Correcting Retail-Induced Community Adhesion Loss in Post-Automation Economies

This working paper introduces a conceptual framework for addressing community adhesion loss in post-automation economies, with particular attention to retail displacement driven by AutoAI systems. It argues that the primary risk posed by advanced automation is not income loss alone, but the erosion of everyday human participation, local circulation, and informal social coordination that underpin community stability.

The paper defines AutoAI as self-directing artificial intelligence systems that autonomously design, coordinate, and execute operational processes, progressively removing human participation from decision, interaction, and responsibility loops. As AutoAI-intensive models expand, economic surplus increasingly detaches from human involvement, creating participation deficits that conventional welfare or employment-based policies are ill-suited to address.

To correct this imbalance, the paper proposes the Community Adhesion Surcharge (CAS) as a place-based, restorative mechanism applied where retail models eliminate human participation from local circulation. CAS revenues are directed toward peer-led participation infrastructure and community coordination, rather than general redistribution or job preservation. The framework explicitly exempts human-led and hybrid delivery models, rewarding systems that retain meaningful human engagement.

Beyond CAS, the paper articulates a general surplus allocation principle: surplus contribution mechanisms scale with the proportion of human participation removed by AutoAI systems. As automation replaces a greater share of human-led activity, a correspondingly greater share of surplus is redirected toward participation-supporting infrastructure and compensation.

The framework integrates insights from commons governance, platform economics, and human-value assessment, and is grounded in both formal institutional analysis and lived examples of community cooperation across rural and high-density urban contexts. The paper is non-prescriptive with respect to implementation and is intended to inform policymakers, economists, and institutional designers seeking to maintain dignity, cohesion, and social legitimacy in post-automation societies.

This paper presents a conceptual framework intended to support discussion, exploration, and further research. It does not constitute policy advice, legal guidance, or an implementation blueprint. Any references to fiscal mechanisms, institutional arrangements, or regulatory instruments are illustrative and non-prescriptive.

The framework is designed to operate across diverse social, economic, and jurisdictional contexts. Specific parameters, thresholds, and operational details would necessarily require local calibration, democratic deliberation, and empirical validation prior to adoption. Nothing in this paper should be interpreted as advocating immediate implementation without such processes.

The views expressed are those of the author alone and do not represent the position of any institution, government, community organisation, or affiliated body referenced for illustrative or contextual purposes.