Member Blog: David Zilberman

Bruce McCarl: An Unsung Hero of Climate Change Economics

By David ZILBERMAN / April 26, 2026

Around 1985, a large, imposing, energetic man walked into my office and began telling me about his research on technology adoption and farm-system choices. He introduced himself as Bruce McCarl from Oregon State. I had just finished a paper on adoption, and I was embarrassed that I had ignored his work. So I read some of his papers, and they were impressive, coming from a different intellectual tradition. I had been trained in mainstream microeconomics: elegant models, propositions, and empirically estimable questions. McCarl came from a different world. He earned a Ph.D. in operations research from Penn State, and his work had a much more action-oriented approach.

He emphasized solving problems: identifying the key elements, recognizing the major practical constraints, and developing techniques that could guide decisions. His models recognized markets and other factors central to standard economics, but they were part of a broader system rather than the sole focus. McCarl’s work showed me a different and very effective way to understand and solve agricultural problems. He also developed important computer programs that could address some of the biggest practical problems we were facing.

Bruce’s research covered many topics. He became a leading scholar of water economics in Texas, including the management of the Edwards Aquifer. He studied the value of economic models for El Niño and climate change, and he built models of agricultural-sector and forestry activities. In each of these models, the operational quality was amazing and the economic logic flawless. Yet this was not the kind of work that appeared every day in mainstream economics journals. I was glad that agricultural economics journals provided a home for this literature. To me, it helped make agricultural economics unique.

In the 1990s, when Clinton was president, I was involved in the administration’s work on climate change. I worked with a White House group and an EPA group that sought to develop a U.S. climate policy and persuade Congress to support the Kyoto Protocol. We also began organizing conferences on climate change. I realized that one person was providing a unique and important quantitative assessment of the impacts of climate change on agriculture: Bruce McCarl. He was able to estimate how technologies such as low-till and no-till farming, nutrient management, and land-use changes would affect carbon sequestration. He analyzed how agriculture might adapt to mitigation policies and to climate change itself; how climate change would affect crop mix, planting locations, livestock management, and forestry; and how different mitigation strategies might work under alternative climate scenarios.

This work was detailed, practical, and directly relevant to policymaking. Policymakers needed answers to questions about land use, agricultural production, natural resources, and the economic consequences of alternative climate policies. Very few people could provide those answers with the level of detail and credibility that McCarl could. It was remarkable to me that one scholar could put all these pieces together.

In 2020, Rudy Naiga, the department chair at Texas A&M, offered me a Hagler Scholar appointment in the department. That meant I would come to Texas A&M for roughly 30 to 40 days each year to work with faculty, engage with students, and contribute to research. I was excited by the opportunity — not only because it came with good remuneration, but because I was genuinely intrigued by McCarl and his distinctive style of work.

I discovered that Bruce had built an extraordinary research group. He treats his students like family, while training them to tackle difficult practical problems with rigor, creativity, and a deep sense of purpose. His lab included talented people from all over the world who were skilled in methods that were rare in the profession. Together, they created a comprehensive approach to predicting the impacts of climate change and other natural-resource policies.  No wonder that Bruce is one of the Climate change Nobel Lauraete. He treated his students like family, while training them to tackle difficult practical problems with rigor, creativity, and a deep sense of purpose.

I found Bruce and his wife Lynn to be extremely warm and friendly. We went to multiple dinners together with other faculty members and to basketball games. He showed me the different facets of College Station and was very generous with his time and attention. He made me feel at home there.

With Bruce and Rudy’s guidance, I got to understand the difference between Berkeley and Texas A&M. Berkeley is able to recruit many more American graduate students, and emphasizes publishing in top journals and recognizition by mainstream economics. In A&M, most of the Ph.D.s are international, from diverse countries like Nepal, Iran, Nigeria, etc., and the emphasis is to solve pratical agricultural economic problems. Some of them are very bright and capable, but on average, lack the polish that Berkeley students have. Many of the students will go back to their countries and work at local universities. McCarl was amazing in his ability to continue wokring with his international students and help them to address their own challenges. Their papers were published in diverse agricultural and scientific journals (varying from Nature to Agronomy and Water, field journals). The papers were numerical and future-oriented. They relied on econmetrics but tried to develop trends and projections without overemphasis on rigorous causality tests. But they were very useful and relevant, very good in utilizing multiple data sources and addressing diverse problems in a practical way. Bruce is proud in being a problem solver in the agricultural resource and economics field, not an economist that happens to work on agriculture. In this regard, I find him as a kindred spirit.

I missed Bruce’s retirement party last week, but I felt that I was there in spirit, and I look forward to continuing to collaborate with him and to seeing him and Lynn when I am in College Station. Knowing Bruce helped me appreciate his genius, and the fact that outstanding scholars may appear in different shapes and with different emphases. By their diversity, they make our research much more relevant and useful. I salute Bruce and Lynn, and I look forward to seeing them as they enter this next stage of their lives.

Member Blog: David Zilberman

Understanding Paradigms in Science, Life, and Economics – Based on Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

I got a wonderful gift from Thomas Reardon, a volume of Thomas Kuhn’s classics. I should have read it before, but I didn’t, and reading it, I understood why it’s a “great” book. It presents a convincing conceptual framework, compelling narrative without excessive jargon, and presents interesting and clear examples. The book presents an original vantage point to understanding scientific progress. Rather than assuming that science advances through smooth accumulation of knowledge, it suggests convincingly that science advances through periodic revolutions that shake the scientific fields. 

Paradigm is a key concept in Kuhn’s analysis. It is a shared framework that defines problems, methods, standards, and exemplars within a scientific community. Once a paradigm exists, most of the scientific work within this paradigm is part of normal science, where scientists solve “puzzles” rather than question fundamentals, refine measurements, extend applications, and articulate theory. Normal science is conservative by design; it aims at precision, not novelty. Over time, anomalies arise. They are empirical findings or conceptual problems that cannot be fully explained within the prevailing paradigm. For a while, these anomalies are ignored, explained away, or treated as measurement errors. But over time, when anomalies accumulate and become persistent, the field may enter a crisis, where confidence in the existing paradigm erodes, competing ideas emerge, and methodological and conceptual disputes intensify. This crisis may lead to a paradigm shift. This is a scientific revolution where a new paradigm replaces the old one. This change is discontinuous, as all the new paradigms may use different concepts, standards, and questions, and the choice between paradigms is influenced not only by data, but also by judgement, persuasion, and community dynamics. Classic examples of shifts are: in physics from Newton’s world to Einstein’s relativity, and the big shift in astronomy from traditional to Copernican. 

With new paradigms, the same data can be interpreted differently, and standards of explanation vary, but there is a strong conviction that you’ll get closer to the truth. Every new paradigm has some holes and therefore, normal science tries to fill them. Paradigms generally tend to explain the range of issues that science can analyze and explain and increase the capabilities of scientific communities. Fascinatingly, Kuhn argues that scientific change is a social process sustained by scientific communities – and therefore persuasion is crucial for a scientific revolution that may take a long time. Education is crucial in establishing paradigms because textbooks that reflect paradigms train new generations of scientists. Frequently, marginal groups in scientific communities play a major role in introducing a new paradigm. Younger members of disciplines tend to be earlier adopters of new paradigms and subscribers to the older paradigm tend to either convert or die :-). Nevertheless, people may believe in and act according to concepts of multiple paradigms. For example, accepting Newtonian mechanics and Einstein relativity. 

Religion is a paradigm

My perspective on religion comes from my familiarity with Judaism. Prior to the emergence of Judaism, there were multiple ancient religions in the Middle East believing in multiple specialized gods responsible for rain, wars, etc. The gods were part of nature and there were ritual activities including sacrifice to satisfy the gods. These religions have their own priesthoods and the religions and priesthoods were supposed to provide insurance (against droughts), healthcare, education, and political legitimacy, among others^[1]. Judaism provided a paradigm shift. It introduced the notion of a universal god, separating between gods and nature. It prescribed a moral law and rituals (Mitzvot), which are the core of religious life. Judaism has the equivalent of “normal science”, which is a continuous scholarly activity, refining and expanding the paradigms. It has a social structure (scholars, teachers, certifiers) that provides multiple services to its adherents. 

While initially, Judaism was linked to Israel and the temple in Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple by the Romans, led to significant paradigm modifications where sacrifice was replaced with prayers and the religion became more global and can be practiced everywhere. Christianity, in my view, is a paradigm shift that retained monotheism and ethics, introducing Jesus as a mediator between God and humanity. It also emphasizes the role of faith vs. the pursuit of practices and emphasizes a pursuit of universal membership. Modern secularism is a paradigm shift compared to the monotheistic religions, but people can hold beliefs and practices associated with both. While with religion, outcomes are governed by the gods, in secularism it’s governed by impersonal laws and much of the content and beliefs are constructed by humans. While religious opinions and actions are governed by faith, tradition, and authority of the church; in secularism perspectives are based on science and evidence, and the truth is revisable. In secular systems, science replaced theology for explaining nature, secular law provides guidance and enforcement, and states replace churches for governance. 

Religion and science are Incommensurable, namely, ask different questions, and use standards of evidence. Therefore, people should be able to subscribe to both in different aspects of life. One of Kuhn’s major contributions is the emphasis of the social aspect of the paradigm. Both religion and modernity lead to institutions, and organizations, and professionals that provide multiple services. They include centers of education, healing and welfare, some are competing, and some are cooperative. Conflicts among religions and modernity led to multiple conflicts. The Peace of Westphalia, initiated a process that ended religious war in Europe and ushered a separation and coexistence of state and church (at least in some countries). So, history, religion, and politics evolved, but Kuhn’s notion of paradigms is really crucial to understand them. 

Technological Paradigms

The notion of paradigms is useful in explaining technological evolution and change. Technological paradigms can be viewed through the Kuhnian prism to understand how technological waves can change the problems that are being solved, provide new solutions, and lead to the establishment of skills, institutions, practices, and evolve into a supply chain. 

The printing revolution in the 15^th-16^th century is a paradigm shift. Before, knowledge was transmitted by hand-copied manuscripts or orally, and literacy was scarce. After a long transition, printing allowed a mass reproduction of information, standardization of knowledge, and rapid diffusion of ideas and technologies. Similarly, the industrial revolution in the 18^th and 19^th century, was a shift from old paradigms that relied on artisan production, human and animal power, and localized manufacturing to industries that rely on mechanized production, fossil fuels, and factories and economies of scale. In the 19^th and 20^th century, electrification and mass production were significant paradigm shifts, and in the late 20^th century, we had digital computers and the information revolution. We are now in the midst of artificial intelligence and data-centric revolution, which are based on new learning systems and pattern recognition at scale, and probability decision-making. While we are aware of the occurring transition, we are less aware of its implications. Personally, I realized that if you cannot beat them, join them and this blog post was written with the assistance of AI. From my minimal experience with AI, I learned that you need to be very well-informed to produce useful prompts and to check the reliability of the results. I am also concerned about the capacity of humans and the future of employment in an AI world. 

As an economist, I am particularly interested in the transition from a fossil-based, linear throughput economy to a circular one. In the prevailing paradigm, the central objective has been to maximize output efficiently, with environmental impacts treated largely as externalities. The emerging paradigm instead focuses on how to meet human needs and aspirations within planetary limits.

Under this framework, performance can no longer be evaluated solely by profits or GDP. Assessment must also account for life-cycle emissions, system resilience, and net present value at the whole-system level. The transition entails moving from fossil-based technologies to modular renewable energy systems, and from linear extraction and disposal to circular material flows.

This shift creates value in technologies for recovery, recycling, and reuse; in bio-based materials; and in designs that enable disassembly. It also points toward integrated bio-industrial systems and symbiotic innovation and product supply chains that jointly consider economic, environmental, and resilience attributes.

Such a paradigm shift requires a policy environment that de-risks innovation, coordinates infrastructure, and sets dynamic standards, while preserving space for entrepreneurship and experimentation.

The Evolution of Economics’ Paradigms

Economics’ paradigms have evolved in response to changing technologies, institutional complexity, and societal objectives. While early economic thought focused on markets and efficiency, successive paradigms progressively incorporated uncertainty, institutions, innovation, and governance. 

Classical political economy, associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo, focused on production, specialization, and long-run growth constrained by land and resources. Analysis emphasized aggregate outcomes rather than the mechanisms through which new technologies emerged and diffused.

The neoclassical paradigm associated Alfred Marshall shifted attention to marginal decision-making, prices, and allocative efficiency. It provided powerful tools for analyzing markets, but innovation remained largely exogenous, and economic success was evaluated primarily through static efficiency. This framework offered limited insight into technological change, scale-up, or long-run adaptation.

Major disruptions—the Great Depression and later stagflation—motivated macroeconomic paradigms centered on stabilization and expectations, most notably Keynesian and New Classical economics. While these approaches advanced understanding of business cycles and policy credibility, they did little to explain how innovation is generated, financed, and commercialized, or why many socially valuable technologies fail to scale.

From the late twentieth century onward, economics increasingly turned toward innovation and institutions. Economic growth theory, led by Robert Solow, Daron Acemoglu, Paul Romer and Philippe Aghion, made technological change central to growth and showed that incentives and policy shape innovation rates. Induced innovation models demonstrated that the direction of technological change responds to relative prices, scarcity, and regulation, an insight especially relevant for agriculture, energy, and environmental technologies.

At the same time, institutional and organizational economics expanded the analytical scope. Ronald Coase and Oliver Williamson explained how transaction costs, uncertainty, and asset specificity shape the governance of innovation, while David J. Teece showed why firm capabilities, complementary assets, and business models determine whether innovations capture value. 

Another recent paradigm is behavioral economics. It represents it relaxes the neoclassical assumptions of fully rational, self-interested agents with stable preferences, replacing them with empirically grounded models of bounded rationality, heuristics, and systematic biases. It integrates insights from psychology and neuroscience, shifting economics from a purely deductive framework to one that is increasingly experimental and evidence-based. This paradigm explains persistent anomalies—such as under-saving, inertia, and loss aversion—that standard models cannot reconcile. As a result, it changes both positive analysis and policy design, justifying interventions like nudges that improve welfare without relying solely on prices or mandates. The transition among paradigms in economics is not stark and several coexist, yet over time, the new paradigms tend to be adopted.  

From Micro and Macro Paradigms to a Supply-Chain Systems Perspective

The evolution of economic paradigms can be interpreted not only as a sequence of intellectual shifts, but also as a growing recognition of the limits of narrow analytical lenses. A useful distinction is between macro paradigms, which focus on aggregate outcomes such as growth, employment, and inflation, and micro paradigms, which focus on individual decision-making, market interactions, and price formation. Much of modern economics has been built on micro paradigms that abstract from the physical world and treat economic performance as emerging from a relatively small set of transactions, prices, and equilibrium conditions.

Traditional neoclassical microeconomics, and many of its extensions, rely on simplified representations of production and consumption in which technologies are summarized by production functions and environmental feedbacks are largely ignored. Even when uncertainty and expectations are introduced, as in rational expectations or information economics, the physical transformation of materials, energy, and biological resources remains peripheral. Behavioral economics has enriched this framework by relaxing assumptions of full rationality, introducing bounded rationality, heuristics, norms, and biases. While behavioral insights improve predictions of individual and market behavior, they often remain disconnected from the biophysical systems in which economic activity is embedded.

In contrast, macro paradigms—Keynesian, growth, and institutional approaches—have focused on aggregate dynamics, long-run development, and systemic constraints. Yet these paradigms also tend to treat technology and production structures in highly aggregated ways, limiting their ability to address coordination failures, scale-up bottlenecks, and sustainability challenges that arise at intermediate levels of organization.

This course advances a different perspective, one that is more closely aligned with real-world economic and environmental systems. We argue that economies are better understood as networks of multiple, symbiotic supply chains—both of innovation and of production—that transform raw materials through successive stages of discovery, development, processing, distribution, and consumption. These multistage supply chains explicitly incorporate biophysical constraints, behavioral responses, and institutional arrangements, and they generate not only valued goods and services but also residues that are sources of pollution and environmental stress. Forever, more than 90% of innovations don’t end up as commercial products and innovation and product supply chain are subject to random shocks and uncertainties that have to be considered as we analyze them.  

Viewing economic systems through this lens allows economists to better explain past patterns of technological change, anticipate future transitions, and design effective policy interventions. In particular, it provides a way to address classic chicken-and-egg and coordination problems—where valuable feedstock are not developed because there is no infrastructure to utilize them. Such problems arise in sustainable energy, bioeconomy development, and circular material systems—where prices alone fail to induce efficient outcomes. By embedding economic behavior within interconnected innovation and product supply chains, this paradigm offers a more realistic and policy-relevant foundation for analyzing economic performance in a world facing tight environmental constraints and rapidly evolving societal demands.

Conclusion

The Kuhnian paradigm perspective provides a powerful framework for assessing the evolution of human thought and action systems, including science, religion, technology, and economics. History reveals recurrent revolutionary patterns in which established ways of thinking and doing are fundamentally transformed, often accompanied by profound social and organizational change. 

Kuhn provides a powerful lens for understanding the evolution of economic thought and practice. Periods of “normal economics,” in which analysis focuses on marginal adjustments within established frameworks, are periodically disrupted by deeper transformations driven by technological change, social pressures, and binding biophysical constraints. Today’s transition from a fossil-based, linear throughput [רפ4] economy toward a circular and bio-based system reflects such a moment of paradigm change. Traditional economic metrics and analytical tools—centered narrowly on prices, profits, and aggregate output—are increasingly insufficient for guiding decision-making in a world facing climate change, biodiversity loss, and heightened demands for resilience and equity.

Viewing economic systems through this broader paradigm enables economists to better explain historical patterns of technological change, anticipate future transitions, and design more effective policy interventions. In particular, it highlights the critical role of government initiatives—often characterized as industrial policies—including investments in research and development, physical infrastructure, workforce training, and, in some cases, targeted subsidies. These interventions do not replace markets; rather, they enable markets to function by empowering the private sector, overcoming classic coordination failures and chicken-and-egg problems, and accelerating the emergence of new technologies and supply chains. Such challenges are especially acute in domains such as sustainable energy, bioeconomy development, and circular material systems, where price signals alone frequently fail to induce socially efficient outcomes.

Embedding economic behavior within interconnected innovation and product supply chains offers a more realistic and policy-relevant analytical foundation. This perspective explicitly links discovery, development, scale-up, and diffusion to material flows, environmental externalities, and behavioral responses. It also clarifies how economic and biophysical systems co-evolve, producing both valued goods and unavoidable residues that must be managed. By integrating these dimensions, the emerging paradigm moves economics closer to the physical world it seeks to explain and influence.

Ultimately, ideas originating in agricultural, environmental, and resource economics—fields long considered peripheral—are now central to shaping this transition. Their multidisciplinary orientation and sustained engagement with climate change, food security, and biodiversity preservation position them to contribute to a new economic paradigm. If successfully translated into policy and institutional change, this paradigm has the potential not only to enhance sustainable development but also to support greater global stability, cooperation, and harmony.

Member Blog: Soumya Balasubramanya

Nepal: Private trees for jobs and growth

• Soumya Balasubramanya
• Jihae Kwon
• Meerim Shakirova

 | November 27, 2025

REPUBLISHED FROM: wORLD bANK bLOGS

Nepal is a global leader in forest conservation, having increased its forest cover from 26% to over 46% in the past three decades. This success in large part is due to community-based forestry management practiced since the early 1990s.

National forests were handed over to community forestry user groups who helped restore degraded forests creating exclosures to allow biomass to regenerate and then allowed regulated access to member households for extracting non-timber forest products such as firewood, fodder, and leaf litter.

Community forestry management has also been shown to reduce poverty in Nepal.

To sustain these gains, promoting tree plantations in privately-owned lands can help complement Nepal’s community forestry successes and further enhance livelihoods and economic opportunities for Nepalis.
The case for private trees

Gita Regmi from Palpa harvests firewood, fodder, leaf litter and fruits from her household’s small private farm. The mix of harvests has helped her earn extra income and improve her household’s well-being.

Gita’s household is not alone. According to May the Forest Be with You, a recent report by the World Bank that maps Nepal’s forest landscape and livelihoods, 48 percent of Nepali households own private trees which they use towards their energy and livelihood needs. Experts agree that private tree ownership has increased over the last 20 years.

Private trees not only improve the livelihoods of households by providing productive inputs such as firewood and fodder; they also help lower pressure on community forests in Nepal.
Private trees not only improve the livelihoods of households by providing productive inputs such as firewood and fodder; they also help lower pressure on community forests in Nepal.

In contrast to global trends, Nepal has seen a reduction in land under crop cultivation and a simultaneous increase in forest cover over the past two decades. This shift is largely driven by rising outmigration, which has resulted in a shortage of labor for planting staple crops like rice and wheat. As a result, many agricultural lands have been left fallow or barren. With nearly 77 percent of households now receiving remittances, families are increasingly purchasing food rather than growing it themselves.

These underutilized lands present a unique opportunity for private tree plantations, which require less labor than staple crops. By focusing on high-value tree species, private trees could not only sustain Nepal’s gains in forest conservation but also provide significant new income streams and employment opportunities for rural households.

The report also states that nationally, 38 percent of households continue to depend on public forests—mostly community forests—for non-timber forest products such as firewood for cooking, fodder for livestock and leaf litter to improve fertility of farmlands. The greatest share of users of community forests belong to the poorest households. In contrast, private tree ownership is uniformly distributed across richer and poorer households.

What can be done to boost private trees?

Increasing the productivity of private tree planting can enhance rural livelihoods and resilience in Nepal. But this will require investment in extension services in both agriculture and forestry sectors.

Investments in forest extension services: Community forests have been successful at enhancing livelihoods for poor households by easing access to vital productive inputs such as firewood, fodder, food items and leaf litter. With strategic planning and foresight, it may be possible, over time, to transition community forests that contain commercially important timber species to increase productivity of such trees and earn greater revenues. However, this transition will need significant environmental and social safeguards. On the social side, safeguards need to ensure that the poorest members of community forestry user groups do not lose access to productive inputs, and that they benefit from greater revenues. On the environmental side, safeguards that reduce the risk of rapid deforestation in the pursuit of larger cash revenues need to be intentionally designed and enforced. Such a transition will require investing in public forest extension services that can transparently partner with community forestry user groups to increase cash revenues while minimizing the risks.

Investments in agroforestry extension: Since land holdings in Nepal are small, households’ benefits from diversified non-monoculture practices are likely to be higher than from monoculture. Strengthening design and delivery of agroforestry systems that can cater to the economic needs of smallholders would significantly enhance rural livelihoods. Extension programs will need to identify ecologically appropriate and economically profitable mixes of crops and trees. They will need to improve the supply of technical information and training on practices such as regenerative agriculture. They will also need to improve the local availability of quality inputs such as seeds and saplings. Extension investments that enhance technical and economic capacity of agencies and rural populations are important building blocks for boosting private trees, advancing Nepal’s development priorities, and creating forest-based opportunities for Nepalis.

Gita confirmed the importance of training when we met her, and we suspect that she is not alone. “We would benefit greatly from receiving technical training on how to manage our land better to increase yield of firewood, fodder and fruits, along with crop yields,” she told us “This will improve my household’s income and reduce the amount of time we have to spend in securing forest products which are very important for our livelihoods.”
“We would benefit greatly from receiving technical training on how to manage our land better to increase yield of firewood, fodder and fruits, along with crop yields. This will improve my household’s income and reduce the amount of time we have to spend in securing forest products which are very important for our livelihoods.” - Gita Regmi, Palpa, Nepal

Member Blog: David Zilberman

“If Walls Could Speak” by Moshe Safdie -Architecture and Lessons for Economics

Moshe Safdie is a master builder, a world leading architect who aims to address people’s social problems by designing buildings. I first met Moshe Safdie when we were recipients of the Wolf Prize. Safdie radiated the quiet authority of someone whose work speaks for itself, yet he was generous with his time and insights. He guided the recipients and their families through one of his signature creations in Jerusalem: the Mamilla development, a project that connects the two halves of the city, adjacent to the Old City walls. Walking beside him, I sensed that this was not just another commercial development but a meditation on coexistence. Here was architecture as diplomacy: ancient stone blended with modern design, sacred and secular, Jewish and Arab, commerce and spirituality. Years later, reading his memoir If Walls Could Speak: My Life in Architecture (Safdie 2022), I relived that moment. The book is captivating not only as a personal journey but as a profound philosophical statement. It is also, for me as an economist, a reminder that one understands one’s own discipline more fully by studying the leaders of others.

A Life in Architecture

Safdie’s life story reads like a modern epic. Born in Haifa in 1938 to a Sephardic family of Syrian descent, he grew up in a society that both offered opportunity and imposed barriers. His family was relatively affluent, but as Sephardim they were not fully accepted into the Ashkenazi-dominated elite of early Israel. This tension between belonging and exclusion shaped his worldview, giving him both resilience and empathy. At 15, Safdie moved to Montreal. His brilliance soon found expression in architecture, and at 29 he produced his breakthrough: Habitat 67, the modular housing project designed for the Montreal Expo. Its concrete blocks stacked like Lego created a new model of urban living. Safdie recalls: “I had been given an impossible task, with impossible constraints. Yet it was precisely these constraints that unleashed invention” (Safdie, 2022, p. 74). From that moment, his career became global. He designed airports in Canada, museums in Arkansas, housing in Singapore, bridges in India. Each project was different, but each bore his signature: an insistence that architecture must serve humanity. “Buildings are not sculptures,” he writes. “They must work, they must breathe, they must dignify” (p. 128)

My encounters with Safdie gave the book added resonance. Visiting his Arkansas museum, I was struck by how the building seemed to grow out of the landscape, uniting art and nature. Walking with him through Mamilla, I saw firsthand how he reconciled contradictions—sacred and secular, old and new, divided yet connected.

Reading his memoir was like revisiting those moments. The pages felt personal, a continuation of conversations begun years ago. His voice in print matched the man I knew passionate, reflective, unpretentious.

The Glamour and the Gravity

Safdie’s book is also candid about the glamour of being a world-famous architect. He mingled with the rich and powerful, from kings to philanthropists. He designed iconic landmarks that became part of national identity. Unlike economists, who rarely make headlines, architects become celebrities, shaping skylines and cultures. One of the most touching stories in the book is his relationship with Yitzhak Rabin. Safdie admired Rabin’s courage in pursuing peace. He recalls their conversations with warmth, describing him as a man of both humility and vision. The assassination of Rabin was a personal and professional wound. Safdie was asked to design Rabin’s grave, and he did so with profound simplicity: “I wanted his resting place to echo the man himself— austere, modest, yet enduring” (p. 283). Reading this was painful for me as well. Like Safdie, I was devastated by Rabin’s death. It was not only the loss of a leader but the loss of possibility. The opportunities for peace that evaporated with his death continue to haunt the Middle East. Safdie’s grave design stands as both tribute and lament: a reminder of what was, and what might have been.

The Philosophical Core and Lessons for Economists

What elevates If Walls Could Speak above a standard memoir, is its philosophical depth. Safdie argues that architecture is not just about structures, but about human experience. He rejects both pure functionalism and pure spectacle. Instead, he insists on a balance between utility and beauty. “The true test of a building,” he notes, “is not whether it dazzles at its opening but whether, fifty years later, it still makes life better for those who inhabit it” (p. 201). This struck me as an economist. Our discipline, too, is about designing systems that last. We construct policies, markets, and supply chains that must endure beyond the immediate. Safdie’s emphasis on longevity—on buildings that grow into their surroundings—is a lesson for us. An economic model or institution must likewise be judged not by its immediate efficiency but by its resilience and humanity over time. Safdie is also deeply spiritual, though not religious. He speaks of architecture as a calling, a devotion to humanity rather than to any deity. “I build,” he writes, “not to serve God but to serve humanity. If there is holiness in what I do, it lies in the dignity it confers” (p. 302). Economists, reading this, might ask themselves: are our equations merely technical, or do they also confer dignity?

Reading Safdie made me reflect on several lessons for my own field: 

Constraints as Catalysts – Habitat 67 was born from impossibility. “The more they told me it could not be done, the more I knew I had to try” (p. 66). For economists, this is a reminder that scarcity and limitation are not only problems but opportunities for innovation. Climate change, drought, or resource limits can drive creativity rather than despair.

Utility beyond material needs – Safdie insists that architecture must nurture the spirit. “A home must be more than walls and a roof; it must allow its inhabitants to feel they belong” (p. 119). Economists, likewise, must see welfare as more than consumption. Belonging, fairness, and identity are part of human well-being.

Beauty as Necessity – Safdie defends beauty not as luxury but as a human need. “To build without beauty is to diminish those who live within” (p. 147). In economics, the analogy is clear: policies that maximize efficiency while eroding dignity or justice are incomplete.

Design as Diplomacy is Jerusalem projects embody architecture as a peace-making force. “Every stone laid here is also a statement about who belongs. I wanted to build in a way that said: we all belong” (p. 214). Economists, too, must treat trade, migration, and development as not merely technical but relational, requiring trust and mutual recognition.

Heterogeneity and Fit – Perhaps the most powerful lesson for economics is Safdie’s insistence that architecture must fit its context. No single design works everywhere. A museum in Arkansas cannot be a replica of one in Singapore; a housing complex in Jerusalem must respond to different cultural and historical realities than one in Montreal. “Every place demands its own solution, drawn from its landscape, its culture, its people” (p. 189).

This resonates strongly with my own research. Markets, technologies, and institutions do not behave uniformly across regions or populations. Adoption patterns differ, preferences vary, and constraints evolve in distinct ways. Just as architects study the terrain and culture before sketching a line, economists must understand local context before designing a policy. The “one-size-fits-all” approach fails because it ignores heterogeneity—the diversity of resources, incentives, and human behaviors that define our world.

Safdie’s architecture teaches that “fit” is not “compromise”—it is excellence shaped by empathy. Economists, too, must embrace diversity and adaptation as the essence of good design. Context is not noise; it is the condition for meaningful solutions

Economics Through Architecture

The greatest gift of this book, for me, was how it illuminated my own discipline. Economists often pride themselves on abstraction, reducing life to equations. Safdie refuses reduction. He insists on the messy fullness of human life. His architecture is not only about efficiency but about meaning. Economics should be the same. Our task is not simply to allocate resources but to design systems that uplift. Safdie’s insistence that “Every building makes a statement about who we are and what we value” (p. 91) could be translated directly into economics: every policy, every market, every trade-off expresses values. The question is whether those values ennoble or diminish us.

Conclusion

If Walls Could Speak is more than a memoir. It is a philosophical reflection, a moral testament, and a design manifesto. It shows us a boy from Haifa who became a global architect, rubbing shoulders with presidents and designing landmarks that endure. It also shows us a man of humility, who believes architecture is ultimately about humanity. It was written by an architect, but it provides lessons for all disciplines. 

For economists, this book is invaluable. It reveals our discipline through another lens. Like architects, we are designers, working under constraints. Like them, we must aspire not only to functionality but to dignity, not only to growth but to belonging. And like them, we must remember that one size does not fit all: heterogeneity, context, and fit are not obstacles to design—they are its essence. Safdie’s friendship with Rabin, and the grave he designed, remind us of the opportunities lost when peace is deferred. His buildings remind us that beauty is not optional. And his philosophy reminds us that walls do speak—and when they do, they can tell stories of fit, dignity, and coexistence.

References

• Safdie, Moshe. If Walls Could Speak: My Life in Architecture. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2022.
• Simon, Herbert A. The Sciences of the Artificial. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.

 

Member Blog: David Zilberman

 

Traveling Across Europe on the Road to a Circular Bioeconomy

4 Comments / Blog, Economics, Finance, and Others / By David ZILBERMAN / September 14, 2025

The circular bioeconomy aims to enhance the productivity of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries by optimizing the use of natural resources in these sectors. It emphasizes recycling residues and waste products to generate energy, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, while also enabling carbon sequestration. These efforts contribute significantly to the transition from non-renewable resources, such as petroleum, to renewable ones—helping to mitigate and adapt to climate change, while also enhancing rural development and preserving biodiversity.

Although the circular bioeconomy is a relatively new concept, it has recently gained significant momentum as countries develop their own plans and programs. Because the bioeconomy is diverse, it takes different forms depending on national contexts and environmental conditions. This month, I participated in several events that highlighted both the hopes and challenges associated with building the bioeconomy.

The Californian Visit to Denmark

I was part of a California delegation to Denmark aimed at building collaboration between the Danish government, Danish companies, and the state of California. California has a strong agricultural sector and is a leader in bioeconomy research and environmental innovation. However, the Central Valley, where most of California’s agricultural activity takes place, remains relatively impoverished.

The premise of the visit was that Denmark, with its world-class agricultural sector and leading life science and agribusiness companies, could offer valuable lessons on how to build a thriving bioeconomy. At the same time, collaboration with the University of California could help advance technology-based products and innovations.

We were impressed by Denmark’s ability to balance the interests of agriculture, industry, government, and the environment in pursuit of initiatives that are broadly beneficial to society. Denmark stands out as a model country, combining a strong capitalist ethos with a world-class welfare state. We also enjoyed the high quality of life in Copenhagen, particularly the creative architectural design that seamlessly integrates the old with the new. A big surprise was the food; we visited Noma, which has been ranked the world’s best restaurant four times in its history, and were amazed by the attention to detail and the beauty of the ambiance.

During our visit, we were particularly impressed by the Danish dairy farms and regional recycling models, which successfully circularize multiple waste streams to generate valuable products—ranging from natural gas to food products. The Danish universities have shown us a wide variety of research initiatives, including one that is transforming carbon into valuable products that can replace concrete in construction. The Danes recognize the folly of the EU’s restriction on the use of GMOs and CRISPR, and I expect Danish companies to establish the capacity to produce new products using modern agricultural biotechnologies in California. I also hope that we will be able to establish a regional joint venture in the Central Valley that will circulate waste products from agriculture and forestry to produce valuable products and reduce pollution and the risk of fires.

The Black Soldier Fly Conference in Cambridge

One of the greatest challenges of the bioeconomy is developing technologies that can convert waste into valuable products. However, the black soldier fly (BSF) has this capacity. Its larvae can consume a wide range of organic waste—including food residues, manure, and even forestry by-products—and transform it into protein, oil, and fertilizer. Scientists face challenges in breeding high-quality fly strains, designing effective feeding systems, and producing high-value outputs. Because different feedstocks generate distinct products, a major challenge lies in establishing supply chains that minimize overall costs while ensuring safety in both production processes and final products.

I was fortunate to be invited to speak at the BSF conference at St. John’s College, Cambridge. The college is renowned for its grand chapel, extensive historic buildings, and the Bridge of Sighs, which spans the River Cam. Punts—flat-bottomed boats propelled by a long pole—are a common sight on the river, offering iconic views of the college and a source of income. Dining in the centuries-old halls felt like a Harry Potter experience, and staying in the “New” Court (a 200-year-old collection of palaces) offered the unique combination of historic charm and modern amenities.

In my talk, I suggested that the BSF sector is in a takeoff phase: it is already commercial, generating close to a billion dollars in sales, yet still constrained by costs, regulations, and technical risks. Production facilities now exist in Europe, North America, Africa, and Asia, with some capable of processing tens of thousands of tons of organic waste annually. BSF protein is already used in aquaculture, poultry, and pet food. The industry has developed advanced technologies, including vertical farming of larvae, automated rearing and harvesting, and biorefineries that extract protein, fat, and other co-products. Market estimates project the BSF industry will reach $2–3 billion by 2030.

The sector’s future, however, depends on continued innovation to expand the range of feedstocks that BSF larvae can consume, reduce processing costs, attract new investment, create market opportunities, and navigate evolving regulations. Regulation is especially crucial, as restrictions on allowable feedstocks and the use of biotechnology to improve BSF strains could significantly limit the industry’s potential. Much of today’s innovation originates in the EU, yet the region also enforces some of the world’s strictest regulations. In contrast, China is rapidly scaling its BSF industry, viewing it as a strategic tool to reduce reliance on imported American soybeans for livestock feed. I speculated that within ten years, BSF revenues could surpass one billion dollars in China and India, reach hundreds of millions in Africa and North America, but remain much smaller in Europe unless regulatory frameworks become less restrictive.

Presentation at Brussels

I was invited to Brussels to present my perspective on how Europe can build a stronger circular bioeconomy to address major global challenges, including climate change, food security, biodiversity loss, and rural development. I emphasize that the challenges are both scientific and political, requiring compromises between the needs of the present and the responsibilities to future generations, as well as between risk-taking and benefits.

The bioeconomy is diverse and has many forms, including a biotechnology-focused bioeconomy that emphasizes genetics and synthetic biology. A resource-oriented bioeconomy, centered on agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. A circular bioeconomy, which reuses waste and creates new value from by-products. A green or eco-bioeconomy, which protects biodiversity and provides ecosystem services. Every country should find its optimal combinations. Building the bioeconomy requires a substantial investment in research that will lead to the development of supply chains consisting of growing feedstock, processing, and distributing it.

The bioeconomy faces real challenges. Scaling up technologies is costly, returns are uncertain, and rules differ across countries. Regulations often restrict the types of waste that can be used or slow down the adoption of biotechnology. Social acceptance, competition with fossil fuels, and uneven global investment also hinder progress.

For Europe, the bioeconomy is already significant, contributing around €2.4 trillion (about 5% of GDP). The region has strengths in sustainability, research, and consumer demand, but faces constraints: high costs, limited biomass, and fragmented regulations. Meanwhile, the United States and Asia are investing heavily and growing rapidly, with China viewing the sector as a means to reduce its dependence on imported soybeans.

My main message was: if Europe embraces innovation, reduces unnecessary regulatory barriers, and invests in circular systems, it can become a global leader in the bioeconomy. This would not only support climate action and biodiversity but also create new industries, jobs, and opportunities for rural and coastal communities.

The lessons of my European trip are global. Humanity is facing major challenges, including climate change, loss of biodiversity, food insecurity, and excessive dependence on non-renewable resources. The bioeconomy can provide many solutions; building it will involve investments in research, development, education, and human capital, as well as awareness, which are essential to establish new circular bioeconomy industries. It will require policies that strike a balance between risk and benefits, provide the right incentives, and leverage new scientific insights. Building the bioeconomy will entail some risk, but not taking the challenge will be riskier.  

Member Blog: David Zilberman

 

Food and Technology Fights Will Affect Our Future – Says Richard Sexton in a Fascinating New Book

Leave a Comment / Uncategorized / By David ZILBERMAN / August 17, 2025

Most people in the developed world worry much more about “what is a good diet” or “how to enjoy food and lose weight”, rather than “will there be enough food?”. The abundance of food in the last two to three centuries is the result of scientific discoveries and resulting innovations (selective breeding, fertilizer, pesticide, tractors, better storage) and expansion of agricultural land. It also resulted in negative environmental effects that must be addressed. But policymakers and the public largely assume that in the Malthusian race between population growth and technology, technology won. Still, food price inflation may affect elections. More than a billion people are food insecure, but food insecurity is seen as a problem of poverty and underutilization of resources. In the West, there are policies that aim to reduce food supplies. 

Richard Sexton argues convincingly that we should worry about food availability given recent developments. His well-written and argued book (Food Fight: Misguided Policies, Supply Challenges, and the Impending Struggle to Feed a Hungry World), recently published by the University of California Press, makes the case that the Malthusian threat of the planet’s inability to feed human population is not over. Sexton identified several factors that contribute to this threat – and suggests that it can be overcome by smart policy. 

Richard Sexton is one of the leading agricultural economists of our generation. He was born on a dairy farm and his experience and familiarity with rural life gives him an edge over many of us who grew in the cities. He’s a towering figure in the study of Industrial Organization of agriculture – understanding industry behavior, different forms of competition among agribusiness firms, and food and quality pricing. He’s also a rare academic leader – he was the Chair of the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at Davis for about 10 years and led it to become second to none. He also has the founding editor of ARE Update, a widely read bimonthly magazine that disseminates new findings on the economics of agriculture and the environment. Richard has a rare capacity to clarify complex issues and explain tough choices to the educated reader.

Sexton considers several threats to the agricultural system. First, is continued economic growth and income growth. As people in developing countries get wealthier, they expand the consumption of a meat-based diet. Animals need to be fed grains, and thus agricultural outputs need to grow by 50% or more, compared to existing carbon levels. Add to this, climatic change that tends to reduce yield significantly at some of the most productive locations in the world. Of course, adaptation and movement of crops is possible, but it’s costly and difficult. Some of the populations affected by these changes cannot move. In addition, changes in climate lead to movement of pests and diseases. These changes require adaptation which requires increased research and knowledge. 

In addition to demographics and climatic changes, many of the challenges we face are the results of human choices. Sexton is very critical of biofuels that take good land out of production and frequently doesn’t contribute to reduce greenhouse gases. I don’t share much of his criticism, viewing biofuels as a work-in-progress, and believing that other regulations are preventing humanity to harness the potential of natural resources to provide much more than food. But Sexton’s argument is well-reasoned and may be valid if we don’t invest more in research and change our policies and regulations. 

The beauty of the book is the analyses of mistaken policies, regulations, and perspectives. Sometimes, good intentions lead to bad policies or arrangements. Organic farming represents the desire to avoid toxic chemicals, but in most cases, the yields of organic systems are significantly below that of traditional systems, which leads to expansion of agricultural land and increased greenhouse gas emissions. He presents a wide range of evidence where organic farming may defeat the environmental purposes that it proclaims. Organic food may be desirable as a social signal, but to move to organic farming on a large scale may exacerbate food insecurity and deforestation. Sexton also criticizes the local food movement. It has its appeal, helping some local farmers to thrive, but the price on consumers is immense. Because certain regions have advantages in terms of agricultural productivity and technology, the overall cost on producing food, in terms of money and greenhouse gases may significantly increase by an emphasis on buying local.

Sexton is also critical of some of the regulation associated with animal welfare. He’s sympathetic to animal welfare arguments but suggests introducing policies that balance the interests of consumers, producers and animal welfare considering benefits, cost and risks. He is critical of some of the emerging policies today that sound good, but their real performance is shaky. Sexton is in his base when he’s able to identify some of the notions that may lead to misguided policy. One example is the concern about waste. Of course, there is a place for efficiency and reduced waste, but evidence shows that fighting food waste intensively may be costly and ineffective. He also argues that regulations that aim to artificially reduce consumption of meat or other products during certain times, generally are of limited value. A lot of policies that are introduced with good intentions, e.g., climate-smart agriculture, may not be in practice, as effective as claimed.

Richard is a strong believer in science-based agriculture. The book provides strong arguments against regulations that limit the use of modern technologies like gene editing and other biotechnologies. Relying on multiple studies, he documents the gains from adoption of some of the modern technologies, and huge loss, especially to developing countries, not using them. Again, good intentions to protect against unknown uncertainties, and the desire to eliminate risk have resulted in policies that are endangering humanity. 

The main threats of the food system and human well-being is reduced investment in research and development in agriculture. While private investments in agricultural research might increase, it is not a substitute to public research. Public sector research makes the discovery that provides the foundation to applied research and commercialization by the private sector. Sexton brings multiple evidence and examples that we are all losing from failing to invest sufficiently in expanding our knowledge base and developing new technologies to support food production. 

Sexton’s book is a rare economic book that is fun to read, in addition to being very informative. It addresses many of the controversies relating to agriculture and food in an approachable manner and I learned a lot, even though I may disagree with some of the points. The book is ideal as an introduction to agricultural economists in high school and colleges and can be a great gift for people that care about agriculture and the planet. I recommend Food Fight: Misguided Policies, Supply Challenges, and the Impending Struggle to Feed a Hungry World strongly. 

Member Blog: David Zilberman

Adoption, Diffusion, and the Tipping Point: Merging Malcolm Gladwell’s insights with academic knowledge

By David ZILBERMAN / April 26, 2025

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point and The Revenge of the Tipping Point. Both books draw on and interpret a wide array of scientific papers, making them informative and engaging and valuable contributions to broader discourse beyond the academic literature. My work focuses on the economics of adoption and diffusion. Adoption and diffusion, from time to time, lead to the emergence of tipping points. These processes can explain the spread of technologies, changes in beliefs and lifestyles, and even changes in regimes and governments. I want to shine some light on how these processes work and their implications.

Diffusion and Adoption: Definitions and Early Models
Diffusion is the spread of technologies, diseases, or ideas among a population. For example, iPhones have diffused rapidly worldwide, while the adoption of automobiles has occurred more slowly. Adoption, by contrast, is the individual’s decision to embrace a new technology, belief, or behavior—such as a farmer choosing to adopt a tractor over oxen. Early diffusion models treated the process as a form of imitation among a homogeneous population, often borrowing from epidemiological frameworks: a few people are “infected,” and others adopt through contact. Aggregated adoption over time follows an S-shaped curve: slow at first, then accelerating (takeoff), and finally slowing again as it approaches saturation. This pattern holds for technologies and beliefs, though disadoption and replacement are common as newer options emerge. People may even use multiple technologies simultaneously during transition periods.

Beyond Homogeneity: Thresholds and Heterogeneity
While early models have been valuable and easy to estimate, they are limited. They overlook that individuals differ and that both technologies and beliefs evolve. To address this, we developed the modified threshold model, which assumes a heterogeneous population where each individual makes decisions based on unique preferences and circumstances and where opportunities shift over time. Sources of heterogeneity differ by context: large farmers are more likely to adopt tractors early; wealthy individuals often purchase luxury goods first; those with higher education may more readily adopt complex software. Recognizing this diversity is essential to improving policy and marketing strategies.

The Stages of Adoption and the Role of Policy
Adoption unfolds through several stages: awareness, assessment, decision, and reevaluation. A person might hear about a product through word-of-mouth or advertising and then evaluate its appeal and cost before deciding whether to buy or try it. Reevaluation often follows use, with marketing strategies like demonstrations, warranties, and money-back guarantees helping to reduce post-purchase regret. Economists have long recognized that policy affects diffusion. Subsidies for new technologies, carbon taxes, or mandates can accelerate adoption. Regulation may compel or prohibit certain behaviors, thereby shaping diffusion trajectories.



Dynamic Forces: Learning and Networks
Several dynamic forces further influence diffusion:

• Learning-by-doing reduces production costs over time.
• Learning-by-using improves user efficiency.
• Network externalities make technologies more valuable as more people adopt them.

Technologies also evolve—new models replace old ones, and resale markets allow continued diffusion. These dynamics mean that adoption is not static but a continuous and path-dependent process.

Tipping Points and Societal Transformation
Gladwell’s tipping point concept adds a crucial layer to this understanding. A tipping point marks a threshold where the diffusion rate leads to a qualitative shift in outcomes. For instance, mobile banking became viable once cell phones were widely adopted. As internet use spread, e-commerce flourished. These behavioral changes often precede institutional or market transformations. Gladwell extends this idea beyond technology. In elections, once support for a party exceeds 50%, it wins. He notes that while diffusion is typically a continuous process, tipping points are often binary outcomes—yes or no, on or off—that depend on reaching certain levels of adoption. Natural systems have tipping points too. When greenhouse gas concentrations reach critical levels, they may trigger irreversible climate events like ice sheet collapse. Human behavior, or cumulative emissions, drives natural tipping points, blending the social with the environmental.

Heterogeneity, Influencers, and Superspreaders
Gladwell highlights the importance of heterogeneity in driving diffusion. Epidemics spread via “superspreaders”; technologies spread through influencers. Identifying these catalysts is key to understanding and shaping diffusion. He illustrates this with the opioid crisis: Purdue Pharma downplayed addiction risks, targeting doctors likely to prescribe widely. In states with weak enforcement, like Florida and Ohio, mortality rates soared. Conversely, stronger monitoring in places like New York and Kentucky mitigated harm. The 2010 reformulation of OxyContin to deter abuse marked a tipping point: cutting off supply and accelerating the rise of fentanyl, a more dangerous synthetic alternative. Gladwell uses this to underscore how interventions, even well-intended ones, can have complex ripple effects.

Sequential Diffusion and Cultural Shifts
Diffusion often unfolds sequentially: awareness → attitude change → behavior change → tipping point. Gladwell offers the example of gay marriage, where media (especially television) played a pivotal role in changing attitudes. Will & Grace, watched by millions, helped normalize LGBTQ+ lives. This media-driven awareness contributed to legal and social acceptance, first in California, then across the U.S. Another example is Holocaust awareness. For decades, the topic received little public attention. The Eichmann trial, and later the hit TV series Holocaust, dramatically increased awareness, ultimately leading to the establishment of numerous memorial centers across the U.S.

Policy, Institutions, and Reinforcing Feedback
Understanding diffusion and tipping points is vital for effective policymaking. One example is the “broken windows” theory: enforcing minor laws builds a culture of respect for order, potentially deterring more serious crimes. This logic underpinned New York’s anti-crime efforts in the 1980s and 1990s—removing graffiti and arresting fare-beaters—which arguably helped tip the system toward better behavior. Ultimately, the spread of technologies, behaviors, and attitudes depends on individual choices, social networks, and institutional responses. These feedback loops shape and reshape society over time. Gladwell’s books blend narrative and insight, bringing academic findings to a broad audience while inspiring new theoretical and empirical work.

We saw that the spread of new technologies and attitudes depends on individual behavior, individual heterogeneity, and dynamic learning processes. The spread of new attitudes or technologies may lead to tipping points that result in new institutions and policies, which, in turn, will affect the spread of technologies and attitudes. These reinforcing processes affect policies and explain many of the changes within society. Understanding these issues combines both the results of scientific research and the insights of social thinkers like Gladwell. His tipping point books both educate the public and inspire researchers to develop new directions for research and new theories.