Using The Approach: Applications

Applications: Framework

A major concern among various experts has been the operationality of Sen’s Capability Approach. Sen has strongly argued that the selection of any set of capabilities for discussion is a value judgment. Subsequently, Sen refrains from developing a list of basic capabilities. He is also reluctant in developing any “procedure for identifying which categories, and which capabilities within categories, should have priority.” As expected, Sen’s critics demand that more direction should be provided as to determine the value of capabilities. (Alkire, 2002). It is in this context that some experts have either provided applications that attempts to address the issues raised by Sen and his critics or an application that attempts to transform the approach to a paradigm.

Basic Human Values – John Finnis

Finnis’ approach tries to identify the “reasons for acting which need no further reason” (Grisez, Boyle, and Finnis, 1987). It does not attempt to identify “basic needs” based on biological or psychological consideration or “basic capabilities” based on political consideration. According to Finnis, these reasons or basic values can be identified by repeated asking questions such as “why do I/others do what we do?” and through this repetition process, the individual could come to the realization of a “discrete heterogeneous set of most basic and simple reasons for acting which reflect the complete range of human functionings” (Grisez, Boyle, and Finnis, 1987). As such the elements of this set are self-evident, nonhierarchical, incommensurable and irreducible. In effect, Finnis' approach tries to emerge Sen’s viewpoint about not listing these basic capabilities and providing room for other experts to continually revise any list they might have derived (Alkire, 2002).

Basic Human Capabilities – Martha Nussbaum

Martha Nussbaum also proposes another application and possibly extension of Sen’s Capability Approach.

Dimensions of Human Development - Sabina Alkire

Alkire (2002) argues that it is important that dimensions be specified in order “to give secure epistemological and empirical footing to the multidimensional objective of human development.” Considering the multidimensionality of various development issues brings to bear the opportunity to make many value choices explicitly rather than depend on the market. In this manner, diverse groups in a particular society are empowered “to shape their common good.” However, the exercise of the freedom to make explicit value choices must be done cost-effectively and reliably.

Another motivation for dimensions is to identify unintended consequences resulting from the various development strategies employed. It is important to anticipate and factor such unintended consequences into a decision-making process mainly because more informed and reflective choices are made to expand the capabilities of the society. Alkire’s attempt to synthesis the works of Amartya Sen, John Finnis, Martha Nussbaum, Manfred Max-Neef, Deepa Narayan, Shalom Schwartz, Robert Cummins, and many others about determining the dimensions provides these as the characteristics of dimensions:

1) The dimensions must be valuable: they must be readily recognizable as thekinds o reasons for which oneself or others act. 2) The dimensions must “combine scope with specificity”: each dimension should be clear – which requires specificity - vague – so that persons of different cultures and values systems find them to be familiar. 3) The dimensions must be “critical” and complete: they are to include any human value. Hence, some values could be considered or dismissed by a particular group. 4) The dimensions do not pertain to one view of the good life

Alkire’s application of the approach proposes that any list developed could only be meaningful in a specific context. This is mainly because of the varying the multiple cross-cultural considerations that affect the reliability of a said list and the need to employ empirical testing and participatory discussion processes to make the list.

Empirical Applications

The Capability approach has also been used in different empirical spheres. They can be categorized into five main groups:

1) Multivariate Studies: “The use of statistical techniques for simultaneous investigations of the influence of several variables.” In terms of the capability approach, these techniques identify and measure components of valuable functionings. Brandolini and D’Alesio (1998) use these techniques to explore the multidimensional analysis of deprivation and inequality. Similarly, Chiappero Martinetti (2000) has analyzed non-income dimensions of well-being coupled with subjective perceptions on satisfaction about economic resources by respondents in her application of the Capability Approach. These studies have noted the difficulty in measuring capabilities, hence has resulted in the evaluations using approximations that describe their corresponding functionings.

2) Empirical Studies: the use of scientific methods that asserts the objective discovery of knowledge based on verifiable facts of evidence. These studies involve the use of econometrics to propose a multidimensional picture of poverty by emphasizing the target issue with respect to various indexes of specified functioning deprivations that reveal the social dimensions of poverty. For instance, Caterina R. Laderchi conducts an “empirical investigation of the difference between a capability and a monetary assessment of poverty.” Jean-Luc Dubois and Sophie Rousseau investigate on how to reduce vulnerability and prevent poverty in equitable terms by reinforcing household's capabilities.

Another notable example is Sen’s first application in which he used data from 1980 to 1982 to show that while the GNP per capita of Brazil and Mexico were more than 7 times the GNP per capita of China, India and Sri Lanka, the life expectancy, infant mortality and child death rates were comparatively better in Sri Lanka and China than India and in Mexico than Brazil. In comparing the level of education in India and Sri Lanka, basic education in Sri Lanka was better than that of India, but India had higher tertiary education rates than that of Sri Lanka. The public policies of the respective nations have their pros and cons; however, Sen commends the achievements of Sri Lanka in the capabilities of survival and education. (Robeyns, 2003; Sen, 1985).

3) Case-Study Applications: Use of descriptive data to contextualize and put in evidence the complexity of a certain situation such as health care, culture, food relief, labor markets, eduction, etc. For instance, Tibandebage and Mackintosh (2001) investigate the relational activity that exists in low-income health care systems often ignored in an inputs-outputs analytical framework. They point to the need to strengthen relational capabilities that seem to depend on skills, information, procedures.

4) Theoritical Applications: use of arguments provided in Capability Approach to illuminate the analysis of situations or cases of factual interest.

5) Methodological Applications: the use of the Capability Approach framework to discuss issues that are difficult to be addressed within a utilitarian perspective such as Wendy Harcourt’s “The Capabilities Approach for Poor Women: empowerment strategies towards gender equality, health and well-being.”

Although some applications are available, the concern is the relevance of the Capability Approach as a research strategy. Comim (2001) wonders whether the results achieved through Capability Approach can be reached through other means without confronting the difficulties inherent in the approach.

Human Development Index[1]

Another application that takes into consideration the differences and similarities in Sen’s and Nussbaum’s theories of human development is also seen in the Human Development Index (HDI). It covers income (opportunities), life expectancy, and education that are captured in the Capability Approach.

The Human Poverty Index (1997)

The influence of Sen’s Capability Approach still continues. Based on Sen’s explanation of poverty as a capability deprivation and as such the diverse functionings make poverty multidimensional, the UNDP Human Poverty Index (HPI-1 and HPI-2) was devised (Vijayamohanan,2004). The Human Poverty Index is an extension of the Human Development Index (HDI) and takes into consideration more dimensions of human poverty. “The HPI-1—human poverty index for developing countries—measures human deprivation in the same aspects of human development as the HDI and the HPI-2—human poverty index for developing countries includes, in addition to the three dimensions in HPI-1, social exclusion.”[2]

Other Indices

Other quantitative applications that include functionings such as life expectancy at birth, education (measured by adult literacy and educational enrolment rates) and adjusted real GDP per capita (which takes into consideration other functionings) have resulted in the derivation of the following indices: Human Freedom Index (1991) Gender-Disparity-Adjusted HDI (1993) Income-Distribution-Adjusted HDI (1993) Gender Related Development Index (1995) Gender Empowerment Measure (1995)

Group 6: Amartya Sen's Capabilities Approach

The Origins of the Approach: Berkeley's The Querist

Critics and modifications