Tania Burchardt

Social exclusion in Britain 1991—1995

The purpose of this paper is to offer a working definition of social exclusion and to operationalize it in such a way that an initial empirical analysis of social exclusion in Britain today can be undertaken. After a brief review of conceptions of social exclusion and some of the key controversies, we operationalize one definition based on the notion of participation in five types of activity—consumption, savings, production, political and social. Using the British Household Panel Survey, indicators for participation on these dimensions are developed and analysed both cross-sectionally and longitudinally for the period 1991–5. We find strong associations between an individual’s participation (or lack of it) on the five different dimensions, and on each dimension over time. However, there is no distinct group of socially excluded individuals: few are excluded on all dimensions in any one year and even fewer experience multiple exclusion for the whole period. The results support the view that treating different dimensions of exclusion separately is preferable to thinking about social exclusion in terms of one homogeneous group.

Capabilities and disability: the capabilities framework and the social model of disability

This article seeks to illuminate the complementarity between the capabilities framework, developed by Amartya Sen and others, and the social model of disability. Common themes include the relationship between social barriers and individual limitations, the importance of autonomy and the value of freedom, and dissatisfaction with income as a measure of well‐being. Bringing the two approaches together has implications for analysis (for example in identifying poverty or disadvantage), and for policy, which are briefly illustrated. The article concludes that the capabilities framework provides a more general theoretical framework in which to locate the social model of disability, without compromising any of its central tenets; and the social model provides a thorough‐going application of the capabilities framework. Each can benefit from exposure to the other.This article seeks to illuminate the complementarity between the capabilities framework, developed by Amartya Sen and others, and the social model of disability. Common themes include the relationship between social barriers and individual limitations, the importance of autonomy and the value of freedom, and dissatisfaction with income as a measure of well‐being. Bringing the two approaches together has implications for analysis (for example in identifying poverty or disadvantage), and for policy, which are briefly illustrated. The article concludes that the capabilities framework provides a more general theoretical framework in which to locate the social model of disability, without compromising any of its central tenets; and the social model provides a thorough‐going application of the capabilities framework. Each can benefit from exposure to the other.

COMPARING INCOMES WHEN NEEDS DIFFER: EQUIVALIZATION FOR THE EXTRA COSTS OF DISABILITY IN THE U.K

Equivalization of incomes for household composition is accepted practice when measuring poverty but other variations in needs are rarely acknowledged. This paper uses data from two U.K. household surveys to quantify the extra costs of living associated with disability. The extra costs of disability are derived by comparing the “standard of living” of households with and without disabled members at a given income, having controlled for other sources of variation. Logit and ordered logit regressions are used to estimate the relationship between a range of standard of living indicators, income, and disability. The extra costs of disability derived are substantial and rise with severity of disability. Unadjusted incomes significantly understate the problem of low income amongst disabled people, and thereby in the population as a whole.

‘Operationalizing’ the Capability Approach as a Basis for Equality and Human Rights Monitoring in Twenty‐first‐century Britain

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.

Agency Goals, Adaptation and Capability Sets

‘Agency goals’ play an important role in Sens capability approach. They are an acknowledgement that individuals aspire to achieve objectives other than their own immediate well‐being. This article argues that using agency goal achievement as a basis for evaluating inequality or disadvantage is problematic. In particular, one of the principal charges against utilitarianism made by capability theorists — that based on adaptation or conditioned expectations — can be made with equal force and validity against a metric based on agency goals. The argument is illustrated using survey data on the educational and occupational aspirations of a cohort of young people in Britain. The article concludes that the conventional cross‐sectional, objective, definition of a capability set needs to be broadened. Only if the capability set from which agency goals are formed and the capability set within which they are pursued are evaluated can we begin to properly assess substantive freedom.

Does the UK Have a Private Welfare Class

The use of private welfare services in the UK has risen. But relatively little is known about the patterns of use of private welfare services. This article investigates whether there is a private welfare class, and how attitudes to welfare state spending are linked to use of private services. It finds that there is considerable use of the private sector, but the size of the group consistently using a range of private welfare services is small. Changes in attitudes to public financing of welfare spending do not appear to be directly linked to use of private services.

Time, income and substantive freedom: A capability approach

This article offers a conceptual model of how resources, including time and human and social capital, interact with responsibilities, including personal care, childcare and other unpaid work, to produce a range of feasible time allocations. Each allocation generates a combination of disposable income and free time. This set of feasible income—time combinations provides a measure of the individual’s capability set or his/her substantive freedom. The approach is illustrated empirically with data and simulations based on the UK Time Use Survey 2000. The results show that having low educational qualifications (reflecting limited command over resources), having more or younger children (implying greater caring responsibilities), being single and being disabled (both of which adversely affect the rate at which resources can be converted into valuable outcomes) are each independently associated with having a small capability set, defined in terms of the level and range of combinations of disposable income and free time that can be achieved. The paper concludes that the range of combinations of disposable income and free time that a person can achieve provides a useful metric for assessing inequality in individuals’ substantive freedom to pursue their goals in life — a key target for liberal egalitarians.

Introduction: Resilience and Social Exclusion

Resilience and social exclusion are both slippery concepts. Attempting to explore the relationship between them – the challenge set for contributors to this themed section – might therefore be considered a rash undertaking. Nevertheless, there is much to be learned – theoretically, empirically and in terms of policy implications – from bringing together these two areas of investigation which have developed hitherto largely in isolation from each other.

Using the Capability Approach to Evaluate Health and Care for Individuals and Groups in England

Applying Sen’s capability approach involves tackling a number of challenges. These challenges include the specification and justification of a capability list for the particular evaluative exercise at hand. A second challenge is capturing the complex concept of ‘capability’, where possible going beyond observation of functionings. Thirdly, researchers must try to identify data sources which reflect the breadth and depth of the theoretical approach. The Equality Measurement Framework (EMF) is a new capability-based analytical tool that we have developed in partnership with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which attempts to tackle these challenges.

Inequality, advantage and the capability approach

Abstract Inequality has acquired a newfound prominence in the academic and political debate. While scholars working with the capability approach (CA) have succeeded in influencing the conceptualisation and measurement of poverty, which is increasingly understood in multidimensional terms, recent scholarship on inequality focusses overwhelmingly on economic forms of inequality, and especially on inequalities in income and wealth. In this paper, we outline how the conceptual framework of the CA (focussing on ends rather than means, multidimensionality, and recognising the value of freedoms as well as attained functionings) has the potential to enrich the study of distributional inequality through offering a rationale for why inequality matters, exploring the association between different forms of inequality, and providing an analysis of power. But applying the CA in the context of advantage exacerbates some existing challenges to the approach (defining a capability list, and the non-observability of capabilities) and brings some fresh ones (especially insensitivity at the top of the distribution). We recommend a stronger and clearer distinction between concepts and measures. Capability inequality is a more appropriate and potentially revealing conceptual apparatus, but economic resources are likely to remain a crucial metric for understanding distributional inequality for the foreseeable future.