The Limits of a Needs Analysis

The Limits of a Needs Analysis ,

A focus on an analysis of the parties' needs and an attempt to

meet those needs has its own limitations. To the extent that the

problem-solving model is based on utilitarian philosophical or

economic justifications, the most powerful and trenchant criticisms

can be found in the literature which criticizes utilitarian justifications

for human endeavor. In a sense there are two

criticisms. The first, an economic claim, states that there is yet no

proof that maximizing joint gain is more efficient either for the

parties or for the larger sphere in which transactions occur.329

This may be true, but we also can't say that adversarial negotiations

have been either more efficient or more wealth-creating.

The second, a moral claim, is that trying to satisfy the parties'

needs, like maximizing happiness or pleasure,330 is not a morally

correct measure of our actions.33' The legal analog of this critique

would be that meeting parties' needs is not much different from

the hired gun conception of the adversarialThe second, a moral claim, is that trying to satisfy the parties'

needs, like maximizing happiness or pleasure,330 is not a morally

correct measure of our actions.33' The legal analog of this critique

would be that meeting parties' needs is not much different from

the hired gun conception of the adversarial model; lawyers are

merely conduits of their clients' needs. The only differences between

problem solvers and adversarial negotiators are that problem

solvers attempt to meet two sets of needs, and that problem

solvers act on stated, rather than "presumed" needs. As discussed

more fully above, my response to these objections, like John Stuart

Mill's, is that notions of morality, justness, and rightness are

part of the pleasure or happiness we seek and should be part of

327. Cooperative games in game theory, those where coordination and joint