Whakapapa Economics Impact Modelling

A theoretical and technical report for quantified pathway valuation

May 2026

Abstract

This report develops a standalone theoretical and technical account of whakapapa economics impact modelling. It positions whakapapa economics as a Māori-grounded theory of value and applied modelling architecture for quantifying and monetising direct, indirect, induced, institutional, taiao and intergenerational impacts. The central proposition is that Māori initiatives and other relationally intensive initiatives are frequently undercounted when impact models stop at the directly observed beneficiary, at short causal chains, or at already available monetary proxies. A whakapapa economics approach begins from a different theory of value: value is created, transmitted and transformed through relationships among people, whānau, communities, institutions, te taiao and future generations (Durie, 1994, 2001; Graham, 2009; Hēnare, 2001, 2014; Mika et al., 2022; Te Rito, 2007).

The report argues that the main methodological task is not whether wider relational outcomes should be valued, but how they should be translated into constructs, units, pathways, evidence weights and monetary estimates without reducing Māori concepts to commodities. The core rule is: do not monetise the Māori concept directly; monetise the observable pathway through which the concept becomes material. Mana, mauri, whanaungatanga, tauutuutu, rangatiratanga, wairua and manaakitanga are therefore not priced as abstract concepts. Instead, the model values specific manifestations such as increased agency, reduced whakamā, improved ecological condition, restored hosting capacity, earlier service engagement, whānau knowledge transfer, institutional legitimacy, reduced transaction cost, future educational attainment and long-run economic security.

The report draws on Māori theoretical scholarship, kaupapa Māori evaluation, Indigenous impact assessment, health and education economics, social multiplier theory, shared-values research, distributional analysis, contribution analysis, realist evaluation, ripple effects mapping, social network analysis and agent-based modelling. It concludes by specifying a practical modelling system: a Whakapapa Value Estimate, pathway taxonomy, construct dictionary, proxy hierarchy, attribution and transmission logic, evidence-weighting rules, double-count register, and scenario method.

Executive summary

The report advances one primary claim: whakapapa economics impact modelling should be understood as a quantified pathway approach to value, not as a narrative supplement to orthodox appraisal, nor as a Māori variant of conventional SROI.

It can produce monetised totals, ratios and investment-case evidence, but its theory of value does not derive from SROI or CBA. It derives from whakapapa as a relational and intergenerational ordering of reality, from mana and mauri as concepts concerned with standing, vitality and relational quality, and from tauutuutu as a theory of reciprocal exchange and value transmission (Graham, 2009; Hēnare, 2001; Reid et al., 2023; Te Rito, 2007).

The report also makes a methodological claim. SROI, as commonly practised, is a flexible and principles-based social value accounting frame rather than a fully specified impact science. Social Value International principles require stakeholder involvement, understanding of change, valuing what matters, materiality, transparency, verification, and not overclaiming, but they leave substantial discretion over outcome terminology, stakeholder boundaries, proxy selection, and the treatment of indirect effects (Social Value International, 2025). A recent internal review of 200 SROI reports found that 94% did not share identical outcome terminology with other reports. Exact wording is not the same as construct equivalence, but the finding still points to a serious repeatability problem: social value accounting often lacks a stable construct language. Whakapapa economics responds by combining a Māori theory of value with a more specified modelling approach.

The main technical innovation is pathway monetisation. The model does not ask what mana, mauri or wairua are worth in the abstract. It asks what observable conditions, behaviours, capabilities, avoided harms, or future opportunities are created when these values are upheld. For example, mana may be expressed through restored agency, leadership, participation, reduced whakamā or the capacity to host. Mauri may be expressed through improved ecological condition, healthier homes, avoided degradation or restored system function. Whanaungatanga may be expressed through reduced isolation, informal support, trust, participation and lower transaction costs. These expressions can be quantified where the construct, cohort, unit, attribution, duration, proxy and overlap boundary are defensible.

The report recommends that the primary output should be the Whakapapa Value Estimate. A restricted conventional estimate should not be a standard output because it risks positioning relational value as an add-on to orthodox value. If calculated, a direct-only or orthodox-boundary estimate should be treated as a restricted visibility test: a diagnostic showing what a narrower frame would fail to see, not an alternative estimate of total value. The model should report value by pathway, cohort, evidence confidence, and scenario within the whakapapa economics boundary.

The practical modelling system gives priority to quantification and monetisation where pathways can be specified, bounded and valued without reducing Māori concepts to commodities. It does not default material cultural, relational, whānau, institutional or intergenerational outcomes to qualitative description. It first tests whether the pathway can be named, bounded, evidenced and linked to a construct and unit. If so, it should be quantified and monetised where a defensible proxy or constructed proxy exists. If no adequate proxy exists, the line should be recorded as a new construct requiring valuation development rather than silently treated as zero. Only speculative lines with no mechanism, no materiality and no plausible unit should be excluded.

Contents

• 1. Introduction and core thesis
• 2. Review method, evidence base and scope
• 3. Why impact accounting needs a different foundation
• 4. Whakapapa economics as a theory of value
• 5. Māori theoretical foundations
• 6. Māori wellbeing and policy precedents
• 7. Indigenous impact assessment, rights and authority
• 8. Orthodox SROI, CBA and the problem of under-specification
• 9. Economic and evaluation support for wider monetisation
• 10. The pathway monetisation rule
• 11. The Whakapapa Value Estimate
• 12. Outcome architecture and construct taxonomy
• 13. Pathway discovery and impact generation
• 14. The monetisation engine
• 15. Transmission, attribution and evidence confidence
• 16. Proxy selection and construct development
• 17. Double counting and overlap management
• 18. Time, discounting and intergenerational effects
• 19. Governance, tikanga and data sovereignty
• 20. Reporting and documentation principles
• 21. Application examples
• 22. Challenge protocol and quality assurance
• 23. Research agenda
• 24. Conclusion
• References

1. Introduction and core thesis

Whakapapa economics impact modelling is an applied approach to value accounting that begins from relationships rather than isolated beneficiaries. Its purpose is to quantify and monetise, as far as can be defensibly specified, the full value created by Māori and relationally intensive initiatives. It treats direct outcomes as the first site of impact, not the full boundary of value. Value may be created for the immediate participant, but it may also flow through whānau, household routines, sibling aspirations, caregiver burden, institutional trust, cultural legitimacy, te taiao, governance capability, and future generations.

The report is premised on a simple but consequential claim: when impact models count only direct, individual, short-chain and already-monetisable outcomes, they mis-specify many Māori initiatives. This is not merely a technical omission. It reflects deeper assumptions about what value is, whose value counts, how far consequences can travel before they become inadmissible, what kinds of evidence are taken seriously and how future generations are weighted (Kerr, 2012; Matunga, 2018; Smith, 1999).

The purpose of whakapapa economics is not to replace rigour with cultural assertion. It is to relocate rigour inside a Māori theory of value. The model should be wider in its boundaries and stricter in its specifications. It should include indirect, induced and long-run pathways where the mechanism is real, but it should require each line to pass through construct definition, unit discipline, evidence weighting, attribution logic, scenario testing and double-count controls. The result is a model that counts more because it specifies more, not because it assumes more.

This report, therefore, distinguishes among three levels of work. Whakapapa economics is the school of thought: a Māori-grounded approach to economic reasoning that treats relational obligation, reciprocity and intergenerational consequence as constitutive of value. Te Ao Māori Impact Science is the applied domain: the development of Māori-led impact methods, data systems, modelling protocols and reporting forms. The Whakapapa Impact Model is the technical method: an architecture for tracing and monetising value across direct, whānau, community, institutional, taiao and intergenerational pathways.

The method's central output is the Whakapapa Value Estimate. This is the evidence-weighted monetary estimate of value created within the whakapapa economics boundary. It is neither a conventional SROI with Māori concepts added nor a CBA with a cultural appendix. It is a distinct value account that uses economic tools, including present value, avoided costs, wellbeing valuation, fiscal values, market equivalents, contribution analysis and sensitivity analysis, without accepting orthodox boundaries as the default frame.

2. Review method, evidence base and scope

This report is an integrative conceptual and technical synthesis. It uses Māori theory and philosophy as the primary foundation, then draws selectively on economics, evaluation, Indigenous impact assessment and systems modelling as supporting bodies of method. The structure follows the logic of an academic literature review, but extends it into operational modelling. The goal is not only to justify wider impact boundaries, but to specify how wider impacts can enter the numbers.

The literature base includes Māori scholarship on whakapapa, mana, mauri, wairua, hau, tikanga, tauutuutu and Māori theories of value (Graham, 2009; Hēnare, 2001, 2014; Marsden, 2003; Mika et al., 2022; Reid et al., 2023; Roberts et al., 2004; Te Rito, 2007). It includes kaupapa Māori and decolonising methodologies, which shift the question from cultural sensitivity to authority over knowledge, validity and interpretation (Kerr, 2012; Pihama et al., 2002; Smith, 1999). It includes Māori wellbeing frameworks and policy-operational models, including Te Whare Tapa Whā, Te Pae Mahutonga, He Ara Waiora and Māori built-environment wellbeing models (Cram, 2014; Durie, 1994, 1999, 2001, 2006; Penny et al., 2024; The Treasury, 2024).

The report also draws on Indigenous planning and impact assessment literatures concerned with Indigenous self-determination, cultural impact assessment, strategic Indigenous impact assessment, social licence and rights-based assessment (Chua-oon Rinfret et al., 2022; Jolly, 2022; Jolly & Thompson-Fawcett, 2023; Larsen, 2018; Matunga, 2018; Nakamura, 2013; O’Faircheallaigh, 2009; Partal & Dunphy, 2016; Ruckstuhl et al., 2014; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004; United Nations, 2007; Wikitera, 2024).

The supporting economic and evaluation literatures include family spillovers in health economic evaluation, education spillovers and intergenerational human capital transmission, social multipliers, social capital, shared values and deliberative valuation, distributional cost-effectiveness analysis, capability theory, multi-criteria decision analysis, contribution analysis, realist evaluation, ripple effects mapping, social network analysis and agent-based modelling (Acemoglu & Angrist, 2001; Al-Janabi et al., 2016; Asaria et al., 2016; Chazdon et al., 2017; Currie & Moretti, 2003; Ehsan et al., 2019; Frazão et al., 2018; Glaeser et al., 2003; Grosse et al., 2019; Kenter et al., 2016; Marsh et al., 2017; Mayne, 2012; Moretti, 2004; Nobles et al., 2022; Oreopoulos et al., 2006; Pawson & Tilley, 1997; Sen, 1999; Tracy et al., 2018; Valente, 2012; Wittenberg et al., 2019; Xue et al., 2020).

The report also treats applied SROI practice as an object of critique. SROI is valuable as a flexible social value accounting convention, but flexibility can become under-specification. Social Value International principles provide an important ethical and procedural frame, including materiality, transparency, and not overclaiming, yet they do not by themselves provide a stable construct dictionary, fixed outcome taxonomy or repeatable pathway logic (Social Value International, 2025). This matters because an impact method can be transparent yet not reproducible if analysts use different outcome labels, stakeholder boundaries, and proxies for similar phenomena.

The scope is deliberately applied. The report does not offer a complete statistical manual or an exhaustive proxy library. It provides a theoretical foundation, a modelling structure, a pathway taxonomy, a monetisation workflow, equations, evidence weights, attribution and transmission rules, proxy-selection logic, reporting architecture and implementation guidance suitable for use in live impact reports.

3. Why impact accounting needs a different foundation

Impact assessment is often presented as a neutral exercise: identify outcomes, estimate the counterfactual, monetise benefits where possible, avoid overclaiming and discount the future. Those disciplines are useful. They do not, however, settle the deeper questions that determine the result. Every model must decide what counts as value, who counts as affected, what time horizon matters, which evidence is admissible and how uncertainty should be handled. These decisions are not technical details. They are normative choices embedded in method (Smith, 1999; Matunga, 2018).

Conventional impact accounting commonly privileges outcomes that are direct, individualised, measurable within short reporting periods and already supported by a readily available monetary proxy. This is partly a response to legitimate concerns about overclaiming. Yet the practical consequence is that relational and long-chain effects can disappear from the quantitative account even where they are central to how the intervention works. A programme may change one participant, and that participant may change expectations, trust, knowledge, confidence and opportunity within a household or wider network. If the model stops at the participant, it undercounts the pathway.

The undercounting problem is especially acute for Māori initiatives because many such initiatives are designed to work through whānau, cultural identity, collective capability, mātauranga, manaakitanga, kaitiakitanga, whakapapa ties to place and obligations to future generations. A model that treats these effects as qualitative context rather than decision-relevant value is not simply being conservative. It is using a boundary that is too narrow for the phenomenon being assessed.

The same critique applies to the treatment of time. Conventional appraisal often discounts future benefits because of opportunity cost and social time preference. Discounting is a legitimate economic tool, but it also expresses an ethical stance about present and future claims. From a whakapapa perspective, future generations are not distant anonymous consumers. They are descendants within a field of obligation. A model that mechanically downweights intergenerational capability, ecological inheritance or cultural continuity can produce numbers that are technically precise but morally incomplete (Durie, 2001; The Treasury, 2024).

The problem is not solved by adding a qualitative section to a report. Qualitative evidence is vital for meaning, mechanism and Māori authority, but in many funding and policy settings, monetised values, benefit-cost ratios, fiscal cases and quantified outcomes carry disproportionate weight. Where material relational outcomes are left outside the quantified model, they may be acknowledged but not acted on. A whakapapa economics approach, therefore, treats monetisation as a necessary translation task in applied decision systems, while retaining strict safeguards against commodification and overclaiming.

Table 1. From conventional impact accounting to whakapapa economics modelling

4. Whakapapa economics as a theory of value

Whakapapa economics is an applied theory of value. It begins from the proposition that value is produced and transmitted through relationships, obligations, reciprocal exchange, place and time. It does not reduce value to price, utility or private preference, but it also does not reject quantification. Instead, it asks how the consequences of an intervention become materially visible through changes in capability, behaviour, burden, participation, ecological condition, institutional practice and future opportunity.

This makes whakapapa economics distinct from a broad social-value label. Social value approaches may ask stakeholders what changes and then seek proxies for those changes. Whakapapa economics specifies a deeper starting point: persons are embedded in whānau, whakapapa, institutions, te taiao and intergenerational obligations; therefore, the model must examine those relational sites before deciding what counts as material. The unit of analysis is not self-evidently the individual. It is the relational field in which the individual exists (Graham, 2009; Te Rito, 2007; Roberts et al., 2004).

The theory of value is also dynamic. Tauutuutu frames exchange as reciprocal, obligation-generating and temporally extended rather than one-off and transactional (Reid et al., 2023). A benefit may create new responsibilities, confidence, authority or capacity that is later returned through whānau support, mentoring, community contribution, institutional change or ecological care. In modelling terms, tauutuutu provides a theory of transmission. It supports the inclusion of second-order, third-order, and intergenerational pathways, not as speculative extras but as expected forms of value movement that must be estimated with evidence-based discipline.

This theory also gives a different account of economic decision-making. Economics is not only about allocation under scarcity; it is about the values embedded in allocation. Whakapapa economics asks which relationships are strengthened or weakened, which obligations are created, whose mana is upheld, which mauri is restored or diminished, which pathways are opened for mokopuna, and which future possibilities are made more or less credible. Some of these questions are ethical and cultural. Some are quantitative. Some are monetisable through material expressions. The model should be capable of handling all three while prioritising quantification when a pathway can be bound.

In applied impact modelling, this means value is neither infinitely expansive nor narrowly economistic. It is disciplined by a mechanism. A claim enters the model when the analyst can state: this intervention creates this observable change for this cohort through this pathway over this period, and the change can be represented by this unit, proxy, attribution rate and uncertainty range. Where those elements cannot yet be specified, the line becomes a construct-development task rather than being dismissed as valueless.

5. Māori theoretical foundations

5.1 Whakapapa as ontology, epistemology and evaluative boundary

Whakapapa is more than genealogy in a narrow descent-line sense. Māori scholarship treats whakapapa as an organising logic of relatedness, identity, knowledge, pattern and obligation. Graham (2009) describes whakapapa as a methodology for organising and legitimating knowledge. Te Rito (2007) emphasises its role in identity, belonging and connection to whenua. Roberts et al. (2004) describe whakapapa as a Māori mental construct with implications for taxonomy, classification and understanding relationships in nature. These accounts position whakapapa as ontological, epistemological and ethical: it concerns what exists, how it is known and why relationships carry obligation.

For impact modelling, the implication is direct. If people are already constituted through relationships, then effects are not properly bounded by the first individual who receives a service, grant, intervention or opportunity. A direct outcome can change a household routine, an expectation, a caregiving relationship, a decision pathway, a mentoring relationship or an institutional practice. The model must therefore start with relationship mapping before it selects the monetised line set.

Whakapapa also changes the treatment of time. The present is not an isolated decision moment. It is a point within a continuity linking ancestors and descendants. Future impacts are not merely long-term benefits accruing to unknown individuals; they may be effects on mokopuna, cultural continuity, ecological inheritance and whānau capability. This does not remove the need for discounting or uncertainty analysis, but it requires the model to make temporal assumptions visible and to avoid using short horizons as a quiet way of excluding intergenerational value.

5.2 Mana, mauri, wairua, hau, tapu and tikanga

Hēnare’s work on tapu, mana, mauri, hau and wairua provides a philosophical basis for evaluating the quality of relationships, exchange and vitality (Hēnare, 2001, 2014, 2016). Marsden (2003) similarly treats mauri as a life force and organising vitality that binds and sustains life. These concepts are part of a Māori account of value, change and relational integrity.

Mana is often translated in terms of authority, status, standing or prestige, but these translations are too thin if treated as exact equivalents. In an economic frame, mana concerns the dignity, standing, authority and realised capability of people, whānau, institutions and places. A programme may enhance mana by restoring agency, reducing whakamā, enabling leadership, making participation possible or recognising Māori knowledge as legitimate. Conversely, an intervention can degrade mana even where it produces a narrow output. This is why value assessment must attend to the quality of exchange, not only its quantity (Dell et al., 2018; Hēnare, 2014; Mika et al., 2022).

Mauri offers a way to evaluate vitality, condition and system functioning. In modelling terms, mauri should not be monetised as an abstract spiritual property. It should guide the analyst toward observable expressions: healthier wai, restored whenua, safer homes, reduced degradation, improved ecological function, restored use of a place, improved indoor environments or reduced long-run remediation burden. The concept directs the value boundary; the monetised line values the observable manifestation.

Wairua prevents wellbeing from being collapsed into subjective satisfaction or mental health alone. It points to spiritual connection, meaning, identity, belonging and relational integrity. Hau emphasises the vital essence and obligations involved in exchange. Tapu and tikanga provide ethical boundaries and ways of doing. Together, these concepts require a model that is not only outcome-sensitive but conduct-sensitive: how value is created matters to whether it is value at all.

5.3 Tauutuutu as transmission logic

Tauutuutu is central to the modelling architecture because it provides a theory of how value moves. Reid et al. (2023) describe tauutuutu as reciprocal exchange characterised by obligation, balance, delayed return and dynamic equilibrium. Exchanges do not end at the moment of transfer; they generate continuing responsibilities and flows of value across social and environmental relationships.

In impact modelling, tauutuutu supports second-order and third-order monetisation. A person receives support and later teaches whānau. Rangatahi complete a pathway and change their siblings' aspirations. A health provider builds trust with one patient and improves service engagement across the household. A marae upgrade enables whānau to host, gather and transmit knowledge. A research initiative increases institutional confidence in mātauranga Māori, enabling future projects. These are relational transmissions.

The correct response is not to assume all transmissions are large. This requires explicit transmission coefficients, evidence weights, persistence factors and overlap controls. The key modelling sentence is: indirect does not mean zero; indirect means transmission-adjusted. Tauutuutu justifies the search for these pathways; economic and evaluative methods specify their magnitude and uncertainty.

5.4 Kaupapa Māori and decolonising methodology

Kaupapa Māori methodology changes the meaning of rigour. Smith (1999) shows that research has often operated as a colonising practice when Indigenous peoples are treated as objects of inquiry rather than authorities over knowledge. Pihama et al. (2002) argue for methodological space in which Māori knowledge, aspirations and self-determination are not subordinated to external categories. Kerr (2012) demonstrates that kaupapa Māori evaluation has its own theoretical roots while engaging with wider evaluation theory.

For whakapapa economics, this means Māori concepts should not be inserted into an externally defined valuation framework, with the underlying rules remaining unchanged. Māori authority must shape the domains, constructs, indicators, materiality thresholds, evidence interpretation, data rules and reporting hierarchy. Otherwise, the model risks treating Māori concepts as inputs to a non-Māori decision system rather than as structuring concepts of the method itself.

This has practical consequences. The model should include a Māori governance checkpoint before outcome boundaries are finalised. It should document the integrity of the sources of Māori concepts. It should not publish sensitive evidence where tikanga requires protection. It should also distinguish between stakeholder consultation and authority over value. These are methodological conditions of validity.

5.5 Māori theories of value: economy of mana and manahau

A whakapapa economics requires an explicit theory of value. Hēnare’s economy of mana and subsequent literature on Māori enterprise and manahau provide such a foundation. Dell et al. (2018) locate the economy of mana in holistic aspirations that bring together social, cultural, spiritual, environmental and economic wellbeing. Spiller et al. (2011) describe Māori business through relational wellbeing and an ethic of care. Mika et al. (2022) develop manahau as an Indigenous Māori theory of value that moves beyond static and capital-centred understandings, linking value to multidimensional wellbeing, human potential and relational balance.

This literature has two implications for modelling. First, price is not value. Price is one possible language for representing some effects in decision-making. Second, value can emerge from relationships and exchanges rather than sitting only in market outputs or individual utility. A monetised model must therefore translate relational effects into observable material pathways without claiming that money exhausts the concept. This is the philosophical basis for pathway monetisation.

6. Māori wellbeing and policy precedents

Māori wellbeing models provide applied precedents for broad value boundaries. Durie’s Te Whare Tapa Whā positions health as a balance among taha tinana, taha hinengaro, taha wairua and taha whānau (Durie, 1994). The inclusion of taha whānau is especially important for impact modelling because it makes whānau constitutive of wellbeing rather than an external support factor. Te Pae Mahutonga broadens the lens further through cultural identity, physical environment, healthy lifestyles, participation, leadership and autonomy (Durie, 1999).

Durie’s later work on Māori wellbeing emphasises that assessment must operate across individual, collective and population levels, and that Māori-specific measures are required alongside universal indicators (Durie, 2001, 2006). Cram (2014) similarly identifies the continuing difficulty of measuring collective Māori wellbeing, particularly whānau ora, in systems that often rely on individual reporting as a proxy. The implication is that measurement systems need constructs and units appropriate to collective value.

He Ara Waiora provides a policy-operational bridge. The Treasury’s framework places wairua at the centre and understands wellbeing through te taiao, te ira tangata and tikanga, such as kotahitanga, tikanga, whanaungatanga, manaakitanga and tiakitanga (The Treasury, 2024). The significance of He Ara Waiora lies in the recognition that Māori wellbeing concepts are not confined to cultural commentary. They can inform public-sector appraisal, strategy and policy reasoning. Whakapapa economics extends this by specifying how relational and intergenerational pathways can be quantified and monetised where a defensible route exists.

Recent work on built-environment wellbeing reaches similar conclusions. Penny et al. (2024) develop a whakawhanaungatanga Māori wellbeing model for housing and urban environments that treats relationship building and connectedness as central to wellbeing outcomes. Wikitera (2024) argues that cultural impact assessment in Aotearoa should move from reactive compliance toward proactive, restorative, regenerative and wellbeing-oriented practice. These literatures support the idea that housing, urban form, marae, infrastructure and environmental projects should be valued by how they alter relationships, participation, hosting, belonging, cultural continuity and future capability, not only by direct use or avoided harm.

7. Indigenous impact assessment, rights and authority

Indigenous impact assessment literature provides a normative and procedural foundation for whakapapa economics. Cultural impact assessment has often been used because generic social and environmental assessments do not adequately capture Indigenous cultural values, place-based meanings, and self-determination concerns (Partal & Dunphy, 2016; Wikitera, 2024). Yet CIA can remain constrained where Indigenous participation is advisory and decision authority remains elsewhere (Chua-oon Rinfret et al., 2022; Jolly & Thompson-Fawcett, 2023).

Matunga’s Strategic Indigenous Impact Assessment is particularly important because it argues for assessment grounded in Indigenous ontology, epistemology and axiology, rather than simply adding Indigenous values to pre-existing state or developer frameworks (Matunga, 2018). Larsen (2018) similarly argues that participation options should be evaluated against Indigenous self-determination, not merely stakeholder inclusion. O’Faircheallaigh (2009) shows that the effectiveness of social impact assessment in Indigenous contexts depends on power, context and whether communities can shape assessment and outcomes.

International instruments reinforce this position. The Akwé: Kon guidelines recognise the need for cultural, environmental, and social impact assessment when developments affect sacred sites, lands, and waters traditionally occupied or used by Indigenous and local communities (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004). UNDRIP affirms Indigenous peoples’ rights to determine priorities and strategies for development or use of lands and resources, and to be consulted through free, prior and informed consent processes (United Nations, 2007). These sources do not supply a technical valuation formula, but they support the claim that Māori authority over evaluative categories is not optional.

The social licence literature is also relevant. Ruckstuhl et al. (2014) show that Māori perspectives challenge generic social licence concepts by re-situating legitimacy in relationships, rights, history and resource governance. For modelling, this matters because poor engagement can create real economic costs: delays, redesign, legal challenges, consent risks, reputational harm, loss of trust, and future transaction costs. Conversely, culturally legitimate engagement can create value by avoiding conflict and improving institutional capability. These are monetisable institutional pathways when the mechanism and unit are defined.

8. Orthodox SROI, CBA and the problem of under-specification

8.1 What should be retained from orthodox appraisal

A whakapapa economics critique should not caricature existing methods. CBA contributes useful disciplines: explicit counterfactuals, resource-cost accounting, opportunity cost, present value, distributional analysis, sensitivity analysis and anti-double-counting logic. The Green Book recognises that appraisal should include monetised, quantified and qualitative impacts, and that distributional effects may be important (HM Treasury, 2026). SROI and social value approaches contribute to stakeholder involvement, understanding change, materiality, transparency, verification, and not overclaiming (Social Value International, 2025).

These disciplines should be retained, but re-situated. They are tools of specification, not sources of value authority. Whakapapa economics should use assumptions, attribution, deadweight, displacement, sensitivity testing and verification because these help defend claims. It should not let inherited orthodox boundaries decide which relationships, cohorts and time horizons count.

8.2 SROI as a flexible accounting frame, not a complete impact science

SROI is often treated as a standardised measurement method. In practice, it is better understood as a principles-based social value accounting frame. Its openness is useful, because it allows different kinds of social, environmental and wellbeing outcomes to be considered. But openness also creates under-specification. Analysts make many consequential choices about stakeholder boundaries, outcome labels, proxy selection, attribution, duration, drop-off, and aggregation, yet still describe the result as SROI (Social Value International, 2025).

This matters for repeatability. A recent internal analysis of 200 SROI reports found that 94% did not share identical outcome terminology with other reports. Exact terminology is not the same as construct equivalence; two reports may use different words for similar constructs such as confidence, agency, empowerment or self-efficacy. Even with that caveat, the finding points to a deeper issue: SROI practice often lacks a shared construct language. Without a construct dictionary and pathway taxonomy, comparison, replication, proxy governance and meta-analysis become difficult.

Whakapapa economics should therefore not be positioned as SROI with Māori principles added. SROI is flexible enough to contain many whakapapa-informed choices, but it is not specific enough to define them. The method needs a theory of value, construct taxonomy, transmission grammar, proxy hierarchy and reporting hierarchy that are independent of SROI. Where useful, the model can produce SROI-style ratios. But the ratio is an output, not the method.

8.3 No conventional base case

A further implication follows. There is no natural conventional estimate that exists beneath a whakapapa estimate. A direct-only or orthodox-boundary model is a restricted model variant created by analyst choice. It is not the base truth from which wider value departs. Presenting it as a base case can cause decision-makers to anchor on the lower familiar number and treat whakapapa value as an add-on.

The report therefore rejects the routine presentation of a conventional BCR or SROI as a standard output. If a restricted estimate is required for compliance, challenge or methodological comparison, it should be labelled as a restricted visibility test. Its function is diagnostic: it shows what a narrower boundary would fail to see. It should not be presented as a conservative estimate of true value, because narrowness is not the same as accuracy.

Table 2. SROI/CBA as partial techniques versus whakapapa economics as specification architecture

9. Economic and evaluation support for wider monetisation

9.1 Family and caregiver spillovers

Health economics provides a strong precedent for expanding the beneficiary boundary. Al-Janabi et al. (2016) provide a framework for including family health spillovers in economic evaluation. Wittenberg et al. (2019) review spillover effects on caregivers’ and family members’ utility, while Grosse et al. (2019) examine the valuation of informal care time. The central insight is straightforward: the patient is often not the only person affected by a health intervention.

This supports monetising whānau outcomes where an intervention reduces care burden, stress, uncertainty, navigation time, crisis management, transport costs or health risk. It also supports the use of separate cohorts. A participant’s health gain and a caregiver’s avoided care burden are not automatically the same benefit. They may both be counted if the unit, person, pathway and overlap fence are distinct.

9.2 Education spillovers and intergenerational transmission

Education economics has long distinguished private from social returns. Moretti (2004) estimates external productivity effects associated with higher education. Currie and Moretti (2003) link maternal education to infant health, while Oreopoulos et al. (2006) examine intergenerational effects of compulsory schooling. This body of evidence supports the proposition that the benefits of education can extend beyond the direct learner and across generations.

The evidence also cautions against automatic high multipliers. Acemoglu and Angrist (2001) report more cautious findings on human-capital externalities. This is useful for whakapapa economics because it supports scenario-based estimation rather than rhetorical inflation. The model can recognise intergenerational and whānau aspiration pathways, while estimating them through pathway probabilities, evidence weights, persistence factors and sensitivity analysis.

The Māori home ownership pathway provides a practical example. Whitehead and Walker (2021) found that parental educational aspirations were among the variables associated with Māori home ownership by age 35. This does not prove a simple causal chain from parental aspiration to home ownership. It does, however, support a plausible long-run economic pathway: aspiration influences education, education influences employment and income, and economic stability influences housing security and asset formation. A whakapapa economics model can represent such a pathway through probability-adjusted and overlap-controlled intergenerational valuation.

9.3 Social multipliers, network effects and social capital

Social multiplier theory and network intervention research support the proposition that effects can be amplified through relationships. Glaeser et al. (2003) describe social multipliers, while Valente (2012) shows how network interventions can use influence structures to spread effects. Social capital research also finds associations between trust, reciprocity, social connection and health, even though causal pathways are complex (Ehsan et al., 2019; Xue et al., 2020).

For whakapapa economics, this literature does not replace Māori theory. It supports the empirical plausibility of transmission. Knowledge transfer through whānau, sibling aspiration effects, peer mentoring, trust-mediated service engagement and institutional learning are not methodologically unserious simply because they travel through networks. They should be modelled as networked pathways with appropriate coefficients and evidence weights.

9.4 Shared values, deliberative valuation and non-market value

Shared-values research challenges the assumption that value is best captured by individual willingness to pay. Kenter et al. (2016) argue that many environmental and cultural values are collective, deliberative, ethical and relational. This is highly relevant to Māori contexts, where cultural legitimacy, relationship to whenua, collective identity and obligations to te taiao may be poorly represented as private preferences over commodities.

The implication for monetisation is not that cultural value should never enter the monetary model. It is that monetisation must attach to observable pathways rather than deeper ethical concepts. Deliberative evidence, stakeholder evidence and Māori-governed indicators can define constructs and materiality. Monetary proxies can then value specific consequences such as avoided degradation, restored participation, reduced isolation, improved service uptake, or avoided engagement failure.

9.5 Distribution, capability and multi-criteria decision support

Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis shows that efficiency and equity can be considered together rather than treated as separate concerns (Asaria et al., 2016). This matters because whakapapa economics is concerned not only with total value but also with where value lands, who carries the burden, and how benefits move across whānau, communities, and generations. Distributional weights, equity-adjusted scenarios and separate reporting by beneficiary group can be used where the decision context requires it.

Sen’s capability approach also provides a useful bridge by shifting evaluation from resources or utility alone to substantive freedoms to be and do what people value (Sen, 1999). Whakapapa economics extends this toward relational capability: the ability of whānau, communities, institutions and ecosystems to sustain the relationships and future possibilities that make wellbeing meaningful. MCDA is relevant where decisions must integrate multiple criteria that should not all be reduced to dollars, although in this report, MCDA is treated as a supplementary decision aid rather than a substitute for monetised pathway modelling (Frazão et al., 2018; Marsh et al., 2017).

9.6 Complexity-aware evaluation and systems modelling

Contribution analysis, realist evaluation, ripple effects mapping, social network analysis and agent-based modelling all support the inclusion of complex, relational and emergent pathways. Mayne (2012) argues that contribution analysis is useful where multiple factors shape outcomes and sole attribution is unrealistic. Pawson and Tilley (1997) ask what works, for whom, in what circumstances and through what mechanisms. Nobles et al. (2022) and Chazdon et al. (2017) show how ripple effects mapping can surface wider outcomes that conventional evaluation may miss. Tracy et al. (2018) and Valente (2012) show that network and agent-based approaches can model diffusion and emergent effects.

These literatures reinforce the core modelling rule: do not require experimental certainty for every wider pathway. Require mechanism, cohort, unit, evidence, contribution logic, sensitivity testing and overlap control. The methodological shift is from proving sole causation or excluding to estimating contribution transparently.

10. The pathway monetisation rule

The pathway monetisation rule is the ethical and technical centre of the model. It states: do not monetise the Māori concept directly; monetise the observable pathway through which the concept becomes material. This rule protects Māori concepts from reduction to market commodities while allowing their material consequences to enter the economic model.

The model does not ask what mana is worth in dollars. It asks what changes when mana is upheld, restored or strengthened. Does a person become more able to participate, lead, speak, host, make decisions, seek help, support whānau or engage with institutions? If those changes create measurable consequences, those consequences may be valued. The monetary line is not the value of mana; it is the value of increased participation, avoided disengagement, reduced crisis, restored hosting capacity or increased leadership contribution.

The same principle applies to mauri. The model does not price mauri as life force. It values tangible expressions such as improved ecological conditions, healthier homes, avoided degradation, restored system function, reduced remediation costs, increased usability, or improved mahinga kai access. Wairua is not priced as spirituality; observable effects such as reduced distress, strengthened belonging, life satisfaction, meaning and cultural reconnection may be valued through appropriate wellbeing or avoided-cost proxies. Whanaungatanga is not priced as relationships; outcomes such as reduced isolation, informal support, trust, service engagement and transaction-cost reduction may be valued.

This distinction is not only ethical. It is also methodologically clarifying. Abstract concepts are too broad to monetise directly, and doing so would invite conceptual dilution. Pathways, by contrast, can be specified. They have a cohort, mechanism, unit, proxy, attribution rate and uncertainty range. The model therefore prices the expression, not the essence.

Table 3. Pathway monetisation of Māori and relational concepts

The rule also supplies a public defence against commodification. A whakapapa economics report should say explicitly that it is not pricing whakapapa, mana, mauri or wairua. It is valuing specific material changes that occur when these values are upheld in practice. This allows cultural-relational value to influence investment decisions without surrendering Māori concepts to market logic.

11. The Whakapapa Value Estimate

The model's primary output should be the Whakapapa Value Estimate. This is the evidence-weighted present value of all monetised pathways that fall within the whakapapa economics boundary and pass the model’s inclusion rules. It includes direct, whānau, network, institutional, taiao, and intergenerational outcomes, with each line sufficiently specified. It is not an expanded version of a conventional estimate. It is the primary estimate of value.

The Whakapapa Value Estimate should be reported with a value range, a pathway breakdown, and an evidence-confidence summary. The lower-bound estimate should not be created by stripping out relational or intergenerational pathways simply because orthodox appraisal would exclude them. It should retain the whakapapa value boundary and apply more cautious assumptions to attribution, transmission, impact share, duration, persistence and proxy value. In other words, uncertainty should vary assumptions, not erase the worldview.

A restricted conventional estimate should not be a routine headline or standard result. If required, it may be calculated as a restricted visibility test: the value that remains visible when the model is forced into direct-beneficiary, short-chain and conventionally admissible boundaries. Its purpose is to diagnose undercounting, not to define total value.

The key reporting principle is therefore: the whakapapa estimate is the result; any restricted estimate is a diagnostic. Decision-makers should not be given a lower familiar number and then asked not to privilege it. The report should instead present one primary value account with transparent uncertainty and pathway detail.

Table 4. Recommended reporting hierarchy

12. Outcome architecture and construct taxonomy

A whakapapa economics model that gives priority to quantified pathway valuation requires a controlled outcome architecture. Without one, the model risks replicating the looseness of much SROI practice, where outcome terminology is often project-specific and difficult to compare. The model should distinguish concepts, constructs, units, proxies and pathways. A concept is the broader Māori or relational idea, such as mana, mauri or whanaungatanga. A construct is the specific measurable object of value, such as restored hosting capacity, reduced caregiver burden or earlier service engagement. A unit is the countable measure, such as hosting events, hours of unpaid care avoided or acute episodes avoided. A proxy is the monetary value per unit.

Construct definition is the key step. Weak constructs are broad labels such as empowerment, belonging or cultural identity. Strong constructs specify the outcome sufficiently to support measurement. For example, rather than valuing “mana”, a line may value “increased agency to engage with services”, “restored capacity to host whānau safely”, or “increased participation in governance roles”. Rather than valuing “mauri”, a line may value “avoided degradation of water quality”, “reduced mould exposure in homes”, or “restored ecological function of a wetland”.

The model should classify every outcome by layer before valuation. The layers are pathway categories used for cohort definition, evidence weighting and attribution. Direct pathways are closest to observed data. Whānau and network pathways are relational transmissions. Institutional and system pathways concern changes in legitimacy, practice, funding, procurement, trust or decision rules. Taiao pathways concern ecological condition, use, restoration and avoided degradation. Intergenerational pathways concern future capability, educational expectations, health behaviour, cultural continuity and ecological inheritance.

Table 5. Outcome layers in the Whakapapa Impact Model

12.1 Candidate construct families

A construct dictionary should be developed over time. The following construct families provide a starting point for applied reports. Each family can contain multiple more specific constructs, each with its own unit, proxy family and overlap notes.

Table 6. Initial construct families for whakapapa economics valuation

13. Pathway discovery and impact generation

The model should not rely solely on the outcomes supplied in project documents or seeded datasets. Starting data often reflects existing reporting habits, funder requirements or administrative systems. These sources may capture attendance, outputs, direct participant outcomes and short-term changes, but miss relational pathways because they were never designed to find them. A whakapapa economics model must therefore include a pathway discovery step.

Pathway discovery begins with the intervention theory, but does not stop there. The analyst should ask how value may move through whānau, households, peers, marae, institutions, providers, procurement systems, knowledge systems, te taiao and future generations. This is not a licence to invent benefits. It is a requirement to look for pathways that conventional data structures miss.

The discovery process should draw on multiple evidence sources: seeded project data, monitoring reports, interviews, case studies, financial records, administrative data, stakeholder testimony, sector evidence, external literature, Māori-governed interpretation, and deliberative workshops. Ripple effects mapping can help identify wider pathways; realist evaluation can help test context-mechanism-outcome relationships; contribution analysis can examine whether the intervention plausibly contributed to observed or expected changes; network analysis can support diffusion assumptions where relational structure is important (Mayne, 2012; Nobles et al., 2022; Pawson & Tilley, 1997; Valente, 2012).

For every pathway generated, the model should ask ten screening questions: What is the construct? Who experiences it? What is the mechanism? What is the unit? What evidence supports it? What would have happened anyway? What role did the intervention play? How long does it last? What does it overlap with? Can it be monetised now, or does it require construct development?

This process changes the role of qualitative evidence. Narrative evidence does not sit outside the model as illustration only. It is used to identify mechanisms, define constructs, estimate reach, test rival explanations and justify transmission strength. In this way qualitative and kaupapa evidence become inputs to quantification rather than endpoints of analysis.

14. The monetisation engine

The mathematical base of the model is simple. For a direct line, the present value equals the cohort multiplied by impacted share, unit quantity, unit value, counterfactual adjustment, attribution, displacement or leakage adjustment, duration and discounting. The innovation is not in abandoning standard accounting logic. It is in how the model defines the cohort, construct, transmission pathway and evidence-adjusted attribution.

Where N is the eligible cohort, Q is the impacted share, U is units per impacted case, V is monetary value per unit, DW is deadweight, A is attribution or contribution weight, D is displacement or leakage, R is retention or duration factor, and DF is the discount factor.

For whānau and network pathways, the model adds a transmission step. This converts direct impact into relationally transmitted impact. The eligible indirect cohort is not assumed to be the whole whānau or community; it is bounded by relationship, exposure, mechanism and evidence.

For induced or community diffusion pathways, the model uses reachable community or network populations and diffusion rates. These lines require stronger caution because reach can be overestimated easily. They should be included where a mechanism exists and bounded through participation records, network size, communications data, repeated exposure or institutional embedding.

For intergenerational pathways, the model uses future cohorts, pathway probabilities and persistence factors. Intergenerational effects should not be excluded because they are long-chain. They should be modelled as probability-adjusted scenarios with explicit mechanisms and overlap controls.

The model can then produce expected values under evidence uncertainty by applying an evidence weight. This does not hide uncertainty. It makes the confidence adjustment visible in the value calculation.

Table 7. Modelling logic by pathway type

15. Transmission, attribution and evidence confidence

This section specifies modelling obligations rather than universal model factors. The report does not provide fixed transmission coefficients, percentage attribution ranges, evidence scoring scales or combination formulae. Transmission, attribution, persistence, duration, discounting and evidence confidence must be estimated case by case, using the intervention theory, Māori-governed interpretation, project evidence, relevant empirical literature, stakeholder evidence and sensitivity analysis. The method requires each parameter to be named, justified and tested; it does not supply generic values to be applied across projects.

This distinction is central to the credibility of whakapapa economics. The approach should remain quantitative where a pathway can be specified and valued, but it should not imply that one report can pre-determine numerical adjustment factors for all Māori initiatives. A model can be disciplined without being formulaically universal. The analyst’s task is to make the judgement process auditable: what was assumed, why it was assumed, what evidence supports it, what alternative values were tested, and how the result changes under different assumptions.

15.1 Transmission parameters

Transmission is the process by which value moves beyond the immediate participant, site or organisation. In a whakapapa economics model, transmission may occur through whānau relationships, household routines, role modelling, mentoring, reciprocal exchange, institutional adoption, community diffusion, durable assets, policy change or ecological restoration. The term transmission parameter is preferred in this report because it is neutral about how the quantity is derived. In some applied models the parameter may be expressed as a coefficient; in others it may be represented through scenario assumptions, probability ranges or qualitative confidence categories.

Transmission parameters should never be generic uplift factors applied merely because an initiative is Māori. They should be attached to named pathways. A same-household knowledge-transfer pathway is different from a broad public-exposure pathway; a formal tuakana-teina mentoring pathway is different from a diffuse community-norm pathway; institutional adoption through a formal policy change is different from informal learning by staff. The model should estimate transmission only after the relationship, exposure, mechanism, evidence and unit of change have been specified.

Table 8. Transmission-parameter considerations by pathway type

The key principle is that indirect does not mean zero. It means the pathway must be transmission-adjusted. The adjustment should be derived from the case, not from a universal table.

15.2 Attribution as contribution to a pathway

Attribution should not operate as a binary gate. The relevant question is not whether the intervention was the sole cause. It is the contribution the intervention made to a relational pathway of change. This is consistent with contribution analysis, which develops and tests credible causal claims in settings where multiple factors operate (Mayne, 2012).

The model should distinguish rival causes from catalytic channels. A rival cause is an alternative factor that would have produced the same outcome anyway. A catalytic channel is part of the route through which the intervention’s value is realised. If a Māori health provider supports a patient and the patient shares knowledge with whānau, the whānau transmission is not automatically a rival cause. It may be the mechanism through which the provider’s impact expands. Similarly, if a marae upgrade enables whānau to organise events, the whānau organising work is not necessarily a competing cause; it may be the realised pathway of value.

Table 9. Contribution categories for whakapapa economics valuation

If an applied model converts these categories into numerical attribution assumptions, the assumptions must be justified by the specific case. The report should document the counterfactual, rival causes, catalytic channels, displacement, leakage and uncertainty. It should not select a percentage from a generic schedule.

15.3 Evidence confidence

Evidence confidence should be assessed for each monetised pathway, but this report does not prescribe a universal scoring system. A pathway may have strong administrative evidence but weak kaupapa or local-practice fit. Another may have strong Māori-governed practice evidence and repeated stakeholder testimony but limited quasi-causal evidence. Both forms of evidence matter, but the way they are combined must be justified in the context of the model.

For some applied models, evidence confidence may be converted into a numerical adjustment. Where this occurs, the scale, dimensions, combination rule and sensitivity treatment should be developed for that case and disclosed. In other cases, evidence confidence may be reported through confidence categories, scenario placement, qualitative caveats or separate pathway notes. The important requirement is transparency, not a single universal algorithm.

Table 10. Evidence sources and confidence considerations

Evidence confidence should affect how the line is reported. Strongly evidenced lines may sit in the primary Whakapapa Value Estimate. Plausible but less directly observed lines may sit in scenario analysis or be reported with greater uncertainty. Material lines that cannot yet be valued should be carried into a construct-development agenda rather than silently treated as zero.

16. Proxy selection and construct development

Proxy selection should begin only after the construct, mechanism and unit are clear. A convenient dollar value with weak semantic fit is worse than no value because it creates false precision. The model should use a proxy-selection logic that privileges local context, conceptual fit and transparent method, while allowing constructed proxies and bridge values where necessary.

The sequence below should be treated as a judgement aid rather than a rigid hierarchy. In most cases, local administrative or fiscal values will be preferable because they fit the policy context. However, a local proxy with weak semantic fit may be less defensible than an international or constructed value that better matches the construct and is transparently adjusted. The analyst should explain the selection rather than relying on the table as a mechanical rule.

Table 11. Proxy-selection logic

The model should not treat the absence of a ready-made proxy as evidence of no value. Many important constructs - cultural legitimacy, data sovereignty, institutional trust, governance readiness, restored hosting capacity, cultural taxation avoided, Māori supplier credibility and mātauranga legitimacy - may require new valuation work. The appropriate response is to define the construct, identify measurement outputs, propose an interim bridge value if defensible and add the construct to the valuation development agenda.

The proxy-selection note should state the proxy source, geography, base year, currency, unit, method, adjustments and confidence. It should also explain why the proxy is semantically appropriate. If the line concerns participation, the unit should be participation. If it concerns avoided crisis, the unit should be avoided crisis. If it concerns future educational attainment, the unit should be probability-adjusted attainment or qualification. Proxy discipline is the main defence against claims of opportunistic monetisation.

17. Double counting and overlap management

Double counting is the main technical risk in a quantified relational model. Many real pathways are connected: trust leads to service engagement; service engagement reduces crisis; reduced crisis reduces whānau stress; reduced stress improves wellbeing; improved wellbeing may support employment. The answer is not to exclude all related lines. It is to define which construct each line values, which cohort receives it and what is excluded.

Every monetised line should include a fence note. The fence note states the construct, cohort, mechanism, exclusions, adjacent overlapping lines and treatment. Overlap can be managed through mutually exclusive event definitions, cohort separation, attribution adjustment, proxy selection, exclusion of duplicate lines, or scenario-only reporting.

Table 12. Common overlap risks and treatments

A standard fence note should read: Line values [specific construct and unit]. Cohort [who experiences the value]. Mechanism [how value arises]. Excludes [nearby outcomes not counted]. Overlap risk [specific adjacent lines]. Treatment [adjusted attribution, separate cohort, unit restriction, scenario-only or excluded duplicate].

18. Time, discounting and intergenerational effects

Time is not a neutral technical parameter in whakapapa economics. Many initiatives create value by opening future pathways: education normalisation, future parenting, cultural continuity, ecological inheritance, leadership pipelines, institutional legitimacy and housing security. Excluding these pathways because they occur outside short reporting windows mis-specifies the value created.

Discounting should therefore be used openly rather than mechanically. The analyst should state the time horizon, explain why that horizon fits the pathway, justify the discounting approach and show how results change under alternative temporal assumptions where the pathway is material. Where long-run or intergenerational effects are central, it may be useful to report more than one temporal treatment, such as a standard public-sector discounted value and sensitivity tests using different durations or long-run assumptions. This report does not prescribe a discount rate; it requires the rate and time horizon to be ethically and analytically justified. This is consistent with the broader argument that future generations are not merely distant utility holders within a whakapapa frame (Durie, 2001; The Treasury, 2024).

Intergenerational pathways should generally be modelled through expected values, scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis. A direct education programme may change rangatahi qualifications and earnings; it may also influence younger siblings and future children. The intergenerational line should not simply multiply the direct gain by a large number. It should use a pathway probability, future cohort definition, impacted share, unit value, persistence judgement, attribution logic and discounting approach that are justified for the case. It should also fence overlap with direct earnings, fiscal effects and housing outcomes.

The key discipline is to distinguish long-chain from speculative. Long-chain pathways can be material and defensible if each link has theory, evidence and a measurable unit. Speculative pathways lack a mechanism or a bounded cohort. Only the latter should be excluded. Uncertainty should be reflected through evidence confidence, scenario ranges and transparent sensitivity analysis, not by defaulting all future values to zero.

Scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis should be distinguished. Sensitivity analysis tests how results change when one or more assumptions change. Scenario analysis can test different plausible pathway structures, inclusion boundaries, durations or evidence interpretations. Whakapapa economics often requires both because some outcomes are uncertain not only in magnitude but also in pathway form.

19. Governance, tikanga and data sovereignty

A whakapapa economics model is not valid merely because it uses Māori terms. Māori authority over value definition, evidence interpretation and data governance is part of the method. This follows from kaupapa Māori methodology and Indigenous impact assessment literature, which emphasise that assessment methods are bound up with power, knowledge and self-determination (Kerr, 2012; Larsen, 2018; Matunga, 2018; Smith, 1999).

Governance should cover at least six domains: value domains and constructs; materiality thresholds; interpretation of Māori concepts; data access, storage and use; treatment of sensitive evidence; and approval of reporting language. The Ministry of Health’s Te Tiriti framework, with principles such as tino rangatiratanga, equity, active protection, options and partnership, provides a useful public-sector reference point, even though whakapapa economics is not limited to health (Ministry of Health, 2024).

Source integrity is also part of governance. Māori concepts such as whakapapa, mana, mauri, wairua, hau, tikanga and tauutuutu have intellectual whakapapa. The report should cite the scholarship and traditions it draws on, and should avoid presenting contemporary applied modelling terms as if they created the concepts themselves (Graham, 2009; Hēnare, 2001; Marsden, 2003; Reid et al., 2023; Te Rito, 2007).

20. Reporting and documentation principles

A practical whakapapa economics model should make the modelling logic auditable, but this report does not prescribe worksheet names, workbook architecture or a fixed implementation template. The analyst may use whichever modelling system is appropriate to the project, evidence base, reporting audience and organisational context. What matters is not the names of tables or tabs, but whether the model documents the value logic clearly enough for review.

At minimum, the reporting record should make visible the construct being valued, the Māori or relational concept that informed the boundary, the mechanism by which value is created, the cohort that experiences the value, the unit of change, the monetary proxy and its source, the counterfactual and contribution assumptions, the transmission judgement where relevant, the duration and discounting assumptions, the evidence confidence assessment, the overlap fence, the scenario or sensitivity treatment, and any material construct that remains underdeveloped.

Reports should present the Whakapapa Value Estimate first, followed by the value range, pathway breakdown, evidence profile, material construct-development lines and safeguards. The report should not present relational pathways as “additional benefits” appended to conventional value. They are components of the primary value account. The language should therefore avoid “soft benefits”, “extended value”, “add-ons” and “intangible extras”. It should use terms such as pathway-mediated value, relationally transmitted value, institutional value, taiao pathway value and intergenerational value.

Where a restricted direct-only or orthodox-boundary estimate is calculated, it should be treated as a restricted visibility test and placed where it serves a diagnostic or compliance purpose. It should not be the base result. The lower-bound estimate should remain inside the whakapapa economics boundary and vary case-specific assumptions such as reach, transmission, attribution, persistence, duration, proxy choice and evidence confidence.

21. Application examples

21.1 Education, Pūhoro-style pathways and future economic security

A conventional education model might count attendance, NCEA achievement, tertiary participation, qualifications, earnings premiums, tax effects and reduced welfare costs. These are important and should remain in the model where evidence supports them. A whakapapa economics model asks what the programme changes in the relational system around rangatahi. It considers whānau aspiration, sibling and cousin pathway visibility, parent confidence in supporting education, peer mentoring, cultural identity, professional networks, mātauranga legitimacy and future parenting.

The direct line might value qualification completion through lifetime earnings and fiscal contribution. A second-order line might value sibling aspiration through a probability-adjusted increase in education participation. A whānau line might value parent or caregiver navigation confidence through avoided service-navigation costs or increased application success. An institutional line might value increased legitimacy of Māori STEMM pathways through additional funding, partnerships or uptake. An intergenerational line might value future educational expectations for children through a pathway probability linked to qualification, earnings and economic security. The exact transmission, attribution and persistence assumptions should be set from the project evidence, external literature and case-specific sensitivity testing.

The housing pathway illustrates the logic. Whitehead and Walker (2021) found that parental educational aspiration was associated with Māori home ownership by age 35, alongside adult economic circumstances and other factors. A whakapapa economics model would not claim that aspiration alone causes home ownership. It would model a pathway: education support changes expectations; expectations affect educational attainment; attainment affects labour market outcomes; economic stability affects housing security. If income is already counted, the housing line must fence overlap by valuing additional housing security, reduced stress, asset stability or reduced public-service reliance rather than counting the same earnings stream twice.

21.2 Māori health provider and whānau knowledge transfer

A conventional health model might count the direct patient outcome and avoided health costs. A whakapapa economics model also asks how trusted, culturally safe care moves through whānau. A Māori provider may support a patient, who then shares health advice with whānau. The provider may actively engage the household. Trust may lead to earlier service engagement. Reduced crisis may reduce caregiver stress and unpaid care time.

Possible monetised lines include avoided acute episodes for direct participants; whānau members adopting health behaviours; reduced caregiver burden; avoided emergency department visits through earlier engagement; reduced missed appointments; avoided crisis intervention; and improved wellbeing through reduced distress. Each line needs a fence. Trust may be treated as the mechanism for earlier engagement rather than separately valued unless trust itself produces a distinct measurable outcome.

21.3 Marae, papakāinga, housing and restored manaakitanga

Housing and marae initiatives are strong candidates for pathway monetisation because their value is not exhausted by physical improvement. A repaired home may reduce respiratory illness, but it may also reduce whānau stress, restore hosting capacity, support tamariki attendance, reduce emergency accommodation, increase stability and strengthen belonging. A restored marae may enable hui, tangihanga, wānanga, intergenerational knowledge transmission, local governance and whānau reconnection.

The model should not value manaakitanga as an abstract virtue. It can value safe hosting capacity through avoided venue or accommodation costs, hosted nights, participant-hours, reduced isolation or wellbeing gains from social participation. It can value reduced whānau stress through crisis episodes avoided, hours of navigation avoided or caregiver wellbeing. It can value tamariki education stability through attendance days, reduced school mobility or probability-adjusted attainment outcomes. Durie’s emphasis on whānau and Māori collective wellbeing supports a wider boundary for such models (Durie, 1994, 2001, 2006).

21.4 Institutional legitimacy and system change

Institutional pathways are often ignored because they do not look like direct beneficiary outcomes. Yet they can be highly material. A Māori-led initiative may change what a university, agency, funder, council or provider regards as valid, fundable, teachable or governable. It may reduce future engagement failures, improve service fit, increase funding success, create new procurement pathways or embed Māori governance. These effects are part of the value system, not mere context.

Monetisation routes include avoided redesign costs, avoided delay, reduced legal or consultancy costs, increased uptake, staff retention, funding secured, project value enabled, reduced complaints, improved procurement efficiency and additional Māori supplier margin. Attribution should usually be contribution-based and supported by documentary evidence: policy changes, funding approvals, procurement records, repeated practice changes, institutional decisions or formal adoption. Matunga (2018), Jolly and Thompson-Fawcett (2023), and Wikitera (2024) support treating assessment and engagement as sites of institutional power, not only information gathering.

22. Challenge protocol and quality assurance

A whakapapa economics model will be challenged on overclaiming, proxy fit, causality, monetisation of Māori concepts, double counting, duration, discounting and comparability. The best defence is not to make fewer claims by default. It is to make each claim more auditable. Every line should be able to survive a hostile review at the level of construct, mechanism, cohort, unit, proxy, attribution, transmission, evidence and overlap.

Table 13. Challenge protocol for monetised pathways

Quality assurance should also include Māori review, technical-economic review, and user validation. Māori review tests conceptual integrity, tikanga, source integrity and value interpretation. Technical review tests formulas, proxy fit, overlap, contribution assumptions and sensitivity. User validation tests whether the model reflects lived mechanisms and whether key pathways have been missed. External critique should be built into the method, not treated as a late-stage risk.

23. Research agenda

The model is immediately usable, but several research tasks would strengthen it. First, a Māori-governed construct dictionary should be developed across common domains such as education, health, housing, marae, taiao, enterprise, research, procurement and institutional change. Each construct should define inclusion boundaries, exclusion boundaries, typical units, overlap risks, evidence requirements and proxy families.

Second, empirical work is needed on transmission parameters in Māori contexts. How often do education, health, housing, cultural, employment and environmental interventions transmit value through whānau? What factors strengthen or weaken transmission? Which pathways are strongest within same-household whānau, extended whānau, marae networks, peer cohorts or institutions? The purpose of this work should not be to create universal factors for all models, but to improve case-specific calibration and sensitivity testing. Social network analysis, longitudinal data and mixed-method evaluation can help answer these questions (Tracy et al., 2018; Valente, 2012).

Third, new monetary proxies are needed for constructs that are currently poorly valued: restored hosting capacity, cultural taxation avoided, institutional legitimacy, Māori-provider trust, data sovereignty capability, mātauranga legitimacy, governance readiness, whānau navigation burden, relational capability and cultural safety. Some proxies can be built from avoided costs or market equivalents. Others may require deliberative valuation, wellbeing valuation, constructed models or longitudinal evidence (Kenter et al., 2016).

Fourth, discounting and intergenerational treatment require further development. Public-sector discounting conventions may not be ethically adequate for all whakapapa economics applications. Research should test alternative temporal treatments, dual reporting of discounted and undiscounted values where appropriate, threshold analysis and scenario approaches for mokopuna, ecological inheritance and cultural continuity.

24. Conclusion

Whakapapa economics impact modelling offers a more complete account of value for Māori and relationally intensive initiatives. It begins from the proposition that value is created and transmitted through relationships, obligations, institutions, te taiao and time. It uses Māori concepts as the primary architecture of value, while using economic and evaluation tools as supporting techniques. It does not reject quantification. It requires more careful quantification.

The decisive shift is pathway monetisation. The model does not put a price on whakapapa, mana, mauri, wairua or whanaungatanga. It values observable pathways through which those concepts become material: increased agency, reduced whakamā, earlier service engagement, restored hosting capacity, reduced whānau burden, knowledge transfer, ecological restoration, institutional legitimacy, educational transmission, future earnings, housing security and intergenerational capability. This allows relational and cultural value to enter the economic model without being reduced to a market commodity.

The model also responds to weaknesses in conventional SROI and CBA. It rejects the idea that a direct-only estimate is the base truth. It treats narrow estimates as restricted visibility tests only where needed. It avoids the under-specification of principles-based SROI by requiring construct definition, pathway taxonomy, transmission logic, proxy-selection principles, evidence confidence assessment, contribution logic, overlap management, reporting discipline and challenge protocol. It makes the Whakapapa Value Estimate the primary value account while requiring all case-specific parameters to be justified and tested.

The result is wider, but not looser. It includes more of the value that Māori initiatives actually create, while making assumptions more visible and more contestable. It gives funders, policy-makers, boards and researchers a stronger way to see what standard models miss. More importantly, it provides a method for counting value in a way that is more faithful to a relational world.

References