Capabilities and Human Development: the critical role of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Capabilities and Human Development: the critical role of Development: the critical role of social institutions and social competencies

Frances Stewart

Introduction Introduction

• Individuals cannot flourish or even function alone.
• Families/neighbourhoods/society essential for survival

and flourishing.

• Yet ca and HD approaches primarily focus on individual
• What is role of collective entities?

H i l i tit ti b i t d i t

• How can social institutions be incorporated into

CA/HD?

• what

what

• is a process of enlarging people’s choices

2

CA and HD approaches CA and HD approaches

• CA (Sen ad Nussbaum) – aim of development is to

expand individuals’ capabilities (what they can be or do).

• CA difficult to measure.

CA difficult to measure.

• HD concerned with expansion of individual choice:

– ‘Human development is a process of enlarging people’s choices’ choices – In practice focus on functionings [what people are or do] rather than ca because of measurement issues. B t till th i di id l i f – But still the individual is focus.

• ‘Human development is a process of enlarging people’s

choices.

3

Where does ‘social’ fit in Where does social fit in

• Etzioni: a ‘basic observation of sociology and

t o : a bas c obse at o o soc o ogy a d psychology is that the individual and the community ‘penetrate’ one another, and that d d l bl f h d individuals are not able to function without deep links to others’. H i l b i t t d i t h?

• How can social be integrated into ca approach?
• 3 stage analysis:

1 Wh th i l t d i ti – 1. Where the social enters: a description – 2. Some analysis – 3 implications for HD: research; data; policy

• 3. implications for HD: research; data; policy.

4

Brief definitions Brief definitions

• Social institutions defined as all collective

institutions excluding market ones (includes institutions, excluding market ones (includes state at each level; communities; NGOs…) Main concern here with non state social Main concern here with non‐state social institutions. F ll i N th i tit ti i l d

• Following North, institutions include
• rganisations and norms
• Social competencies are what such

institutions can do or be

5

Why essential for HD Why essential for HD

• Social institutions have direct impact on HD

Social institutions have direct impact on HD

• utcomes:
• Actually deliver essential services etc
• Actually deliver essential services etc.
• Norms of behaviour affect HD outcomes.

S i l i tit ti ff t hi h ff t

• Social institutions affect power which affects

market outcomes; and state policies and i l t ti implementation.

6

Requirements for human flourishing: or i i l critical CA

• Surveys of

y

– Range of philosophers (Rawls; Finnis, Boyle et al; Nussbaum) – Basic needs theorists (Doyal and Gough) Basic needs theorists (Doyal and Gough) – Focus groups with poor people (Narayan‐Parker) – Surveys of opinion (Camfield).

• Result in 9 basic categories bodily wellbeing material
• Result in 9 basic categories: bodily wellbeing; material

wwell being; mental development; work; security; social relations; spiritual wellbeing; empowerment and liti l f d t f i d political freedom; respects for species and environment.

• For each social institutions one essential influence

7

8

Critical role of norms

• Social norms include ‘moral’ commandments and non‐ethical

Social norms include moral commandments and non ethical

• conventions. Norms affect behaviour and HD outcomes as

shown in Table. And sometimes social institutions constrain individual choices (children; women especially) individual choices (children; women especially).

• Part of poverty trap (e.g. early marriage; dowery;

discrimination against women). g )

• Norms and education: sending children to schools (girls and

boys); support for learning at home.

• Norms and health: use of bednets; hand washing; smoking

9

Formation of Norms Formation of Norms

• How do norms come about?

How do norms come about?

• Some rules state legislated.
• Many informal conventions: outcome of numerous

Many informal conventions: outcome of numerous informal interactions among agents in a society.

• Societal dynamic, influenced by history, religion,

Societal dynamic, influenced by history, religion, education, state, social interactions. V. complex and insufficiently studied.

• Huge variation in richness and competencies of social

institutions across societies. Yet almost never

• catalogued. Particularly norms.

10

Norms and autonomy Norms and autonomy

• Norms and institutions limit individual autonomy.

– norms are internalised so individuals are not truly autonomous but preferences and choices partly the

• utcome of social norms.

Cannot assume autonomous individuals because – Cannot assume autonomous individuals because ‘Individual and the community penetrate on another’ – Then who is best judge of individual decisions?

11

Dilemma posed by mutual penetration of social institutions and individual for CA/HD approach pp

• For HD‐promotion must recognise that social institutions

For HD promotion must recognise that social institutions affect choices and behaviour.

• Nature of social norms and institutions become critical

aspect of HD. Need to support HD‐promoting and avoid HD‐destroying norms. Y t h d id h t i HD ti i

• Yet who decides what is HD‐promoting, given non‐

autonomy of individual?

• No simple answers: state should not decide
• No simple answers: state should not decide.

12

Approaches to identifying HD, d d l f d d l h independently of individual choices

• Nussbaum: overlapping consensus
• Vizard: internationally agreed Human Rights
• Common denominator of philosophical enquiries? (as

Table).

13

Are social competencies always HD‐ promoting?

• Clearly not: so ‘good’ and ‘bad’ social

institutions and competencies.

• Big issue: how to differentiate; and encourage

good, discourage bad. g , g

14

Aggregate societal features Aggregate societal features

• Table shows how each individual category is affected

g y by social institutions.

• Can we identify general features of social institutions

t diff t l l hi h ti f d CA at different levels which are supportive of good CA

• utcomes? (including society; community; family).
• Note: societal features may affect different CA

Note: societal features may affect different CA

• differently. Rather low correlation among different

dimension (Ranis, Stewart, Samman 2006).

• Trade‐offs possible: e.g. material well being versus

spiritual; material versus environment…

15

Macro level assessment ‐‐ aggregate l d f social dimensions of a society.

• Might be many hD‐promoting social

Might be many hD promoting social institutions, yet not satisfactory society at macro‐level:

– Dysfunctional families (living alone; or oppressive families); – Relations across cultures limited: ‘silo’ society. – Hierarchical society, little contact across levels f d l l l b l – Stratified society: little social mobility.

• All relevant to aggregate social assessment.

16

• 2. Social institutions and power
• 2. Social institutions and power

St t t t d ‘ l t i ’

• State not autonomous and ‘platonic’.
• Decisions outcome of political pressures.
• Policy change depends on political struggle. Individuals

Policy change depends on political struggle. Individuals alone are powerless; only acquire power by forming social institutions:

• Market conditions also influenced by formation of
• Market conditions also influenced by formation of

groups.

• At:

– Micro‐level – Meso‐level – Macro‐level Macro level

17

Micro level: importance of collective

• rganisations
• Sex‐workers in Calcutta: fragmented, exploited

Se

• e s

Ca cutta: ag e ted, e p o ted and weak group came together into group and improved material conditions and self‐respect ( ) (Gooptu).

• Squatter Women in Capetown (Crossroads)

f d d f ll h ll d t t formed group and successfully challenged state‐ evictions, contributed to overthrow of apartheid.

• Scavengers’ organisation into coops greatly
• Scavengers organisation into coops greatly

improved conditions ‐ Colombia earned 1.5 of minimum wage. g

18

Meso‐level: Political movements

• Orang Asli in Malaysia formed Peninsular Malaysia

Orang Asli Association from 18 groups to protect culture and improve state treatment

• Luhya in Kenya became political force through

Luhya in Kenya became political force through formation of single organisation (the Luhya Elders Forum)

• Rural indigenous people in Peru

some areas

• Rural indigenous people in Peru – some areas
• rganised collectively to promote security and improve

conditions; other areas with no organisation penetrated by Shining Path But all weak because of penetrated by Shining Path. But all weak because of weak local state to negotiate with.

• Brazil landless workers movt. Took over millions of

b il h l acres, built schools etc.

19

Macro‐level: need for strong collective i i i h (P l i) institutions to promote change (Polanyi)

• India NREG following mass campaign
• India: NREG, following mass campaign
• Venezuela: workers and peasants movt. supported

Chavez leading to land reforms, improved terms with Chavez leading to land reforms, improved terms with

• il cos, and improved income distribution.
• Similar in Brazil workers and peasants movts put Lula in

i d i i d f i d power: raised min wage; increased transfers; improved eudc.; income distribution improved.

• Bolivia; Morales: new constitution giving more power

Bolivia; Morales: new constitution giving more power to indigenous people; state control over natural resources; pensions; education; land reforms.

20

Social institutions not always HD‐promoting Social institutions not always HD promoting

• Mobilisation for violence and criminality

Mobilisation for violence and criminality

• Collective institutions of elite can undermine

conditions of the poor: conditions of the poor:

– Lobbies against taxation; against worker associations – Landlords associations to evict tenants or worsen conditions

• Norms encouraging adverse behaviour

– Smoking; drinking;

21

Summary: Relationship between social institutions/competencies and individual / p

• utcomes

1. Huge instrumental importance of social institutions for individual ca.:

1. Directly via production and behaviour 2. Via changing terms of producers 2. Via changing terms of producers 3. Via political choices

• 2. Institutions/ norms affect individual choices among

and between valuable and non valuable ca and between valuable and non valuable ca.

• 3. Some aspects affect individuals yet concern

relationships among individuals, and cannot be ( assessed by looking at individuals alone (relational like social cohesion), though whether social cohesion is desirable depends on how it affects individuals.

22

23

Major conclusion: Major conclusion:

• Assessment of CA/HD of a society must

Assessment of CA/HD of a society must include assessment of social institutions and competencies: competencies:

– Because affects production of individual CA Because influences nature of individual choices – Because influences nature of individual choices – individuals not independent of social institutions; – Because societal relationships important as well as – Because societal relationships important as well as individual outcomes

24

• 3. Measuring social institutions and

competencies at a country level 4 competencies at a country level – 4 approaches

• 1. Cataloguing of social institutions and norms

2 Measure of social interactions

• 2. Measure of social interactions
• 3. Measure of social inclusion/HIs
• 4. Assessments of societal outcomes.

25

Measures at aggregate level: S i l h i

• 1. Social cohesion
• Social interactions across cultural and

Social interactions across cultural and economic groups (no silo society; nor hierarchical; nor stratified). Possible measures:

– Socialising across groups – Marrying – Joint membership of social institutions – Trust in others, across groups – Social mobility

26

• 2. Social inclusion
• 2. Social inclusion
• Where no group(s) suffer multiple

Where no group(s) suffer multiple disadvantages.

• Low HIs
• Low HIs
• Lack of social inclusion or HIs generally imply

l k f i l h i lack of social cohesion

27

• 3. Outcome measures

– Homicide rate Homicide rate – Criminality – Single parent families Single parent families – Abandoned children Suicide rate – Suicide rate – Deaths in armed combat.

B t l b f f d

• But some may also be measures of freedom;

and product of reporting.

28

Implications for CA/HD approaches Implications for CA/HD approaches

1 Analysis: beyond individual (and beyond state

• 1. Analysis: beyond individual (and beyond state

and market) to:

– Formation and impact of groups/social institutions – Formation and impact of groups/social institutions – Incentives and constraints on collective action Role of norms – Role of norms – How norms are formed R l ti hi ith liti l – Relationship with political economy – Interactions among individuals and groups

29

• 2. Empirical work
• 2. Empirical work
• To identify social institutions associated with

To identify social institutions associated with improved HD.

• Catalogue social institutions and identify
• Catalogue social institutions and identify

conditions that lead to good institutions E l l i hi b i di f

• Explore relationship between indicators of

social cohesion and societal outcomes.

30

• 3. Policy
• 3. Policy
• To promote HD‐promoting social

To promote HD promoting social institutions/norms

• Facilitate empowering institutions
• Facilitate empowering institutions
• Promote socially cohesive outcomes
• Reduce inequalities.

31

• 4. Measurement and Assessment
• 4. Measurement and Assessment
• Very little done to date Should complement

Very little done to date. Should complement economic and political assessment of societies with social assessments with social assessments.

• Note preliminary research shows social

performance not correlated with economic performance not correlated with economic nor political.

32