Two demands are made on contemporary governance, and this discussion treats them as distinct: the government of complex systems under uncertainty, and the sustained generation of value together with its return to those who produce it. Two research lineages are read here as responses to the one and to the other, the first assembled around adaptive, polycentric, and resilience-oriented governance, the second around the commons, generative justice, and peer production. Each is criticized from within for a limit that the other's competence would address. A theoretical gap is not by itself a reason to act. The discussion therefore examines a class of contemporary objects that are complex and generative at once: peer-produced software infrastructure, the encyclopedic commons, and platform moderation. In each, both lineages return a verdict of health by their own criteria, output improves, and the system fails. The failures appear to share a structure. What is consumed is the capacity of a particular set of participants to bear the cost of sustaining the arrangement, a quantity that neither framework measures. A relational reading of this quantity is proposed as an induction from the three cases. It is distinguished from labor, from network centrality, and from social capital, and the conditions of its refutation are stated. The discussion establishes no theory of generative relational governance and proposes no institutional design. Its purpose is prior to both, being to determine whether such a theory is warranted at all, by asking whether a problem exists that the available frameworks cannot see. Questions of scale are posed and left open, since a quantity must be operationalized before it can be tracked across scales, and that operationalization is the work this discussion identifies as next.
Wanhong Huang (Sun,) studied this question.