Mahbub ul Haq’s sustainable human development (SHD) paradigm and Amartya Sen’s capability approach (CA) are both inclusive views inasmuch as they are articulated in such a way as to be compatible with certain other views. The CA is one of a range of perspectives compatible with the SHD. There is a tension between an ‘exclusive’ reading of the CA (which suggests that capability and functioning should be the only objects of informational focus) and the inclusion of ‘income’ as a ‘choice’ in the SHD. Attempts have been made to defuse the tension and to merge the two views into one ‘human development and capability approach’. There are risks that, in such a merger, (a) the SHD becomes associated with a specific perspective that is, arguably, hard to ‘operationalize’ and (b) the SHD can no longer ground coalitions, or consensus about indicators of progress across views as diverse as the CA and utilitarian perspectives focusing on the quality of human lives. While ‘inclusive’ interpretations of the CA can minimize the first risk, the capacity to ground coalitions and consensus is central to the inclusiveness of Haq’s SHD and to his legacy, and this chapter argue in its defence.

This chapter focuses on the debates about development, human rights, and ‘basic needs’ that defined much of the push to craft a decolonized international law during the late 1970s and early 1980s. In particular, it considers the emergence of the international right to development, and the relation between international human rights and poverty-reduction strategies like the ‘basic needs’ approach in New International Economic Order-related discussions, against the background of the rise of neoliberalism and organized human rights movements during the 1970s and early 1980s. It does so partly through a close reading of the two reports produced by the ‘North-South Commission’ chaired by former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt. Despite its overarching commitment to a renewed form of ‘global Keynesianism’, the Brandt Commission expounded a broadly rights-friendly approach to development that absorbed many of the neoliberal assumptions then on the rise. When US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dismissed the Brandt Commission’s recommendations at the ‘North-South Summit’, held in Cancún in October 1981, the moment signalled the end of the struggle to cultivate an international law of development that would live up to the ideal of an international law of decolonization.

Schema therapy is often characterised by its focus on maladaptive processes, healing and managing the painful and maladaptive aspects of a client’s presentation (e.g. Vulnerable Child, Detached Protector). While this may be accurate to a large extent, Jeff Young, in his seminal book, also outlined the importance of two positive modes that often require development during schema-based treatment: The Healthy Adult mode and the Happy Child mode. This chapter provides updated definitions of the Healthy Adult and Happy Child modes, before describing a therapeutic approach to building and inducing these modes for client well-being and self-regulation.

Schema therapy could have very easily been named as ‘needs therapy’, so central is the concept of core emotional needs to the practice of modern schema therapy. Borrowing from the basic needs concept and theories of attachment that had been well developed in the developmental psychology literature, Young described the following core domains as pivotal to understanding problems that emerge in the developmental period: (1) Secure attachments to others (includes safety, stability, nurturance, and acceptance); (2) Autonomy, competence, and sense of identity; (3) Freedom to express valid needs and emotions; (4) Spontaneity and play; (5) Realistic limits and self-control. Need satisfaction during childhood leads to the development of healthy schemas and related functional affective and behavioural patterns, while early need frustration leads directly to the development of early maladaptive schemas (EMS) and related negative patterns of behaviour and maladaptive coping styles. This chapter describes the central theories and concepts which underpin schema therapy practice including the original set of eighteen schemas, as well as schema modes and the schema mode model.

Our final stop on this particular tour of security referents is the individual human being. In saying this, I do not mean to prejudge debate about exactly what the term ‘human being’ denotes; which attributes of human beings (if any) are essential and which accidental; whether it makes sense to speak of human beings in the abstract, as opposed to (only) in concrete social or cultural contexts; or whether speaking of the individual human being as ‘the’ human security referent is the best – or only – way to make sense of the concept of human security as it has been articulated, operationalized, explored, or criticized by scholars, policy makers, activists, or anyone else who has engaged with it. As we shall see, these are all live issues. I simply mean to say that I will land on positions on all of them. I will, of course, do my best to give satisfactory reasons for those positions as I go along.

This chapter explores the ideological roots of the non-governmental aid. It does so by framing the NGO sector’s attitude to poverty in terms of a worldview that developed in the late nineteenth century – rooted in the concepts of universalism, rational authority, progress and world citizenship. The core narrative element of this chapter focuses on the influence of ‘basic needs’, the highly influential model of rural development adopted by the World Bank in the 1970s, that facilitated the sector’s integration into the international development and emergency relief industries over the following decade. Basic needs was in many ways the perfect catalyst for NGOs. Its focus on ‘absolute poverty’ and on village-level interventions in health, education and economic development – precisely the areas where NGOs operated – transformed the territory of intervention in the Third World. But its influence can only be fully understood by reading the sector’s rapid integration into the development industry in terms of the ideological convergence that underpinned that process. This helps to explain why those organisations and their supporters were simultaneously committed to development and highly critical of the inequalities that underpinned global poverty; their criticisms were born from a genuine belief in those values, and in the need for reform, rather than in the desire for their replacement.

This chapter explores the ideological roots of the non-governmental aid. It does so by framing the NGO sector’s attitude to poverty in terms of a worldview that developed in the late nineteenth century – rooted in the concepts of universalism, rational authority, progress and world citizenship. The core narrative element of this chapter focuses on the influence of ‘basic needs’, the highly influential model of rural development adopted by the World Bank in the 1970s, that facilitated the sector’s integration into the international development and emergency relief industries over the following decade. Basic needs was in many ways the perfect catalyst for NGOs. Its focus on ‘absolute poverty’ and on village-level interventions in health, education and economic development – precisely the areas where NGOs operated – transformed the territory of intervention in the Third World. But its influence can only be fully understood by reading the sector’s rapid integration into the development industry in terms of the ideological convergence that underpinned that process. This helps to explain why those organisations and their supporters were simultaneously committed to development and highly critical of the inequalities that underpinned global poverty; their criticisms were born from a genuine belief in those values, and in the need for reform, rather than in the desire for their replacement.

We can speak of human security analysis as a facet of human development analysis. In practice, it has sometimes become a broader version, a distillation of the full perspective underlying the United Nations, not only that of its development wing. The perspective emphasizes a global scale and the species level as well as the individual level. It combines a stress on reasoned human freedoms, from capability theory; commitment to human dignity, from human rights; concern with prioritizing, from basic needs theory and economics; dialogue with national security and military agencies; and focus on the vulnerabilities of ordinary people in an interconnected globe. The concept of ‘insecurity’ helps bring out essential subjective dimensions, of fear, emotions and perceptions, and a richer picture of human beings than only capability and reasoned choice. The chapter presents an overview of uses of human security thinking in explorations of ‘being human’ in various fields. Section 2 looks at interpretations of the concept; Section 3 examines the relation to human development and capabilities thinking; Section 4 looks at diverse ways of framing and doing analyses; Section 5 indicates lines of application, including on violent conflict, crime and ‘citizen security’, on psychological insecurity, and on environmental change and more.