A dense field of discrete points scattered across a coordinate grid, some larger and gold, most small and dark

Systems Approach

Part of Systems Economics. “Systems science” names two different things — and which one you mean decides what counts as an economic primitive.

One label, two sciences

A foundational pillar of Systems Economics is to approach the study of the economic system as a systems science, and to hold it to the rules and objectives that field requires. The underlying idea is to treat the economy as an ongoing set of functional activities — its functional architecture, and the primitives on which the system builds, scales, and evolves.

That requires clearing up an ambiguity that conventional usage of “systems science” often obscures. Systems science consists of two distinct areas: formal systems inquiry, and empirical-functional inquiry into real, persisting processes. The two may interact, but they have different starting points, truth conditions, primitives, and objectives. They should not be treated as the same thing.

Systems Economics is the second kind: an empirical-functional inquiry into real, persisting processes. Its goals are those of a process systems science — to establish truth conditions, primitives, and objectives for the economy as an ongoing functional process system. The Locus Model proposes a set of truth conditions, primitives, combination rules, and grouping arrangements for an economic system on that basis.

The two kinds of systems science

Type 1: Systems science (mathematics)

Math, as a formal systems inquiry, stipulates and generates. You invent the pieces and then build: you write down primitives — points, arrows, states, operators — and generate structures from them. Those structures don’t have to correspond to anything that actually happens. A graph, a category, a set of differential equations, an automaton — all can be perfectly good Type 1 objects even if no real firm, cell, or machine looks like them. The science is about what can be generated from the rules you stipulated. Nothing in the method requires that a generated structure correspond to an occurring event or a bounded working whole.

Type 2: Systems science (process)

Process, as an empirical-functional inquiry, locates and studies the architecture of a real field. The natural sciences are Type 2; they follow Type 2 rules and objectives. You start from something that already exists as a working whole — a cell, a reaction, a firm, a market, a body — and ask what jobs must be getting done for that whole to keep being that kind of whole. You name those jobs in the language of the field (physical, chemical, biological, economic), find the smallest repeating unit, how the units attach, and how they add up to a thing with inputs and outputs. The objective is understanding of that field, its functional architecture, and its primitives.

The Type 2 unit

The adjective names the lexicon: physical, chemical, biological, economic. The unit is a functional job — a verb on a noun (energy on mass, mapping on a patient) — connected at a bond site and grouped by need into a whole with inputs and outputs. As a one-line schema:

job = verb(noun) at bond-site → grouped-by-need → whole(I/O)

The same schema holds in every Type 2 field; only the filling of verb, noun, and need changes. That unit-primitive is isomorphic between fields and identical within a field — the natural sciences sit under this type, and their working objects are Type 2 process-compounds.

“The decisive clause is ‘grouped by need.’ The whole is not an arbitrary aggregate and not a stipulated formal closure. It is the set of jobs that must be present for that kind of whole to persist as that kind of whole.”

The central distinction

That is why the primitive can be the same structure across fields while the lexicon stays field-specific: the job-form travels; the named nouns and verbs do not. Type 1 can be used on Type 2 — a formal system may model a metabolic cycle, a firm, or a reaction network — but it cannot replace it. The cycle, the firm, and the network remain Type 2 objects: field-bound, I/O-bounded, assembled from jobs at bond sites. Physics, chemistry, biology, and economics are sibling Type 2 sciences, each with its own lexicon for the same unit-form.

Type 1 begins with permission: let there be nodes, arrows, rules, states, operators, and transformations. Type 2 begins with constraint: this whole exists — what must be occurring for it to remain this kind of whole? That makes Type 1 fundamentally generative, and Type 2 fundamentally architectural and explanatory.

DimensionType 1: Mathematical systems scienceType 2: Process systems science
Starting pointStipulated primitives and rulesAn occurring, bounded, working whole
Primary actDefine and generateLocate, decompose, and reconstruct
Basic objectsSets, graphs, state spaces, mappings, categories, automata, equationsField-specific functional operations, interfaces/bond sites, repeating units, process-compounds
ConstraintLogical or mathematical consistencyFunctional necessity, empirical adequacy, and persistence of the real whole
Main question“What structures follow from these assumptions?”“What work must occur for this kind of whole to exist and persist?”
SemanticsOptional; interpretation may be added laterIntrinsic; terms must name real physical, chemical, biological, economic operations
WholeMay be a formal closure or arbitrary constructionA need-bound integration of required functions with identifiable inputs and outputs
ProductA formal theory, model class, theorem, simulation, or constructionA field architecture, functional ontology, primitive set, and compositional account of real systems

Where Systems Economics stands

Systems Economics is approached like any natural science: it identifies field-specific primitives, determines the lawful or materially possible ways they can combine, and studies the higher-order real compounds, processes, and wholes thereby established. Its classifications aim to track the functional structures of the economic world, rather than merely impose convenient administrative, legal, statistical, or theoretical categories.

The Locus Model proposes, for Systems Economics, an index of field-specific economic primitives — verbs and nouns. Its combination rules determine which combinations of those primitives establish loci: real economic jobs. Its bond and grouping rules then determine how loci compose higher-order economic process-compounds, including firms, markets, sectors, and economies. The model’s classifications are therefore intended to identify actual functional structure in the economic field, rather than merely sort entities according to stipulation, convention, or inherited labels.

See how this plays out mechanically on the Coordinate System page, or look up any term in the Lexicon.

See the Coordinate System
Explore the Lexicon
Contact
Contact
Contact
Contact
Scroll to Top