Douglass C. North, John J. Wallis et Barry R. Weingast. Violence and Social Orders. A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History

Infrastructure and the Energy Use of Human Polities

“…Here, by governance systems we mean the interlocking sets of formal and informal norms and rules that limit conflict and structure the scale and stability of collective action in social groups (North et al, 2009), and by norms and rules we mean the socially learned information shared between a group of peers and/or across generations, that shapes the opportunity costs of social interactions (e.g., North, 1990;Richerson & Boyd, 1998). Long-standing arguments in the social sciences posit that variation in how human groups construct their governance systems impacts, via a positive feedback process, the performance of human economies (e.g., Fukuyama, 2014;Hammel, 2005;Henrich, 2020;North et al, 2009;Putnam et al, 1993). If correct, then variation in governance systems should modify human behavior in ways that modify the basic scaling of population and energy use in human societies.…”

“…First, governance systems vary along a continuum from exclusive, patronclient dominated networks, often structured along lines of blood kinship, to more inclusive (though not universally so) voluntary associations of kin and non-kin alike that allow/favor cooperation across many unrelated individuals (e.g., Blanton & Fargher, 2008;Fukuyama, 2014;Henrich, 2020;North et al, 2009;Putnam et al, 1993). Henrich and colleagues coin the concept of kinship intensity to describe this continuum (Henrich, 2020;Schulz et al, 2019a).…”

“…North and colleagues, working on modern states, as well as Blanton and colleagues studying pre-modern states, describe a similar continuum of governance systems (Blanton et al, 1996;Blanton & Fargher, 2008;North et al, 2009). In their terms, limited access states are very similar to intensive kinship systems.…”

“…In their terms, limited access states are very similar to intensive kinship systems. Limited access states describe polities in which elites and their clients control violence by establishing patron-client relationships based on norms of patriarchy, pay rents to motivate compliance, and provision public goods to a limited coalition (North et al, 2009). Inclusive states, conversely, describe polities in which elites share power across segments of society, relying on impersonal, voluntary associations and civic institutions to shape voluntary compliance in the limiting of violence and provision of public goods (North et al, 2009).…”

“…Limited access states describe polities in which elites and their clients control violence by establishing patron-client relationships based on norms of patriarchy, pay rents to motivate compliance, and provision public goods to a limited coalition (North et al, 2009). Inclusive states, conversely, describe polities in which elites share power across segments of society, relying on impersonal, voluntary associations and civic institutions to shape voluntary compliance in the limiting of violence and provision of public goods (North et al, 2009). Importantly, any governance system contains actors engaged in reinforcing tight-knit groups via patron-client strategies and actors engaged in strategies that increase the size and scope of social groups through voluntary clubs, rituals, and gifts that establish social bonds.…”