I propose ecosynomics (pronounced “ee-co-si-nom-iks”) as the social science of the agreements that guide human interaction. The roots of ecosynomics are eco (current usage is “relationship,” historically oikos was “household”) syn (together) nomos (rules): the rules of relationship together or, reworking the terms, the principles of collaboration. This builds on the billions of human-years of experience in the past century in learning about economics, defined by leading economists, as the social science of the allocation of scarce resources. To this experience, ecosynomics provides a framework and a research tool for understanding human agreements; agreements people have with their own selves, with others, with a group, with nature, and with spirit. Ecosynomics explains the relationship between the level of harmonic vibrancy experienced in these relationships and the level of scarcity or abundance experienced in a group.
As a framework, ecosynomics shows how a set of fundamental assumptions and the agreements that come from them can explain the extraordinary outcomes being experienced in thousands of groups globally, where these groups are operating with a completely new and emerging paradigm, based on abundance, not scarcity. As a research tool, ecosynomics suggests, therefore, how to identify groups experimenting with new ecosynomics-based agreements, showing how to discover how their innovations are leading to much greater and sustainable efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation.
Why you care
Having looked at three levels – the three circles – of the five primary relationships and how people use these distinctions to describe the difference between the experience of scarcity and that of abundance, you might be asking, “Why do I care?” This is a great question, as it forces me to pull everything together, concisely.
I will start with the definition of ecosynomics as the principles of collaboration. Why would you want to collaborate? Why not just compete? After all, competition has led to many of the great developments in human evolution. I take this question seriously. When I look at “success,” as defined by the “competition” school, I find that the collaborators, as defined in these pages, are much more competitive. These collaborators play the competitive game much better than do those who focus only on competition. The collaborators work continuously with possibility, choosing to develop those capacities over time, out of their deeper potential, finding they can bring much greater capacities to the competitive game. It is not that collaborators cannot compete – they can – rather that they see competition as a much broader game. They compete with others in the moment of interaction. They also compete with themselves to continuously develop their capacities. And, they compete with the infinite source to see how much creative potential they can embody. Thus, collaboration, as defined here, seems to lead to a higher level of competitiveness, especially in the terms of the “competition” school.
I have also found that the freer people are to develop their potential in these five primary relationships, the more abundance they experience. Why do people want to be freer? They just do. Ask. I suggest that you try asking others, and see what you find. I too have asked, a lot. I hear that people want to be freer in:
- the experiences they have and the choices they make for themselves
- the support they offer to others, in living into their talents, potential, and contribution
- the contribution they can make to the group
- the creativity that shines through them
- the ability to make real a future they can imagine
In these freedoms, I hear the expression of the freedom to choose what relationships I want to be in and how I want to be in them. This freedom means that “I choose.” My relationships are not controlled by someone else. This is why I think it is so critical to see that my interactions within the five primary relationships are guided by the agreements I accept in them, whether or not I am aware of these agreements.
What do the principles of collaboration (the definition for ecosynomics I gave above) have to do with being freer? So far, I have found that people that seem to be freer are the same people that collaborate. There seems to be a strong connection between greater freedom, greater collaboration, greater abundance, and greater harmonic vibrancy.
So, what are the principles of collaboration, as seen so far? In this first conversation, I have already peeled back four specific principles of collaboration.
- People prefer abundance to scarcity, and higher levels of harmonic vibrancy to lower levels.
- People need all five primary relationships (self, other, group, nature, spirit).
- Higher levels of harmonic vibrancy require higher levels of all five primary relationships.
- People make different agreements and interact differently at different levels of harmonic vibrancy.
 The word “ecosynomics” acknowledges and builds on the word “economics,” derived from the Greek for rules of relationship, oikos nomos, which originally translated as “household management.” Back 2,500 years ago, the rules of relationship for a home and a government of the people were seen as the same. Historian of economic thought Roncaglia suggests that, “in Greek culture we find no contrast between the viewpoint of the family administrator and the viewpoint of the government of the polis. Xenophon and Plato explicitly stated this fact,” according to economic historian Professor Roncaglia (Roncaglia, 2006, p. 25). In 390 BC Xenophon, a student of Socrates, writes, “The management of private concerns differs only in point of number from that of public affairs. In other respects they are much alike.” (Goold et al., 1997, p. 189).
 Nobel laureate in economics Paul Samuelson in his popular economics textbook (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 1995, p. 4) defines economics as “the study of how societies use scarce resources to produce valuable commodities and distribute them among different people.” In Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw’s top-selling economics textbook, he defines economics as “the study of how society manages its scarce resources” (Mankiw, 2008, p. 4). How long has economics been around? While political economic thought dates back to at least Babylon in the 1700s BC, it was only recognized as a discipline independent of other social sciences in the early 1600s AD, and as a profession in the 1800s AD (Roncaglia, 2006, pp. 18, 23).
 Michael Porter, one of the fathers of modern strategy, coined the term “competitive advantage.” Porter describes competition in similar terms, invoking the outcomes, the process, and the possibility (Magretta, 2011).