Social work theory · Volume E: Strengths, Agency & Meaning

Capabilities approach

The capabilities approach is a framework for assessing human wellbeing and social arrangements in terms of what people are actually able to do and to be.

Type: normative framework in philosophy and welfare economics for evaluating wellbeing, development and justice; applied in social policy and social work as a social justice perspective.

1. What it is

The capabilities approach is a framework for assessing human wellbeing and social arrangements in terms of what people are actually able to do and to be. It was developed by the economist and philosopher Amartya Sen and extended by the philosopher Martha Nussbaum. The approach argues that the proper focus of evaluation is people’s substantive freedoms, or real opportunities, to achieve the lives they have reason to value (Sen, 1999). Income, resources and satisfaction are treated as relevant but incomplete measures, because people differ in their ability to turn resources into a good life (Robeyns, 2005). For social work, the approach offers a way of linking individual agency to social justice, and of assessing disadvantage in terms of restricted opportunity (Morris, 2002).

Functionings. Functionings are the various things a person may value doing or being, such as being adequately nourished, being healthy, being literate, taking part in community life or having self-respect (Sen, 1999). A person’s achieved functionings are the states and activities they actually realise.

Capabilities. Capabilities are the set of functionings a person is effectively able to achieve, that is, their real freedom to choose between different ways of living (Sen, 1992). Sen used the example of fasting and starving: both involve lack of food, but a person who fasts has the capability to eat and chooses not to. The distinction between capabilities and functionings places choice and agency at the centre of the approach. Policy, in Sen’s view, should usually expand capabilities and leave people free to decide which functionings to pursue.

Agency. Sen (1999) also emphasised agency freedom, a person’s freedom to pursue goals and values they consider important, including goals beyond their own wellbeing. He described people as active agents of change who should shape their own destinies, which links the capabilities approach to empowerment (E2) and self-determination (E4).

Conversion factors. Conversion factors are the conditions that affect how far a person can convert resources into functionings. Robeyns (2005, 2017) groups them into three types. Personal conversion factors include physical condition, sex, skills and intelligence. Social conversion factors include public policies, social norms, discrimination, gender roles and power relations. Environmental conversion factors include climate, geography, infrastructure and transport. Two people with the same income may have very different capabilities: a wheelchair user living in a town without accessible transport has fewer options than a non-disabled neighbour with the same resources.

Nussbaum’s ten central capabilities. Nussbaum (2000, 2011) argued that a just society must secure a threshold level of ten central capabilities for every person. They are: (1) life, living a normal length of life; (2) bodily health, including nourishment and shelter; (3) bodily integrity, including freedom of movement and security against violence; (4) senses, imagination and thought, including education; (5) emotions, being able to form attachments; (6) practical reason, being able to form a conception of the good and plan one’s life; (7) affiliation, living with and towards others and having the social bases of self-respect and non-discrimination; (8) other species, living with concern for animals, plants and nature; (9) play, being able to laugh, play and enjoy recreation; and (10) control over one’s environment, both political (participation and free speech) and material (property and employment on an equal basis). Sen has declined to endorse a fixed list, preferring that relevant capabilities be selected through public reasoning (Sen, 2009).

2. Historical development

The capabilities approach developed from welfare economics and political philosophy. Sen (1980) criticised utilitarian approaches, which assess wellbeing through happiness or preference satisfaction, and resource-based approaches, which assess it through income or primary goods. He argued that both overlooked human diversity in converting resources into valued lives. His studies of famine and poverty showed that deprivation often resulted from lack of entitlement and freedom. Nussbaum, drawing on Aristotle and liberal political thought, developed the approach into a theory of basic social justice.

The approach became influential when it informed the United Nations Development Programme’s human development reports from 1990, which measured progress through health, education and living standards. It has since been applied to disability, gender, education and poverty research (Robeyns, 2017). In social work, Morris (2002) argued that the capabilities approach could provide a social justice framework for social work that complements the strengths perspective. Burchardt (2004) connected it with the social model of disability, since both locate disadvantage in the interaction between people and their environments.

3. Practical guidance

The capabilities approach helps social workers assess and address restricted opportunity.

• Ask what people are able to do and be. Explore the person’s real opportunities in education, work, relationships, health and community life, and what they value (Sen, 1999).
• Assess conversion factors. Identify the personal, social and environmental factors that prevent a person from turning resources into valued functionings (Robeyns, 2005).
• Use the central capabilities as a checklist. Nussbaum’s list can structure comprehensive assessment and highlight capabilities below a threshold, such as bodily integrity for a person experiencing family violence (Nussbaum, 2011).
• Protect choice. Aim to expand options and avoid prescribing which functionings people should pursue. This respects self-determination.
• Advocate for enabling environments. Target accessible transport, inclusive services and anti-discrimination measures that expand capabilities for groups. This fits disability and NDIS practice (Burchardt, 2004).
• Work with community-defined capabilities. With Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, identify what people value through community-led processes (Yap & Yu, 2016).
• Use capabilities in policy analysis. Assess policies by their effect on people’s real freedoms as well as their effect on income.

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. The capabilities approach offers a rich account of wellbeing that recognises human diversity and the importance of freedom and agency. It connects individual circumstances to social arrangements and supports social work’s commitments to human rights and social justice (Morris, 2002). It has shaped international development measurement and has been applied in disability, gender and Indigenous wellbeing research (Robeyns, 2017).

Limitations. The approach is difficult to operationalise, because capabilities, as unrealised opportunities, are harder to observe than achieved functionings. Sen’s refusal to specify a list leaves practitioners without clear guidance, while Nussbaum’s list has been criticised as paternalistic and culturally specific. The approach is a framework for evaluation, and it does not by itself explain how inequalities arise or how to change them. Its liberal individualist foundations may not fully capture collective and relational understandings of wellbeing, including those of many Indigenous peoples (Yap & Yu, 2016).

Overall importance. The capabilities approach gives social work a principled way of defining disadvantage as a lack of real freedom and of linking agency to justice. It complements the strengths perspective by focusing on the environments and opportunities that allow strengths to be used. It is increasingly used in social policy, disability and development work.

5. References

• Burchardt, T. (2004). Capabilities and disability: The capabilities framework and the social model of disability. Disability & Society, 19(7), 735–751.
• Morris, P. M. (2002). The capabilities perspective: A framework for social justice. Families in Society, 83(4), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.16
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266
• Robeyns, I. (2017). Wellbeing, freedom and social justice: The capability approach re-examined. Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0130
• Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. M. McMurrin (Ed.), The Tanner lectures on human values (Vol. 1, pp. 195–220). University of Utah Press; Cambridge University Press.
• Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland.
• Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Clarendon Press.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
• Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• United Nations Development Programme. (1990). Human development report 1990. Oxford University Press.
• Yap, M., & Yu, E. (2016). Operationalising the capability approach: Developing culturally relevant indicators of indigenous wellbeing – an Australian example. Oxford Development Studies, 44(3), 315–331.