Signifiers of the life we value? – considering human development, technologies and Fair Trade from the perspective of the capabilities approach

Abstract

This paper argues that the capabilities approach challenges us to co-design technologies with users in a way that expands the freedom of the user to live the life they themselves value. The aim is to show, with the help of a concrete example, our attempt at applying the capabilities approach to an information and communication technology for development (ICT4D) action research project. The objective of the Fair Tracing project was to support both producers and consumers in their decision-making in Fair Trade value chains by using information and communication technologies to provide them with information. Based on survey data, formal and informal interviews, group meetings, accompanied shopping and a design workshop with potential users, the project applied the bottom-up, participatory approach to technology design that the capabilities approach demands. Key challenges that were encountered included the competing capabilities of making informed buying decisions and of having more time. Action research and participatory design create important and challenging test settings for introducing the capabilities approach in ICT4D work.

Annika Andersson, Åke Grönlund and Gudrun Wicander are the accepting Guest Editors for this article.

Keywords:

• capabilities approach
• Choice Framework
• Fair Trade
• ethical consumption
• traceability
• participation

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank colleagues on the Fair Tracing project, Ian Brown, Ashima Chopra, Apurba Kundu, Helen LeVoi, Shantha Mohan, Macarena Vivent and Christian Wallenta. Thanks to Adel Haider and Vishal Shah who did the programming for the first interface examples. We would like to thank Ehrmann's Ltd, Nokia and Upcode for cooperating with the project and in particular the Los Robles winery for being our partner in this action research. Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers and the editors for their helpful comments. The project was made possible by a grant (EP/E009018/1) from the UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council. The views presented here are the responsibility of the authors alone.

Notes

Annika Andersson, Åke Grönlund and Gudrun Wicander are the accepting Guest Editors for this article.

The survey was undertaken online, and so while it claims to be a representative sample of 1013 UK adults, it systematically excludes people who do not use the Internet.

Social desirability is the effect encountered when people give answers that they perceive to be more socially acceptable than others.

Throughout the article, we adhere to the common convention of spelling the wider social movement as Fair Trade and the subset of FLO-labeled products as Fairtrade.

However, none of these had done primary research with producers and on the value chain as all focused on the consumer end. For information on similar projects such as ethiscore, historic futures, consumer gadget and good guide, see blog entries on www.fairtracing.org

For a discussion of whether Fair Trade and organic are only options for consumers with higher incomes, see Fridell (2007). However, some research findings (Author 2005) suggest that certain groups of people with very limited spending power, such as students, may still prioritize buying Fair Trade products.

Global North and South, like developed and developing country, is yet another term which is commonly used but insufficient in capturing the complexities of different countries’ human development.