Enhancing capabilities: the role of social institutions

In recent years there has been a growing literature contributing to work on the capabilities approach (CA) in the field of social and educational policy. Compared with other approaches, the CA clarifies the diverse reasons for institutions’ importance. Enhancing Capabilities: The Role of Social Institutions makes a valuable contribution to this literature and addresses concerns that the CA says little about the role of social institutions in enhancing or diminishing people’s capabilities. The edited collection evaluates contexts of welfare, educational and social services policies for enhancing capabilities, including disabled persons. It explores issues confronting social institutions involved in enhancing or diminishing people’s capabilities even in non-Welfarist countries. The book is divided into three parts – ‘Welfare’, ‘Education’ and ‘Social Services’ – each contributing five, four and three chapters respectively. Although most contributions are based on a European context, this is an enlightening book with much wider application of the role of social institutions on people’s capabilities. This achievement in a single volume is impressive.

The ‘Introduction’ sketches the importance of examining social institution without highlighting the outline of the book. I expected to read the reasons for having the three distinct parts and also why ‘Education’ is separated from ‘Social Services’ as it is a social service.

Part One

In a chapter in which they connect human development, human security and social quality approaches, Gaspers, van der Maesen, Truong and Walker clearly demonstrate that human security perspective is a species within the human development approach. Considering that neither the offering of resources nor the granting of rights is sufficient if specific capabilities of the individuals are not addressed, these authors convincingly make a valuable case for disability policies. Human security should go beyond physical safety to include the ability to secure and hold basic goods. Additionally, they argue that human security language is more persuasive than the legalistic, human rights and economic development approaches. Eiffe examines the implications of the CA for social policy through an analysis of its central components. Although using the term ‘handicapped people’ instead of updated concepts of disability, his contribution is relevant to disability issues. He suggests that capability policies enhance freedoms through universal welfarist approaches that avoid choice deprivation of vulnerable groups (50). Bonvin and Moachon’s chapter and Bouche’s chapter examine labour-market policies in Switzerland and Germany respectively. Bonvin and Moachon introduce the concept of ‘capability of the voice’ (58), as important in enhancing capabilities. Bouche warns that although decentralisation is critical in increasing people’s choices, laws may restrict discretion and resources at local level.

Part Two

Scherr’s chapter on subjectivity, education and capabilities gives a convincing argument on how welfare states can enable and enforce specific forms of social participation (110). He argues that education has the possibility of normalising and reproducing social and cultural inequalities. He says too little to define pedagogy in his discussion. Saying ‘erziehung’ is different from ‘bildung’ because it is a ‘pedagogically guided process of acquiring … knowledge, perception’ (109) is difficult to comprehend if one takes pedagogy to mean the method of teaching that extends beyond the role of the formal teaching. Farvaque in his chapter on opportunities and principles of justice examines the ‘public agency’ role of school actors who support young people to access valuable functionings (labour market) in France. By inferring plural pathways to functionings in his arguments, he highlights that some capability constraints lie beyond individuals concerned. This is the same sentiment highlighted by Volkert’s empirical application of CA to what? Catlaks contributes a useful chapter on different forms of privatisation of or in public education and its effect. The shift in education being a public good to a commodity sold to clients present challenges to schools, teachers and parents. Of particular interest to disability policies is how ‘students are deemed desirable or not by an education system on the basis of whether they are perceived to be an asset or liability in relation to indicators of school performance’ (146). This leaves students with severe cognitive disabilities in difficult situations. Walker’s chapter explores Nussbaum’s CA and how it relates to curriculum, pedagogies and educational transformation for gender justice. Her contribution adds value to disabled people’s lives as she highlights that a gender just education must respect and enhance human dignity. This directs people’s attention to the lives of the vulnerable and disabled (160) by considering factors such as resources and structures of power (164).

Part Three

Jordan recognises the potential of CA in addressing quality of life rather than simply material commodities (171). He uses the British experience to argue that political principles of CA are becoming difficult to uphold because of the social arrangements led by the dominance of economic approaches to public policies; for example, some people’s ‘savings do not cover the costs of care but do disqualify them from state support’ (173). Stern and Seifert’s chapter draw readers’ attention to the role of social context in facilitating individuals’ ability to translate capabilities into functionings. They postulate that CA helps in conceptualising social welfare; for example, the importance of geographic communities (195) in enhancing or constraining people’s choices. Otto, Scherr and Ziegler uses CA as a yardstick for analysing critical social work, arguing that equality does not imply the eradication of interpersonal differences (208). The subjects of entitlement are to be treated as equal (209) and interpersonal variations (e.g. disability issues) need to be considered when addressing social justice issues (211). They conclude that CA is important in answering the question: equality of what? Capabilities and Nussbaum’s list is important in establishing the requisites of a good life or relevant opportunities that enhance people’s lives.

Enhancing Capabilities is essential reading for social development practitioners. However, it does not give the reader the equipment to deal directly with hard moral social questions; for example, what should vulnerable people do to make institutions responsive to their needs. CA architects might argue that this is where freedom of choice comes in, when individuals are left to determine the ‘right thing to do’ when faced with challenges of injustices. While this may work in other institutions and to other people, it presents challenges when one looks at individuals with cognitive disabilities whose agency role might be restricted by their impairment. On the whole, the book is significant for people working on disability issues because it clearly highlights different roles of institutions in either promoting or impeding social justice of the most vulnerable.

Oliver Mutanga
University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa
[email protected]
© 2014, Oliver Mutanga
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.856679