El Parque Agrícola en el Plan General de Ordenación Urbana de Sabadell de 1993

Some scholars believe that the practical application of the capability approach is difficult (Sugden 1993 and Srinivasan 1994 quoted in Comim 2001:2), but Sen argues that “the approach must nevertheless be practical in the sense of being usable for assessments of the living standard” (Sen 1987:20). The implications of the approach are not only of theoretical interest to scholars but also have some practical importance in the real world of work (Sen quoted in Comim 2001:2). This is because “the capability approach replaces the traditional concern with either resources or utilities (in theory) or income (in empirical analysis and applied studies) by a more intrinsic concern with what people manage to do and be” (Robeyns 2003:35). The approach, therefore, can be applied to the analysis of different phenomenasuch as university education or standards of living.

43 The capability approach can be seen as a normative framework for assessing alternative policies or states of affairs or options – whether in welfare economics or development. It can be applied in the evaluation of individual wellbeing and social arrangements, the design of policies and proposals about social change in society and in justice (Robeyns 2003:5; Alkire 2006:2; Comim 2001:4). Depending on the user’s preference, the capability approach may not be seen as a substantive theory but rather a normative framework (Comim 2001:4; Alkire 2002: 28-30; Robeyns 2003:8) or one may look at it as “clearly a theory within the liberal school of thought in political philosophy” (Robeyns quoted in Gasper 2006:12). In either case, Comim and Robeyns agree that the capability approach, whether a theory or simply a framework, is applicable in the assessment of social phenomena. Therefore, we apply it in the current study.

In applying the capability approach, the valuation exercise required by the approach encompasses the “identification and weighting of valuable things that people are able to be or to do” (Comim 2001:4). This flexibility allows the capability approach to be adjustable to different situations. On the possible source of data, while applying or using the capability approach, Sen advises the use of non-market observations of personal statusas the main focus. Sen (1992:52) clarifies:

In fact the capability set is not directly observable, and has to be constructed on the basis of presumptions (just as the ‘budget set’ in consumer analysis is also so constructed on the basis of data regarding income, prices and the presumed possibilities of exchange). Thus, in practice, one might have to settle often enough for relating wellbeing to the achieved – and observed – functionings, rather than trying to bring in the capability set (when the presumptive basis of such a construction would be empirically dubious).

Hence, the capability approach can be used at different levels of sophistication. The extent of application depends on the practical considerations regarding what data we can access and what we cannot. Whereas the capability approach can take stock of the “full text of freedom to choose between functioning bundles,...limits of practicality may often force analysis to be confined to examining the achieved functioning bundle only” (Sen 1992:3). Moreover, some capabilities are harder to measure than others, and attempts at harmonising them may sometimes be of little help in the analysis (Sen 1999a: 81). This

44 is partly why the capability approach as propounded by Sen does not have a prescribed list of functionings that analysts must use, hence “every evaluative exercise using the capability framework will need to determine a given set of functionings” (Robeyns 2003:35). However, selecting functionings is an “act of reasoning” (Nussbaum quoted in Robeyns 2003:36). This flexibility allows theoretical and practical users of the capability approach to construct capability lists of their choice provided there are data and reasonable measures established and justified. This study equally uses this flexibility to select suitable university education capabilities that are pointed out in ChaptersOne, Four and Nine (see also 1.4, and Figure 4.1).

Likewise, Grasso (2002:3) agrees that the operationalisation of the capability approach is dependent upon the nature of the exercise, data constraints and the aims of the analyst. The capability approach cannot be rigidly formulated because it is deliberately propounded as an open and flexible framework. In practice, as Sen (1992:117) explains “the reference unit of the capability approach is the individual, functioning and capabilities being in fact properties of individuals”, although Sen refers to regional, national and sub-national, or group data when examining poverty in India and sub- Saharan Africa (Sen 1999b:99-104). Therefore, while the focal point of analysis remains the individual, and since the interest in group is only derivative, we can still shift to aggregate data to interpret an issue. However, in group analysis the “aggregate well- beingfor a given cohort of people will then be regarded to be the average well-beingof the cohort” (Dasgupta quoted in Grasso 2002:5). This is because the standard of living in a society is deduced to be the expected living standard of someone who has equal chances of finding themselves in the position of each member of society. For example, some scholars, such as Stewart (2005:185-189) and Ibrahim (2006: 403-410), demonstrate how capabilities can be understood from the perspective of groups or collectives. This flexibility allows wide applicability of the capability approach.

The applicability of the capability approach has also been demonstrated in many studies. Comim (2001:14) mentions areas where the capability approach has been used. Such areas include multivariate studies, empirical studies, case-study applications, theoretical

45 applications and methodological applications. Indeed, as Alkire (2006:2) observes, the approach can be and “will be applied differently depending on the place and situation, the level of analysis, the information available, and the kind of decision involved”. For instance, Unterhalter (2003) used the capability approach to analyse adult education and gender inequality and generated logical conclusions from her analyses. These analyses were in line with what Sen explains about the operationalisation of the capability approach, that is, it can have a practical application using whatever information available to get started in a given analysis. This is because the approach is “context-dependent logic” and, therefore, can be applied in different disciplines (Sen quoted in Comim 2001:14). Thisclarification confirmsthe wide applicability of the approach in the evaluation of people’s wellbeing. To this end, the current study, through a variety of methods, uses the capability approach in analysingthe role of public university education in expanding higher education among students.

Methods and procedures under the capability approach

In the operationalisation of the capability approach a number of methods and procedures may be used to determine the capabilities applicable to particular areas of study. For example, Alkire assessed the different methods that can be used to analyse poverty and concluded that the “methods of identifying capabilities or dimensions of poverty are surprisingly straightforward” and that most researchers tend to use five methods either in isolation or combination (Alkire 2006: 7-8). The methods are:

Existing data or convention: to select dimensions or capabilities are selected mainly because of their convenience or convention that is taken to be authoritative, or because these are the only data available that have the required characteristics.

Assumptions: to select dimensions based on implicit or explicit assumptions about what people do value or should value…

Public ‘consensus’ – to select dimensions that relate to a list that has achieved a degree of legitimacy due to public consensus.

Ongoing deliberative participatory processes– to select dimensions on the basis of ongoing purposive participatory exercises that periodically elicit the values and perspectives of stakeholders.

Empirical evidence regarding people’s values - to select dimensions on the basis of expert analyses of people’s values based on empirical data on values, or data on consumer preferences and behaviours, or studies of which values are most conducive to mental health or social benefit (Alkire 2006:8).

46 Alkire further observed that these processes can overlap and can often be used in tandem, for example a researcher handling an internationally agreed upon standard such as hours of work might choose to “use participatory approaches to set specific priorities, and then choose indicators drawing on the existing data” (Alkire 2006:8). Likewise, from a list of priorities a decision can be made on which items to include and which ones to exclude in the eventual analysis. This explicit list of procedures has the advantage of enabling technical persons of different disciplines, for instance education and health to articulate their methods in order to instigate both public and academic discussion and learning.

On the other hand, Robeyns (2003:41-45) recommends that researchers use four procedures when identifying the relevant capabilities in a given subject area. The capabilities or domains are: Explicit formulation: It entailsdrawing up a list of capabilities explicitly, discussing it and defending it. This should focus on explaining what that something people value is and what reasons they have for their valuing it. Methodological justification:It involves clarifying and defending the method that has generated the list. Two stage process: ideal-feasible: It involves drawing up a list in at least two stages that facilitate “empirical application” or “implementable policy proposals”. Each stage generates a list at a different level, ranging from “ideal theory to more pragmatic lists”. Only from the second stage onwards will constraints and limitations related to the measurement design and data collections be taken into account. Exhaustion and non-reduction: In this case the listing of capabilities covers all elements that are important without leaving out any relevant dimension.In a nutshell, as Robeyns (2003:37) affirms, the applications of the capability approach can vary across areas of concern such as the academic, activist, or policy-oriented, theoretical or empirical, and the approach can be applied to a global or local context.

In addition, when deciding which capabilities are most important and which assessment criteria to use, some of the alternatives available for use arethe UNDP criteriaof: “first, they must be universally valued by people across the world; and second, they must be

47 basic meaning their lack would foreclose many other capabilities” (Fukudar-Parr 2003: 306). The ‘basic’ criteria of UNDP in this context imply thefoundational in a given context upon which analysis can be based. In the current study, the education and general capabilities chosen for analysis are both universally appealing and are foundational in nature in that their lack poses a big disadvantage to a university graduate (see also Figure 4.1).

In spite of the methodological proposals for operationalising the capability approach, some scholars, such as Nussbaum (2000:70) and Alkire (2002: 28-30), observe that the approach does not provide prescriptions for an analysis but only sets out a general framework and in fact it is not a substantive theory. Others have noted that Sen does not propose a list of relevant functionings, or at least specify how the selection of capabilities should be made (Roemer 1996; and Sugden 1993 quoted in Robeyns 2003:36). Moreover, the approach tends to be limited throughfocusing more on individual capabilities and less on groups or collective capabilities (Stewart 2005: 185); yet both are important. In fact, Stewart demonstrates how the capability approach can be applied at group or collective level.

Given that the capability approach has been developed piecemeal by the authorswho, over the years, have made adjustments toit, to understand it reasonably well one needs to comb through a series of works of Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum, Sabine Alkire, Ingrid Robeyns, Des Gasper and others. No wonder, as Alkire (2005: 123) observes, some people have come to criticise the capability approach on the grounds that it does not address certain issues “when Sen has actually developed clear responses to their very questions in other writings”. The cause ofsuch criticisms of the capability approach could be due to bits and pieces of it spread in works bydifferent scholars.