Disability and well-being: towards a Capability Approach for marketplace access

ABSTRACT

Using the Capability Approach (CA) as a means of identifying the barriers that individuals with disabilities face in achieving their goals, this conceptual paper aims to provoke discussion and identify how society excludes and marginalises individuals with disabilities. As framed through the lens of consumer vulnerability, reimagining how society, policy makers and the market can transform lived experiences, representation and symbolism of disability, this paper calls for a coherent and integrated set of actions. Central to these actions is a proposal for a transformative approach to marketplace access as a coordinated force to deliver positive change for people with disabilities. Through developing a new conceptual way of how the market should engage with disability, this paper presents proposals looking to ensure individuals with disabilities experience the conditions in which they can pursue their ultimate ends.

KEYWORDS:

• Disability
• Capability Approach
• market accessibility
• Wellbeing
• Consumer Vulnerability

Introduction

[In 1997, Mattel] introduced “Share-a-Smile Becky”, a Barbie friend … with her shiny pink wheelchair and tiny backpack. As many as 6,000 dolls were sold in the first two weeks, and disability advocates praised Mattel for bringing visibility and representation to wheelchair users. But the warm, fuzzy feeling didn’t last. Kids and collectors soon discovered that Becky’s wheelchair didn’t fit through the doors of the Barbie Dreamhouse – that pink-swathed epicentre of Barbie’s social world. The chair couldn’t squeeze inside the house’s elevator, either … Mattel responded to the controversy by saying that the company was “looking at the accessibility of all Barbie accessories”. As it turns out, Becky’s wheelchair still doesn’t fit in the Dream House elevator, 20 years later.

The bottom line? Mattel never changed the house … “A lot of the talk about why Becky doesn’t exist anymore in any iteration is that it was too complicated to redesign Barbie’s world to fit Becky”, says Karin Hitselberger. “So, they just got rid of her”. For Hitselberger, Becky’s story “speaks volumes to the way we think about disability. A lot of the ways we think about disabilities, we talk about ‘fixing disability’, instead of focusing on ‘fixing society’”. (Franz, 2017)

Becky’s story represents an instance of art imitating life, where the market is aware of individual diversity, yet appears to eradicate its existence. With disability comes a history of oppression, where people with disabilities are ‘more likely to be victims of rape and violence, less likely to receive legal protection, more likely to be excluded from mass education, underrepresented politically and more reliant upon state benefits or charity’ (Goodley, 2017, p. 2). With the intensifying link between citizen and consumer (Bauman, 2007), the issue of participation and access to the market for people with disabilities (PWD) is under scrutiny. Consumers’ identity projects are increasingly tied to the consumption of goods and services and the consequences of market exclusion can potentially be long-lasting and detrimental (Mirabito et al., 2016). Adding to this are the assumptions about the potential buying power of PWDs. As Higgins (2020, p. 2675), quoting PurplePound (2019), notes ‘ … the UK’s failure to appropriately cater to this consumer segment witnesses monthly losses of £163 m for restaurants, pubs and clubs, £267 m for high street shops, and a mammoth £501 m for supermarkets’.

Responding to the call for papers for embodied approaches to better understand disabling marketplaces, we outline a Capability Approach to the marketplace. In doing so, we express a counterpoint to the disabling market thesis, instead presenting the market as a means to articulate constellations of difference that are self-selected by participants, keyed to their own needs, requirements, and aspirations. Identifying the structures and barriers to preventing the realisation of a valued identity which is supported and affirmed by the marketplace, we draw attention to the role of the market and its cultural reproduction in enhancing the capabilities of all members of society.

We define disability as a combination of individual, institutional, and societal factors that determine a PWDs lived environment.¹ Indeed, statistics infer the impact of a PWD’s environment on their well-being and ability to engage fully with society. For example, Bacon (2015) reported that 88% of British people sampled believed that people with disabilities were under-represented in British advertisements, with 92% feeling this way about people with intellectual disabilities. Furthermore, Scope, a UK disability charity, claims that three-quarters of the UK’s PWDs have left a shop or business at some point because of poor customer service failing to account for their abilities or a lack of disability awareness (Macasta, 2019). Moreover, in the USA, National Business and Disability Council (NBDC, 2015) reported that 82% of customers with disabilities prefer to purchase from a shop and not online, yet 60% of consumers with disabilities felt ignored by businesses. Attempts at disability inclusion have often been met with derision rather than praise. For example, Kearney et al. (2019) indicated that the imagery provided for the 2016 Paralympics featuring people with disabilities while addressing society’s prejudices also served to create a sense of further marginalisation among the disabled community who felt these images were unrealistic and not representative of the general disabled population. The representation of athletes with disabilities as almost super-human was in stark contrast to the actual lived experiences and perception that most people with disabilities experienced.

Further confounding PWDs feelings of marginalisation is the emergence of a neo-liberal economic consensus ranging from Australasia to the Americas via Europe. Typified by economic liberalisation policies, including austerity, deregulation, and reductions in government spending (Arac, 2013; Goldstein, 2011) that have had profound effects on PWDs (Yates, 2015). For instance, in the UK an on-going Government-imposed austerity programme has seen disability benefits increasingly reduced, with the Government deciding which PWDs are worthy of receiving benefits (Dixon et al., 2018). Accompanying this, the British media have published instances of disability being associated with illegal claims of Government benefits. One outcome has been 46% of people with disabilities reporting increasing incidents of aggression towards them, with 83% attributing these aggressive acts to media associations of disabled people as ‘benefit scroungers’ (Dixon et al., 2018).

Markets are understood to be sites of exchange, where individuals can exercise some degree of choice and control, enabling them to participate fully in social life. However, what happens when barriers to participation exclude up to 14 million consumers in the UK alone (Higgins, 2020)? Furthermore, a good proportion of those individuals registered as disabled develop disabilities later in life (non-congenital), transitioning from ‘able-bodied’ to ‘disabled’. Extant research on PWDs and the marketplace have covered themes such as coping strategies (Elms & Tinson, 2012; Falchetti et al., 2015), family adaptation (Mason & Pavia, 2010), employment and earnings (Jones, 2008) and the use of technology to aid marketplace interactions (Bouck et al., 2013; Burckley et al., 2014). However, market accessibility remains scant in the literature (Eskyte, 2019), as do proposals for rethinking the role of market accountability and transformative potential. Geography research in accessible tourism (Buhalis & Darcy, 2011; Zajadacz, 2015) has furthered these perspectives through the lens of inclusive tourism, highlighting the disconnect between accessible infrastructure and growing market demand. However, where this infrastructure does exist, it is deemed a cost rather than being a competitive advantage. Exclusionary practices, whether intentional or otherwise, are a contributing factor in the disenfranchisement of PWDs in the market. Their omission can lead to forms of marketplace trauma (Bennett et al., 2016) where markets ‘chronically fail to engage, intervene, acknowledge, and/or include the experiences and perspectives of diverse individuals and groups’ (Bennett et al., 2016, p. 283).

Existing intervention strategies look to provide remedies to institutions, yet these remedies serve to temporarily repair the ruptures in the structural fabric without addressing the inherent problems of structure. The ‘remedies’ provide little to no pragmatic information on how to achieve a workplace culture of inclusion, normalisation or updates [to] school curricula and activities. Furthermore, the remedies to reduce stigma in the marketplace and government involves little interaction between these institutions and those who are stigmatised, thus limiting self-directed choice and control.

Considering these criticisms, we pose the research question: how can the market be adapted to bring inclusion for PWDs whilst still fulfilling the market’s needs? This paper presents a conceptual model, that takes a predominately British perspective, builds upon an intersection of three existing models of disability: the social, cultural, and phenomenological focusing on the etic (social), emic (phenomenological), and representational components of lived realities. Our conceptual model endorses the Capability Approach, which is based upon a central idea: the path to human welfare should concentrate on the actual capability of individuals to achieve their well-being rather than solely on their right or freedom to do so (Nussbaum, 2011; Sen, 1992, 1999, 2002).

It is this very focus on individual capability that inspires a new perspective towards disability, one in which the market is central to expanding these capabilities. Such a market should aim at driving forward wider societal and economic changes that aim to encourage opportunities for individuals to fulfil their capabilities in an efficient and competent manner. Here a key assumption lies in PWDs having and being entitled to individual rights of emancipation. We locate our paper on the ground that all PWDs are entitled to a full, active life to the best of their abilities, fully supported through a socio-cultural environment that recognises and turns towards those needs. In doing so, we identify how they can be addressed through a variety of policy interventions in the marketplace and treat the marketplace as a conversion factor.

Our paper offers three proposals to reimagine disability, proposing market, societal and economic policies based around increasing disabled people’s access and involvement within the market. The implications of these policies also extend beyond the marketplace and economics settings to the construction of a society where differentially abled individuals can fully recognise and maximise their embodied potential.

Overview of the social, cultural, and phenomenological models of disability

We establish our argument by first outlining the historical perspectives of disability models which aim to identify the societal structures that limit or support disabilities. As Oliver (1996, p. 40) notes, models help us to better understand the world, or those bits of it under scrutiny, offering up various dimensions that form the concept of ‘disability’ according to socio-economic and legislative changes (Zajadac, 2015). Models of disability are not value neutral, instead they take stances that shape the self-identity of PWDs and how we learn about disabilities.

Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a comprehensive analysis of all the extant models of disability, our focus will remain upon the use and development of those models which we believe will help to serve the aims of this paper. (Please refer to tables 1 and 2 for an overview of the models). The social model of disability is one which considers the material inequalities PWDs face (Goodley, 2017). Here, disability is a socially constructed phenomenon and disadvantage, which is imposed upon PWDs, constituting ‘a particular form of social oppression’ (UPIAS, 1976, p. 14). The strength of the social model, notes Zajadacz (2015, p. 191), is the assumption that ‘it is not the person with a disability who needs to adapt to the environment but that social conditions should change making it possible for this person to participate fully in society’. Individuals are seen to be ‘disabled’ by the societies in which they live and through the impact of society’s structures and attitudes (Purtell, 2013, p. 26).

Table 1. Further models of disability.

Model	Definition/basic tenets	Implications	Key references	Limitations
Moral model: disability as act of God (oldest model of disability)	Disability as a punishment from God for a sin or moral/religious transgression that may have been committed by the person with disability, of their family/ancestors. Disability as a test of faith or even salvific in nature: ‘individuals and families are specially selected by God to receive a disability and are given the opportunity to redeem themselves through their endurance, resilience, and piety’ (Niemann, 2005, p. 106) The challenges associated with disability may be viewed as a God-given opportunity for character development: ‘individuals are selected by God or a higher power to receive a disability not as a curse or punishment but to demonstrate a special purpose or calling’ (Niemann 2005, p.106).	This view may lead to PWD or entire families’ exclusion from their local communities. Worse, in certain cultures where the moral and/or religious model of disability is still the predominant view, PWDs may be severely marginalised, even facing the prospect of abandonment or infanticide (Anderson 2013, p. 11). PWDs may be regarded as ‘blessed’, as they can learn important life lessons that able-bodied people do not necessarily have the opportunity to learn.	Black (1996), Bryan and Henderson(2011), and Pardeck and Murphy (2012), Rimmerman (2013).	Weakening of religious thinking has considerably decreased the ‘appeal’ and prevalence of this model.
Medical Model: disability as disease (mid-1800s onwards)	Disability as a medical problem: it is a defect in or failure of a bodily system; it is inherently abnormal and pathological. Defines disability in a fundamentally negative way: Disability is regarded as objectively bad, as a pitiable condition, ‘a personal tragedy for both the individual and her family (Carlson 2010, p. 5) that needs to be prevented, treated and cured, via medical treatment or physical rehabilitation to maximise the ability of the individual (i.e. adaptation by the PWD to their environment).	The goals of intervention are cure, medical treatment seeing to improve the physical condition to the greatest extent possible, rehabilitation and the adjustment of the PWD to the condition and to the environment; in other words, the PWD needs to change or be fixed, not the conditions that might be contributing to the person’s disability. PWD are expected to use the variety of services offered to them, and to spend time in the role of patient or learner being helped by trained professionals. Negative language: ‘invalid’, ‘cripple’, ‘spastic’, ‘handicapped’ and ‘retarded’ are all derived from the medical model (Creamer 2009, p. 22). An essentially negative conception of disability, which has contributed to some questionable medical treatments including involuntary sterilisation and euthanasia.	Carlson (2010), Kasser and Lytle (2013), Olkin (1999), Parsons (1951), and Woods and Thomas (2003).	Central focus on the causes of disability. PWDs may feel stigmatised and of less value to society in general if seen only from the perspective of their dysfunction. The medical model’s ‘sick role’ approach is problematic, considering that many chronically ill people or those with a disability do not consider themselves as sick. No distinction between impairment and sickness.
Charitable model: disability as victimhood	PWDs are suffering victims of circumstance, to be pitied. The charity model seeks to act to the benefit of PWDs, encouraging ‘humane treatment of persons with disabilities’ (Bryan and Henderson 2011, pp. 7–8).	Able-bodied people should assist PWDs in whatever way possible, as ‘they need special services, special institutions, etc., because they are different’ (Duyan 2007, p. 71). PWDs depicted as helpless, depressed and dependent on other people for care and protection.	Duyan (2007) and Bryan and Henderson (2011)	Accusation of constructing and perpetuating damaging stereotypes, by portraying PWD as helpless, sad and in need of care and protection (Seale, 2006)
Biopsycho-social model	The synthesis of the medical and the social models, incorporating different perspectives of health: biological, individual and social. Disability is viewed neither as purely medical nor as purely social. Disability is understood as a dynamic interaction between health conditions and contextual factors, both personal and environmental. The biopsychosocial model assumes that disability is a complex phenomena that is both a problem at the level of a person’s body, and a complex and primarily social phenomena.	Disability is always the interaction between features of the person and features of the overall context in which the person lives, but some aspects of disability are almost entirely internal to the person, while another aspect is almost entirely external. In other words, both medical and social responses are appropriate to the problems associated with disability; we cannot wholly reject either kind of intervention” (ICF, 2018, p. 9).	ICF (2018) and WHO (2011)

Table 2. PWD models based upon individual rights.

Model	Definition/basic tenets	Implications	Key references	Limitations
Relational model Disability as relational	People with disabilities are disabled through dynamic relationships of body/mind and the environment. Disability is created through three relational processes: 1- the person/environment mismatch, 2- disability is a situational or contextual phenomenon, and 3- disability is a relative construct	Disabled people are excluded from communities, services and professional practices because of a mismatch of expectations, biological needs and environmental opportunities. Recognition that impairment is a predicament requiring sustained professional intervention.	Brennan et al. (2018), Egilson and Traustadottir (2009), and Kristiansen and Traustadottir (2004)	Lack of distinction between impairment and disability might reinsert a medicalised view of the disabled body and mind. Over-emphasis on professional practice and service delivery and lack of engagement with organisations for PWD. Realist interpretation of impairment ignores cultural, social and political aetiologies (Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2015, p. 18).
Active model of disability	Focuses on the actions of PWD on disability, because they are not passive bystanders, powerless to reduce the restrictions of disability. Seeks to address the lack of inclusion in the current model of disability on the impact of the actions of PWD on disability.	Focus on the effects on disability of the individual and collective actions of PWD Engaging in self-help, using support groups and deploying assistive technology can all reduce the limitations of disability.	Levitt (2017)
Identity model or ‘affirmation model’: disability as identity	Disability as a marker of membership in a minority identity (e.g. gender, race). This model focuses on forging a positive definition of disability identity based on experiences and circumstances that have created a recognisable minority group called ‘people with disabilities’. The way they experience the world (a social and political experience of the effects of a social system not designed with PWD in mind), constitute PWD as a minority position in society who are devalued, stigmatised, discounted, and denied equal access and protection.	Model acknowledges the socially constructed dimension of disability. The identity model has influenced many in the disability community to adopt a positive self-image and pride. The model promotes a sense of belonging and involvement (i.e. campaigning) for PWDs, contributing to developing collective identity, and facilitating a group expression of frustration and anger. Such collective identity inspires PWDs to campaign for revolutionary ‘visions of change. Intervention should focus on the increased accessibility of places and services and broad systemic change.	Swain and French (2000).	The model seems to compel individuals to identify with a specific group culture. The identity model fails to pay sufficient attention to the reality of economic inequality faced by PWDs. Need for strong self-advocacy skills. Blurring of impairment and disability.
The Rights-based model: disability as a human rights issue	The human rights model moves beyond the explanations provided by the social model and offers a theoretical framework for disability policy that emphasises the human dignity of PWD. The human rights model encompasses … human rights, civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rights. While the social model mostly fails to appreciate the reality of pain and suffering in the lives of some PWDs, the human rights model respects the fact that some PWDs are indeed confronted by such challenging life situations and argues that such factors should be taken into account in the development of relevant social justice theories. The human rights model ‘offers room for minority and cultural identification’ (Degener 2017, p. 49).	Demands cultural redefinition in opposition to cutthroat individualism of the dominant North American and Canadian societies. Challenges ableism (i.e. social biases against people whose bodies function differently to those with bodies considered to be normal, and the beliefs and practices resulting from and interacting with these biases to serve discrimination While the social model is mostly critical of public health policies that advocate the prevention of impairment, the human rights model recognises the fact that properly formulated prevention policy may be regarded as an instance of human rights protection for PWDs	Degener (2017)
Geographical model (GM) of disability	The geographical (geospatial) model of disability was created during research in the field of the geography of disability. This research has presented disability as a characteristic of the population that inevitably leads to marginalisation and spatial exclusion from otherwise normal social arenas and spaces within the built environment. The GM focuses mainly on the interrelation between PWD and geographical space. Limited ability is caused by both individual conditions (connected to a specific dysfunction) and those of the surrounding physical and social environment creating the restrictions which occur in the PWD – environment (social, physical) relation.	Geographers connect the nature of factors causing disability (disabling nature) both with social and spatial aspects of the human environment. They promote solutions which are more ‘inclusive’ and which provide access to sites and the full scope of life within society, taking different degrees and types of disability into consideration. The central postulate is not to concentrate on ‘disabilities’, but to focus on various social needs and adapt the geographical environment (social, as well as physical) accordingly. Universal design should therefore consider the nature of these needs in universal design, in the creation of maximally accessible buildings, sites and public services.	Butler and Bowlby (1997), Chouinard (2010), Gaines (2004, p. 80), Imrie (2012), Zajadacz (2015), and Śniadek and Zajadacz (2014).

The social model is not without its limitations and criticism. Owens (2015) presents a comprehensive account of the limitations of the social model of disability identifying three key areas: embodiment, oppression, and inadequate theoretical basis. She notes that the social model of disability fails to engage with embodied experience, separating the body from culture at ‘the cost of disabled people’s identities … [ultimately] “gifting” the body to medical interpretation’ (p. 389). Relatedly, the social model focuses upon physical impairment, failing to adequately consider PWDs as ‘victims’ of an inaccessible environment and social neglect, rendering it reductionist, and ignoring the complex lived experiences of PWDs (Zajadacz, 2015).

Then, there is the cultural model, which focuses on differing representations of disability and ‘ableness’ within the context of a specific culture, whereby how cultural locations serve to define and disable individuals (Waldschmidt et al., 2017). Examples of such cultural locations (Snyder & Mitchell, 2005) include, but are not limited to: nineteenth-century charity systems; institutions for the feeble minded during the eugenics period; the international disability research industry; and sheltered workshops for the ‘multi-handicapped’ (Goodley, 2016, p. 15). The model is criticised as being an unfinished project (Devlieger et al., 2016), which despite a range of definitions fails to fully define the model’s aim or application.

The absence of embodied experiences of PWDs has made space for a more phenomenological approach to the understanding of disability as both socially constructed and lived. Martiny (2015, p. 562) notes that to understand the ways in which PWDs experience disability it is important to ‘acknowledge that disability is both an intrinsic and extrinsic property. The experience of disability is structured within the limits of our physical and social conditions and depends on how we develop personally in accordance with these limits’. What the model aims to show is that it is possible to experience different levels of disability, depending on a multiplicity of both physical and social factors.

What these models demonstrate is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach reflecting the vastness and spectrum of disability. Fundamentally, the disability models focus upon how PWDs can negotiate disabling social structures (social model), understand the body as an object of various cultural locations (cultural model) or focus upon the lived experiences of disability (phenomenological model). However, they rarely focus on well-being, or an agentic approach in the freedom to achieve this. When examined through the lens of the Capability Approach, these models pose two significant limitations: firstly, they do not take into consideration PWDs’ ability to convert their capabilities into functions, and secondly, they fail to recognise the role of the market in enabling this conversion. It is through embodied, polyphonic experiences, as framed through the Capability Approach, that we attempt to build our model discussed below. Owens (2015, p. 389) calls for the development of a conceptual model that will enable an ‘appreciation of difference and embed the plurality of lived experiences into a frame of action’. This frame of action, we propose, is one which has at its core the freedom for PWDs to achieve well-being. The next section will provide an overview of the Capability Approach as an overarching frame for our proposed model.

Developing a new approach through the Capability Approach (CA)

Widely discussed through the work of Sen (1992, 1999, 2002) and Nussbaum (2011), the CA is a theoretical framework based upon two central ideas: first, the freedom to achieve well-being as something of moral importance, and second, the freedom to achieve well-being to be understood in terms of people’s capabilities – their real opportunities to do and be what they have reason to value (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2016). Indeed, the CA understands human freedom as not just the achievement of the things that people can be or do, but the freedom or ability to pursue them in the first place (Robeyns, 2005). For Sen (2002; cf. Robeyns, 2016b, p. 36), capabilities allude to ‘the presence of valuable options or alternatives, in the sense of opportunities that do not exist only formally or legally but are also effectively available to the agent’. Ultimately, capabilities denote an individual’s opportunity and ability to generate valuable outcomes, considering relevant personal characteristics and external factors.

The CA focuses on the type of life that people can live where the practical opportunities afforded to individuals are seen to be universal rights. Originally developed as a framework to analyse different concepts in welfare economics, the CA remains focused on an individual’s interests (Mitra, 2006) and the means to achieve various functionings. In Sen’s (1992) terminology, a functioning is what an individual chooses to do or to be, which are instruments enabling an individual to achieve different functionings. Here, functionings represent an individual’s achievement: what they manage to be or do, and any such functioning reflects the state of that individual. Importantly, the CA argues that people have different capabilities to achieve functionings due to their personal, social, and environmental conditions (Robeyns, 2005).

The CA is not designed to explain poverty, inequality, or well-being. What the framework does allow us to do is to help conceptualise these notions in a way that fits the context and aspirations of those experiencing these conditions (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2016). For example, for the CA, the ultimate ends are people’s functionings, asking whether people can be healthy, through having the means or resources necessary to fulfil this capability. Merely having the availability of a resource is not enough, particularly when applying the CA to disability. Access to a resource and the opportunity to access it are also of utmost importance. In other words, is an individual being put in the conditions in which they can pursue their ultimate ends? The CA questions the notion of needs and abilities – it presumes the idea that a society does not consist of individuals who all have the same needs and abilities. Therefore, disability can be understood as ‘a deprivation in terms of capabilities or functions that results from the interaction of an individual’s (a) personal characteristics (e.g. age, impairment) (b) basket of available goods (assets, income) and (c) environment (social, economic, political, cultural)’ (Mitra, 2006, p. 237). Disability, then, is ‘an unjust deficiency of capability provision’ (Harnacke, 2013, p. 773).

The CA considers PWDs through an acknowledgement that all people differ in their abilities to convert resources into functionings. Central to the CA is the idea of conversion factors, that is, ‘any element that affects the degree to which an individual can transform a resource into a functioning’ (Robeyns, 2016a, p. 771). For example, consider a bicycle that enables mobility. An individual with limited mobility will have a lower conversion factor against an able-bodied individual who was taught in childhood how to ride a bicycle. However, the gap between having resources and being capable of using them for one’s goals is overlooked when the marketing discipline assumes the resources can be automatically converted into capabilities. For example, returning to our example of the bicycle. Mass bicycle producers may intentionally ignore disabled cyclists needs simply because necessary product modifications may be unprofitable. It is from this perspective that changes to how the market operates to drive forward change in other domains are proposed.

The CA argues then that the aim is not to give everyone equality in functionings (which is impossible owing to heterogeneity and lack of economic resources) but to give everyone the opportunity to experience the functionings that they want to experience to the level they can and within the limits of societal morals, finances and so forth. According to Trani et al. (2011, p. 144), the CA allows the dilemma of difference to be overcome in a tangible manner ‘as it takes into consideration the specificity of a situation, as well as an individual’s agency … avoid[ing] classifying individuals with disabilities based on their impairment only – which leads to a uniform and inadequate provision of service’. What must be considered by society then, is how everyone’s gap between capabilities and functionings can be and should be reduced by whatever realistic means possible. To contextualise and develop our discussion, the following section will consider more specifically vulnerability and marketplace access in light of PWDs.

Vulnerability, PWDs and marketspaces

Defining vulnerability across the changing contours of the marketplace is not only difficult but requires a better understanding of who experiences vulnerability (Baker et al., 2005) and how they experience this, versus a perceived or imposed vulnerability upon those who society deem as being vulnerable based upon individual characteristics alone (e.g. old age, homelessness). Factors which contribute to the categorisation of ‘vulnerable’ can be due to a range of intersecting conditions, as identified by Visconti (2016), as permanent subjective conditions, transient subjective conditions, economic poverty, and illiteracy among others. Within the context of the marketplace, notes Visconti (2016, p. 371), vulnerability could translate as ‘obtaining limited utility from market transactions, with implications for [an individual’s] well-being’. Similarly, Baker et al. (2005, p. 34) definition of consumer vulnerability also refers to the ‘interactions of individual states, individual characteristics, and external conditions … where consumption goals may be hindered’. In light of the CA, this translates as limiting the potential for individuals to convert their capabilities into functionings. The marketplace becomes difficult to negotiate or navigate (see Dunnett et al., 2018) when considerations of consumption are embedded within frameworks and theories which prioritise and centralise the able-bodied experience. Furthermore, when the onus on navigating the marketplace is placed upon consumers, these situations for PWDs manifest themselves in ways which have the potential to destabilise a sense of self (Higgins, 2020), and may result in concerted efforts by PWDs to avoid ‘social transgression into the market’ (Pavia & Mason, 2012, p. 107). These kinds of marketplace experiences are what Hill and Sharma (2020) identify as marketplace harm, where an individual is restricted access and/or control over resources, leading to disadvantage and potentially harmful impacts upon their overall wellbeing.

Attempts have been made within the marketing literature broadly to discuss the market-based coping strategies of PWDs (Maes et al., 2003), yet coping is a restrictive and often short-sighted approach in attempts to understand the structuring forces that lead to the market becoming a disempowering space for PWDs. The market plays an essential part in bridging the gap of human capital, defined here as how an individual’s health, knowledge, and skills can be measured as a form of capital, allowing individuals to draw upon marketplace resources to realise their ‘subjective agencies’ (Firat & Venkatesh, 1995). Clearly, not everyone has an equal access to marketplace resources as inferred by existing models of disability through the lens of the CA. An inability to transform capabilities into functions ultimately limits disabled individuals’ ability to access the market thereby restricting their freedom to achieve.

Echoing Toombs (1995), the marketplace has long been criticised for constraining individuals’ imagination about which (embodied) identities are possible or legitimate (Arnould & Thompson, 2005; Featherstone, 1982; Scaraboto & Fischer, 2013). As noted earlier, disability is typically absent from advertising, except for when it speaks specifically about disability. Rarely do advertisements show disabled people undertaking everyday activities such as cooking, working or household chores (Magee, 2016). This tendency perpetuates the otherness of PWD in general.

The market ideally offers an equal opportunity for everyone to exchange based upon their available resources. Yet in this idealism, obscured through imbalances in the power relations within the market (Benton, 1987; Karababa & Kjeldgaard, 2013), lies a significant cause of individual difference and potential marginalisation. Historically, the market, and therefore marketing, has had the purpose of envisioning how to best offer products and services to satisfy customers’ needs and how to help to turn these resources into benefits (Firat, 1988; Tadajewski & Brownlie, 2008). Whilst there is nothing wrong with helping customers achieve their goals, the assumptions about how this process happens has overlooked the role of capabilities in enabling the achievement of such goals. The marketing discipline has perhaps wrongly assumed that having or accessing products and services naturally leads to achieving functionings, such as, if one has a car, one can drive to work. As such, it assumes every consumer can turn resources into functionings, i.e. achieving benefits from goods and services, if they have access to these goods and services.

It is the market’s potential to marginalise and discriminate against an individual’s difference, regardless of their physical or mental ability and their ability to buy the desired products and service, that is problematic (Scaraboto & Fischer, 2013) and at odds with the CA. These differentially abled individuals are often subject to problematic treatment by marketers (Alwitt, 1995), as noted in the introduction. Consequently, the neoliberal marketplace may claim inclusion through equal opportunity, but as our opening Barbie story reminds us, the market is symbolic of wider society’s ‘politics of exclusion’. As Houston (1986) rightfully reminds us, marketing managers will only satisfy demand if it represents a profitable venture, and even then, profitable market segments may be ignored (Scaraboto & Fischer, 2013) simply because a segment is inconsistent with marketers’ corporate agendas (Kotler et al., 1971). Nor can society expect governments to intervene in the market. Governments that adopt neoliberal ideologies may undertake minimal intervention in the operating of the market, including interventions with respect to consumer rights. As Bockman (2013) notes, neoliberalism’s requirements for any government intervention focus solely on protecting private property, maintaining order, and providing limited form of protection for the poor.

Enhanced accessibility to market opportunities through products and service consumption enhancing personal well-being (Miller, 2001) can lead to increased societal participation and cognitive, emotional, and mental health benefits (Banister et al., 2015; Cherrier & Murray, 2004). How the market and marketing can be amended to fulfil the CA requirements and thereby becoming a driving force to change wider societal and economic perspectives of disability forms the remainder of our paper.

A way forward

Our conceptual paper is based upon two central ideas: first, the freedom to achieve well-being, and second, the freedom to achieve well-being through real and valued opportunities based upon an individual’s capabilities. Disability then should be viewed from the perspective of the CA as a constellation of abilities, where every feasible effort should be made to close an individual’s gap between their capability and functionings. The remainder of our paper argues that in recognising this approach, the market, and wider society and its economy, must now adapt to accommodate this perspective, striving to reimagine how they operate, become more inclusive and adapt to account for individual’s differing abilities.

Our CA perspective draws upon Wright et al.’s (2011) ‘utopian visions’ requiring the identification of ‘viable alternatives’ to current marketplace arrangements that tend to exclude the marginalised. Wright et al. (2011) argue that two approaches are required. First, identifying and drawing upon examples of best practice that demonstrate the CA and empower PWDs lives, and in doing so identify the costs, benefits, and feasibility within the previous CA constraints. Second, Wright et al. (2011) calls for a normative agenda which presents a desirable future, one that allows individuals to engage fully in life, echoing the earlier CA premise. Both these approaches can be achieved through the following proposals: Shaping the market to deliver CA conversion opportunities and Developing policies that support our reimaging of what ability is. How this model can be achieved draws upon the CA ethos aiming to develop inclusion, discussed in the following three inter-related pathways: Proposal One: Reimagining disability into ability; Proposal Two: Using the market to deliver conversion opportunities; Proposal Three: Developing policies supporting our reimagining of ableness.

Proposal one: reimagining disability into ability

Proposal one calls for a reimagining of how to close CA gaps through using the market to reposition societal and economic narratives surrounding disability and its implied meanings to a more empowering position. In calling for this reimagining, society must recognise the sovereignty of the individual over their own bodies and their right to have access to opportunities. Complimenting this, Shakespeare and Watson’s (2002) perspective that everybody has some form of impairment is extended further, with the proposal that impairments are not what disables individuals and ability does not mean someone without impairments. In other words, individuals can have impairments but still be able to achieve their given functionings and goals with the appropriate support.

In considering impairments as a constellation of differences that constitute differentiating ability levels offers a means of understanding separate but possibly related conditions from a CA perspective, allowing for the development of a collection of appropriate outcomes. For example, Figure 1 illustrates an individual with various disabilities, based upon the previous list and their associated number. The CA identifies the severity of that issue for that individual based upon their level of capability and their ability to function.

Figure 1. A constellation of ability.

The figure represents a constellation of ability axis. To the vertical there is low to high capability, and to the horizontal there is low to high functionality. The figure represents some examples of physical impairment, in the form of a star, against capability and functionality. For example, cerebral palsy may be plotted as low on the functionality axis and slightly higher on the capability axis. A neurodevelopmental condition may be plotted as very high on the functionality axis, yet low on the capability axis.

Source: Authors.

For illustrative purposes, consider Figure 1 which illustrates neurodiverse individuals or those with physical impairments as a constellation of varying levels of impairments which may affect their capabilities. Within this constellation, ability issues are categorised between physical and mental, and within these categories hidden and visible. For example, physical (hidden) ableness issues may include but are not limited to: (1) diabetes, (2) epilepsy, (3) heart conditions, (4) vision difficulties, (5) irritable bowel syndrome and (6) hearing impairment. Physical (visible) ableness issues may include but are not limited to: (7) mobility difficulties arising from an accident/medical reason or (8) cerebral palsy, or any other physical differences that affects how an individual (9) physically appears or (10) communicates.

Mental ableness issues, which may be hidden and comorbid, include but are not limited to: (1) mental health conditions, (2) autistic spectrum disorders including (3) chronic fatigue syndrome, (4) dyslexia, (5) panic attacks, and (6) bi-polar.

Building on Figure 1, regardless of an individual’s abilities, we propose all individuals are entitled to two fundamental rights: first, the freedom to achieve well-being, and second, the freedom to achieve well-being through real and valued opportunities based upon an individual’s capabilities. It is this focus on individuality that is challenged by proposing a new perspective towards disability, where the market is central to driving forward wider societal and economic changes that aim to encourage opportunities for individuals to fulfil their capabilities in an efficient and competent manner. This argument is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Closing the gap – the market as conversion factor.

Fig 2 represents a model of the market as a potential conversion factor. To the extreme left of the image there is an image of a loop showing the capabilities and lack of resources. The constellations of ability (as shown in figure 1) feeds into the market. There is an arrow from constellations of ability pointing towards the market. From the market there emerges an arrow above and below indicating ‘conversion factor’. This conversion factor feeds into society and the economy, ultimately resulting in a maximisation of functionings though the availability of resources, thus minimising the gap - as depicted at the top of the model.

Source: Authors.

Figure 2 illustrates three aspects of our argument. First, overall, the model shows a PWD experiencing diminished capabilities determined by: (i) their abilities and (ii) their limited access to various resources. PWD’s limited range of abilities and access to resources effectively reduces their constellations of ability, discussed and illustrated earlier in Figure 1. For instance, a blind or partially sighted (BPS) individual’s achievements (functionings) are ultimately limited by their ability to comprehend their environment (ability) and the accessibility of that environment (lack of resources) and their resulting capability.

Second, at the centre of the figure, the model shows the market with its role in helping close the gap between an individual’s capabilities and functionings. For example, returning to our individual who is blind or partially sighted (BPS), if they use a walking cane which has been designed to suit their needs, the cane then becomes the embodiment and metaphor for the market improving the individual’s capability and thereby maximising their functionings. Further to this are elements designed to support access to spaces, such as wayfinding trails, braille, and audio descriptions. However, the market also acts as a central driving force towards changing wider societal and economic narratives and actions surrounding disability. The market achieves this when there are changes in how it allocates and uses available resources to deliver products and services to the market. Complementing the improvements for the individual, the market can directly inform and affect society and its perspective of disability. How? Because the market benefits from the proposed changes in terms of PWDs increased economic wealth manifesting through increased demand for salient goods and services.

Finally, at the right side of the model, we can observe how the market and its influence on society and the economy can amplify and increase PWDs opportunities to achieve by addressing their constellation of difference and thereby maximising their functionings. This is achieved both through societal changes in how disability is perceived and changes in how the market delivers appropriate goods and services for differently abled bodies. This is illustrated by the enlarged arrow showing increased opportunities to buttress an individual’s functionings. The combination of these two then perpetuates and expands resources made available to the market. The outcome is an ongoing and escalating cycle of expanded functionings. For instance, our individual who is blind and is now benefitting from changes to the market that offers more appropriate products and services (e.g. the well-designed cane) will also benefit from wider societal and economic changes (changes in societal discourses and overall range of offerings in the market). Ultimately, these changes enhance the individual’s capabilities and therefore their functionings which then allows the individual to engage further with the market, thereby repeating the cycle.

Proposal two: shaping the market to deliver conversion opportunities

Proposal two recognises how the market possibly represents society’s largest and most important conversion factor (i.e. a mediator in the PWDs life). In developing this section, a macro-perspective is taken, providing a framework for societal and economic reimagining of disability. A perspective when applied to the market reflects the earlier works of the German Historical School (Jones & Tadajewski, 2016); whose focus on modifying the market to maximise opportunities and benefits for all reflects this paper’s position.

The CA proposes a radically different goal for marketing. Marketing may believe by optimising products that meet consumers’ needs and wants that it promotes democracy and distributive justice (Jocz & Quelch, 2008). In taking this perspective, the CA addresses previous criticisms of the market being discriminatory, such as through segmentation (Baker, 2006), and feeling alienated from the market itself (Bauman, 2005). The CA acknowledges the uneven distribution of capabilities in society and, indirectly, consumer vulnerabilities, and instead strives to promote conditions that enable capabilities for everybody on a choice vs opportunity basis. The CA understands human freedom as not just the achievement of things people can be or do, but the freedom or ability to pursue them in the first place (Robeyns, 2005), reflective of Baker’s (2006) call for PWD to be offered normalcy within the marketplace. Interestingly, the freedom to have choices as to what one decides to do with one’s capability is recognised by traditional marketing. Indeed, the reviews on the foundations of marketing highlights choice as a cornerstone of marketing thought (Botti & Iyengar, 2006; Dholakia & Roy Dholakia, 1985). Despite this, a considerable amount of marketing literature also promoted ‘standardised’ approaches to products and marketing communications. This was not only for the purpose of consistency but also profit maximisation, as fewer adaptations ultimately meant reduced costs. These early ideas promoted a notion of sameness and reduced differentiation, like Horkheimer and Adorno’s (2002) early critiques of the culture industries. From a PWD and consumer vulnerability perspective, the market serves then to exclude PWDs either through inference and perceived difference (Echeverri & Salomonson, 2019; Pavia & Mason, 2012) or at best, ignorant of PWD needs, and at worst, apathetic to their needs, ensuring service and market encounters are difficult (Hong et al., 2015; Navarro et al., 2014).

What our proposal encourages is a revision of this narrative to normalise difference (Baker, 2006). To have choices requires an understanding of real, tangible possibilities and outcomes. Therefore, we want to foster a view of the market as a conversion factor, ultimately enabling possibility rather than disabling it.

Here the neoclassical idea of the market as a medium of exchange between buyers and sellers is challenged by calling for and promoting the idea of the market itself as a conversion factor in giving people the opportunity to incorporate appropriate tools into their bodily schema and achieve their functionings. Like consumer vulnerability discussed earlier, in this way, diverse bodies can be recognised, interact, and realise their full potential to achieve well-being and engage with the world that might be otherwise threatening or oppressive.

This new goal for marketing also implies a new role for markets as conversion factors. As a case in point, when a restaurant provides a menu in braille, it reduces the gap between the resource (the food and the menu) and the functioning (ordering a meal). In this sense, a capability is not just an individual’s abilities to engage with the product or service but the opportunity to achieve functionings made feasible and constrained by the market (Robeyns, 2005, p. 99). Consequently, the market is a powerful conversion factor because it affects the degree to which an individual can transform a resource (the menu) into a functioning (ordering food). The market can be a positive or negative conversion factor (Bøhler et al., 2019) depending on whether it extends or constrains the opportunities to achieve desired individual end goals. For example, the market structured around hearing aids can reduce the gap between a programme on the radio (functioning) and someone’s desire to enjoy radio music by enhancing an individual’s capability of listening. Here markets are encouraged or potentially forced to become more accessible, offering wider ranges of disability-friendly products that are as indistinguishable as possible from their able-bodied counterparts.

Once markets are viewed as a collection of conversion factors constraining, or enabling capabilities, re-thinking marketing through the CA becomes a means towards the achievement of social justice through accepting that all markets presuppose social relationships, values, social norms and practices (Granovetter, 1985). This perspective accepts that these cultural elements are historically shaped, reflecting the evolution of the market and how society views disability. It means identifying the historically shaped assumptions outlined earlier in this paper that create negative conversion factors and actively working to transform these factors into positive ones. This is a stark departure from the idea of markets as providers of resources because more resources do not mean more capabilities. Instead, this is about recognising Gibson-Graham’s (2006) argument that the market, and consumption, can be a potentially viable route to human development and social justice if it is managed with a focus on capabilities. Marketing, therefore, can potentially shape capabilities and societal perceptions of capabilities via marketplace inclusion, product development, and affirmative advertising imagery. This is because these marketing tactics are nested in goals that can enhance individuals’ capabilities as a pathway to achieving the best one can be. For instance, Mars Inc in the UK in 2016 ran a television commercial for their Maltesers brand featuring a woman with a disability in a wheelchair discussing with her friends her new boyfriend. During the conversation, the woman reveals that during an intimate moment, her disability manifested as a muscular spasm, which her boyfriend misinterpreted, depicted by the women shaking her packet of Maltesers sending the Maltesers flying. Despite the advertisement receiving 92 complaints for its representation of PWDs and its sexual innuendo (perhaps they considered that disabled people cannot be sexual) (Poulton, 2018), the advertisement won the British broadcaster Channel 4’s first diversity competition award, as well as Marketing Week’s (a marketing trade journal) ‘Brand of the Year’, ‘Best FMCG Campaign’ and ‘Diversity and Inclusion Champion’ awards (Roderick, 2017). Commercially the campaign was also a success, with UK sales of Maltesers increasing by 8% (compared to the expected 4%), and brand affinity increasing by 20% (double its target), ensuring it was Maltesers’ most effective campaign in the past 10 years (Roderick, 2017).

The market, then, represents a conversion factor enabling and reproducing policies, social norms, practices, or power relations that directly shape the degree to which an individual can transform a resource into functioning. In considering this, several suggestions are proposed:

1. Developing promotional campaigns addressing previous criticisms of promotions perpetuating ableism and superficiality driven by an ideologically naïve belief in integration (Davis, 2013; Heiss, 2011; Kearney et al., 2019). Despite this naïve belief, Bolt’s (2014) ‘ableist advertising aesthetic’ notes five recurring categories of disability representation within advertising: distortion, alterity, disclosure, segregation, and exclusion. Developing this perspective further, in 2019 Bolt argued that disability representation in advertising undertook ‘normative positivisms’, whilst presenting empowering messages surrounding disability did so via wider society’s expectations of how they perceived disabled people should be.

   Yet despite these criticisms, Haller and Ralph (2006) call for advertisers to challenge society’s disability stereotypes by producing more riskier, more challenging representations of disability in advertising. Yet this perspective raises the question of who is bearing the risk? Offering more challenging disability imagery contra to Kearney et al.’s (2019) disabled superhumans campaign may emphasise issues of difference amongst the disabled (Houston, 2019).

   Negotiating a way forward then is complex and not without problems. Houston (2019) offers one approach – reflective involvement of disabled people throughout the advertising development process. The outcome would be advertising which reflects the real lived experiences of those who the advertisement is portraying. For example, River Island, a UK clothing retailer in their pro-diversity campaign, ‘Labels are for clothes’, enabled a different set of social norms around what is normal and acceptable (Young, 2019). The normalisation of difference reduces the gap between resources and capabilities by providing users with more freedom to pursue their desired end states in their preferred ways. This could be complemented with encouraging the employment of disabled people as creative directors, copywriters, graphic designers, etc. in agencies in order to establish a natural shift towards more authentic portrayals of these people in advertising materials. As Loebner (2019) notes: ‘more people with disabilities will be in ads when more people with disabilities are hired in the advertising industry’.

2. Improving PWDs satisfaction by understanding how they adapt and cope with their lived experiences in marketplace encounters. For example, parents deciding whether to exclude family members with a disability from consumption encounters (Pavia & Mason, 2012) or whether PWD should publicly declare their impairments in consumption encounters (Echeverri & Salomonson, 2019). Yet, marketplace attempts to minimise these adaptions and coping mechanisms may indeed produce new barriers to the market, such as facilitating ease of access to online websites for PWD may encourage consumption but with none of the social interactions a physical retail environment would offer (Elms & Tinson, 2012). One outcome might be further destabilisation of a PWD sense of well-being (Higgins, 2020).

   Despite calls for the marketplace to address PWD vulnerability, such calls remain unheard and largely unresolved (Baker et al., 2007; Higgins, 2020). In addressing this, we recognise PWD not as disempowered but as a source of knowledge to inform, educate and create change in marketplace offerings (Echeverri & Salomonson, 2019; Reeve, 2002). Those operating within the marketplace should actively then seek out PWD, hearing these lived experiences and working with them to develop a more inclusive and accessible access to the market.

3. Re-imagining the workings of market channels to cater for the reality of the experiences of people of different forms of ableness. For example, online purchasing presents both opportunities, such as increased access to food shopping (DeVault, 2018) or barriers and increasing inaccessibility owing to differing impairment needs and gender (Byrne, 2018; Johansson et al., 2021), often perpetuating a sense of social isolation (Elms & Tinson, 2012). One approach to resolve these issues may be the inclusion of opportunities for entertainment and a wider sense of online consumer community can increase consumer belonging and involvement (Yang et al., 2015).

   Addressing these online-oriented issues will not be easy, requiring extensive levels of engagement with PWD to develop a multitude of approaches. Potential solutions include when entering delivery details, retailers should include a section where PWDs needs can be entered, assisting the customer in receiving their online purchase. Ensuring that the individuals who are delivering goods are also insured to carry items into homes is central to this. There have been cases where delivery people have refused to place items into customers’ homes as they are not insured to do so.

The market also represents an environmental conversion factor shaping our built environment and altering PWDs capacity to transform a resource into functioning. To encourage and facilitate this conversion, the following guidelines are proposed:

1. Encouraging commercial organisations through their websites to allow for product customisation accounting for varying levels of ableness and functionings. One example of a good practice is Tommy Hilfiger’s adaptable outfits that include clothes with one-handed zips, extended openings, adjustable waists, and magnetic closures – all of which maintain the style of the brand (Hammett, 2019). Further retail opportunities arise from the Metaverse, where online experiences are specifically designed for PWD to create positive environments. Here PWD could freely engage with brands, for example trying on clothes, thereby encouraging brands not just to focus on ‘what’ products they will offer but also ‘how’ they will offer them (Ginsberg, 2021; Sabanoglua, 2022).

2. Development of sensory marketing that draws upon the consumers’ senses, such as smell, taste, touch, etc. may prove a more effective means to reach the consumer than traditional marketing approaches (Krishna, 2012; Yu et al., 2015). For PWD, sensory marketing may offer a more inclusive means to engage with a brand and its consumer offering. For example, in 2018, Starbucks opened a ‘Signing Store’, near Gallaudet University in Washington, allowing people who are deaf to access opportunities to achieve functionings around ordering a cup of coffee (Meyer, 2018).

3. Design of customer experience with the CA in mind. Despite Baker’s call for greater normalcy for PWD having similar consumer retail experiences to others, achievable via Kaufman–Scarborough’s (1999) Reasonable Access Framework, with its call for greater accessibility through display heights, designing wider customer movement pathways in stores, little accessibility progress appears to have been made. Indeed, Yu et al. (2015) noted how blind or partially sighted (BPS) consumers in retail settings often experienced difficulties in assessing product quality, overpowering store lighting and merchandise layout. Consequently, retailers need to introduce greater disability access that goes beyond accessibility ramps, to include hearing loops in strategic places, braille signs and flooring tile strips distinguished from other tiles to direct BPS customers to cash tills. In addition, it is necessary that they be near the parking lots and the entrance of the store, so it can promote the possibility of the conversion of resources into capabilities, and capabilities into functioning. The same thinking applies to the widening of the corridors so that a wheelchair can move more easily inside the stores (doors and corridors above 80 cm wide), facilitating access to other functionings (benefits from products and services offered by the store). Increasing PWD accessibility ultimately leads to value creation both for the consumer and for the retailer (Navarro et al., 2014).

4. Establish a ‘disability’ organisation or reorganise existing ones to promote and emphasise best practices with the market. This could involve establishing, supporting, and disseminating public awards for best practice or for the most effective intervention to bridge the capability gap to help PWD to access the marketplace. For instance: Mia Tui’s Samantha bag, with a bright blue colour inside of the bag for BPS people and non-magnetic clasp so it can be used by people with pacemakers, therefore improving capabilities (Hammett, 2019), would be a worthy candidate.

5. Drawing upon various government legislation, such as the UK’s Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and the USA’s Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA) to encourage market design of products that are adaptable for different needs without being visibly distinguishable to accessible designed products, such as easy-to-use handles that make opening doors easier for people of all ages and abilities; alarm systems that can be both seen and heard; instruction manuals with clear drawings and no text, etc. (CDC, 2018). Consequently, legislation targeting the market would aim to emancipate people with multiple levels of ableness from exclusion and related social prejudices (Hughes & Paterson, 1997) arising from their current inability to access market offerings.

All of the suggestions above explore how the market can become a capability enhancer. However, we are not saying that the proposed policies are easy to undertake or may always be successful but making no attempts to change the status quo is not a viable or inclusive way forward. Ultimately, the proposals aim to embed inclusivity rather than reproduce tokenistic approaches which sit peripheral to dominant market operations.

Proposal three: developing policies supporting our reimagining of ability

If the market represents the epicentre and driving force for wider socio-economic and political discourse changes surrounding disability, then this approach may present an inherent problem in as much as corporations are unlikely to act to close capability gaps when profit generation is threatened (Fleming & Oswick, 2014). As such, proposal three is concerned with re-evaluating societal and economic policies aiming to support the market in becoming the driving force to deliver wider social and economic opportunities that embrace constellations of difference. Instead of an individual determining their specific rights, opportunities must exist consensually to empower people to fulfil their functioning needs (Begon, 2015). An approach which would deliver new, more inclusive discourses in an attempt to refine and support public policy making (Trani et al., 2011), while delivering the freedom to achieve for all individuals regardless of their capability (Robeyns, 2005) is needed.

In taking this approach, the outlined policies respond to Wright et al. (2011, p. 38) call to propose ‘egalitarian alternatives to the status quo, thereby expanding opportunities for greater human flourishing’. A call that embodies and echoes the CA and its use within this paper. However, there are limits to the CA. The more complex an individual’s gap between their capabilities and functionings, the less likely it is that this gap can be resolved within the limits of society’s resources. The policy suggestions outlined next focus on social and economic inter-related areas that should support disabled individuals, maximising their freedom through increased functionings.

Societal policies aim to prevent people with physical or mental differences experiencing societal exclusion and support their access to the market. Here we call for policies to not only consider a greater CA orientation but be legally accountable to an independent government body to ensure all policies account for PWD. By introducing legal accountability, this will place a greater emphasis on policies, allowing disabled individuals to have the capability to convert resources and commodities into capabilities. Such policies might include delivering greater education and training across public and private sectors, and within educational systems to explore, understand and develop greater understanding and empathy towards disability, through all levels of education provision, employee training and service provision. Emphasis should be placed on bodily capabilities and how, as a society, we can address these differing capabilities through individual and collective practices supporting the CA. Educational programmes could underscore market-based best practices as evidence to help perpetuate societal inclusion. For example, a way of reducing societal exclusion is to fund sign language courses and other training programmes in schools, amongst employers and sites of public engagement. Other alternatives are re-educating people on what constitutes disability, thereby removing stigmas associated with disability, and rephrasing common terms and their application, such as ‘Disability parking’ (used in the UK) to ‘Accessible parking’ (used in the USA).

Complementing this perspective, governments should actively seek out PWDs view on legislation implications, and actively involve and encourage PWDs into the political system, thereby increasing their visibility and political power.

Economic policy - the economic well-being of people with disabilities has received limited attention in both developing and industrialised countries (Mitra, 2006). However, financial independence and entry into the labour market are fundamental aspects for individuals to fully engage with society. Previous research notes how staff in service encounters are often undertrained and underprepared to accommodate PWD needs (Baker, 2006; Navarro et al., 2014). As many companies may have difficulties engaging with people with disabilities, the government can act by emphasising the opportunity costs of PWD inclusion within the economy. Whilst this shifts the focus from the human being to their financial contribution to society, when utilised it addresses the ethos of the CA; for example, promoting policies that reduce labour market barriers, and thereby enhancing disabled individuals’ work capabilities (Mitra, 2006).

Governments, therefore, should reimagine and redevelop how societies collectively and individually re-assess human capital from an inclusive perspective, albeit one which takes an economic perspective of the financial benefit to society. Here, human capital should be considered to include valuable non-market transactions, such as labour involved in caring for disabled people, or activities reminiscent of alternate forms of work not considered as primarily economic but occurring within local community networks (Folbre, 2015; Hall, 2013; Hall & Wilton, 2015). By considering and valuing alternate sources of capital contributing towards collective human capital, societies can begin the process of politically recognising and justifying tax breaks and social benefits for disabled individuals, allowing them to maximise their functionings, and thereby deliver the freedom to achieve for all individuals regardless of ability (Robeyns, 2005).

These actions should be supported by various government policies. These could include, but are not limited to, matched funding for those employing people with disabilities, and supported by further tax initiatives for these employers. This shift in recruitment to training differentially abled individuals to undertake jobs would require empathetic training methods appropriate to developing and fulfilling an individual’s functionings. Such actions could be supported through publicly recognised government awards for companies with good inclusion practices. An exemplar worth mentioning is the Global Recognition Award ‘Good Practices for Employees with Disabilities’ given by the São Paulo State Secretariat for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in Brazil (IDA, 2018). This strategy should be complemented by encouraging, supporting, and financing workers’ cooperatives engaged in activities focused on disability hat aim to be profitable, and/or develop products and services that address the needs of different abilities, and which are currently not available. Besides satisfying a market need, such a policy would develop and enhance personal skills, increasing inclusion, and address the earlier discussion of neoliberalism and the individual’s role within it. Such actions would go beyond existing government policies (such as the US Government’s Tax Incentives Packet on the Americans with Disabilities Act) to more active involvement, such as underwriting bank loans to disability entrepreneurs. A good example of how financial support given to disability entrepreneurs can make a difference is the website ‘John’s Crazy Socks’, illustrating the entrepreneurial flair of one individual with Down syndrome. This reimagining of human capital from a collective perspective emboldened through tax relief and social benefits would potentially increase PWDs disposable income and purchasing power, rewarding suppliers within a market adapting to the needs of individuals with disabilities.

Yet such actions require political willingness, and inadvertently a willingness from the general public to support PWD needs and requirements. Indeed, as Ryan (2019) notes, the past 20 years has witnessed the British Government’s increasing political hostility towards PWDs, with resistance to implement many of the suggestions previously made. In situations like this, the need to develop a greater political conscience towards PWD amongst wider society is essential.

Conclusion

Drawing upon the CA a new approach and perspective towards disability has been presented, one that values individual differences at an empathic level where everyone has the opportunity to maximise their functionings, but also to be valued as part of a wider collective whole. It is within this collective whole that the market has an opportunity to become a conversion factor, not only changing the functionings of PWD but also being a force for wider economic and societal change; an approach that benefits not only PWD but also the market itself and its pursuit of profit.

In taking this approach, Harnacke’s (2013, p. 771) call ‘to develop [individual’s] potential regardless of whether targeted recipients of resources elect to use them’ has been addressed. Registering how the disabled body has been historically constructed and currently positioned within a neoliberal economic system calls for a wider reimagining of who and what we are, both as individuals and as a society. A reimagining using the market as a central force for that change, thereby empowering wider society and creating opportunities for diverse economies (Gibson-Graham, 1996/2006) supports Wright et al.’s (2011) ‘utopian visions’ requiring the identification of ‘viable alternatives’ to current marketplace arrangements that tend to exclude the marginalised. Perhaps, more importantly, our paper address Leopardi’s (1827/1834; cf. Bellanca et al., 2011, p. 159) view that ‘we cannot imagine a future in which suffering [is] caused by the contrast between some human beings’ biological limits and his/her aspirations’.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Anoop Bhogal-Nair

Anoop Bhogal-Nair is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing and Consumption at Leicester Castle Business School. Her research interests centre on understanding how consumers negotiate and consume both their sense of physical being and their self-identity in the spaces that they occupy. To date her work has focused upon Indian female consumers, minoritised and marginalised groups. Much of Anoop't work takes a transdicsiplinary perspective focusing on the challenges, threats and opportunities consumers experience in their daily lives as individuals.

Andrew M. Lindridge

Andrew Lindridge is a Professor of Marketing and Consumer Research at Newcastle University business school. Andrew’s research interests focus on the marginalised consumer, i.e. consumers who feel unable or unwilling to identify with the consumer market, or who the market intentionally excludes owing to cultural, economic, political, religious, or social reasons. An interest that has led to researching marginalised consumers in Britain, China, France, India, and the United States on a variety of consumption topics ranging from: ethnic minorities and alcoholism, inter-generational rifts within ethnic minorities, and how David Bowie fans use his music to reimagine their own past.

Mark Tadajewski

Mark Tadajewski is Honorary Visiting Professor of Marketing at the University of York and Royal Holloway, University of London.

Mona Moufahim

Mona Moufahim is a Senior Lecturer in Marketin at the University of Stirling Management School. Mona's interests include: Religion, Travel and Consumption; Cultural heritages sites and pilgrimage; Identity (organisational, ethnic/racial, religious or political); immigration and extreme right politics. Her work has been published in Organization Studies, Journal of Marketing Management, Marketing Theory and Consumption Markets and Culture. I have also contributed chapters to scholarly books on Political Marketing, Critical Marketing and Islamic Marketing.

Daniela Alcoforado

Daniela Alcoforado is a PhD student at the Federal University of Pernambuco | UFPE · Departamento de Ciências Administrativas

Mohammed Cheded

Mohammed Cheded is a Lecturer in Management at Lancaster University Management School. Mohammed's research takes an interdisciplinary perspective drawing on sociology, anthropology and linguistics – focusing on topics such as inequality, identity construction, and power relations.

Bernardo Figueiredo

Bernardo Figueiredo is an Associate Professor at the School of Economics, Finance, and Marketing at RMIT University. Bernardo's research interests focus on understanding how the globalisation of markets and cultures shapes consumption and marketing practices. He has published in some of the top journals in his area including Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, and the Journal of Retailing.

Chihling Liu

Chihling Liu is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing Lancaster University Management School. She obtained her PhD at Alliance Manchester Business School, UK. Her research activity is predominantly in the area of consumer culture theory, exploring the interrelationships between consumption, self and identity, with a specific focus on improving consumer welfare and subjective wellbeing.

Notes

1. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, 2018.