This section describes the limits of applicability of Value Management Theory (VMT). These limits follow from the theory’s contextual nature, the interpretive character of value, and the practical constraints of observation and modeling in socio-economic systems.
1. Contextual Non-Transferability Without Translation
From A1–A2 and T13 it follows that statements about value are valid only within a specified value system.
Therefore, VMT does not provide a universal procedure for comparing value across value systems. Any inter-system aggregation requires an explicit translation rule, which is an external modeling hypothesis. (A12; T15)
2. Underdetermination Under Limited Observability
From O10 and T9: if a flow model does not explain system sustainability, this indicates one or more of the following:
- latent (hidden) flows;
- incomplete observability;
- incorrectly specified boundaries of sets A and F.
VMT treats latency as a normal property of socio-economic systems. Consequently, strict empirical conclusions require additional observable proxies and an explicit model translating observations into Vreal/AVreal.
3. Not a Theory of Market Equilibrium and Prices
VMT is not a general equilibrium theory: it does not derive prices and does not guarantee existence or uniqueness of competitive equilibrium under given preferences and technologies (in contrast to Arrow–Debreu frameworks).
VMT operates with interpreted value and anti-value in value systems and allows prices to be treated as only one particular class of elements and flows.
4. Distinguishing "Value" and "Utility" as Objective Functions
VMT is compatible with the economic apparatus of utility, but it is not identical to it.
In microeconomics, utility is often introduced as a representation of preferences. In VMT, value is fixed as an interpretation of state change within a value system and allows:
- multiple criteria G;
- retrospective re-evaluation Vretro;
- non-additivity and non-commutativity of effects over time.
This limits the use of VMT as a direct replacement for standard utility formulations.
5. Limits of the "Flow" Formalism
A3 asserts representability of changes via flows. However, the practical applicability of this representation may be limited by:
- very high system dimensionality;
- inability to identify relevant elements E;
- strong latency and endogeneity of interpretations.
Formally, these issues do not refute A3, but they constrain empirical operationalization.
6. Non-Normative Status: No Default Social Objectives
VMT is not a theory of social welfare and does not provide normative efficiency criteria by default.
Any normative conclusion requires explicit specification of a value system and its goals G. (T13)
7. Metaphysical Neutrality
Value Management Theory does not assert the objective or subjective existence of value in a metaphysical sense.
VMT operates with interpreted value as an observable effect of interactions between actors within a value system. Questions concerning “value in itself” lie outside the scope of applicability of the theory and are not required for its formal use.