Capability Approach as a Framework for Research on Children's Well-Being

Abstract

Within contemporary childhood studies, interest is focusing increasingly on the well-being of children in the here and now. However, the theoretical conceptualization and the operationalization of well-being confront research on childhood with fundamental and methodological challenges. This chapter pursues the assumption that the capability approach – particularly in the form proposed by Martha Nussbaum – offers a theoretically promising framework for studying the well-being of children. This chapter gives an overview of international empirical childhood studies using the capability approach and discusses its potentials and future directions.

Keywords

Good Life Generational Order Capability Approach Childhood Study Street Child 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Stefanie Albus for stimulating discussions and valuable comments on this chapter.

References

  1. Addabbo, T., & di Tommaso, M. L. (2011). Children’s capabilities and family characteristics in Italy: Measuring imagination and play. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 222–242). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Alanen, L. (1988). Rethinking childhood. Acta Sociologica, 31(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alanen, L. (1992). Modern childhood? Exploring the “child question” in sociology (Research Report No. 50). Jyvaskyla: Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyvaskyla.Google Scholar
  4. Albus, S., Andresen, S., Fegter, S., & Richter, M. (2009). Wohlergehen und das “gute Lebenin” in der Perspektive von Kindern. Das Potenzial des Capability Approach für die Kindheitsforschung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 29(4), 346–358.Google Scholar
  5. Albus, S., Greschke, H., Klingler, B., Messmer, H., Micheel, H.-G., Otto, H.-U., & Polutta, A. (2010). Wirkungsorientierte Jugendhilfe. Münster/New York/München/Berlin: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  6. Alderson, P. (2012). Rights respecting research: A commentary on “the right to be properly researched: Research with children in a messy, real world. Children’s Geographies, 10(2), 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2011). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Alkire, S. (2007). Choosing dimensions: The capability approach and multidimensional poverty. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The many dimensions of poverty (pp. 89–119). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Andresen, S., & Diehm, I. (2006). Einführung. In S. Andresen & I. Diehm (Eds.), Kinder, Kindheiten, Konstruktionen. Erziehungswissenschaftliche Perspektiven und sozialpädagogische Verortungen (pp. 9–24). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Andresen, S., & Fegter, S. (2009). Spielräume sozial benachteiligter Kinder Bepanthen-Kinderarmutsstudie: Eine ethnographische Studie zur Kinderarmut in Hamburg und Berlin – vorläufiger Abschlussbericht. Bielefeld: Bielefeld University.Google Scholar
  11. Andresen, S., & Hurrelmann, K. (2010). Kindheit. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Andresen, S., Otto, H.-U., & Ziegler, H. (2008). Bildung as human development: An educational view on the Capabilities Approach. In H.-U. Otto & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Capabilities – Handlungsbefähigung und Verwirklichungschancen in der Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 165–197). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Anich, R., Biggeri, M., Libanora, R., & Mariani, S. (2011). Street children in Kampala and NGOs’ actions: Understanding capabilities deprivation and expansion. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 107–136). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Ballet, J., Biggeri, M., & Comim, F. (2011). Children’s agency and the capability approach: A conceptual framework. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 22–45). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Ben-Arieh, A. (2005). Where are the children? Children’s role in measuring and monitoring their well-being. Social Indicators Research, 74, 573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Betz, T. (2008). Ungleiche Kindheiten. Theoretische und empirische Analysen zur Sozialberichterstattung über Kinder. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  17. Biggeri, M., & Libanora, R. (2011). From valuing to evaluating: Tools and procedures to operationalize the capability approach. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 79–106). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Biggeri, M., Ballet, J., & Comim, F. (Eds.). (2011). Children and the capability approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Böllert, K., Otto, H.-U., Schrödter, M., & Ziegler, H. (2011). Gerechtigkeit. In H.-U. Otto & H. Thiersch (Eds.), Handbuch Soziale Arbeit (pp. 517–527). München: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Booth, T., & Booth, W. (2003). In the frame: Photovoice and mothers with learning difficulties. Disability and Society, 18(4), 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bühler-Niederberger, D., & Sünker, H. (2009). Gesellschaftliche Organisation von Kindheit und Kindheitspolitik. In M.-S. Honig (Ed.), Ordnungen der Kindheit (pp. 155–183). Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  23. Camfield, L., & Tafere, Y. (2011). Good for children? Local understandings versus universal prescriptions: Evidence from three Ethiopian communities. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 200–221). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Comim, F., Ballet, J., Biggeri, M., & Iervese, V. (2011). Introduction – Theoretical foundation and the book’s roadmap. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 3–21). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Dabrock, P. (2008). Befähigungsgerechtigkeit als Ermöglichung gesellschaftlicher Inklusion. In H.-U. Otto & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Capabilities-Handlungsbefähigung und Verwirklichungschancen in der Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 17–53). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Deneulin, S. (2002). Perfectionism, paternalism and liberalism in Sen and Nussbaum’s capability approach. Review of Political Economy, 14(4), 497–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. di Tommaso, M. L. (2006). Measuring the well-being of children using a capability approach. An application to Indian data (ChilD n. 05/2006). Retrieved April 4, 2012 from http://www.child-centre.unito.it/papers/child05_2006.pdf
  28. Elster, J. (1982). Sour grapes: Utilitarianism and the genesis of wants. In A. Sen & B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism and beyond (pp. 219–238). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2007). Children’s conceptualisation(s) of their well-being. Journal of Social Indictors Research, 80, 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fegter, S., Machold, C., & Richter, M. (2010). Children and the good life: Theoretical challenges. In S. Andresen, I. Diehm, U. Sander, & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Children and the good life. New challenges for research on children (pp. 7–12). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Grundmann, M., Steinhoff, A., & Edelstein, W. (2011). Social class, socialization and capabilities in a modern welfare state. In O. Leßmann, H.-U. Otto, & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Closing the capabilities gap. Renegotiating social justice for the young (pp. 233–252). Opladen: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  32. Grunert, C., & Krüger, H.-H. (2006). Kindheit und Kindheitsforschung in Deutschland. Forschungszugänge und Lebenslagen. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  33. Harttgen, K., & Klasen, S. (2009). Well-being of migrant children and migrant youth in Europe (Discussion Paper 181). Göttingen: Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.Google Scholar
  34. Heinzel, F., Kränzl-Nagl, R., & Mierendorff, J. (2012). Sozialwissenschaftliche Kindheitsforschung – Annäherungen an einen komplexen Forschungsbereich. Theo-Web. Zeitschrift für Religionspädagogik, 11(1), 9–37.Google Scholar
  35. Hengst, H. (2009). Generationale Ordnungen sind nicht alles. In M.-S. Honig (Ed.), Ordnungen der Kindheit – Problemstellungen und Perspektiven der Kindheitsforschung (pp. 53–77). Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  36. Hengst, H., & Zeiher, H. (2005). Von Kinderwissenschaften zu generationalen Analysen. Einleitung. In H. Hengst & H. Zeiher (Eds.), Kindheit soziologisch (pp. 9–23). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Honig, M. S. (Ed.). (2009). Ordnungen der Kindheit. München: Juventa.Google Scholar
  38. Honig, M. S., Lange, A., & Leu, H. R. (Eds.). (1999). Aus der Perspektive von Kindern? Zur Methodologie der Kindheitsforschung. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  39. Hunner-Kreisel, C., & Kuhn, M. (2010). Children’s perspectives: Methodological critiques and empirical studies. In S. Andresen, I. Diehm, U. Sander, & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Children and the good life. New challenges for research on children (pp. 115–118). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. James, A., & Prout, A. (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  41. James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  42. Kelle, H. (Ed.). (2010). Kinder unter Beobachtung. Kulturanalytische Studien zur pädiatrischen Entwicklungsdiagnostik. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  43. Kellock, A., & Lawthom, R. (2011). Sen’s capability approach: Children and well-being explored through the use of photography. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 137–161). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. Lansdown, G. (2005). The evolving capacities of the child. Innocenti Insight. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Center.Google Scholar
  45. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods. Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Marks, N., Sha, H., & Westall, A. (2004). The power and potential of well-being indicators. Measuring young people’s well-being in Nottingham. A pilot project by NEF and Nottingham City Council (The power of well-being 2). London: NEF.Google Scholar
  47. Mayall, B. (Ed.). (1994). Children’s childhoods observed and experienced. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Nauck, B. (1995). Kinder als Gegenstand der Sozialberichterstattung – Konzepte, Methoden und Befunde im Überblick. In B. Nauck & H. Bertram (Eds.), Kinder in Deutschland. Lebensverhältnisse von Kindern im Regionalvergleich (pp. 11–87). Opladen: Leske & Budrich.Google Scholar
  49. Nolan, B. (2010). Promoting the well-being of immigrant youth (UCD Geary Institute Discussion Paper Series, WP 10 17). Dublin: School of Applied Social Science, University College Dublin.Google Scholar
  50. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9, 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nussbaum, M. (2004). Beyond “Compassion and Humanity”: Justice for non-human animals. In C. R. Sunstein & M. Nussbaum (Eds.), Animal rights: Current debates and new directions (pp. 299–320). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nussbaum, M. (2007). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
  54. Nussbaum, M. (2011). Perfectionist liberalism and political liberalism. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 39, 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Otto, H.-U., & Ziegler, H. (2007). Soziale Arbeit, Glück und das gute Leben. In S. Andresen, I. Pinhard, & S. Weyers (Eds.), Erziehung – Ethik – Erinnerung (pp. 229–248). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  56. Otto, H.-U., & Ziegler, H. (2008). Der Capability Ansatz als neue Orientierung in der Erziehungswissenschaft. In H.-U. Otto & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Capabilities – Handlungsbefähigung und Verwirklichungschancen in der Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 9–13). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Padron, M. H., & Ballet, J. (2011). Child agency and identity: The case of Peruvian children in a transitional situation. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 162–174). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  58. Prout, A. (2003). Kinder-Körper: Konstruktion, Agency und Hybridität. In H. Hengst & H. Kelle (Eds.), Kinder, Körper, Identitäten (pp. 33–50). Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  59. Qvortrup, J., Corsaro, W. A., & Honig, M.-S. (Eds.). (2009). The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  60. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Saito, M. (2003). Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: A critical exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37, 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schäfer-Walkmann, S., Störk-Biber, C., Rieger, G., & Ross, P.-S. (2009). Arme Kinder und ihre Familien in Baden-Württemberg. Eine sozialarbeitswissenschaftliche Studie. Stuttgart: Caritasverband der Diözese Rottenburg-Stuttgart e.V.Google Scholar
  63. Schweizer, H. (2007). Soziologie der Kindheit. Verletzlicher Eigen-Sinn. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  64. Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Sen, A. (1999a). Development as freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Sen, A. (1999b). Investing in early childhood: Its role in development. Paper read at the Conference on Breaking the Poverty Cycle. Investing in Early Childhood, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  68. Sen, A. (2000). Beyond identity: Other people. The New Republic, 223(25), 23–30.Google Scholar
  69. Sen, A. (2004). Dialogue capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sen, A. (2007). Children and human rights. Indian Journal of Human Development, 1(2).Google Scholar
  72. Skolnick, A. (1975). The limits of childhood: Concepts of child development and social context. Law and Contemporary Problems, 39(3), 38–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Terzi, L. (2007). The capability to be educated. In M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Amartyr Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education (pp. 25–44). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  74. Thorne, B. (1987). Re-visioning women and social change: Where are the children? Gender and Society, 1(1), 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Trani, J.-F., Bakhshi, P., & Biggeri, M. (2011). Rethinking children’s disabilities through the capability lens: A framework for analysis and policy implications. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 245–270). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  76. Turmel, A. (2008). A historical sociology of childhood. Developmental thinking, categorization and grafic visualisation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. UNICEF. (2007). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries (Innocenti Report Card 7). Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.Google Scholar
  78. Unterhalter, E. (2003). Education, capabilities and social justice. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2003/4. The Leap to Equality. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from http://www.unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001469/146971e.pdf
  79. Unterhalter, E., & Brighouse, H. (2003, September). Distribution of what? How will we know if we have achieved education for all by 2015? Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on the Capability Approach, University of Pavia.Google Scholar
  80. Volkert, J., & Wüst, K. (2011). Early Childhood, Agency and Capability Deprivation. A quantitative analysis using German socioeconomic panel data; In O. Leßmann, H.-U. Otto & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Closing the Capabilities Gap - Renegotiating Social Justice for the Young; Barbara Budrich; Opladen.Google Scholar
  81. Volkert, J., & Schneider, F. (2012). A literature survey of disaggregating general well-being: Empirical capability approach assessments of young and old generations in affluent countries. Sociology Study, 2(6), 397–416.Google Scholar
  82. Walker, M. (2004, September). Insights from and for education: The Capability Approach and South African girls’ lives and learning. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on the Capability Approach, University of Pavia.Google Scholar
  83. Walker, M. (2005). Amartya Sen’s capability approach and education. Educational Action Research, 13(1), 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wang, C., Wu, K., Zhan, W., & Carovano, K. (1998). Photovoice as a participatory health promotion strategy. Health Promotion International, 13(1), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. World Vision Deutschland e. V. (Ed.). (2010). Kinder in Deutschland 2010. 2. World Vision Kinderstudie. Frankfurt/Main: Fischer.Google Scholar
  86. Wyness, M. (2012). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Educational SciencesGoethe UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Social Work, Education and Sports ScienceUniversity of VechtaVechtaGermany

Personalised recommendations