Connecting People kmh 2015 MIT print

Evolution of Infraculture 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

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.


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).


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


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


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.


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


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

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


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—


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


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)

6. Industrialized

networks

1750–1900

• Wealth of nations

• Industrialization

• Imperialism,

capitalism

• Canals, railways

• Steel, chemistry,

Sewage management

• Cables, Telegraphs

• Bulk shipments

• Commuting, factories,

healthcare

• Metropolitan centers

7. Automation

networks

1900–1970

• Rise of superpowers

• Oil, nuclear age

• Free-trade doctrine

• Electricity, coal, gas

• Highways, pipelines

• Telephony,

Television, Broadcast

• Mass production,

bike, car, typewriter

• Agrochemicals

• Radio, Mass media

8. Interactive

networks

1970–near future

• Welfare democracy

• Postwar, proxy wars

• Self service

• Reflexive

modernism

• Microelectronics

• Computers, satellites

• Renewable energies

• Global internet

access

• Converging networks

• Quest for

sustainability

Fourth infracultural revolution � calculating (analytic algorithms) � outcome uncertain

9. Transformative

networks

midterm future

• Postmodernism

• Climate change

• Sharing economy

• Dematerialized

growth

• Smart grids

• Big Data dynamics

• Gene technology,

bionics

• Renewable

transports

• Resilience, security

• nano technology

• Cyborgs, robotics

Table 8.2 Infracultural epochs of infrastructure development5

5 Note: For the focus on Europe, see Fouquet (2008), Popitz (1995), Toynbee (1976), and

Parsons (1951).


The first “roads” besides natural waterways and fords were probably stamped out by

animals and shared by groups of hunters and gatherers to connect their dispersed settlements.

The four basic functions of physical infrastructures to protect, to provide, to support, and to

connect in creating common benefit have been confirmed as basic human needs long before

anthropogenic infrastructure was brought into being. Individuals alone hardly had a chance to

survive in harsh circumstances, but local groups had the resources necessary to enhance

natural infrastructure and thus improve their living conditions by a collective investment of

labor, creativity, and capital. Infrastructure development was likely closely linked to the rise

and fall of local communities, social capital, and communication and cultural exchange of

goods and skills, all of which are the building blocks of civilization.

The priorities in the development of physical infrastructure can be derived using

Maslow´s hierarchy of needs (Maslow 1954) as well as inferences based on human evolution

and infracultural functions. The physical needs come first and thus provision of fresh water

through wells and nourishment from livestock and agriculture. This is followed by cultural

improvement of food quality, through means of appropriate storage and cooking, and

acquiring access to energy.

8.3.1 First Infracultural Epoch: Agrarian Communities

The first infracultural revolution was ignited when agrarian communities gained control over

use of fire, a basic technological skill that improved physical protection from cold and poor

weather, supported cultural skill such as forging of tools, weapons, and production of other

useful artifacts. Safety was increased by light fortifications that, when closed at nightfall,

protected inhabitants from wild animals and bands of hostile humans. Living in groups

offered safety and support structures to individuals who could not have survived alone. First,

palisades contained those inside and made clear who belonged and who did not belong to the

local clan or community. Second, the inhabitants could defend themselves, their families and

property better against intruders or possible attacks. Last, the process of constructing the

common infrastructure brought together people into an emerging social community system

who could prove their value to the group and gain respect from its members. Thus, beyond

safety, the physical encampment increased a spatial and mental sense of belonging to group

members. The functional collective with its reliable infrastructures became a social

prerequisite for reproduction and the formation of social identity.

Beyond mere technical functions all anthropogenic infrastructure can be characterized

as social arrangements. While the social and economic benefits of the vital infrastructure

functions are obvious, in the early days burdens of infrastructure to fellow humans and nature

were likely neglected or dealt with locally. Likely, too, groups were small and arable land

abundant, so the impact of agrarian communities to the natural environment was limited. Of

course, we depend on artifacts to document these first epochs; no written testimony survives.


8.3.2 Second Infracultural Epoch: Urban Melting Pots

The rise of expansive metropolises along the riverbeds of Euphrates and Tigris or, further

west, the Nile, also called the hydraulic civilizations (Wittfogel 1957) marks the second

infracultural epoch of urban melting pots. A lot of research has been conducted on the ancient

cities of Uruk and Babylonian Mesopotamia and early Egyptian kingdoms. These ancient

kingdoms developed trade, acquired wealth, and practiced a religious culture beyond

attending to mere safety and survival. As archeologists have shown, the ancient metropolises

attracted labor and traders from distant regions and formed a rich cultural synthesis. The

economical and infrastructural backbones of these hydro-agrarian societies were the rivers

supplying a natural infrastructure for irrigation, both water and wind used as agro-technical

energy sources, written laws, thorough accounting and communication (e.g., Hammurabi

codex), organizing sophisticated divisions of labor and transportation.

Innovation was likely driven by scarcity, population pressure, and necessity;

investment in infrastructure was likely stimulated by the creative friction between human

ingeniousness, protection of vested rights, and the readiness to assume the risks of

transformation (Serbser 2008). The visual expression of unifying belief systems treating

nature as a powerful godhead, and the cultural skills to manufacture bricks and build effective

irrigation systems fostered rich architecture and temples, pyramids, fortifications, and canals

whose remains can still be visited today.

8.3.3 Third Infracultural Epoch: Transurban Networks

Transurban networks of impressive scale grew in the ancient Mediterranean with the

emergence of military-dominated regional empires. Slave labor, tax money, and extensive

military forces enabled Egyptian pharaohs, Hellenic tyrants, and Roman emperors to shape

the infrastructures of their realms. Their empires were vast and governed with efficient

information (relay messenger services)and administrative systems. The tekton (carpenter or

builder) marks the birth of the engineering profession (Greek root also used in “technic,”

“architecton”). The Roman road system, producing the largest transurban infrastructure

networks in Europe, was differentiated into four categories of national (viae consularis or

publicae), military (viae militaris), regional (viae vicinales), and local (viae rusticate or

private) roads. The Roman administration provided a detailed manual for road construction,

priority usage, and regular maintenance (Morlet, de Beaulet Charles Gabriel 1861). The

major roads had drainage, and foundations one meter deep on artificial dams were fortified

with clay, chalk stone, and mortar (statumen) covered with fist gravel (ruderatio) and pebble

(nucleus). Depending on climate and usage, the physical substructure (lit: infrastructure) was

to be paved (Presch 2012). Well-documented laws and quality standards are one reason why

this infrastructure still forms the dominant lifelines of Europe and shapes the administrative

structure in most European countries.

The Roman period is also connected with the first international taxation system and

laws establishing and regulating private property rights, both infracultural achievements


persisting in modern states, followed by a wide range of institutional infrastructure. With

regard to the shadow of infrastructure it should be noted at this point that the Roman writer

Tacitus (AD 60) complains about the shadows of urbanization and infrastructure, the

sickening stench and lack of hygiene in the streets of Rome accompanied by extensive noise

during night caused by fast driving wagons.

8.3.4 Fourth Infracultural Epoch: Infracultural Network Nodes

With the decline of the Roman Empire, Europe went through an intense period of barbarian

migration and political instability. Monasteries and convents sharing strong belief systems of

Christianity developed into influential infracultural network nodes in which important

scriptures were preserved and copied manually. In these guarded infracultural repositories

(stabilitas loci), country youths learned to read and write, about husbandry, healing herbs,

and all kinds of crafts in addition to the compulsory religious education. The Roman Church

and its orders rose to become a trusted economic and cultural stronghold supporting and

competing with secular rulers, depending on the regional politics. Although physically of

local character, the spatial effects of these belief grounded networks were impressive,

spanning centuries of central governance from Rome but also encompassing missions of

Irish-Scottish monks reaching from Scotland to Germany, France, Switzerland, and Italy to

establish a decentralized spiritual, cultural, and legal network throughout the Frankonian

empire (Hage1993).

With the Crusades, cultural infrastructure, medicine, geography, astronomy, and

engineering were updated with imported knowledge from the Orient. (Prutz 1964, p.

452).The first universities were founded and established a tradition of secular research

institutions. Mechanical technologies like milling used both water and wind as renewable

sources of energy. Written contracts and laws made institutional arrangements tangible. The

Magna Charta Libertatum (1215) documented the oldest written constitutional law in the era

of nation building complemented by the less famous Charter of the Forest (1217),

establishing the first rights of the commons and guarding sustainable use of natural

infrastructure as a resource systems based on Commons rules, guaranteed by the state

(Chomsky 2012).

8.3.5 Fifth Infracultural Epoch: Intellectual Networks

The Renaissance with its intellectual networks marked a historic shift of power from the

eastern Mediterranean to continental Europe. To finance the ventures, alliances were formed

between merchants and banks, later between wealthy bankers (e.g., Medici, Fugger) and

states to support imperial expansion. The invention of printing, especially the successful

innovation of movable type printing by Gutenberg (Johannes Gensfleisch, 1395–1468),

marks the beginning of the digital production principles resulting in the scalability of

knowledge. Valuable content entities are first disaggregated into single characters,

restructured into readable lines, and reassembled into pages to be imprinted with ink on

paper. Content management was split from the reproduction process in the printing stock,


thus information; intellectual capital of great value was made scalable ad infinitum by a

social and technical communication infrastructure. Books and papers became the media de

jour, spreading news, philosophy, and (technical) knowledge to an anonymous audience

unprecedented in speed, quality, and cost.

This groundbreaking cultural technology was quickly adopted and fueled the first

media-based revolution of European belief systems, the Reformation. The first printers were

trained goldsmiths and engravers who moved with their new skills to vital humanistic

communities where their craft could prosper. The map of print shops across Central Europe

correlates closely with the activities of the Reformation preachers a few decades later in these

same cities (e.g., Straßburg, Basel, Nürnberg, Augsburg, Leipzig, Erfurt). A contemporary

artist and early media tycoon and himself a trained goldsmith and printer, Albrecht Dürer

(1471–1528) contributed to the first encyclopedia (Schedel’s World Chronicle, 1493)6 and

wrote an architectural manual on infrastructure design advising the Emperor Maximilian I

and the city council of Nürnberg on fortifications, the latter also on urban planning of how to

reduce stench and pollution in the ideal city (Dürer 1527).

The importance of the control of media and information systems can be emphasized

through the postal infrastructure monopoly granted to the Thurn and Taxis families by

Emperor Maximilian I. around 1500. This infrastructure privilege lasted until the end of the

twentieth century, persisting in a constant transformation of infrastructural platforms from

written letters to signal telegraphs, typewriters, radio, telephony, telex, satellites, and the

convergence of voice, data, and mobile communication. The monopoly in Germany was

terminated in a period when the technology of communications infrastructure had reached the

stage of multimedia and almost unlimited global Internet services.

The second infracultural revolution, covering epochs 3 – 5 was knowledge driven,

facilitating urban expansion and the social networks of its time, using the scalability of

written culture. The third infracultural revolution is tied to the beginning of industrialization

and the literal death of distance, by modern telecommunications and transport technologies,

described in epochs 6-8.

8.3.6 The sixth Infracultural Epoch: Industrialized Networks

Industrialization and transportation were and are carbon driven until today. Large

industrialized networks for transportation and the perpetuation of decentralized access to

power supplied by steam increased productivity and proved a tipping point in mechanized

manufacturing. Weaving, mining, and all kinds of mills and factories applied this

6 The printed encyclopedia of its time.


unprecedented source of efficiency to increase their both quality and quantity of output at

decreasing costs per unit produced. A semantic analysis of the English term “mill” shows that

it persists as cultural synonym almost generic for any factory (Webster 1966, p. 934). Raw

materials from domestic agriculture and generic mining or foreign colonies were monetarized

at high speed, using fast-growing infracultural inventions like canals and railroads that

offered efficient and affordable transportation networks for bulk shipments. Markets moved

from the traditional market places to virtual trading across vast distances. Industrialization

created wealth and offered paid employment. A competition of nations and social

development accelerated urbanization, creating strong coal- and steel-based economies as

well as demand for communications and improvements in public services such as sewage

systems and health services. Rising social pressure and social innovation demanded and

incubated sociocultural institutions like hospitals, orphanages, and poorhouses. The

mechanisms and drawbacks of the capitalist economy were observed early by sociologists

like Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Max Weber (1864–1920), starting an ongoing debate on

base- (infrastructure) and superstructure, which determines which or neither dominates the

other’s development. Infrastructure development was received with enthusiasm by a large

majority comparable to the new economy euphoria and commented by few warning skeptics.

The actual term “infrastructure” itself was probably coined early during this period in

the context of an international race of building railways by accountants and sophisticated

canal engineers in France, to describe the subconstruction (infrastructure) and superstructure

necessary for building a railway track. The first evidence of the use of infrastructure is indeed

the call for tenders for the railway construction between St. Petersburg and Warsaw,

published in the Gazette de la Bourse (Paris 1857), and in the financial reports from the

Conseil d´Oise, 1866, followed by many other Conseils accounting for infrastructure

expenditure preparing their railway tracks. The term superstructure was utilized by scientists

and engineers in Europe since 1700 for technical constructions, mainly foundations for

canals, bridges, roads, and later railways. In 1842 a law was passed by the French parliament,

later called the “infrastructure law” (loi d´infrastructure). The invention of the railway was

expected to be a threefold blessing to increase the levels of wealth, intellectuality, and morals

(Deharme 1874). Canal engineers building tracks, English engineers moving to the continent

to run railways, and investors to finance private turnpikes, canals, and railroad undertakings

prove the importance of personal infrastructure as well as the role of capital and infracultural

institutions in the transitional concept of path depending innovation.

8.3.7 Seventh Infracultural Epoch: Automation Networks

The epoch that marks the beginning of the twentieth century could be called the age of

automation networks, with know-how and technology spreading fast powered by electricity

and oil. Europe was to become politically torn by democratic experiments, economic

depression. and world wars, leading to a cascade of innovations followed by the rise of two

global superpowers. The conveyer belt taylorized production, first in the slaughterhouses of

Chicago and then fast carried to automotive production in Detroit. Agrochemicals and land


machines increased the productivity of farming to the extent that a fast-growing industrial

workforce came to populate the assembly lines and was absorbed by modern cities.

Fordism paved the road for mass motorization as well as mass production, laying the

foundations for consumerism. The economic ideals of this period being steady growth, high

employment and the social engineering of progress (Etzemüller 2009) were confronted with

the Great Depression in the twenties. This in turn generated public investment programs like

the New Deal in the United States, the social democratic concept Folkhemmet in Sweden,

and the national socialist RAD (Reichsarbeitsdienst) in Germany, funneling large public

investments into the modernization of infrastructure networks of highways, airports, canals,

and housing projects. Postwar reconstruction efforts (ERP), mainly financed by the American

state, continued to improve infrastructure, remaking the economic base and thus enhancing

industrial productivity in Central Europe.

8.3.8 Eigth Infracultural Epoch: Interactive Networks

With the invention of telecommunications, computers, and microelectronics, there has

emerged a new form of global mass media and digital automation networks that exceed the

prospects of increased productivity once the province of the nuclear age. The incarnation of

the ARPANET, enabled the nucleus for a world wide web, financed by Department of

Defense (Whitney, Mottl 1996, p. 34). The digital, infracultural legacy from cold war

research coincided with the cultural changes of the 1970s, to which could be traced a

common quest for sustainability, aimed at resolving the conflict of interests between people,

industry profits, and the welfare of the planet (Diederichsen, Franke. 2013).

Universal access to the global Internet via mouse click connects Netizens

(Hauben1996) and billions of smart devices worldwide, accelerating global exchange of

knowledge. Converging networks enable data analysis by algorithms and knowledge-based

value creation, changing every area of life, science, and business. The resource-imposed

limits to growth may be overcome using more efficient technologies; the idea of achieving

ecological balance and climate goals has set ambitious infracultural objectives for the

Energiewende, proclaimed by German Parliament in reaction to Fukusihma events of 2011,

effecting infrastructure developments in the entire European Community.

8.3.9 Ninth Infracultural Epoch: Transformative Networks

While the future remains uncertain, transformative networks using Big Data dynamics will no

doubt shape the culture far beyond today’s globalized economy. Smart grids, people always

in touch with real-time management of demand, and an increasing diversity of supply formats

offer a promising vision of a connected real-time society and global economy. The Internet of

things, connecting, controlling almost every device in real time, with sensors measuring and

micro motors manipulating automated systems, will subsequently transfer more decision-

making power to machines, artificial intelligence computing and analyzing trillions of data

records, options like anticipative social control, gene manipulation, and biorobotics raising

ethical issues about innovation and interests that would need to be addressed in a democratic


infracultural discourse between corporations, states, and societal networks as new

infracultural frontiers arise.

8.4 Digitalization Requiring an Update of Infraculture

Every society has the infrastructure it has well-deserved. Infrastructure has to be paid for

initially, and it earns its worth multiply over time, according to common theory. To receive

more value from every single euro invested in infrastructure, the decision-making process,

tools, and financing instruments for all actors have to be recalibrated. To achieve the

transformation necessary to meet the international political commitments in time requires not

only a transgenerational coalition for infracultural priorities and an immediate change of

investment policies toward sustainability; the investment has to be enforced by an

orchestrated transdisciplinary initiative for systemic research of the infrastructure system and

comprehensive infracultural education for engineers and economists in the sector.

Digitalization is one major driving force of convergence, followed by spatial

synergies, economic efficiency, as well as social and environmental synergies. Infrastructure

networks have developed following settlements and economic and social patterns of

behavior. Synergies can be created by physical bundling of land use for construction, for

example, of highways, railroads, and electrical overland lines. a) Physical synergy sources

will reduce distances and costs for construction, operation, and decentralized maintenance

structures. b) Substantial social and administrative synergies can be identified in planning,

financing, and management of infrastructures, accompanied by leveraged risks for investors,

political budget committees, and public acceptance as well as by facilitating access to

infrastructure services at affordable prices. c) Ecological synergy can be developed to

minimize physical impacts of infrastructures systems on the immediate natural environment,

the physical protection of critical infrastructures against natural or anthropogenic risks, and

the long-term effects to the local and global ecosystems and climate. Efficiency resulting

from these will contribute to the societal acceptance of infrastructure development. The

catalyst for infrastructure development is, of course, shared social capital, such as knowledge,

belief systems, and cultural patterns, documented and transferred among individuals, groups,

and generations by cultural communication channels (i.e., verbal chants and narratives,

symbols and pictures, written documents and scriptures, printed mass-media, electronic

platforms and devices; (see table 8.1). Leaps in infrastructural technology require innovative

rethinking of established patterns on how to communicate, design sustainable businesses, and

manage energy use efficiently.


Figure 8.2 Infracultural Development Framework (IDF)

The infracultural development framework (IDF) in figure 8.2 shows a complex

adaptive system of infrastructure management and the feedback loops within this system. It

explains in a schematic flow how sociocultural and economic objectives influence the

development framework for infrastructure in reaction to global economic dynamics, a

threatened natural environment, and societal change. Although infrastructure networks may

be spread across a wide area, they are physically a local occurrence and bound to specific

spatial, socioeconomical, and international governance frameworks and contemporary

conditions. Investment in infrastructure development, regardless whether private or public,

always reflect expectations of wealth and quality of life in the foreseeable future.

Convergence in connection with increased global awareness of climate change and

exhaustion of resources could open a window of opportunity to reorganize the infrastructure

industry, shaped by spatial, national and sectoral monopolies for suppliers and operators

alike.

Additional synergies can be expected in the near future with the increase of backend

intelligence in systems connecting users, suppliers, and other commercial or noncommercial

institutions. Linking the demand and supply side of infrastructure service on real-time base

and using data analytics to optimize the efficiency of an infrastructural resource system, such

as a traffic scheme for public transport for electric vehicles, charging from and delivering

power to smart grids can serve as an transformational example. Future infrastructure services

may and will be offered across the traditional sector borders by one-stop suppliers (Weijnen,

Herder, and Bouwmans 2008), overcoming path-dependent options of a specific industry.


This technical opportunity will encourage new entrants, some of them disruptive game

changers, to compete with established infrastructure actors in more than one sector at a time

and, if successful, redefining paradigms of entire markets and existing regulations. Current

examples of this infrastructure based, cross-sectoral transformation are Tesla, supplying

energy to its customers across Europe; Skype, disrupting the value chain of

telecommunications; Google, generating value from ubiquitous data, building proprietary

search-based business models; and iTunes or Spotify, changing the paradigms of music

industry.

Considering recent progress in technical convergence, it has to be considered that

none of the three vital infrastructure networks for civilization and collaborative economy

could have developed in the first place without the parallel evolution of the complementary

structures (communication, transportation and energy). Digitalization accelerates the

infrastructural convergence far beyond the interactive surface of a customer interface. This

supports a systemic approach to infrastructure networks because, if one component in the

network structure changes, it has effects on the other components within the system.

Although digitalization opens a new dimension for real-time convergence; the cultural

context for infrastructure development remains that of purposeful intent of groups and

individuals, communication, and the skillful use of energy and resources.

Infrastructure creates platforms for economic and social activities and is therefore

closely linked with creation of wealth and common well-being. The systemic effects make

infrastructures a key sector and prerequisite for any national economy, which makes a

comprehensive evaluation of benefits and burdens evoked by infrastructure measures

necessary. On one hand, a minor project can cause major adaptations and impose large

infrastructure externalities on the population in one area (e.g., excessive noise and emissions)

but, on the other hand, be of crucial importance in quality and capacity effects on the level of

Trans-European Networks. Major public investments in one specific project do not always

serve the common interest in the best possible way, given the opportunity cost of other

projects that will consequently not be pursued. Access to ubiquitous data generated is

restricted by newly raised technical barriers to open exchange by certain suppliers. An early

and comprehensive stakeholder discussion of the purpose and means for adequate

infrastructure development could foster transparency and social acceptance, if it is motivated

by the social value that would hence be created (Frischmann 2012). As traditional and digital

infrastructure has become a kind of mortar for real bricks and virtual building blocks of

today’s global society, policies determining social and economic priorities have to be well

grounded in today’s societal narrative and belief systems.

Infrastructure development has to meet future economic requirements as well as serve

political and social expectations. Most actors in the infrastructure sector in Germany have a

clear understanding of the concept of sustainability and consider intergenerational

responsibility important. However, infrastructure development seems to have experienced

both market failure and state failure. In consequence the infrastructure actors position their

businesses right in the middle between state-granted services and free-market principles.


Infrastructure industry in Germany today calls for a reliable political frameworks of

predictable requirements, financial state support, and in return will accept an adequate degree

of market regulation. Affordable and sustainable institutions are an infracultural prerequisite

to social acceptance of infrastructure development, enabling civic society to regain control

over infrastructure development, as financed and upheld mainly in service to the public

(Daseinsvorsorge) and thus made possible by public expenditure.

Following the logic of the Internet, technology will change the role of consumers,

converting them into interactive prosumers, contributing in smart transformative

infrastructure networks to the provisioning of energy, transportation, and communications.

The time may have come for private and public actors in the infrastructure arena to rethink

their provisioning in an infracultural system of a modern commons, mobilizing citizens to

become Netoyens (Net Citoyens comp. Fr.: citoyens) with granted rights and obligations in

reciprocity still to be defined, becoming empowered and conscious co-designers of the

networks that determine their every life, their social and economic perspectives, and will

shape the environmental conditions for their offspring and generations to come. Balanced

infracultural institutions will result in a more sustainable development of infrastructural

resource systems.


References

Allen, Roy. E. 2008. Human Ecology Economics. London, Routledgep. 9.

Aschauer, David Alan. 1990. Why Is Infrastructure Important? Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

Branscomb, Lewis M.; Keller, James.1996. Converging Infrastructures. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press

Chomsky, Noam. 2012, Destroying the Commons: How the Magna Carta Became a Minor Carta (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20120722.htm).

Coase, Ronald. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica (new series) 4 (16): 386–405.

Deharme, Ernest. 1874. Les Merveilles de la locomotion. Paris.Hachette

Deharme, Ernest. 1890. Chemin de fer: Superstructure. Paris.Baudry et. Cie.

Diederichsen, Diedrich;,Franke, Anselm.2013. The Whole Earth. Berlin.

Etzemüller, Thomas. 2009. Die Ordnung der Moderne. Bielefeld. Transcript

Fischer-Kowalski, Marina. 1997.Gesellschaftlicher Stoffwechsel und Kolonisierung von Natur. Berlin. Fakultas

Frischmann, Brett. M. 2012.Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources. Oxford. Oxford University Press

Fuchs, Eduard; Kreowski,Ernst.1911. Die Straße. Vom Urwald bis zur Eisenbahn. Berlin..Verlag Neues Leben, Wilhelm Borngräber

Frey, René. 1972. Infrastruktur. Grundlagen der Planung öffentlicher Investitionen Tübingen. J.C.B. Mohr

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


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.

Connecting People kmh 2015 MIT print

Documents

Transcript of Connecting People kmh 2015 MIT print