Methods

Towards a systemic development approach: Building on the Human-Scale

Development paradigm
Ivonne Cruz
a,1
, Andri Stahel
b,

,1
, Manfred Max-Neef
c
a
Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, United States
b
Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Spain
c
Economics Institute, Universidad Austral de Chile, Chile
a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 September 2008
Received in revised form 29 January 2009
Accepted 3 February 2009
Available online 21 March 2009
Keywords:
Human-Scale Development
Human Development
Well-being
Policy evaluation
Economics
Human needs
Satisers
Since its inception, the scope of inquiry within modern economics has been overall reduced to the
chrematistic, market-centred dimension of the economic process. This has been reected in the very way it
shaped the modern idea of development which, more and more, has been represented in monetary terms to
the point of being equated to chrematistic growth altogether. This reductionism has been severely criticized
for various reasons, mostly related to the ignorance of the complex, multidimensional, social, cultural and
psychological motives and aspirations of human beings, ignoring as well crucial environmental and
ecological dimensions within and by means of which the economic process unfolds. One fundamental early
contribution to the re-conceptualization of the economic development process in terms of well-being from a
systemic perspective came about with the Human-Scale development approach (H-SD) in the 1980s. Central
to this paradigm is a systemic re-conceptualization of human needs and an attempt to place this discussion at
the centre of the development debate. It suggested a recovery of the oikonomy in its original classical
meaning, as a means for achieving better well-being beyond the chrematistics narrow scope. This theory
presents a very wide outlook for its theoretical and practical applications and in this paper we will try to
build on H-SD's original contribution. We begin this by briey outlining what can be termed the chrematistic
turn within both modern economics' theory and practice at the dawn of modern capitalism. In the second
section the main aspects of the H-SD approach are briey presented and discussed. The last sections are
devoted to propose some methodological extensions to the original H-SD version suggesting innovative ways
of enlarging its scope through the development and improvement of its evaluation tools. Thereby we hope to
enhance its application within its traditional context as well as indicating means for applying it to other elds
as development policies, strategies or eventually, appraisal of new technologies.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. The chrematistic turn
There is a fundamental systemic conceptualization underlying
Aristotle's (1967) classic distinction between oikonoma (the art of
household management) and chrematistics (khrmatistik, the art of
acquisition).
2
Aristotle's oikonomy included the study and practice of
diverse domains related to the (re)production of use-values such as
agriculture, crafts, hunting and gathering, mining and even warfare. It
included as well the discussion of meaning and value, of ethics and
aesthetics, as an integral part of this art of living and living well. It
represented, thus, a use-value centred approach to the economic
process, articulated around the production for self-consumption and
the basic aim of improving households' well-being. Commerce
(chrematistics) assumed a secondary role therein. Within chrematis-
tics, he further introduced a fundamental distinction between two
kinds of commerce: one subordinated to the use-value logic and thus
the oikonomia (providing households with the use-value needs which
were in short supply internally in exchange for those produced in
excess) and another concerned with the art of money-making
accumulation of exchange-values by means of commercewhich he
rightly saw as secondary from a logical and historical point of view.
Once this latter principle was established as an end in itself
dissociated from the wider use-value logic of the oikonomythis
kind of chrematistics was no longer instrumental to the oikonomy and
was considered by Aristotle as being external and unnatural to it
(Aristotle, 1967, pp. 4145).
Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 20212030
Corresponding author. C/ Ferran Valls i Taberner, 14 bis Local, 08006 Barcelona,
Spain. Tel.: +34 934171178.
E-mail addresses: ivonne.cruz@tamucc.edu, ivonne.cruz@gmail.com (I. Cruz),
stahel@catunesco.upc.edu (A. Stahel), ecoson@uach.cl (M. Max-Neef).
1
Both authors gave equal contribution to this paper.
2
This has been discussed previously, in more detail in Stahel (2006). It should be
noted that the term art stands for what Aristotle used to refer to as tkhn, meaning a
certain kind of skill won by experience, which does not dissociate technical expertise
from ethics and aesthetics. It stands closer to our concept of art than to the more
restricted modern notion of technique which has a more instrumental meaning.
0921-8009/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.02.004
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Economics
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ ecol econ
Based on this wider conceptualization of the economic process,
Polanyi (1944) in his classical analysis stressed that, although the
existence of barter and chrematistic exchange can be found way back in
human history (and prehistory); markets have always been secondary
tothewider social andcultural logic. Commercewas just oneamongfour
main ways in which human societies ordered their oikonomic process,
understood in terms of individual and social (re)production and (re)
distribution of use-values. These were self-sufciency (that is produc-
tion for self-consumption); reciprocity (based on reciprocal actions
within and across different social groups); redistribution (whereby the
product is redistributed among the members of a group) and commerce
(chrematistics). It was a balance between these ways of organizing the
economic activityalthough characterized by different relative weights
of each of them in different societieswhich characterized different
development models and societies. Nevertheless, in all of them, the use-
value logic held the upper hand over the chrematistic exchange-value
logic (Fig. 1, adapted from Stahel, 2006, p. 370).
Notwithstanding, in our modern times with the emergence of the
free-market institution, the idea of ordering the social and economic
life on purely chrematistic motives (the exchange-value logic) has
been established, radically distinguishing our modern times from all
others. It meant a radical shift which Aristotle prophetically saw as
introducing a disrupting innite growth drive (the continuous
exchange-value accumulation), replacing the need of (self)-content-
ment and search for balance inherent to the art of living and living
well. It meant, as Marx (1967) would stress, the rise of a social
development dynamic centred on the exchange-value logic wherein
chrematistics became an end for itself.
It is this same chrematistic turn which can be identied in the way
modern economics would be dened and established. Although Smith
(1961) in his groundbreaking book acknowledged that wealth had to
be understood in qualitative and relational terms (that is, use-values)
heand following him, modern economicswould centre his inquiry
(and the delimitation of economics' realm of study) on the Nature and
Causes of the Exchange-Values of Nations and how they translate into
prices, rent, wages and prots (that is, the chrematistic dimension of
the economic process). Non-chrematistic dimensions would be
considered external to the economic process, appearing as exogen-
ous variables within economic models. Crucial ecological, social,
cultural, political and psychological dimensions of the art of living and
living well, thus, no longer entered standard economists' inquiry eld
and would be considered as given and external to it.
The rise of modern market economy and the way this chrematistic
turn was perceived and legitimized by those who dened modern
economics cannot be dissociated one from the other once they mirror
and reinforce each other. As Polanyi (1944) suggested, the central role
of the market institution in ordering the socioeconomic development
process in modern times renders the debates and struggles around
whether or not to widen the realm covered by the free-market a
crucial political and ideological element shaping our modern history.
Nonetheless, by representing, within economic theory, the economic
process in chrematistic terms, the free-market debate is depicted as a
technical question discussed within the scientic realm in terms of
economic efciency (more properly named chrematistic efciency
once this is measured in exchange-value terms and not from a
multidimensional, systemicoikonomicperspective), based on dif-
ferent abstract models' outcomes under different initial hypotheses.
The shaping of the economic development process by means of the
free-market is, thus, presented as a purely instrumental matter of
higher efciency and not as a political question where different
interests and power-relations are confronted.
By naming this new science economics instead of chrematistics
which would be its proper nameand by narrowly dening its
methodology and range of study, it excludes the bulk of humanity
from the discussions about howand where to orient the development
practices by leaving the appraisal and analysis of the functioning of the
marketpresented as a neutral space for exchangeto the specialists.
This reduction of economics to chrematistics is reected in the
very way it shaped the modern idea of development which, more and
more, has been represented in monetary terms, to the point of being
equated, in practice, to chrematistic growth altogether. Although
hegemonic, the whole reductionist idea and study of development
from this narrow one-dimensional perspective has been severely
criticized from its inception up to nowadays.
Among other dissenting voices (as for instances the capabilities
approach pointing to the multidimensional aspects of human well-
being or ecological economics' critique of mainstream economics'
ignorance of the biophysical basis of any economic process) one
fundamental early contribution to the re-conceptualization of the
development notion from a systemic use-value-centred perspective
has been made by the Human-Scale Development approach (H-SD)
during the 1980s (Max-Neef et al., 1986, 1989). Its main concern has
been to put the economy at the service of people and life, and not
people and life at the service of the economy.
Central to this paradigm is an inquiry into the nature of human
needs and the way different societies have chosen different sets of
satisers in order to full them, attaining thus varying degrees of well-
being and autonomy. It meant a recovery of the oikonomy in the
original sense discussed aboveaiming to understand the art of living
andliving wellandno longer tackled as simple chrematistics. For this
reasonas well for its theoretical and practical importance as an
evaluation tool, having found important applications at both levels
around the world in the last decadeswe will try to build on the
original conceptualization of H-SD, proposing some methodological
features whichmay be added suggesting innovative ways of enhancing
its scope and applications, while presenting it as a very important
theoretical and practical tool to enhance a use-value-centred analysis
of the modern economic process that we would rather call oikonomics
to differentiate it from exchange-value centred standard economics.
2. The Human-Scale Development approach
Before entering into the main objective of this paper, we will do a
brief description and discussion of the main aspects of H-SD,
particularly for those not already familiar to this approach.
The H-SD notion appeared for the rst time in an article published
by the Dag Hammarskjld Foundation (DHF) in 1986 (Max-Neef et al.,
1986, 1989). In line with Aristotle's conceptualization that the oikon-
omy has to deal not just with living, but more fundamentally with the
art of living well, within this paradigm it was 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 Fig. 1. Oikonoma and khrmatistik.
2022 I. Cruz et al. / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 20212030
coherent within themselves (Max-Neef, 1998a). The axis of this
central 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, pp. 197).
The most relevant and key insights of this approach are briey
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 realization of
human needs in holistic terms.
In line with Aristotle's idea, human needs are seen as nite.
Moreover, they are considered to be few and classiable. For H-SD,
fundamental human needs are the same in all cultures and historical
periods, changing only in a very slow pace according to our
evolution as a specie (Max-Neef et al., 1989; Elizalde, 2003b).
Those proposed are at the axiological level (i.e. referring to those
things we value): subsistence, protection, affection, understanding,
participation, idleness, creation, identity and freedom. The need for
transcendence is sometimes also included. The argument is that
what changes over time and between cultures are not the needs, but
rather the way inwhich they are or are not satised at the existential
level (i.e. concerned with the meaning and purpose that relation-
ships have for a person) according to different ways of being, having,
doing and interacting, which is the second axis whereby needs are
manifested and classied within this approach. In other words, what
changes are what the theory identies as satisers.
In this sense, every system of needs is either satised, or not, by
different types of satisers. These, whether of an individual or
collective nature, include all things that, by representing forms of
being, having, doing, and interacting, contribute to the realization of
human needs (Max-Neef et al., 1989). Being refers to personal or col-
lective attributes (usually expressed as nouns related to the subject's
intrinsic attributes as our biological constitution, character andvalues);
having registers institutions, norms, mechanisms, tools that can be
expressed in one or more words (like exosomatic tools, laws and
information); doing has to do with actions, personal or collective that
can be expressed like verbs while interacting makes reference to
locations and milieus (as times and spaces) and the way people relate
to and articulate their environment (Max-Neef, 1992b, pp. 207).
Complementariness, compensation and a dialectical interdepen-
dency between these dimensions are essential elements of their
characteristics. Through the way different satisers are articulated
specic human needs may or may not be satised. As an example we
can describe the following relation: In a particular setting (dimen-
sion of interacting) like a fruitful rural and natural environment in
which plenty of food is produced, the only way to assure the
satisfaction of subsistence of the local population depending on it
will be to nd the right satisers at the level of having the access to
this food (which depends on the prevailing modes of property and
distribution, as well as each individual's access to themgiven by his/
her personal modes of being within this community). These
satisers need to be complemented by the right ways of doing
(like going to the market and buying food within the context of a
market-based development process or going to the commons
hunting or shing when the forms of being a member of the
community will provide the right to having access to these
commons). Thus, each way of organizing the economic process
(be it self-sufciency, be it reciprocity, be it redistribution or be it by
means of the marketeach one based on different institutional
settings and thus a different interacting milieu) will need a series of
complementary biological, physical, institutional and socio-cultural
satisers at all levels in order to allow any particular need to be
fullled. From this perspective, we can see how the rise of modern
free-market society (as a new interacting milieu), requires by the
members of society a full range of new satisers at the having level
(money, property, credit, etc.), of being (consumer, owner, free to
buy and sell, etc.) and doing (shopping, acting rationally in
chrematistic terms, etc.) in order to satisfy their fundamental
needs. Thus, we can understand how the distribution of power and
wealth within a society has to do with the way different satisers
and dimensions complement and relate to each other as well as the
way different members of the society have access to them.
Satisers, unlike needs, are less static (Max-Neef, 1989). They are
modied by the rhythm of history and are diversied according to
different cultures and circumstances. Overall, they dene 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, pp. 201). People and societies vary in forms of being, having,
doing and interacting. But, in each case, the satisfaction or not of
individual needs will depend on the right combination and
articulation of specic satisersincluding our values which lead
us to relate in individually and socially specic ways to different
satisers and which are themselves part of the set of satisers
whereby our needs may be satised. From the example above, we
can see that from the H-SD perspective, personal and cultural values
are themselves satisers and change as well historically and
spatially; they represent individual or collective attributes.).
It is important, at this point, to make a few remarks on addressing
some discussions that may arise regarding needs and related debates.
The HS-D approach differs from other Needs Theories popular in
previous decades (most likely those started in the late 1960s: Maslow
(1968), the early 1970s with the International Labour Organization
(1976) and Paul Streeten's (1982) seminal work in 1982, only to
mention a few). Overall misinterpretation has focused in the utilitarian
view observed within Needs Theories which differ widely from Funda-
mental Human Needs approaches. It is common thus to nd assertions
in quite different directions. Utilitarianism was looking only at the
individual level favouring whatever maximizes individual happiness as
the best choice. This was ultimately misleading the satisfaction of
needs dynamics implying that more was always better. However due to
the explicit distinction between needs and satisers within the H-SD
approach, fundamental human needs realization takes a different
appreciation. Likewise, a risk of terminological confusion when
comparing this theory with others could take place usually observing
needs and satisers under the same label or sometimes describing
satisers as needs and vice versa (e.g. the need for understanding
within the H-SD paradigm could be satised by satisers such as
education programs, schools, books, teachers, cultural traditions,
meditation, etc. when most commonly we hear that education is a
need in itself and it should be fullled by other types of satisers
sometimes rather associated only with specic economic goods).
In this regard, the H-SD theory acknowledges that due to our
common human nature, humans need to satisfy some fundamental
needscommon to all of usin order to sustain a rich and meaningful
life. Needs may vary in degree insofar as there are differences in nature
(reected in different ways of being, doing, having and interacting)
due to factors such as individual character, gender, physical and
psychological conditions or age. These individual and group differ-
ences may vary the degree that different needs are experienced in
historically and individually specic contexts. Notwithstanding, in a
fundamental way, needs as such are universally felt although
potentially at varying degrees due to these different personal/
collective attributes and contexts.
2023 I. Cruz et al. / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 20212030
But beyond differences of degree, as discussed above, any
unsatised or not adequately satised human need reveals a form of
human poverty, hindering well-being and therefore developing
pathologies or even death due to hunger, insecurity, social violence,
suicide or other outcomes, depending on the form of poverty. From
the H-SD perspective, fundamental human needs exist according to a
pre-systemic threshold from where deprivation of any of the listed
needs will cause shattering within the whole needs system and
thereby impacting overall human well-being (Max-Neef, 1998a;
Elizalde, 2003a). Thereby 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 satised.
Therefore, it is clear that satisers are not only economic means,
generating goods and services aiming to satisfy human needs by
means of the market. Traded goods and services represent only one
particular set of satisers among many others. As for Aristotle's oik-
onomy not all satisers (i.e. use-values) are traded or obtained
through the market, having thus an exchange-value associated. Many
non-traded (and sometimes non-tradable) social and ecological goods
are fundamental to ensure human subsistence and well-being as well.
In the same way, having is just one of the dimensions whereby human
needs are actualized, requiring that complementary dimensions of
being, doing and interacting are equally attended and enhanced
through the right satisers. For the H-SD paradigm, thus, well-being
springs at the whole system's level once the right complementarities
are met between the different dimensions and not something that can
be reduced to the accumulated goods and services at the dimension of
having as is the prevalent view within modern culture as Fromm
(1997), in his classical analysis, already pointed out.
This clear distinction between human needs (inherent to our
common human evolutionary heritage) and satisers (the particular
means by which different societies and cultures aim to realize their
needs) is probably the most important asset to the development
debate and constitutes, by itself, the cornerstone of the H-SD
approach. Accordingly, it has been argued that humanity has been
developing the needs mentioned previously that have acquired a
universal character in terms of historical transcendence identied as
fundamental socio-universal needs, meaning that their fullment is
always desirable for all, and their deterrence is undesirable for all as
well. In the most pressing of ways, needs reveal the essence shared by
all human beings as sentient, social and self-reective beings.
This common human nature becomes palpable through needs in
their twofold existential condition: as deprivation and potential.
Deprivation reects 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, pp. 201).
As said, crucial to H-SD conceptualization 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 satisers. A satiser can contribute simulta-
neously to the satisfaction of various needs; or conversely, a need can
require various satisers to be met (Max-Neef, 1998a, pp. 42). Lastly,
satisers are not neutral, they present various characteristics and are
identied for analytical purposes in ve types: violating or destructive
satisers, pseudo-satisers, inhibiting satisers, singular, and synergic
satisers, depending on how they relate to the whole needs system
(see Table 1). This explains why complementarity and trade-offs are
features of the process of needs satisfaction once opting for one given
satiser instead of others affects the way needs are satised in holistic
terms, requiring as well the existence of complementary satisers at
different levels in order to be actualized.
It should be pointed out, however, that satisers do not include
objects. They are nonmaterial. This means that while in conventional
economics there is a dual relationship between wants and material
goods, in H-SD there is a triple relationship between needs, satisers
and material goods. As an example, in order to satisfy the need for
understanding, a satiser might be literature, and the corresponding
material good could be a book.
In any case, both concepts (needs and satisers) interrelate within
a matrix according to existential and axiological characteristics where
a larger description of their conceptual structure is explained (see
Table 2) and no material goods are to be found. Reviewing the matrix
itself is illustrative and provides only an example of the multiple
elements that can be named and listed as satisers (Max-Neef, 1992b).
Important though is to clarify that matrixes of satisers are ideally
built under participatory processes within specic cultural and social
contexts, hence presenting potentials and shortcomings of different
development strategies and development models from a bottom-up
perspective and not through an external agent.
The needs and satisers matrix represents a fundamental tool of 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. It helps communities and individuals
to gain self-awareness about their preferences in a given set of
satisers and moreover the way these interrelate and affect each other
systemically. By classifying and identifying satisers by the way each
one affects the different dimensions of well-being, it helps to highlight
the way specic social and cultural settings and development patterns
enhance or inhibit personal freedom, autonomy and well-being. It
helps to highlight how people satisfy their needs in terms of
themselves and their own coherence (Eigenwelt), with respect to
others and the community (Mitwelt) and respecting their environ-
ment (Umwelt) (Max-Neef et al., 1989, p. 21).
Indeed, H-SD does not stand alone within a generation of
conceptual notions aiming to focus on essential aspects of human
life. Among them, the Human Development (HD) concept greatly
embraced by the United Nations Development Program(UNDP) based
onAmartya Sen's Capability Approach(CA) (Robeyns, 2005; Sen, 1999;
Nussbaum, 2000, Alkire, 2002a), has become a agship as a practical
approach to evaluate human well-being. However the methodology
and theoretical background presented in this paper would like to
disassociate one from the other. They differ widely from one another
on how they dene dimensions, for example (Alkire, 2002b) on their
philosophical bases, suchas the inspirationinhumanistic economics in
the case of H-SD(Lutz, 1992; Schumacher, 1973), the terminology used
Table 1
Satiser characterization (Max-Neef, 1992b, pp. 208210).
Type Description
Synergic satiser Are those which, by the way in which they satisfy a given need, stimulate and contribute to the simultaneous satisfaction of other needs.
Singular satiser Aiming the satisfaction of targeted single needs, this kind of satiser is neutral regarding the satisfaction of other needs.
Destructive satiser Elements of paradoxical effect. Applied under the pretext of satisfying a given need, they do 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 satiser 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-satiser satiser 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 and long term, the possibility of satisfying the need they were originally aimed at.
2024 I. Cruz et al. / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 20212030
and meaning given to key concepts (i.e. needs and satisers vs.
functioning and capabilities) and the evaluation schemes, to mention
only a few aspects. But conversely, we are aware that both are indeed
complementary frameworks for well-being analysis and that some
authors argue that the H-SD proposal on needs and satisers might be
of good help to guide further capability-operationalization methodol-
ogies (Bagolin, 2005; Gasper, 2004, 2005).
3. Building on the H-SD original work
As away of enhancing its systemic methodologyandsimultaneously
enlarge its scope, this paper presents a methodological extension of the
H-SDtraditional framework. Theaimis toproposeaninnovative tool for
development-policy assessment, development planning practice and
technology appraisal, most likely taking place at the local community
level. This extension of the original H-SD methodology consists
basically on the elaboration of a Propositional Matrix alongside a
Situational Matrix, as well as new numerical and graphical ways of
presenting the nal results. It must be noted that in this paper the
extension will be introduced theoretically as a methodological
contribution to the H-SD paradigm where tables and information are
taken from one of the author's doctoral dissertation (Cruz, 2008).
Likewise 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 the depthof the participatory process
conducted which, in most cases, enhances both quantity and quality of
available information and constitutes itself an important synergetic
satiser at various levels (enhancing participation, identity, creativity
andknowledge of the participants, amongothers). As arguedpreviously,
different ways of being, having, doingandinteractingmay bereectedin
various degrees of perceiving and experiencing certain needs and
different satisers. Hence a bottom-up approach allows both individual
and groups to gain awareness of their own way of assessing their needs
as well as pursuing a developmental model which allows people and
communities to be coherent with themselves. For instance, different
ways of experiencing the need of understanding, may lead to different
appraisals of satisers. Formal schooling in some contexts or mytholo-
gical narratives inothers mayappear as synergetic satisers for the need
of understandingenhancing as well identity and even subsistence
whereas in other contexts they will stand as pseudo or destructive
satisers once they do not t into the wider socio-cultural and
environmental setting of the community being evaluated. In such
cases, an external evaluation based on xed criteria would be missing
the real meaning of the different satisers which appear in the matrix.
3.1. The Situational Matrix
In this way, following H-SD's original methodology, a matrix
interrelating human needs and satisers is created, according to the
general methodology explained above. We have named this matrix
the Situational Matrix once it represents a given state of affairs or
situation, representing the combination of circumstances at a given
Table 2
Matrix of needs and satisers (Max-Neef, 1992b, pp. 2067).
2025 I. Cruz et al. / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 20212030
moment. It is built indicating most signicant constraints and other
concrete situations faced by the interested community. It also
highlights positive and negative aspects of a given social model
revealing difculties, underestimation of dimensions, problematic
situations, potentials, assets and overestimated dimensions. In this
sense the resulting matrix becomes a picture of a particular situation,
showing how specic development patterns and strategies are
enhancing or repressing people's well-being and potentials, as well
as providing a picture of the ecological dimension of this particular
social model (highlighted within the Interacting column of the ma-
trix, although reected within the other existential dimensions too).
In addition to the extensive ways the results are presented within
the original methodology, a synthetic numerical and graphical
representation of the results is proposed, indicating the degree of
satisfaction of the needs within the four dimensions of the matrix
(BeingHavingDoingInteracting). Assuming as the general case that
all dimensions have equal weight and importance in order to satisfy a
given fundamental need, an average need fulllment of each need
within the matrix may be calculated by taking the mean value of the
degree of satisfaction observed for each need on every dimension;
each representing a 25% proportional part of 100%. Different relative
weighting scales could be postulated if observation leads to this
conclusion. Notwithstanding, due to the interdependency between
the different dimensions and the fact that the inexistence of the right
satiser at one dimension may inhibit the satisfaction of the need by
the others, an equal distribution of relative weights for all dimensions
seems to be appropriate. The result is a way of calculating in
quantitative terms human needs fulllment through the existent
satisers (in the Situational Matrix) or the proposed ones (in the
Propositional Matrix, which will be presented next). Results may be
shown in percentage points (degree of need fulllment) or in
graphical expressions, whereby boxes are lled out with different
colors expressing fulllment in positive, negative or neutral ways.
Moreover, due to the systemic interdependency between different
dimensions (enhancing or inhibiting each other and thus the way a
given need is attended), the global need fulllment may be estimated
directly which does not necessarily correspond to the calculated
average value insofar as, for a system, the whole is different from the
sum of the parts. Thus, for instance, although at each individual
dimension a relative low satisfaction of the need is estimated, the
presence of synergetic satisers within the overall matrix may lead to
an overall satisfaction of a given need which is higher than the average
sum of the parts observed in each box. In this case, the overall
indication of the need's satisfaction is obtained by directly estimating
the level of fullment of that need.
This wayof presentingthe results, bysynthesizingtheglobal result in
numerical indicators, is solely tohelpbetter visualizethe mainaspects of
a given development pattern and should not mislead us into represent-
ing the numerical results as a precise or objective representation of
reality. It has to be taken as what it actually is: a numerical
approximation to the complex, multidimensional development pro-
cessthus representing animportant simplicationof realityand loss of
qualitative information which cannot be translated to quantitative
indicators. Numbers though are useful for decision makers and will be
helpful to draw charts and gures in order to demonstrate changes of
trends and of situations as we will see in the next section. Quantitative
results here should, in no way be taken as a substitute, but just as a
complementary way of representing the results of a complex analysis
conducted through the H-SD methodology which did not entail any
numerical representation on its original conceptualization.
Another contribution to the original H-SD methodology is the
inclusion of a trend indicator. In this way, the Situational Matrix may
be completed by indicating potential positive or negative trends
within a situation. Depending on the trends observed and/or
experienced, the satisfaction of human needs is expected to improve
or deteriorate slightly or signicantly in the future, and will be
expressed as follows inside each box within the matrix: Slightly
improve (+); signicantly improve (++); remain unchanged,
unbiased between improvement and deterioration (); slightly
deteriorate () and signicantly deteriorate ( ) This
representation should help to get a less static picture of the
development dynamics. Thereby, even when the fullment of a need
might be relatively achieved, the trend might indicate that the
mechanism or the strategies, the spaces and/or the incentives to
enhance these satisers could actually be pointing to a worsening of
the situation. Our objective is to add a time trend which can help to
identify aspects and dimensions that need to be given priority
attention in order to reverse negative tendencies as well as enhancing
those aspects and dimensions where a positive trend is already being
observed. A good use of the methodology can be the recognition of
negative collateral aspects that a strategy or policy is aiming to
improve, as well as those positive features by which successful
approaches could be built on. Table 3 shows an example on the type of
information that could be used to ll in the boxes (the example is
based on an evaluation exercise of the Brasil Quilombola action
program targeted to increase well-being and reduce racial discrimina-
tion in a Quilombo community in Brazil).
Table 3
Sample Situational Matrix with numerical outcomes (adapted from Cruz, 2008, p.165).
Technical notes:
Squares inside each box indicate proportion of fullment of the need.
Numbers expressed below each square indicate percentage of need fullment
respectively according to the proportion [0/6, 1/6, 2/6, 3/6, etc] each column has equal
value representing 25% of a total 100%.
Arrows [( ) (+) and ()] indicate negative, positive and unintelligible
trends, respectively.
Note how regardless of the low fullment of the need in some dimensions, the trend
is nevertheless positive. This is due to existent information afrming changing patterns
inmany of these problematic situations. For example, newlaws and programs to support
an action, participation, institutions being created, and so forth are all different types of
satisers available to switch trends and policy outcomes.
2026 I. Cruz et al. / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 20212030
3.2. Elaborating the Propositional Matrix
The next step consists of generating what we have called a
Propositional Matrix, making reference to the propositional character
of the proposed satisers as well as the idea of propositional attitude,
meaning a relational mental state connecting a person to a proposi-
tion, like believing, desiring or hoping, which implies intentionality.
By helping to visualise these expected future outcomes, the Proposi-
tional Matrix may be used as a powerful policy assessment and
planning tool in order to turn the identied deprivations into
potentialities. 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
coherent way.
In this Propositional Matrix, each square within the matrix will
dene one or more constructive or propositional satisers identied
in the development strategy or plan being evaluated, which may as
well be 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 assessment of policies or plans from a
systemic, H-SD perspective. Depending on the contribution of the
identied satisers to the holistic performance of the strategy or
policy, these satisers will obtain a certain value responding to their
contribution in fullling a given need. Thereby, information on the
potential achievement of different proposed satisers can be
obtained, helping to better establish an effective and holistic
development strategy.
Visualizing alternative ways of organizing and living at the
individual and community levels are helpful to better understand a
present situation highlighting latent potentialities hidden by the
actual development model.
Inthe same wayas for the Situational Matrix, the satisers shownin
the Propositional Matrix are classied as singular, synergetic, destruc-
tive, inhibiting or as pseudo-satisers, according to the way in which
they fulll human needs. An example of such representation is shown
in Table 4. In this logic, the more synergetic actions contained, the
better are the chances this policy and/or the development strategy
with its new tools and methodshas of accomplishing positive
outcomes by proposing a particular set of satisers.
While with the Situational Matrix an actual situation is being
evaluated, in the case of the Propositional Matrix we are talking about
expected future outcomes depending on the implementation of the
evaluated development strategies and actions. This means that in
order to evaluate different satisers, indirect information, desk
reviews, benchmarking, knowledge gained from other experiences
(as well in spatial or temporal terms), all will play an important role in
order to get the required information and insights to assess them
thoroughly. In both cases, participatory methodologies such as those
usually associated with H-SD practices, and the inclusion of an
expanded peer community integrated by the relevant stakeholders as
proposed by the post-normal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993)
will, in most cases, positively and denitively improve the evaluation
outcomes as well as the resulting development strategies once both
quality and quantity of available information are likely to be enhanced.
Once all satisers have been described and evaluated through both
matrixes, these should be characterized as exogenous or endogenous
Exogenous satisers being all those that often are imposed, induced,
ritualized or institutionalized (categorized as top-down satisers),
whereas Endogenous satisers reveal choice aspects derived as a
reexive course within the community motivating bottom-up and
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
satisers of important human needs which enhance participation,
creation, identity, freedom, understanding and so forth. Contrarily if the
vast majority of satisers falls into the exogenous category the policies
applied could be interpreted as top-down strategies or sometimes this
couldrepresent that the satisers are providedbyexternal actors suchas
governments, international community, etc. (see Table 4, takenfromthe
same evaluation exercise shown in Table 3).
3.3. Additional interpretative tools
Once matrices have been created following the above methodol-
ogy, a series of charts comparing the quantitative values of the
matrixes can be generated, supplying additional information to
support larger analyses regarding the policy/strategy assessed as
well as the development dynamics observed. These charts are
particularly useful to identify characteristics (deprivations and
potentialities) of needs and satisers in a synthetic and graphical
way. Quantitative insights may be gained by a direct comparison of
different matrixes and of the nature of the different satisers leading
to a more complete and multidimensional view of the present state
Table 4
Descriptionof satisers' characterizationwithina Propositional Matrix(adaptedfromCruz,
2008, p. 168169).
Technical notes:
Satisers underneath the tables represent attributes, laws, mechanism, actions and
environments proposed by the community resembling better strategies to solve
development constraint(s).
Characterization of satisers is described in the second row of boxes (these are
classied according the Human-Scale Development description).
The third row depicts reasons and other relevant notes explaining why satisers are
classied as such. This provides further information to address better action plans
when implementing a developing strategy that for example might jeopardize the
realization of the need for Protection, and so forth.
2027 I. Cruz et al. / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 20212030
and possible future outcomes. The following gures (Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5)
are only a few examples of the types of analytical charts that could be
drawn demonstrating contrasted scenarios.
Due to space restrictions it would be hard to explain all of them in
detail but the importance of building charts lies in the visual aid they
provide to identify gaps (needs deprivation) or potentialities (needs
realization). Comparing, for instance, Figs. 2 and 3 provide a clear
example of how a Propositional Matrix could enrich a policy-making
process by stimulating greater realization of human needs in almost
all its existential dimensions, through an H-SD approach.
Other possibilities consist of representing separately the contribu-
tion of the different dimensions fullling different needs, highlighting
thus deprivations and potentialities in terms of the 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 revise them if needed.
4. Concluding remarks
The main core of this proposed extension of the H-SDmethodology
is our interest in putting forward a new and more comprehensive
evaluation tool. The main aim is to help/assist institutions working
with policy-making processes related to development and social
issues as well as individuals, communities and other stakeholders by
enhancing and complementing the originally-proposed H-SD meth-
odology. Tackling policies and development issues in holistic and
systemic ways implies long and complex valuation procedures 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. However, the authors will
not expand on the wide variety of participatory methods available
nowadays to conduct evaluations and analyses largely focusing on
achieving bottom-up outcomes (Chambers, 1994, 1995; Ledwith,
2005; among others). We have, so far, simply shown the methodo-
logical aspects of these procedures in line with the ones proposed by
H-SD. The purpose of this work centres on the demonstration of
the use of the particular evaluation tool described. More accurate
Fig. 3. Propositional Matrix (Cruz, 2008, pp. 177).
Fig. 2. Situational Matrix (Cruz, 2008, pp. 176).
2028 I. Cruz et al. / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 20212030
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
eld.
Indeed some other examples could be drawn depending on the
type of case study and goals of the evaluation. So far, two different
evaluation exercises have been realized to evaluate social policies
within UNDP Human Development Reports, namely Brazil 2005 and
Nepal 2004. Both were done through desk reviews giving wide
evidence on how Human Development Policy outcomes could benet
from this type of practice (Cruz, 2008, forthcoming).
Recently, a new interest in ways of assessing human well-being
and HD issues beyond traditional chrematistic indicators has arisen
within the academic eld (Cruz, forthcoming). Theories like the H-SD
approach represent an important attempt to undertake development
concerns from a humanistic and systemic perspective. We consider it
an important contribution to rethinking 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 HD understanding by revealing how
people establish their relations with their social and natural environ-
ments as sentient, self-reliant and self-reective beings, continuously
re-enacting their biological, social, cultural and spiritual needs in a
systemic multidimensional way. It may, in this sense, be an important
tool to assess well-being and human happiness issues.
The development of the Situational and Propositional matrixes
intends to give a constructive and dynamic picture revealing changes
between one and the other whenever satisers are proposed
coherently and enhance synergetic actions. All in all the introduction
of these two analytical matrixes represents our most important but
modest contribution to H-SD principles and methodology.
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. It is
the way the political power is distributed and how the generation and
Fig. 5. Estimated relative percentage improvement by the Propositional Matrix with respect to the Situational Matrix (Cruz, 2008, pp. 183).
Fig. 4. Estimated improvement in percentage points (comparing both matrixes) (Cruz, 2008, pp. 182).
2029 I. Cruz et al. / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 20212030
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 socio-cultural dynamics of the society. (Stahel et al.,
2005, pp.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 chrema-
tistic framework which usually shapes economic development
practices and policy debates. As argued elsewhere, standard econom-
ics is in need of taking off fancy theoretical shoes and touch the
ground, becoming barefooted, to walk where real development
occurs and different ways of human experience, sufferings and
joyfulness, curse and blessings happen (Max-Neef, 1992a). By doing
so, a wider conceptualization of the oikonomy as the art of living and
living well may be recovered and new ways of understanding and
practicing development as if people matter may be introduced.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the reviewers of this paper for their
comprehensive reading and numerous remarks that lead to a
profound amelioration of this work and many of our discussions
regarding our presentation of the Human-Scale Development
approach. Authors will also like to thank Mikell Smith at TAMUCC
for his English editing help.
References
Alkire, S., 2002a. Valuing Freedoms. Oxford, New York.
Alkire, S., 2002b. Dimensions of Human Development. World Development 30 (2),
181205.
Aristotle, 1967. Aristotle's Politics. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Bagolin, I., 2005. The Human Needs (and Basic Needs) Theory versus the Capability
Approach: their interconnections and differences. Proceeding Papers of the 5th
Conference on the Capability Approach Knowledge and public action, Human
development and Capability Association and UNESCO France, Paris, France.
Chambers, R., 1994. The origins and practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA).
World Development 22 (7), 953969.
Chambers, R., 1995. Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts? Discussion paper
347. Institute of Development Studies-University of Sussex, UK.
Cruz, I., 2008. Human Development assessment through the Human-Scale Development
approach: integrating different perspectives in the contribution to a Sustainable
Human Development Theory. CIDH-CRUMA, Madrid. ISBN 9788481987751.
Cruz, I., forthcoming. The Human-Scale Development Framework: a proposal to
strengthen Human Development achievement. In: Brassard C. and Takayoshi K.
(Eds.), Alternative Development Paths and Subjective Happiness in Bhutan and
other Asian Countries. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of
Singapore.
Elizalde, A., 2003a. Desarrollo Humano y tica para la Sostenibilidad. Universidad
Bolivariana y Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente, Santiago de
Chile.
Elizalde, A., 2003b. Desde el Desarrollo Sustentable hacia Sociedades Sustentables.
Polis, vol. 1 (4). Universidad Bolivariana de Chile, Santiago-Chile.
Fromm, E., 1997. To Have or to Be? Continuum, London.
Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J., 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25 (7).
Gasper, D., 2004. The Ethics of Development. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Gasper, D., 2005. What is the capability approach? Its core, rationale, partners and
dangers. Proceeding Papers of the 5th Conference on the Capability Approach
Knowledge and public action, Human development and Capability Association and
UNESCO France, Paris, France.
International Labour Organization (ILO), 1976. Employment, growth and basic needs: a
one-world problem. Praeger, ILO and The Overseas Development Council, New
York/London.
Ledwith, M., 2005. Community development: a critical approach. BASW/Policy Press,
Bristol, UK.
Lutz, M., 1992. Humanistic economics: history and basic principles. In: Ekins, P., Max-
Neef, M. (Eds.), Real Life Economics. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 91119.
Marx, K., 1967. CapitalA critique of Political Economy, vol. 1. International, New York.
Maslow, A., 1968. Towards a Psychology of Being. Van Nostrand Reinold, New York.
Max-Neef, M., 1992a. From the outside looking, Experience in Barefoot Economics,
2nd ed. Zen Books, London.
Max-Neef, M., 1992b. Development and human needs. In: Ekins, P., Max-Neef, M. (Eds.),
Real Life Economics. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 197214.
Max-Neef, M., 1998a. El desarrollo a escala humana (2nd ed.). Nordan and Icaria,
Barcelona.
Max-Neef, M., 1998b. tica, Economa y Desarrollo a Escala Humana. In: C. Parker
(Ed.), Etica. Democracia y Desarrollo Humano. LOM and CERC-UAHC, Santiago-
Chile, pp. 249258.
Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A., Hopenhyan, M., 1986. Desarollo a Escala Humana: una opcin
para el futuro. Development Dialogue. Cepaur-Dag Hammarskjld Foundation,
Uppsala, Sweden.
Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A., Hopenhyan, M., 1989. (1). Human Scale Development.
Development Dialogue. Cepaur-Dag Hammarskjld Foundation, Uppsala, Sweden.
Nussbaum, M., 2000. Women and Human Development. Cambridge, UK.
Polanyi, K., 1944. The Great Transformation. Farrar and Rinehart, New York.
Robeyns, I., 2005. The capability approach a theoretical survey. Journal of Human
Development 6 (1), 93114.
Schumacher, E.F., 1973. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. Harper and
Row, New York.
Sen, A.K., 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, UK.
Smith, A., 1961. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Methuen, London.
Stahel, A., 2006. Complexity, oikonomia and the political economy. Ecological
Complexity 3 (4), 369381.
Stahel, A., Cendra, J., Cano, M., 2005. Desarrollos Sostenibles. SOSTENIBLE? (7), Ctedra
UNESCO en Sostenibilidad UPC. Terrassa, Spain, pp. 7392.
Streeten, P., 1982. First Things First: Meeting Basic Human Needs in Developing
Countries. Oxford, New York.
2030 I. Cruz et al. / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 20212030