Sustainable Development Practice: The Central Role of the Human Needs Language

Abstract

Sustainable development has become a mantra in politics, academia and development policy and practice. Indeed, many policy and practice strategies, such as the sustainable development goals, have been devised in order to achieve sustainable development. Although the contents and items in these agendas are human needs, the use of ‘human needs’ language is less emphasised/explicitly spelt out. In fact, the language of human needs is almost absent. In this article, I argue that the adoption of the human needs language will strengthen sustainable development practice, efforts and agenda. This is because, unlike other aspirations, human needs by nature are universal. Secondly, human needs are limited in number compared to wants, desires, goals and capabilities. This nature of human needs makes the human needs language effective in promoting the sustainable development agenda and efforts, thus, adequately meeting the needs of the current and future generations.

Keywords

Sustainable development human needs human wellbeing human development

Introduction

Sustainable development as a development paradigm and agenda has been prevalent for more than three decades. It can be traced from the late 1980s (Lawn, 2001; Scott, 2012; World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987). Since then, many efforts have been undertaken both at the international and national levels in order to promote and achieve sustainable development. At the international level, we have had the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the United Nations’ Agenda 21, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and currently the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs). Several countries have made commitments to promote these endeavours. At national levels, countries have developed policies to pursue and promote sustainable development. For example, in the 1994 and 1999, the UK drafted and published sustainable development strategy articles. As a result of these efforts, sustainable development has become a catch word in common usage (Lawn, 2006a).

Although the concept of sustainable development is in common usage, scholars (Helne & Hirvilammi, 2015; Rauschmayer, Omann, & Fruhmann, 2011) observe that we have not transitioned into a sustainable world. In this article I argue that unlike the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) that used the language of needs, current efforts as a way of practising sustainable development have mainly used the language of goals, preferences and capabilities (O’Neill, 2011; Rauschmayer et al., 2011). And this could be partly the reason why we have not been able to transition into a sustainable world. The adoption and use of the language of human needs will go a long way in promoting sustainable development practice and agenda. This is because, the language of human needs is universal (Doyal & Gough, 1991), and therefore appeals to the majority of the world’s inhabitants (Brock, 2005); the human needs are few (Springborg, 1981) and therefore can control two major dangers (consumption and production) to our common resources; human needs have a moral force and principle of precedence (Wiggins, 1998) and human needs promote the inter-generational and intra-generational equity principles (Holden, Linnerud, & Banister, 2014; Lawn, 2001; Rauschmayer et al., 2011; WCED, 1987). This way, both human beings and the common resources will be protected against potential destruction.

The article starts with a general discussion on sustainable development where the meanings and components of sustainable development are explored. This aids the analysis of what is to be sustained. What follows is an exposition of the concept of human need. This clarifies the concept so as to avoid confusion, since the concept of human needs has multiple meanings and usages. The main argument that the language of human needs will go a long way in promoting sustainable development agenda and practice is presented. The argument shows that focussing on human needs will not only spare our common resources from destruction and extinction but also save ourselves (human beings) from harm. Finally, a conclusion is presented showing that apart from the human needs language being universal, human needs by nature in themselves are sustainable goals. The language will contribute to a reduction in resource use and wastage.

It is important to note from the onset that the article focusses on the practice of sustainable development and not on theories of sustainable development. If we are to transition into a sustainable society, we must move from theories to practice.

Meaning of Sustainable Development

‘Sustainable development is a concept that almost everybody has heard of but few understand’ (Lawn, 2006a, p. 3). Lawn’s statement is a point of caution to anyone engaged in writing on and researching sustainable development. Authors and researchers need not take for granted that this common concept is widely understood, since Holden et al. (2014) note that the concept has become so complex and comprehensive. Indeed Scott (2012, p. 44) argues that the concept is a ‘“container” for a wide range of issues and differing opinions’. Therefore, there is need to delineate the meaning of the concept of sustainable development and focus on sustainable development. This way, the reader is able to judge in what way does the language of human needs promote sustainable development and why.

Although the sustainable development concept has been around for some time, since 1980 (Scott, 2012), there is a diversity and multiplicity of definitions and interpretations (Duran, Gogan, Artene, & Duran, 2015; Holden & Linnerud, 2007; Lawn, 2006b; Scott, 2012). Duran et al. (2015) include 13 definitions of sustainable development in their paper. According to the World Bank (1987, p. 10), sustainable development is understood as development ‘… satisfying the multiple criteria of sustainable growth, poverty alleviation, and sound environmental management.’ Allen (1980, p. 23) defines sustainable development as ‘… development that is likely to achieve lasting satisfaction of human needs and improvement of the quality of life.’ Clark and Munn (1986, p. 5) define sustainable development as ‘… learning how long-term and large-scale interactions between environment and development can be better managed to increase the prospects for ecologically sustainable improvements in human well-being.’ Another definition is that of Goodland and Ledec (1987, pp. 35–36) where sustainable development is understood as:

a pattern of social and structural economic transformations which optimises the economic and other social benefits available in the present, without jeopardising the likely potential for similar benefits in the future [….] A primary goal of sustainable development is to achieve a reasonable and equitably distributed level of economic well-being that can be perpetuated continually for many human generations.

Within this mix of multiple definitions is confusion whether sustainable development is the same as sustainability. According to Holden et al. (2014) and Scott (2012), sustainability is an older concept and it was mainly used in the field of ecology. It mainly focussed on the capacity of the ecosystems. The addition of the term development moved the focus from ecosystems to society (Holden et al., 2014; Scott, 2012). However, Scott (2012) argues that the two concepts are used interchangeably. This article uses the sustainable development term since it focusses on both ecosystems and society. Amidst this mix of multiple definitions and confusion about sustainable development and sustainability, similar to Holden et al. (2014), I argue that if progress is to be made in transitioning to sustainable development, a common definition should be presented and adopted. This requires going back to the original definition of the concept. This original definition by the WCED (1987) was a product of comprehensive and extensive work and consultations. It involved members from about 20 countries with all the continents represented. Its commissioners were widely experienced and from different disciplines. The work spanned a three-year period and consultations involved all the continents (WCED, 1987). This makes the definition a better definition than definitions that came after 1987.

According to WCED (1987, p. 43) sustainable development is defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ Furthermore, WCED (1987, p. 46) defines sustainable development as ‘a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development; and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations.’ The central concept in these two definitions is ‘human needs’. In addition, the definitions specify the central dimensions of sustainable development. For instance, WCED (1987, p. 43) indicates that sustainable development concept contains two key concepts: ‘…the concept of “needs”, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs’.

However, Holden et al.’s (2014) analysis of the dimensions of sustainable development is clearer and more comprehensible. To them, sustainable development has four primary dimensions, that is, ‘safeguarding long-term ecological sustainability, satisfying basic human needs and promoting intra-generational and inter-generational equity’ (Holden et al., 2014, p. 131). It is important to note that although Holden et al. come up with four primary dimensions of sustainable development, their dimensions are based and contained in the WECD (1987) report. The dimensions however help us understand the focus of sustainable development. It is the sustainability of the ecosystems and common resources and human beings. The first primary dimension concerns the sustainability of the ecosystems and common resources, while primary dimensions two to four concern the sustainability of human beings. Therefore, sustainable development is about two things, that is, ecosystems and common resources and human beings.

The Concept of Human Needs

In order to achieve sustainability of ecosystems and human beings, I argue that the use of the human needs language will go a long way. First of all, the original definition of the concept used this language throughout their report, WCED (1987). Although this is the case, O’Neill (2011) observes that subsequent discussions of sustainable development moved from the language of needs to the language of preferences. Yet, as noted earlier, the original definition is based on extensive and comprehensive work spanning a 3-year period and involving a mix of experts and views from all the continents. Before presenting the arguments for the use of the human needs language, it is necessary to demonstrate the way the human needs concept is used here. This is so since the concept of needs is used in multiple ways and this has contributed to the confusion surrounding it. It is this confusion which is likely to be contributing to the abandonment of the usage of the human needs language in sustainable development practice, documents and agendas. Indeed scholars (Gough, 2015; Lawn, 2001) have questioned what exactly human needs meant in the WCED (1987) report. For instance, Gough (2015, p. 1192) in relation to the WCED’s 1987 report observes: ‘…having placed needs centre stage in its report, the report [sic] says nothing more about what needs are.’ Furthermore, Lawn (2001, p. 13) has the following questions in the relation to WCED’s definition using the term needs:

For example, if meeting needs and aspirations constitutes development, then

Exactly what needs and what aspirations are the WCED referring to?

Is the WCED referring only to basic physiological needs or the full spectrum of human needs, including ‘higher-order’ needs?

Does development include wants as well as needs?

Is development achieved through the attainment of any needs, wants, or aspirations irrespective of their moral content, that is, irrespective of whether they are virtuous according to civilised standards of right and wrong?

Who determines the needs or wants that, if attained, constitute development?

Is development, to some degree, dependent upon how well or effectively these needs and wants are being met?

Is the continued growth of macroeconomic systems necessary for these needs and wants to be attained?

Indeed Doyal and Gough (1991), Gasper (2007) and Taylor (1959) point out the multiple ways the concept of need is used. It can be used as a verb (as in needing something), noun (as in a name given to an item or element) and satisfier (as in satisfying the needing). It can also be used to refer to desires, preferences, wants, values and drives (Doyal & Gough, 1991; Wiggins, 1998). The term can also be used either in an occurrent or dispositional senses. Occurrent need refers to the lack of an object of need, while dispositional need refers to needing by virtue of being human. Dispositional need is used in an ontological sense, as that which is needed for maintaining and promoting our being (Balyejjusa, 2015a; Reader, 2006; Taylor, 1959). Furthermore, Gasper (2007) points out that the concept can be used descriptively/explanatory, instrumentally and normatively/prescriptively.

Under descriptive mode needs refer to positive entities that relate to drives or wants. Instrumentally, needs refer to prerequisites for meeting a given end; they are means to an end (any end). Normatively, needs refer to justified priority requisites or requirements considered very important for people to have to avoid harm (Gasper, 2007; Rauschmayer et al., 2011). Gasper (2007) asserts that descriptive needs are equivalent to the noun use of the term, while instrumental needs are equivalent to the verb use of the term needs. The instrumental mode may also have aspects of occurrent needs, since needing something may be due to its lack of it. However, a person can need (verb) in a normative/absolute way.

In this article, the concept of need is used in a normative way, where needs are necessary prerequisites for not only human survival, but also human flourishing (Thomson, 1987; Wetherly, 2005). Non-satisfaction or inadequate satisfaction of the human needs means that the concerned human being will suffer from objective harm (Doyal & Gough, 1991; Wetherly, 2005). And this harm is conceptualised by Doyal and Gough (1991) as impediment of successful social participation or impediment to pursuance of one’s vision of the good. The very idea of survival carries the notions of understanding human needs in an ontological sense. However, this does not mean that human needs are only limited to human biological physical needs, but also social needs. Indeed Smith (1776, p. 691) defines necessaries as ‘by necessaries I understand not only the commodities that are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without.’

I argue that although the WCED’s (1987) report uses the term basic needs and goes on to list a number of basic physical needs, as the last paragraph on page 43 shows, the concept of human needs is used in a normative way. It is not used to refer only to basic physical needs or wants, as Lawn’s (2001) questions in page 6, wish to imply. Wants cannot be part of human needs, especially the basic human needs. The report is referring to ‘essential needs’, as the last paragraph on page 43 also shows. The essential needs are equivalent to what Thomson (1987) and Wiggins (1991) call fundamental human needs and vital needs, respectively. Therefore, there is no room for the concept of human needs to refer to desires or wants in the WCED Report, 1987. Even the term ‘aspirations’ used in the report should not be taken to mean wants, desires or preferences. The term is used in relation to human beings’ quality of life. Using Sen’s (2008) ideas on human goals, human life involves many categories of goals or aspirations. They may include wellbeing/quality of life goals, standard of living goals, and agency goals. According to Sen (2008), the standard of living goals are the narrowest, followed by wellbeing goals while agency goals are the broadest. Therefore, when the report uses the term aspirations for quality of life, it refers to standard of living and wellbeing goals, which are human needs, and not wants, desires or preferences. For instance, Sen (2008, pp. 276–277) demonstrates the dimensions of human life goals this way:

The assessment of agency success is a broader exercise than the evaluation of well-being. It is also possible to consider ‘narrower’ exercises than the appraisal of well-being. A particularly important one is that of evaluating a person’s standard of living. This, too, may take the form of focussing on the person’s functionings, but in this case we may have to concentrate only on those influences on well-being that come from the nature of his own life, rather than from ‘other-regarding’ objectives or impersonal concerns. For example, the happiness generated by a purely other-regarding achievement (e.g. the freeing of political prisoners in distant countries) may enhance the person’s well-being without, in any obvious sense, raising his living standard.

After clarifying the meaning of the term human needs, in the following section I present my argument that a human needs language should be used in pursuance and practice of the sustainable development agenda and programmes.

Human Needs Language and Sustainable Development Practice

First and foremost, the human needs language is universal, and not limited to any culture or society. Although there is no literature that explicitly shows that human needs language is universal, there is a lot that can be used to demonstrate that it is universal. Scholars such as Braybrooke (1987), Doyal and Gough (1991), Maslow (1970) and Max-Neef (1991) in their conception of the human needs concept have illustrated that human need/s is/are universal. For instance, Reader and Brock (2004, p. 251) point out that ‘needs are everywhere.’ This universalistic conception of human need means that these apply to all societies and culture, and therefore common goals of human beings. The scholars also happen to come from different cultures. Abraham Maslow was an American, Manfred Max-Neef is a Chilean, Len Doyal is British/American, Ian Gough is British and Lawrence Hamilton is South African. This is in addition to early writers, such as Karl Marx from Prussia and Jean-Jacques Rousseau from France (Springborg, 1981). Furthermore, there is no evidence showing disagreements between scholars on the existence of human needs in all cultures, but the disagreements are always on what constitutes human needs. It is the lists of universal needs that have generated debate (Soper, 1993).

In a part of the author’s work, (recent research with Somali refugees in Kampala on a PhD project on acculturation and wellbeing of refugees) Somali refugees discussed their wellbeing in terms of human needs (Balyejjusa, 2015b, 2017). The word needs was used very often during the discussion. Indeed the needs listed by the study’s participants were similar to some of Doyal and Gough’s (1991) basic and intermediate needs (Balyejjusa, 2015b, 2017). For instance, Balyejjusa’s (2017, p. 102) quote of Hadijah, a Somali refugee participant, illustrates the Somali refugees’ use of the language of needs

Here in Kampala, we are able to work so that we can meet our needs such as housing, healthcare, education for our children and food. We have started businesses such as shops where we sell all kinds of goods. We sell to both Uganda and Somali customers. We don’t discriminate and Ugandans don’t discriminate against us. The money we get from our businesses we use it to pay the bills.

Furthermore, the Wellbeing in Developing Countries Research Group (WeD) research project also shows that the concept of needs exists in different cultures. They researched wellbeing in Ethiopia, Thailand, Bangladesh and Peru using the human needs concept (Camfield & Guillen-Royo, 2010; Guillen-Royo, 2008; Guillen-Royo, Velazco, & Camfield, 2013; Lavers, 2007). Apart from these countries representing three continents, that is, Africa, Asia and South America, their research sites included both urban and rural areas. In all the sites, the concept of needs/needs language exists. For instance, Camfield and Guillen-Royo (2010, p. 199) note the following about needs in Bangladesh and Thailand: ‘The paper puts forward three propositions. First, that location and socio-economic status will affect what people in WeD sites in Bangladesh and Thailand say they need, and the extent to which they perceive themselves as having satisfied these needs.’ The difference is in what they list or say their needs are, but not in the language. Further evidence of the human needs language being universal is from the WCED, 1987 report. As earlier indicated, WCED had a diverse membership in terms of cultures and country and continental composition, yet the commission used the language of human needs in its report. Their agreement on and adoption of the human needs language, especially in the definition of sustainable development, demonstrates the language’s universality.

Brock (2005) shares similar views that the human needs language is universal. For instance, Brock (2005, p. 66) comparing the human needs language to the human rights language notes

Needs discourse, by contrast, is much more widely used in a greater range of cultures. An advantage of human needs discourse, then, is that it is much more usable to a wider range of people, and this may well appeal to even fans of human rights discourse.

Since the needs language is universal, as shown earlier, sustainable development agenda should adopt this language, as the WCED (1987) report did. This will ensure that the sustainable development agenda is understood by most people due to the common language. We need a language that appeals to all human beings regardless of their culture, experience, social standing, position, location and so on (Brock, 2005), since Lawn (2006b) argues that sustainable development is used in different locations and contexts, and by people from different cultural backgrounds and disciplinary schools of thought. As it is now, the sustainable development concept has become confusing and misunderstood, as shown by the number of definitions seen in pages 3 and 4 (Holden & Linnerud, 2007; Holden et al., 2014; Lawn, 2006a). The common language will not only ensure that sustainable development is understood, but also likely to coalesce members from different cultures around policies, projects and programmes aimed at promoting sustainable development and thus transitioning into a sustainable society. The language is much likely to promote positive behavioural change where human beings engage in actions that promote sustainable development. Indeed WCED (1987, p. 10) argues: ‘ Unless we are able to translate our words into a language that can reach the minds and hearts of people young and old, we shall not be able to undertake the extensive social changes needed to correct the course of development.’

And this language, as shown above, is the human needs language. This language also benefits from the moral force embedded in the concept of human need (Brock, 2005; Gough, 2015). As already discussed, human needs are necessities for human beings to avoid serious objective harm. This gives them priority or precedence over other interests/goals such as desires, wants and preferences. For instance, Braybrooke (2005, p. 218) when comparing the moral force of the capabilities language and needs language argues:

The capabilities that do have some moral force get it from an extended argument showing how they figure in human welfare. Needs already have moral force, I want to say prima facie, and by the very use of the term. That’s one reason why the concept of needs is so much abused; it pulls, or at least tends to pull, on people’s heartstrings. Caution about uses comes in, but only in second thoughts.

Because of this, we engage in helping others meet their needs and they also do the same for us (Brock & Reader, 2002). We would be perceived as pathetic and brutes if we did not take note of and respond to our own needs and the needs of others, regardless of whether we are related to them (Miller, 2005). The Bible, in the book of James, Chapter 2 and Verses 15 and 16, presents similar views. It is the moral force that endeared the boy to surrender his barley loaves and fish to Jesus so that Jesus can feed the crowd (John, 6:5-13). Therefore, the moral force embedded in the human needs language is likely to galvanise more people, countries, organisations, institutions, states and governments around pursuing the sustainable development agenda. This is evidenced by the popularity of the basic needs framework and the unanimous adoption of the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) basic needs strategy by countries in the 1970s (Gasper, 2007). Streeten, Burki, Haq, Hicks, and Stewart (1981, p. 8) notes:

The idea that basic needs of all should be satisfied before less essential needs of a few are met is in principle very widely accepted. It goes back to the founders of the world’s great religions. More recently, thinkers and practitioners from many countries, international agencies, and bilateral aid donors have made meeting basic human needs a primary objective of development, and it has been embedded in many development plans.

This is not the case with the 2000–2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which use the language of goals rather than needs. Although Gasper (2007) points out that the MDGs focus on human needs, they were never pursed or implemented by all countries, despite 189 countries agreeing to engage in efforts to meet them. The goals were perceived to be for developing countries, and not for developed countries, despite goals six, seven and eight being relevant even to developed countries. This is likely to be the fate of the Sustainable Development Goals which adopt the language of goals instead of needs, where some countries, especially the developed countries, may think that some goals do not apply to them. For instance, goals on ending poverty, hunger, quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, decent work and economic growth among others may easily be perceived by developed countries as applying to developing countries only. The developed countries are not seriously suffering from such problems as compared to the developing countries. This does not mean that such problems are not experienced by some members of their population. The goals language, unlike the needs language, does not benefit from the moral force (Brock, 2005). As already pointed out, human beings have many goals in life. Indeed Doyal and Gough (1991) define human needs as goals. However, not all goals are normative by their nature. It is only human needs that are normative by nature and thus the human needs language.

Apart from the language of human needs being universal, human needs are few in number. Indeed Max-Neef (1991) holds a similar opinion when he argues that human needs are few and do not change all the time. It should be pointed out here that the argument of human needs being limited in number is one of the sources of criticism of the language of human needs. Others being the issue of paternalism, universality of human needs and difficulty in coming up with a list of human needs. However, different scholars, such as Doyal and Gough (1991), Gasper (2007) and Max-Neef (1991) have convincingly responded to most, if not all these criticisms of the human needs language. Their arguments over such criticisms are not the focus of this article. It should be noted that the argument that human needs are fewer in number compared to wants, desires, preferences, interests and goals is not to advocate for human beings to lead a crude and primitive life (Springborg, 1981). Indeed, this article uses the concept of human needs as necessities for human flourishing, and not mere survival (Wetherly, 2005). The idea of human needs being many is due to confusing human needs and their satisfiers (Doyal & Gough, 1991; Max-Neef, 1991). Human needs are relatively few, but their satisfiers (goods, services and activities) are many and they differ from culture to culture or society to society (Doyal & Gough, 1991; Max-Neef, 1991).

According to Doyal and Gough’s (1991) theory of human need, there are only two universal needs, that is, physical health and personal autonomy. However, they go on to list eleven universal satisfiers (intermediate needs) of the two human needs. These include adequate nutritional food and water, adequate protective housing, a non-hazardous work environment, a non-hazardous physical environment, appropriate heath care, security in childhood, significant primary relationships, physical security, economic security, safe birth control and child-bearing and appropriate education (Doyal & Gough, 1991). For Manfred Max-Neef (1991), there are nine fundamental/oxiological needs. These include the need for subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity and freedom. The fundamental needs can be classified according to existential categories of being, having, interacting and doing (Max-Neef, 1991; Rauschmayer et al., 2011).

Abraham Maslow (1970), although I am not endorsing his hierarchical idea of human needs, his list includes physiological needs, safety needs, belonginess and love needs, esteem needs and the need for self-actualisation. Later, Maslow (1970) added cognitive needs, aesthetic needs and transcendence needs. David Braybrooke’s (1987) list has only twelve needs he refers to as life course needs; these are the need to a life-supporting relation to the environment, the need for food and water, the need to excrete, the need to exercise, the need for periodic rest, including sleep, the need for whatever is indispensable to preserve the body intact in important respects, the need for companionship, the need for education, the need for social acceptance and recognition, the need for sexual activity, the need to be free from harassment and the need for recreation (Braybrooke, 1987). Psychologists Ryan and Sapp (2007) in their theory of self-determination came up with three basic psychological needs, that is, autonomy, competence and relatedness.

From the lists presented, the list with the highest number of needs is that of Braybrooke (1987) with twelve. The list with the highest number of needs in ffact has fewer than the 17 sustainable development goals. Human goals, desires, wants, preferences, capabilities and so on can be many and vary from an individual to another, culture to another, community to another and society to another. And there is little agreement over them, unlike human needs (Braybrooke, 2005). Although the lists have differences in the items included as human needs, they also have similarities, and some items listed are mere satisfiers of human needs. However, for policy purposes, Doyal and Gough’s (1991) list or framework is more useful and less complex. In any case, all the needs outlined by the rest of the cited scholars can fit well into Doyal and Gough’s (1991) two universal needs and eleven intermediate needs. Policy actions and programmes should be focussed on these few universal human needs as a way of practising sustainable development.

Since human needs are very few or limited in number, limited resources are required in meeting or satisfying them. Promoting the use of the language of needs as a way of promoting sustainable development practice means that human beings’ twin actions of production and consumption will focus on production and consumption for human needs. Sustainable development practice and agenda imply change in the way of doing things (Peet, 2006; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UN DESA], 2012). We cannot transition into a sustainable society unless we change our current production and consumption patterns. While commenting on Karl Marx’s work (Capital), Springborg (1981, p. 1) observes: ‘We find ourselves constantly reminded that capitalism perpetuates itself precisely by treating articles of use as bearers of wealth, thus persuading people to produce, exchange and accumulate them in a volume and at a rate quite unrelated to their genuine needs.’

Instead of the present preference/desire/want-production and consumption patterns, we need to change to human needs-production and consumption patterns. This will automatically reduce unnecessary production and consumption, which are threats to the universal common resources. For instance, UN DESA (2012, p. 2) paints the following image of global production and consumption:

At the global level, the impacts of the human enterprise on the environment are increasing. By historical standards, the path from an ‘empty’ to a ‘full’ world has been remarkably swift. Most of the expansion took place in the last century in what has been called the ‘great acceleration’. In the 20th century, a 4-fold increase in human numbers was accompanied by a 40-fold increase in economic output and a 16-fold increase in fossil fuel use, along with a 35-fold increase in fisheries catches and a 9-fold increase in water use. Carbon dioxide emissions increased 17 times, sulphur emissions by 13 and other pollutants by comparable amounts. Global primary energy use, carbon emissions, biodiversity loss, nutrient loadings, deforestation, global fossil water extraction are all still increasing.

It is interesting that all the increases in regard to production and consumption are far greater than the increase in the population (UN DESA, 2012). This can only be explained by production and consumption patterns that focus on wants, desires and preferences, rather than on human needs. This means that without changing production and consumption patterns from the current ones to the human needs-based patterns, production and consumption will keep increasing. This is due to the increasing human population and affluence (UN DESA, 2012; WCED, 1987). This is the case since low income countries are aiming at increasing their incomes (thus affluence), which will increase consumption, and thus production. Available evidence shows that as incomes increase in developing countries, their populations take on consumption patterns of the developed countries (UN DESA, 2012). For instance, UN DESA (2012, p. 3) points out: ‘Since the Earth Summit, private consumption has grown tremendously. In many emerging countries, middle income groups have been growing fast, contributing to the rapid emergence of a global ‘consumer class’ whose consumption choices tend to follow patterns observed in developed economies.’

This has been facilitated by capitalism’s basic need. According to Gough (2000), the ultimate need of capital is expansion of profit (although he uses the term need with some reservations, since capital does not have life-like attributes). Capitalism fuels ever increasing levels of consumption in order to achieve its sole basic need-profit expansion (Gough, 2000; Wetherly, 2005). This is achieved by transforming human beings and consigning them to the position of consumers (Springborg, 1981; Wetherly, 2005). The reason for their existence is consumption, so to speak. As such, advertisements upon advertisements, and sometimes with exaggerated and misleading information, are aimed at increasing their consumption. This has created a belief that the more one consumes, the better off they are. This belief has created greed in human beings where they are never content with what they have or never content with their present adequate satisfaction of their human needs. They ever desire to consume more or new products in hope that they will quench their greed/desires. In the words of Springborg (1981, p. 118), they are attempting to satisfy the ‘false needs’ capitalism has implanted in them. According to Gough (2000, p. 16), capitalism does this through ‘the self-defeating production of positional goods whose rationale is simply to enable one stay ahead of a pack.’

Borrowing from Karl Marx’s (1887, pp. 47–48) notion of ‘commodity fetishism’, I would say that capitalism has bred consumption fetishism. Springborg (1981, p. 7) shares a similar opinion when she argues: ‘man under capitalism is forced to consume in greater and greater quantities commodities that he really does not need.’ Human beings are ever looking for newer products, yet the so called old ones are still useful and can adequately meet their needs. People are ever looking for newer models of product to use, such as, cars, computers, phones, etc. However, what is not taken into consideration in this pursuit of satisfying false needs is the fact that most of these products are manufactured from materials that can undergo depletion. Gough (2000, p. 17) notes the effect of capitalism as ‘it threatens nature as the inherited resources of this world are squandered at a reckless rate.’

There are arguments that improved technology will automatically fix this problem. However, with exception of the renewable resources, most common resources are non-renewable. Improved technology will not necessarily increase their quantities or stop their depletion. Improved technology together with a human needs-based production and consumption is the only likely route to safeguard the non-renewable common resources. As earlier noted, human needs are limited in number, which will automatically reduce production and consumption, thus preserving the natural resources. This will ensure that the needs of the natural systems or ecosystems are satisfied. Peet (2006, p. 400) reminds us,

While an ethically-based socio-economic response to the needs of people is urgently needed, at the same time, we should also acknowledge the equally important, but often less obvious, needs of the ‘natural wealth’ – the ecosystems of our countries and of the Earth as a whole. The policy imperative of ‘strong’ sustainability requires that society is seen as inextricably connected to the environment within which it exists.

Therefore, the human needs-based production and consumption does not only guarantee sustainable satisfaction of human needs, but also the needs of our ecosystems, which is an element of sustainable development according to the WCED (1987) report. We cannot achieve or transition into sustainable development society when our ecosystems are destroyed.

In addition to human needs-based production and consumption guaranteeing the adequate and sustainable satisfaction of the present generation’s needs, it will promote the adequate satisfaction of the human needs of future generations. Although we cannot estimate with precision the material resources that will be required by future generations to adequately meet their needs, since they are not presently here, we can be considerate while using the common resources, with an understanding that future generations will also need them. It is only the language of human needs that can achieve this. As noted before, the moral force embedded in the concept will automatically appeal to us (present generations) not to compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It will appeal to us to reconsider our production and consumption actions so that resources, especially non-renewable resources, are saved. Guillen-Royo’s (2010) findings on wellbeing using the human scales of development in Lleida city, Spain show that the human needs language can appeal to people to consider their production and consumption actions. Through focus group discussions the participants agreed that reduction in consumption is a synergic satisfier of human needs. For instance, Guillen-Royo (2010, p. 390) observes:

Participants often defined a utopian society, where human needs were optimally met, as one characterised by simplicity and universal basic need coverage. It was argued that people had to be able to live simpler lives, with less possessions, lower social demands, etc., and that this should be supported by a public safety net, where everyone had the right to have their and their family’s basic needs covered. Thus, simplicity was not associated with poverty, in line with the claims of the literature on voluntary simplifiers or downshifters (Elgin, 1993); it was linked to what a participant called a ‘subsistence society’, in clear contrast to the current ‘consumer society’. The turn to a ‘subsistence society’ required institutional support not only to set a basic income scheme but also to promote solidarity and universalist values that would enable these schemes to prevail in the long run.

This will not only save resources, thus promote environment sustainability, but also ensure that the needs of present and future generations are promoted, thus promoting intra-generational and inter-generation equity. The original definition of sustainable development requires and mandates us not to compromise the satisfaction of the needs of our fellow human beings: present and future generations (WCED, 1987). Surprisingly, the MDGs and the SDGs do not explicitly include the needs of future generations. They mainly focus on the goals of the present generation and ecosystems. This partial focus means that one aspect of sustainable development is left out.

Conclusion

This article set out to make a case for the re-adoption of the human needs language in the pursuance of the sustainable development practice and agenda. The article clarified the meaning of the concepts of sustainable development and human needs. In terms of the definition of sustainable development, we need to stick to the definition of the WCED (1987), since it is the original definition and it was coined by a wide diversity of people in terms disciplines, regions and experiences. The definition makes the concept of human needs central to the meaning of sustainable development. Furthermore, the definition also specifies the dimensions of sustainable development. These include the protection of ecosystems and natural resources, satisfying human needs, intra-generational and inter-generational equity. Although the concept of human needs is central to framing of sustainable development agenda, it has multiple meanings in both academic use and day-to-day use. However, the article adopts the normative use of the concept, since this gives it moral force. Indeed the WCED report adopts this meaning by referring to basic human needs and quality of life of human beings. It is used to refer to those requisites that promote human flourishing, and not merely human survival.

Apart from the WCED’s use of the concept human needs in its conceptualisation of sustainable development, I have argued that the language of human needs is central in promoting the sustainable development practice and agenda and transitioning into a sustainable society. The language of human needs is universal and therefore will aid a common understanding of the sustainable development agenda by most of the people (Brock, 2005). For instance, Brock (2005, p. 66) argues that human needs language ‘… is the more basic language that appeals to more people in the world.’ Indeed the WCED (1987) report advocates such a language. This will not only appeal to human beings to reconsider their actions by engaging in actions that only promote the satisfaction of human needs, but also the protection of the ecosystems and common resources from depletion. This is due to the moral force embedded in the language and concept of human needs. Furthermore, the language of human needs implies that human needs are limited in number compared to human goals, wants, desires and preferences. The limited human needs require limited resources to adequately satisfy them. This way, resources will be saved, not only for the present generations but also future generations.

The implication of adoption of the human needs language is that it will control the unsustainable twin actions of human beings, that is, production and consumption. This will involve individuals, groups, communities and institutions. They will engage in production and consumption that is limited to meeting human needs, and not wants, desires and preferences. Thus, wastefulness and destruction of the ecosystems and finite common resources will be reduced. This will ensure not only ecosystem sustainability, but also intra-generational and inter-generational equity, thus promoting sustainable development and transitioning into a sustainable society.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the assistance given to me by the following people who read and offered feedback on the manuscript: Michael A. Dover, Josephats Mbaziira and Kasule Kibirige. Your comments helped in improving the quality of the manuscript. I would like also to appreciate members of the Faculty of Social Sciences Research Seminar, Uganda Christian University, where this article was presented, for your feedback and comments. The comments were helpful in reworking the manuscript. Finally, my thanks go to Mzee Paul Lukwiya who introduced me to the concept of human needs early in my life.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Allen

(1980). How to save the world. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Balyejjusa

M. S.

(2015a). Uganda’s vision 2040 and human needs promotion. Africa Development, 40(4), 61–90.

Balyejjusa

M. S.

(2015b). Meanings and understandings of wellbeing: An exploration of Somali refugees’ conceptions of human wellbeing. Africanus Journal of Development Studies, 45(2), 72–90.

Balyejjusa

M. S.

(2017). The wellbeing of Somali refugees in Kampala: Perceived satisfaction of their human needs. Journal of Science and Sustainable Development, 6(1), 94–111.

Braybrooke

(1987). Meeting needs: Studies in moral, political, and legal philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Braybrooke

(2005). Where does the moral force of the concept of needs reside and when? In Reader

(Ed.), The philosophy of need (pp. 209–228). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brock

(2005). Needs and global justice. In Reader

(Ed.), The philosophy of need (pp. 51–72). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brock

, & Reader

(2002). Needs-centred ethical theory. Journal of Value Inquiry, 36(4), 425–434.

Camfield

, & Guillen-Royo

(2010). Wants, needs and satisfaction: A comparative study in Thailand and Bangladesh. Social Indicators Research, 96(2), 183–203.

10.

Clark

, & Munn

(1986). Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Doyal

, & Gough

(1991). A theory of human need. London, UK: Macmillan.

12.

Duran

C. D.

, Gogan

M. L.

, Artene

, & Duran

(2015). The components of sustainable development—A possible approach. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 806–811.

13.

Gasper

(2007). Conceptualising human needs and wellbeing. In Gough

& McGregor

(Eds), Wellbeing in developing countries: From theory to research (pp. 47–70). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Goodland

, & Ledec

(1987). Neoclassical economics and the principles of sustainable development. Ecological Modelling, 38(1–2), 19–46.

15.

Gough

(2000). Global capital, human needs and social policies. New York, NY: Palgrave.

16.

Gough

(2015). Climate change and sustainable welfare: The centrality of human need. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39(5), 1191–1214.

17.

Guillen-Royo

(2008). Consumption and subjective wellbeing: Exploring basic needs, social comparison, social integration and hedonism in Peru. Social Indicators Research, 89(3), 535–555.

18.

Guillen-Royo

(2010). Realising the ‘wellbeing dividend’: An exploratory study using the human scale development approach. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 384–393.

19.

Guillen-Royo

, Velazco

, & Camfield

(2013). Basic needs and wealth as independent determinants of happiness: An illustration from Thailand. Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 517–536.

20.

Helne

, & Hirvilammi

(2015). Wellbeing and sustainability: A relational approach. Sustainable Development, 23(3), 167–175.

21.

Holden

, & Linnerud

(2007). The sustainable development area: Satisfying basic needs and safeguarding ecological sustainability. Sustainable Development, 15(3), 174–187.

22.

Holden

, Linnerud

, & Banister

(2014). Sustainable development: Our common future revisited. Global Environmental Change, 26(1), 130–139.

23.

Lavers

(2007). Asking people what they want or telling them what they ‘need’? Contrasting a theory of human need with local expressions of goals (WeD Working Paper No. 28). University of Bath, ESRC Research Groups on Wellbeing in Developing Countries.

24.

Lawn

A. P.

(2001). Towards sustainable development: An ecological economics approach. London, UK: Lewis Publishers.

25.

Lawn

A. P.

(2006a). Introduction. In Lawn

(Ed.), Sustainable development indicators in ecological economics (pp. 3–12). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

26.

Lawn

A. P.

(2006b). Sustainable development: Concept and indicators. In Lawn

(Ed.), Sustainable development indicators in ecological economics (pp. 13–51). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

27.

Marx

(1887). Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. I). Moscow: Progress Publishers.

28.

Maslow

H. A.

(1970). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishers.

29.

Max-Neef

A. M.

(1991). Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflections. New York, NY: The Apex Press.

30.

Miller

C. S.

(2005). Need, care and obligation. In Reader

(Ed.), The philosophy of need (pp. 137–160). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

31.

O’Neill

(2011). The overshadowing of needs. In Rauschmayer

, Omann

& Fruhmann

(Eds.), Sustainable development: Capabilities, needs, and well-being (pp. 25–42). London, UK: Routledge.

32.

Peet

(2006). Sustainable development indicators and human needs. In Lawn

(Ed.), Sustainable development indicators in ecological economics (pp. 399–420). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

33.

Rauschmayer

, Omann

, & Fruhmann

(2011). Needs, capabilities and quality of life: Refocusing sustainable development. In Rauschmayer

, Omann

& Fruhmann

(Eds.), Sustainable development: Capabilities, needs, and well-being (pp. 1–24). London, UK: Routledge.

34.

Reader

(2006). Does a basic needs approach need capabilities? The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 337–350.

35.

Reader

, & Brock

(2004). Needs, moral demands and moral theory. Utilitas, 16(3), 251–266.

36.

Ryan

M. R.

, & Sapp

R. A.

(2007). Basic psychological needs: A self-determination theory perspective on the promotion of wellness across development and cultures. In Gough

& McGregor

(Eds.), Wellbeing in developing countries: From theory to research (pp. 71–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

37.

Scott

(2012). Measuring wellbeing: Towards sustainability? London, UK: Routledge.

38.

Sen

(2008). Capability and well-being. In Hausman

M. D.

(Ed.), The philosophy of economics: An anthology (pp. 270–293). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Smith

(1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London, UK: George Routledge.

40.

Soper

(1993). A theory of human need. New Left Review, 1(197), 113–128.

41.

Springborg

(1981). The problem of human needs and the critiques of civilisation. London, UK: George Allen and Unwin.

42.

Streeten

, Burki

J. S.

, Haq

U. M.

, Hicks

, & Stewart

(1981). First things first: Meeting basic human needs in developing countries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

43.

Taylor

W. P.

(1959). ‘Need’ statements. Analysis, 19(5), 106–111.

44.

The World Bank (1987). Environment, growth, and development (Development Committee Pamphlet No. 14). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

45.

Thomson

(1987). Needs. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

46.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social, Affairs (UN DESA) (2012). Back to our common future: Sustainable development in the 21^st century (SD 21) project summary for policymakers. New York, NY: United Nations.

47.

Wetherly

(2005). Marxism and the state: An analytical approach. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

48.

Wiggins

(1991). Needs, values, truth: Essays in the philosophy of value. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

49.

Wiggins

(1998). What is the force of the claim that one needs somethinh? In Brock

(Ed.), Necessary goods: our responsibilities to meet others’ needs (pp. 33–55). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield publishers.

50.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). A report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.