Search

This paper takes a new look at the long-standing debate about whether the capability approach is too indi­vidualistic and how best to take account of collectivity. The debate has been summarised several times (Robeyns, 2005; Alkire, 2008) but it is still ongoing with some recent contributions to the empirical as well as the conceptual level (Godfrey-Wood & Mamani-Vargas, 2016; John B. Davis, 2015; Hall, 2016). This paper broadens the view by going beyond the papers that stirred the question of individualism and tracing more broadly various strands of the relevant literature. In order to get a grip on the large range of papers a classification scheme is proposed first. The literature can be classified according to how it conceives collectives. Some understand collective in a descriptive way, assigning membership to all people who share certain characteristics regardless of their own view. For example, Stewart’s (Stewart, 2005; 2010) research on ‘group capability’ and ‘horizontal inequality’ shows impressively that group deprivations are lasting longer than individual deprivations by relying on statistical analysis and external descriptions of deprived groups. In contrast to that the well-known notion of ‘collective capabilities’ (Evans, 2002; Ibrahim, 2006) refers to groups based on voluntary and conscious membership. In their case, people are committed to the group in question and usually know its members personally. Thus, this kind of collective is probably much smaller than that referred to by Stewart. A second criterion for classifying the strands of literature derives from the goals the groups are pursuing: The capability approach is in general mainly concerned with well-being. The literature on collectives point to the positive instrumental role groups play in promoting the well-being of disadvantaged people. Sen (1985c) holds that the capability approach is especially apt for assessing well-being, but that humans usually have goals beyond their own well-being. These ‘agency goals’ differ widely from person to person as they encompass commitments to groups, political convictions and ‘the morals’ more generally. According to Sen (1999d) commitments may drive a wedge between a person’s choice and her well-being, thus it is important to distinguish well-being and agency. Collectives play an important role in exercising agency hence contrib­uting to the constitutive role of democracy by providing spaces for public deliberation. Some collectives mainly aim at improving the well-being of their members, others mostly at strengthening their agency. This is the second classification criterion. The paper then surveys the literature and distinguishes five main strands classified according to the cri­teria. Collective capabilities are but one way to conceive groups from a capability perspective. The classification frame can also be applied to the participatory research process followed in the project RE-InVEST. Some problems of doing participatory research on the subject of social policy and within a huge third-party-funded project are highlighted. The conclusion summarises the main findings and shows how the various approaches complement each other in explaining various aspects of reality.

Based on a study of policy-induced changes in the Swedish pulp and paper industry, this paper follows a process of socio-technical regime destabilisation. Results from the study show that in industries where established firms have significant power, processes of endogenous renewal are more likely to destabilise established regimes than processes based on niche solutions. Further, the study shows how policy measures aimed to destabilise the current regime may result in different responses, owing to the different capabilities of individual firms. The analysis suggests that heterogeneous capabilities within established industries provide possibilities for policy makers to initiate change.

This short paper synthesises the main teachings of lessons from our ex-ante assessment of the Social Investment Package (SIP) adopted by the European Commission in 2013, using the normative framework elaborated in the synthesis report of Deliverable 4.1. The report is structured around two steps. We first identify the normative guidelines of the social investment perspective as endorsed by the European Commission, then we assess it against the normative framework developed in Deliverable4.1.

This paper aims at providing a normative framework based on human rights and the capability approach in order to assess contemporary welfare policies and suggest reforms that would promote human flourishing and human dignity. In the first section, we start by defining the anthropological conception at the basis of the capability approach, which is inherently plural and multidimensional. We thus explain the multidimen­sional nature of disadvantage at the core of the capability approach with reference to its anthropological understanding. From this perspective, we link each aspect of social disadvantage to an anthropological dimension – a valuable way of being human. Moreover, we show how public action can intervene and reduce disadvantage in each dimension. In the second section, we establish a link between the analytical framework developed in Section 1 and the human rights approach with the purpose of reinforcing its nor­mative basis. In the third section we propose a normative framework for welfare reform based on the capability and human rights approach. Finally, in the conclusion we highlight some of the most important implications of adopting it, focusing especially on the differences between the normative framework pro­posed and austerity policies on the one hand, and the social investment approach on the other hand. A central concern, which informs the whole report, is to take into account the many critiques and challenges that have been addressed to the capability approach. In so doing, we depart ‑ in certain aspects ‑ from the orthodoxy of the capability approach as developed by Amartya Sen, taking on board elements drawn by Martha Nussbaum’s version of the capability approach as well as insights from other scholars.

This paper studies the multidimensional nature of social disadvantage taking the capability approach as the normative framework of reference. In the first part, we start by defining social disadvantage as a multi­dimensional and dynamic phenomenon. In the second part, we analyse the links between different dimen­sions of disadvantage and their evolution over time, referring to the notion of conversion factors. Finally, in the third section we apply this analytical framework to the issue of political exclusion.