Introduction
Poverty reduction has been an important issue in the advancement of welfare economics. However, welfare economists have traditionally excluded the conception of poverty as a capability deprivation phenomenon. Instead, common perceptions of poverty in welfare economics conceived poverty as an income issue. Many people have had varying views about the nature of poverty and its potential causes.
Such attempts center on alleviating poverty as a development policy agenda. These attempts have also focused on understanding poverty as an income issue. However, some modern researchers say that poverty is multidimensional. Therefore, the one-sided understanding of poverty as an income issue fails to capture the important human requirements that characterize poverty.
Through the analysis of a Nobel laureate in economics, Sen (1), and his colleague, Nussbaum (33), this paper demonstrates that poverty is a phenomenon of basic capability deprivation, as opposed to its conception as a low-income phenomenon. This argument suffices albeit the acknowledgement that low-income is equally a cause of capability deprivation (Sen 1).
Broadly, this paper explains the ten specific capabilities of Nussbaum (33) as supporting evidence to the arguments proposed by Sen (1), which show that poverty is the deprivation of capabilities (as opposed to a phenomenon of low income). Finally, this paper illustrates the importance of understanding poverty as a capability approach phenomenon, through the success of an antipoverty program (documented in a story titled, Swamp Nurse).
Low Income and Poverty Prevalence
Common perceptions about poverty have always premised on the principle that impoverished lives are the result of low income. Sen (1) however says people should view the role of low income (in causing an impoverished life) as an instrumental factor in the spread of poverty, as opposed to an end.
The capability approach is therefore intrinsically important in understanding poverty and its role in introducing low quality life. Sen (1) explains that income levels constitute only part of a series of other factors that generate capabilities. Moreover, other variables like age, location, family characteristics, and individual characteristics also affect income levels (Sen 2). For example, handicapped people are not fully empowered to earn as much income as people who are not handicapped.
Moreover, even if handicapped people have a stable income, they are unable to convert such income into useful capabilities (Sen 2). This example helps to decipher the understanding regarding “real” poverty because “real” poverty manifests when a person’s capability to live a decent life diminishes.
Income distribution within the family setup also provides a similar analysis as that witnessed above. For example, if a family enjoys adequate income, but practices sex bias (say, against girls); it is highly likely that such income will not directly translate to capabilities (Sen (2). Sen (2) explains the commonality of this situation in most parts of Asia and North Africa because most families that are located in such regions discriminate against girls.
Therefore, boys tend to benefit at the expense of the girls. From the above understanding, income surfaces as an important factor that leads to capability empowerment (Sen 1; Nussbaum 33). The enhanced capabilities thereafter help people to lead a more productive and beneficial life. This happens when people’s incomes increase. Therefore, income levels occur as a product of enhanced capabilities (Sen 2).
For example, better education and improved healthcare services are common capability enhancers. However, they also help to improve a person’s chance of earning a higher income because they provide them with an opportunity for freeing themselves from the shackles of low income.
Nussbaum (33) introduces another argument that affirms the undesirability of using income as an influence of poverty levels because she says that income levels may not necessarily translate into better social development because of social inequalities in the society. For example, in a society that suffers from social inequality, there is a high likelihood that there is bound to be no social cohesion as well.
In fact, Nussbaum (33) further says that some types of social inequalities may completely hinder the realization of efficiencies. Situations where people have a high income but the society limits their participation in political processes (because of social inequalities) explain this dynamic. Here, even though people may not be necessarily “poor” they still suffer from minimal opportunities of social development, which makes them “poor” (especially concerning the deprivation of social freedoms).
Ten Specific Human Capabilities
In this paper, the importance of social justice manifests through the understanding of social deprivation, as opposed to the understanding of income levels in the achievement of social justice.
Sen (3) pursues this argument by encouraging people to understand poverty as a deprivation of capabilities rather than the mere lowness of income. Sen (3) proposes some reasons he believes people should use to understand poverty as a deprivation of capabilities. One reason for his argument stems from the intrinsic importance of capability deprivation in assessing poverty levels, as opposed to the lowness of income (which is an instrumental assessment of poverty) (Sen 1; Nussbaum 33).
The second reason is the existence of other influences of capability deprivation, other than income levels (Sen 3). Therefore, an income level is just one among many other factors that affect capability deprivation. The third reason is the variability of the relationship between low income and low capabilities across locations, individuals, and communities (Sen 3).
Through the above analysis, Sen (3) proposes five components for assessing capability deprivation. These components include understanding the importance of valuing the real freedoms in establishing a person’s advantage and understanding the individual differences in the process of transforming resources to activities.
Other components of his argument includes, understanding the varied nature of activities that produce happiness, striking a balance between the materialistic and non-materialistic factors that influence human development, and understanding the concerns of the distribution of resources in the society (Sen 13).
A respected political philosopher, Nussbaum (34), affirms the above argument by appreciating the importance of development and ethical issues in a person’s quality of life. In her explanation, social contracts (the legitimacy of human authority on its subjects) outline a better approach than utilitarianism because it provides a better framework for social justice (Nussbaum 34). Her argument premises on the understanding that cooperation is often fostered for the benefit of realizing the mutual advantage between two parties.
In this context, Nussbaum (34) explains that the classical perception of social contract is unable to manage different issues that arise from the pursuit for basic justice and substantial freedom in human development (because there are substantial inequalities in the engagement of the parties involved). Through the inequalities identified in the protocol of engagement, Nussbaum (33) believes that it is impossible to realize social justice in situations where there is no symmetric power between the parties involved.
Through the above problem, Nussbaum (36) supports the capabilities approach by suggesting the acknowledgement of factors that affect human dignity. These factors constitute the ten human capabilities as proposed by Nussbaum (36). They include life, bodily health, bodily integrity, thought, emotions, practical reasons, affiliation, other species, play and the control over one’s environment (Nussbaum 36). Through these ten human capabilities, Nussbaum (36) implies that poverty occurs when one or more of these capabilities are deprived.
Swamp Nurse Illustration
Lawana Mart’s experience with Maggie in the swamp nurse story depicts the importance of using the capabilities approach to reduce poverty. In this assessment, the swamp nurse story highlights an antipoverty program where nurses chose some children to undergo a vigorous training, which they designed to strengthen the emotional and intellectual capabilities of the children (Boo 9).
In the model program, the researchers realized that the children’s intellectual and emotional capabilities improved dramatically during the program, but when the children left the program and mingled with members of their communities, they lost their learned abilities (Boo 9). Boo (9) described this phenomenon as the “fadeout” effect. This phenomenon proved to be a great challenge to the program’s anti-poverty policy that the researchers tried to implement in the community.
Nonetheless, despite the retrogressive trend witnessed in the program, the researchers still established that the sampled children still fared better than other children in the community did, because they posted lower juvenile crime rates and lower levels of juvenile delinquency (Boo 10).
This positive outcome prompted the U.S department of justice to approve the infant intervention program as a viable method for improving the welfare of the society when children are at a young age, rather than waiting for the children to grow and become unproductive members of the society.
The swamp nurse story shows the success of capability improvement as a strategy for reducing poverty levels. Even though the intervention posed different challenges, it still showed that it was possible to improve child welfare by adopting capability enhancers (intellectual and emotional empowerment) (Boo 10). This analysis excludes any income incremental factors.
Conclusion
After weighing the findings of this paper, it is vital to reiterate the argument proposed by Sen (3), which proposes that the widespread nature of poverty in the society occurs because of social injustice, human rights deprivation, and limited political liberties, rather than the mere lowness of income.
To address the different challenges that surround poverty alleviation, Sen (3) implores people to acknowledge the importance of promoting different kinds of freedoms, if the poverty fight is to succeed. The social, political, and economic opportunities that are available to the people therefore determine the main instruments of fighting poverty in the society.
This paper also shows that Nussbaum (34) supports the capabilities approach by proposing that the failure of human capabilities and the prevailing limited opportunities in the social, political, and economic fronts explain widespread poverty.
People who are involved in social development may learn a lot from both Sen (1) and Nussbaum (33) arguments because through the understanding of where the poverty of capability exists, they may effectively propose policy changes that address the “real” causes of poverty, and not the “perceived” causes of poverty.
Works Cited
Boo, Katherine. Swamp Nurse, New York: The New Yorker, 2006. Print.
Nussbaum, Martha. “Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice.” Feminist Economics 9.2 (2003): 33-59. Print.
Sen, Amartya. Poverty as Capability Deprivation – Development as Freedom, New York: Random House Digital, Inc., 2011. Print.