The classification of ecological types and zones into major terrestrial biomes is as follows:

Mountains (High Elevation)
Tundra
Temperate Forest
Marine/Island
Desert
Tropical Dry Forest
Cold Climate Forest
Grassland
Savannah
Tropical Rainforest

Each of these biomes has a special set of physical conditions within which it exists. The naming is essentially derived from those physical characteristics and the most important types of primary producers that are found there.

The classification of economic types is … well all over the map.

Here are several examples:
Example #1
Market Economy
Planned Economy
Mixed Economy

Example #2 (political)
“Left-wing” systems
Anarchism
Communism
Anarcho-communism also known as libertarian socialism, libertarian communism and left-anarchism
Gift economy
Participatory economy
Socialism
Social market economy also known as Soziale Marktwirtschaft
Socialist market economy also known as Market socialism
“Right-wing” systems
Capitalism
Anarcho-capitalism
Corporate capitalism
Feudalism

Example #3
“Capitalism, Socialism, Communism.
United States is mostly a capitalist system, but moving towards socialism (which also means moving towards communism) especially under Obama.” — Anonymous

Example #4
Traditional Economy
Command Economy
Market Economy

Example #5 (World Bank Atlas Method)
Lower Income Economies (with $825 or less)
Lower Middle Income Economies (With $826-3,255)
Upper Middle Income Economies (With $3,256-10,065) and
High Income Economies (With $10,066 or More)

Considering everything, the current classification of economies is not especially helpful in creating an ecological style model of the economic systems. Oddly, the most similar to the biological taxonomy is that of the World Bank, emphasizing the “richness” of the environment within which the economy occurs. Furthermore, they have identified geographical regions in which the various types occur — just as is the case with biological ecosystems.

Here are some World Bank examples:
LIC
Cambodia Korea, Dem. Rep. Lao PDR Vietnam Papua New Guinea Myanmar Mongolia Timor-leste Solomon Islands

LMC
China Fiji Indonesia Kiribati Marshall Islands Micronesia, Fed. Sts. Philippines Samoa Thailand Tonga
Vanatu

UMC
American Samoa Malaysia Northern Mariana Islands Palau UMC

HIC
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea. Rep. Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States

None of these work as equivalent to biomes. What we need are descriptors that allow at least some informative illustration of the base structure of the economic systems in place — let’s for now call them “economes” so we don’t have to contend with competing nomenclature about economic systems.

The biomes take as their fundamental form a snapshot of the primary producers that give structure to the ecological situation at that time and place. For example, an immediate image of the difference between a temperate forest and a savannah springs to mind. In both cases it is relatively easy to call to mind the upper levels of each ecosystem without there being a need to include the different types of herbivores and carnivores in each. There are no great herds of herbivores in a temperate forest, but the image of roaming herds is part of the mental image evoked by the name savannah.

A taxonomy of economes based on the mix of major primary producers, especially those that give structure to the system would far more useful as the base for predictive modelling than what is currently used. I will address this in more detail in another blog, but in general terms economic primary producers are agricultural, hunting, fishing, mining (hard rock, oil and gas, aggregate, etc.), and similar activities. The importance of establishing these as the fundamental naming structure is that it defines the base on which the rest of the econome is built. Recall the pyramid of primary producers primary, secondary and tertiary consumers. The consumer system loses energy and raw materials at each transfer, it does not produce them. This means that the primary production part of the pyramid of econome structure must be broader than everything else. If the system begins to narrow the primary production base without simultaneously narrowing the consumer levels, it is no longer stable.