TY - JOUR
AU - Carpenter, Mick
AB - The book reviewed here argues that as well as being useful for evaluating projects, the capability approach (CA) can also help to design more progressive people-centred social policies, which they justify by working through a range of relevant case study examples. Although sympathetic to their claims, I argue that their analysis needs to be developed further to address some of the criticisms made of CA. I suggest that radical community development can help, but also that it can learn from the capability approach. I therefore call for a radical synthesis between the CA, social policy and community development, and suggest that this might not only help us to develop better specific interventions, but also facilitate a prefigurative politics to address pressing contemporary challenges such as the climate crisis, escalating inequalities, refugee crises, the rise of populist authoritarianism and the construction of a better world beyond the 2020 global coronavirus pandemic. The focus of the book is on European social policy programmes and particularly the growing influence of the ‘social investment’ paradigm upon them. This originated as a ‘third way’ strategy in the late 1990s seeking to steer a middle path between neoliberalism and social democracy. Although rejecting anti-state neoliberalism, state intervention was principally seen as justifiable if it had an economic payoff. For Giddens (1998), the ‘social investment state’ was an alternative to the ‘welfare state’, involving ‘investment in human capital wherever possible, rather than direct provision of economic maintenance’ (p. 117, original emphasis). State intervention was not to be validated in terms of compassion or solidarity, but to develop skills and traits that would enable people to be economically productive and self-reliant. The approach entered European Union (EU) policy discourse through the 2000 Lisbon Summit, which sought to adapt the European social model to the needs of the ‘knowledge economy’ through ‘social inclusion’ in market labour, alongside investment for the future in education and child welfare (Lister, 2004, p. 160). Centre-left governments in power across Europe were as a result confident that an unending virtual circle of public investment could fuel future capitalist growth to finance further productive public investment, ad infinitum. Then the economic crash of 2007–2008 and subsequent Great Recession came along, ushering in right-wing ‘austerity’ governments that reverted to full-blooded anti-state neoliberalism. Unfortunately, this wider context is not fully explored in the book reviewed here but Yerkes and her colleagues do advance a powerful critique of the social investment paradigm and its economistic bias, and show the potential of the CA to offer a superior humanistic alternative. The Introduction provides an outline primer on CA, based on the approach of the Indian economist Sen (1999). CA seeks to enhance people’s ‘capability’ to exercise agency and make free choices to realize individual ‘functionings’, pursuing the kinds of lives they value rather than complying with the dictates of imposed productivist prescriptions. Although this is based on normative Aristotelian concepts of the ‘good life’, Sen recognizes that this depends on wider contextual ‘conversion’ factors, if ‘real opportunities’ are to be realized, including access to health, education, income and, not least, democratic powers and personal autonomy. His theory challenged two influential liberal theories: the emphasis in utilitarian welfare economics on individual subjective preferences as a measure of progress and Rawls’s (1972) ‘resourcist’ conception of distributive social justice in moral and political philosophy. As for the first, Sen argued that subjective feelings of ‘satisfaction’ or ‘happiness’ are insufficient measures and what mattered more was what people were able to be and do as active social and political agents. He and the feminist philosopher Nussbaum (2001) also warned that ‘adaptive preferences’ might lead to discriminated groups, such as women, to express satisfaction with unjust inequalities. As for the second, Rawls was criticized for seeing social justice primarily as the redistribution of economic resources (primary goods) in favour of the most disadvantaged, without fundamentally changing the wider environment. By contrast, CA involves a fuller conception of social justice insisting that some disadvantaged groups and marginalized people, for example, disabled people, need extra economic resources, alongside wider action to tackle conversion factors and societal discrimination (Trani et al., 2011; Harnacke, 2013). The book reviewed here therefore argues that social policy requires more than provision of resources, with additional focus on ways of enabling individuals to live the plural lives that they value. They argue against policies imposing conceptions of the ‘good citizen’, through a social investment paradigm favouring participation in paid labour above all other outcomes. Thus, the chapter by Bonvin and Laruffa in the book helpfully seeks to contrast European Commission conceptions of education as a form of social investment in ‘human capital’, with only token nods made to concerns about education for autonomy and democratic citizenship, marginalizing ‘general skills’, which in CA would be accorded a central role. The chapter by de São José et al. challenges the EU dominant policy framework on ‘active ageing’ as too limited, involving a predetermined emphasis on participation in the paid labour market or ‘productive’ activities such as volunteering and family care. These sideline social divisions and foster negative discourses of older people as potentially a cost and a ‘burden’. An alternative capabilities discourse sees older people as ‘agents’ rather than ‘targets’, promoting their freedom to do the multiplicity of things they enjoy and want to do rather than those prescribed by ‘active ageing’ experts. Following this, two chapters in the book (by Javornik and Oliver on the United Kingdom and Kurowska and Javornik for the EU as a whole) focus on how shared parental leave (SPL) policies might benefit from a CA lens. SPL was introduced in the United Kingdom in 2014 to create greater gender equality and promote greater participation in infant care by male heterosexual partners, allowing for up to fifty weeks in the first year shared as they wish between couples. However, take up has been very low. There are considerable financial incentives that lead to women remaining the prime carer, including employer policies and gendered pay inequalities. This pattern is confirmed across Europe, with fathers also reluctant to take parental leave due to ‘parental orthodoxies’, confirming the CA insistence that policies must address conversion factors and ensure ‘real opportunities’ rather than merely formal possibilities. The chapter in the book by Hearne and Murphy is particularly relevant to a community development perspective, through a case study of family homelessness policy in Dublin, Ireland, which rose significantly with economic austerity from 2014 to 2017, in the wake of government cuts in support of vulnerable people. Local authority housing was reduced in favour of less generous private rent subsidies, supplemented by a ‘Family Hubs’ system of emergency assistance. Working with people affected by homelessness, they sought to evaluate these policies through participatory co-produced research methods grounded in human rights and capabilities. This showed that the rent subsidy was not sufficient to price people into the housing market, reinforcing exclusion and damaging mental health. In addition, Family Hubs closely regulated residents’ lives through ‘therapeutic incarceration’ rather than enhancing residents’ choices and capabilities and ability to develop flexible parenting. Although they were able to present their results to policy makers and effect some positive changes, the policies were still seen as ‘devastating’ on homeless people, and in need of a thorough redesign. The final chapter by Yerkes et al. picks up this wider agenda, asserting that rather than mitigating faulty social policies, capabilities and human rights, including voice and choice, need to be designed into social programmes from the outset. Although I wholeheartedly agree, there is a need also to address some of the key criticisms made of CA and give more explicit consideration of the wider context in which this might occur. Although issues of poverty, human rights, social justice and inequality lie at the heart of CA, it principally involves an expanded liberalism focussed on individuals, though one containing the germs of a more radical approach. One criticism made of Sen is that his approach is too open-ended in focussing on capabilities rather than functionings. His defence is that this is to miss the point that people need the freedom and agency to make their own choices about the good life in an increasingly diverse society, a position adopted by the book reviewed here. However, Nussbaum (2000), extending the Aristotelian concept of the ‘good life’, advocates greater specificity in fleshing out what minimum human rights standards should be available to all in a just society. The ten central capabilities she identifies include the right to life, bodily health, bodily integrity, the development of the senses, a satisfying emotional life, the exercise of practical reason and the right to affiliate personally and politically with others. Control over one’s life and environment features strongly. In case this is all seen as rather over-serious, Nussbaum also includes the right to have fun and enjoy oneself and the emphasis on relating well to nature and other species potentially extends CA beyond its humanist roots. Her approach, rooted in feminism, is also potentially congruent with radical theories of human ‘needs’ rooted in Marx’s conception of ‘species being’ developed in his 1844 manuscripts, which sees ‘alienation’ as the denial of our ability to fulfil our human potential in an unequal class society. Sen has himself acknowledged his debt to Marx (e.g. interview with Chotiner (2019)). Of course, class alone is a necessary but insufficient basis for a contemporary approach to inequality and emancipation, and there is a need to acknowledge the complex ways in which intersectional divisions, including those of class, gender, ‘race’ and disability play out in the lives of individuals (Collins and Bilge, 2020). This is consistent with the CA focus on conversion factors and adaptive preferences, and Phillips (2001) has praised Nussbaum’s insistence that ‘individualism is not a dirty word’. However, she questions the prioritization of individual choice over achieving equality of outcomes and stresses the need to recognize the inherent tension between them. Others have also claimed that the underlying methodological individualism of CA is a significant weakness. Evans (2002) has argued that the radical potential of CA can only be realized by explicit recognition of the existence of collective capabilities, such as those associated with organized groups including political parties, trade unions, village councils, women’s groups and so on, in ways that ‘provide an arena for developing shared values and preferences’ (p. 56) through genuinely democratic processes. Rather than being just the means of delivering individual capabilities, these are forms of mutual support that are valued in themselves often in the teeth of external opposition and even repression. Evans argues that these were substantially achieved by the social services of Kerala, India, which Sen in fact praises highly. A further limitation of CA’s individualist orientation, despite the recognition of conversion factors, is the under-theorization of inequality, power and neoimperialistic relations in the world economy. The very openness of CA, according to Walby (2012), who is particularly focussing on Sen’s ‘thin’ version, makes its serviceable both as a critique of neoliberal and utilitarian concepts of development and progress as economic growth and, by emphasizing individual choice, also susceptible to redefinition and hijacking by neoliberalism. Going a step further, Whyte (2019) argues that neoliberalism and the rise of global human rights frameworks occurred in parallel in the 1970s, both involving critiques of state socialism, with the latter setting the boundaries for the ‘morals of the market’. This particularly focussed on the promotion of classic liberal civil and political rights, rather than economic and social rights. However, Whyte argues that both were undermined by neoliberal structural adjustment programmes imposed by global institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on national governments in the Global South. The resulting loss of autonomy, and the failure to change course after the 2007–2008 economic crisis, fuelled the rise of populist and authoritarian governments in much of the contemporary world. As a result, there is substantial evidence for Dean’s (2009) claim that CA is a ‘beguiling concept’, which misses the ‘elephant in room’ and thereby ‘elides the fundamental and inherent contradictions of capitalism’ (p. 261). In his view, CA cannot provide adequate pathways to the realization of humanity’s species being because it fundamentally accepts the commodity form as a reified basis for human relationships. Is it therefore possible to engage with CA in ways that overcomes its current weaknesses? Sayer (2012) has argued that the vague nature of CA’s concept of human flourishing, even in the ‘thick’ form developed by Nussbaum, does not go far enough. The problem is that as a normative theory it does not involve sufficient social structural explanation, which would show how capabilities are restricted or enabled. Thus the theory particularly ignores how structural inequalities of domination and exploitation in capitalist labour markets shape the extent to which different groups of workers can realize capabilities and functionings. If this is fully addressed through what he calls contributive justice, transforming employment relations to achieve more equal access to satisfying work, then the radical potential of CA might be realized. It might also be argued that, if the problems with dominant versions of CA are to be addressed, radical community development has a key role to play. Both CA and radical community development share a common concern with social justice in ways that connect theory to practice on the ground, seeking to liberate agency in ways that take account of structural inequalities. However, the strengths of one are the weakness of the other, and vice versa. The capability approach emphasizes individual benefit in ways which is sometimes missing from community development, whereas critical community development explicitly asserts collective capabilities in the face of structured inequality, and genuinely democratic processes against questionable forms of ‘participation’ (Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Cornwall, 2008; Frediani, 2013). A combination of individual and collective advance, based on wider structural change and genuine democracy at all levels of society, offers a potential way forward. This needs to be informed by an intersectional approach to social inequality and difference. Whereas in the past community development has placed too much emphasis on similarity and homogeneity of community interest, the Editorial and articles in the Community Development Journal (CDJ) Special Issue edited by Howard, Franco and Shaw (2020) demonstrate how an ‘intersectional lens’ can enable community development to combine collective solidarity with recognition of difference and diversity, in both theory and practice. Some of these possibilities can be seen in the few articles in the CDJ that have engaged with the capability approach. Thus, Lewis (2012) uses CA to critique existing mental health service provision in the United Kingdom for operating with a ‘deficit model’ that contributes to ‘capability deprivation’ by reinforcing stigma and imposing medicalized treatment models. She highlights the potential of informal education to develop individual and collective capabilities in line with the collective self-help traditions of the mental health users’ movement, in ways that also facilitate individual recovery, to the extent that this is possible in an unequal society. This is reminiscent of the work of Freire (1972), a cornerstone theory of radical community development, with his emphasis on collective ‘conscientization’ or the unity between critical consciousness and collective action. However, it has been suggested that in wholly rejecting the instrumental ‘banking’ theory of education, Freire underplayed the needs and wishes of some disadvantaged individuals to obtain qualifications to advance their position (Magee and Pherali, 2019). Thus, a collaborative synthesis between CA and radical community development might achieve a better balance between achieving collective and individual advance. Another CDJ article, which draws on CA, is the qualitative research by Kuzhiparambil (2017) into home-based women cashew nut processors working in the clandestine informal sector in Kerala, India, who were unable to take advantage of the protections accorded to those working in the formal sector. Instead they kept a low profile in work, which was officially banned. Emphasizing a household rather than individual focus, she showed that while some were forced into it by partners who did not want them to work in factories, others chose to do so because they could combine it with caring responsibilities. Thus, even in a ‘progressive’ Indian state such as Kerala, many women in the hidden informal sector remain socially excluded, and there is a need to expand their collective and individual capabilities through measures such as access to microcredit and encouragement of Women’s Self Help Groups. The final CDJ example is Brear (2020), who undertook participatory action research in South Africa, informed both by Nussbaum’s CA and Bourdieu’s theory of social power. In seeking to co-produce research with a marginalized rural community taking care of children affected by human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, she found that participants were often reluctant to participate in group discussions. She tried various ways to ‘disrupt silences’, utilizing both Nussbaum’s emphasis on conversion factors and Bourdieu’s (1986) on the exclusionary effects of differential access to economic, political and cultural capital. This highlights the fact that CA, despite the emphasis on conversion factors, is primarily a normative theory that needs combining with robust explanatory analysis drawn from critical sociology and political economy. Perhaps, this mattered less at a time when the theory was originally developed in the 1970s and 1980s, when the world had for much of the 20th century been moving towards greater equality, enabling Rawls and Sen to debate whether further moves should involve economic distribution or broader social justice. Yet, at this very point, the world was turning in a different direction towards accelerating inequality generated by the rise of neoliberalism and turbocharged hypercapitalism, continuing down to the present day (Piketty, 2020). From the 1990s, until the economic crisis of 2007–2008, the centre-left governments, which were in power in many Western countries, sought to mitigate some of the worst excesses of neoliberalism, providing a context for a meaningful policy debate between social investment and CA, as advanced by the authors of the book reviewed here. However, this political landscape was transformed by the continuing Great Recession that followed the 2007–2008 economic crash, leading to the downfall of centre-left and rise of right-wing governments intent on reasserting neoliberal policies of austerity involving widespread cuts, privatization and unremittingly harsh social policies (Cooper and White, 2017). This created an increasingly barren political environment for the promotion of either social investment or capability-based policies. Furthermore, the most prominent reaction against these policies has involved right-wing populism based on a contradictory brew of anti-globalization nationalism, unrestrained market capitalism and hostility to outsiders and minorities. Although Trump’s US version is the most prominent, the election of Modi’s racist Hindu nationalist government particularly calls into question Sen’s faith in CA’s compatibility with (Indian) liberal democracy, as one of his theoretical foundation stones. Despite this, there is some cause for hope in that the crisis in neoliberalism has also led to the revival of radical left politics. Against Margaret Thatcher’s There is No Alternative (TINA) mantra, the proposition that ‘another world is possible’ gained traction after 2011 from Occupy Wall Street, and similar manifestations in other countries, combining protests against the inequality of the vast majority (the 99 percent), with intersectional inclusivity and participative politics. Raekstadt and Gradin (2020) argue that it has revitalized ‘prefigurative’ politics, against the notion that the left needs to act as a collectively disciplined machine in order to achieve power. Instead means and ends are unified in efforts to ‘build for tomorrow today’ in non-hierarchical ways. This is congruent with what was said above about collective capabilities being an end in themselves, as a potential bridge towards a future just society. However, it has been argued that this potential can be dissipated if campaigns become fragmented and even ‘anti-political’ (Sorborski, 2018). There is therefore a need to develop a unifying ideology beyond difference, which was what the ‘we are the 99%’ slogan attempted, and build broad coalitions for radical political change. Another potential problem is how to resolve differences over contentious issues. Although the capability approach promotes a pluralistic acceptance that what people value will vary, this is sometimes not possible. The liberal democracy model, which CA largely endorses, is often removed from ordinary people’s lives, and the resulting alienation can fuel populism in ways that divide rather than resolve, as shown by the rancour that followed the UK Brexit referendum of 2016. Yet the legitimacy of representative democracy might be improved by inclusive deliberative methods, as occurred in Ireland through the establishment of citizen assemblies that paved the way for successful referendums on marriage equality in 2015 and abortion rights in 2018 (Suiter, 2018). The Organisation of Economic and Cooperation (OECD, 2020) argue that this is part of a ‘deliberative wave’, drawing attention to a range of other ‘innovative’ examples in addition to the Irish case. However, the fact that this endorsement comes from such a neoliberal institution as the OECD should cause us to remember that progressive politics needs to go hand-in-hand with structural economic change, in which adversarial politics is a necessary part (Mouffe, 2000). As part of this, deliberative methods might be seen as a prefigurative form of democratic politics consistent with radical community development principles. Before concluding this review, there must be at least some brief consideration of the implications of CA for dealing with the global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. As well as a causing a dreadful toll in death and disease, the loss of livelihoods and imposed restrictions has led to a massive loss of people’s capabilities and functionings, in what they can be and do. Yet, it has also led us to consider what we really value, in the wake of the temporary suspension of market values central to neoliberalism, as states and civil society actors step into the breach caused by the pandemic, a disaster largely caused by unregulated, profit-hungry global capitalism. The Indian novelist and political activist Roy (2020) aptly describes the pandemic as a ‘portal’, a ‘potential gateway between one world and the next’ in which humans can ‘break with the past and imagine their world anew’, leaving ‘our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us’ (p. 214). In many countries, community initiatives and mutual aid groups have stepped in to meet urgent human needs in novel ways that prioritize collective social support, reciprocity and compassion in ways that often subvert dominant free-for-all individualist values (Taylor and Wilson, 2020). The key question of our times is whether this will be a passing phase or part of a prefigurative transition to a more humane, empathetic, just and ecologically sustainable society, combining a ‘political ethic of care’ with a renewed ethic of social justice (for both carers and those cared for) mounted by diverse social movements from below (Williams, 2001; Spade, 2020; The Care Collective, 2020). Undoubtedly, a political space has opened for new social policy initiatives, such as the growing support for a Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a prefigurative emergency measure that might transition into something permanent (Cooke and De Wispelaere, 2020). However, as a Rawlsian resourcist measure, it is not a panacea. From a capability perspective, the extra income claims of some groups such as disabled people need to recognized, and thought also given to how UBI might be combined with wider political economic and community-based social change that would enable diverse groups of people to live the lives they value in sustainable ways. In conclusion, the book by Yerkes et al. reviewed here offers a clear critique of the limitations of the social investment paradigm, and the possibilities that the capability approach offers for developing more progressive social policies. I have tried to develop their analysis further, integrating it with structuralist political economy and radical community development, allied to a prefigurative politics. There is no doubt that CA is a highly flexible and sophisticated framework that can unite initiatives at the global level (e.g. Sustainable Development Goals, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/) down to national and local levels, from the actions of governments to the campaigns of social movements, pursuing human rights and social justice, and challenging growing inequality. My hope therefore is that this article will encourage wider adoption of a ‘critical’ CA within community development circles, especially to develop its possibilities for transcending the inadequacies of both `progressive neoliberalism' and `reactionary populism' (Fraser, 2016) in constructing a democratic, just and environmentally sustainable world beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. References Bourdieu , P. ( 1986 ) The forms of capital, in J. Richardson ed, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education , Greenwood Press , Westport, CT, USA , pp. 241 – 258 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Brear , M. ( 2020 ) Silence and voice in participatory processes – causes, meanings and implications for empowerment , Community Development Journal , 55 ( 2 ), 349 – 368 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Chotiner , I. ( 2019 ) Amartya Sen’s hopes and fears for Indian democracy, The New Yorker, October 6, accessed at : https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/amartya-sens-hopes-and-fears-for-indian-democracy ( 5 October 2020 ). Collins , P. H. and Bilge , S. ( 2020 ) Intersectionality (Key Concepts) , 2nd edn, Polity Press , Cambridge, UK . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Cooke , B. and Kothari , U. ( 2001 ) Participation: The New Tyranny , Zed Books , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Cooke , J. and De Wispelaere , J. ( 2020 ) Basic income and pandemic preparedness , Green European Journal , 18 May, accessed at: https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/basic-income-and-pandemic-preparedness/ (5 October 2020). Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Cooper , V. and White , D. ( 2017 ) The Violence of Austerity , Pluto Press , London . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cornwall , A. ( 2008 ) Unpacking ‘participation’: models, meanings and practices , Community Development Journal , 43 ( 3 ), 269 – 283 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Dean , H. ( 2009 ) Critiquing capabilities: the distractions of a beguiling concept , Critical Social Policy , 29 ( 2 ), 261 – 278 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Evans , P. ( 2002 ) Collective capabilities, culture, and Amartya Sen’s Development of Freedom , Studies in Comparative International Development , 37 ( 2 ), 54 – 60 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Fraser, N. ( 2016 ) Progressive Neoliberalism versus Reactionary Populism: A Choice that Feminists should refuse , Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research , 24 ( 4 ), 281 – 284 . Frediani , A. A. ( 2013 ) Briefing note: participatory methods and the capability approach, Human Development and Capability Association, Brewster, MA, USA, accessed at : https://hd-ca.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/HDCA_Briefing_ParticipatoryMethods.pdf ( 5 October 2020 ). Freire , P. ( 1972 ) Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Penguin , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Giddens , A. ( 1998 ) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy , Polity Press , Cambridge, UK . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Harnacke , C. ( 2013 ) Disability and capability: exploring the usefulness of Martha Nussbaum’s capability approach for the UN disability rights convention , The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , 41 ( 4 ), 768 – 780 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Howard , J. , Franco , L. F., Shaw , J. ( 2020 ) Editorial: intersecting inequalities and prospects for community development , Community Development Journal , 55 ( 1 ), 1 – 6 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Kuzhiparambil , A. ( 2017 ) Enhancing choices through collective capabilities: a study of invisible home-based cashew processors in Kerala, India , Community Development Journal , 52 ( 4 ), 650 – 667 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Lewis , L. ( 2012 ) The capabilities approach, adult community learning and mental health , Community Development Journal , 47 ( 4 ), 522 – 537 . Lister , R. ( 2004 ) The third way’s social investment state, in J. Lewis, R. Surender eds, Welfare State Change: Towards a Third Way , Oxford University Press , Oxford, UK , pp. 158 – 181 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Magee , A. and Pherali , T. ( 2019 ) Paulo Freire and critical consciousness in conflict-affected contexts , Education and Conflict Review , 2 , 44 – 48 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Nussbaum , M. ( 2000 ) Women and Human Development: A Study in Human Capabilities , Cambridge University Press , Cambridge, UK . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Mouffe, C. ( 2000 ) The Democratic Paradox , Verso, London, UK . Nussbaum , M. ( 2001 ) Symposium on Amartya Sen’s philosophy; 5 adaptive preferences and women’s options , Economics and Philosophy , 17 , 67 – 88 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat OECD ( 2020 ) Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave , Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development , Paris , accessed at : https://www.oecd.org/gov/innovative-citizen-participation-and-new-democratic-institutions-339306da-en.htm ( 5 October 2020 ). Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Phillips , A. ( 2001 ) Feminism and liberalism revisited: has Martha Nussbaum got it right? Constellations , 8 ( 2 ), 249 – 266 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Piketty , T. ( 2020 ) Capital and Ideology , Harvard University Press , Cambridge, MA, USA . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Raekstadt , P. and Gradin , S. S. ( 2020 ) Prefigurative Politics: Building Tomorrow Today , Polity Press , Cambridge, UK . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Rawls , J. ( 1972 ) A Theory of Social Justice , Clarendon Press , Oxford, UK . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Roy , A. ( 2020 ) Azadi: Freedom. Fascism. Fiction , Penguin Books , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Sayer , A. ( 2012 ) Capabilities, contributive injustice and the unequal divisions of labour , Journal of Human Development and Capabilities , 13 ( 4 ), 580 – 596 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Sen , A. ( 1999 ) Development as Freedom , Oxford University Press , Oxford, UK . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Sorborski , R. ( 2018 ) Ideology and the Future of Progressive Social Movements , Rowman and Littlefield , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Spade , D. ( 2020 ) Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity during this Crisis (and the Next) , Verso , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Suiter , J. ( 2018 ) Deliberation in action: Ireland’s abortion referendum , Political Insight , 30 – 32 September. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Taylor , M. and Wilson , M. ( 2020 ) Locally rooted: the place of community organising in times of crisis, Community Organisers, Warminster, Wilts, UK, accessed at : http://www.corganisers.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Locally_Rooted-the_place_of_co_in_times_of_crisis.pdf ( 5 October 2020 ). The Care Collective ( 2020 ) The Care Manifesto: The Politics of Interdependence , Verso , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Trani , J.-F. , Bakhshi , P., Bellanca , N. et al. ( 2011 ) Disabilities through the capability approach lens: implications for public policies , European Journal of Disability Research , 5 , 143 – 157 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Walby , S. ( 2012 ) Sen and the measurement of justice and capabilities , Theory, Culture and Society , 29 ( 1 ), 99 – 118 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Whyte , J. ( 2019 ) The Morals of the Market: Human Rights and the Rise of Neoliberalism , Verso , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Williams , F. ( 2001 ) Care relations and public policy: social justice claims and social investment frames , Families, Relationships and Societies , 1 ( 1 ), 103 – 119 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat © Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - The capability approach (CA) and a prefigurative politics of social policy and community development
JF - Community Development Journal
DO - 10.1093/cdj/bsaa059
DA - 2020-11-16
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/the-capability-approach-ca-and-a-prefigurative-politics-of-social-PSxiV9Zuiy
SP - 793
EP - 804
VL - 57
IS - 4
DP - DeepDyve
ER -