Capabilities and disability: the capabilities framework and the social model of disability

Abstract

This article seeks to illuminate the complementarity between the capabilities framework, developed by Amartya Sen and others, and the social model of disability. Common themes include the relationship between social barriers and individual limitations, the importance of autonomy and the value of freedom, and dissatisfaction with income as a measure of well-being. Bringing the two approaches together has implications for analysis (for example in identifying poverty or disadvantage), and for policy, which are briefly illustrated. The article concludes that the capabilities framework provides a more general theoretical framework in which to locate the social model of disability, without compromising any of its central tenets; and the social model provides a thorough-going application of the capabilities framework. Each can benefit from exposure to the other.

An update to measuring chronic illness, impairment and disability in national data sources

“…A person who meets at least one of the following criteria: has or has had, a physical or mental impairment that has lasted, or is expected to last, for • at least 12 months, which has, or had, a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the persons ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, AND/OR has been diagnosed with HIV, multiple sclerosis or cancer, • OR has a condition or impairment which would have a substantial long-term adverse effect on • normal day-to-day activities without taking medication A review of survey data sources discovered a recurring pattern in the measurement of disabled people: specifically, the majority of surveys contained two core questions asking respondents whether they suffered from a long-standing illness or disability and whether their illness or disability limited their daily activities (for a list of data sources and the disability questions they hold, see Annex A Surveys have received criticism for predominantly defining and measuring disability according to the medical model: the general view advanced by expert researchers in the field of disability is that these questions are simply too focused on chronic illness and impairment and greater weight should be given to a wider concept of disability. 10,11,12 The merits of extending the information base to include additional detail in the form of impairment breakdowns and capability restrictions was highlighted in a recent World Bank discussion paper 13 and in a paper published by the former Disability Rights Commission. The latter paper offered guidance for acquiring evidence to inform action, suggesting the addition of a question to discern information on the respondent's impairment type (Box Three).…”

Three Reasons for Dealing with Disability, Education and the Majority World

“…In the literature, the biomedical model, the social (or socio-political) model and the biopsychosocial model are some of the most discussed ones and will therefore be discussed here as examples (Altman 2001;Bickenbach et al 1999;Burchardt 2004;McEwan and Butler 2007;Samaha 2007;Smart 2009;Waldschmidt 2005). Approaches towards a cultural model, an individual model, a moral model or a religious model of disability (Smart 2009;Waldschmidt 2005), amongst others, can also be found.…”

Disability, Health and Human Development

“…In earlier analyses of the capability approach for the purpose of defining disability (Burchardt 2004;Mitra 2006;Terzi 2005aTerzi , b, 2009Wolff 2009), the impairment was considered a given characteristic of the person that is part of the conversion factors and thus influences capabilities and functionings. This is different in the human development model which moves the analysis upstream and includes impairments as now separate and unpacked, in that they are influenced by (and may influence) personal factors, resources, structural factors and capabilities/functionings.…”

“…More related to this chapter, several scholars in philosophy and the social sciences have argued that Amartya Sen's capability approach can be used to define disability as capability or functioning deprivation in general (Burchardt 2004;Mitra 2006;Terzi 2009;Wolff 2009), in the context of education (Terzi 2005a, b), public policy (Trani et al 2011a), or recovery from psychiatric disorder (Hopper 2007;Wallcraft and Hopper 2015). There is not a single interpretation of the capability approach with respect to defining disability so this brief summary simplifies some potential differences among scholars.…”

“…It also draws from the extensive literatures on the capability approach, in general (Robeyns 2005(Robeyns , 2016 and in particular on disability (e.g. Burchardt 2004;Mitra 2006;Terzi 2005a, b) andhealth (e.g. Hopper 2007;Law and Widdows 2008;Venkatapuram 2011).…”