When «governing based on needs» Leads to a Planned Economy

Taking basic needs seriously does not necessarily mean entrusting the government with the task of managing them. The challenge is to ensure access to essential goods without depriving individuals of control over their own lives.

«Governing by needs» is a phrase that comes up regularly on the left in critiques of the market and capitalist order. It can simply mean that institutions should be evaluated based on their ability to enable individuals to find housing, obtain food, or receive medical care. In this sense, the idea seems appealing and well-intentioned.

But the term can also refer to a more ambitious project: replacing the information and coordination mechanism provided by prices with a political definition of priority needs, and then directly organizing the production and distribution of goods. Yet recognizing the fundamental nature of a need does not in itself determine the best way to satisfy it. Behind this noble intention lurks the specter of administrative implementation, which poses significant problems.

From Needs to Institutions

A need is distinct from a mere desire: it refers to a condition necessary for a life that is sufficiently secure, self-reliant, and socially integrated. We need shelter, security, and access to basic resources, but not luxury goods like Lamborghinis.

Not all needs are biological. Having an address or digital access has thus become a practical requirement for finding a job, completing administrative procedures, or exercising certain rights. Needs therefore depend in part on our institutions and do not constitute an objective list that policymakers could simply implement.

Above all, a single need can be met through different means. Take housing, for example. It can be provided through private construction, public housing, or cooperatives. Moving from the identification of needs to the institutional response they require therefore involves additional empirical and normative choices. Recognizing that a need is fundamental is not enough to determine the best way to meet it. And contrary to the prevailing intuition, identifying a fundamental need does not does not necessarily require a government initiative.

What the Market Can Do

The criticism that the market responds only to solvent demand is valid. It may fail to meet the needs of those who cannot pay. This observation can justify redistribution, guarantees of access, or public services—which is the case in all developed countries.

Nevertheless, the market is no stranger to meeting needs. Its primary strength is epistemic. It stems from its ability to aggregate a body of dispersed knowledge. As the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek demonstrated, relevant information is scattered among a multitude of actors. In other words, no single actor possesses all the knowledge necessary to organize production. Prices signal scarcity and opportunity costs, while competition fosters adaptation, innovation, and a diversity of solutions.

This does not necessarily mean that the market alone can meet all needs. It works best when people can compare options, find alternatives, and switch providers. It works significantly less well when they are locked in, under time pressure, poorly informed, or faced with a monopoly.

But defining a need does not eliminate scarcity. We must still decide how to allocate limited resources. Completely doing away with the market therefore amounts to depriving ourselves of information—essential information—and organizing this allocation blindly. Price controls illustrate this point: while intended to protect access to essential goods, they can lead to underproduction of those goods due to a lack of sufficient incentives for production. 

The Risks of a Government Driven by Needs

Every society requires a certain degree of planning. The construction of public infrastructure, for example, can be organized based on demographic projections. The difficulty arises when the political definition of needs becomes the general principle of social coordination. It then becomes necessary to decide who defines, prioritizes, and manages those needs. We move from a need for planning limited to certain areas to general economic planning.

Eliminating price rationing seems reasonable for essential goods, but it does not eliminate rationing altogether. Rationing simply takes other forms: administrative criteria, paperwork, waiting lines, or discretionary decisions.

These planning mechanisms are neither neutral nor necessarily more equitable than market prices, as they introduce a whole series of new choices in how individual situations are handled: who receives assistance, who qualifies for an exemption, who contributes to its funding, and to what extent. Administrative complexity also favors those who have the knowledge and time needed to navigate the system. These difficulties are rarely taken into account by advocates of needs-based government.  They tend to emphasize market failures while overlooking those of public policy. Yet while markets encounter difficulties in certain cases, the government also has its own set of problems.

The Example of Housing

Housing is a basic need, but the crisis in high-demand areas—typically large cities with high demand—is not merely a matter of distribution. It stems from land issues, construction costs, urban planning, and local vetoes.

High prices thus signal actual scarcity, often perpetuated by policy decisions. A city that prevents densification protects existing homeowners and residents, while low-income households and newcomers bear the brunt of the shortage. If supply remains constrained, rent control or needs-based assistance do not solve the problem: they may simply shift the rationing to waiting lists, tenant screening, or price increases.

A fair policy must therefore address both the supply of housing and the protection of vulnerable populations—that is, it must support new construction and densification while also developing, when necessary, public or cooperative housing. Here, the need dictates the goal—stable and affordable housing—without imposing a single institutional approach.

Meeting needs without controlling people's lives

It is therefore better to ensure that needs are met than to govern directly based on those needs. This requires a productive and innovative economy, as well as public safeguards to ensure that access to essential goods does not depend solely on income, but on institutions that can be tailored to each type of good.

A consistent liberal position does not treat the market as sacrosanct. It acknowledges that the market can sometimes be circumvented—while recognizing the cost of such interventions. Nevertheless, it refuses to conclude from the moral importance of a good that its production and allocation must be left to a centralized administration.

The primary goal is to ensure the material conditions that enable individuals with diverse aspirations to take control of their own lives. The aim is to avoid delegating the definition and management of needs to a third party, which risks subjecting them to arbitrary decisions.

Nathanaël Colin-Jaeger is an associate professor of politics, philosophy, and economics at the Catholic University of Lille.

You have just read an open-access article published in our print edition (Le Regard Libre No. 130). Debates, analyses, cultural news: subscribe to support us and get access to all our content!