A weakness of the capability approach with respect to gender justice

Abstract

This paper is concerned with certain ways in which people adjust to deprivation. Capability egalitarians cite cases where people adjust to deprivation by adapting their preferences to discredit welfarist egalitarianism. I argue that this phenomenon is an example of a larger set of cases, where people adjust their abilities and dispositions in the face of deprivation: I term such abilities and dispositions`compensating abilities'. When these develop, I argue that equality of capability is unjust. This is particularly true in the context of gender injustice. Such cases lead us to look to some notion of expected wellbeing as a crucial egalitarian currency.

Agency Goals, Adaptation and Capability Sets

“…But adaptation may turn out to be a problem for the capability approach as well. Qizilbash (1997) discusses the situation in which someone who faces significant structural or social disadvantage may respond by making an enormous effort to expand and develop their abilities ('compensating abilities', as he terms them), such that they end up with equivalent capabilities to someone who was not disadvantaged in the first place. Qizilbash argues that, in these circumstances, an equal distribution of capabilities does not imply a socially just outcome.…”

Quality teaching in rural Sub-Saharan Africa: Different perspectives, values and capabilities

“…Habibah placed a much higher value on the use of teaching and learning resources after enrolling on her B.Ed. programme: there was a clear adjustment of her valued functionings in the direction of (what she perceived to be) realistic possibilities in her work (Qizilbash, 1997). Agnes -who received no professional development during the fieldwork period -presented a more consistent set of valued functionings.…”

“…In capability literature this subjectivity is referred to as 'adaptive preferences' (Sen, 1985(Sen, , 1992 and is primarily discussed in relation to people living in adverse situations, or contexts with strictly enforced gender norms, who may adjust their values in the direction of realistic possibilities. Once they have adjusted these values their agency and well-being may be diminished even if they do not realise it (Walker and Unterhalter, 2007;Qizilbash, 1997). This has obvious implications for empirical evaluations of capability, and a process of 'self-reflection and open debate' (Unterhalter, 2007:100) is encouraged to critically engage with factors that shape people's values and influence the choices that are made from available freedoms.…”

Environmental justice in the context of planning

“…The exclusion of power and state in the approach encourages what the researcher calls a no-touch-and-feel approach, where one forecloses others from engaging in deliberations. It is a theory imbued with the principles of empowerment, consensus (Pugh, 2005;Roy, 2015), mutual understanding (Healey, 1992;Healey, 2003;Huxley, 2000), common good and equality (Roy, 2015), common interest (Muthoo, 2000), honesty, truth, and openness (Allmendinger & Tewdwr-Jones, 2002). Pissourios (2013) revealed the theory rejecting planning standards because of its bottom-up approach and utterly rejecting analytical indicators.…”