Proposes a framework to understand social convergence impacting societies amidst demographic and technological changes, suggesting new avenues for government action.
Advanced societies are converging on similar social outcomes despite having little in common institutionally. Fertility is falling across countries with opposite family policies. Loneliness is rising in strong welfare states and weak ones. Institutional trust is declining where governments perform well and where they perform badly. These are treated as separate problems belonging to separate ministries and separate literatures. This paper argues that the frameworks used to interpret them (social capital, social infrastructure, institutional trust, state capacity, social cohesion) cannot account for the convergence, and that the failure is structural. Each was built to explain one outcome inside one discipline. Each takes as background what another takes as its subject. None includes demographic reproduction. None specifies how the thing it measures is produced. The paper proposes human infrastructure as a name for what they omit: the stock of relationships, norms and expectations that determines whether a society can cooperate, absorb disruption and reproduce itself. It sets out what the concept adds, why governments cannot observe this layer, and what research becomes possible once it is named. The framework is a research agenda in its present form. Its relationships are unmeasured and its causal structure unidentified. The paper proposes tests by which it could be shown to be unhelpful.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shreyansh Roy (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: