Sesión 2 Conociendo el contexto

In the early 1980s Amartya Sen developed the capability approach as an alternative to the mainstream economic growth approach to development (Sen, 1985). According to Sen, poverty is defined as a deprivation of capabilities (1980, 1985) and later as a lack of freedom (1999a). He asserted that human capabilities and their maximisation were both instrumental and intrinsic values of development, with freedom being its proxy and not income (Ibid.). Sen also valued commodities (and income) and economic growth,

534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019

Processed on: 5-12-2019 PDF page: 53PDF page: 53PDF page: 53PDF page: 53

53

however as means to development and instruments for enhancing freedoms and not as an end in itself. He explained that development should not just be judged by aggregated income or economic growth, technical progress and industrialisation, but also and above all by the expansion of human freedoms (Ibid.; Drèze & Sen, 2002).

The focus of the capability approach is thus on people’s capabilities (freedom to achieve) and functionings (people’s beings and doings), this means that people should have the freedom to be and to do what they wish and to be able to get rid of barriers that are in the way of the (quality of) life they want to have and value (Sen, 1987, 1993, 1999b). When people are free to be and do, they can decide the functionings that are valuable for them and that they wish to pursue. Thus, human agency is central in assessing people’s capabilities and freedoms (Sen, 1985; Alkire & Deunelin, 2002). Human agency, however, does not stand in isolation; whether people are able to convert e.g. their commodities to their benefit is influenced by conversion factors. Sen identified three such conversion factors: personal (IQ, psychical condition, sex etc.), social (cultural norms/values, gender, power relations, policies and so forth) and environmental (for example climate and infrastructure) (Sen, 1999a; Alkire & Deunelin, 2002). People are not isolated from their environments and are dependent on their relationships with other people and institutions (Drèze & Sen, 2002).

What, then, does all this mean for the way poverty is defined and understood? Sen stated that there are basic capabilities that provide the freedom to be able to do those things that are necessary for people’s survival and which allow them to climb out of poverty. These capabilities could act as a cut-off point to assess poverty (Sen, 1987, 1993). Martha Nussbaum collaborated with Amartya Sen in an attempt to operationalise capabilities. She stated that basic capabilities are innate (e.g. being able to see) and allow people to develop more advanced capabilities (Nussbaum, 2001). Nussbaum has done much to develop her work on capabilities into a theory. She viewed the capability approach from a (political) philosophy perspective and developed a universal list of capabilities that all governments in her opinion should underwrite. Nussbaum identified the following central human capabilities: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination and thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play and control over one’s environment (Nussbaum, 2001, pp. 78-80; 2002; 2003). Although, according to Nussbaum, all of these capabilities weigh equally, she gives special significance to practical reason and affiliation, as these organise and cover the other capabilities (Nussbaum, 2001; Gough, 2003) and she identifies bodily integrity as crucial

534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019

Processed on: 5-12-2019 PDF page: 54PDF page: 54PDF page: 54PDF page: 54

54

(Nussbaum, 2001; Gough, 2003). Sen has always pleaded against a ‘fixed’ list of capabilities. According to him, freedom to reason, agency, processes of choice and context are hugely important in selecting capabilities and value given to capabilities may differ from person to person (Sen, 1993). According to Nussbaum, the list of capabilities is universal and general and can be adopted according to the context (Nussbaum, 2001). She expounded on this and presented three arguments in favour of the universalism of capabilities, respectively culture, the “argument from paternalism” and the “argument from the good of diversity” (Ibid., p. 50). Firstly, the critique that universal and general lists would be paternalistic is countered by the argument that there are many cultural systems that are paternalistic. Moreover, allowing people to think freely and make their own choices underwrites a universal value, that of having freedom and choice. Secondly, culture is dynamic and ever changing, people exchange ideas. Lastly, (cultural) diversity is good, as long it does not affect people negatively, and since this is not always the case, universal values can be of importance in protecting people from harmful cultural practices (Nussbaum, 2001; Gough, 2003).

In terms of measuring human development, the capability approach has functioned as an inspiration for the Human Development Index (HDI), which offers a broader concept of human development than e.g. GDP (Ul Haq, 1995, 2003; Sen, 2000). Sen, initially hesitant of an index to measure human development, was persuaded by Ul Haq, who pointed out that there was a need for a measure that could capture human development in one number like the GNP. It would be a measure “of the same level of vulgarity as GNP”,6

however, the advantage of this measure would be that it would include social aspects of human development as well. HDI combines: 1) health; 2) education; and 3) a decent standard of living. The first proxy is represented by life expectancy, the second by literacy and school enrolment, and the third by GDP per capita. Although HDI as a measure went beyond income and included other dimensions of human development, it has been critiqued for lacking spiritual and moral dimensions of poverty (Basu, 2005). Furthermore, HDI has also been critiqued for not paying attention to unequal distribution within a country (UNDP, 1993). According to the United Nations Development Programme, the HDI is not a static measure, it evolves, improves, is open to revision and active participations from those using the measurement is strongly encouraged (Ibid.).

534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019

Processed on: 5-12-2019 PDF page: 55PDF page: 55PDF page: 55PDF page: 55

55

Thus, the capability approach has put human development and development that goes beyond monetary means on the agenda. In Sen’s own words: human development is an “illuminating concept that serves to integrate a variety of concerns about the lives of people and their well-being and freedom” (Sen, 2000, p. 17).

The capability approach influences this research in that it takes a people- centred approach, considers the beings and doings of extreme poor people and views development beyond economic growth.