work, Trafficking, and Gender-Based Economic Coercion.
Johnson, D., & Claude (Anthropic). (2025b). Integrated Digital Governance and Economic Innovation: A Framework for Government Implementation. Better To Best Research Hub.
Johnson, D., & Claude (Anthropic). (2025c). Citizens Internet Portal: Structural Incorruptibility Through Distributed Democratic Architecture.
Automation and Labor:
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2013). The Future of Employment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
McKinsey Global Institute. (2017, 2024). Automation, Employment, and Productivity reports.
Economic Coercion:
Polaris Project. (2024). Human Trafficking Statistics.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2024). Human Trafficking and Economic Vulnerability.
Ecological Limits:
IPCC. (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report.
Stockholm Resilience Centre. (2023). Planetary Boundaries: An Update.
Governance Capture:
Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3).
Carpenter, D., & Moss, D. A. (2014). Preventing Regulatory Capture. Cambridge University Press.
Proven Components:
Berman, M., & Reamy, L. (2021). The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend. Alaska Review.
Community Land Trust Network data (2024).
WIR Bank operational history (1934-2024).
Economic systems are human creations, not natural laws. We build them, therefore we can rebuild them.
For too long, economics has hidden normative choices behind technical neutrality claims, defended inadequate systems through incumbency rather than performance, and dismissed alternatives without rigorous evaluation.
This comprehensive assessment demonstrates a different approach is possible: explicit values, falsifiable criteria, evidence-based comparison, transparent scoring, actionable conclusions.
The results are clear:
Most existing systems structurally fail to support human flourishing under contemporary conditions. Not through incremental underperformance, but through fundamental architectural inadequacies—particularly regarding automation resilience, ecological compliance, and crisis response.
Superior alternatives exist with proven components and clear implementation pathways. These are not utopian fantasies but buildable systems synthesizing validated mechanisms into coherent wholes.
The choice belongs to democratic publics informed by evidence. Not to technical experts claiming specialized knowledge that supersedes democratic deliberation. Not to incumbent powers defending systems that serve their interests. But to people collectively determining how to organize economic life.
NEEC provides a standard. This evaluation applies that standard comprehensively. What remains is political will and democratic courage.
We can either continue operating under systems demonstrably failing essential criteria simply because they exist and powerful interests defend them, or we can build systems demonstrating superior performance across comprehensive evaluation—systems that provide security without coercion, respect freedom while ensuring dignity, withstand crises without catastrophic suffering, satisfy justice across time and groups, and prove buildable through actionable pathways.
The evidence is available. The frameworks are specified. The implementation pathways exist.
The future is not predetermined. It is chosen.
Choose wisely.
For complete references and detailed measurement protocols, see:
Johnson, D., & Claude (Anthropic). (2026). NEEC: Normative Economic Evaluation Criteria - Theoretical Foundations and Operational Implementation.
Contact: Duke.T.James@gmail.com
Related Research Repository: https://BetterToBest.github.io/research-hub/
Additional Research Papers: https://IndependentResearcher.academia.edu/DukeJohnson
*This evaluation document serves as an operational companion to the NEEC framework paper, providing detailed comparative assessment necessary for informed democratic deliberation about economic system alternatives. All scoring rationales, evidence citations, and methodological decisions are documented transparently to enable scholarly critique and public understanding.
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
End of Document