![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The capability approach has the power to examine how different societal arrangements can be pivotal for the fulfilment and/or deprivations of individual human capabilities and human development [Sen, A. K. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press]. However, little analysis has been so far devoted to the centrality of the local community for human capabilities, which constitutes the most proximate socio-institutional setting that most directly shapes individual and collective well-being. In order to reflect about the relations between community and capabilities, this paper embraces a geographical definition of community (complementary—not superior—to other conceptualizations) with a twofold scope. Firstly, it aims at filling the theoretical vacuum presenting an extension of the STEHD framework (Sustainable Territorial Evolution for Human Development) introduced by Biggeri and Ferrannini [2014a. Sustainable Human Development: A New Territorial and People-centred Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan], which links the individual, collective and local community dynamics affecting human capabilities. Secondly, it aims at showing how this framework can help to examine the different processes in place at the community level, by applying to the case study of a Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) programme implemented in Mandya and Ramanagaram Districts (Karnataka State, India). The paper is structured into five sections. After the introduction, the second section introduces the STEHD framework and reveals its potential to frame the local community dynamics. In the third section, the case study is introduced and the main results in terms of human development outcomes are discussed. In the fourth section, the dynamic processes of individual, collective and community change fostered by the CBR programme are analysed by applying the STEHD framework. The last section concludes.
Acknowledgements
We are extremely grateful to AIFO India and AIFO Italy for the precious support and all people who actively participated in the research. Moreover, we would like to thank all our colleagues at the Department of Economics and Management of the University of Florence and at ARCO (Action Research for CO-development) for providing us relevant insights and suggestions. Finally, we would like to thank the editor of this Special Issue and the anonymous referees for providing us with helpful feedback on this paper.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
About the Authors
Mario Biggeri is Associate Professor in Development Economics at the Department of Economics and Management, University of Florence, Italy. He is Scientific Director ARCO Lab and Director of the Scientific and Ethical Committee of the Yunus Social Business Center University of Florence. He has worked for the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (IRC) and the UNDP and has acquired relevant experience in field research on different topics. He is the co-author and/or co-editor of more than 10 books and has published extensively in a broad range of international journals. He is a Fellow of the Human Development Capability Association (HDCA).
Andrea Ferrannini is coordinator of the Strategic Unit on Local Development of ARCO Lab since 2012. He has been working in several countries, such as the Dominican Republic, Uganda, Ethiopia, Albania, Serbia and Italy, acquiring expertise on local development processes, human development and participatory methods. He has published various articles, book chapters and one book 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.
Caterina Arciprete holds a PhD in Development Economics from the University of Florence. Currently, she is working as researcher in the “Inclusive Development” Unit of ARCO Lab. She has been visiting student at Research Centre “Young Lives” based at the University of Oxford where she has gained an extensive knowledge on mixed methodologies applied to children’s development. She is a coordinator of the thematic group on children and the youth of the Human Development and Capability Association. She is author of several articles, book chapters and she presented her work at several international conferences.
Notes
1. As in the extensive debate in economic geography, “territorial” and “local” are here used as synonymous, referring to sub-national settings whose scale depends on the specific scope of analysis (for instance, see the OECD Territorial Reviews on regional development).
2. Following Ibrahim (Citation2006, 398), collective capabilities are “The newly generated functioning bundles a person obtains by virtue of his/her engagement in a collectivity that help her/him achieve the life he/she has reason to value.”
3. Hirschman (Citation1984) argues that social capital is the only resource that does not diminish or lose value with use; instead, it has the potential to increase continuously, often in an intangible manner.
4. In addition, thanks to the home visits, the CBR workers and specialists give important information to persons with disabilities and to their family on opportunities and rights, working to increase their autonomy, dignity and participation within the family.
5. These dimensions were selected following the 5 CBR matrix components and sub-components into 10 essential capability domains: (1) To have a good health; (2) To have mobility aid and appliance; (3) To have personal autonomy; (4) To have access to resources (job or other income sources); (5) To express own views and participate in the family decisions; (6) To spend leisure time with friends; (7) To have the opportunity be married; (8) To express own views and participate in the community decisions; (9) To be free from community prejudice and self-prejudice and (10) To feel respected in the community.
6. The relevant impact on immaterial aspects of was also fully confirmed by qualitative analysis (based on in-depth interviews and focus group discussions) conducted before and after the quantitative research implementation, as well as by the emancipatory research conducted by the research group (Deepak et al. Citation201Citation4). These studies evidenced also the impact of CBR programme on capabilities related to education.
7. Research in India has shown that employment-level disparity between persons with disabilities and non-disabled people is not explained by a major difference in productivity and human capital, but mostly by negative attitudes resulting in discrimination in access to jobs (Mitra and Sambamoorthi Citation2008), particularly for women (Thomas et al. Citation2013).
8. For instance, the possibility of going out without shame is one of the most important capabilities according to Smith in the Theory of Moral Sentiments (Sen Citation1999).