Evolution of Infraculture Page 1 of 23 Klaus Markus Hofmann The Economics of Infrastructure Provisioning: The (Changing) Role of the State Editors: A. Picot, M. Florio, N. Grove and J. Kranz, Submitted January 2014, Reviewed November 2014, Edited April 2015, MIT Press 2015 (forthcoming) Connecting people - An Evolutionary Perspective on Infraculture Klaus Markus Hofmann 1 Abstract Infrastructure is the operating system of modern economies, offering performing platforms and a multitude of services to deliver essential functions. Institutions and networks for transportation, energy and communications have evolved interdependently, facilitating economic and societal development and should be understood and developed as one converging infracultural system. Thus public and private infrastructure investments can be considered as transaction costs immanent to any society, connecting flows of social, economic and environmental capital, decreasing with access to efficient infrastructure systems. As an historic analysis shows, effective institutions are needed for the perpetual transformation of the infrastructural foundations for economic and non-economic socio-cultural functions. The infracultural meta-function being, to enable the accumulation of wealth, support social stability and ensure a sustainable quality of life, the allocation and provisioning of infrastructural services and the conditions for access may require a rethinking of specific governance schemes. Regarding the challenges and synergies offered by digitalization the role of private and public actors has to be reconsidered. Facing the digital perspective that will transform infrastructure users into prosumers, the rights of customers and citizens should be reconsidered, depending on socio-economic factors, including non-economic values and belief systems. Keywords: Infrastructure, History, Digitalization, Convergence, Infraculture, Complex Systems Working paper originally discussed at CESifo Venice Summer Institute 26-27 July 2013: “The Economics of Infrastructure Provisioning: The (Changing) Role of the State” 1 The author is employed at Deutsche Bahn AG, Berlin. He is senior research fellow at the Innovation Center for Mobility and Societal Change, InnoZ and Founder of NETWORK Institute, exploring convergence of transport, IT and energy infrastructures and developing a research framework for sustainable infrastructure development.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Evolution of Infraculture Page 1 of 23 Klaus Markus Hofmann
The Economics of Infrastructure Provisioning: The
(Changing) Role of the State
Editors: A. Picot, M. Florio, N. Grove and J. Kranz, Submitted January 2014, Reviewed November 2014, Edited April 2015, MIT Press 2015 (forthcoming)
Connecting people - An Evolutionary Perspective on Infraculture
Klaus Markus Hofmann1
Abstract
Infrastructure is the operating system of modern economies, offering performing
platforms and a multitude of services to deliver essential functions. Institutions and
networks for transportation, energy and communications have evolved
interdependently, facilitating economic and societal development and should be
understood and developed as one converging infracultural system. Thus public and
private infrastructure investments can be considered as transaction costs immanent to
any society, connecting flows of social, economic and environmental capital, decreasing
with access to efficient infrastructure systems. As an historic analysis shows, effective
institutions are needed for the perpetual transformation of the infrastructural
foundations for economic and non-economic socio-cultural functions. The infracultural
meta-function being, to enable the accumulation of wealth, support social stability and
ensure a sustainable quality of life, the allocation and provisioning of infrastructural
services and the conditions for access may require a rethinking of specific governance
schemes. Regarding the challenges and synergies offered by digitalization the role of
private and public actors has to be reconsidered. Facing the digital perspective that will
transform infrastructure users into prosumers, the rights of customers and citizens
should be reconsidered, depending on socio-economic factors, including non-economic
Working paper originally discussed at CESifo Venice Summer Institute 26-27 July 2013: “The Economics of Infrastructure Provisioning: The (Changing) Role of the State”
1 The author is employed at Deutsche Bahn AG, Berlin. He is senior research fellow at the
Innovation Center for Mobility and Societal Change, InnoZ and Founder of NETWORK Institute,
exploring convergence of transport, IT and energy infrastructures and developing a research
framework for sustainable infrastructure development.
Evolution of Infraculture Page 2 of 23 Klaus Markus Hofmann
Chapter 8
Connecting People - An Evolutionary Perspective on Infraculture
8.1 Introduction
The rise and fall of cities and entire civilizations can be linked to development of local,
predominantly urban and transurban, infrastructures.2 These comprehensive networks of
communication—in a broad understanding—were delivering public services such as
protecting borders of empires, providing vital necessities for the state and its population,
enabling accumulation of cultural surplus and connecting people. Regardless of their vital
functions for society and the indispensability, these infrastructures were neither induced by
an act of a divine creator nor an end in themselves. Evolution of infrastructure systems
doesn’t simply happen and can neither be meaningfully considered an act of an individual.
Infrastructure requires a social and cultural context, a mental and institutional framework, and
is shaped by initial intent and effort of interaction and communication, manifested through
use and allocation of labor, capital, energy, and other resources.
My discussion in this chapter focuses on three infracultural aspects of infrastructure:
(1) systemic and transdisciplinary functions and dimensions of infrastructure networks, (2)
historical development of infrastructure systems, and (3) present-day infracultural
advancements toward digitalization. The concept of infraculture presented here was
developed in a transdisciplinary research project comparing governance principles of
renewable socioecological systems (“common pool resources”; Ostrom 1990) with
sociotechnical systems, represented by large-scale infrastructure networks, examined in that
context as “modern commons.”3
8.2 A Systemic Approach toward Functions of Infrastructure
The central source of alimentation in human society has been agriculture since the Neolithic
revolution. Hard human labor went into the struggle for survival. Time was scarce. The
efficient use of time and the effective allocation of social and physical resources were key to
a socioeconomic evolution forming urban agglomerations. Infrastructures, facilitated human
2 Infrastructure in this context is defined as the large networks for transport, energy, and
communications. The comprehensive meaning: physical, institutional, and personal infrastructure is compressed within infraculture.
3 Eine Theorie der Modern Commons, Hofmann (forthcoming 2016, Berlin).
Evolution of Infraculture Page 3 of 23 Klaus Markus Hofmann
interaction and trade and thereby productivity, creativity, and cultural diversity typical for
cities. Yet, while evolution is not an economic concept, it does in this infrastructural context
underlie innovation cycles and sociotechnical development. Infrastructures are
multifunctional, designed to increase the efficiency of human labor, transportation, and the
multipurpose use of resources. “Infrastructure resources enable many systems (markets and
non-markets) to function and satisfy demand from many different users. Infrastructure
resources are not special-purpose resources. ... Instead they provide basic, multipurpose
functionality. ... Users determine what to do with the capabilities that infrastructure provide”
(Frischmann 2012, p. 65).
Every road has a destination. Infrastructure rarely produces tangible products nor is
the infrastructural resource platform itself consumed by individual users. Rather,
infrastructure connects sources and drains, or creates supply and demand for a wide range of
services. As a sociotechnical resource system (STS), a specific infrastructure, like
socioecological resource systems (SES) whose principles are described by Ostrom (2012
p.73), produces a number of resource-units that are consumed by groups or individuals
according to a specific framework of arrangements for access, use, maintenance, and
compensation. According to organic renewal and reproduction rates, the number of resource
units can be boundless in an SES. “The challenge instead is to develop a social-ecological
systems (SES) framework to multiple ecological problems in a variety of settings. ... to
discover the principles of—what I have called the design principles—that are at work in
sustainable ecological and social systems” (Ostrom 2011 p.22). Although the production of
the various resource units of an STS is tied to permanent input investments such as energy,
labor, and communications that can limit the units of output, some of the commons principles
governing SES can offer insight as to the challenges of sustainable infrastructure
provisioning.
There is no question that access to infrastructure is closely connected with cultural
rules formed by economic and interdependent social developments. From an institutional
economy perspective, infrastructure costs occur the same way in society as transactions costs
do in any firm (Coase 1937). Infrastructure investments could in fact be considered societal
transaction costs in that they foster an economically cooperative and communicating society.
Open-access prevents exclusive monopolies or holdups, and any special infrastructure can be
financed by either private or public institutions to meet an identified societal or economic
objective. A functioning infrastructure system is necessary, but rarely is it alone a sufficient
precondition for a sustainable economic development.
Every road has a destination. Infrastructure systems can be immobile and provide
multiple services to meet a narrow set of social, economic, and ecological objectives or a
collective set of objectives with widespread impact. From the socioeconomic perspective, the
four functions of physical infrastructure platforms are (1) to protect, (2) to provide, (3) to
support, and (4) to connect groups or individuals. To these four basic functions there should
be added two complementary sociocultural functions: (5) to contain and (6) to include. This
set of Infrafunctions can be applied to almost any type of infrastructure. Of course,
separately, some of these functions can be met by industrial products, investment goods, or
Evolution of Infraculture Page 4 of 23 Klaus Markus Hofmann
specific needs services, but the full set of six functions does not apply to the primary or
secondary level of production to the extent that they do to infrastructural systems.
From the evolutionary perspective, infrastructure systems can be considered intermediary
infracultural platforms, where all kind of services within a society can occur. These six
complementary, infracultural functions (infrafunctions) persist, as do the fundamental needs
and the basic communication mechanisms of a society; although the services offered like
energy supply, communication devices, and means of transportation have changed throughout
the centuries, responding to changes in culture and technology. This transition is inherent to
infrastructure networks, and it has been taking place according to a set of governing
principles, established and lasting over very long periods of time, exceeding the lifespans of
humans. Infrastructure systems thus should be considered part of an intergenerational cultural
heritage, which I have called infraculture. From a systemic perspective on societal functions,
infraculture can be regarded the emergent urban counter piece to agriculture in rural
communities.
The discussion in this chapter follows the sociologist perspective on infrastructure and
technology of Popitz (1989) and Toynbee (1976), in describing distinct epochs of
infracultural co-evolutionary development in socioeconomic history. The infracultural
analysis of Europe with its Mediterranean foundations will not be limited to technological
changes. There are strong influences of institutions and belief systems, as Parsons (1951)
called it, as well as the shifting roles of individuals, states, markets, and civic society
networks that connect urban centers across the European continent. Fundamentally,
infrastructure can be linked to the knowledge and technology of its time, and a collective
effort by individuals or a group toward a desired benefit. Indeed infrastructure investments
can be considered not only social capital but societal knowledge frozen in time.
A lot of research has been conducted on local infrastructure developments; this
chapter will therefore address the challenges facing the wide area infrastructure networks that
facilitate communications, energy transmissions, and transportation between metropolitan
centers, the transurban networks, and corresponding supra-local economic and social effects.
Together, communicating networks form the foundation of a collaborative society and as
such, from an economic, social, and evolutionary perspective, could be considered as one
interdependent infracultural system. Of course, without an energy source, there would be no
transportation; without communication, there would not be any cultural use of energy or
transport; and without transportation, there would be no media for conveying human culture,
be it for use of energy or long-distance communication. This chapter argues that any
sociocultural transformation requires and induces corresponding developments of
infrastructure, though the transformation process may be expansive or contractive in
character.
Infrastructures are not only important physical resources of urban settlements,
facilitating transportation systems and the flow of traffic between urban clusters;
infrastructure networks of energy, transportation, water, and communications are essential in
Evolution of Infraculture Page 5 of 23 Klaus Markus Hofmann
the exchange of services, information, and wealth4 in the modern society. The emergence of
these networks has led to socioeconomic patterns and spatial-cultural developments that
reach beyond boundaries of clans, communities, cities, and countries. Transurban
infrastructure networks could indeed be regarded as sociotechnical hybrid systems linking
cultural progress with economic development through technical innovation, and to
interdependent and self-supportive relationships.
Figure 1 Infrafunctions and infracultural context
Figure 1 presents a schematic illustration of how generic infracultural functions can
be allocated to three complementary areas of activity: social interaction, physical flows, and
economic transactions. The basic social function of infrastructure is to connect people, to
include every living being within a societal context, working or worshiping together. Intent
and a collective effort is needed to establish any social and physical infrastructure for
communication, and at the same time to stimulate a sense of common identity and belonging
(Tomasello 2008, p.192). Usually it is a marketplace or a community building where social
exchange of information and local community life takes place. In German villages the
Dorflinde, a traditional village lime tree, had traditionally served as a multipurpose platform
where public meetings were held, marriages arranged, carriages and news arrived, and trials
held, long before public buildings were erected to house the same functions.
Culture forms the invisible and fluid foundations for social and economic
infrastructure. Technology as such is always a product of culture, shaped by knowledge and
4 “Wealth” will be used in its comprehensive meaning of both well-being and prosperity.
Evolution of Infraculture Page 6 of 23 Klaus Markus Hofmann
governed by social institutions. Thus infraculture determines the physical interface of
material flows and transformation taking place in the natural environment, a perpetual and
highly adaptive exchange process of all biological forms of being. Physical protection and
shelter against nature or adversaries can foster community spirit, be they prehistoric caves or
modern suburbs—just as flows of exchange with biological and ecological systems, by
waters, forests, or fields, set natural boundaries for civilization and contain or increase
welfare through shortages, rivalries, or crises. The local pub where villagers meet for
nourishment and social exchange is yet another such example of infracultural exchange. Then
there are such collective efforts and adopted schemes as irrigation, energy production, and
transportation that determine the ecological efficiency and the environmental impacts of a
society. In effect infrastructural networks shape the very “shoe sole” of the collective
ecological “footprint” that socioeconomic development inflicts on the natural environment in
the long term. Frischmann (2012) has described this as societal metabolism, a concept he
derived from Fischer–Kowalski (1997).
In economic terms, infrastructure is what enables a multitude of human activities and
transactions of commercial and noncommercial character. Systems of infrastructure are used
for combining, transforming, and transporting goods; planning, delivering, and rendering
services; recording, storing, and transmitting documents, funds, and other intellectual capital.
These systems create transmitting platforms for modern societies for contracting employment
of labor, generating wealth, and ensuring the provision of agricultural products to urban
agglomerations; for the exchange of goods, labor, and capital in real or virtual marketplaces;
and thus for provisioning in an interdependent and collaborative economic system.
The infrastructure systems we have today were never planned as an entirety; they are
the outcome of a polycentric cultural and economic development process and determined by
the governing socioecological framework, technologies, innovations, and available resources.
Over decades more or less well-balanced institutions for collective action were created, and
added to these institutions were individual choices and preferences expressed in consumption
patterns or politically at ballot boxes, or even vocalized in street demonstrations. Once
established, infrastructure becomes part of the path-dependent development process and
acquires a reflexive self-energizing role. Transgenerational cultural roots and an existential
dependency on functioning infrastructure systems can explain the ambiguous emotional
involvement of residents when changes to habitual infrastructures are imminent, be they
planned improvements or new infrastructure obstructing familiar territory.
Such evolving transformation processes, as can best be described as infracultural
evolution, which is, as the fundamental mechanisms and principles of a holistic approach in
specific social, economic, and ecological contexts. The underlying structural platforms may
be public goods or common pool resources, depending on their degree of subtractability
(Ostrom1990), supplied to all participants of the system without a specific contribution
required. Individual choices and activities may be required to obtain benefits from functions
provided as a public good, a common pool resource, a club good, or a private good based on
rules of supply and barriers to access. In a systemic perspective, infrastructural platforms
Evolution of Infraculture Page 7 of 23 Klaus Markus Hofmann
enable a community to produce desirable infracultural functions and services for a multitude
of economic and noneconomic purposes.
We need also to consider the fast technical and economic development of various
infrastructure industries, since a process of convergence can be observed for the transurban
infrastructure networks. Convergence, as it has been defined by Messerschmitt (2000, p.570),
occurs when “structures that were considered independent become competitive or
complementary.” In the transportation sector, roads, railways, and shipping can be
competitive as well as mutually dependent in an intermodal complementary transportation
chain. Across the three infrastructure sectors mutual dependence existed from the beginning.
Convergence of infrastructure systems is accelerated by digitalization (Branscomb, Keller
1996, p. 280), transforming the vertically integrated value generation process in all sectors of
economy into large infrastructure systems, where economic value is added in each horizontal
layer as shown in figure 8.2.
Infrastructure requires major investments over very long periods of time and therefore
can never be an end in itself. Infrastructures always evolve based on spatial and economic
conditions, and also on cultural context and societal expectations. The physical networks
develop in mutual exchange with the ecosystem, especially the local natural environment and
an accessible economic, physical, and social resource base.
In his “Theorie der Infrastruktur” (translates: Theory of Infrastructure), Jochimsen
(1966, p.100) establishes three complementary types or dimensions of infrastructure—
material, institutional, and personal infrastructure—that are widely used, though critics like
Frey (1972) have doubted the benefit of an institutional dimension for infrastructure in
highly integrated economies of well-developed countries in Europe. The sociologist Talcott
Parsons established a concept of structural functionalism, where open systems of interacting
environing systems and human beings influence the functions and the cultural dynamics of
societal change (1961, 412ff), and the same could be applied to infrastructure. Expanding on
Parsons’s work, the American economist and human ecologist Roy E. Allen (2008) has added
to the ecological complex of human development the interacting factors of population,
environment, and technology, that is, more explicitly, the social organization. This includes
competences, institutions, collective problem-solving capacities, and belief systems as
equally important resources, such as would confirm the reflexive role of infraculture. More
recently, Frischmann (2012) emphasizes the social and intellectual dimensions and the
noneconomic social value of infraculture. An additional dimension can be found in the notion
of mental infrastructure due to Welzer (2011), which widens the scope of institutional
infrastructure in social arrangements earlier suggested by Jochimsen (1966). Welzer’s more
inclusive approach integrates the subconscious and emotion, corresponding to the intuitions
of behavioral economics and brain research.
These complementary types of infrastructure, described as five dimensions with
corresponding infrafunctions, are listed, along with some general contemporary examples, in
table 8.1.
Evolution of Infraculture
Table 8.1 Complementary infr
The table gives no dire
normative aspects occur togeth
players kicking a ball on a mea
game, they follow a set of rule
institutional infrastructure. Th
allowed to use his hands, and t
field during the week. This for
duties. As more people come t
and snacks, and finally a toilet
infrastructure is erected, soon
raised seating for the audience
the operating budget, visitors a
broadcast stations acquire med
transforms random support gro
and common goal of winning
credibility and thus a mental in
stander may find it difficult to
In general, investments
controversial as long as the su
the foreseeable deficits for the
simplification, of course, of th
planning, construction, operati
these phases, by their longevit
Page 8 of 23 Klaus Mark
nfrastructure dimensions and infrafunctions
irect hierarchy to these complementary dimensi
ether. To illustrate this infracultural concept, im
eadow on a Saturday afternoon. To better enjo
ules: they mark the field and put up goal posts,
They agree that each team have eleven member
d they also appoint one referee and one person
forms a personal infrastructure, addressing a se
e to watch this event, benches are built, a kiosk
let, all attending to physical needs. Demand-dri
on complemented by showers for the players, fl
ce, thus a modern stadium. To cover the initial
rs are willing to pay entry fees, and buy mercha
edia rights. All follow an economic logic: as te
groups into commercially valuable soccer fans,
g matches, a tournament, or championship infu
l infrastructure along with a lucrative sport bus
to recognize the natural infrastructure.
nts in infrastructure will be economically sustai
sum of benefits for states, markets, and the pop
he public, environment, and future generations.
the very long lifecycle phases of infrastructure
ation, and conversion or demolition of outdated
vity, exceed the management, fiscal, and elector
Klaus Markus Hofmann
nsions, but their
imagine a group of
joy their outdoor
s, thus creating an
bers, of which one is
n to look after their
set of required
sk serving drinks
driven technical
, floodlights, and
ial investment and
handise; radio
teamloyalty
s, the marketing,
fuses the team with
usiness. A casual by
tainable and not
opulation exceeds
ns. This is a
re investments:
ted infrastructure;
toral planning
Evolution of Infraculture Page 9 of 23 Klaus Markus Hofmann
periods of infrastructure. From an economist’s perspective on today’s Europe, it is not
possible to evaluate an infrastructure project separate from its systemic effects in relation to
existing structures, the natural environment, and economic and social structures, that is, its
entire cultural context (Mayntz 2009). Depending on the social framework and specific roles,
public and private actors tend to externalize social costs or to discount costs to future
generations. To characterize infrastructure as the operating system for perpetuity shifts the
attention beyond the initial investments toward a more complete life cycle. Regular and
preventive maintenance updates and strategic migration, which is common in
telecommunications, can add a more sustainable infracultural perspective to business models
of private and public infrastructure operations in the asset heavy energy and transportation
sector, traditionally reacting to obsolesce. Such costs are often neglected in initial
investments or the necessity of innovation and technical upgrades to avoid obsolescence is
underestimated in the long run.
Interdependent infrastructure systems, designed and operated as one interacting
complex adaptive system (CAS), may better meet future requirements if the financial means
are available from private and public sources. Infracultural governance issues of property
rights, access to network platforms, allocation of public resources, externalities, the quality of
services produced (resource units), as well as maintenance of infrastructure resource systems
are inherent challenges for infrastructure, a point addressed early on by Adam Smith (1776)
in his inquiries and comments on publick works. A sound and balanced infraculture provides
a flexible and multidimensional framework for financing, planning, and burden sharing. The
intensely debated ownership issue remains a question of minor importance, assuming that
governance is polycentric and effective on the local, regional and national level
8.3 A Historical Perspective—A Multidimensional Analysis of
the Transition Pathway
To explain the infracultural dynamics of infrastructure networks better the historical
development of people over a period of approximately 8,000 years and their infrastructural
platforms will be contextualized from a social, ecological, and economic perspective to
indicate the validity of the infracultural approach. Without a comprehensive understanding of
the sociocultural framework of a specific period, it is difficult to recognize the interacting
patterns of societal challenges, innovation, and collective action. Looking at infrastructural
development, we are faced with complex adaptive sociotechnical and sociocultural hybrid
systems. Complex adaptive systems are systems typically characterized by high
interdependency and a large number of agents that interact, adapt, and learn over a given
period of time: if a CAS does not succeed in doing so, it gets replaced (Miller 2007). Beyond
the classic asymmetry of information in transactions, infrastructure development undergoes
asynchronous planning, building, and usage periods along timelines exceeding the lifespan of
individuals. Hence infrastructure development (as discussed by Goldsmith in chapter 2 of this
volume) can be considered a mirror image of societal expectations—rational or irrational—
Evolution of Infraculture Page 10 of 23 Klaus Markus Hofmann
regarding the corresponding or contradicting goals on wealth, social values, and the quality of
future life expectations.
The demand side, historically represented by a sovereign, required certain services to
achieve specific objectives and for the populace to build an appropriate infrastructure for
those purposes. Obvious examples are streets for rapid movements of troops, relay
messengers, and civil servants to collect taxes (Fuchs 1911). Other ancient infrastructures to
be noted here are temples and cathedrals for religious observances, often used as social
control mechanisms, markets and storage facilities for food items, lighthouses and harbors for
trade and exchange of goods, hospitals and monasteries for teaching skills and preserving
knowledge. Once in place, the demand for more services from other stakeholders would arise.
Thus common people could acquire specific terms of access. Migration, marital
arrangements, and pilgrimage were strong cultural factors that would lead to the demand for
means of travel.
Beginning around 6000 BC, nine epochs of infraculture can be distinguished by the
development of dominant belief systems, cultural skills of communication, means of
transportation, and technology, primarily the contemporary use of energy (Fouquet 2008).The
development of culture enables economic development and wealth, which in return stimulates
the development of more culture, with infrastructure forming the stabilizing and at the same
time a binding between the two spheres.
Most sources mark the Neolithic revolution as the beginning of civilization and the
creation of infrastructure. However, it can be assumed that before fixed settlements and
anthropogenic infrastructure occurred, humans utilized infrastructure provided by nature to
meet their basic needs: lakes and rivers for fishing and transport, caves and cliffs for
protection and housing and springs and creeks for fresh water supply. In a wider sense the
commons like topsoil, forests, and oceans could be classified as environmental infrastructure
supporting human development. The provisional and recreational aspects of natural
infrastructure have been discussed extensively by Aschauer (1990) and Frischmann (2012),
while environmental boundaries and nature seem of no specific interest in early works of
Jochimsen in the 1960.
Network-epochs/
periods
People, infracultural
belief systems
Infrastructure
platforms
Products and
cultural services
First infracultural revolution � writing (cultural technology-driven spatial expansion)
1.Agrarian
communities
6000 BC
• Local groups, village
• Clans, chiefs, tribes
• Subsistence
economy
• Fire, boundary fences
• Springs, wells
• Fields, forests
• herding, livestock
• Shelter, potable water
• Defense, safety
• Alimentation
• Culture, tales
2. Urban
melting pots
• Kingdoms
• Migration
• Bricks, buildings
• Temples, forts
• Division of labor
• Trading, shipping
Evolution of Infraculture Page 11 of 23 Klaus Markus Hofmann
3000 BC • Writing, crafts
• Surplus economy
• Boats, harbors
• Fireplaces, forging
• Tools, irrigation
• Gods, cults,
3. Transurban
networks
2000 BC–AD 600
• Regional empires
• Central authority
• Nobility, slave labor
• Transport (roads)
• Letters, messengers
• Water, heating
• Military dominance
• Laws, scriptures
• Property rights, taxes
Second infracultural revolution � copying (knowledge-driven scalability)
4. Infracultural
network nodes
AD 600–1450
• Migration period
• Crusades, feudalism
• Nation building
• Monasteries,
hospitals
• Wind, water mills
• Universities, theaters
• Education,
knowledge
• Medicine, healthcare
• Rights, commons
5. Intellectual
networks
1450–1750
• Renaissance
• Reformation
• Mercantilism,
banking
• Movable type
printing
• Mining, coal, gold
• Postal monopoly
• Research, sciences
• Navigation Discovery
• Books, newspapers
• Shops, school, stocks
Third infracultural revolution � transmitting (power-driven distribution)
Fouquet, Roger. 2008. Heat, Power and Light. Revolutions in Energy Services. Cheltenham UK, Northhampton MA. USA. Edward Elgar
Gazette de la Bourse. 1857. Commerce, industrie, finance. No 1857/03/08 (N4).
Hauben, Michael.1996. THE NET AND NETIZENS: The Impact the Net has on People's Lives.Columbia University. (http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x01
Hage, Wolfgang. 1993. Das Christentum im frühen Mittelalter. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Göttingen.
Jochimsen, Raimund. 1966. Theorie der Infrastruktur. Tübingen. J.C.B. Mohr
Kingdomof England.1982. King John, Magna Charta and Charta of the Commons, and The First Forrest Charter. London: Legal Classics Library.
Maslow, Abraham. 1954 .Motivation and Personality. New York, Harper
Mayntz, Renate. 2009. Über Governance. Institutionen und Prozesse politischer Reglung. Schriften aus dem Max-Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung. Frankfurt. Campus Verlag
Messerschmitt, David. 2000. Understanding Networked Applications. Berkeley, San Francisco. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
Evolution of Infraculture Page 23 of 23 Klaus Markus Hofmann
Miller, John H; Page, Scott E. 2007.Complex Adaptive Systems, Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press
Morlet, de Beaulet Charles Gabriel.1861.Notices sur les voies romaines. Bulletin de la Société pour la Conservation 4.
Ostrom, Elionor. 1990. Governing the Commons The evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge New York, Cambridge University Press
Ostrom, Elionor; Gardner, Roy; Walker, James. 1994. Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press
Ostrom, Elionor. 2011. The Challenges of Achieving Conservation and Development. In THE ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE WEALTH ANS WELL-BEING OF NATIONS Volume IV - 2011-2012p. 21-2 7Indiana University Bloomington
Ostrom, Elionor. 2012. The Future of the Commons: Beyond Market Failure and Government Regulation. London. The Institute of Economic Affairs
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. New York.The Free Press of Glencore
Parsons, Talcott. 1961 An Outline of the Social System. In Calhoun, Craig ed., 2007.Classical Sociology Theory. Malden, MA, Blackwell Publisher sp. 421ff.
Popitz, Heinrich. Epochen der Technikgeschichte 1989 Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr.
Presch, Katharina. 2012. Einführung in die provinzialrömische Archäologie, Thema: Römische Straßen. Ruhr Universität Bochum.
Prutz, Hans. 1964. Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York, Georg Olms Verlag
Serbser, Wolfgang H.2008. Zur Genese der gesellschaftlichen Institutionen. In Karl-SiegbertRehberg, ed., Die Natur der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Campus 2847–2959.
Smith, Adam. [1776] 1998. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 412–15.
Tomasello, Michael, 2008.Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge. MIT Press
Tacitus.1911. Histories and annals. In Eduard Fuchs and Ernst Kreowski, eds., Die Straße - Vom Urwald bis zur Eisenbahn. Berlin.Verlag Neues Leben, Wilhelm Borngräber
Toynbee, Arnold J. 1976.Mankind and Mother Earth: A Narrative History of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Webster´s New World Dictionary of the American Language, 1966. Cleveland and New York. The World Publishing Company
Weijnen, Margot, Herder, Paulin and Bouwmans, Ivo.2008. Designing complex systems. In Eekhout, Mick, Visser, Ronald and Tomiyama, Tetsuo eds., (Hg.) — Delft Science in Design2.235–54,Delft, University of Delft
Welzer, Harald.2011. Mentale Infrastruktur. Berlin. Schriften zur Ökologie Böll Stiftung
Whitney, David A., Mottl, T.. 1996. Assessing Federal Roles p. 24-58 in Branscomb, Lewis M.; Keller, James.1996. Converging Infrastructures. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press
Wittfogel, Karl August. 1957. Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.