Umpublished work - submitted for publication (please do not quote)

Title: The Capability Approach as an Approach to Development

Author: Alexandre Apsan Frediani

Alexandre Apsan Frediani (BSc, PhD) is currently working as a Post Graduate

Teaching Assistant at the Development Planning Unit, University College London.
However, this paper was elaborated just after completion of his PhD, in the first
months of 2008 when Frediani was working also as a research fellow for the
Department of Planning of Oxford Brookes University.

Address:
Development Planning Unit
University College London
34 Tavistock Square.
London WC1H 9EZ

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract:
Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach is increasingly becoming influential in the
development economics literature (Todaro, 2006). The multidimensional approach to
poverty analysis has led to a series of studies aiming at quantifying the different
dimensions of well-being and how policies can affect them. The Capability Approach
has also contributed to bring agency and empowerment to the crux of contemporary
development thinking and practice. International development agencies such as the
World Bank are encouraging the quest of applying econometric tools to measure such
concepts in a manner that can lead to the production of a series of international
indicators and comparisons. While the writings of Amartya Sen have contributed
many other disciplines, the Capability Approach has not yet been applied
comprehensively apart from the area of development economics. This article aims at
applying the Capability Approach in a manner that can contribute development
practitioners to plan, monitor and evaluate development projects. It is argued in this
paper that by doing so, existing approaches and tools such as sustainable livelihoods
and rights-based approach can be complemented in a variety of ways.
1- Introduction: The Limitations of Development Practices

According to Sachs (1992: 1) “development has grown obsolete”. However, donor

countries have committed to considerably increase overseas development assistance
in the coming years. International humanitarian and development agencies are
multiplying and growing stronger. Their projects involve partnership with multiple
actors, including the private sector, local and national governments, community based
organizations and local non-governmental organizations. Theorists and academics
have been proposing different discourses and approaches to development with the
objective to maximize ‘good-practice’, by addressing poverty responsively in the
short and long term.

Meanwhile, in the field, poverty and inequality are perpetuating realities in

developing countries. Fifty years after the first initiatives of development cooperation,
much of the population in low and middle income nations are still living in vulnerable
environments, coping with hunger and insecurity, and dying of preventable diseases
(Hasan et al., 2005). Can we think of development alternatives that can transform
rhetoric into change? Or is there a more substantial problem with the plan of
development, therefore asking for the formulation of alternatives to development as
proposed by Escobar (1992)?

Post-development analyses have pointed out that ‘development’ is the means to the
westernization of developing countries. Through the banner of helping the poor,
‘universal values’ and ideologies, which normally are associated to the development
of international capitalism, are imposed through subtle mechanism, such as the
governance programmes and poverty alleviation policies. Critiques have also stressed
how radical development alternatives are co-opted and appropriated to the application
of conformism and business as usual. Instead of changing situations of subordination
and oppression, concepts such as participation have been used in an instrumental
manner, reproducing such processes rather than challenging them.

While providing crucial critiques to the practice of development, post-development

writers have then not elaborated much in what would be an alternative. It is argued
that to overcome processes of subordination it is not about development alternatives,
but alternatives to development. What is suggested is the support to local, grass-root
organizations. However, as Pieterse (2000) argues, “under the heading of ‘post’
thinking, this is actually profoundly conservative” (2000:182). The focus on the local
resonates not only with conservative localism but also market enablement practices
that perceive the local organizations as efficient executors of the “populist neo-
liberal” policies. The well mobilized community-based organization are subcontracted
to collect solid waste, to provide nursery, and social services in the name of
community enablement, but that is motivated by cost-reduction strategies.

Therefore the assumption of this article is that ‘alternatives to development’ might

also perpetuate the processes criticised by post-development writers. Alternatives to
development can also generate business as usual. Therefore the underlying
assumption of this article is that radical development alternatives are needed to
challenge rather than sustain practices. This article provides a different take on
Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach to contribute to the elaboration of a development
approach which can radicalize existing practice of development. The first section of
this paper outlines the main components of the Capability Approach. In the second
section, the Capability Approach is adapted to the elaboration of a development
approach. In the last section, the similarities, differences and complementarities
between the Capability Approach and other approaches to development are addressed.

2- Introducing the Capability Approach

The Capability Approach has been explored in a variety of ways in the literature. Sen
(1999) attributes the origins of the focus of ‘development as freedom’ to the early
motivations of economics. The extant literature acknowledges Sen’s attempt to break
from utilitarianism by expanding the informational basis for development, moving
from an income led definition of development to one based on multiple ends. This
paper hopes to contribute to this literature by elaborating on the process to apply the
Capability Approach to programming and evaluation of development practices.

Capability Approach as Evaluative Framework

Sen’s ideas have been taken on board by different academics who have developed his
concepts into a framework called the Capability Approach. The aim of these
academics is to develop a broad normative framework for the evaluation of individual
well-being and social arrangements (Alkire, 2002; Chiappero Martinetti, 2000; Clark,
2002; Jasek-Rysdahl, 2001; Naussbaum, 1988; Qizilbash, 1996; Robeyns, 2003; Sen,
1999). The core characteristic of the Capability Approach is to move away from the
income-led evaluation methods, and focus on the ability people have to achieve the
things they value. Therefore well-being can be measured by assessing people’s
freedom and choices, rather than their level of income or consumption. According to
Sen (1985) and then Clark (2002) focus on utility or resources can be misleading, as
what is essential to capture is not the amount of commodities, but what it does to
people. By focusing on people’s freedom Sen (1985) argues that the Capability
Approach acknowledges that people differ in their capacity of conversion of goods
into valuable achievements due to personal and locational factors and social
arrangements.

Capability: Informational space for making evaluative judgements

According to Sen (1992) and Alkire and Black (1994), the Capability Approach
broadens the informational space for making evaluative judgements by
acknowledging the multidimensional nature of human well-being. In the field of
development, many other approaches have been moving away from the income led
definition of poverty, by including people’s perception and accepting the multiple
facets of poverty, however Deneulin and Stewart (2002) argue that they miss the
philosophical justification for the objectives they put forward, which Sen has
elaborated as the Capability Approach. At the core of the approach is the concept that
“development is about providing conditions which facilitate people’s ability to lead
flourishing lives” (Deneulin and Stewart, 2002: 62).

Capability: components of the approach

The concepts of functionings and capabilities are essential components of Sen’s

Capability Approach, as Gasper (2002) shows. Sen describes the various components
or aspects of a person’s life as functionings. “A functioning is an achievement of a
person: what he or she manages to do or to be, and any such functioning reflects, as it
were, a part of the state of that person” (Sen, 2005:5). According to Alkire
“functionings is an umbrella term for the resources and activities and attitudes people
spontaneously recognize to be important – such as poise, knowledge, a warm
friendship, an educated mind, a good job” (2003:5).

Meanwhile capabilities are the freedoms people have to achieve the lifestyle they
have reason to value. Gore (1997) notes that while functionings refers to
achievements, capabilities refer to the opportunity set. Furthermore, Sen (1992)
argues that evaluation of well-being should be measured within the space of
capabilities and not functionings, thus evaluation should focus on opportunities and
not achievements. Sen (1992) illustrates the difference by using the example of a
person that starves as a result of fasting on the one hand and lack of access to food on
the other to explain the need to focus on choice. By focusing on functionings, both
persons would be at the same level of deprivation, therefore the focus on opportunity
would portray a more realistic vision of people’s ability to achieve the things they
value. Thus, Sen (1992) distinguishes between ‘doing x’ and ‘choosing to do x and
doing it’.

Capability: Agency Freedom and Well-being

Meanwhile Robeyns (2003) argues that an evaluation of social arrangements based on

Sen’s writings would not only be concerned with choice, but also with the forces that
contribute to convert capabilities into realized functionings. Freedom is understood as
a concept made of well-being but also agency components. Well-being freedom is
concerned with objectives that one values for his/her well-being. Agency is concerned
with the individual freedom to choose and bring about the things he/she values. To
clarify the difference, Sen (1992) argues that agency includes states of affairs that do
not necessarily contribute to one’s well-being. In this case, the focus of evaluations
should not be on levels of well-being, but on the processes that affect people’s
freedom to realize valued choices. Thus structural and personal conditions affecting
individual’s ability to choose need to be taken into consideration in an evaluation
exercise. These structural and personal conditions work as conversion factors,
influencing the way choices become achievements. Agency freedom is affected by
three conversion factors: Personal characteristics (e.g. metabolism, physical condition,
sex, reading skills, intelligence) social characteristics (e.g. public policies, social
norms, discriminating practices, gender roles, societal hierarchies, power relations)
and environmental characteristics (e.g. climate, infrastructure, institutions, public
goods) (Robeyns, 2003).

By accepting the role of conversion factors affecting the process of realizing the
things one values, the Capability Approach includes social and structural elements at
the evaluative process. Nevertheless many authors have criticized Sen’s writings for
being too individualistic. Sen refuses to accept the role of collective capabilities and,
by doing so, researchers argue that he is excluding group or collective freedoms
(Gore, 1997; Carter, 1999; Evans, 2002; Deneulin and Stewart, 2002). Gore (1997)
argues that the Capability Approach cannot be labelled as excessively individualistic
in any simple way. As well as agency and conversion factors, Sen identifies social
functionings (such as ‘taking part in the life of the community’, ‘communicating’,
‘being well-integrated in society’, and using Adam Smith’s famous example,
‘appearing in public without shame’). While being more inclusive in the space of
functionings to collective values, Sen is more bias towards individual values in the
space of capabilities. Gore (1997) argues that Sen’s approach is individualistic in the
sense that it measures well-being in terms of individuals’ ability, not recognising the
role of collective resources. Gore (1997) defends the concept of ‘irreducibly social
goods’ that are such goods that are objects of value which cannot be decomposed into
individual occurrences. In other words, there are capabilities that are properties of
societies or groups rather than individuals. Therefore Stewart (2005) and Ibrahim
(2006) propose the concepts of group and collective capabilities.

Capability: openness and incompleteness

While not explicitly accepting the concept of collective capabilities, Sen (1992, 1993)
argues that the Capability Approach is deliberatively incomplete, as it does not
specify a list of valuable capabilities or functionings. Furthermore, he does not
provide any clear practical guidelines to practitioners or researchers on how to assess
or identify capabilities (Comin, 2001). Sugden (1993) criticizes this incompleteness
by arguing that the broadness, multidimensional and context dependent nature of the
approach prevents it from having practical and operational significance. Such
criticisms led authors to propose a list of capabilities with the objective to focus and
operationalize Sen’s approach. Nussbaum (2000) argues that it is necessary to identify
a list of “functional capabilities”. On the other hand, Qizilbash (2002) reacts to a list
compiled by Nussbaum by arguing that it is too complete thus vulnerable to criticism
as being too universal and not taking into account individual and cultural differences.
Meanwhile Finnis (1979) and Griffins (1996) put forward similar approaches that
reach middle ground between Sen and Nussbaum. They argue for an irreducible list of
elements that would be present at any functioning identified by individuals with
different preferences.

Sen responds to these criticisms by arguing that “an agreement on the usability of the
Capability Approach – an agreement on the nature of the ‘space’ of value-objects –
need not presuppose an agreement on how the valuational exercise may be
completed” (1993: 48). Sen (2005) also refuses to accept a fixed list of capabilities by
arguing:

The problem is not with listing important capabilities, but with

insisting on one pre-determined canonical list of capabilities,
chosen by theorists without any general social discussion or public
reasoning. To have such a fixed list, emanating entirely from pure
theory, is to deny the possibility of fruitful public participation on
what should be included and why (2005:158).

Capability: Identifying and assessing capabilities

Alkire (2007) proposes five mechanisms to identify capabilities and poverty

dimensions (see Table 1).
Table 1: Identifying Capabilities and Poverty Dimensions
1- Existing data or convention based on data or conventions that are taken to be
authoritative, such as the Human Development
Index.
2- Normative Assumptions based on informed guesses of researchers or
transparent and justified use of normative
assumptions such as Maslow or Nussbaum’s.
3- Public ‘consensus’ based on a legitimate consensus-building processes
and subject to participatory evaluations.
4-On going deliberative based on people’s values captured through group
participatory processes, discussions and participatory analysis.

5- Empirical evidence based on expert analysis of people’s values from

regarding people’s values empirical data.

Source: Alkire 2007: 7

However, if the Capability Approach is to focus on what people value, participatory

methods are needed to reveal people’s aspirations and their freedom to achieve them.
Frediani (2007) has demonstrated some of the links between the Capability Approach
through participatory methods by using both approaches to the evaluation of a
squatter settlement upgrading project. Furthermore, while having complementarities
and similarities, participatory methods and the Capability Approach also have
common withstanding challenges to overcome, such as the localized, individualistic
and instrumental nature of their application (see Frediani 2006, 2007).

3- This Application of the Capability Approach

The review of the capability approach of the previous section already indicates some
components and concepts of the Capability Approach that would need to be adapted
for the purpose of an approach to development. To become a radical development
alternative, the Capability Approach needs to address local and structural processes;
the conceptual framework needs clear components that can be operational for
development practitioners while remaining open and not imposing universal values;
and finally participation and qualitative information need to be incorporated in the
process of elaborating or evaluating policies and projects. To address such demands,
this paper proposes: a) a focus on the conversion factors, transforming resources into
achieved functionings; b) the incorporation of power relations analysis in such
process; c) mechanisms to include participatory methods to the application of the
capability approach.

From Capabilities to a Capability Space

The existing applications of the Capability Approach focus on capabilities, which

constitute people’s choices, abilities and opportunities to achieve the things they
value. The capabilities are listed, and policies can be evaluated according to the
impacts on such capabilities. As outlined in the previous section, the discussions are
around if such capabilities are based on a certain international convention, or local
context, or if there are collective as well as individual capabilities. The strength of
such conceptualization is that it provides clear dimensions to evaluate the process of
achieving functionings, and not what has been achieved. However, it does not
explicitly address the complexities of what constitute people’s freedom, therefore
raising the debates of universal vs. local and individual vs. collective capabilities.
Furthermore, the Capability Approach remains in a level of abstraction from policies
and projects that makes difficult for practitioners to apply it and assess its added value
to the elaboration and evaluation of projects.

Therefore, it is proposed here a slightly different take on the Capability Approach that
focuses on resources and their transformation into achieved functionings. These
resources can be tangible (such as schools, transport, houses) or intangible (such as
policies). The transformation of resources is affected by a series of conversion factors,
which varies from context to context, person to person. Instead of focusing in
capabilities, this application focuses on the capability space, which includes choice,
ability and opportunity people have to transform resources into achieved functionings.
Within the capability space it is included individual, local and structural factors.
Individual factors are associated to one’s individual capacities, which could be
physical conditions, levels of literacy and so forth. For example blindness and
illiteracy are individual factors influencing people’s abilities to transform newspapers
into increased awareness. Local factors can be associated to facilities and collective
norms. For example the provision of a football pitch in a neighbourhood does not
mean that children from that neighbourhood will have more space for leisure, as
adults might control the use of that facility and not allowing children to play there.

Last but not least there are the structural factors shaping the capability space. Market
mechanisms and the political structure are for example some of the underlying
structural processes impacting on people’s freedoms. Therefore in the application of
the capability approach to assess the well-being of small producers of milk in Uganda,
it is necessary to take into account the impact of subsidies for milk producers in the
developed world. If land regularization of informal settlements in developing
countries is the resource assessed through the capability approach, the structural
factors can be associated to the formal market forces entering such settlements due to
regularization, pushing the poorest out through the increase of property price. The
objective of highlighting these three levels of conversion factors is to clarify the
diverse issues that comprise the capability space. These three levels of conversion
factors are interconnected shaping and influencing each other.

This drive towards elaborating a framework in the field of development that can focus
on the process of making and realizing choices, incorporating diversity and
multiplicity while sustaining conceptual building blocks resonates with Ostrom’s
(2005) application of the Institutional Analysis and Development framework. Ostrom
(2005) elaborates on the Action Arena, which is the place where institutions,
communities, and rules operate affecting the process of making/realizing choices.
Nevertheless, the two approaches differ in the sense that one focus on well-being and
agency, while the other mainly on operations of institutions. To illustrate this take on
the Capability Approach, figure one analysis the process of transforming the resource
“bike” into functionings.
Figure 1: Capability Space

In this context, the framework is applied to measure the impact of a project that
provides bikes for residents of a squatter settlement. The functionings are the various
things people value, their dimensions of well-being, listed here as security, mobility,
income, leisure, inner-peace and health. The first component of the capability space is
choice. Do residents from that squatter settlement have the choice to choose another
type of transport if they wish, such as bus? Would they ride because of lack of
alternative or for choice? The next components of the capability space are the ability
and opportunity to use the bike. The individual factors relate for example to residents
physical conditions, some might have some sort of disability which might impede
them from using the bike. Local factors such as collective norms might also impact
the conversion of resources. For example in certain contexts women might not be
accepted to ride bikes, or in some neighbourhoods might not be safe to ride a bike.
Finally, structural factors also influence this process of conversion, as the security and
conditions of roads or the availability of cycle paths would also influence one’s
freedom to ride.

Such conversion factors are assessed here in relation not only to their impact to
enhancing mobility, but also to the other functionings. Such functionings can be
aspirations that are in the process of being achieved or potential aspirations, not
necessarily pursued. In the context of the bike, one might have the freedom to use the
bike for leisure, but might choose not to as this person chooses to use the bike merely
to transport goods and generate income. In this case, the bike is contributing to the
achievement of the functioning income, while leisure is a potential aspiration.
Functionings have intrinsic and instrumental value. In the context of the bike,
mobility is an end in itself, but it also means on the generate income or achieve inner-
peace. Nevertheless, the evaluative space is people’s choice, ability and opportunity to
use the bike to contribute to the achievement of the various functionings identified,
those being pursued or merely potential.
Agency and Power

Figure one also stresses the importance of two components underlying the capability
space and the identification of functionings: power and agency. As argued in the
previous section, agency is addressed by the capability approach literature as one of
the pillars of the investigation and expansion of freedom. The concept of agency is
directly related to relations of power. It is argued here that by incorporating power
relations into the capability approach, structural and collective norms are explicitly
incorporated in the process of evaluating or planning policies and development
projects.

Agency is normally associated with one’s ability to choose. Croker (2007) defined it
as a special type capability, which underpins the whole process of the capability
approach. The literature has stressed the importance of the concept of collective
agency, which is associated to groups’ ability to make claims (Ibrahim, 2006).
Meanwhile the concept of power has attracted many different definitions, from the
focus on encroachments of individuals, to the focus on structural mechanisms and
knowledge.

Eyben (2004) reviews this broad literature on power relations and provides a
comprehensive approach to link power and poverty reduction which resonates with
this application of the capability approach. Eyben (2004) identifies five main
perceptions of power that are useful for development practice: power to, power over,
power with, power as knowledge, power structure (see table 2).

Table 2: Conceiving Power

Types of Power Definition
Power To Power to is related to ones’ ability to choose and act as one
wishes. According to Eyben (2004) this conception has been
the approach taken by the World Bank which takes the liberal
position through the focus on autonomy. Thus, such
perception has led to the idea of empowerment as an
instrument to enhance efficiency rather than overcoming
structural patterns of domination and subordination.

Power Over Power over takes into account the relational components of
power. The three dimensions of power by Steven Lukes
(1974) elaborate on how power is exerted. Such literature has
been taken on board by the critics of participation, by
analysing how participatory processes of decision making
might be perpetuating power imbalances, rather than
challenging them (Cooke and Kothari, 2001).

Power With Power with “is a term that describes common ground among
different interest and the building of collective strength
through organization and the development of shared values
and strategies” (Eyben, 2004:22). Therefore here power is also
understood as a positive strength to the process of change. As
identified by Scott (1985), the subordinates have mechanism
of resistance and acquire power through collective action
Power as Knowledge Power as knowledge is based on the Foucault writings that
perceive the production of knowledge associated to the
production of power relations. Thus discourses are created and
reproduced through power and knowledge. Post development
critiques apply such analysis of power to argue that
approaches to development and tools are seen as means to the
perpetuation of existing discourses of domination.

Power Structure Power structure is associated to the “fundamental systematic

forces” that defines the rules of the game that power relations
operate. Eyben (2004) also defines such systematic forces as
relations of power that repeat themselves continuously,
forming a pattern and becoming institutionalized.

Source: Based on Eyben (2004)

While Eyben associates Amartya Sen’s writings merely with the conceptualization of
power as power to, it is argued here that for the assessment of the process of
transforming resources into functionings it is necessary to take into consideration the
five notions of power. If capabilities are perceived as capacities, than it is correct to
argue that the capability approach only addresses people’s power to achieve the things
they value. But as the capability space is compiled by the various things that influence
the conversion of resources into functionings, power over, power with and power
structure becomes fundamental components that need to be unpacked. Nevertheless,
Ibrahim and Alkire (2007) while acknowledging these various processes of power
influencing agency, they focus their measurement analysis on people’s abilities to act,
rather than the structural preconditions for agency.

Furthermore, power also shapes people’s ability to identify the things they value. This
process has been called by Sen (1999) “adaptive preferences”. Such a concept has a
direct link to the idea of “false consciousness”, which according to Lukes (1974)
impedes people from knowing their real interests. The Freirian pedagogical tradition
has then argued that people need to have access to knowledge to develop a critical
conscious and overcome such process of domination.

Therefore, this take on the capability approach incorporates power analysis to make
visible the various types of power that operate in the process of valuing and achieving
functionings. However, still withstanding is the operational question of how can the
capability approach be applied and which tools can be used to unpack the relations of
power operating in a certain context.

4- Capability Approach and Approaches to Development

The objective of proposing the Capability Approach as a development approach is to

contribute to existing frameworks in the elaboration of comprehensive and radical
development alternative. Two dominating frameworks in contemporary practice of
development are the Rights-Based Approach (RBA) and Sustainable Livelihoods
Framework (SLF). Further research is needed to clarify the relation between these
frameworks and the Capability Approach. Nevertheless, this section of the article
elaborates on some initial comparisons and contributions of the Capability Approach.
Rights-based approach

There is a diversity of understanding about what constitutes the rights-based approach

(RBA) to development. The perspectives vary from a solely legal approach to
guarantee the protection of individuals and groups through international conventions
and resolutions, to one that is concerned with social, cultural and political struggles
led by autonomous movements. In the latter perspective, the legal aspect is just
another dimension of such a process (IDS, 2003). However, the underlying motivation
of the different understandings of the RBA is the protection of an agreed set of norms
and values. There has been a variety of emphases on the incorporation of rights in
development thinking and practice. However, there are six overall common principles
and concepts that are outlined in Table 3.

Table 3: Basic Concepts of the Rights-Based Approach

1) The shift from According to Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi (2004) while the
needs to rights basic needs approach is about more resources, infrastructure
and services, the RBA focuses on the equitable distribution of
existing resources and expanding peoples’ access to them.

2) People as Agents The second common principle that links most of the
of Change applications of the RBA is the perception of people as partner
citizens in the development process, and not needed
beneficiaries (Slim, 2002)
3) Enhancing By specifying an internationally agreed set of values and
Accountability norms, the RBA is explicit about its principles thus enhancing
citizens’ ability to claim for their rights and hold states to
account for their duties.
4) Wresting One of the central objectives of the RBA is to reclaim
Participation and participation and empowerment from the neo-liberal
Empowerment instrumentalist appropriation.
5) Challenging As explained by Mander (2005), “the first distinct feature of
Power Inequalities rights-based approaches lies in the recognition of the structural
causes of people’s impoverishment, of the fact that their
condition is the outcome of the active denial of their rights and
entitlements by social, economic and political structures and
processes” (2005:239).
6) Policization of Through international legal mechanisms, enhancement of
Aid participation, improving judicial systems, supporting good
governance and reflecting on power inequalities the RBA re-
politicizes aid. According to O’Brian (2005), apparent
neutrality of aid is partisan and promotes particular political
actors. Through the RBA, politics assumes a central stage of
development assistance, as aid is guided by higher, consensual
or universal political values.

The Capability Approach and the RBA have similar normative principles of
development. According to both approaches, development ought to concentrate on the
expansion or protection of a certain set of agreed norms or values. Meanwhile, they
are also different in a variety of ways. While one talks about an international set of
agreed rights, and the other focuses on the identification of the things people value
doing and being, it is argued that a list of agreed norms should guide development
praxis. Also, the conceptualization of development as freedom and the protection of
rights diverge over the process of achieving common concerns and motivations
(UNDP, 2000). Firstly, as outlined by Sen (2005), the Capability Approach takes a
broader evaluative space by focusing on the opportunity aspect of freedom, while
human rights are concerned with securing the process of realizing freedoms. Thus,
while the human rights discourse is mostly concerned with protecting the political
processes of transforming choices into achievements, the Capability Approach also
incorporates the analysis of people’s choices and abilities.

There is also a fundamental difference of application between the legalistic version of

the rights approach and Sen’s Capability Approach. For the root causes of poverty to
be tackled, RBA supports the formulation of an international set of agreed norms. On
the other hand Sen criticises universalities by refusing to identify an overarching list
of basic capabilities (Sen, 1999). Thus the Capability Approach is an open framework
that needs to be contextualized according to the purpose of study or practice. Then,
public reasoning also has a slightly different purpose in each of the approaches. RBA
talks about participation in the process of contextualizing and protecting rights, and
Sen also identifies the need for public scrutiny in the process of identification of
values.

As argued in 2000 Human Development Report, the human rights discourse

complements Sen’s Capability Approach in three main ways. Firstly it offers a clear
and legal framework to claim from other people or institutions the access to some sort
of freedoms. The RBA therefore is seen as a mechanism to apply the expansion of
freedoms. Such application emphasizes “the idea that others have duties to facilitate
and enhance human development” (UNDP, 2000:21). Secondly the RBA is seen as a
tool to protect some basic rights in the process of expansion of freedoms. As argued in
the Report: “Individual rights express the limits on the losses that individuals can
permissibly be allowed to bear, even in the promotion of noble social goals” (UNDP,
2000:22). Thirdly RBA complements the Capability Approach by focusing on the
scrutiny of the process of expansion of freedoms, by monitoring the conduct of those
involved in the praxis of development. As argued by Sen (2005), all the three ways in
which the RBA complements the Capability Approach is by its focus on the process
aspect of freedom.

On the other hand the rights-based commentators advocate that Sen’s writings have
expanded the rights-based approach and that they have been crucial in applying the
legal framework comprehensively in other spheres of development practice (Gready
and Ensor, 2005). Nevertheless, Sen (1999) has clearly stated the limitation of the
human rights approach by arguing that “…there is something a little simple-minded
about the entire conceptual structure that underlies the oratory on human rights”
(1999: 227). Therefore, talking about capabilities and functionings would be
broadening the spectrum of the RBA, allowing it to be applied in a variety of contexts
with different purposes.

Nevertheless, Uvin (2002) criticises the approach of redefining development in terms

of a certain set of rights by arguing that it does not clarify obligations nor offer any
practical guidelines to tackle power relations. Thus, adopting Sen’s thinking ‘costs
nothing’ for development agencies. Uvin (2002) concludes: “All of them [rights-
based approaches] are to be implemented out there, in this separate place called the
Third World, but do not require any critique of the global system and our place in it”
(2002:9).

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) also shares similar motivations to

Sen’s writings. As with the Capability Approach, the SLF emerged in the late 1980s
out of the growing dissatisfaction with the income maximization approach. Its basic
concepts emphasize some familiar features: participation, multidimensional
conceptualization of poverty, and empowerment. As with the previous approaches,
SLF is also concerned with people’s potentialities, strengths and how they are
converted into positive livelihood outcomes. This approach aims at addressing issues
of vulnerability, risk and insecurity. The means to combat these hardships are the
assets that individuals, households and communities have. Assets, called ‘capital’ or
‘capabilities’, include material and social resources. The accumulation of assets is
understood to constitute stocks of capital. These stocks are divided into five
categories: physical capital; financial capital; human capital; social capital; and
natural capital (see Box 1) (Moser and Norton, 2001).

Box 1: Definition of Capital Assets

Physical Capital (also known as produced or man-made capital) comprises the stock
of plant, equipment, infrastructure and other productive resources owned by
individuals, the business sector or the country itself.

Financial Capital The financial resources available to people (savings, supplies of

credit).

Human Capital includes investments in education, health, and the nutrition of

individuals. Labour is a critical asset linked to investments in human capital; health
status determines people’s capacity to work, and skill and education determine the
returns from their labour.

Social Capital is defined as the rules, norms, obligations, reciprocity, and trust
embedded in social relations, social structures, and society’s institutional
arrangements, which enable its members to achieve their individual and community
objectives. Social capital is embedded in social institutions at the micro-institutional
level – communities and households – as well as referring to the rules and regulations
governing formalised institutions in the market-place, the political system, and civil
society.

Natural Capital includes the stocks of environmentally provided assets such as soil,
atmosphere, forests, minerals, water and wetlands. In rural communities the critical
productive asset for the poor is land; in urban areas it is land for shelter.
Source: Moser and Norton, 2001: 7
According to DFID (1999), the SLF is: 1) people-centred, as argued by Carney et al.
(1999), working with people “in a way that is congruent with their current livelihoods
strategies, social environment and ability to adapt” (1999:8); 2) holistic and dynamic,
drawing a universal approach that can adapt to different and changing contexts and
purposes; 3) building on strengths and existent potentials; 4) focusing on long term
sustainability by focusing on stresses, shocks and assets that will not undermine the
natural resource base (Carney, 1998). These components of the SLF are very similar
to Sen’s Capability Approach. The livelihood literature frequently employs the
language of ‘capabilities’ and openly states that it has incorporated some of Sen’s
concepts. However a closer comparison between the two approaches reveals
conceptual and practical differences.

Firstly, the application of Sen’s concepts in the livelihoods approach is

underdeveloped and limited. The word ‘capabilities’ is used interchangeably with
‘assets’ and at other times ‘capital’. Thus, capabilities are related to the capacity to
acquire resources. But the concept of capabilities according to Sen has a broader
definition. It is perceived as a space which incorporates the choice of potential
achievements and which explores the process of using resources.

Therefore SLF ends up taking Sen’s concept of capabilities back to a utilitarian

application. The five domains of assets are an expansion of the social capital theory.
They explore the instrumental values of people’s livelihoods in the enhancement of
resources and the generation of capital. Agency is not analysed directly and SLF does
not explore more personal dimensions of well-being, such as self-realization and
freedom to appear in public without shame. Moser and Norton (2001) reflects on such
limitation by arguing that “given the highly contested nature of the concept of capital
(particularly as it relates to social capital), building on Amartya Sen’s important work
in this area, there may be considerable advantages in categorising human, social and
political capabilities rather than capital” (2001: 19). They also recognise that “…these
issues are highly complex. It is recognised that they are underdeveloped in the current
concept paper, and therefore are critically important areas for further analytical work”
(2001:19). The consequence of such a limitation is an approach that is very technical
and not able to address structural conditions affecting livelihoods (Moser and Norton,
2001).

On the other hand, exactly for being technical and focusing on five clear domains SLF
becomes an easier framework to apply than Sen’s capabilities approach. It is also
easier to link with other approaches such as the combinations with the rights-based
approach. In this way, SLF has a more specific and clear space within the field of
development discourses. Its limitations can be addressed in combination with other
approaches, thus becoming a strong tool for the process of implementing development
programmes and overcoming deprivations.

5- Conclusion

During informal talks with residents of squatter settlements in Salvador da Bahia,

Brazil the following question was often posed to them: Do you think of yourself as
poor? More than once the reply has been: I am not poor, I am weak. Then,
respondents explained about the different assets around them influencing their
strength to achieve the things they value. The shift from what makes one poor to what
makes one weak is at the crux of the Capability Approach. It is related to the openness
of the goals of development and the need to focus on processes. Being weak is related
to the idea that strengths can lead to different types of achievements. Being poor is
associated with an absolute level: to passivity and uniform deprivation. Meanwhile
being weak is related to ability, opportunity, choice, freedom, thus the process aspect
of development.

This article provides a take on the Capability Approach to contribute to the

elaboration of a development alternative. Instead of focusing on capabilities, the
capability approach is applied by focusing on the capability space that constitutes the
transformation of resources into achieved functionings. Within the fundamental
components of this approach, it is included agency, power relations and participation.
The Rights-Based Approach is benefited by this development alternative due to the
focus on the opportunity aspect as well as the process aspect of freedom. Sustainable
Livelihoods Framework could overcome its utilitarian limitations by being
incorporated into the Capability Approach, within the process of converting resources
into what people value. Vulnerability, risks and assets are components that shape the
conversion factors of the Capability Approach.

Nevertheless, not assessed here are the underlying limitations of producing and
implementing development alternatives. This article engages with frameworks, their
weaknesses and strengths, rather than the analysis of the structures within which such
frameworks operate. However, the Capability Approach proposes spaces to
incorporate such analysis in the process of development. By thinking in terms of
capability space, institutional arrangements are assessed as fundamental players in the
process of influencing people’s ability to achieve the things they value. Therefore it is
argued here that approaches to development can incorporate explicitly this reflexivity
of their role in the process of moving from rhetoric into transformation, without being
coerced, manipulated and co-opted into preconceived goals.

Therefore this article seeks to contribute to the elaboration of another development

alternative. But one that aims at examining the realm of development, one that
attempts not to generate universal values, but one that is based on local contexts; a
development alternative that provides a comprehensive theory that can safeguard
notions of participation and empowerment; a development alternative that addresses
issues of agency but also structural processes; and finally a development alternative
that is operational, applicable and useful for actors in the development process.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Department of Planning of Oxford Brookes for being
supportive throughout my PhD process. I would also like to thank the Foundation of
Urban and Regional Studies for the partial funding of my Ph.D. project, which
generated the information for this paper. Particular thanks are due to my Ph.D.
supervisor Roger Zetter for his continuous advice and support. Final thanks to David
Alexander Clark and Michael Walls for their comments.
Bibliography

Alkire, S. (2002) Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty

Reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alkire, S. (2003) ‘The Capability Approach as a Development Paradigm?’ Paper

presented in 3rd international conference on the capability approach, Pavia,
September 2003.

Alkire, S. (2007) Choosing dimensions: the Capability Approach and

Multidimensional Poverty. Chronic Poverty Research Centre Working Paper 88.
OPHI, QEH, Oxford University.

Alkire, S. and Black, R. (1994) ‘A Practical reasoning theory of development ethics:

furthering the capabilities approach’. Journal of International Development, vol. 9, n.
2, pp. 263-279.

Biggeri, M., Libanora, R.,  Mariani, S., Menchini, L. (2006) Children Conceptualizing

their Capabilities: Results of a Survey Conducted during the First Children's World
Congress on Child Labour. Journal of Human Development. Vol. 7, n. 1, pp. 59-83.

Carney, D. (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods; what contribution can we make?

London: Department for International Development Publication.

Carter, I. (1999) A Measure of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chiappero Martinetti, E. (2000) ‘A multi-dimensional assessment of well-being based

on Sen’s functioning theory’. Revista Internazionale di Scienza Soziali. CVIII (2), pp.
107-239.

Clark, D. A. (2002) Visions of Development: A Study of Human Values. Cheltenham:

Edward Elgar

Comin, F. (2001) ‘Operationalizing Sen’s Capability Approach’. Paper prepared for

the Conference Justice and Poverty: examining Sen’s Capability Approach,
Cambridge, 5-7 June 2001.

Comim, F and Teschl, M. (2004) ‘Adaptive Preferences and Capabilities’. In

proceedings of the 4th Conference on the Capability Approach: Enhancing Human
Security, Pavia, 5-7 September 2004.

Cooke, B. (2001) ‘The Socio-Psychological Limits of Participation?’ In Cooke, B.

and Kothari, U. (eds.) Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books.

Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds.) (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny? London:
Zed Books.

Cornwall, A. and Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2004) ‘Putting the ‘rights-based approach’ to

development into perspective’. Third World Quarterly, vol. 25, n. 8, pp. 1415-1437.
Crocker, D. (2006) ‘The Capability Approach and Deliberative Democracy’. Briefing
of the Human Development and Capability Association, 4, pp. 4-6.

Crocker, D. (2007) Goulet on Development Ethics and Non-elite Participation. Paper

presented at the 2007 Human Development and Capability Association Conference.
The New School, New York City, September 17-20, 2007.

Deneulin, S. (2005) ‘Promoting Human Freedoms under Conditions of Inequalities: A

Procedural Framework’. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), pp. 75-92.

Deneulin, S. and Stewart, F. (2002) Amartya Sen’s contribution to development

thinking. Studies in Comparative International Development. 37(2), pp. 61-70.

Department for International Development (DFID) (1999) ‘Sustainable Livelihoods

Guidance Sheet’. http://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_rtfs/Sect1.rtf.
Accessed January 15, 2007.

Escobar, A. (1992) Planning. In Sachs, W. (ed.) The Development dictionary : a guide

to knowledge as power. London, Zed Books

Evans, P. (2002) ‘Collective Capabilities, Culture, and Amartya Sen’s Development

as Freedom’. Studies in Comparative International Development. Vol. 37, N. 2,
pp.54-60.

Eyben, R. (2004) Linking Power and Poverty Reduction. In Alsop, R. (ed.) Power,
Rights, and Poverty: Concepts and Connections. Working meeting DFID-World
Bank. March 23-24, 2003.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEMPOWERMENT/Resources/PPFinalText.pdf

Finnis, J. (1979) Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Frediani, A. A. (2006) ‘Participatory Methods and the Capability Approach’. Human

Development and Capability Association Briefings.
http://www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/Briefing_on_PM_and_CA2.pdf
Accessed December 14, 2006.

Frediani, A. A. (2007) ‘Amartya Sen, the World Bank, and the Redress of Urban
Poverty: A Brazilian Case Study’. Journal of Human Development, vol. 8, n. 1,
pp.133-152.

Gasper, D. (2002) ‘Is Sen’s Capability Approach an Adequate Basis for Considering
Human Development?’ Review of Political Economy, vol. 14, n. 4, pp. 435-461.

Gore, C. (1997) ‘Irreducible social goods and the informational basis of Amartya
Sen’s capability approach’. Journal of International Development, 9(2) pp.235-250.

Gready, P. and J. Ensor (eds) (2005) Reinventing Development? Translating Rights-

based Approaches from Theory into Practice. London: Zed Books.
Griffins, J. P. (1996) Value Judgement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hasan, A., Patel, S., Satterthwaite, D. 2005 ‘How to Meet the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) in Urban Areas’. Environment and Urbanisation, vol 17
n. 1 pp 3-19.

Ibrahim, S. (2006) From individual to collective capabilities: The Capability

Approach as a Conceptual Framework for Self-help. Journal of Human Development.
Vol 7, n. 3, pp. 397-416.

Ibrahim, S. and Alkire, S. (2007) Agency and Empowerment: A Proposal for

International Comparable Indicators. OPHI Working Paper Series (4), May 2007.

Institute of Development Studies (IDS) (2003) ‘The Rise of Rights: Rights-Based

Approaches to International Development’. IDS Policy Briefing, issue 17, May.

Jasek-Rysdahl, K. (2001) ‘Applying Sen’s capability framework to neighbourhoods:

Using local asset maps to deepen our understanding of well-being’. Review of Social
Economy, LIX (3), pp. 313-329.

Lukes, S. (1974) Power: a radical view. London, Macmillan.

Mander, H. (2005) ‘Rights as Struggle – Towards a More Just and Humane World’.
In Gready, P. and Ensor, J. (eds.) (2005) Reinventing Development? London: Zed
Books

Moser, C and A. Norton (2001) To Claim our Rights: livelihoods security, human
rights and sustainable development. London: ODI.

Nussbaum, M. (1988). ‘Nature, functioning and capability: Aristotle on political

distribution’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary Volume,
pp. 145-184.

Nussbaum, M. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Brien P. (2005) ‘Rights-Based Responses to Aid Politicization in Afghanistan’. In

Gready, P. and Ensor, J. (eds.) (2005) Reinventing Development? London: Zed
Books.

Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, Princeton

University Press.

Pant, M. (2001) ‘Changing faces of poverty in East Nepal: An application of Sen’s

Capability Approach’. Paper presented at Conference on Justice and Poverty.
Cambridge June 5-7, 2001.

Patnaik, P. (1998) ‘Amartya Sen and the Theory of Public Action’. Economic and
Political Weekly, vol. 33, n. 45, pp. 2855-2859.
Pieterse, N. (2000) After post-development. Third World Quarterly, Vol 21, No 2, pp
175–191, 2000.

Qizilbash, M. (1996) ‘Capabilities, Well-being and Human Development: A Survey’.

The Journal of Development Studies, vol. 33, n. 2, pp. 143-162.

Qizilbash, M. (2002) ‘Development, common foes and shared values’. Review of

Political Economy, 14(4) pp.463-480.

Robeyns, I. (2003) ‘The Capability Approach: An Interdisciplinary Introduction’.

http://www.ingridrobeyns.nl/. Accessed January 3, 2004.

Sachs, W. (ed.) (1992) The Development dictionary : a guide to knowledge as power.

London, Zed Books

Scott, J. (1985) Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. London,
Yale University Press.

Sen, A. (1985) Commodities and Capabilities. New York: Elsevier Science

Publishing Company.

Sen, A. (1992) Inequality re-examined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sen, A. (1993) ‘Capability and Well-Being’. In Nussbaum, M. N. and Sen, A. (eds)

(1993) The quality of life. Oxford: Claredon Press.

Sen, A. (1996) ‘On the Foundation of Welfare Economics: Utility, Capability and
Practical Reason’. In Farina et al (Eds.) Ethics, Rationality and Economic Behavior.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sen, A. (2000) ‘Social Exclusion: Concept, Application, and Scrutiny’. Social

Development Papers, n. 1. Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian
Development Bank.

Sen, A. (2001) ‘Economic Development and Capability Expansion in Historical

Perspective’. Pacific Economic Review, vol. 6 n. 2 pp. 179-191.

Sen, A. (2002) Rationality and Freedom. Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press.

Sen, A. (2005) ‘Human Rights and Capabilities’. Journal of Human Development,

vol. 6, n. 2, pp. 151-166.

Slim, H. (2002) ‘A Response to Peter Uvin, Making Moral Low Ground: Rights as
the Struggle for Justice and the Abolition of Development. Praxis: The Fletcher
Journal of Development Studies, vol. 17, pp 1-5.

Smith A. [1759] 1976. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stewart, F. (2005) Groups and Capabilities. Journal of Human Development. Vol 6,
N. 2, pp. 185-204.

Sugden, R. (1993) ‘Welfare, resources and capabilities: a review of inequality re-

examined by Amartya Sen’. Journal of Economic Literature, n. 31 pp. 1947-1962

Todaro, M. (2006) Economic Development. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2000) Human Development

Report 2000. New York: Oxford University Press.

Uvin, P. (2002) ‘On High Moral Ground: The incorporation of Human Rights by the
Development Enterprise’. Praxis: The Fletcher Journal of Development Studies, vol
17, pp 1-11.