Abstract
In the field of human development few studies attempted to combine the capability approach originally developed by Amartya Sen and the fundamental human needs approach developed by Manfred Max-Neef. The goal of this paper is to combine the two approaches in order to build a dynamic and multidimensional framework of human well-being. This framework enables a better description and assessment of the complexity of human well-being ranging from freedom of choice to needs satisfaction. To test this framework we conducted an action-research project with vulnerable teenagers who suffer severe social exclusion and educational difficulties. In order to assess subjective well-being inequalities, we organized participatory workshops followed by a questionnaire survey with the vulnerable group and with a control group. The results clearly demonstrate that the group of vulnerable teenagers suffers inequalities on almost all the dimensions of well-being that we tested. In sum, the theoretical reflections and the operationalization of the combined framework enables us (i) to better define and link the different concepts of capabilities, functionings, satisfiers and needs; (ii) to debate further the idea of a universal list of human well-being dimensions; (iii) to discuss the risk of aspirations adaptation of vulnerable students; (iv) to discuss the potential of needs and capabilities for improving education in a human development perspective; (v) to offer a matrix compounded of ten axiological capabilities and four existential capabilities; and (vi) to formulate a new definition of sustainable human development that reconciles needs and capabilities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The basic needs approach was criticized for three main reasons: (i) being to narrowly focused on material commodities bundles; (ii) being too paternalistic (iii) for neglecting the question of opportunities (see for further details Deneulin and Sahani (2010, p. 58).
According to Guillen-Royo (2015) Sen criticizes the language of needs as being paternalistic and addressing people only in terms of what they lack. Sen (2009, p. 250) seems to continue to maintain his position in The Idea of Justice: “Seeing people only in terms of needs may give us a rather meagre view of humanity”.
By giving the mean to actualize the need, the ‘helper’—State or NGO, UN, etc.,—was determining the need in itself.
Cited in Cruz et al. (2009).
According to Gough (2015), even Nussbaum heavily relies on the concept of needs to justify her list: “human need is a relatively stable matter, and thus there is some hope that we can give an account of basic human needs that will remain reasonably constant over time… the idea of what human beings need for fully human living is among the most vivid intuitive ideas we share” (Nussbaum 2006, pp. 278–279). According to Cruz et al. (2009), needs reveal that all human beings share the essence of being sentient, social and self-reflective. Thus, their fulfillment is always desirable for all, and their deterrence is undesirable for all as well (ibid.).
Those numbers come from the French institute of statistics (INSEE) for 2012: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/comparateur.asp?codgeo=com-77152.
The students were asked to suggest satisfiers that could match with the three first categories of needs. One student listed the suggested satisfiers on the blackboard without classifying them. Then for each satisfier we made a round of the table asking each participant where he would put the satisfier. In other words, we first ask to which axiological category the satisfiers belongs and then to which existential category. Placing the satisfiers in the matrix often triggered an intense debate among the teenagers. During the debate each participant presented his arguments. Sometimes some of them reached unanimity. When unanimity cannot be reached, we proceeded to a vote for choosing in which box of the matrix the satisfier would fit the best.
The categories of barriers correspond to the parameters that condition human agency presented in Table 1.
We conducted t tests (welch) to compare the means of the two groups for each dimensions. We chose a confidence interval of 95 %. P value is regarded to be significant if p < 0.05.
According to Conradie and Robeyns (2013) adaptation of aspiration occurs at a non-conscious level, as a reaction to the painful process of cognitive dissonance that a person who cannot fulfill her unreachable desires or aspirations feels.
According to Merle (2012), in France, success at school is particularly dependent upon the social origin of the student’s parents. France is ranked in the penultimate position regarding the correlation between the socio-economic origin of the parents and the success at school of their children (OECD 2012). More generally, according to Biggeri (2007) children’s capabilities sets are at least partially affected by the capability set and achieved functionings of their parents, involving a cumulative path-dependent process which can be responsible of social reproduction.
For example, “being able to be adequately nourished”, “being able to have adequate and clean drinking water” “being able to have energy to keep warm and to cook”, would belong to the Subsistence category of capability.
References
Alkire, S. (2002). Dimensions of human development. World Development, 30(2), 181–205.
Alkire, S. (2006). Public debate and value construction in Sen’s approach. In A. Kaufman (Ed.), Capabilities equality: Basic issues and problems (pp. 133–144). New York, London: Routledge.
Alkire, S. (2010). Human development: Definitions, critiques, and related concepts. UNDP research paper 2010/01. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdrp_2010_01.pdf.
Ballet, J., Dubois, J. L., & Mahieu, F. R. (2005). L’autre développement, le développement socialement soutenable. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Ballet, J., Dubois, J.-L., & Mahieu, F.-R. (2007). Responsibility for each other’s freedom: agency as the source of collective capability. Journal of Human Development, 8, 185–201.
Ballet, J., Bazin, D., Dubois, J. L., & Mahieu, F. R. (2013). Freedom, responsibility and economics of the person. New York: Routledge.
Biggeri, M. (2007). Children’s valued capabilities. In M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education (pp. 197–214). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Biggeri, M., Ballet, J., & Comim, F. (Eds.). (2011). Children and the capability approach. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Biggeri, M., Libanora, R., Mariani, S., & Menchini, L. (2006). Children conceptualizing their capabilities: Results of a survey conducted during the first children’s world congress on child labour. Journal of Human Development, 7(1), 59–83.
Biggeri, M., & Santi, M. (2012). The missing dimensions of children’s well-being and well-becoming in education systems: Capabilities and philosophy for children. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 13(3), 373–395.
Bonvin, J.-M., & Farvaque, N. (2008). Amartya Sen: Une politique de la liberté. Paris: Michalon.
Conradie, I., & Robeyns, I. (2013). Aspirations and human development interventions. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(4), 559–580.
Cruz, I. (2006). Human Development assessment through the human-scale development approach: Integrating different perspectives in the contribution to a sustainable human development theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Polytechnic University of Cataluña.
Cruz, I., Stahel, A., & Max-Neef, M. (2009). Towards a systemic development approach: Building on the human-scale development paradigm. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 2021–2030.
Deneulin, S., & Sahani, L. (Eds.). (2010). Introduction to the human development and capability approach. London: Earthscan.
Dubois, J. L., & Trani, J. (2009). Enlarging the capability paradigm to address the complexity of disability. ALTER-European Journal of Disability Research, 3(3), 2–28.
Duraiappah, A. K. (2004). Exploring the links: Human well-being, poverty and ecosystem services. UNEP and IISD. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/economics_exploring_the_links.pdf.
Frediani, A. (2006). Participatory methods and the capability approach. A briefing note. Human Development and Capability Association. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/silva/dpu/people/frediani/briefing_ca_pm.
Frediani, A. (2015). Participatory capabilities in development practice. In A. Frediani & J. Hansen (Eds.), The capability approach in development planning and urban design (pp. 121–133). The DPU Working paper.
Gough, I. (2015). Climate change and sustainable welfare: the centrality of human needs. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39(5), 1191–1214.
Guillen-Royo, M. (2010). Realising the ‘wellbeing dividend’ An exploratory study using the human scale development approach. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 384–393.
Guillen-Royo, M. (2015). Sustainability and wellbeing: Human-scale development in practice. London: Routledge.
Hart, C. (2012). Aspirations, education and social justice: Applying Sen and Bourdieu. London: Bloomsbury.
Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (2009). Participatory action research. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 8, 90–95.
Lehtonen, M. (2004). The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: Capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecological Economics, 49(2), 199–214.
Max-Neef, M. (1991). Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflections. New York: The Apex Press. http://www.area-net.org/fileadmin/user_upload/papers/Max-neef_Human_Scale_development.pdf.
Max-Neef, M. (1992). Development and human needs. In P. Ekins & M. Max-Neef (Eds.), Real life economics (pp. 197–214). London: Routledge.
Merle, P. (2012). Éducation prioritaire Cinq principes pour une refondation. La vie des idees. http://www.laviedesidees.fr/Education-prioritaire.html.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC: Island press.
Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
OECD. (2012). Programme international pour le suivi des acquis des élèves (PISA). Résultats pour le PISA 2012. Note par pays. http://www.oecd.org/france/PISA-2012-results-france.pdf.
Otto, H. U., & Ziegler, H. (2010). Education, welfare and the capabilities approach: A European perspective. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Pelenc, J. (2014). Développement humain responsible et aménagement du territoire. Reflexions à partir de deux reserve de biosphere. PhD Dissertation. University of Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00993203/document.
Pelenc, J., Bazile, D., & Ceruti, C. (2015). Collective capability and collective agency for sustainability: A case study. Ecological Economics, 118, 226–239.
Pelenc, J., Lompo, M. K., Ballet, J., & Dubois, J. L. (2013). Sustainable human development and the capability approach: Integrating environment, responsibility and collective agency. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 77–94.
Peugny, C. (2013). Le destin au berceau: Inégalités et reproduction sociale. Paris: Seuil.
Pick, S., & Sirkin, J. (2010). Breaking the poverty cycle: The human basis for sustainable development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Polishchuk, Y., & Rauschmayer, F. (2012). Beyond ‘benefits’? Looking at ecosystems services through the capability approach. Ecological Economics, 81, 103–111.
Rauschmayer, F., Omann, I., & Frühmann, J. (Eds.). (2011). Sustainable development: capabilities, needs, and well-being. London: Routledge.
Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 6(1), 93–117.
Schäpke, N., Rauschmayer, F. (2014). Going beyond efficiency: Including altruistic motives in behavioral models for sustainability transitions to address sufficiency. Sustainability science: Science, practice and policy. http://sspp.proquest.com/static_content/vol10iss1/1210-051.schapke-print.html.
Schweiger, G., & Graf, G. (2015). A philosophical examination of social justice and child poverty. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane.
Trani, J. F., Biggeri, M., & Mauro, V. (2013). The multidimensionality of child poverty: Evidence from Afghanistan. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 391–416.
Van Ootegem, L., & Verhofstadt, E. (2012). Using capabilities as an alternative indicator for well-being. Social Indicators Research, 106(1), 133–152.
Walker, M., & Unterhalter, E. (Eds.). (2007). Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wüst, K., & Volkert, J. (2012). Childhood and capability deprivation in Germany: A quantitative analysis using German socio-economic panel data. Social Indicators Research, 106(3), 439–469.
Acknowledgements
The work presented here has been possible thanks to a partnership between the association of the Fontainebleau-Gâtinais biosphere reserve and the pedagogical team of the Robert Doisneau secondary school in Dammarie-lès-lys (Ile-de-France, France). This partnership provided suitable conditions to conduct the participatory action research presented in this article. Nothing would have been possible without the help of professor Dominique Laurette, many thanks to him. Many thanks to Gerald Valverde and Mrs. Gianotti from the Robert Doisneau secondary school. Many thanks to Patricia Fraile and Jean-Michel Martin from the Fontainebleau-Gâtinais Biosphere Reserve. Many thanks to Cathy Jolibert and Felix Rauschmayer for the fruitful discussions we had. Thanks to Moritz Lennert for his help. Thanks to Jeromy Hrabovecky for the editing and English style reviewing. Many thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This research has been achieved through a CIFRE doctoral grant and the writing of the paper thanks to a FNRS post-doc fellowship grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
The original French matrix transformed into questionnaire.
Appendix 2
At the end of the last workshop we distributed a questionnaire to the vulnerable students in order to assess the skills/abilities they acquired or strengthened by participating in the workshop. The public school has certain educational objectives to reach, so we really wanted to show that our methodology helped the students to develop the skills that they were supposed to acquire before they finished secondary school. We looked into the official documents and set up the questionnaire regarding the objectives that are nationally defined by the French Ministry of Education. The following table lists the skills/abilities grouped under Max-Neef’s categories that we tested through the questionnaire. The question was: “Do you think your participation in the workshop helped you to improve the following skills/abilities?” Four answers were possible: Yes/A little/No/I don’t know (See Table 9).
In addition to this set of questions we also asked if their relationship with their teacher had changed (Fig. 5).
Impacts of the workshop regarding the improvement of the students’ skills (n = 6, on this day, only 6 students were present)
The figure shows some very positive results. They confirm that our goal of empowerment was reached. The ‘Participation” category is the most improved. Three of the four most improved abilities belong to this category: ‘Being able to work together (team work),’ ‘Being able to understand others persons’ viewpoints’ and ‘Being able to observe social rules.’ This is very encouraging because those abilities are required for cooperation, tolerance and social cohesion. The improvement of the two others categories of capability/needs is a bit lower but still very encouraging. For example, if we look at the question about self-esteem, four of the six students thought that their participation in the workshop had improved or slightly improved their self-esteem (only two answered ‘No’). The least improved skill is ‘being capable of scientific reasoning.’ This is not surprising because it is the most difficult ability to develop. However, the results are encouraging because three of the six students gave a positive answer to this question (one ‘Yes’ and two ‘A little’). The modification of the relationship with the teacher occupies the penultimate position, but it is still a promising result because four out of the six students answered positively to this question (one ‘Yes’ and three ‘A little’).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pelenc, J. Combining Capabilities and Fundamental Human Needs: A Case Study with Vulnerable Teenagers in France. Soc Indic Res 133, 879–906 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1399-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1399-x