Theory of the Political and Economic Nature of Efficiency

The theory that efficiency is fundamentally shaped by political and economic forces—that what counts as efficient, who gets to define it, and whose interests it serves are determined by power and money. The Theory of the Political and Economic Nature of Efficiency argues that efficiency is not a technical concept but a political one, not a neutral measure but an economic weapon. It shows how efficiency definitions serve ruling classes, how they justify exploitation, how they exclude alternatives. The theory is the foundation of critical efficiency studies, of the recognition that efficiency is never just efficiency.

Theory of the Political and Economic Nature of Efficiency Example: "He'd thought efficiency was just about doing things better—technical, neutral, good. The Theory of the Political and Economic Nature of Efficiency showed him otherwise: efficiency was a weapon. It was used to justify layoffs, to cut services, to externalize costs. The 'efficient' solution was usually the one that benefited those already in power. He stopped celebrating efficiency and started asking who was paying for it."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Theory of Absolute and Relative Efficiency

The theory that efficiency operates in two modes: absolute efficiency (efficient by any measure, in any context, for any purpose) and relative efficiency (efficient within a framework, by certain standards, for certain interests). The Theory of Absolute and Relative Efficiency argues that true absolute efficiency is rare—perhaps nonexistent. Most efficiency is relative: efficient for some purposes, not others; by some measures, not others; in some contexts, not others. The theory calls for distinguishing between the two, for not mistaking relative efficiency for absolute, for recognizing that "efficient" always begs the question: by what standard, for whom, at what cost?

Theory of Absolute and Relative Efficiency Example: "The factory was efficient by capitalist standards—maximizing output per worker. By ecological standards, it was disastrous. The Theory of Absolute and Relative Efficiency explained: relative efficiency (to capital), not absolute. The owners presented it as simply 'efficient,' hiding the relativity. She started asking what standards were being used, and whose were being ignored."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Theory of Absolute and Relative Progress

The theory that progress operates in two modes: absolute progress (improvement by any standard, for anyone, in any context) and relative progress (improvement within a framework, by certain measures, for certain groups). The Theory of Absolute and Relative Progress argues that claims of progress are often relative masquerading as absolute. Technological progress (new gadgets) may hide social regress (worse working conditions). Economic progress (GDP growth) may hide ecological regress (environmental destruction). The theory calls for distinguishing between the two, for asking "progress for whom?" and "progress by what measure?" before celebrating.

Theory of Absolute and Relative Progress Example: "The government celebrated economic progress—GDP up, markets booming. But inequality had grown, wages had stagnated, the environment had suffered. The Theory of Absolute and Relative Progress explained: relative progress for capital, not absolute progress for people. The celebration was for some, not all. He started asking who was progressing and who was paying."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Theory of the Efficiency of Power

The theory that power determines what counts as efficient—that those with power define efficiency in ways that serve their interests, and that these definitions then shape reality. The Theory of the Efficiency of Power argues that efficiency is not discovered but decreed: the powerful decide what measures matter, what outcomes count, what costs are relevant. Their efficiency becomes the efficiency, their standards become the standards. The theory is the recognition that efficiency has a politics, that power shapes not just who benefits from efficiency but what efficiency means. It's the foundation of critical efficiency studies, of the insistence on asking "efficient for whom?" before accepting any efficiency claim.

Example: "The powerful called the policy 'efficient.' The powerless called it destruction. The Theory of the Efficiency of Power explained why the powerful's definition prevailed: they had power to define the terms. Their efficiency was the only one that counted, because they counted it. He stopped asking 'is it efficient?' and started asking 'who has power to define efficiency?' The answer explained everything."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Theory of Efficiency Spectrum

The theory that efficiency exists on a spectrum, not as a binary or absolute measure. The Theory of Efficiency Spectrum argues that there is no single point of "efficient" vs. "inefficient" but rather a continuous range of possibilities, with different positions on the spectrum representing different trade-offs, different values, different priorities. An intervention might be highly efficient at profit generation, moderately efficient at job creation, and completely inefficient at environmental protection—all on the same spectrum, all real. The theory calls for mapping where things fall on multiple efficiency spectra, rather than asking the simplistic binary question. It's the recognition that efficiency is not one thing but many, and that the question is not "is it efficient?" but "where on the efficiency spectrum does it fall, and by what measure?"

Example: "They argued about whether the new policy was efficient. He said yes (profit efficiency); she said no (social efficiency). The Theory of Efficiency Spectrum showed they were both right—on different parts of the spectrum. The policy was high on one dimension, low on another. The argument wasn't about facts; it was about which part of the spectrum mattered more. He stopped trying to prove her wrong and started trying to understand where she was standing."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Theory of Progress Spectrum

The theory that progress exists on a spectrum, not as a linear or absolute trajectory. The Theory of Progress Spectrum argues that what counts as progress depends on where you stand, what you value, how you measure. Technological progress (faster computers) may coexist with social regress (greater inequality). Economic progress (GDP growth) may accompany ecological regress (species extinction). The theory calls for mapping progress on multiple spectra—technological, social, ecological, cultural—and recognizing that progress in one dimension may be regress in another. It's the antidote to simplistic narratives of "progress" that ignore trade-offs and exclude perspectives.

Example: "The city celebrated its progress—new buildings, new businesses, new wealth. But longtime residents saw only displacement, destruction of community, loss of culture. The Theory of Progress Spectrum explained: progress on the development spectrum was regress on the community spectrum. Both were real; both were happening simultaneously. The celebration was for some; the mourning was for others. He stopped asking 'is there progress?' and started asking 'progress for whom, and at what cost?'"

by Abzugal February 21, 2026