Poverty and political capabilities

Jean-Luc Dubois welcomes Koonings’ pragmatic reintroduction of the political dimension to questions of development. Adding politics implies that key issues of inequity, social exclusion and human insecurity must be dealt with. Appropriate policy design at the macro level is as important as strengthening people’s political capabilities at the micro level.

I deeply appreciate the objective and the content of Koonings’ paper. It aims at re-introducing the political dimension within the analytical framework of development and examines the consequences for development aid in terms of policy design. Koonings addresses this political dimension in a non-ideological way – differently from the seventies and this is the pleasant thing – by pragmatically considering a series of aspects related to political issues. In order to make policies more efficient, these need to be tackled both at the macro level (priority allocation of funds between various objectives and various groups of people, governance issues) and at the micro level (by considering capabilities, rights, participation, voice). There is indeed a real need to move in that direction.

However, it is not sufficient to justify the type of choices made and the priorities set at the individual-micro level, the collective-meso level, and at the government-macro level. We need to consider the ethical foundations that underlie each and every political choice and which are based, in a traditional or a universal way, on a search for equity for present and future generations. Going further into this direction is needed and will open new areas for further research.

My comments to Koonings’ text concern two major issues. The first one relates to the definition of the political dimension of poverty. The second to the way of addressing this dimension in the design of public aid policies.

The political dimension of poverty

The multidimensional aspect of poverty can be seen in different ways. In Box 1 in Koonings’ paper, what is pleasant is the consistency between the views of the World Bank (in the World Development Report 2001 ‘Attacking poverty’) and that of OECD. The link is made through the capabilities approach at the micro level. This is interesting and up to date because it confirms the shift from poverty described as a lack of goods and services (in the World Development Report of 1990) to poverty as a lack of effective functionings of the people.

This refers to Amartya Sen’s capability approach and to the classical use of this approach for the ‘livelihood’ analysis, for the ‘life-skills’ approach in education (UNESCO)*1, and more generally for the Human Development vision of the UNDP. Moreover, because this view allows considering political capabilities as one among the central capabilities, it brings the political dimension into the analysis. Poverty can then be also qualified as a lack of capability in the field of political management and decision-taking processes.

In 2001/2, our research team used these same considerations in establishing two tables (see appendix) which were inspired by UNDP’s annual Human Development Reports. The tables present the various dimensions of poverty, by considering the access to goods and services on one side, and the capability analysis on the other. Though we considered the political dimension important, at the time we were not able to develop it in a consistent way. And it was not a priority on the research agenda. Political dimensions have a deep interaction with other dimensions of poverty, a fact that has been highly underestimated in past analytical work.

My second comment is that even though poverty reduction remains a fundamental and relevant goal – presently shared by the international community through the MDG objectives and through the implementation of national PRSPs – it is not a sufficient goal. Ensuring ‘social sustainability’ while reducing poverty is even more important. But this presently proves still difficult to achieve. Social sustainability, while including the poverty reduction objective, aims at designing public policies that will avoid generating side-effects such as unacceptable inequalities, dangerous inequities, social exclusion, vulnerability and insecurity.

Thus, poverty reduction policies must be included within the well-known framework of sustainable development. And reference should be made more precisely to sustainable human development (as the UNDP is doing) by considering the issue of ‘social sustainability’. In practical terms, ensuring social sustainability requires dealing with the issues of inequality (particularly inequality of capability), inter and intra generational equity (equity as a principle of justice being defined as acceptable inequality), social exclusion, vulnerability and insecurity. Distorted policy measures may cause these perilous side-effects, which may jeopardise a society’s social fabric.

Introducing the political dimension of poverty reduction brings new valid insights (and can be an appropriate cornerstone) to demonstrate the linkage required between poverty reduction and social sustainability. At all three levels of micro-individual, meso-collective or macro-state, the political dimension naturally implies that these key issues of inequity, social exclusion and human insecurity must be dealt with, since they affect people in their personal lives and may generate frustration and lead to uprisings. This can be tackled through the reinforcement of a series of personal political capabilities as well as through political measures designed at the macro-level.

The issues above manifest themselves differently depending on the various local contexts and the country’s levels of development. Poverty reduction remains a fundamental issue for the poorest countries, while inequality and equity gain more importance in emerging countries. Vulnerability and insecurity are found everywhere and are now increasing in the developed world.

In her list of ‘central human capabilities’, Martha Nussbaum*2 has highlighted a set of political capabilities such as freedom of assembly and political speech, the right to political participation and association, etc. These are classified under the two titles of ‘affiliation’ and ‘control over one’s environment’. However, according to Nussbaum’s ‘multiple realisibility’ principle, this list can be detailed and adjusted for any country.

Measuring people’s political capabilities will require appropriate survey tools. Relevant modules can be added to existing surveys, especially to those that are already being used to measure other types of capabilities (in their effective as well potential achievement), human and social capital, agency issues, etc. In this respect, the Human Development and Capability Association (HDCA) may be of some useful help.*3

Addressing the political dimension through public aid policies

Addressing the political dimension through public policies aimed at poverty reduction is a threefold process. Actions must be undertaken at three different levels – micro, meso and macro – each with their own measures and relevant agents.

At the micro level, the focus is on individuals who are, among other things, characterised by their political capabilities. These political capabilities include their sense of negotiation, dialogue and listening to others, appropriate life-skills (being well and living together), capacity of feeling responsible, ability to decide, capacity of political speech, of participation in assembly, of belonging to an association, etc. Their respective importance may differ according to the local context. Policy measures and public action will therefore focus on the development or the reinforcement of these political capabilities.

At the meso level, the focus is on NGOs, various communities and social groups, considered as social actors. They bring people together and interact with policy decisions made at the macro level. Their own agency, their role as mediators between people, between people and macro-institutions, and the collective capabilities that they may generate are important issues. Making these collective capabilities emerge through the participatory aspect of public policy is part of the political dimension at this level.

At the macro level, the focus is on the state and its government. The priority is to define a hierarchy of objectives and to make a choice among various resource allocations, to set priorities for the corresponding actions (which may change in time), to mediate among groups with opposite interests in order to avoid conflict and follow a sustainable path. All this reflects the governance issue, which has to be managed with political tact. Some authors will speak of state capabilities that need to be improved (e.g. Saskia Sassen). This includes a set of appropriate policies such as poverty reduction, pro-poor growth, rights-based approach, basic needs approach, equity priorities, etc. and also the proper management of public aid donors.

Conclusion

I totally agree with Koonings’ focus on the political dimension for the design of public policies aimed at poverty reduction poverty. Particularly if issues related to inequality, equity and social exclusion are also taken into account. These are directly related to political choices made at the macro level and to personal capabilities at the micro level. A move into that direction would mean a good step forward in our understanding of poverty, poverty reduction and social sustainability.

However, this is only one step ahead and not enough. Behind the political dimension and the personal, collective and social choices made at the micro, meso or macro level, there is the implicit reference to a set of values that is shared by the people and which directly influences these various choices. Knowing the set of ethical values that guide people at these three levels of decision making is needed in order to estimate the degrees of freedom that may exist for the design of public policies. Especially for those policies that aim at reducing poverty and ensuring social sustainability through equity. This focus on ethics, however, would require taking a step forward in the analysis of people’s functionings and capabilities. While that was beyond the scope of this comment to Koonings’ article, please see the text attached below on Ethics for Development.*4

Download the PDF on Ethics for Development

——————————-

Jean-Luc Dubois is director of research of the French Institute of Research for Development (IRD) assigned to the Centre of Economics and Ethics for Environment and Development (C3ED), a joint research unit of the IRD and the University of Versailles St Quentin-en-Yvelines. He is president of the IMPACT Network, a Research Action Network gathering academicians, researchers, development practitioners and designers of public policies aiming at poverty and inequality reduction. Dubois is at the Executive Committee of the Human Development and Capability Association.

His main areas of expertise cover development economics, household livelihoods, poverty and social sustainability, surveys and information systems. Among his recent papers are:

J. Ballet, J-L. Dubois and F-R. Mahieu, 2007 Responsibility for Each Other’s Freedom: Agency as the Source of Collective Capability, Journal of Human Development, 8 (7): 185-201.

J-L. Dubois and M. Trabelsi, 2007, Education in Pre- and Post-Conflict Situations: relating capability and life-skills approaches, in: Living in common and deliberating in common: foundational issues for sustainable human development and human security, P.B. Anand and D. Gasper (eds), International Journal of Social Economics, 34(1/2): 53 – 65.

References

Footnotes