Enhancing the social dimension of development: Interconnecting the Capability Approach and applied knowledge of social workers

Abstract

The current interest in sustainability within international development presents an important opportunity for social work to further promote the often-overlooked social pillar of sustainable development. The dominant paradigm regarding economic systems of development and organisation has influenced not only the scope of sustainable development, but also an increasingly depoliticised vision of social work knowledge and practice. Inattention to structural determinants of social inequalities limits the scope for radical, sustained change. The Capability Approach’s recognition of poverty and development as complex, multidimensional phenomena aligns with social work values, while social work’s well-established and reflexive direct-level practice may provide the applied knowledge needed in the theory.

Keywords

Capability Approach micro/macro dichotomy professional environment social justice

Introduction

The field of international development is preparing to undergo a significant transformation with the increasing focus upon sustainability. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), set to be implemented by member states in 2016, are expected to be the driving force behind much of the future development planning and practice. While representing an important turning point in the critique of unsustainable development practices, it is crucial that questions of power, equality and social justice remain central within both the establishment of these goals and the critiques that they will inspire. Within international social work, the SDGs will further shape the professional context within which the practitioner engages due to the reciprocal nature of the goals and the socio-cultural and political priorities that determine the scope of practice. Yet the complex nature of international development, with its myriad stakeholders, disciplines and vested interest groups, has meant that it is more than ever a contested domain. This article will examine the role of the international social work profession in advocating for greater focus on the social or human pillar of sustainable development, often overlooked within both academic and empirical literature in favour of the economic and environmental dimensions. Furthermore, the article will examine the apparent paradigm shift in development discourse with emerging prominence of the Capability Approach (CA). The CA looks beyond income and commodities, recognising economic growth to be just one aspect of the process of enhancing people’s lives (Gasper, 2005). Under-utilised within social work literature and practice, this article will demonstrate the conceptual links between key elements of the CA and the social work mission, particularly social justice and self-determination. Perceived strengths and limitations of the CA are then discussed in conjunction with social work theory.

Engaging social work within the sustainable development movement

A common thread throughout development literature is the understanding that the term itself is inherently complex and contested (Sumner, 2006). Ambiguous phrasing of abstract concepts within definitions, literature and policy raises tensions as to the relationship between development and the underlying power structures that engrain social injustices (Cornwall, 2003). Murphy (2012) argues that development indicators will often reflect the interests of influential stakeholders and as such can act as a function of power, limiting the scope for challenging engrained processes of social exclusion. Therefore, it is critical that the social work profession is guided by a clear statement of what development is and what it entails, so as to ensure ethical practice. As a multidisciplinary and complex field, development policies and interventions are often underpinned by the common notion that enhanced economic and material wealth of households are key to eliminating poverty (Pyles, 2008). However, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has recently acknowledged that conventional, market-based approaches to poverty reduction have been limited in their success and have in many cases increased the level of deprivation and inequality experienced by the world’s most vulnerable populations (Dabla-Norris et al., 2015). In light of the IMF’s departure from former principles of ‘trickle-down’ economics and market-centred development, there is increasing recognition of the need for a paradigm shift towards a more human-centred approach to development and poverty reduction (Dabla-Norris et al., 2015).

The focus of the future development practice will be largely shaped by current concerns within development dialogue regarding sustainability, especially heightened by the global concern with the state of the world’s environment (Rist, 2007; Sachs, 2012; Sen, 2013). The seminal definition of sustainable development is found within the Brundtland Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987), which has been critical in guiding multi-sectoral policy and research (Peeters, 2012). According to this report, sustainable development is understood as

… development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations. It contains within it two key concepts: the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which priority should be given; and, the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs. (WCED, 1987: C. 2, p. I)

Typically divided into three key pillars, sustainable development is understood to encompass economic, social and environmental dimensions (Boström, 2012). However, the general assumption that these three pillars are mutually reinforcing and compatible belies the increasing tension in the integration and operationalisation of the social pillar, which is often sidelined by economic and environmental discourses (Boström, 2012; Braber, 2013). The tendency within multi-sectoral literature to diminish the latter half of the definition, which prioritises the needs of the poorest and questions the sustainability of current systems of social and economic organisation, is reflective of a depoliticised understanding of development that does not wish to engage in the level of radical change required for true sustainability (Peeters, 2012). Bebbington and Dillard (2009) note that the focus upon the economic dimension of sustainable development tends towards over-emphasis on production and consumption, while Agyeman and Evans (2004) further note that a focus on environmental sustainability tends to discount the important role of social justice, equity, inclusion, participation and human rights within the realisation of sustainable development, arguing that the integration of these pillars is integral to this success.

The social pillar of sustainable development is widely recognised as understated within development literature in favour of the economic and environmental dimensions (Agyeman and Evans, 2004; Bebbington and Dillard, 2009; Sen, 2013). Murphy (2012) discusses social development as a holistic concept that addresses a complex range of dimensions relevant to the social environment; this complexity is evident in the tendency for this pillar to be the most vague within sustainable development literature (Murphy, 2012; Vifell and Soneryd, 2012). Rogers et al. (2008) construct the social pillar as a contextual and ‘complex set of interacting cultural and institutional systems’, including varying forms of values and knowledge, that informs how people engage in the processes of development (p. 218). Murphy (2012) further raises a set of supplementary social indicators for sustainable development, including the level of participation and incorporation of the aspirations of vulnerable groups. Such indicators resonate with key areas of social work theory and practice, including human wellbeing, social justice and agency.

Alternative pathways to development: Defining the CA

It is critical that the social work profession takes a stronger stance within the development dialogue, if the profession is to advocate effectively for the wellbeing and social equality of the world’s most vulnerable populations. Crucial to this is a theoretical framework that encapsulates the complexity of sustainable development within a global theory of social justice. Despite greater awareness within the literature as to the need for a human-centred approach to development, it is evident that the economic dimension has maintained its centrality within practice and policy (Braber, 2013). While the primacy of economic growth as a measure of development was uncritically accepted within traditional theory, contemporary voices are emerging to challenge such assumptions. One such voice is that of Amartya Sen, an economist and Nobel Prize recipient born to Bengali parents, in a part of British India, present-day Bangladesh (Cruddas and Rutherford, 2009). Sen’s theoretical contribution has from the earliest stages extended beyond the typical scope of liberal market economics, to raise philosophical and political dialogue regarding the nature of development (Cruddas and Rutherford, 2009). Sen (1999) proposes that development should be understood as the expansion of a person’s opportunities or freedoms to live their life in a manner that they value. The expansion of freedom is understood ‘both as the primary end and as the principal means of development’ (Sen, 1999: xii). As an analytical framework, the CA acknowledges the difference between the ends and means of development, arguing that measures such as increased income are important only in their instrumental role for a person or society to attain goals of wellbeing (Robeyns, 2003). Sen (1992) draws upon the means–ends distinction within the assessment of wellbeing to acknowledge that people and communities will differ in their ability to act upon opportunities in order to meet particular goals. Thus, a CA analysis of policy or practice in development will focus upon the changes to the actual opportunities available to people.

Capabilities are understood as the actual opportunities that exist for a person to lead a life that they value; a capability set accounts for opportunities, personal characteristics and social arrangements to determine the multiple possibilities available to a person to lead different types of lives (Saleeby, 2005: 47). Functionings are the actual outcomes or achievements (Saleeby, 2005). According to the CA, the assessment of an individual’s wellbeing or a nation’s development should be based upon the availability of genuine opportunities for people to lead a life that they personally value, thus focusing upon the expansion of freedoms (Robeyns, 2006; Sen, 1999). This is in contrast to the tendency for such assessments of wellbeing or development to be made based upon quantitative measures of resources or on people’s mental state (Birdsall, 2014; Robeyns, 2006). Sen’s CA by comparison allows for greater consideration of the social aspects of deprivation (Gangas, 2014). Poverty is understood within the context of human development to include deprivation across multiple dimensions, including, but not limited to, health, nutrition, shelter, access to sanitation and clean water, education, socio-cultural engagement, and freedom from violence, shame and disempowerment (Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative [OPHDI], 2014). Sen’s (2000) position that human development should be understood as the process of expanding a person’s capabilities has been promoted within policy; Dean (2009) notes that the international community has not yet embraced this fully as a central principle of development practice. It is with this in mind that this article turns to the potential complement of social work thinking and CA, which together may address substantial challenges within the reality of development practice.

Social work engagement in CA discourse

The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW, 2012) reinforces the need for social workers to reflexively apply multiple forms of knowledge within their practice. In challenging systemic injustices, the professional is expected to engage in social action, advocacy, and research and evaluation. Critical to this is the focus upon principles of self-determination, empowerment, human rights, social justice, inclusion and equality (IFSW, 2012). Noting the increasing prominence of the CA within development literature, coupled with the demand for greater integration of the social dimension of sustainable development, there is a significant call for the increased engagement of the social work profession in such dialogue. As yet, the social work profession has not capitalised upon the potential for the CA within practice (Braber, 2013). Braber (2013) notes that the CA, in particular Sen’s conceptualisation of human development, aligns closely with social work values and mandate. Both the concept of human development, which emerged from the CA, and the IFSW (2014) definition of social work acknowledge the importance of social change and development towards cultivating the flourishing of human life and creating an enabling environment for people to enjoy their lives (Braber, 2013; Sen, 1999). This shared mission serves as a critical basis for the social work profession to explore the CA; however, of even greater relevance are the mutually reinforcing principles and the theoretical credibility that may be lent to key strategies and principles within social work practice (Braber, 2013; Jayasundara, 2011). In order to contribute effectively to the sustainable development movement, social work must re-examine not only its professional role, but also the knowledge base, strategies and actions that its practitioners may utilise to enact the professed values of social justice and self-determination.

Social justice and the indivisibility of the social dimension

Social work is dedicated to the social change and development that enhances human wellbeing and empowerment (IFSW, 2014). However, challenges associated with professionalisation have led to concern within the relevant literature that the profession has lost sight of its ‘social’ dimension and activist roots (Morgaine, 2014). In its contemporary context, the social work profession has encountered considerable denigration of its radical roots, knowledge and practice, with the inattention to structural determinants of social inequalities limiting the scope for radical, sustained change (Marston and McDonald, 2012). Contemporary social work practice may be seen to have adopted a technical role at the expense of the historical connection to social justice and structural change movements (Olson, 2007). As principles of market and performance associated with the New Public Management movement come to shape the practice environment, the profession faces increasing pressure in terms of economic rationalism, risk of litigation, public scrutiny and competition for funding (Anglem and Maidment, 2009). This in turn has led to greater attention to quantifiable and efficiency-driven objectives within both practice and the academic literature (Anglem and Maidment, 2009; Kam, 2014). Underpinned by ideological assumptions of individual responsibility, it is arguable that this practice environment undermines social work’s capacity for radical practice, particularly where issues are trans-international and multidimensional in origin (Gray and Webb, 2014; Kam, 2014; Lymbery, 2001). Traditional concerns of social work practice, such as homelessness, drug misuse and poverty, are increasingly framed from within individual-behavioural discourses at the expense of sociological approaches that account for the social systems and institutions that influence a person’s experiences and opportunities (Kam, 2014; Marston and McDonald, 2012). As the relationship between structural and individual issues is minimised, the social worker is increasingly seen as a technician within a clinical setting rather than an agent of broader social change. Arguably, for social work to maintain its proposed mandate of promoting social justice the profession requires greater consideration of the complex and intersecting root causes of social inequality across the multiple levels of practice (Lymbery, 2001; Marston and McDonald, 2012; Olson, 2007).

The principle of social justice may act as the unifying conceptual framework to engage both micro and macro social workers, as a core principle recognised by the IFSW (2014; McLaughlin, 2006). However, the concept of social justice is itself not without critique within the literature (Banerjee, 2011; Morris, 2002; Solas, 2008). Morgaine’s (2014) research into the beliefs and experiences of social work practitioners as to the concept of social justice raises significant challenges. Notably, the ambiguous nature of the concept is reflected in the tendency for social workers to focus upon an individualised notion of social justice, with very little consideration of the macro level or community experience (Morgaine, 2014). Furthermore, critiques by the participants in Morgaine’s (2014) study regarding the political nature of social justice indicated tension within its application, with the general acceptance of this concept being much harder to attain than a social welfare-based approach. The tendency towards an individualist understanding of the concept does not address the social conditions, arrangements and practices that foster injustice, while Reisch (2013) argues that the use of the term in a rhetorical or uncritical manner may limit the work of social work professionals within existing parameters, thereby reinforcing social control functions and furthering the disadvantage of vulnerable persons (McLaughlin, 2006; Morgaine, 2014). This depoliticised approach to social justice serves to further devalue the role of direct, local-level practitioners within radical structural change (Marston and McDonald, 2012). It is evident from these tensions within the literature that there is a need for greater dialogue as to how the principle of social justice is conceptualised (Banerjee, 2011; Morris, 2002; Solas, 2008).

The social work literature has predominantly drawn upon the work of the distinguished social justice theorist Rawls, whose publication A Theory of Justice in 1971 has become known as a seminal work within social work academia (Banerjee, 2011; Morris, 2002). Rawls’ (1999) theoretical contribution focused particularly upon the distribution of societal goods according to the unique needs of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged within society (Banerjee, 2011; Rawls and Kelly, 2001). Kam (2014) notes the influence of Rawls within social work’s particular focus upon servicing the most disadvantaged within society, as well as the association with human rights, liberty and equal opportunities. However, Rawls’ theory is based upon the idea of a ‘social contract’ in which a person’s valid claim of basic civil and political rights and access to decision-making processes is dependent upon the person’s compliant engagement within the existing system (Banerjee and Canda, 2012). A person may be deemed entitled to claim public assistance from the government only where they have been generally cooperative with the economic system by contributing their labour or capital (Banerjee and Canda, 2012). Thus, those persons unable or unwilling to work were labelled as either ‘surfers’ or ‘hard cases’ and excluded from such guarantees (Rawls and Kelly, 2001). Furthermore, little emphasis is placed on the need for broader structural changes where it is evident that existing social norms and systems are complicit in the undermining of human wellbeing, equality and dignity (Begon, 2013). Thus, Rawl’s theory inadvertently allows for the maintenance of inequitable and arguably unjust systems, further alienating those persons who do not conform to the established social contract. Arguing that there exists too much tension between social work principles and the key tenets of Rawls’ theory of social justice, Banerjee (2011) calls for a renewal of social work’s knowledge base.

The existing disjunction between the social justice principle and social work practice impacts upon the professional’s capacity to further facilitate the expansion of the social pillar within sustainable development. The depoliticised conceptualisation of social justice within social work practice cannot effectively address the complex cultural and institutional aspects relevant to the social pillar. Without a critical insight into the interconnection between individual social injustices and structural contexts, the social worker is at risk of further overlooking the oft-forsaken second half of the sustainable development definition. Reflection and adaption of unjust and destructive factors within current social organisation are necessary if we are to balance the needs of the present poor with those of future generations (WCED, 1987). Thus, the definition of sustainable development itself calls for a political interpretation in which radical change and transformation of inequitable systems are undertaken in favour of those most vulnerable and silenced. To negate social work’s radical foundations is to risk further embedding dominant paradigms of capitalism and its accompanied new public management principles (Gray and Webb, 2014; Rogers et al., 2008). By expanding upon the traditional theoretical frameworks and drawing upon alternative knowledge bases, it is possible that social work may position itself as an effective agent for engaging in social change across multiple levels. The CA provides a strong theoretical lens for the re-examination of social justice within a social work and development context (Jayasundara, 2011; Sen, 1999).

The CA (Sen, 1993) challenges conventional understandings of underdevelopment, in which poverty in ‘Third World Countries’ tended to be associated with the lack of integration with the global capital market and the existence of traditionalism that impeded progression towards a modern state (O’Leary, 2006; Sumner, 2006). This conceptualisation of poverty as underdevelopment of economic systems therefore informs the poverty reduction processes based upon the liberalisation of markets to allow for greater emphasis upon individual entrepreneurship while doing little to address the systemic reasons for inequality in terms of resource distribution and opportunities (Pieterse, 2009: 99; Sumner, 2006). Alternatively, Anand and Sen (2000) reflect upon the need for justice in development discourse; questions of poverty and development may therefore be enhanced greatly by applying a CA analysis of social justice (Gangas, 2014). Sen’s evaluative framework for social justice in terms of deprivations addresses Rawls’ exclusion of persons based on social contracts, by observing and challenging the unjust states of development and wellbeing that stem from inequitable social structures, processes and practices (Gangas, 2014). Importantly, Sen’s CA allows for greater consideration of the social aspects of deprivation (Gangas, 2014). By examining not what resources a person has access to, but rather the opportunities that they have to utilise these goods to obtain a life that they have reason to value, Sen has essentially reimagined the notion of equality (Alkire, 2005). The approach clearly articulates its stance on the importance of choice for individuals in terms of their own development; therefore, social justice may be understood as the removal of social systems and institutions that limit a person’s capability set, or multiple opportunities to choose a life of their own value (Alkire, 2005). CA’s conceptualisation of social justice may be further linked with the social work value of self-determination.

Self-determination and agency in defining what is necessary for a good life

When applied to social justice, the CA is strengthened theoretically by its unambiguous objective: the expansion of freedoms for people to benefit from opportunities to be and do what they value (Alkire, 2005). The approach clearly articulates its stance on the importance of choice for individuals and communities in terms of their own development (Alkire, 2005). The perception of poverty as a ‘manifestation of insufficient wellbeing’ acknowledges the complexity of the phenomenon, in which economic deprivation accounts for just one aspect (Ele-Ojo Ataguba et al., 2013). Poverty in this sense is not just the absence of material necessities, but also the lack of opportunities to live a satisfactory life within one’s society (Alkire, 2005; Ele-Ojo Ataguba et al., 2013; Sen, 1999). As such, it is understood that poverty reduction and development programs require the consideration of multiple indicators (Ele-Ojo Ataguba et al., 2013). As noted by Wagle (2009), a ‘higher level of capability is conducive to deriving resources needed to elevate one’s economic welfare and yet not all with higher capabilities choose to do so’ (p. 61). Thus, the CA recognises a person’s tendency to determine the way in which they utilise the resources and opportunities at hand according to the unique context of their life (Sen, 1992; Wagle, 2008). Sen (1992: 52) draws upon the example of the capability for adequate nutrition: while one person may experience starvation through no choice of their own due to famine and a lack of access to food, another may refuse an abundance of food for the sake of spiritual fasting. This reinforces the inability for a narrow income-based approach to explain the complex and somewhat understated reality of poverty and deprivation within a person and community’s lived reality (Wagle, 2008).

The CA should be recognised as a direct opportunity for the social work professional to advocate for a community and person’s right to self-determination (Pyles, 2008). The fundamental principle of self-determination within international social work policies and values reaffirms the importance of respecting the dignity of all persons and advocating with/for them for their right to determine their own lives according to their own vision of wellbeing (Australian Association of Social Workers [AASW], 2013). By integrating the CA within this call for self-determination, the social work professional may act to further expand upon the freedoms and opportunities across the broad social, economic, political, spiritual, ecological, relational and cultural dimensions of a person’s life (Braber, 2013). By limiting the focus to a materialist economic outlook, self-determination can only go so far in promoting a person’s capacity to determine what functionings they may achieve within the given range of possibilities. While it is possible to increase someone’s economic wealth and expect this to lead to greater self-determination while ignoring the lack of relevant services, for instance culturally/gender-sensitive health services, it is unlikely that a person will achieve a level of wellbeing that encompasses the compounding deprivations experienced.

The social work profession must re-engage with its radical and political roots if it is to contribute to the transformation of those structures and systems that deepen economic, social, political and cultural inequalities. Noting the depoliticised environment of international development and the continued focus upon economic measures, for sustainable social development to occur, social workers must raise a critical dialogue regarding the role of the State, the market and other influential institutions in determining the access to resources and opportunities for all persons, in particular those who are vulnerable or silenced. Again, the CA provides a robust theoretical grounding for the guiding policy of government and institutions in establishing fundamental constitutional principles as a bare minimum for human dignity (Nussbaum, 2002). This contrasts with the tendency for CA to be interpreted as a measure of individual wellbeing; rather than seeking to demarcate each facet of wellbeing (which is ultimately impossible and problematic), the approach instead argues for a shared and reasoned discussion as to what opportunities are owed to a person as a matter of justice (Begon, 2013; Nussbaum, 2002). It is this broader and more politically driven interpretation of the CA that should be applied to the current challenges within social work’s existing framework for social justice and the profession’s gradual de-politicisation. The role of the social worker in promoting healthy engagements within and across relational systems is a powerful opportunity/doorway through which the profession may promote a person’s empowerment. The knowledge of social work professionals regarding the dynamic nature of relationships between humans and the systems around them, often underpinned by a focus on ecological systems theory, reinforces this.

Challenges in interpreting and operationalising the CA

In critiquing the CA, it is worthwhile to remember the potential it represents in overcoming narrow and inequitable measures of human wellbeing and development while being mindful of potential tensions regarding ambiguity, paternalism and adaptive preferences.

Ambiguity

The tendency for the CA to be vague in its terminology and interpretation has been recognised within the literature as both a limitation and a strength of the theoretical approach. Alkire (2005) argues that the ‘general’ nature of the CA is of distinctive value to problems common to development, noting that broader theories allow for greater consideration of the multidimensional and complex nature of certain phenomena. However, the use of vague and non-intuitive language with the CA can be cause for difficulty in its application and interpretation. Alkire (2005) argues that such terms as ‘functionings’ and ‘beings and doings’, while intuitive concepts within a person’s assessment of their lived reality, can overwhelm readers who are unfamiliar with the theory’s lexicon. As noted earlier, the use of ambiguous language and abstract concepts has proven a significant point of consternation within the development field (Cornwall, 2003). It is therefore important that efforts are made to clarify ambiguous terminology while also maintaining the space for interpretations of resources and freedoms necessary for a good life; the social work profession may be well positioned in this regard to draw upon language within their direct practice to engage people in applying ambiguous concepts to their own experience and objectives. For instance, Alkire (2005) discusses the interpretation of functionings in relation to the lived experience of poverty in Pakistan, with the participants listing knowledge, health, friendship and confidence as important aspects of a good life; such factors may be easily determined by the participant and can be further developed in discussion about the implications for obtaining valued ‘beings and doings’ relevant to the CA. Thus, Alkire (2005) argues that through dialogue, it is possible to elucidate otherwise vague language by acknowledging the grounding of such terms within the familiar but varied range of activities and situations that people value as important within their life.

The perceived limitation of the CA as being overly ambiguous in its language is in part related to the approach’s capacity to be relevant to a wide range of circumstances (Alkire, 2005). The CA allows for the interpretation of quality of life to incorporate both tangible functions (such as mat-erial comfort or health) and those that are more abstract (self-confidence, spirituality) (Braber, 2013). As such, it is arguable that despite the challenge of ambiguous terminology, the fundamental concepts of the CA are largely relevant and applicable to social work’s mission of enhancing human wellbeing. The indefinite nature of CA has led to a lack of knowledge regarding the practical application of the CA, which has largely been discussed within abstract and philosophical contexts (Pyles, 2008). Braber (2013) notes the important role of applied social work researchers in developing upon this gap in knowledge, further contributing to CA’s expanding school of expertise regarding alternative models of development and wellbeing.

Adaptive preferences and paternalism

While the CA is often critiqued for its absence of a well-defined list of capabilities that may be used to both render and measure core capabilities, it is arguable that this may be most appropriate when working in highly diverse settings (Robeyns, 2003). Sen’s tendency towards ambiguity and reluctance in publishing a standard list of common capabilities is therefore not a question of universalism but rather one of agency. Sen (2005), with his background in social choice, argues that the construction of a list of capabilities should be undertaken within the relevant society, based on public reasoning regarding social, ethical and political considerations. The CA’s conceptualisation of development as freedom reflects its focus upon capabilities (opportunities) over functionings (outcomes), this emphasis therefore requires that the decision-making capacity for individuals and communities be both acknowledged and encouraged (Robeyns, 2003). Nussbaum’s (2003) interpretive split from Sen’s CA includes a specific list of central capabilities, arguing that these capabilities should not be considered unique to Western societies, with resistance to human suffering having existed across cultures. While Nussbaum (2002) persuasively justifies the use of this universal list of core capabilities, contention within the literature is raised regarding the threat of paternalism within such an approach (Begon, 2013). Qizilbash (2011) cautions against the potential of CA to result in judgements regarding what is good within society, in turn leading to potential restrictions upon the liberty of individuals.

The theoretical relationship between adaptive preferences and paternalism is a critical point of tension within the CA and as such requires further exploration. Adaptive preferences account for the aspirations or perceived needs of people, which have been adjusted by the diminished environment in which they live (Nussbaum, 2011). Where an unequal social order is perceived to be legitimate, such as the subjugation of women for cultural or religious reasons, it is increasingly difficult to underpin social justice efforts with respect for self-determination and agency (Teschl and Comim, 2005). A key challenge exists, for instance, in Nussbaum’s argument that alternative preferences are only problematic where they lead to a preference for something that should not be desired as part of a flourishing and dignified life (Barnes, 2009; Begon, 2013). Barnes (2009) argues that such an explanatory statement may be useful in minimising those cases in which a person adapts harmful socialised practices such as gendered violence, but is patronising and further repressing for those persons who determine that their life is fulfilling and dignified despite not attaining the theorists’ endorsed capabilities. Barnes (2009) challenges the methodological capacity of the CA to override ‘problematic’ preferences, as this may further silence and marginalise already disadvantaged persons. The risk of paternalism and the unjust diminishing of a person’s autonomy exist in Nussbaum’s notion regarding what should be valued. Such statements raise significant questions regarding paternalism; while the CA seeks to be anti-paternalist, there remain aspects of its interpretation that can raise tension in this aspiration. Nussbaum’s (2001) concerns regarding a person’s adaptive preferences formed through ‘habit, fear, low expectations and unjust background conditions’ must be further examined if the CA is to be appropriately adopted within government policy and social work practice.

The ability of the CA to dismiss certain desires or adaptive preferences on the reasoning that they have been formed through unjust background conditions or other such factors places the CA within the questionable domain of paternalism. To counter this, Begon (2013) therefore calls for the CA to be applied according to the logic of capabilities as areas of life in which a person may exercise control, rather than the traditional vision of capabilities as opportunities to perform particular functionings; Nussbaum’s focus upon the functionings as underpinning the selection of core capabilities, based on a vision of a universally relevant valuable life, may exclude those persons who – through autonomous decision and varying circumstances – do not have the desire or the capacity to obtain a particular capability or functioning. For this to be disregarded as an adaptive preference may be seen to be paternalist in that it deems the theorist’s judgement as to what makes for a flourishing life as superior and in the person’s best interest. Such assumptions are problematic when forming policy and as such require significant consideration by social work practitioners utilising the CA. It is the role of the international community, including social work practitioners and scholars, to open dialogue with individuals and communities themselves so as to reconstruct the concepts of needs and development within inclusive and dynamic terms that account for the many differing cultural realities (Ife, 2012).

Conclusion

The social work professional can play a prominent role in the actualisation of the CA within sustainable development, by operating as a bridge between policy and practice. The social work mandate for locating the individual within their broader systems, including the international geopolitical dimension, allows for greater capacity to not only address immediate needs of a person, but also to reinstate a political dimension within what has largely become a depoliticised field of practice. The CA is a comprehensive theory of human development, encompassing critical issues of social justice and human wellbeing (Birdsall, 2014). This, coupled with its already prominent position within the theoretical framework of development policy and literature, reinforces its potential contribution to social work practice. The CA contributes positively to the discord within development literature regarding economic measures of income and growth by presenting an alternative conceptualisation of poverty reduction, justice and agency, rather than limiting itself to critique (Alkire, 2005). As the CA places greater emphasis on the social aspects of deprivation, the social work professional is provided a clear argument against prevailing systems of inequality as well as a powerful insight into potential areas for the practical realisation of social justice and the conditions required for human flourishing (Gangas, 2014; Jayasundara, 2011; McLaughlin, 2006; Morgaine, 2014). The social worker may therefore engage in a more complex and inclusive dialogue that engages local actors and stakeholders within the process of social development, whether this be through advocacy, policy, practice or as agents of change within community settings. It is critical, however, that the social work practitioner maintain critical reflexivity in interpreting and applying the CA, with key challenges regarding paternalism, adaptive preferences and ambiguity. Nevertheless, the CA provides a strong theory of distributive justice that may be of significant contribution to policy and practice, engaging the professional within a transformative and sustainable approach to social change.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Danielle Veal is a PhD candidate with a Bachelor of Social Work (1st Class Honours). Her thesis is exploring the concepts of reproductive health and women’s empowerment in Cambodia.

Julie King is a medical anthropologist who has a Bachelor in Nursing, a Master of Public Health (Tropical Health) and a PhD in Medical Anthropology (QUT). Dr King’s key areas of expertise include international health and development, disability, refugee health, and gender.

Gregory Marston has extensive experience across practice, policy and research settings. Prof Marston started his professional career as a youth worker in the early 1990s, before working in policy and community development roles for a variety of non-profit community organisations. Greg undertakes research for government and community groups in a range of areas.

References

Agyeman

Evans

(2004) ‘“Just Sustainability”: The Emerging Discourse of Environmental Justice in Britain?’, The Geographical Journal 170: 155–64.

Alkire

(2005) ‘Why the Capability Approach?’, Journal of Human Development 6(1): 115–35.

Anand

Sen

(2000) ‘Human Development and Economic Sustainability’, World Development 28(12): 2029–49.

Anglem

Maidment

(2009) ‘Introduction to Assessment’, in Maidment

Egan

(eds) Practice Skills in Social Work and Welfare, pp. 112–27. Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Australian Association of Social Workers [AASW] (2013) AASW Practice Standards. Available online at: http://www.aasw.asn.au/practitioner-resources/practice-standards

Banerjee

(2011) ‘Social Work Scholars’ Representation of Rawls: A Critique’, Journal of Social Work Education 47(2): 189–211.

Banerjee

Canda

(2012) ‘Comparing Rawlsian Justice and the Capabilities Approach to Justice from a Spiritually Sensitive Social Work Perspective’, Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work 31(1–2): 9–31.

Barnes

(2009) ‘Disability and Adaptive Preference’, Philosophical Perspectives 23: 1–22.

Bebbington

Dillard

(2009) ‘Social Sustainability: An Organizational-level Analysis’, in Dillard

Dujon

King

M.C.

(eds) Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustainability, pp. 174–98. London: Routledge.

10.

Begon

(2013) ‘Policy without Paternalism: A Capability Approach to Legitimate State Action’, Doctoral Thesis, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield.

11.

Birdsall

W.F.

(2014) ‘Development, Human Rights, and Human Capabilities: The Political Divide’, Journal of Human Rights 13(1): 1–21.

12.

Boström

(2012) ‘The Problematic Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: The Case of the Forest Stewardship Council’, The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 19(1): 3–15.

13.

Braber

C.D.

(2013) ‘The Introduction of the Capability Approach in Social Work across a Neoliberal Europe’, Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice 22(4): 61–77.

14.

Cornwall

(2003) ‘Whose Voices? Whose Choices? Reflections on Gender and Participatory Development’, World Development 31(8): 1325–42.

15.

Cruddas

Rutherford

(2009) ‘The uses of Sen’. Soundings 13626620(43): 159–168.

16.

Dabla-Norris

Kochar

Suphaphipat

Ricka

Tsounta

(2015) ‘Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective’, Report for the International Monetary Fund. Available online at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf

17.

Dean

(2009) ‘Critiquing Capabilities: The Distractions of a Beguiling Concept’, Critical Social Policy 29(2): 261–78.

18.

Ele-Ojo Ataguba

Eme Ichoku

Fonta

W.M.

(2013) ‘Multidimensional Poverty Assessment: Applying the Capability Approach’, International Journal of Social Economics 40(4): 331–54.

19.

Gangas

(2014) ‘From Alienation to Capability Deprivation: Reconstructing a Sociological Concept’, Social Science Information 53(1): 54–75.

20.

Gasper

(2005) ‘Securing Humanity: Situating “Human Security” as Concept and Discourse’, Journal of Human Development 6(2): 221–45.

21.

Gray

Webb

S.A.

(2014) ‘The Making of a Civil Society Politics in Social Work: Myth and Misrepresentation with the Global Agenda’, International Social Work 57(4): 346–59.

22.

Ife

(2012) Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights Based Practice, 3rd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

23.

International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) (2012) ‘Global Standards’. Available online at: http://ifsw.org/policies/global-standards/

24.

International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) (2014) ‘Global Definition’. Available online at: http://ifsw.org/policies/definition-of-social-work/

25.

Jayasundara

D.S.

(2011) ‘Applicability of Amartya Sen’s Human Development Perspectives to the Fields of Reproductive Health and Social Work’, International Social Work 56(2): 134–47.

26.

Kam

P.K.

(2014) ‘Back to the “Social” of Social Work: Reviving the Social Work Profession’s Contribution to the Promotion of Social Justice’, International Social Work 57(6): 723–40.

27.

Lymbery

(2001) ‘Social Work at the Crossroads’, British Journal of Social Work 31: 369–84.

28.

McLaughlin

A.M.

(2006) ‘Liberal Interpretations of Social Justice for Social Work’, Currents: New Scholarship in the Human Services 5(1): 1–18.

29.

Marston

McDonald

(2012) ‘Getting Beyond “Heroic Agency” in Conceptualising Social Workers as Policy Actors in the Twenty-first Century’, British Journal of Social Work 42(6): 1022–38.

30.

Morgaine

(2014) ‘Conceptualising Social Justice in Social Work: Are Social Workers “Too Bogged Down in the Trees?”’, Journal of Social Justice 4: 1–24.

31.

Morris

P.M.

(2002) ‘The Capabilities Perspective: A Framework for Social Justice’, Families in Society 83(4): 365–74.

32.

Murphy

(2012) ‘The Social Pillar of Sustainable Development: A Literature Review and Framework for Policy Analysis’, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 8(1): 15–29.

33.

Nussbaum

(2001) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

34.

Nussbaum

(2002) ‘Capabilities and Human Rights’, in De Greiff

Cronin

(eds) Global Justice and Transnational Politics, pp. 117–50. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

35.

Nussbaum

(2003) ‘Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice’, Feminist Economics 9(2–3): 33–59.

36.

Nussbaum

(2011) Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

37.

O’Leary

M.P.

(2006) The influence of values on development practice: A study of Cambodian development practitioners in non-government organisations in Cambodia. Doctoral dissertation, La Trobe University, Australia.

38.

Olson

J.J.

(2007) ‘Social Work’s Professional and Social Justice Projects’, Journal of Progressive Human Services 18(1): 45–69.

39.

Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHDI) (2014) ‘Policy: A Multidimensional Approach’, Available online at: http://www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/

40.

Peeters

(2012) ‘Sustainable Development: A Mission for Social Work? A Normative Approach’, Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice 21(2): 5–22.

41.

Pieterse

J.N.

(2009) Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions. London: SAGE.

42.

Pyles

(2008) ‘The Capabilities Approach and Violence against Women: Implications for Social Development’, International Social Work 51: 25–36.

43.

Qizilbash

(2011) ‘Sugden’s Critique of Sen’s Capability Approach and the Dangers of Libertarian Paternalism’, International Review of Economics 58: 21–42.

44.

Rawls

(1999) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

45.

Rawls

Kelly

(2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

46.

Reisch

(2013) ‘Social Work Education and the Neo-liberal Challenge: The US Response to Increasing Global Inequality’, Social Work Education 32(6): 715–33.

47.

Rist

(2007) ‘Development as a Buzzword’, Development in Practice 17(4–5): 485–91.

48.

Robeyns

(2003) ‘Sen’s Capability Approach and Gender Inequality: Selecting Relevant Capabilities’, Feminist Economics 9(2–3): 61–92.

49.

Robeyns

(2006) ‘Capability Approach in Practice’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 14(3): 351–76.

50.

Rogers

P.P.

Jalal

K.F.

Boyd

J.A.

(2008) An Introduction to Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan.

51.

Sachs

J.D.

(2012) ‘From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals’, The Lancet 379: 2206–11.

52.

Saleeby

P.W.

(2005) ‘Exploring Disability and Poverty in Nepal: An Application of the Capability Approach’, PhD Thesis, Washington University, MO, USA.

53.

Sen

(1992) Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

54.

Sen

(1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

55.

Sen

(2005) ‘Human rights and capabilities’, Journal of Human Development 6(2): 151–166.

56.

Sen

(2013) ‘The Ends and Means of Sustainability’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development 14(1): 6–20.

57.

Solas

(2008) ‘What Kind of Social Justice Does Social Work Seek?’, International Social Work 51(6): 813–22.

58.

Sumner

(2006) ‘What is Development Studies?’, Development in Practice 16(6): 644–50.

59.

Teschl

Comim

(2005) ‘Adaptive Preferences and Capabilities: Some Preliminary Conceptual Explorations’, Review of Social Economy 63(2): 229–47.

60.

Vifell

Å.C.

Soneryd

(2012) ‘Organizing Matters: How “the Social Dimension” Gets Lost in Sustainability Projects’, Sustainable Development 20(1): 18–27.

61.

Wagle

U.R.

(2008) ‘Multidimensional Poverty: An Alternative Measurement Approach for the United States?’, Social Science Research 37(2): 559–80.

62.

Wagle

(2009) Multidimensional poverty measurement: Concepts and applications. New York: Springer.

63.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available online at: http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm