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: jolibertcathy@gmail.com
Jérôme Pelenc, PhD Candidate
Fontainebleau-Gâtinais Biosphere Reserve and Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle
University. Email: j.pelenc@mab-france.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.