Conference ESEE 2011 _ Theories and Methods in Ecological Economics Title: ‘Pooling Sen and Max-Neef’s work to create an integrated approach to sustainable human development’ Catherine Jolibert, Research fellow, Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193 Bellaterra – Barcelona. Email: email@example.com Jérôme Pelenc, PhD Candidate Fontainebleau-Gâtinais Biosphere Reserve and Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle University. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Contents I) II) Background Diferences and complementarities in Max Neef and Sen’s approaches III) Combination I. Background • Rauschmayer et al (2011) open the way with their book SD: Capabilities, Needs, Well-being. • For the first time they brought together the concepts of Capabilities, Strategies, Needs, WB, QOL and SD la liberté de satisfaire ses besoins est au cœur de leur analyse et il font du développement durable une valeur morale. Selon eux, Les capacités représentent un pré-requis nécessaire pour que les personnes puissent satisfaire leur besoins, et se trouver ainsi, dans une situation de bien-être. Selon eux, Capacité et bien-être sont les principaux éléments de la qualité de vie. • Critique: Their framework embrace a lot of relevant concepts but their combination/articulation is not very convincing Above all the integration between the two key concepts of capabilities and Needs can be developed very much further This is the goal of the paper Rauschmayer et al (2011) Our focus = The artuculation of these concepts for a Sustainable Human Scale Development (SHSD) SHSD Capabilities Needs Strategies II. Differences • Sen and Max-Neef pursue the same goal i.e. to develop an an alternative to the monetary and utilitarian well-being assessment framework of neoclassical economics • But their respective analytical frameworks differ • Max Neef bases the evaluation of well being on achievements i.e needs Poverty (well being deprivation) = non satisfaction of needs • Sen bases the evaluation of well being on freedom of achievement i.e. freedom of choice Poverty (or well being deprivation) = lack of choice • unlike Max-Neef’s theory, Sen's CA approach provides no framework to assess the consequences of choosing one functioning over another. • And while HsD gives information about the lack of well-being (unsatisfied needs), it does not provide a structured frame about the causes of well-being deprivation (i.e. why people can not meet their needs), unlike the Sen approach. In short, one can say that Max-Neef’s work starts where Sen’s stops. III. The combination (the hamburger of well being) By combining the two approach we can define well being as the freedom that people enjoy to choose among different ways to meet theirs needs according to theirs values. Our Assessment framework enables to investigate people’s freedom to choose among differents strtagies to meet theirs needs Well being as an ongoing process Ontological roots of WB Freedom of choice Satisfaction of needs Sen Max Neef Time Potential Strategies functionings Cultivate garden H Needs Subsistence Hunting fishing Resources + Entitlements D Conversion Factors Both internal and external Set of achieved functionings Organic market, or Wall Mart…. Vegan Ontological roots of WB (1) I Identity Leisure B Freedom of choice (2) WB satisfaction (3) (1) People rely on : -Resources (income, goods…), -Entitlements (rights…) -Internal (human and social capital + physical and psychological conditions) and external (institutions, customs, markets etc..) conversion factors to have potential functionings (i.e. capabilities). (2) People will choose a strategie according to theirs values to achieve a set potential functionings. By conditioning potential functionings R,E and CF also condition one’s available strategies to achieve functionings. (3) Achievement of functionings enable people to meet theirs needs Strategies enables a classification of Sen’s potential functionings Needs enables a classification of Sen’s achieved functionings Sen’s equation enables the identification of required parameters (R,E,CF) to satisfy needs Problem: Sen does not like neither list nor classification but: • SD is formulated in terms of Needs not in terms of capabilities • Max Neef list of Needs is non hierarchical and field proof • Rauschmayer et al (2011) have shown that deep-seated needs are the main motivational factors for human behavior and consequently the working material for behavioral transformation • In order to investigate what people lack to achieve well-being it is useful to combine both approaches Conclusion: • the characterization of the potential functionings through strategies, and of achieved functionings through needs, plays as a facilitator for operationalization of well being investigation. • Indeed, needs give us a guide to know what we have to look for i.e. which needs are not satisfied (it much more easier to start with needs deprivation, than unachieved functionings) and then we can look on the ontological roots of well being (internal or external conversion factors, Resources, Entitlements) to identify the problem. • Classifying potential functionings in terms of strategies will facilitate the understanding of one’s motivations enabling a space to investigate why particular strategies (and so potential functionings) are chosen instead of others. This combination leads to a more operational Sen’s approach as we know what we have to look for i.e. the strating point for well-being investigation This combination leads to a clearer understanding of Max Neef’s approach as the causal chain to identify the reason of unsatifaction of needs is meet. This integrated framework allow us to distinguish between 4 categories of people: • Those who lack of capabilities consequently they cannot have sustainable functioning because they canot choose a sustaineble strategies to meet their needs • Those who have the capabilities to have sustainable functionings but who have not the required values (SD is a value) to choose a strategies enabling the sustainable achievement of capabilities • Those who have the values but not the capabilities (more in terms of opportunity capability) • Those who have both capabilities and values which enable them to achieved sustainable functionings to meet their needs Sustainability • Here sustainbility is understood in terms of envriromental sustainability when converting R, E and CF into functioning does not have a a too strong negative (thresholds have to be decided by social choice, see Critical Natural Capital theory) impact on natural capital • And in terms of social sustainability when statisfying needs not compromise other’s freedom of choice to meet theirs needs.