A "hierarchy of needs" for nations

In 1943, the psychologist Abraham Maslow proposed a "Hierarchy of Needs", in the context of "human motivation".

This approach posited that there were fundamental physiological needs (such as food, water, and shelter) which needed to be met first, after which other needs (described as "safety", then "love / belonging" in the above-referenced Wikipedia article) which must be met, before one can move on to meeting one's need for self esteem, and then the final step of being "self actualising" - to, to pinch a phrase, be all one can be.

It's a concept that has become quite popular, and I consider it has consider merit, although I think the order above physiological and safety needs may vary - and Maslow apparently also understood the variation, as did others, some of whom also considered changes were needed to the hierarchy. As an example, Paul K Chappell writes about variations to the Hierarchy of Needs in "The Cosmic Ocean" (pp. 376 - 386; Prospecta Press, Westport, ISBN 978-1-63226-009-3, e-book ISBN 978-1-63226-010-3, Amazon [e-book] ), eventually concluding that physical and spiritual (purpose and meaning) needs exist in parallel.

I consider that, for humans, the principle that some needs are relatively fundamental, and that others are generally met after those more basic needs have been met, is reasonably correct. There are variations to the order, and the variations depend not only on the individual, but also where the individual is at in their life, so it is a kaleidoscope of complex, changing, and interconnected aspects.

I am also going to propose that nations also have a kaleidoscope of needs - but that those aren't the "needs" set out by legal expectations around sovereignty, nor the pronouncements of political elites, both of which have been overthrown by war (i.e., invasions) and/or revolution.

No, I'm going to approach this from the point of view of the nation being, firstly and foremost, a set of people, with location and other matters (some being those political matters I alluded to) in common, including a sense of identity.

My apologies for being brief on this. As always, my time and energy are limited (and our cat is demonstrating the cat hierarchy of his need for pats outweighs everything else ☺ ).

So . . . what is the most basic need?

I'm going to suggest that it is the same as for individuals: basic physical needs, with a fair bit of overlap.

If your citizens don't have adequate food, water, shelter, etc, there is a good chance they will rebel (whether successfully or not is irrelevant for this exercise) or they will be unable to create an economy that will enable the nation to exist in any reasonably independent way - and they certainly would be neither inclined nor probably capable of physically defending the borders of said nation, so one of the first legal definitions of a nation (able to defend its borders - which is a bit of a moot definition in the era of superpowers) also won't be met.

This also touches on the issue of human rights, as that field points out that the various generations of rights (first generation being civil and political rights, then we get into social rights, including environmental, cultural, and aspirational) are interconnected: you cannot have a properly functioning economy without freedom (otherwise it is more or less despotic to some degree, with people being serf-like to some extent).

In my opinion, basic forms of social security rightfully belong to this level, although it will need an economy and functioning governance systems to provide it. Nevertheless, being able to ensure people do not starve to death on the streets is a key part of this

For the next level, I'm going to propose education and access to accurate information.

Education and literacy are crucial to lifting people out of poverty, and here, in the industrialised West, we have become so used to nearly ubiquitous literacy that we taken it for granted, much as a fish takes water for granted. Yet it is so vital, it must be acknowledged.

I also include numeracy in this, and a free and independent media, as access to trustworthy information about the government and what is happening is vital to enable people to live their lives as well as they can, and for creating that sense of identity I referred to above (the link I gave is worth reading: it emphasises that sense of identity and, perhaps strangely, law abiding behaviour, as being crucial in being a citizen).

Third: security - of borders (in the sense of the definition of sovereignty - being able to defend one's borders against aggressors, not in the twisted Home Affairs Minister  Dutton sense of unfair treatment of asylum seekers), against crime (so an effective police force and criminal justice system, free of corruption and bias, and independent of rulers, are needed), against corruption of elites and similar iniquities (including discrimination), and against lifestyle vicissitudes such as unemployment and health problems, including the various forms of disability. Without this set of matters being met, there will be no economy (corruption kills that off - just look at what happened in Uganda under Idi Amin, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, and in the DR Congo under a succession of people), let alone a defence against invasion. Furthermore, without the more advanced form of social security and justice I am referring to (including no-fault divorce, and bans against discrimination),this nation would simply have the superficial and unstable façade of stability that many western nations had in the 1950s, where problems were bottled up and hidden behind front doors, leaving them free to do untold damage to the nation and its peoples.

No, security and at least basic fairness and equity are essential at this level.

Fourth comes freedom (subject to some limits to allow the nation to function as a nation), democracy (see also here), and governance, which goes hand in hand with have a sense of value (and perhaps equality?) as a citizen. There is a lot more I will write on this in coming months as I finish and review some of the books I am currently reading (particularly on political philosophy), so all I will write for now is that trying to create a stable democracy in a situation of instability (e.g., being invaded by another nation) or widespread problems (such as various forms of oppression) can be difficult. (Moving to democracy is often a cure for such oppression, however, as demonstrated in South Africa at the end of apartheid [see also here].)

Fifth is the "infrastructure of the nation". Whilst some of this is covered by governance (which provides the infrastructure of democracy) and freedom (for which the courts and free press are the infrastructure), there is more infrastructure to be considered for nation building. This used to be physical (roads and railways, and, a few centuries ago, market places), but now also includes electronic infrastructure (the Internet is now crucial), and economic matters. I sum this item up as: "the ability to give our children a better life than ours". 

Next, we come to the equivalent of the individual's notion of "self esteem", or what Mr Chappell refers to as meaning and purpose. For this article, I am going to propose that this is beneficial impact on other nations, which may impart a sense of what I would hope people view as nobleness, but suspect they will term "greatness" (SIGH).

The qualification "beneficial" is vital, as many wars have been fought with other nations to distract a nation's people from internal problems, and other wars of conquest are for an unhealthy version of "greatness" that hides internal problems (including an underperforming economy).

This level would include humanitarian aid to other nations, including, in particular, capacity building, but such aid is often necessary at the level of ensuring one's own security - stop a nation "failing", and you may well prevent a major need for humanitarian aid; help ensure fairness and maybe even democracy, and you may prevent a refugee problem (such as those who fled from behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War), and constructively provide a secure and fair form of governance, and you may prevent a revolution (like that of Iran in 1979) that exports violence, possibly even to your shores.

Finally, is there an equivalent for nations of what self actualisation is for the individual?

I would suggest that, yes, there is, and it is having a long lasting and  beneficial impact on the community of nations - something like having a key role in establishing something like democracy (the proto-democracies of Mesopotamia, India, and Sparta, and then Athens), or the United Nations (I am thinking of the US under FDR for this one), or something similar (and I cannot think of a third example . . . ).

OK, so if I put that into a diagram, as is done for Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the end result is as follows:

I'm already unhappy with quite a few aspects of this (I would like to write more about legitimacy and its loss through failure of R2P, for instance), but it will do for a start. I suspect I could eventually expand this into a small book - if I get the time and energy ☺