CHAPTER 2 The Capabilities Approach and Violence Against Women Implications for Social Development Loretta Pyles ocial development approaches, welfare capabilities (Sen, 1999). Poor and impoverished policies, and antipoverty strategies have women who are victims of violence and abuse in S often been premised on the idea that an their isolation are especially vulnerable in the increase in income or the material wealth of sense that they have less freedom and access to households is the best means to end poverty and institutions. Unfortunately, social development thus the primary goal of social development. approaches have rarely incorporated the unique Neoliberal growth-oriented strategies of capital realities of poor women into their blueprints, accumulation, privatization, and investment in particularly the special concerns of women who developing countries with cheap labor markets are victims of violence. Though the Millennium are similarly focused on materialist underpin- Development Goals of the United Nations are nings, often ignoring human well-being and appropriately concerned with gender equality and human rights. the empowerment of women, their indicators on Many approaches to social development ignore these issues are not explicitly focused on violence the idea that how people live their lives and the against women. This is the case despite the evi- kinds of services and institutions that they have dence that violence against women and girls access to are potentially just as important as, and clearly has an adverse impact on women’s eco- tied in to, their annual income. Poor and low- nomic and overall well-being (Pyles, 2006a; income individuals are at risk and have low func- Raphael, 2000; Tolman and Rosen, 2001). tioning not just because they have no money, The capabilities perspective offers an alter- but because they may lack certain freedoms or native to development theories and policies Pyles, L. (2008). The capabilities approach and violence against women: Implications for social development. International Social Work, 51, 25–36. 31 32——PART I. Theoretical and Methodological Issues traditionally grounded in such materialism. The Many theories of welfare hold the position capabilities approach, as articulated by Sen that positive outcomes, such as working in the (1999), Nussbaum (2000), and the United formal wage-labor sector or achieving an income Nations Development Programme (UNDP; above the poverty line, contribute to well-being. 1999), is based on the notion that human free- The capabilities approach asserts that processes dom and access to opportunities are central to and human relationships are, in and of them- social development. Given that women represent selves, valuable and also valuable insofar as they the largest number of individuals living in pov- have a positive impact on material well-being erty and that they are vulnerable to violence and outcomes. According to the capabilities approach, other inequalities that exacerbate their vulnera- equality of opportunity is what matters most for bilities, the capabilities approach offers a social well-being (Pressman and Summerfield, 2000). development framework that can incorporate Sen has focused on “what is of intrinsic value in these realities. After clarifying the capabilities life, rather than on the goods that provide instru- approach, I review the literature on the economic mental value or utility” (Pressman and Summer- aspects of violence against women. I show how field, 2000: 97). While a utilitarian measure of the capabilities approach, especially the work of human welfare would indicate that people are Nussbaum (2000), offers new insights into worse off if their standard of living is lower, the understanding both violence against women and capabilities approach shows that with greater social development. freedom and choice, welfare may increase. Poverty is viewed as a deprivation of basic liber- ties as opposed to just low income (Sen, 1999). Capabilities Approach Income is not necessarily an end in itself but a means to an end. The end is to increase the func- The 1998 Nobel prize–winning economist tioning and capabilities of people, so that an Amartya Sen (1999) argues that while provid- adequate measure of welfare ought to measure ing primary goods to a society, as proposed by these capabilities. the philosopher John Rawls, is an important The United Nations Human Development moment in economic thinking, what use one Index (HDI) is an example of a way to measure makes of these primary goods “depends cru- development not based on income alone, but cially on a number of contingent circum- incorporating other valued aspects of human life. stances, both personal and social” (1971: 70). The HDI is a “weighted average of income These circumstances, or “diversities and hetero- adjusted for distribution and purchasing geneities,” as Sen calls them, include personal power, life expectancy and literacy and educa- heterogeneities, environmental diversities, vari- tion. It is expressed in terms of deprivation from ations in social climate, differences in relational what is potentially achievable” (Pressman and perspectives, and distribution within the fam- Summerfield, 2000: 101). ily. People’s abilities to activate these primary The basic capabilities advocated for by Sen goods vary. Sen (1999: 73) thus emphasizes the (1999: 126) are “the ability to be well nourished, importance of looking into “the actual living to avoid escapable morbidity or mortality, to that people manage to achieve.” This emphasis read and write and communicate, to take part in on securing a real opportunity for every indi- the life of the community, to appear in public vidual to achieve functioning—what the per- without shame.” Nussbaum (2000), who broad- son can succeed in doing with the primary ens Sen’s capabilities, incorporating more explic- goods at one’s command—is the basis of the itly feminist concerns, articulates 10 central philosophy of the capabilities approach (Gotoh, human capabilities: life; bodily health; bodily 2001). integrity; senses, imagination, and thought; Chapter 2. The Capabilities Approach and Violence Against Women——33 emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other spe- choose to work in the formal sector (in a way that cies; play; and control over one’s environment. is safe and facilitates economic self-sufficiency) is Clearly, these perspectives reflect a different view the responsibility of society. So, under the capa- of economic development compared with the bilities approach, people should have the free- traditional goals of achieving a certain income or dom to choose and self-determine their lives. The owning property. To better grasp the idea of capabilities approach is ultimately congruent capabilities, it is important to understand the with social work perspectives on social justice, centrality of the concept of freedom. empowerment, and self-determination (Gutierrez and Lewis, 1994; Hill, 2003; Morris, 2002). Freedom as the Means and End Violence Against Freedom, liberties, agency, and choice are cen- Women and Economics tral tenets of the capabilities approach. According to Sen (1999), there are two aspects of freedom: Violence against women affects the ability of the processes that allow freedom of actions and women to achieve full functioning in the world. I decisions; and the opportunities that people define violence against women as physical, sex- have, given their particular personal and social ual, and emotional violence against women and situations. Freedom is both the primary end and girls by intimates, acquaintances, or strangers. principal means of development. Sen also Like many researchers, I view it as a patriarchal describes this dual function as the constitutive mechanism for controlling women, defined par- role and the instrumental role, respectively. He ticularly by the use of power, force, manipula- (1999) advocates for five basic instrumental free- tion, and isolation. In this section, I will discuss doms: political freedoms (i.e., civil rights and the ways in which violence against women tends other aspects of democratic processes); eco- to affect poor adult women. First, I will explain nomic facilities (i.e., access to credit and other how violence limits women’s access to certain distributional considerations); social opportuni- institutions; then, I will discuss the effects of vio- ties (i.e., access to education and health care); lence on the physical and emotional well-being transparency guarantees (i.e., societal preven- of women; and finally, I will articulate the explicit tions of corruption and financial irresponsibil- ramifications of abuse on the economic well- ity); and protective security (i.e., a social safety being of women. net providing income supplements and unem- ployment benefits). All of these instrumental freedoms are interconnected in their ability to Violence as a Limit to Women’s help facilitate the ends of development. Access to Institutions It is critical to grasp the distinction between functioning and capabilities. A functioning is Women who have been victimized by an what people actually do, whereas a capability is intimate partner or a stranger often experience what they are able to do given the personal and fear, shame, and isolation. People who abuse social situation. If one has the capability of being women may use the tactic of isolation by delib- able to eat, one can still always choose to fast. erately isolating them from friends, family, Thus, the capability may not necessarily