![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
This article explores the importance of and value added by applying the capability approach to strategize, design, monitor or evaluate development initiatives, by operationalizing this agency-oriented (participatory) and opportunity-based perspective and by widening standard methods to deal with new informational spaces. In the first part of the paper a dynamic analytical framework on capabilities expansion/reduction processes—which places at the central stage the opportunity gaps between valuable community functionings and individual capability sets—is presented. These gaps represent the policy area where tailored and appropriate place-specific and people-centred development initiatives can entail the maximum expansion of real freedoms. Then, on the basis of this framework, the paper presents an original participatory methodology—the “O-Gap Analysis”—which can complement standard methods to provide systematized assessments of capabilities within communities to inform policy actions. An empirical case study is also discussed, analysing the application of this methodological procedure regarding a community-based rehabilitation project in Uganda. Applying the capability approach policy interventions cannot be necessarily unique for all individuals or social groups experiencing opportunity gaps for what they have reason to value, as different barriers or mix of barriers and conversion factors, values, desires and aspiration call for tailored people-centred development initiatives.
Acknowledgements
We are extremely grateful to Patrick Joe Pariyo from COMBRID for coordination at the local level, to Ismail Tuku for the field work and to Renato Libanora, Vincenzo Mauro and Federico Ciani (for their help regarding the first tool) and Parul Bakhshi and Ravi Karkara (for their help regarding the second tool). We wish to thank Jerome Ballet, Nicolò Bellanca, Sandra Boni, Federico Ciani, David A. Clark, Flavio Comim, Mozaffar Qizilbash, Elena Como, Alex A. Frediani, Dario Marmo, Andrea Rapisardi, Stefano Santini, Enrico Testi, Jean-Francois Trani and all the people we have encountered and who participated in the research activities. We also wish to thank the thematic group of Children and the thematic group of Participatory Methods of the Human Development and Capability Association, CUAMM (Italian NGO), COMBRID (Ugandian, NGO) and Tuscany Region (Italy).
About the Authors
Mario Biggeri is Associate Professor in Development Economics at the Department of Economics, University of Florence, Italy. He is Scientific Director of the university research Lab ARCO—Action Research for CO-development and Director of the Scientific and Ethical Committee of the Yunus Social Business Center, University of Florence. His research interests include sustainable human development, international cooperation, the capability approach, social innovation, impact evaluation, local development (clusters of small and medium enterprises, and informal activities), child labour, and children and persons with disabilities' well-being. He has worked for the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (IRC) and the UNDP and has acquired relevant experience in field research on evaluation of development programs. He is the co-author and/or co-editor of eight books and has published extensively in a broad range of international journals. He has been a Fellow of the Human Development Capability Association (HDCA) since 2010 and co-coordinator of the thematic group on ‘Children’s capabilities’.
Andrea Ferrannini is Coordinator of the Strategic Unit on Local Development of ARCO Lab—Action Research for CO-development (PIN S.c.r.l., Florence University)—and he is junior expert of the ILS LEDA Program—International Links and Services for Local Economic Development Agencies. He has acquired expertise in local development both as researcher (ARCO Lab) and as a practitioner (UNDP ART GOLD Dominican Republic, ILS LEDA), working in the Dominican Republic, Uganda, Albania and Serbia. He has presented and published various articles and book chapters on the perspective of human development at the local level and on the role of local development agencies for democratic governance and economic and social innovation.
Notes
1. Agency is here framed in line with Sen's view of process freedom as “what a person is free to do and achieve in pursuit of whatever goals or values he or she regards as important” (1985, 203).
2. See also Gasper (Citation2002, Citation2007), among others.
3. The dynamic process of capabilities (opportunities and capacities) and agency components can be captured by the notion of evolving capabilities (Biggeri et al. Citation2011).
4. See, for instance, Barbuto et al. (Citation2011) for people-centred development initiatives and instruments, such as the project of life and peer counselling.
5. A process through which people tend to adjust their desires and aspirations to their actual possibilities of achievement (Elster Citation1982).
6. Following Ibrahim and Alkire (Citation2007), empowerment can be conceived as the expansion of individual agency (individual empowerment) and collective agency (social empowerment).
7. This requires a precise mapping of all stakeholders.
8. In this phase, extreme attention to avoid selection bias is required.
9. “The problem is not with listing important capabilities, but with insisting on one pre-determined canonical list of capabilities, chosen by theorists without any general social discussion or public reasoning. To have such a fixed list, emanating entirely from pure theory, is to deny the possibility of fruitful public participation on what should be included and why” (Sen Citation2005, 158).
10. The number of participants range usually between eight and 16 people.
11. The duration of structured FGDs varies from two to four hours, according to the number of variables, dimensions and participants.
12. Here lies the main difference with traditional FGDs, which are usually conducted to explore in depth one or two unresolved issues.
13. This is a delicate phase—as that of choosing domains and sub-domains—since it requires precision to not leave ambiguities in the definition of the stylized characters.
14. The scoring method usually relies on a 0–10 scale, where the lowest value zero indicates complete lack of opportunity/capability, while 10 corresponds to the highest level of opportunity.
15. Anyway, individual opinions will be kept and preserved in FGD notes, especially when there are divergences.
16. It is important to note that there can be different tools/actions to build up the matrix depending on the level of technology available and the level of literacy and cognitive capacities of the participants (e.g. projecting an Excel or Word file that represents the matrix; using printed cards on the floor; using a drawing for each dimension with illustrations made by local pupils).
17. This open space needs to be appropriately identified and prepared before the exercise.
18. The capabilities can be identified exactly as in phase one of the first tool
19. To ensure every participant applied the same unit of measurement for one step, a matrix can be drawn with a chalk on the ground. Participants are also invited to communicate the number of steps to facilitators and assistants.
20. Indeed, participants react to the new statement by moving from the previously reached position, never going back to the starting line.
21. The research has been carried out by a team of the action-research laboratory ARCO – Action Research for CO-development – of the University of Florence, which elaborates research studies and provides technical assistance for the improvement and development of policies, programmes or projects, with the final objective of increasing well-being and reducing poverty.
22. This type of research has been applied also in other contexts and at different territorial levels.
23. The field research activities were conducted in the period 18–27 January 2011.
24. As stated in the World Report on Disability (WHO 2011), more than 90 countries around the globe are currently implementing CBR programmes.
25. See for instance Barbuto, Biggeri, and Griffo Citation2011; Biggeri et al. Citation2011, Citation2012; Trani et al. Citation2011b.
26. In all research activities, the attention has been devoted to this age range where the crucial transition from childhood and teenage to adult age lies, together with the main difficulties for PwD to achieve their independence as adult within their communities.
27. To effectively conduce each FGD, the research team has been composed by one local facilitator leading the open discussion and ensuring everyone's participation, and two external researchers (assisted by one translator) to take notes on the arguments, keep a global vision on the activity and stimulate the discussion on specific topics.
28. In terms of income, family, and so forth, according to local standards and again referring to adults 18–24 years old.
29. Selected according to the relevance—in the context and for the CBR programme—of each disability.
30. The order of position has been kept equal in each FGD, respecting the ranking as obtained in phase 1 and avoiding bias due to a different order.
31. The use of drawings made by locals for each dimension/agent and placed on the floor was recognized strongly appropriate according to the literacy and cognitive capacities of the participants.
32. This statement has been selected among the most common social activities diffused in the context.
33. Data are derived here from the unique application of the O-Gap method in West-Nile. Its repetition in a wider number of communities would provide even more rigorous information be analysed.
34. Minimum number of dimension k = 6 with a number of steps z≥2 in each opportunity to be considered “not overall deprived.”
35. Existing indicators (e.g. the Alkire–Foster Index) may be further refined and adapted to better synthesize information on the gap between potential valuable functionings and capability sets.