In Catholic Social Teaching, the concept of Integral Human Development (IHD) was first introduced in the 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio[1]. Pope Paul VI insisted that development cannot be limited to mere economic growth. In order to be authentic, it must be complete, integral. In other words, it has to promote the good of every person and of the whole person[2].

As used in the context of IHD, the term “integral” or “well-rounded” derives from Jacques Maritain’s writings on “integral humanism”[3], a humanism open to the transcendental dimension and for which the realm of human affairs and the spiritual realm are autonomous without being separated, each influencing the other[4].

The philosophical underpinnings of integral human development are also to be found in the work of Louis-Joseph Lebret, a French economist, social activist and Dominican priest. Lebret’s decades of presence among grass roots communities in Latin America, made him realize that the traditional economic model that focuses only on wealth accumulation was inadequate to address human needs. As a result, Lebret introduced the concept of a human-centred economy which fosters a kind of development which offers a fully human life to the greatest number of people[5]. According to this perspective, progress entails much more than a focus on economic growth and a society truly develops whenever human beings are enabled to “be more” rather than “having more”.

Lebret’s understanding of a fully human life was grounded in human dignity which is both the means and the end of this process of development. Both IHD and contemporary development ethicists embrace a human-centred development, in which human beings are much more than consumers or human capital in an economic system [6]. The purpose of global development, like the purpose of a good domestic national policy, should therefore be that of enabling people to live full and creative lives, developing their potential and fashioning a meaningful existence worthy of our inalienable human dignity[7].

The philosophical underpinnings of IHD also hold that truly authentic development requires not only that the poor be relieved of poverty but also that every person – rich or poor – stands together with others in relationship of solidarity which is not merely a “feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress,” but a “firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good, that is to say the good of all and each individual”[8].

These relationships of solidarity, grounded in a mutual recognition of human dignity, enrich all who participate regardless of their initial wealth. In this way, both poor and the rich are beneficiaries of authentic development in a humanising process of standing in relationships of solidarity. In this respect, inequalities of wealth are mere symptoms of the problem. In the words of Paul VI, if the symptoms are addressed without addressing the cause, other damaging symptoms will emerge: “It is not just a question of fighting wretched conditions, though this is an urgent and necessary task. It involves building a human community where men can live truly human lives” (Pope Paul VI, 1967, 47).

Authentic Integral Human Development is therefore a long-term, dynamic process involving a variety of actors which should lead to the transformation of the way that societies live and the structure of relationships. In practical terms, adopting an IHD framework when dealing with social justice leads us to ask: To what extent are people achieving Integral Human Development in their lives? What policies, institutions and values support or constrain people’s ability to earn a decent living and lead full and productive lives, marked by peace, dignity and social justice?

The degree of freedom a person has not to reproduce, through her actions, what CST calls “structures of sin” [9] needs also to be considered. A social consequence of individual sins, these “structures”, when unchallenged, spread and grow stronger, with the potential to significantly condition human conduct and lead others to do evil. In this context, the concept of “structures of living together” as originally developed by Paul Ricoeur and applied to development ethics by Deneulin can also be helpful[10]. In some societies the “structures of living together” caused by unequal distribution of power and wealth are oppressive, severely restricting workers’ agency to achieve the goals they value and causing a resigned acceptance of the status quo which in turn helps perpetuate the oppressive structures. On the other hand, policies that encourage democratic development, uphold the rule of law, promote good governance, empower weaker groups to negotiate solutions with more powerful ones and endorse a more equitable distribution of power and resources would bring about positive change in “structures of living together”.

Although IHD cannot be mandated, institutions should be structured in a way that is most likely to promote the development of every person and the whole person, in a manner which is consistent with human dignity. In fact, an IHD approach postulates that a primary cause of underdevelopment is marginalization from the social bases of wealth, such as exclusion from opportunities for education, political power, and economic access[11]. As a result, adopting an IHD perspective in social analysis needs to include an evaluation of the systems and structures that undermine the conditions for people to flourish as human beings.

Mark Cachia

[1] Pope Paul VI (1967). Populorum Progressio.

[2] “The truth of development consists in its completeness: if it does not involve the whole man and every man, it is not true development” (Pope Benedict VI, 2009, Caritas in Veritate, 18).

[3] Maritain, J. (1968). Integral Humanism. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

[4] Catta, G. (2015). ‘God for Us’ in the Challenge of Integral Human Development: Theology in Post–Vatican II Catholic Social Teaching. [PhD dissertation, Boston College].

[5] Lebret, L. J. (1955). Human Ascent. First Publishers Association.

[6] Keleher, L. (2019). Integral human development: Development of every person and of the whole person. In: J. Drydyk, L. Keleher (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics. (pp. 29-34). Routledge.

[7] Nussbaum, M.C. (2011). Creating Capabilities. Harvard University Press.

[8] Pope John Paul II (1987). Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 38.

[9] Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] (1997), para. 1869.

[10] “Structures of living together can be defined as structures which belong to a particular historical community, which provide the conditions for individual lives to flourish, and which are irreducible to interpersonal relations and yet bound up with these.”  Deneulin, S. (2008). Beyond Individual Freedom and Agency: Structures of Living Together in Sen’s Capability Approach to Development. In S. Alkire, F. Comim, & M. Qizilbash (Eds.), The Capability Approach: Concepts, Measures and Application. (p. 110). Cambridge University Press. 

[11] Schulz, J. (2016). The capabilities approach and Catholic social teaching: An engagement. Journal of Global Ethics, 12(1), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2016.1138236