IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jhudca/v12y2011i1p91-119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

'Operationalizing' the Capability Approach as a Basis for Equality and Human Rights Monitoring in Twenty-first-century Britain

Author

Listed:
  • Tania Burchardt
  • Polly Vizard

Abstract

This article examines a new capability-based measurement framework that has been developed as a basis for equality and human rights monitoring in twenty-first-century Britain. We explore the conceptual foundations of the framework and demonstrate its practical application for the purposes of monitoring equality (in terms of the distribution of substantive freedoms and opportunities among individuals and groups) and human rights (in terms of the achievement of substantive freedoms and opportunities below a minimum threshold) in England, Scotland and Wales. The article challenges the sceptical position by suggesting that 'operationalizing' the capability approach is both 'feasible' and 'workable'. A new two-stage procedure for deriving a capability list is proposed. This combines human rights and deliberative consultation and strikes a balance, we contend, between internationally recognized human rights standards and principles on the one hand, and direct deliberation/participation on the other, in the development and agreement of capability lists.

Suggested Citation

  • Tania Burchardt & Polly Vizard, 2011. "'Operationalizing' the Capability Approach as a Basis for Equality and Human Rights Monitoring in Twenty-first-century Britain," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 91-119.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jhudca:v:12:y:2011:i:1:p:91-119
    DOI: 10.1080/19452829.2011.541790
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19452829.2011.541790
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/19452829.2011.541790?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alkire, Sabina, 2005. "Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199283316.
    2. Tania Burchardt & Polly Vizard, 2007. "Definition of equality and framework for measurement: Final Recommendations of the Equalities Review Steering Group on Measurement," CASE Papers case120, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    3. repec:cep:sticas:/120 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Burchardt, Tania & Vizard, Polly, 2007. "Definition of equality and framework for measurement: final recommendations of the equalities review steering group on measurement," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6218, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yang, Lin, 2017. "The relationship between poverty and inequality: concepts and measurement," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103491, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Karen Hofmann & Dominik Schori & Thomas Abel, 2013. "Self-Reported Capabilities Among Young Male Adults in Switzerland: Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of a German, French and Italian Version of a Closed Survey Instrument," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 723-738, November.
    3. Mary Breheny & Christine Stephens & Fiona Alpass & Brendan Stevenson & Kristie Carter & Polly Yeung, 2013. "Development and Validation of a Measure of Living Standards for Older People," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 1035-1048, December.
    4. Lin Yang, 2017. "The relationship between poverty and inequality: Concepts and measurement," CASE Papers /205, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    5. Annie Austin, 2016. "On Well-Being and Public Policy: Are We Capable of Questioning the Hegemony of Happiness?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 123-138, May.
    6. Tania Burchardt & Holly Holder, 2012. "Developing Survey Measures of Inequality of Autonomy in the UK," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 106(1), pages 1-25, March.
    7. Magdalena Ziolo & Beata Zofia Filipiak & Iwona Bąk & Katarzyna Cheba & Diana Mihaela Tîrca & Isabel Novo-Corti, 2019. "Finance, Sustainability and Negative Externalities. An Overview of the European Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-35, August.
    8. Robert A. Cummins & Kenneth C. Land, 2018. "Capabilities, Subjective Wellbeing and Public Policy: A Response to Austin (2016)," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 157-173, November.
    9. repec:cep:sticas:/121 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Tania Burchardt & Polly Vizard, 2007. "Developing a capability list: Final Recommendations of the Equalities Review Steering Group on Measurement," CASE Papers case121, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    11. Christian Arndt & Juergen Volkert, 2009. "Poverty and Wealth Reporting of the German Government: Approach, Lessons and Critique," IAW Discussion Papers 51, Institut für Angewandte Wirtschaftsforschung (IAW).
    12. Vizard, Polly & Burchardt, Tania, 2007. "Developing a capability list: final recommendations of the equalities review steering group on measurement," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6217, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Antoinette Baujard & Muriel Gilardone, 2017. "Sen is not a capability theorist," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 1-19, January.
    14. Martin Binder & Tom Broekel, 2011. "Applying a Non-parametric Efficiency Analysis to Measure Conversion Efficiency in Great Britain," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 257-281.
    15. Mirtha R. Muñiz Castillo & Des Gasper, 2012. "Human Autonomy Effectiveness and Development Projects," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 49-67, October.
    16. Marc Fleurbaey & Rossi Abi-Rafeh, 2016. "The Use of Distributional Weights in Benefit–Cost Analysis: Insights from Welfare Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 286-307.
    17. Burchardt, Tania, 2006. "Foundations for measuring equality: a discussion paper for the equalities review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6236, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Md. Hashibul Hassan & Lubna Jebin, 2018. "Comparative Capability of Migrant and Non-Migrant Households: Evidence from Rural Bangladesh," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 8(5), pages 618-640, May.
    19. D. Jayaraj & S. Subramanian, 2007. "Out of School and (Probably) in Work," Journal of South Asian Development, , vol. 2(2), pages 177-226, July.
    20. Margherita Scarlato, 2012. "Social Enterprise and Development Policy: Evidence from Italy," Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 24-49, March.
    21. Rafi Amir-ud-Din & Faisal Abbas & Sajid Amin Javed, 2018. "Poverty as Functioning Deprivation: Global Estimates," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 1077-1108, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jhudca:v:12:y:2011:i:1:p:91-119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJHD20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.