Human Needs Theory

FUNDAMENTAL OF HUMAN NEEDS

Human needs and scale development developed by manfred max-neef and by the others (Antonio Elizalde and Martin Hopenhayn), are seen as ontological, are few, finite and classifiable (as distinct from the conventional notion of conventional economics “wants” that are infinite and insatiable).

They are also constant through all human cultures and across historical time periods. What changes over time and between cultures is the strategies by which these needs (and created desires) are satisfied. Human needs can be understood as a system. In this system, there is no hierarchy of needs as postulated by western psychologists such as Maslow, rather than, simultaneity, complementary and trade-offs are features of the process of needs satisfaction.

Manfred Max-Neef and his colleagues developed a taxonomy of human needs and a process by which communities can identify their “wealths” and “poverties” according to how their fundamental human needs are satisfied.

One of the application is within the field of strategic sustainable development where the individual fundamental human needs (not the marketed or created desires and needs) are used to refine the brundtland definition. Together with other aspects of the dramework for strategic sustainable development, summaized as backcasting from sustainability principles, it enables planing and designing for sustainability.

CLASSIFICATION

Max-Neef classifies the fundamental human needs as:

• Subsistence
• Protection
• Affection
• Understanding
• Participation
• Leisure
• Creation
• Identity
• Freedom

Needs also defined according to the existential categories of being, having, doing and interacting, and from these dimensions, a 36 cell matrix developed.

TYPES OF SATISFIERS

Max-Neef further classifies Satisfiers (ways of meeting needs) as follows:

Violators: claim to be satisfying needs, yet in fact make it more difficult to satisfy a need. E.g. drinking a soda advertised to quench your thirst, but the ingredients (such as caffeine or sodium salts) cause you to urinate more, leaving you less hydrated on net.

Pseudo Satisfiers: claim to be satisfying a need, yet in fact have little to no effect on really meeting such a need. For example, status symbols may help identify one’s self initially, but there is always the potential to get absorbed in them and forget who you are without them.

Inhibiting Satisfiers: those that over-satisfy a given need, which in turn seriously inhibits the possibility of satisfaction of other needs. Mostly originating in deep-rooted customs, habits and rituals. For example, an overprotective family stifles identity, freedom, understanding, and affection.

Singular Satisfiers: satisfy one particular need only. These are neutral in regard to the satisfaction of other needs. They are usually institutionalized by voluntary, private sector, or government programs. For example, food/housing volunteer programs aid in satisfying subsistence for less fortunate people.

Synergistic Satisfiers: satisfy a given need, while simultaneously contributing to the satisfaction of other needs. These are anti-authoritarian and represent a reversal of predominant values of competition and greed. For example, breast feeding gives a child subsistence, and aids in the development in protection, affection, and identity