Inequality and the capability approach Tania Burchardt ESRC Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion London School of Economics

Outline Values, concepts, measurement and policy Autonomy and capability Critiques of the capability approach Measurement problems and possibilities Policy-making in a capabilities framework Social policy in conflict

Aristotle: eudemonia, human flourishing Marx: communist society “makes it possible for me to do one thing today, and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind” Theory of human need (Doyal and Gough): critical participation in chosen form of life The value of individual autonomy

Capability approach Broad evaluative framework Focus on what individuals are able to be and do Functioning = actual activity or state of being eg being healthy Functioning vector = combination of functionings at any one time eg caring for elderly parent AND being healthy Capability set = set of alternative functioning vectors available to an individual eg (caring for elderly parent AND being healthy) OR (receiving care services AND being healthy AND being in paid work)

Relationship to other conceptions of equality of opportunity Weak Opportunity = personal attributes + resources + talents + institutions + effort Strong Formal equality of opportunity: equalise effects of differences in irrelevant personal attributes Meritocracy: equalise effects of differences in personal attributes and resources Responsibility egalitarianism: equalise effects of differences in resources and talents Capability approach: equalise effects of differences in resources and talents and institutions (and some aspects of effort)

Criticisms of the capability approach 1.Individualistic –normative individualism, not methodological 2.Perfectionist –Nussbaum: fulfilling potential –Sen & social model of disability 3.Incomplete –a virtue?? 4.Unoriginal –synthesis of: (i) multidimensional human ends, (ii) importance of effective freedom, (iii) role of institutions and system of entitlements 5.Unworkable

Measurement problems and possibilities: 1 Which capabilities? Nussbaum 1.Life 2.Health 3.Bodily integrity 4.Senses, imagination, thought 5.Emotions 6.Practical reason 7.Affiliation 8.Other species 9.Play 10.Control over one’s environment Sen Depends on purpose Selection process should be participative and democratic / transparent & open to criticism Well-being: self-regarding functionings (health, security...) Agency goals: individual’s own objectives (writing a novel, freeing Tibet)

Measurement problems and possibilities: 2 Distinguishing lack of capability and free choice Potential solutions: 1.Focus on constraints

Predicted lack of capability for employment % of those not in employment who lack employment capability, given existing constraints Version Disabled men Non-disabled men 1: age, ethnicity, parental social class 346 2: 1 + physical & mental health 476 3: 2 + qualifications & experience : 3 + children, caring, regional u/e 9763 Source: Burchardt (2005), using BHPS Wave 6

Measurement problems and possibilities: 2 Distinguishing lack of capability and free choice Potential solutions: 1.Focus on constraints 2.Hierarchy of capabilities - basic capabilities: universal - intermediate capabilities: presumption of no systematic difference in values - complex capabilities: supplementary evidence on values required

Proposed hierarchy for analysis of gender inequality in Britain: Robeyns (2003) 1.Basic –physical & mental health; bodily integrity & safety; shelter & environment; respect 2.Intermediate –education & knowledge; mobility; leisure; religion; time-autonomy 3.Complex –social relations; political empowerment; domestic and care work; paid work

Measurement problems and possibilities: 2 Distinguishing lack of capability and free choice Potential solutions: 1.Focus on constraints 2.Hierarchy of capabilities - basic capabilities: universal - intermediate capabilities: presumption of no systematic difference in values - complex capabilities: supplementary evidence on values required 3.Longitudinal (lifetime) measures of autonomy

Policy-making in a capabilities framework: 1 In practice... UNDP Human Development Reports –index of life expectancy, literacy/school enrolment, and GDP per capita –HDR 2005 detailed examination of inequality within rich nations, eg infant mortality by ethnicity in US Development projects in the global South Germany’s National Action Plan

Policy-making in a capabilities framework: 2 In principle... Process of measurement is participative Prioritisation of basic capabilities (eg life expectancy, health, security)......and of children and young people (capability-formation) Focus on what people are able to do (income as means to an end) Discrimination, fear, time poverty, etc, are equally significant constraints Structural change (removing constraints) not just compensation for existing inequality Enabling not compulsion (respect for diversity of human ends) Process of policy-making and implementation is participative

Social policy in a divided society Measurement of inequality is normative: no technical fixes Job of social science to make implicit values explicit; to illustrate consequences of alternatives Indicators and policies grounded in clear conceptual framework Values → concepts → measures → policies: especially important where there is a history of conflict? “reaffirmed their faith in... the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948