Findings
What the scores show, drawn from the published data each time the site is built. Every finding is one reading of the evidence under stated thresholds; the Thresholds page shows how it moves when a bar or a weight changes.
Key findings
- 23 systems on 29 criteria: 8 Potentially Adequate, 7 Partially Adequate, 8 Structurally Inadequate. Tiers depend only on the number of structural failures, so they do not move with the weights.
- Among the configured national economies, existing or historical, the highest total is Nordic Social Democracy's: 15.5 of 29 (53%), with 0 structural failures, Potentially Adequate.
- A higher total can sit in a lower tier: Ostrom Commons (15.0, 3 failures) outscores Georgism / LVT (14.0, 2 failures) and sits one tier lower.
- No system scores 1.0 on 11 of the 29 criteria: C1.1, C1.4, C2.1, C2.3, C2.4, C2.6, C3.1, C3.5, C4.2, C4.3, C4.6.
- The most often failed criterion is C1.5 Universal Wealth Access and C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 11 of 23 systems score 0.0 on it.
- 14 systems are not dominated: no other system scores at least as high on every criterion and higher on one. CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Participatory Economics, Nordic Social Democracy, Sovereign Wealth Fund Statism, Ostrom Commons, Islamic Finance, Mutual Credit / LETS, State Capitalism / Singapore, Universal Basic Income, Status Quo Market Capitalism, State Capitalism / China, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, State Capitalism / Qatar, Centrally Planned Socialism.
Totals use equal weights. Each statement is computed from the published scores when the site is built, and none is typed by hand.
Totals and structural failures
The bar is each system's total on equal weights; the rings count its structural failures, which alone decide the tier. Order the rows by total to see where a higher total sits in a lower tier.
- Potentially Adequate
- Partially Adequate
- Structurally Inadequate
| System | Total as a bar | Total | Percent | Structural failures | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH | 17.5 | 60% | 0 | Potentially Adequate | |
| Participatory Economics | 17.0 | 59% | 0 | Potentially Adequate | |
| Integral | 16.0 | 55% | 2 | Potentially Adequate | |
| Degrowth Economics | 15.5 | 53% | 1 | Potentially Adequate | |
| Nordic Social Democracy | 15.5 | 53% | 0 | Potentially Adequate | |
| Market Socialism | 15.0 | 52% | 1 | Potentially Adequate | |
| Ostrom Commons | 15.0 | 52% | 3 | Partially Adequate | |
| Sovereign Wealth Fund Statism | 15.0 | 52% | 2 | Potentially Adequate | |
| Georgism / LVT | 14.0 | 48% | 2 | Potentially Adequate | |
| Islamic Finance | 14.0 | 48% | 3 | Partially Adequate | |
| Mutual Credit / LETS | 14.0 | 48% | 3 | Partially Adequate | |
| State Capitalism / Singapore | 14.0 | 48% | 3 | Partially Adequate | |
| Universal Basic Income | 13.5 | 47% | 5 | Partially Adequate | |
| Universal Basic Services | 13.0 | 45% | 4 | Partially Adequate | |
| MMT + Job Guarantee | 12.5 | 43% | 4 | Partially Adequate | |
| Status Quo Market Capitalism | 12.5 | 43% | 7 | Structurally Inadequate | |
| State Capitalism / China | 11.5 | 40% | 8 | Structurally Inadequate | |
| Fully Automated Luxury Communism | 11.0 | 38% | 9 | Structurally Inadequate | |
| Stakeholder Capitalism | 11.0 | 38% | 7 | Structurally Inadequate | |
| State Capitalism / Qatar | 10.0 | 34% | 10 | Structurally Inadequate | |
| Doughnut Economics | 9.5 | 33% | 10 | Structurally Inadequate | |
| Libertarian Minarchism | 9.5 | 33% | 11 | Structurally Inadequate | |
| Centrally Planned Socialism | 7.0 | 24% | 16 | Structurally Inadequate |
Domain profiles
Each axis is the share of a domain's points a system earns; the dashed outline is the median of all 23 systems. The first choices below are the highest total in each kind of system. Read the axes one by one: the area of a shape has no meaning of its own.
Every system's domain percentages as a table
| System | Material Security | Human Autonomy | System Resilience | Ethical Integrity | Implementation Viability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH | 58% | 67% | 67% | 50% | 60% |
| Participatory Economics | 58% | 50% | 67% | 67% | 50% |
| Integral | 42% | 50% | 67% | 67% | 50% |
| Degrowth Economics | 58% | 50% | 67% | 50% | 40% |
| Nordic Social Democracy | 58% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 60% |
| Market Socialism | 50% | 50% | 58% | 58% | 40% |
| Ostrom Commons | 33% | 42% | 58% | 50% | 80% |
| Sovereign Wealth Fund Statism | 42% | 50% | 58% | 42% | 70% |
| Georgism / LVT | 33% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 60% |
| Islamic Finance | 33% | 42% | 50% | 50% | 70% |
| Mutual Credit / LETS | 33% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 60% |
| State Capitalism / Singapore | 50% | 42% | 67% | 33% | 50% |
| Universal Basic Income | 25% | 67% | 42% | 50% | 50% |
| Universal Basic Services | 25% | 50% | 42% | 50% | 60% |
| MMT + Job Guarantee | 33% | 42% | 42% | 50% | 50% |
| Status Quo Market Capitalism | 33% | 42% | 50% | 25% | 70% |
| State Capitalism / China | 50% | 17% | 58% | 25% | 50% |
| Fully Automated Luxury Communism | 25% | 50% | 42% | 58% | 10% |
| Stakeholder Capitalism | 33% | 42% | 50% | 33% | 30% |
| State Capitalism / Qatar | 42% | 25% | 42% | 25% | 40% |
| Doughnut Economics | 8% | 33% | 42% | 33% | 50% |
| Libertarian Minarchism | 8% | 42% | 33% | 33% | 50% |
| Centrally Planned Socialism | 42% | 0% | 33% | 25% | 20% |
Trade-offs and the frontier
Plot any two dimensions against each other. A system is on the frontier of the two you choose when no other system scores at least as high on both and higher on one. The frontier depends on the axes: it is a statement about two dimensions, not about every criterion.
- Potentially Adequate
- Partially Adequate
- Structurally Inadequate
Hover over any dot to see which systems it stands for and their scores. Click or tap a dot to keep its details open, and click it again to close them; with a keyboard, tab to a dot and press Enter.
On total and Material Security, the frontier is CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH.
Understanding the frontier and dominance
One system dominates another when it scores at least as high on every criterion and higher on at least one. The dominated system then has a rival that is no worse anywhere and better somewhere, under the criteria as written.
The Pareto frontier is the set of systems that no other system dominates. On the chart it is drawn for the two dimensions you choose: frontier systems are ringed in green, labelled, and joined by the dashed line. It depends on the axes, so a system can sit on the frontier for one pair of dimensions and off it for another. The statement that matters most is the one across every criterion at once.
Across all 29 criteria, 14 of the 23 systems are on the frontier: CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Participatory Economics, Nordic Social Democracy, Sovereign Wealth Fund Statism, Ostrom Commons, Islamic Finance, Mutual Credit / LETS, State Capitalism / Singapore, Universal Basic Income, Status Quo Market Capitalism, State Capitalism / China, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, State Capitalism / Qatar, Centrally Planned Socialism. Each of the other 9 is dominated by at least one of them. The number after each name is how many criteria it scores higher on; on every other criterion the two score the same.
| Dominated system | Dominated by (criteria on which it scores higher) |
|---|---|
| Integral | Participatory Economics (2) |
| Degrowth Economics | Participatory Economics (3) |
| Market Socialism | Participatory Economics (4) |
| Georgism / LVT | CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (6) |
| Universal Basic Services | CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (8) |
| MMT + Job Guarantee | Nordic Social Democracy (6), CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (8), Participatory Economics (8) |
| Stakeholder Capitalism | Islamic Finance (5), Nordic Social Democracy (8), Participatory Economics (10), CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (12) |
| Doughnut Economics | Islamic Finance (9), Nordic Social Democracy (11), Ostrom Commons (11), Participatory Economics (12), CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (14) |
| Libertarian Minarchism | CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (15) |
Dominance is the strongest comparison the scores support, because it needs no weights: under the criteria as written, preferring a dominated system to one that dominates it gives up points somewhere and gains none anywhere. It says nothing about what the criteria leave out, and nothing about margins: one system can dominate another by a single half point on a single criterion. A system off the frontier is not thereby a poor one, and a system on it can still carry structural failures; its tier says how many. The comparison tool sets any two or three systems side by side, criterion by criterion.