Connecting People kmh 2015 MIT print

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
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
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

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

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (19)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a Connecting People kmh 2015 MIT print

Similar a Connecting People kmh 2015 MIT print (20)

Connecting People kmh 2015 MIT print