The concepts of participation intertwine all development efforts as most scholars argue that with the participation of the involved people, better outcomes are exhibited. For this write-up, a review of the article “Human Development and the Capability Approach: The Role of Empowerment and Participation” by Frediani et al. (2019) shall form the core argument.
Beginning the review of the article, the introduction section carefully develops the concept of participation. This is evidenced when the authors portray participation as a key ingredient to development. By using the Sustainable Development Goals, more so SDG 16, the authors develop the context of participation in development. SDG 16 underpins the responsiveness, inclusivity, participation and representative decision making at all levels. By interrelating how participation affects development on a global scale, the authors support their credibility and justify the importance of their study. Studies that directly impact universal thinking are bound to solicit enough support to advance the gaps that exist in that particular field of knowledge, which in this case, is the issue of participatory methods as a tool for development.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Additionally, the authors develop their argument that participation exists across all diversities with great amounts of interest on the topic. The article discusses two dimensions of participation, i.e., as an apolitical and pragmatic perspective and as a cost-benefit analysis used in developmental projects. While the original intentions of participation were to enable a personal, collective and structural process of empowerment, Cooke & Kothari (2001) note that participation as an apolitical perspective has led to a series of problematic applications resulting in exploitation and injustices. The article further expounds on Cooke & Kothari’s work by introducing the concept of freedom developed by Sen (1999).
Amartya Sen's concept of freedom is based on citizens having increased access and opportunities to the things they have reason to value. Sen directly questions the mainstream idea of equating development to economic growth. He acknowledges that an increase in poor people’s income directly contributes to the growth of their liberties. Still, he acknowledges that an upsurge in income alone “has at best uneven and at worst has detrimental impacts on the majority of a country’s population, and radical redistributive measures are necessary for the poor to benefit from growth (Sen, 1999).” This strengthens the idea that participation can at times have detrimental effects.
The authors further use Sen’s relationship to participation to bring forth a different perspective that is the capability approach. The capability approach primarily deals with personal and societal transformation, i.e., it reveals the processes that shape what people value and the enabling and constraining factors influencing people’s freedom to pursue such values. The article further articulates how this new concept that is capability approach correlates with the original Paulo Freirean tradition of participation, which focuses on how people ‘gain confidence and abilities to alter unjust conditions and structures of societies’ (Freire, 1997).
The article consequently develops the capability approach and how it contributes and correlates with the participation methodologies. The argument is that while the capability approach focuses on concepts of agency and wellbeing that foster human development, the aspect of participation forms the basis of human development, hence portraying that the two paradigms are intertwined. The introduction section concludes by summarizing the aims of the discussion which include shedding more light on the similarities, criticism, and complementarities between the capability approach and participatory methodologies. Additionally, the introduction denotes that the article will examine deeper on the role of participation in the current literature on human development and capabilities.
Looking into the introduction section, the article adequately develops the theme by showing how the different paradigms of interest are interrelated and how they affect human development. The authors use clear and concise statements that are understandable to argue out their biases and develop the thesis of their work. Citations from credible sources are present thus adding more authenticity to the work. Finally, the introduction section portrays a clear picture that is consistent with the title of the article. Despite these positive aspects, the authors left some concepts unclear. For example, Sen’s concept of freedom and the Freirean tradition of participation were inadequately developed. These two sections should have used a more detailed background before summarizing as to how they correlate with the theme of the article.
When it comes to the body of the paper, the authors provide subtopics on the main ideas they aim to discuss. For starters, the authors discuss the similarities that the capability approach has to the participation methodologies. For both perspectives, they share a common critique of the utilitarian and income-led notion of poverty. The capability approach critiques the income-led notion of poverty, in that, it describes deprivation as perceived by poor people having many dimensions that include social inferiority, physical weakness, powerlessness, and humiliation. All these dimensions affect a person’s capability as noted by Chambers (1997). On the other side of the similarity spectrum, Shaffer (2012) notes that the analysis of poverty through participatory approaches captures the complexities and underlying dynamics of poverty, while economics is only able to measure through indicators the manifestations of poverty.
From Chambers’ and Shaffer’s perspectives, the convergence of the two ideologies is clear. The theories might be different in development, but in the long run, they share ideologies in how they describe poverty. Additionally, recent capability literature points out to two types of application of the capability approach, that is, grassroots exploration of human capabilities and distant assessment of human capabilities. Ibrahim (2014) expounds on the former application adopting a methodological approach using mixed methods and potentially participatory approaches.
Moreover, both the capability and participatory works of literature insist on the need to contextualize the concept of poverty. In addition to these similarities, Frediani (2015) developed the concept of participatory capabilities which borrows from both the capability approach and the participatory methodologies. All these are examples used by the authors to portray the similarities between the two concepts. The argument is clear and precise and the similarity has been portrayed effectively. The buildup is also consistent with the subtopic section of the paper.
Looking into the limitations of the two concepts, they fail to reach an agreement on the targeted participants of their analysis. Deneulin (2005) and Evans (2002) note that the capability approach has been criticized for being too individualistic. On the other hand, participatory methods focus on individual empowerment and move away from their collective traditions (Cleaver, 2001). Additionally, both approaches propose local solutions to global problems, hence failing to tackle structural inequalities (Gore, 2000). Critiques of participatory methods also note that their localized problem-solving application ignores structural constraints of globalized capitalism (Mohan, 2006). Additionally, Cooke & Kothari (2001) note that participatory methods emphasis on micro-level intervention obscures broader level inequalities and injustices.
On the complementarities side, Cornwall (2000) and Cleaver (2001) suggest that the shortcomings discussed above can only be overcome from implementing the two approaches together. Cleaver (2001) further adds that participatory methods need to be complemented by a theory that explores human nature and the many dimensions of their well-being. The capability approach contributes to the participatory methodology by providing a comprehensive and flexible theory of wellbeing that can capture dynamic aspects of poverty. Dreze & Sen (2002) argue that participation in itself has intrinsic and instrumental significance on human capabilities and development. While these complementarities are few, they still portray vital instances in which the previous limitations can be alleviated when both approaches are used together.
In the next section of the paper, the authors introduce the concept of participation within the capability approach literature. The authors discuss well-being and adaptation as the two issues that are vital for bringing participation and capability approach together. Beginning with the issue of well-being, Crocker (2008) and Alkire (2005) argue that Sen denotes participatory methodologies as processes by which many evaluative issues may be resolved. Kaufman (2007) develops the connection between participation and the capability approach by arguing that the theory of deliberative democracy offers an account of the processes people employ to form their values.
Alkire (2013) considers five mechanisms that have been used to identify dimensions of poverty and among them, the role of participation is acknowledged. Additionally, Alkire (2005) denotes that participatory approaches and Sen’s capability approach have four things in common: they aim to obtain people’s outcomes while empowering the participants, they equate importance on the issue of who decides and what is decided, they recognize shortcomings on the process and reasoned deliberation is supported for consideration of interpersonal comparisons. The authors used Alkire’s (2013) work, to develop the table below to denote the methods for identifying dimensions of poverty and well-being.
Table 1 : Methods for Identifying Dimensions of Poverty and Well-Being Including Capabilities
| Method | The method for selecting dimensions is… |
| Existing data | Based on the availability of data with suitable characteristics for measurement purposes-for example, the Human Development Index |
| Normative assumptions | Based on informed guesses of researchers or transparent and justified use of normative assumptions-for example, Maslow’s (1943) ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ or Nussbaum’s (2001) list of ‘central human capabilities’ |
| Public consensus | Based on legitimate consensus-building processes which may or may not directly involve the general public. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Sustainable Development Goals. |
| Ongoing deliberative participatory processes | Based on group discussion and participatory forms of analysis in which people identify, reflect and justify the capabilities they have reason to value |
| Inference from anecdotal evidence | Based on expert analysis of existing evidence that has indirect relevance for identifying valuable dimensions of life |
| Studies of human values and aspirations involving open-ended interviews or surveys | Based on studies specifically designed to uncover human values and aspirations in an effort to identify important capabilities from the bottom up. |
| Mixed methods including various forms of empirical philosophy | Based on approaches for selecting dimensions that draw on more than one method. |
(Source: Frediani et al., 2019).
In the last issue that is adaptive preferences, Alkire (2005) argues that Sen does not directly support participatory methods since he would need to include literature on the decision-making process, thus move away from the economics discipline. Despite this, Comim & Teschl (2004) have explored the psychological aspects of the decision-making process and contributed to Sen’s work. Sen (2005) mentions a process to overcome adaptive preferences based on Adam Smith’s (1759) work on moral reasoning. Biggeri et al. (2006) base their argument to overcome adaptive preferences on a similar approach to Sen. They note that children were more open to speaking up when asked about the general well-being of other children in contrast to when they were asked about their well-being.
Clark & Qizilbash (2008) use a relatable approach to Biggeri et al. in that they ask people to abstract from their own situation in order to identify the constituent elements of poverty and well-being. Biggeri & Libanora (2011) refine the aforementioned approach by not only attempting to detach a person’s preferences from their life experiences but also acknowledging that the community capability might be neglected by a part of the considered community. Comim & Teschl (2004) argue that people are constrained by resignation and not adaptation in their ability to evaluate their well-being. They further add that resignation occurs when there exists a feeling of passivity which results in acceptance of the given order.
Additionally, Fafchamps & Kebede (2012) note that the poor and disadvantaged are less susceptible to adaptation when compared with the more advantaged. Moreover, in cases where adaptation takes place, it often takes the form that upholds value formation. Clark (2009) suggests that adaptation involves raising aspirations in the light of new possibilities. Therefore, raising aspirations to reflect previous achievements strengthens the case for listening to the poor.
In conclusion to the article’s review, the authors do excellent work in ensuring they meet their overall objectives. Additionally, their work provides a different perspective of looking at participation methodologies and capability approaches. While these two paradigms might at first appear different, the authors discuss the ways in which they are similar and even complement each other to alleviate their individual limitations. These useful insights are vital in planning for human development as each approach depicts its merits, demerits and use case scenarios. Nevertheless, the article further goes ahead to elaborate on the dimensions of poverty which when tackled can foster development among communities. All these are instances which without the authors' contributions, would have remained unclear; hence developers would not have tapped into their potential for positive change.
References
Alkire, S. (2005). Valuing freedoms: Sen's capability approach and poverty reduction . Oxford University Press on Demand.
Alkire, S. (2013). Choosing dimensions: The capability approach and multidimensional poverty. In The many dimensions of poverty (pp. 89-119). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Biggeri, M., & Libanora, R. (2011). From valuing to evaluating: Tools and procedures to operationalize the capability approach. In Children and the capability approach (pp. 79- 106). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
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 , 7 (1), 59-83.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts (Vol. 25). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Clark, D. A. (2009). Adaptation, poverty and well‐being: some issues and observations with special reference to the capability approach and development studies. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities , 10 (1), 21-42.
Clark, D. A., & Qizilbash, M. (2008). Core poverty, vagueness and adaptation: A new methodology and some results for South Africa. The Journal of Development Studies , 44 (4), 519-544.
Cleaver, F. (2001). Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development. Participation: The New Tyranny , 36 .
Comim, F., &; Teschl, M. (2004). Adaptive Preferences and Capabilities. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on the Capability Approach: Enhancing Human Security (September 5– 7) , University of Pavia, Italy.
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). The case for participation as tyranny. In Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books, pp. 1-15.
Cornwall, A. (2000). Beneficiary consumer citizen: perspectives on participation for poverty reduction (Vol. 2). Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.
Kaufman, A. (Ed.). (2007). Capabilities equality: basic issues and problems . Routledge.
Crocker, D. A. (2008). Ethics of global development: Agency, capability, and deliberative democracy . Cambridge University Press.
Deneulin, S. (2005). Promoting Human Freedoms under Conditions of Inequalities: a procedural framework. Journal of Human Development , 6 (1), 75-95.
Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (2002). India: Development and participation . Oxford University Press on Demand.
Evans, P. (2002). Collective capabilities, culture, and Amartya Sen’sDevelopment as Freedom. Studies in Comparative International Development , 37 (2), 54-60.
Fafchamps, M., & Kebede, B. (2012). Subjective well-being, disability and adaptation: A case study from rural Ethiopia. In Adaptation, Poverty and Development (pp. 161-180). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Frediani, A. A. (2015). Participatory capabilities in development practice. The capability approach in development planning and urban design , 121-133.
Frediani, A. A., Clark, D. A., & Biggeri, M. (2019). Human development and the capability approach: the role of empowerment and participation. In The Capability Approach, Empowerment and Participation (pp. 3-36). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Freire, P. (1997). Foreword. In Nurtured by Knowledge: Learning to Do Participatory Action Research . New York: The Apex Press.
Gore, C. (2000). The rise and fall of the Washington Consensus as a paradigm for developing countries. World Development , 28 (5), 789-804.
Ibrahim, S. (2014). Introduction: The Capability Approach: From Theory to Practice—Rationale, Review and Reflections. In The Capability Approach (pp. 1-28). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review , 50 (4), 370.
Mohan, G. (2006). Beyond participation: strategies for deeper empowerment. In Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books, pp. 153–167.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Women and human development: The capabilities approach (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press.
Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development , 6 (2), 151-166.
Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as Freedom . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Shaffer, P. (2012). Participatory analyses of poverty dynamics: Reflections on the Myanmar PPA. In Knowing Poverty (pp. 55-79). Routledge.
Smith, A. (2010). The theory of moral sentiments . Penguin.
