The capability approach from a gender perspective

1
The capability approach from a gender
perspective

• Seminar at the Laboratoire de démographie
• et détudes familiales,
• Universitè de Geneve,7 June 2008
• Enrica Chiappero - Martinetti,
• Università di Pavia
• and HDCP-IRC, IUSS Pavia
• enrica.chiappero_at_unipv.it

2
Aims and contents

• A brief overview of the capability approach
• What this approach can offer from a gender
  perspective
• Some open issues and drawback
• Conclusions some suggestions for a research
  agenda

3
Capability approach and gender issues

• The capability approach is not a gender
  theoretical framework nor provide a ready-made
  recipe that can be applied to study gender
  inequality. However, it can offer a promising
  evaluative framework for addressing feminist
  concerns and gender issues.

4
A few keywords

• Functionings e capabilities. A functioning is an
  achievement whereas a capability is the ability
  to achieve. Functionings are, in a sense, more
  directly related to living conditions since they
  are different aspects of living conditions.
  Capabilities, in contrast, are notions of freedom
  in the positive sense what real opportunities
  you have regarding the life you may lead (Sen,
  The standard of living, 1987)

5
A few keywords II

• capability a vector of functionings that a
  person can achieve (realizable objectives) ?
  person's freedom to choose what kind of life to
  live real opportunities for a person to have
  well-being, including the freedom to have
  alternatives other than the chosen combination
• achieved functionings constitutive elements of a
  person's w-b set of beings and doings (realized
  objectives) being nourished, avoiding escapable
  morbidity and premature mortality, having
  self-respect, taking part in the community life,
  etc.
• standard of living personal well-being related
  to ones (material) life
• well-being it also includes outcomes resulting
  from sympathies etc,
• Agency/empowerment the ability to pursue goals
  that one values and has reason to value

6
The well-being process
7
Why the ca can help us to better address gender
issues - I

• 1) because functionings (i.e. being and doing,
  achievement, outcome) and capabilities (i.e.
  potential functionings, freedom to achieve
  something, opportunity) are properties of
  individuals.
• The CA is an ethically (or normatively)
  individualistic theory (Robeyns, 2004) but not
  ontologically individualistic

8
Why the ca can help us to better address gender
issues I (follow)

• ? womens well-being cannot be hidden under wider
  entities (household) the impact of care, social
  relations, interdependence between family or
  community members is not denied.

9
Why the ca can help us to better address gender
issues - II

• 2) because it explicitly acknowledges human
  diversity and plurality of circumstances (race,
  age, ethnicity, gender, disabilities,
  geographical location but also whether women are
  pregnant or have caring responsibilities)

10
Why the ca can help us to better address gender
issues - III

• 3) because it looks at peoples being and doings
  in both market and non-market settings. This
  makes possible to consider aspects crucially
  important in a gender-related assessments of
  well-being and disadvantage, e.g. care labour,
  household work, freedom from domestic violence or
  social networks,

11
Why the ca can help us to better address gender
issues - IV

• 4) It allows us to think about and deal with
  normative issues and evaluative questions usually
  neglected in mainstream economics
• Most features of the mainstream approach, i.e
  representative agent and income/welfare as unique
  evaluative space, market as unique economic
  relevant institution, are seriously put in
  discussion.

12
An example on how can we consider gender
inequalities from a ca perspective

• The c.a. allows us to analyze the gender
  inequality at four distinct but interrelated
  levels
• material resources,
• conversion factors,
• well-being
• and time allocation.

13
1) Inequality in the space of material resources

• make a distinction between how income and
  resources are distributed between men and women
  and the entitlement that they have in terms of
  command over resources is crucial for identifying
  possible solutions to this kind of inequalities
• public policies that affect individuals
  entitlement can structurally modify economic
  inequalities whereas income redistributions
  simply represent a partial and temporary (even if
  important) adjustment of these inequalities.

14
2) Inequality in the conversion rates

• physical heterogeneity can justify differences in
  peoples conversion rates but most
  characteristics (age and metabolic conditions,
  abilities and talents), are normally distributed
  between men and women
• ? there are no reasons to postulate that women
  must have lower conversion rates than men.
• ? womens conversion rates can be
  systematically lower but the causes of this
  inequality must be found in cultural, social and
  political norms and cannot be justified by
  physical features.
• environmental features affect the conversion
  rates a woman may have a lower conversion rate
  because households, markets and societies do not
  offer her the same opportunities that a man can
  have..

15
3) Inequality in the space of capabilities and
functionings.

• A larger capability set will reflect greater
  opportunities, a higher level of freedom and a
  wider set of choice. A greater amount (and/or a
  higher quality) of achieved functionings will
  reflect a higher standard of living.
• Focusing on the capability space means to go back
  to the causes of gender inequality whereas the
  achieved functionings space gives us a
  (innovative) measure of the existing disparities
  between men and women.

16
4) Inequality in the use of time

• To consider how care work and social reproduction
  activities directly and largely affect the
  receiver in terms of capabilities and
  functionings
• To consider what are the effects of an excessive
  burden on the caregivers well-being
• To throw light on the linkages between gender
  inequality in the space of unpaid work and gender
  inequality in the space of capabilities and
  functionings

17
One weakness or major drawback of the CA

• Being a general framework, a way of thinking, not
  a complete normative theory nor a theory of
  justice, it is underspecified.
• Capability egalitarianism only says that when
  making inequality assessment we should focus on
  capabilities. Depending on which social theories
  we add to the capability framework we get quite
  divergent normative results. What happens if
  social theories are racist, homophobic, sexist?
  Robeyns (2003, p. 67) the capability approach is
  vulnerable to androcentric interpretations and
  applications.

18
An open issues do we need a list of capabilities?

• Is it possible to formulate a universal list of
  valuable capabilities for a good life? If so,
  how can we do this? Which capabilities are
  valuable?.
• Sens position
• 1) No, we shouldnt endorse a single definitive
  list of capabilities CA is a general, flexible
  framework of thought open to a broad range of
  evaluative purposes and differing views about the
  concept of individual advantages, normative
  assessments and social arrangements.
• 2) these evaluations should come about through
  social choice procedures and public discussion
  regarding "what people have reason to value".
• Different notions of human nature and the good
  life, different cultures, contexts, purposes of
  analysis and public discussion may very well
  produce quite different selections of valuable
  capabilities.
• Nb he does not provide a single method or
  procedure to demonstrate how such a process
  should be undertaken

19
An open issues do we need a list of
capabilities? II

• Nussbaums position
• she identifies a list of ten central human
  capabilities, each of which is equally relevant
  and none of which can be replaced by anything
  else
• They represent basic constitutional principles
  which should be implemented and respected by
  each and every nation, for each and every
  individual.

20
Robeyns proposal (2003)

• Five criteria for the selection of capabilities
• Explicit formulation the list should be
  explicit, discussed and defended
• Methodological justification the method that has
  generated the list should be clarified and
  scrutinized
• Sensitivity to context level of abstraction
  related to the objectives
• Different levels of generality
• Exhaustion and non reduction the list should
  include all important element

21
Robeyns list (for post-industrialized western
societies)

• Life and physical health
• Mental well-being
• Bodily integrity and safety
• Social relations
• Political empowerment
• Education and knowledge
• Domestic work and nonmarket care

22
Robeyns list II

• Paid work and other projects
• Shelter and environment
• Mobility
• Leisure activities
• Time-autonomy
• Respect
• Religion

23
Some recent literature on CA gender issues

• Special issues of Feminist Economics, July/Nov.
  2003 (Nussbaum, Robeyns, Peter, Hill, Klasen and
  others)
• Special issues of Journal of Human Development,
  2006 on gender measurement (GDI and MEG)
• www.hdca.org website for updating bibliographies
  and unpublished manuscript

24
Some suggestions for a research agenda on CA and
gender issues

• Theoretical as well as empirical analysis on
  intrahousehold gender inequalities in terms of
  resources, time and opportunity (capability)
  allocation
• quantitative and qualitative dimensions of
  unpaid work and care activities and their impact
  on both care-receivers (children, elderly but
  also adult male) and care-givers (namely, women)
  well-being
• impact of public policies on individual (men and
  women) well-being from a capability perspective
• To stimulate a EU debate on these topics (EU
  research project within the 7FP?)