Forget the solutions; scarcity forces us to make choices

Scarcity isn’t going away. There will only be more and new forms of scarcity, argues Jan Willem van de Groep in this issue of Zichtlijnen. “So we must stop fighting the symptoms in the hope that the old world will return.” We must make choices, even if they are painful.

The Netherlands talks about shortages as if they were a line at the checkout: just wait a bit, and things will get moving again on their own. 

Not enough housing? Build more.
Not enough network capacity? Lay some cables.
Not enough nitrogen allowance? Offset it.
Not enough drinking water? Pump it up.
Not enough skilled workers? Train them.
Not enough money? Lower quality. 

It’s an understandable reflex. But it’s also a reflex that blinds us to the reality we now live in. Shortages are no longer temporary disruptions; they remain a structural part of a complex society. We’ve passed the point where everything can be solved within the existing system. 

So the question is no longer: How do we solve this? But increasingly: Where do we actually want to allocate our scarce capacity? That is not a technical question, but primarily a political one. 

As long as we frame scarcity as a solvable problem, we don’t have to make those choices explicitly. Then let’s let chance, position, or whoever knows how to best manipulate the system determine the outcome. That may seem neutral, but it is in fact blind allocation. It is based not on order, but on chance. 

We see this tension, for example, with nitrogen, water, and space. Do we choose a data center or a residential neighborhood? Intensive agriculture or nature restoration? Additional industrial land or water storage? The problem lies not only in the shortage itself, but above all in the lack of explicit prioritization. 

In the construction industry, too, we perpetuate that illusion. We call for more skilled workers, while clinging to processes that are labor-intensive, project-based, and error-prone. Industrialization, standardization, and prefabrication aren’t just innovations for show—they’re necessary steps toward reducing our dependence on a shrinking labor market and ever-narrowing margins. 

Grid congestion illustrates just how ambiguous this can be. Setting societal priorities may be necessary when the grid is at capacity, but it should not become an excuse to leave the rules of the existing system untouched. Are there highly effective solutions that, unfortunately, do not fit within the existing system? 

When it comes to nitrogen, that question may soon become even more pressing. Even if we manage to break through part of the impasse, that won’t automatically create room for everything. That’s when the real choice begins: do we use the newly available space to perpetuate old patterns, or to accelerate progress on societal challenges? Housing construction, nature restoration, agricultural transition, infrastructure, and industry will not all be able to claim the same resources at the same time. 

And that is what managing scarcity is all about: making choices explicit, consciously allocating capacity, and designing systems that can handle limits, rather than being caught off guard by them. 

The real question for the coming years is therefore not: Will we just barely get a permit for this project? The real question is: Are we building a system that can withstand the next shortage? Because that next limit is coming. We know that for sure by now. 

So we must stop fighting the symptoms in the hope that the old world will return. Scarcity is no longer a temporary problem that we can solve with technology. It is a permanent condition that demands direction. Not choosing is also a choice. Only, that is usually the choice of stagnation, arbitrariness, and ultimately, the lock on the door.