Women's running as freedom: development and choice

Abstract

To what extent does increasing African women's freedom in one domain, distance running, help to foster other economic, social or political freedoms? This study addresses this question by focusing on the ways in which elite-level female runners in Kenya have influenced the lives of non-athletes who live and work around them locally. Studies of Kenyan running have helped to explain the rationale for elite Kenyan running success; however, this is the first attempt to analyse its impact on the lives of market women for whom running has helped to foster certain economic and social changes. Primary source data obtained from fieldwork during 2010 and 2011 are situated within Amartya Sen's framework of freedom as development and support Sen's critique of the preference framework aspect of social choice theory. The implications of this study contribute to development theory and policy, not only emphasizing the Kenyan case but also offering comments that may apply more generally.

Notes

^1.Jarvie and Sikes, ‘Running as a Resource of Hope?’.

^2. Amartya Sen received the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 1998. His foundation for understanding economic development forms the basis for the UN Human Development Index. See Sen, Development as Freedom.

^3.Nussbaum in ‘Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements’ and in Women and Human Development outlines a list of fundamental capabilities, which consists of 10 interrelated components: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination and thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play; and control over one's environment. It is beyond the scope of this paper to undertake a thorough review of her approach but for further discussion of the specifics of the list, its values and content, see notably Robeyns, ‘Sen's Capability Approach’ and Alkire, Valuing Freedoms.

^4.Qizilbash, ‘Development, Common Foes’, 471. For alternative lists, see Finnis' list of ‘basic goods’ in Natural Law and Natural Rights and Griffin's work in Value Judgment.

^5. For a comparison of the two approaches, see Feldman and Gellert, ‘Seductive Quality of Central Human’ and Qizilbash, ‘Development, Common Foes’; see most famously, Nussbaum, Women and Human Development and Sen, Development as Freedom.

^6.Sen, ‘Human Rights and Capabilities’, 158.

^7. Searching keywords ‘Sen’ and ‘sports’ in journals with the highest impact factor in the ISI Web of Knowledge's fields of gender, area studies and economics revealed, respectively, that Gender & Society has published one article in the last 18 years matching these criteria as has the Journal of Economic Literature. The Journal of Sport and Social Issues produced 17 results; however, none of these focused on economic theories of utility or Sen's critique of revealed preferences.

^8. See, for instance, Sen, Inequality Reexamined, 57–60; and Qizilbash, ‘Development, Common Foes’, 469.

^9. Nussbaum, Women and Human Development, 14; and Peter, ‘Review of Martha Nussbaum’.

^10. For instance, see Nussbaum, ‘Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements’.

^11.Anand and Sen, ‘Sustainable Human Development’, 1.

^12. Sen, Development as Freedom.

^13.Todaro and Smith, Economic Development, 17. For more, see Chapter One, ‘The Perspective of Freedom’, in Sen, Development as Freedom.

^14. Sen, Development as Freedom, 4.

^15.Anand and Sen, ‘Concepts of Human Development’, 205.

^16. Sen, Development as Freedom, 8.

^17. Sen, Development as Freedom, 3–4, explains that ‘[d]evelopment requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or overactivity of repressive states. Despite unprecedented increases in overall opulence, the contemporary world denies elementary freedoms to vast numbers of people’.

^18. See, for instance: Nelson, ‘Value Free or Valueless?’; Hewitson, Feminist Economics; Dawson and Hatt, Market, State and Feminism; and Gasper and van Staveren, ‘Development as Freedom’.

^19. Gasper and van Staveren, ‘Development as Freedom’, 139.

^20. Sen, Development as Freedom, xii.

^21. Gasper and van Staveren, ‘Development as Freedom’, 140.

^22. Sen, Development as Freedom, xii.

^23.Sikes, ‘Standard: A Repository’, 66.

^24.Cheserek, ‘Home of Spectacular Views’.

^25.Dabbs, ‘Paths to the Marathon’.

^26. Cheserek, ‘Home of Spectacular Views’.

^27. Ibid.

^28.Chebet and Dietz, Climbing the Cliff, 3.

^29. Ibid., 2. The Keiyo people are one of seven subgroups that together comprise the Kalenjin, and the Kalenjin represents the largest ethnic community within Kenya's western highlands.

^30.Nearman, ‘Kenya's Rudisha’; Rosen, ‘Journey to Iten’; and Dabbs ‘Paths to the Marathon’.

^31. Keiyo District Annual Report, 2008, 11.

^32.Makori, ‘Kenya Comes Together’.

^33.C. Choge, Interview, February 10, 2011.

^34. Although there is no space here to develop the concept, it is important to note that this situation could be read through the Marxian concept of ‘false consciousness’, referring to thinking that prevents workers, or in this case poor Kenyan women, from understanding the nature of their oppression and the possibilities of its transformation.

^35.M. Cheruiyot, Interview, February 10, 2011.

^36.Iversen, ‘Intra-Household Inequality’.

^37. Sen, Development as Freedom, 194.

^38.C. Jebiwatt, Interview, February 10, 2011.

^39.F. Jepkoech, Interview, February 10, 2011.

^40.J. Kiprono, Interview, February 10, 2011.

^41.K. Chepkurui, Interview, February 15, 2011.

^42.C. Jeptoo, Interview, February 11, 2011.

^43.S. Koech, Interview, February 8, 2011; M. Chebii, Interview, February 8, 2011; and J. Kiprono, Interview, February 10, 2011.

^44.N. Chepkurui, Interview, February 11, 2011; R. Kibet, Interview, February 11, 2011.

^45.M. Korir, Interview, February 10, 2011.

^46.Bryceson and Jonsson, ‘Miners’ Magic'.

^47.J. Korir, Interview, February 8, 2011.

^48.L. Maiyo, Interview, February 10, 2011.

^49. The argument that follows introduces a range of concepts and terms, and to aid the reader, certain points will be clarified.

^50.Strassmann, ‘Editorial’, viii.

^51. Gender is not the only relevant analytical distinction. Assumptions about race, class and sexuality have also influenced the development of neoclassical theory.

^52.Shaffer, ‘Poverty Naturalized’, 56.

^53.Anderson, ‘Symposium on Amartya Sen's Philosophy’, 21.

^54. In the language of economics, utility is a term that signifies individual well-being. For an overview of conventional economy theory, see Bade and Parkin, Foundations of Economics.

^55. Sen has used the phrase ‘desire fulfilment’ to describe the concept in Inequality Reexamined, 55.

^56.Pindyck and Rubinfeld, Microeconomics, 75–6.

^57. This convention has been criticized, notably by both Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis, 205; and Sen, ‘Symposium on Amartya Sen's Philosophy: 4 Reply’, 61.

^58. Anderson, ‘Symposium on Amartya Sen's Philosophy’, 21.

^59.England, ‘Separate Self’, 154.

^60.Seiz, ‘Feminism and the History’, 185.

^61.Strassmann, ‘Not a Free Market’, 62.

^62. Herbert Simon was a pioneer in the tradition of bounded rationality. See, for instance, , Models of Man and ‘Rational Choice’. See also authoritative work by Akerlof and Yellen, Efficiency Wage Models; Rubinstein, Modeling Bounded Rationality; Kahneman and Tversky, Choices, Values and Frames; and Thaler and Sunstein, Nudge. Rabin's ‘Psychology and Economics’ is an early survey of behavioural economics while Dellavigna, ‘Psychology and Economics’, provides a survey of more recent empirical work.

^63. See, for instance, , ‘Towards a Family-Friendly Economics’; Through the Mill; and Agarwal, Humphries, and Robeyns, Work and Ideas of Amartya Sen.

^64.Olmsted, ‘Telling Palestinian Women's Economic Stories’, 142; see also Strassmann, ‘Not a Free Market’; and England, ‘Separate Self’.

^65.Sen, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, 15.

^66.Sen, ‘Behaviour and the Concept’, 241. See also Sen, Choice, Welfare and Measurement; and ‘Maximization and the Act’.

^67. Smith writes that rules governing choices requiring self-sacrifice are ‘not so much founded upon [their] utility’ but rather ‘the great, the noble, and the exalted property of such actions’ in Sen, ‘Maximization’, 771.

^68. Sen, in Anderson, ‘Symposium on Amartya Sen's Philosophy’, 23.

^69. Sen, Inequality Reexamined, 55.

^70. Sen, Development as Freedom.

^71.Ramazzotti, ‘Social Costs and Normative Economics’.

^72. Gasper and van Staveren, ‘Development as Freedom’, 147.

^73. Sen, ‘Maximization and the Act’, 760.

^74. Sen, ‘Rational Fools’, 332.

^75. Anderson, ‘Symposium on Amartya Sen's Philosophy’, 24.

^76. Sen, ‘Maximization and the Act’, 769–71; Anderson, ‘Symposium on Amartya Sen's Philosophy’, 27.

^77. Sen, ‘Rational Fools’, 342.

^78. Iversen, ‘Intra-Household Inequality’, 98.

^79.A. Jepkosgei, Interview, February 10, 2011.

^80. Iversen, ‘Intra-Household Inequality’, 95; Olmsted, ‘Telling Palestinian Women's Economic Stories’.

^81. Ramazzotti, ‘Social Costs and Normative Economics’, 8.

^82. Sen, Development as Freedom.

^83.R. Waithera, Interview, February 18, 2011.