European Summer School on Earth System Governance

Abstract

TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT APPROACH -Building on the human-scale development paradigm-" Central to general policy making and sustainable development strategies implementation, the need to introduce evaluation procedures reaching beyond technical 'achievement' indicators, allow us to evaluate substantial questions respecting the coherence between different actors, their subjective aims, values, aspirations and specific development dynamics pursued. Considering the above, some questions may arise: Are policies and actual development strategies coherent with peoples aspirations and their different cultural contexts? Are they increasing their collective well-being at a local level? Are they increasing the system's stability and sustainability by generating more harmonious social relations and networks as well as synergetic interactions between humans and their environment?. Standard evaluation procedures tend to focus on more 'performance'-driven questions which, although important, do not manage to help answering fundamental questions about meaning and sense. We should be thus concerned not only how but fundamentally why are certain policies and development strategies chosen in detriment of others. The Human-Scale Development approach developed by Manfred Max-Neef and colleagues in the 1980s' presented some powerful insights and tools which might contribute to find stronger interdependence between actors, actions and spaces for well-being flourishing and achievement. Unlike standard economic theory and most development approaches, H-SD theory works under asystemic philosophy of realization of human needsimplicating them between one another. Needs operate as potentialities or deprivations, always depending on the particular context in which individuals and collectivities live. A new adaptation of the H-SD methodology is introduced in this work in order to put forward innovative uses and multidimensional frameworks for better well-being and human development appraisals.

Full text

European Summer School on Earth System Governance
Authors:
Ivonne Cruz(PhD)
UNESCO Chair in Sustainability - UPC- Barcelona, Spain.
Email: ivonne@catunesco.upc.edu
Andri Stahel (PhD)
UNESCO Chair in Sustainability - UPC- Barcelona, Spain.
Email: stahel@catunesco.upc.edu
Abstract:
“TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
-Building on the human-scale development paradigm-”
Central to general policy making and sustainable development strategies
implementation, the need to introduce evaluation procedures reaching beyond
technical ‘achievement’ indicators, allow us to evaluate substantial questions
respecting the coherence between different actors, their subjective aims, values,
aspirations and specific development dynamics pursued.
Considering the above, some questions may arise: Are policies and actual
development strategies coherent with peoples aspirations and their different cultural
contexts? Are they increasing their collective well-being at a local level? Are they
increasing the system’s stability and sustainability by generating more harmonious
social relations and networks as well as synergetic interactions between humans and
their environment?. Standard evaluation procedures tend to focus on more
‘performance’-driven questions which, although important, do not manage to help
answering fundamental questions about meaning and sense. We should be thus
concerned not only how but fundamentally why are certain policies and development
strategies chosen in detriment of others.
The Human-Scale Development approach developed by Manfred Max-Neef and
colleagues in the 1980s’ presented some powerful insights and tools which might
contribute to find stronger interdependence between actors, actions and spaces for
well-being flourishing and achievement. Unlike standard economic theory and most
development approaches, H-SD theory works under a `systemic philosophy of
realization of human needs´ implicating them between one another. Needs operate as
potentialities or deprivations, always depending on the particular context in which
individuals and collectivities live. A new adaptation of the H-SD methodology is
introduced in this work in order to put forward innovative uses and multidimensional
frameworks for better well-being and human development appraisals.

TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
-Building on the human-scale development paradigm-
INTRODUCTION
What is the economy all about?
Aristotle (1967) in the introductory chapter of his Politics distinguished between
oikonomía (‘the art of household management’) and chrematistics (khrēmatistiké, ‘the
art of acquisition’)1. Going one step further, he made a distinction between two different
kinds of chrematistics: one subordinated to a use-value logic and thus the oikonomia
(providing households with the necessary use-values which were not provided
internally, in exchange for those they produced in excess) and another form, which
Aristotle rightly saw as secondary from a logical and historical point of view, concerned
with the ‘art of money-making’ – accumulation of exchange-values by means of
commerce.
Aristotle’s oikonomy – centred on the reproduction of use-values –
encompassed by all those ‘instruments’ which are available to households in order to
acquire different use-values to ‘live and live well’. Its practice and study included,
among others, agriculture, crafts, hunting & gathering, mining and even warfare - as a
way to provide slaves with households. It was, thus, a systemic, multidimensional
conception of the economic process, which would as well include the discussion of
meaning and value, of ethics and aesthetics, as an integral part of this ‘art of living and
living well’. Chrematistics – ‘the art of acquisition’ - was seen as an integral part of the
oikonomy too, but only as far as it remained subordinated to the latter’s use-value logic.
Notwithstanding, once the ‘art of money-making’ as an end in itself was
established (whereby the accumulation of exchange-values, of money, is dissociated
from the wider objectives of the oikonomy, this kind of chrematistics was no longer
instrumental to the latter being considered external to it by Aristotle (Figure 1).
1 We used the more commonly used translations of both terms. Particularly, we use ‘art’ for what
Aristotle used to refer to as tékhnē, that is: a certain kind of skill won by experience, which does not
dissociates technical expertise from ethics and aesthetics. It means craftsmanship in a sense which has
greatly been lost in our modern times and thereby defies translation. Once ‘technical’ in modern times
acquired an instrumental connotation, we rather stick to the notion of ‘art’ which is closer to the Greek
meaning.
Oikonomía
‘The art of living and living well’
- Agriculture
- Crafts
- Hunting & Gathering
- Mining
- Commerce / chrematistics
- …
Khrématistiké
‘The art of
acquisition
Acquiring
use-values
‘The art of money-making’
(Accumulating exchange-values)

Figure 1. Oikonomía and khrēmatistiké
In line with Aristotle’s view, Adam Smith defined the main study object of the
new Political Economy Science he was establishing in the title of his seminal work An
Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Economics was thus
defined as the study of both the origins of human wealth and the way this wealth was
socially distributed – hence Political Economy. Of course, this should still be the main
focus of any economic inquiry, since what we wish to obtain from the economic system
is not an increase in economic activity per se but the means to achieve an objective
external to it: the (re)production of human existence and welfare. Chrematistics
appears here as a means-to-an-end, a subordinated part of complex system’s dynamic
once the reproduction and distribution of wealth results from wider ecological, personal,
social, political, cultural and institutional development dialectics whereby human
societies try to achieve ‘the art of living and living well’ (Stahel, 2005).
It is from this broader systemic perspective that chrematistics appears as just a
part of a wider dialectics, that we can understand Georgescu-Roegen’s proposition that
there is an “economy of life at all levels” (Georgescu-Roegen 1971,4). All living
systems tap energy and materials from their environment in order to maintain their
autopoiesis (i.e.) their self-(re)creation process, although none does so within the
context of a highly developed self-reflective culture and language, encompassing a
myriad of exosomatic tools, cultural and personal values and institutional settings as
we humans do. Thereby, for us humans the means for sustaining and reproducing our
life implies not only a biophysical dimension, but also a self-reflective cultural and
technical one. Notwithstanding, our socioeconomic processes as an extension of a
biological life processes, remains thus a means to an end: the culturally defined and
physically realized (re)creation of human welfare.
Considered from this perspective, we see that a chrematistics centred, free-
market based development process is just one among different historical forms by
which this objective has and may be pursued. In fact, as Polanyi (1944) showed, it is
only in our modern times that the idea of a free-market based institutional setting
ordering the social and economic life emerged. The chrematistic, exchange-value
centred, logic ceased to be secondary to the wider oikonomic use-value logic, to
become its master.
As has been argued in more detail elsewhere (Stahel 2005), although Smith,
and modern economics in general , equated ‘wealth’ to use-value – and thus the proper
study object of modern economics should be the ‘Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of
Use-Value’ – modern economics would restrain it’s gaze to inquire about the nature
and causes of exchange-values and how they translate into prices, rent, wages and
profits. Within modern neoclassic economics the inquiry scope of economics was
further reduced to the chrematistic dimension of the economic process once the classic
distinction between exchange-value and prices by the British Political and Marxists
economics was no longer kept . Thereby, focusing solely on the chrematistic, monetary
and measurable dimension of the economic process, the political, personal, institutional
and cultural dimensions of the economic development process were eluded in favour of
more abstract, model-building based approach to the economic process. Not only with
respect to nature which, as Georgescu-Roegen mentions, it appears as a one way …,
but with respect to the sociocultural dimension as well, the economic process has been
depicted as a purely chrematistic process happening in a social and ecological void.
At the methodological level, this allowed to establish, economics in line with the
mechanistic paradigm of Newtonian physics than hegemonic, which would shape not
only modern economics but modern science as a whole. More fundamentally, by
relegating the social, political, cultural and psychological dimensions to the realm of
‘normative economics’ (in opposition to the supposedly more scientific ‘positive
economics’), Classical Political Economic was barren from its political dimension.

Notwithstanding, as Polanyi suggested in his analysis of modern history, the
debates and struggles around the widening or not of the realm covered by the free-
market based ordering of the economic, social and ecological life are the crucial
element shaping modern history. Reducing the free-market debate to a technical
question in terms of ‘economic efficiency’ based on different abstract models’ outcomes
under different initial hypothesis has, thus, a strong ideological and political aspect. It
excludes the bulk of humanity (and lastly those affected by the widening of the realm
covered by the chrematistic market logic) by excluding this central political debate from
the public arena, confining it to the academic and institutional walls of professional
economists and politicians, to the expert meetings inside the WTO, IMF, WB, economic
ministries and, lastly, the academic walls of modern economics.
By leaving the social, political and ecological dimensions out of its inquiry field,
the reduction of economics to the chrematistic dimension allowed to align modern
economics methodological practice to the free-market based and exchange-value
centred modern capitalistic economic process (Marx, Polanyi, ) which, in turn, it helps
to legitimize by means of its abstract theoretical models. Behind economics’ hermetic
and abstract jargon and accepted methodological procedures, lies the political question
about the benefits or not of the widening of free-trade and market based ordering of the
development process .By naming this new science economics instead of chrematistics
– which would be its proper name – and by narrowly defining its methodology and
study object, it excludes the bulk of humanity from the discussions about how and
where to orient the development practices by presenting the free-market not as an
institutional setting orienting modern life, but as a technical questions of achieving
‘higher economic efficiency’ by means of the ‘art of acquiring money’ and not by means
of the ‘art of living well’.
From this perspective, we can see that generating theoretical models whose
legitimacy is derived mostly from following narrowly defined methodological rules and
not from actually observed historical reality (where all kind of cultural, ecological,
political and historical aspects are depicted as noisy ‘external’ aspects which do not
allow a contrasted empirical observation), economics becomes normative by asserting
that economic efficiency would emerge as predicted in the models if only its
assumption of free-market and rational mechanistic and chrematistic human behaviour
were allowed to happen (Stahel, ?).
This reduction of economics as chrematistics is reflected in the very way it
shaped the modern idea of development which, more and more, has been reduced to
its chrematistic aspect and to a point of being confounded with economic growth. In the
same way, as Sachs pointed out, measuring wealth in chrematistic terms (reduced to
monetary income and GNP like indicators) allowed to divide the world between ‘rich’
and ‘poor’, ‘developed’, ‘developing’ and ‘under-developed’ countries. It also has
grouped the manifold and diverse human societies by means of a single chrematistic
yardstick, throughout the ‘development era’ of the second half of the XX century
(Sachs,1999?). Consequently, by this process different and autonomous ways of
organizing the social, economic and cultural development dynamics have been
abandoned and replaced by a linear, chrematistic development concept and the
modern economic growth race.
Although hegemonic, this way of conceiving oikonomics as chrematistics, and
to look at development from a mostly chrematistic perspective has been severely
criticized from its inception up to our days. With the recent ‘sustainability crisis’,
critiques have gained new importance as more and more people become aware that
the development process has to be seen through its multiple, interdependent and
interrelated economic, cultural, social, political and environmental dimensions.
Development processes emerge not as simple economic growth, but as a complex
dynamic system whose sustainability and thus our modern civilization is now being
jeopardized.

This particular view reintroduces not only ‘nature’ (i.e. the considerations of the
material and ecological base of any development process) but ‘people, and their
cultural meanings and values back to the development agenda. It leads us to consider,
in line with Aristotle’s conception, both the material and the sociocultural dimensions of
the development process from an ethical and aesthetical perspective, as means of
achieving the art of living and living well. It leads us to consider chrematistics and
economic growth as a subordinated aspect of the wider oikonomic process.
One fundamental early contribution to this re-conception of the development
notion from a systemic and humanistic perspective, aiming to ‘put the economy at the
service of people and not people at the service of the economy’ (Max-Neef 1992a) has
been made by the Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef and his colleagues in the
1980s, giving rise to the Human-Scale development approach (H-SD). Central to this
paradigm is a systemic re-conceptualization of human needs, placing these needs and
their potential in the centre of any development strategy. It meant, thus, a recovery of
the oikonomy in the original sense discussed above – as a means to achieving a higher
wellbeing - and no longer as simple chrematistics. This theory presents a very wide
outlook: “one in which the economic sphere represents another component of human
society in connection to politics, culture, ecology, sociology, psychology and
anthropology” (Cruz 2006, 61). For this reason – as well for its theoretical and practical
importance, having found important applications at both levels around the world in the
last decades - in this paper we will try to build on the H-SD, proposing some
methodological features which may be added to the original proposal and suggesting
innovative ways of enhancing its scope and applications, while presenting it as a very
important theoretical and practical tool to enhance oikonomics which, as said before,
should not be confounded with present economics conceptions.
The Human-Scale Development Approach
Before entering into the main objective of this paper, we will do a very brief
description of the H-SD main aspects, suggesting to interested readers to find in the
original writings of Max-Neef, his colleagues, followers and practitioners a more
detailed and in depth discussion of this paradigm2.
The H-SD notion appeared for the fist time in an article published by the Dag
Hammarskjöld Foundation (DHF) in 1986 by Max-Neef, Elizalde and Hopenhayn. In
line with Aristotle’s conception that the oikonomy has to deal not just with living, but
more fundamentally with the art of living well, Max-Neef and colleagues suggested that
the best development process will be the one that enables improvement in people's
quality of life, allowing people and communities to be coherent with themselves
(1998a). The axis of this fundamental thought is that H-SD concentrates on, and is
sustained by the satisfaction of fundamental human needs and the generation of
growing levels of self-reliance; as well as by the construction of “organic
articulations of people with nature and technology, of global processes with local
activity, of the personal with the social, of planning with autonomy, and of civil society
with the State” (Max-Neef 1992b,197).
The most relevant and key insights of this approach are briefly outlined below:
Development refers to people and not to objects. This approach entails a theory
of human needs for development, one that goes beyond economic rationality
and comprehends the human being as a whole:
2Recommended reading: Max-Neef et al. 1986; 1992 and 1998 a & b. See complete
references at end.

oThe best development process will be one that raises people’s quality of
life. “This depends directly on the possibilities available to that person to
satisfy his/her fundamental basic needs” (Max-Neef 1998a,40).
Human needs are finite. They are few and can be classified:
o“Needs are the same in all cultures and historical periods” (Max-Neef
1998a,42; Elizalde 2003b). What changes through time and between
cultures is the form and/or the means used to satisfy needs.
Every system of needs is either satisfied, or not, by generating different types of
satisfiers. Satisfiers, whether of an individual or collective nature, mean all the
things that, by representing forms of being, having, doing, and interacting3,
contribute to the realisation of HN (Max-Neef 1998a). Complementariness and
compensation are essential elements of their characteristics. What is culturally
determined are satisfiers and not needs.
oSatisfiers, are not only economic means. These might generate goods
(commodities) that change according to historical moments and
contexts. Satisfiers, unlike needs, are less static (Max-Neef 1998a) they
are modified by the rhythm of history and are diversified according to
different cultures and circumstances. Overall, they define the prevailing
mode that a culture or a society ascribes to a need. These may include:
“organizational structures, political systems, social practices, subjective
conditions, norms, values, spaces, contexts, behaviours and attitudes;
all of which are in a permanent state of tension between consolidation
and change” (Max-Neef 1992b,201).
Traded goods and services represent one particular kind of satisfier among
many others. As for Aristotle’s oikonomy not all satisfiers (i.e. use-values) are
traded or obtained through the market, having thus an exchange-value
associated.
Finally, any unsatisfied, or not adequately satisfied human need, reveals a form
of human poverty.
oFrom the H-SD perspective, we should rather be talking not of poverty in
singular, but of poverties in plural. Every person, culture or society may
be rich in certain aspects of life, and poor in others, depending on
different circumstances and on how their different fundamental human
needs are being satisfied.4
This clear distinction between human needs (common to all humans) and
satisfiers (the particular means by which different societies and cultures aim to attend
these needs) is probably the most important asset to the development debate and
constitutes by itself, the cornerstone of the H-SD approach. Accordingly, Max-Neef and
colleagues described that humanity has been developing certain needs that have
3 BEING- registers attributes, personal or collective expressed as nouns. HAVING- registers
institutions, norms, mechanisms, tools (no material sense) that can be expressed in one or
more words. DOING- registers actions, personal or collective that can be expressed like verbs
and INTERACTING-registers locations and milieus (as times and spaces) Max-Neef
1992b,207).
4 Within this approach the poverty concept changes: Basic human needs exist according to a
pre-systemic threshold from where deprivation of any of the listed needs will cause shattering in
the whole needs system and therefore human well-being (Max-Neef 1998a and Elizalde 2003b).

acquired a universal character in terms of historical transcendence. “These needs are
those of subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure,
creation, identity, and freedom -the need for transcendence is sometimes also
included-“ (1998a, 41).
From the above, these series of needs, maintain their character throughout time
and can be identified as socio-universal needs, meaning that their fulfilment is always
desirable for all, and their deterrence, undesirable for all as well. In the most pressing
of ways, needs reveal human being’s essence shared by all human beings as sentient,
social and self-reflective beings.
This common human nature becomes palpable through needs in their twofold
existential condition: as deprivation and potential. “Deprivation reflects the physiological
aspect, `something which is lacking is acutely felt´. However, to the degree that needs
engage, motivate and mobilize people, they are potential and eventually may become a
resource. For example, the need to participate is potential for participation; the need for
affection is potential for affection, and so on” (Max-Neef 1992b: 201).
Additionally, the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of human needs can often be
expressed in terms of feelings or emotions, yielding positive or negative feelings
(Jakson et al. 2004). If a particular need like e.g. the need for subsistence is not
satisfied because of a lack of food, the negative feeling will be hunger, arousing the
drive to eat and this drive will result in a motivation to use that opportunity, hence the
double existential character of needs. To illustrate Table 1 bellow demonstrates a
possible categorisation of feelings according to Max-Neef´s typology of needs .
Table 1 Classification of positive and negative feelings (Adapted from Jackson et al. 2004).
Basic need Satisfaction of needs: positive
feelings
(no need for change)
Dissatisfaction of needs:
negative feelings
(potential for action to fulfil
the experienced need)
Subsistence satiated, replete hungry
Protection safe in danger, anxiety
Affection love/being loved hate/indifference
Understanding intellectual well-being, smart, clever,
insightful, conscious intellectual frustration,
dumb, stupid,
ignorance/being ignorant
Participation belonging, related, involved lonesome, isolated,
forsaken
Leisure playful, relaxed boredom/bored, weary,
stressed
Creation creative, inspired uninspired
Identity self-assured, confident, positive self-
image uncertain, insecure,
negative self-image
Freedom free, independent entangled, chained,
bounded, captured, tied
Crucial to H-SD conception of needs is the idea that people have multiple and
interdependent needs that interact and interrelate in a systemic way and there is no
two-way correspondence between needs and satisfiers. A satisfier can contribute
simultaneously to the satisfaction of various needs; or conversely, a need can require
various satisfiers to be met (Max-Neef 1998a, 42). Lastly, satisfiers are not neutral,
they present various characteristics and are identified for analytical purposes in five
types: violating or destructive satisfiers, pseudo-satisfiers, inhibiting satisfiers, singular,
and synergic satisfiers. (See table 2). Satisfieres are modified by the rhythm of history
and are diversified according to different cultures and circumstances. Economic goods

as well, are objects related to particular historical moments, but represent only one type
of satisfier among a vast range.
Table 2. Satisfier characterization (Max-Neef 1992b,208-210)
TYPE DESCRIPTION
Synergetic satisfier Are those which, by the way in which they satisfy a given
need, stimulate and contribute to the simultaneous
satisfaction of other needs
Singular satisfier These aim to the satisfaction of a single need, therefore
neutral as regards the satisfaction of other needs.
Destructive satisfier Elements of paradoxical effect. Applied under the pretext
of satisfying a given need, they not only annihilate the
possibility of its satisfaction, but they also render the
adequate satisfaction of other needs impossible.
(Sometimes specially related to the need of protection).
Inhibiting satisfier Are those which by the way in which they satisfy
(generally over-satisfy) a given need seriously impair the
possibility of satisfying other needs
Pseudo-satisfier
satisfier These are elements which stimulate a false sensation of
satisfying a given need. Though they lack the
aggressiveness of destructive, they may, on occasion,
annul, in the medium term, the possibility of satisfying
the need they were originally aimed at.
In any case, both concepts (needs and satisfiers) interrelate within a matrix
according to existential and axiological characteristics, where a larger description of
their conceptual structure is explained (see Table 3). Reviewing the matrix itself is
illustrative and provides only an example of the multiple relations of elements that can
be named and listed as satisfiers.
The needs and satisfiers matrix represents a fundamental tool of the H-SD and
can be used for multiple purposes. It has been used in a wide array of usually
participatory exercises, as a diagnosis, planning, assessment and evaluation tool. By
filling out the different boxes of the matrix and by writing down the main satisfiers used
to fulfil given needs as well as classifying those available satisfiers by their nature, the
essence of different communities, cultures and societies may be highlighted. It does so
from a systemic perspective, in line with our own conception of the oikonomic process
as complex dynamic whole in which different social and ecological dimensions are
interrelated. The matrix presents, thus, potentials and shortcomings of different
development strategies and models. Moreover, as we suggest further below, this
methodology can be enhanced and adapted in order to serve as a powerful
development policy appraisal tool, as, a very interesting planning tool from the H-SD
paradigm perspective.

Table 3. Matrix of Needs and Satisfiers (Max Max-Neef 1992b,206-7).
36/ Temporal/special plasticity 35/ Dissent, choose, be
different from, run risks,
develop awareness, commit
oneself, disobey, meditate
34/ Equal rights33/Autonomy, self-esteem,
determination, passion,
assertiveness, open mindedness,
boldness, rebelliousness,
tolerance
FREEDOM
32/ Social rhythms, every day
settings, setting which one
belongs to, maturation stages
31/ Commit oneself,
integrate oneself, confront,
decide on, get to know
oneself , recognize oneself,
actualize oneself, grow
30/ Symbols, language,
religions, habits,
customs, reference
groups, roles, groups,
sexuality, values, norms,
historic memory, work
29/ Sense of belonging,
consistency , differentiation, self-
esteem, assertiveness
IDENTITY
28/ Productive and feedback
settings, workshops, cultural
groups, audiences, spaces for
expression, temporal freedom
27/ Work, invent, build,
design compose, interpret
26/ Abilities, skills,
method, work
25/ Passion, determination,
intuition, imagination, boldness,
rationality, autonomy,
inventiveness, curiosity
CREATION
24/Privacy, intimacy, spaces of
closeness, free time,
surroundings, landscapes
23/ Day-dream, brood,
dream recall old times, give
way to fantasies,
remember, relax, have fun,
play
22/ Games, spectacles,
clubs, parties, peace of
mind
21/ Curiosity, receptiveness,
imagination, recklessness, sense
of humour, lack of worry,
tranquillity, sensuality
LEISURE
20/ Settings of participative
interaction, parties, associations,
churches, communities,
neighbourhoods, family
19/ Become affiliated,
cooperate, propose, share,
dissent, obey, interact,
agree on, express opinions
18/ Rights,
responsibilities, duties,
privileges, work
17/ Adaptability, receptiveness,
solidarity, willingness,
determination, dedication,
respect, passion, sense of
humour
PARTICIPATION
16/ Settings of formative
interaction, schools, universities,
academies groups, communities,
family
15/ Investigate, study,
educate, experiment,
analyse, meditate, interpret
14/ Literature, teachers,
method, educational and
communication policies
13/ Critical conscience,
receptiveness, curiosity,
astonishment, discipline intuition,
rationality
UNDERSTANDING
12/ Privacy, intimacy, home,
spaces of togetherness
11/ Make love, caress,
express emotions, share,
take care of, cultivate,
appreciate
10/ Friendships,
partners, family,
partnerships,
relationships with nature
9/ Self esteem, solidarity,
respect, tolerance, generosity,
receptiveness, passion,
determination, sensuality, sense
of humour
AFFECTION
8/ Living space, social
environment, dwelling
7/ Co-operate, prevent,
plan, take care of, cure,
help
6/ Insurance systems,
savings, social security,
health systems, rights,
family, work
5/Care, adaptability, autonomy,
equilibrium, solidarity
PROTECTION
4/ Living environment, social
setting
3/ Feed, procreate, rest,
work
2/ Food,
shelter, work
1/ Physical health, mental health,
equilibrium, sense of humour,
adaptability
SUBSISTENCE
INTERACTING
(spaces or atmospheres)
DOING
(personal or collective
actions)
HAVING
(institutions,
norms, tools)
BEING
(personal or collective
attributes)
Needs according to existential
characteristics
Needs according to axiological
characteristics
36/ Temporal/special plasticity 35/ Dissent, choose, be
different from, run risks,
develop awareness, commit
oneself, disobey, meditate
34/ Equal rights33/Autonomy, self-esteem,
determination, passion,
assertiveness, open mindedness,
boldness, rebelliousness,
tolerance
FREEDOM
32/ Social rhythms, every day
settings, setting which one
belongs to, maturation stages
31/ Commit oneself,
integrate oneself, confront,
decide on, get to know
oneself , recognize oneself,
actualize oneself, grow
30/ Symbols, language,
religions, habits,
customs, reference
groups, roles, groups,
sexuality, values, norms,
historic memory, work
29/ Sense of belonging,
consistency , differentiation, self-
esteem, assertiveness
IDENTITY
28/ Productive and feedback
settings, workshops, cultural
groups, audiences, spaces for
expression, temporal freedom
27/ Work, invent, build,
design compose, interpret
26/ Abilities, skills,
method, work
25/ Passion, determination,
intuition, imagination, boldness,
rationality, autonomy,
inventiveness, curiosity
CREATION
24/Privacy, intimacy, spaces of
closeness, free time,
surroundings, landscapes
23/ Day-dream, brood,
dream recall old times, give
way to fantasies,
remember, relax, have fun,
play
22/ Games, spectacles,
clubs, parties, peace of
mind
21/ Curiosity, receptiveness,
imagination, recklessness, sense
of humour, lack of worry,
tranquillity, sensuality
LEISURE
20/ Settings of participative
interaction, parties, associations,
churches, communities,
neighbourhoods, family
19/ Become affiliated,
cooperate, propose, share,
dissent, obey, interact,
agree on, express opinions
18/ Rights,
responsibilities, duties,
privileges, work
17/ Adaptability, receptiveness,
solidarity, willingness,
determination, dedication,
respect, passion, sense of
humour
PARTICIPATION
16/ Settings of formative
interaction, schools, universities,
academies groups, communities,
family
15/ Investigate, study,
educate, experiment,
analyse, meditate, interpret
14/ Literature, teachers,
method, educational and
communication policies
13/ Critical conscience,
receptiveness, curiosity,
astonishment, discipline intuition,
rationality
UNDERSTANDING
12/ Privacy, intimacy, home,
spaces of togetherness
11/ Make love, caress,
express emotions, share,
take care of, cultivate,
appreciate
10/ Friendships,
partners, family,
partnerships,
relationships with nature
9/ Self esteem, solidarity,
respect, tolerance, generosity,
receptiveness, passion,
determination, sensuality, sense
of humour
AFFECTION
8/ Living space, social
environment, dwelling
7/ Co-operate, prevent,
plan, take care of, cure,
help
6/ Insurance systems,
savings, social security,
health systems, rights,
family, work
5/Care, adaptability, autonomy,
equilibrium, solidarity
PROTECTION
4/ Living environment, social
setting
3/ Feed, procreate, rest,
work
2/ Food,
shelter, work
1/ Physical health, mental health,
equilibrium, sense of humour,
adaptability
SUBSISTENCE
INTERACTING
(spaces or atmospheres)
DOING
(personal or collective
actions)
HAVING
(institutions,
norms, tools)
BEING
(personal or collective
attributes)
Needs according to existential
characteristics
Needs according to axiological
characteristics
The human needs matrix represents a fundamental tool assessing different
development strategies as well as helping different communities to gain self-awareness
about their preferences in a given set of satisfiers and moreover the way these
interrelate and affect each other systemically. By classifying and identifying satisfiers
by the way each one affects the different dimensions of wellbeing, it helps to highlight
the way specific social and cultural settings enhance or inhibit personal freedom,
autonomy and wellbeing. Overall it allows to highlight peoples coherence between
aspirations, practices and believes, as well as their structural adjustment to the social
and natural environment in which and by means of which the development process
unfolds.
Situational and Propositional matrixes: Contributing to H-SD original work.
As a way of enhancing this systemic methodology and simultaneously, enlarge
its scope this paper presents a methodological extension of the H-SD traditional
methodology. The aim is to propose an innovative tool for development-policy
assessment and development planning practice, consisting basically, on the

elaboration of a ‘Propositional Matrix’ alongside the traditional ‘Situational Matrix’, as
well as new numerical and graphical ways of presenting the final results. It must be
noted that in this paper the extension will be introduced theoretically as a
methodological contribution to the H-SD paradigm were results come from an
hypothetic case study conducted through a desk review. As in the case of the original
H-SD research and practices done so far, accuracy of the evaluation outcomes of this
particular framework will depend mostly on information availability and extended
participation with the interested stakeholders and communities.
As a first step, following H-SD’s original methodology, a matrix relating
fundamental human needs and the satisfiers chosen to attend them can be generated,
according to the general methodology explained above. This matrix, which we will term
“Situational Matrix”5, is built indicating most significant constrains and other concrete
situations faced by the interested community. It will highlight as well positive and
negative aspects of a given development model revealing difficulties, underestimation
of dimensions, “problematic situation”, potentials and ‘overestimated dimensions’. In
this sense the resulting needs/satisfiers matrix is like a picture of a given situation,
showing how particular development patterns and strategies are enhancing or
repressing people’s wellbeing and potentials, as well as providing a picture of the
ecological dimension of this particular development model by reflecting people’s
relation to their environment.
In addition to the extensive ways the results are presented within the original
matrix methodology (quoting the main satisfiers which characterize given development
models and patterns and classifying them according to their nature within the wider
needs system), a synthetic numerical and graphical representation of the results is
here proposed, indicating the degree of satisfaction of given needs at their different
dimensions within the matrix. This way of presenting the results, by synthesizing the
global result in numerical indicators, does not aims to reduce any dimension
numerically, but only to complement the main results by providing a synthetic indicator.
The idea of numerical and/or graphical representations is solely to help visualize in a
synthetic way the main aspects of a given development pattern and should not mislead
us into representing the numerical results as a ‘precise’ or ‘objective’ representation of
reality. It has to be taken as what it actually is: an approximation to the complex,
multidimensional development process and a complementary way of representing it
within the broader H-SD methodology.
Assuming that all dimensions (Being-Having-Doing-Interacting) have equal
weight and importance in order to satisfy a given fundamental need, an average
indicator of the overall level of satisfaction of these needs may be calculated by taking
the mean value of the degree of satisfaction observed for each need at these different
dimension, each representing a 25% proportional part out of 100%.
Another improvement to the original H-SD methodology is the inclusion of a
trend indicator. In this way, the “situational matrix” may be complemented by indicating
expected positive or negative trends within a situation. Depending on the trends
observed and/or experienced, the satisfaction of human needs could improve or
deteriorate slightly or significantly, and will be expressed as follows inside each box
within the matrix:
5Situational means: the way in which something is positioned vis-à-vis its surroundings. The
place in which something is situated; a location. It reveals position or status with regard to
conditions and circumstances. Or the combination of circumstances at a given moment; a state
of affairs. A critical, problematic, or striking set of circumstances (The FreeDictionary 2006).

slightly improve (+) significantly improve (++) remain unchanged ()
slightly deteriorate (-) significantly deteriorate (- -)
This way of representing should help to get a more dynamic picture of the
development dynamics. Thereby, even when a need fulfilment might be relatively
achieved, the trend might indicate that either the mechanism, the strategies, the
spaces and/or the incentives to enhance these satisfiers are actually pointing to a
worsening or bettering of the situation, complementing the static picture given by the
situational matrix. Adding a dynamic description of tendencies may be most important
once it helps to identify aspects and dimensions which need to be given priority
attention in order to reverse negative trends as well as enhancing those aspects and
dimensions where a positive trend is already being observed. As a tool for policy
appraisal, this methodology can be of great help by identifying those negative collateral
aspects that the “strategy or policy” is aiming to improve as well as those positive
aspects on which a successful development strategy could be build on.
Table 4. Sample Situational Matrix with numerical outcomes (Cruz 2006,165)
Technical Notes:
Coloured Squares inside each box indicate proportion of fulfilment of the need
Numbers expressed below each square indicate percentage of need fulfilment respectively
according to and approximate proportion i.e [0/6, 1/6, 2/6, 3/6,etc…] Each column has equal
value representing 25% of a total 100%.
Arrows [(- -)(+)] indicate positive, negative or unintelligible trends
The example below was taken from a case study in Brazil, assessing anti-racist policies and
land property. Note how regardless of the low fulfilment of the need in some dimensions,
the trend is although positive. This is due to existent information affirming changing patterns
in many of these problematic situations. New laws and programs to support an action,
participation, institutions being created, and so forth are all different types of satisfiers.
Needs
according to
existential
characteristics
axiological
characteristics
BEING
(Personal/collective
attributes)
HAVING
(Institutions,
norms,
mechanism, tools)
DOING
(Personal/collective
actions)
INTERACTING
(Spaces and
environments)
EXAMPLE OF
VALUES
Need “X”
Fulfilment: total %
% (- -)
0/6= 0%
% (+)
1/6=~33%
% (+)
5/6=~83%
% (+)
6/6= 100%
PROTECTION
Fulfilment : 33.25%
People is not safe
from displacement ,
cannot define
livelihoods
autonomously
(displaced people
not able to fish &
harvest -relocation at
infertile lands)
%17 (+)
No institution to
watch human
security for
community (food,
work, housing,
health and
education
threatened)
%33 (+)
Family cohesion is
strong, but still they
search coherence
with their cultural
values to protect
their identity.
%83 (+)
No safe vital
surroundings in
resettlements (e.g)
teenage pregnancy,
drug use and
prostitution.
%0 (+)

Elaborating the Propositional matrix
The next step, in order to turn the identified deprivations into potentialities,
consists in generating what we termed a ‘propositional matrix’. Following the same
principles as for the situational matrix, the aim of this matrix is to provide a future
picture or expected outcome of a given set of policies and/or development strategies.
By helping to visualise these expected future outcomes, the propositional matrix may
be used as a proposed policy assessment and planning tool. It may as well help local
communities to explore where given development trends and/or proposed actions are
leading, helping them to (re)orient their development pattern in a sustainable way.
In this propositional matrix, each square within the matrix will define one or
more constructive or propositional satisfiers 6 (therefore the name) identified in a given
development strategy or plan, which may as well be being proposed by an external
authority at the local, national or international level or by the local community
themselves. In both cases, the aim is to facilitate the interested parties a way of
assessing these policies or plans from a systemic, H-SD perspective. Depending on
the contribution of the identified satisfiers to the holistic performance of the strategy or
policy, these satisfiers will obtain a certain value responding to their contribution in
fulfilling a given need. Thereby, information on the “potential achievement” of different
proposed satisfiers can be obtained, helping to better establish an effective and holistic
development strategy.
In this way, H-SD original methodology is expanded and may be used as a
powerful evaluation tool, as well by the local community as by planners and general
development agencies. By following H-SD approach, it helps to assess different
policies and strategies in an integrated and holistic way.
In the same way as for the situational matrix, proposed satisfiers shown in the
propositional matrix are classified as singular, synergetic, destructive, inhibiting or as
pseudo-satisfiers, according to the way in which they fulfill human needs as shown in
Table 5. In this logic, the more synergetic actions contained, the best chances the
policy and /or the development strategy proposing this particular satisfier has to
accomplish holistic outcomes. Notwithstanding, unless as for the situational matrix
where an actual situation is being evaluated, in the case of the propositional matrix we
are talking about expected future outcomes. This means that in order to evaluate
different satisfiers, indirect information, desk reviews, benchmarking, knowledge gained
from other experiences (as well in spatial, as in temporal terms), etc. will have to play
an important role in order to get the needed information and insights in order to asses
them. In both cases, participatory methodologies as those usually associated to H-SD
practices, and the inclusion of an ‘expanded peer community’ as proposed by the post-
normal science (Funtowicz, Ravetz, ) will, in most cases, positively and definitively
improve the evaluation outcomes as well as the resulting development strategies.
Once all satisfiers have been described and evaluated through both matrixes,
these should be characterized as exogenous or endogenous. “Exogenous satisfiers”,
being all those that often are imposed, induced, ritualized or institutionalized
(categorized as top-down satisfiers), whereas “Endogenous satisfiers” reveal choice
aspects derived as a reflexive course within the community motivating bottom-up and
6 A propositional attitude is a relational mental state connecting a person to a proposition.
They are often assumed to be the simplest components of thought and can express meanings
or content that can be true or false. In being a type of attitude they imply a person can have
different mental postures towards a proposition, for example, believing, desiring or hoping and
therefore imply intentionality. Propositional attitudes are meant to reflect the world, some others
to influence it (FreeDictionary 2006).

integrative processes (Max-Neef 1998a). Particular emphasis on the second category,
is something H-SD is keen on achieving once they not only improve the evaluation
outcomes and the effectiveness of the resulting policies and strategies, but are by
themselves synergetic satisfiers of important human needs by enhancing participation,
creation, identity, freedom, understanding and last but not least, the need for affection
by the participants.
Table 5. Description of satisfiers characterization (Cruz 2006,169)
Technical Notes:
Characterization of satisfiers is described in the second line of squares (these are classified
according the Human-Scale Development description)
Third line depicts reasons and other relevant notes explaining why satisfiers are classified
as such.
Example taken from case study. Evaluation of Human Development Policies from Brazil´s
Human Development Report on Racism 2005.
Interpretative Analysis
Once the matrixes have been created following the exposed methodology, a
series of charts can be generated, supplying additional information to support a larger
analyses regarding the policy/strategy assessed as well as the development dynamics
observed. These are particularly useful to identify characteristics (deprivations and
potentialities) of needs and satisfiers in a synthetic and graphical way. The tables
below are only a few examples of the type of interpretative charts that could be drawn
demonstrating contrasted scenarios.
S- autonomous self-
defining
5/6=~83%
S- develop
housing, education
and health
legislation to favour
Quilombos.
(promotion of
customary law
mechanisms)
6/6=100%
S- Community
advocating and
campaigning
(should be in the
right direction)
5/6=~83%
S- special social re-
adaptation
programmes for the
youngest
(difficult target group)
4/6=~67%
Endogenous /
Synergetic Exogenous &
Endogenous /
Synergetic
Endogenous /
Pseudo-satisfier Endogenous /
Singular
PROTECTION
Fulfilment : 83.25%
All Synergetic satisfiers contribute to overall well-being and self-reliance of the person as
they satisfy simultaneously other needs (e.g. affection, freedom, participation)
In case were Pseudo-satisfier if campaigning last too long real actions for change will never
come. They need compromise from government and institutions as well.

0
20
40
60
80
100
Subsistence
Protection
Afection
Understanding
Participation
Leisure
Creation
Identity
Freedom
Universal Human Needs
Percentage of fulfilment
Interacting
Doing
Having
Being
Figure 2. Situational Matrix (Cruz 2007,176)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Subsistence
Protection
Afection
Understanding
Participation
Leisure
Creation
Identity
Freedom
Universal Human Needs
Percentage of fulfilment
Interacting
Doing
Having
Being
Figure 3. Propositional Matrix (Cruz 2007,176)
42,5 52,5 38,75 58,75 47,5 41,25 33,75 36,25
65
0
20
40
60
80
100
Subsistence
Protection
Afection
Understanding
Participation
Leisure
Creation
Identity
Freedom
Points
Propositional
Situational
Figure 4. Estimated improvement in percentage points

(comparing both matrixes) (Cruz 2007 p.180)
-10
20
50
80
110
140
170
200
Subsistence
Protection
Afection
Understanding
Participation
Leisure
Creation
Identity
Freedom
Improving percentage
Relative Improvement
Figure 5. Estimated relative improvement (in Propositional Matrix). (Cruz, 2007 181)
Calculation of the estimated and relative improvement in percentage points can be
obtained by taking the ratio between the values found comparatively in the
propositional and the situational matrixes. Other possibilities consist on representing
separately the contribution of the different dimensions fulfilling different needs,
highlighting thus deprivations and potentialities in terms of these different dimensions.
Moreover, improvements and/or worsening of given dimensions and/or trends may be
calculated by repeating the evaluation at different time periods. This could be done by
comparing the situational matrix at time t and the situational matrix at time t+n. In the
same way, present policy outcomes and development strategies effectiveness may be
assessed by comparing the outcomes of the situational matrix at time (t+n) and the
expected results which had been estimated in the propositional matrix for (t+n) at time
t. Differences in these results may give important feedbacks not only on the estimation
procedures used to establish the propositional matrix, but about the way different
development policies and strategies have been implemented, helping to review them if
needed.
As it has been repeatedly said, all these numerical and graphical outcomes have a
didactical purpose, helping to visualize and better grade the different dimensions of the
studied development dynamics. They should not be misread as precise results, being
just a complementary tool to the overall evaluation practices.
Concluding Remarks
The main core of this proposed extension of the H-SD methodology is our interest
in putting forward a new and creative evaluation tool. The aim is to help/assist
institutions working with policy-making processes related to development and social
issues as well as the communities entailed by enhancing and complementing the H-SD
originally proposed method. Tackling policies and development issues in holistic and
systemic views implies long and certainly complex valuations and processes which,
ideally, should be as inclusive and participatory as possible in order to improve the
available information, commitment and effectiveness of the proposed changes. We
have, so far, simply shown the methodological aspects of these procedures in line with

the ones proposed by the H-SD. The purpose of this work centres on the
demonstration of the use of a particular evaluation tool since, once again, more
accurate outcomes could only take place when the exercise is conducted in a real
context and through multifaceted participatory appraisals. In this regard, we hope that
our contribution enhances holistic assessment practices and expands the H-SD
methodology applications to a wider field.
Indeed some other examples could be drawn depending on the case study
assessment. So far, two different evaluations have been conducted (on Brazil and
Nepal HD policies) through desk reviews giving wide evidence on how Human
Development Policy evaluations could benefit from this exercise (Cruz 2006,2007
forthcoming). Yet our intention is to communicate the attributes of this application to
extend the usage of this method to other fields of study and other policy-making
processes.
Manfred Max-Neef has defined himself as a converted economist - calling
himself a barefoot economist -. This was due to the gave up of many of his ideas when
he perceived how “economics, originally the offspring of moral philosophy, lost a good
deal of its human dimension to see it replaced by fancy theories and technical
trivialities” (1992a, 20) His writings recall on the dismal individualism and apathy that
human beings were entering into in the middle of the so-called development era where
the inevitable demobilisation and the continuous search for answers lead humanity into
what has been named as `the crisis of utopia´7 utopia meaning, “not only the search for
a society that is possible, but for a society that is, from a humanistic perspective,
desirable” (1992a,54). In face of that crisis, he advocates for a systemic view of the
economic process, much in the line of Aristotle’s original view of the oikonomy and
hardly at ease within the narrow chrematistic limits in which modern economics has
been confined.
The H-SD approach represents an important attempt to tackle development
issues from a humanistic and systemic perspective. It is considered an important
contribution to rethink mainstream development strategies and approaches, situating
once again ethical and esthetical issues at the centre of the development debate. It
aims at looking for ways to enlarge well-being and human development dimensions by
revealing how human beings establish their relations with their social and natural
environments as sentient and self-reflective beings, continuously re-enacting their
biological, social, cultural and spiritual needs in a systemic multidimensional way. If
people develop themselves, according to the relations maintained within their
environment, they achieve interaction at an optimum dimension but also at a critical
one. According to Max-Neef (1992a) the former, `humanizes´ as the latter, `alienates´.
In the first, people are able to achieve a sense of identity and integration,
acknowledging the effects of whatever she or he does and decides. Within the optimum
dimension, development of people is possible and a dynamic equilibrium takes place.
People feel responsible for the consequences of their actions within their environment,
and this can only happen if the dimension of this environment remains within a human
scale. On this dimension, people can only choose to endorse their individual integrity
and resigns to letting others act and decide for them. But within the critical dimension,
development of objects takes place where consequently people become affected of
large dimensions and are no longer able to identify their own needs. Therefore “they
participate less and less allowing themselves to be led more and more” (Max-Neef
1992a,133).
Embracing the H-SD principles and methodology, ours, is a modest attempt to
complement it by putting forward some additional tools which may help to represent
and understand better the complex and multilayer reality within this systemic and
humanistic perspective. The development of Situational and Propositional matrixes
intend to give a constructive and dynamic picture revealing changes between one and
7 The fact that human beings are inevitably losing the ability to dream and imagine.

the other; emphasizing the existent potentialities within a given strategy as well as
areas where deprivations on certain dimensions (relevant to human well-being) have
been undermined.
The main core of the here presented methodology is to put forward alternative
and creative evaluation tools which might help and assist institutions working with well-
being strategies and other related development and policy-making processes, as well
as interested people and communities alike. Policy and development strategy
evaluation implies a complex endeavour to identify either synergetic as well as
destructive initiatives, enhancing or hindering certain policies from having a positive
impact in the short or long term. Consequently, the method aims to be a user-friendly
tool where a series of instruments help policy-makers and interested people alike
visualize and understand well-being attainment as a multidimensional aspect of life.
Due to its systemic, multidimensional and often contradictory character, development
strategies have always been difficult to operationalize and furthermore to apply in
policy-making issues.
Human action is political in the sense of choosing between different actions
according to our values and preferences and contrasting them with the expected
outcomes of those actions. As stated by Stahel et al “it is the way the political power is
distributed and how the generation and distribution of information (and thus values)
within a given society happens which, at the end, will determinate the individual’s
capacity to shape and participate, according to his own aesthetical and ethical sense,
in the sociocultural dynamics of the society.” (Stahel et al. 2005,78). In this sense, the
evaluation tool here exposed is intended to assist this action by providing information
about different development realities and strategies within a humanistic and systemic
framework reaching beyond the narrow common chrematistic framework and aiming to
recover the oikonomy as the art of living and living well from the modern economics’
grips.

References
Incomplete…
Cruz I, (2006) Human Development assessment through the Human-Scale
Development approach: integrating different perspectives in the contribution to a
Sustainable Human Development Theory. Andri Stahel (Sup.) Barcelona-UPC.
Doctoral Thesis. ISBN: B.25524-2007/978-84-690-5624-0
Also available on line at: http://www.tdr.cesca.es/
Elizalde, A. (2003)`Desde el “Desarrollo Sustentable” hacia Sociedades Sustentables´
in Polis 1 (4), Universidad Bolivariana de Chile. Santiago-Chile. [July 14th 2005)
http://www.revistapolis.cl/distri.htm
Free dictionary, [May 10th 2006] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
Funtowicz S. O., and Ravetz J. (1993) La ciencia Posnormal, Icaria, Barcelona.
Georgescu-Roegen
Jackson, T., Pager, W. And Stagl, S. (2004) `Beyond insatiability: Needs theory,
consumption and Sustainability´, Working paper series 2, Economic and Social
Reseacrh Council, Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Surrey, UK, pp.1-36.
a)Max-Neef, M. (1998) El desarrollo a escala humana (2nd ed), Nordan and Icaria,
Barcelona.
b)Max-Neef, M., (1998) `Etica, Economía y Desarrollo a Escala Humana´ in C. Parker
(Ed) Etica, Democracia y Desarrollo Humano. LOM and CERC-UAHC, Santiago-Chile,
pp. 249-258.
a)Max-Neef, M. (1992) From the outside looking in. Experience in Barefoot Economics
(2nd ed). Zed Books, London.
b)Max-Neef, M. (1992) `Development and Human Needs´P. Ekins and M. Max-Neef
(Eds) Real Life Economics, Routledge, London, UK, pp. 197-214.
Polany
Sachs, W. (1999) The archaeology of the development idea -Planet Dialectics- Zed
Books, London, UK.
Stahel
Stahel, A., Cendra, J. and Cano, M. (2005) `Desarrollos Sostenibles´ in SOSTENIBLE?
(7), Cátedra UNESCO en Sostenibilidad - UPC. Terrassa, España pp.73-92.