Capabilities Approach and Transportation Justice - For a Class
January 2022
Introduction
The Capabilities Approach is a system of analysis that can be used to understand inequalities and disadvantages. Originally conceived by Amartya Sen (1995) and Martha Nussbaum (2003), the capabilities approach is a moral philosophy that focuses on what people are actually able to do and be rather than focusing on what they have the rights to do (Nussbaum 2006). The approach is a synthesis of moral philosophy, social theory, and a model of application based on realistic outcomes (Robeyns 2017). The Capabilities Approach (from here on CA) is a method to understand inequalities in society that can be applied to different topics and systems that perpetuate inequality, examples including mental distress (Brunner 2017), the COVID-19 Pandemic (Venkatapuram 2020), and child care (Javornik 2019).
CA can be used as a framework for examining transportation inequalities. While urban transportation is something that is in theory available to all citizens, there are various barriers and obstacles within the system that exclude individuals from actually functioning in these systems. CA fundamentally examines how individuals can and do participate in society, and this examination unpacks what structural constraints may exclude people (Robeyns 2017).
This essay aims to determine how CA can be used to understand systemic inequalities within urban transport systems. To draw examples from the real world, I will use the work of other scholars who study transport inequity, notably Mimi Sheller (2015; 2018). The first section will be a broad overview of CA. Then I will evaluate how the approach can conceptualize inequalities. Lastly, I will examine some of the limitations to the approach, By the end of this essay, the reader will have an understanding of how the CA model can be applied to transport systems as a means to understand the problem of urban transport inequality.
I. Capabilities Approach
CA is a framework that argues for the realization of rights; a focus on what individuals can obtain through their intersectional means rather than the theoretical rights that they hold as citizens (Sen 1995; Nussbaum 2003). Additionally, CA is grounded in realistic outcomes. Sen (1999:87) describes capabilities as “the substantive freedoms [that one] enjoys to lead the kind of life he or she has reason to value”. Capabilities can also be understood as what people are actually able to do in order to live a life filled with human dignity (Nussbaum 2006). Note that CA is an approach, meaning that it is not merely a theory, but also a tool and a model that can be used to examine a number of questions or problems (Robeyns 2017). CA further shares a key element with other theories of justice whereas the focus of justice is about the participation of individuals in a society, and thus exclusion is symptomatic of injustice (Fraser 2000; Nussbaum 2006). The model of CA argues that those with more capabilities are more able to participate in mainstream society, whereas those without sufficient capabilities are effectively excluded from being able to participate.
Transport inequalities can be highlighted and understood through CA. Urban transportation is inherently understood within the context of a city, as the vast system of mobility within “a city [is made] of technologies, practices, infrastructures, networks, and assemblage, which together inform its mobility culture” (Sheller 2015:72). This means an urban transport system is not only the connections of infrastructure (trains, buses, road, etc.) but is also linked to information systems and culture. Transportation is the reified structure for how individuals are able to move through and navigate space, connect to others, gather resources, and link from space to space, such as work to a place of living (Sheller 2018). The crisis of changing urban space affects mobility through several infrastructural factors, significantly normative automobility, and this ultimately leads to increased inequalities (Sheller 2018). CA is a helpful tool in understanding these inequalities because it shows exactly how transport systems exclude individuals and perpetuate inequalities
II. Using Capabilities Approach to Understand Transport Inequality
CA allows for an in-depth understanding of these transport-related inequalities in urban spaces. The framework is advantageous in several ways. First, the language of CA permits a deep understanding of how transportation inequality can affect the lived experiences of individuals and suggest ways to ameliorate systemic issues. With the language of CA in hand, CA can be used as a tool to examine the myriad of ways that people are excluded by these systems and create awareness for policymakers to understand what structural constraints prevent people from fully participating in society. CA is also a helpful approach as it permits individuals with privilege to recognize their capabilities compared to those with fewer capabilities.
This method for examining inequalities is useful because of the specific language that it employs to describe what people are doing and what they are capable of; this ultimately is helpful as it “gives scholars a common interdisciplinary language” (Robeyns 2017:11). The terminology of CA can be applied to the complex system of urban transportation. The two fundamental terms of the approach are functionings and capabilities. What an individual is actually doing is understood as a functioning. A functioning is what day-to-day life and an individual’s lived experience might look like (Sen 1995). The ability to change the functioning through “alternative, valued choices” (Brenner 2017:162) is understood as a capability. In short, a capability is choosing an alternate way of doing or being. If there are barriers to choosing an alternative, be it physical, financial, mental, etc. then it is not a capability. Robeyns (2017:9) summarizes these terms as “what people can do and be (their capabilities) and what they are actually achieving in terms of beings and doings (their functionings)”.
In the context of urban transportation, an example of a functioning might be taking the bus to commute to work. If an individual has the means to obtain a driver’s license and afford a car, then driving to work could become a capability. All of one’s capabilities are described as a capability set (Sen 1995; Robeyns 2017). Continuing with the above example, a capability set for a person who is at present taking a bus can be taking the subway, walking, driving, biking, or carpooling to work as an alternative to taking the bus, assuming they have the means to do so and is not excluded from these alternatives through various structural constraints or prevented from this based on any identity groups that they occupy.
Transportation is both a functioning and a capability as it is a functioning with the purpose of permitting other functionings (Wolff and de-Shalit 2013). For example, transportation is key for linking individuals from the places which they live to where they might work (Goodhart 2020; Vecchio and Martens 2021). Therefore, transportation is functioning in that it is what people use to move, but also a capability in that it allows one to create an alternative choice by the means of movement, for example commuting to a new job.
The final key term in the CA lexicon is a conversion factor. In brief, a conversion factor is what it takes for an individual to convert the resources they have in order to realize an alternate way of going about living one’s life (Randall et al. 2020). Within mobility, conversion factors might include having enough money to purchase a car, converting the resource of money into an automobile. A feature of CA is that once a capability is converted into a functioning, one’s capabilities can consequently expand as the individual now has new opportunities (Sen 1995; Robeyns 2017). The ability to conceptualize these lived experiences into straightforward conceptual terms through the lexicon of CA is a useful way to understand inequalities in a grounded way.
Nussbaum (2006) claims that conversion factors within the CA framework are where social justice plays a key element. This relates to the idea of distributive justice (Fraser 2000) because if one does not have the resources to convert capabilities into functioning then they are unable to participate. Capability deprivation is when individuals do not have enough capabilities to live a human life filled with value and dignity (Sen 1999). This is because individuals may not have access to conversion factors due to various types of exclusionary methods or structural constraints (Luz and Portugal 2021). One may not be able to purchase a car, have social anxiety to an extent that the thought of a driving exam is crippling, or have a physical disability that prevents one from being able to move throughout an urban space as it is designed. These exclusions are how CA addresses inequality.
With the terminology of CA as a tool, one can then examine the various inequalities that people face by looking at capability deprivation, what happens when there is a lack of conversion factors. This framework examines what people are actually doing and what bulwarks exist that prevent transportation equality.
People do have the right to use urban transportation as they wish, however, in terms of actual functioning, many structural constraints prevent people, especially those not belonging to privileged groups, from obtaining the capabilities to do so (Randall et al. 2021). Luz and Portugal (2021) identify eight different categories of exclusionary barriers that prevent individuals from transport functioning. Examples of these exclusions include physical exclusion such as a mode of transport that excludes those with disabilities or economic exclusion for those unable to afford costly public transit.
The example of people with disabilities is especially relevant to transport inequality with regards to the CA because people with disabilities have the right to use urban transport system as they wish, but due to infrastructure not being accommodating, public transportation can not be in their capability set. This can be found in subway systems where trains are only accessible by stairs. People with movement-based disabilities, notably being in a wheelchair, can not access the transport service. In the language of CA, using the subway is not in their capability set because they are excluded from urban transport. This perpetuates inequality because due to the dual functioning/capability nature of mobility, they are also effectively excluded from accessing the rest of the city. People with disabilities are unable to convert their capability into a functioning due to physical barriers and are effectively excluded from the system (Luz and Portugal 2021) and thus do not have the capability of accessibility (Vecchio and Martens 2021).
Recognizing transportation as a conversion factor (Randall et al. 2020) is essential to understanding how CA can illuminate understanding inequalities. Proper transportation distribution can allow for various groups to better participate in society (Gössling 2015; Sheller 2015, 2018; Vecchio and Martens 2021), and thus it is a conversion factor because it allows individuals to convert capabilities to functioning. Unequal access to urban transportation is in itself an inequality, but it perpetuates inequalities because it limits the capability set of individuals with regards to various social opportunities (Vecchio and Martens 2021), which can include employment, healthcare, or even places that bring pleasure and wellbeing to individuals. In CA, it is essential to recognize the elements of life that bring pleasure because that adds to the human dignity of a life worth living.
CA then aids in recognizing which groups are the most vulnerable. Vulnerable groups are those who do not have adequate capability sets, those without the ability to make alternative life choices. The functioning of transportation only adds to one’s capability set because with transportation people can access more alternatives. Those without larger capability sets (Sen 1995) are therefore in an extremely vulnerable position due to their inability to access resources. Wellman (2015) makes note that the poorer someone is, the more it costs them to travel; for example, if one’s car breaks down, then one may need to resort to a quick fix rather than the best fix, which ultimately results in costly additional future repairs. Another example is how the cost of using public transport to a low-paying job reduces the value of the job. If one’s health is in question then being excluded from transportation threatens their wellbeing as they cannot easily access healthcare facilities.
Compounding disadvantage through transport inequality is especially present. Mobilities are often racialized in cities and this disproportionately creates inequalities in communities of color (Sheller 2018). Goodhardt (2020) shows that during the COVID-19 Pandemic, those labeled as essential workers are often poorer and more reliant on public transportation which is often less accessible in communities of color. He continues to argue that many human rights might not be able to be realized due to poor transportation rendering the realization of a right impractical (Goodhardt 2020). Read through the lexicon of CA, fulfilling human rights are contingent on the functioning of transportation. The language of CA illustrates how vulnerable groups are in a position of compounding disadvantage, and this is highlighted through the limited capability sets and conversion factors due to transport inequality.
Transportation being both a functioning and a capability for other functionings (Wolff and de-Shalit 2013) permits the recognition of how improper infrastructure and policy perpetuate inequality. This leads to the next way in which CA can help us understand inequality: how to best address inequality and therefore approach justice. CA is useful in understanding inequalities because it highlights normative assumptions in policymaking that excludes vulnerable groups (Robeyns 2017). In terms of urban transportation, this is most exemplary in the idea of normative car usage (Gössling 2015; Sheller 2018). The automobile is both functioning as it is a mode of transportation that one is driving and also a capability as it permits other functionings (Wolff and de-Shalit 2015). Urban spaces have been designed unequally to benefit automobile usage as cities allocated unequal funding and space to road maintenance specifically benefitting automobiles (Gössling 2015). The effects of automobile normativity effectively create a “kinetic underclass” (Sheller 2018:14) that disproportionality affects those with less access to quality public transportation. In short, resources in urban spaces are distributed in a way that tends to benefit those who have cars while excluding those who need to rely on other forms of transportation, often those who are more vulnerable, thus only expanding the capability set of those with already larger capability sets and keeping those in deprivation with little capabilities.
CA can thus illuminate how to best alter policy to aid people in vulnerable groups by reducing inequality. An example of how CA can affect policy is Wellman’s (2015) study on transport administration’s where he interviewed administrators for transportation planning services to define their views on social justice. In doing so he found that there is a vast range in understandings of transportation justice and equality. Some administrators aim for fairness to everyone, rather than distribution based on need. CA can illuminate decision-making by aiming policy and infrastructure changes to expand capabilities, and in doing so decreasing inequality. Robeyns (2017:15) acknowledges that CA “will impede policymakers from using mistaken assumptions about human beings in their policies”, further suggesting that it can highlight what support is needed so that people can flourish (Robeyns 2017). CA, in its inherent ability to show where systems fail, can inform policy aimed to limit inequality.
The last way that CA helps in understanding inequality comes from a personal experience. I think that the CA model has been a phenomenal tool to help me reflect and understand my privileges based on my unique positionality and I think has been the best method for conceptualizing unequal opportunity that I have come across in my studies. While other metrics measure what one has, capability sets can measure potentials which serve as a better way to understand inequality. Recognizing how large my functioning and capabilities are has been perhaps the best tool for recognizing the privilege I have personally encountered. Having had access to a car, being able-bodied, and having had the ability to work and accumulate money to afford transport costs, all showed me my excessive functionings and how large my capability set is. This is an invaluable way to understand privilege based on capability rather than using alternative metrics. I do believe that if the language of CA becomes more widely used it can be an effective approach to better conceptualize how one thinks about inequality in a reflective manner.
III. Limitations of the Capabilities Approach
While CA can aid in understanding inequalities, there are several limitations to CA. The first of these limitations is the role of power in how inequalities are perpetuated. The second limitation of CA is how it handles agency and freedom. And lastly, a limitation is the positionality of those applying and developing CA, especially considering that assumptions being made about humanity might be coming from theories that are Eurocentric and therefore linked to theory enshrouded in colonialism.
CA’s framing device is the individual, it focuses on what people can do and what each individual’s unique capability set is (Robeyns 2017). Therefore, there is less emphasis within the framework on systemic issues as being the cause for inequality. While CA is a useful tool for understanding how people actually live their lives and how this then can affect policy, CA tends to illuminate deprivation but might not be able to focus on the roots of such inequalities such as pernicious policies or systems. In terms of transport, injustice is the improper distribution of access to transportation (Gössling 2015; Sheller 2015; Vecchio and Martens 2021). Therefore, there is less emphasis on inequalities created through the power and influence of the automobile normative society in which we live. The systems that perpetuate inequalities are not inherently held accountable within the CA framework. While it is important to think about inequality in light of recognition (Honneth 2004) and align the roots of inequality to the metrics of human dignity (Nussbaum 2006), ultimately proper redistribution of resources (Fraser 2000) would result in expanding capability sets for the disadvantaged. This is especially true when functionings are also capabilities where redistribution would effectively increase capabilities sets and reduce inequality as it would expand capability sets and decrease deprivation.
CA does not necessarily address systemic issues within its language, however, the language of CA can be used by activists and people in positions of power to inform policymakers and people in positions of power to effectively distribute means. CA falls in line with Nancy Fraser’s (2008) perspective on abnormal justice, in such that CA examines an unjust society through multiple dynamic means. Therefore, it is essential to examine the structural constraints (Robeyns 2017) that limit individuals’ capability sets. CA is compatible with the abnormal justice framework when addressing positions of power and capability shortfalls. The way in which CA approaches justice is almost a synthesis of recognition and redistribution: how can society redistribute resources so that people can through their own means develop the functionings to live a life filled with human dignity?
Another limitation of CA is the role that adaptive preferences play. Adaptive preferences are functionings that people use and effectively prefer within their agency, but this is because they had to adapt due to the lack of other capabilities (Robeyns 2017). This might be preferring to walk or take modes of transport that are harmful to work because there had not been an alternative at an earlier period of time. Robeyns (2017:140) argues that because “choices are systematically related to previous experiences of disadvantage” it is important to recognize internalized oppression of these preferences when addressing how to create effective change through CA. Therefore, there is a challenge within CA in that individuals are free to create a life worth living on their own terms, however, there is the possibility that their own freedom of choice, caused by internalized oppression or cultural expectations, might be harmful to themselves or others.
This contributes to CA’s problem of wealth. Certain capability sets have what might be considered excessive freedoms (Burchardt and Hick 2017). For example, the car develops the problem of people who have too many capabilities, and is especially true when considering the negative effects that driving has on the climate compared to other forms of transportation (Randall et. al 2020) Contemporary transportation systems and cities are designed by (Wellman 2015) and for people with the functioning of a car (Gössling 2015; Sheller 2015), and therefore the people with advantages might have excessive access to opportunities compared to those who have smaller capacity sets due to reliance on public transportation. These freedoms are especially concerning when thinking about climate injustice, as urban transportation freedoms (e.g. constant automobile usage) can result in excessive energy consumption (Randell et al. 2020). The adaptive preference of using an automobile is ultimately harmful when considering the impact on the climate. To address the problem of wealth in transport justice, as well as freedoms that have negative effects, Randel et al. (2020) suggest that transportation policy can be informed by CA to limit the negative effects of choice that are present. This introduces the challenge of how to create fair transportation for people that is also climate-conscious (Sheller 2018).
The last limitation I will address in this paper is the possibility of Eurocentric views of dignity and humanity. When thinking about what it means to be a human and to have a life worth living (Nussbaum 2006) there can be Eurocentric humanist assumptions made about what that life might look like. Kumar (2011) suggests that it is essential to have alternatives to Eurocentric humanism in postcolonial theory, and this is certainly true for CA. Therefore, a limitation of CA, notably Nussbaum’s (2011) 10 core capabilities where she lists the realms of capability, is that it exists in the framework of global north social theory and implies all human values might be shared by the Eurocentric values of dignity. Regarding urban transportation, the idea of movement and mobility might be coming from a Eurocentric ideal of what it means to move and be mobile. This limitation is of course countered by the fact Sen’s theory is coming from the global south and is highly influenced by economic thought from the global south. When using CA, it is important to keep in mind that not all people share the same views on what it means to be human and that “a life worth living” is a relativist phrase.
Conclusion
CA can help us understand inequalities in several key ways. Primarily it gives us a language to address inequality, not in terms of what people have, but rather in what people can actually do and achieve in order to live a life of value. With this language, one can then dissect systemic inequalities and use CA’s understanding of inequality to determine how to make practical changes to structural constraints without using mistaken assumptions about the lives that individuals lead. CA can therefore be applied to transportation inequality and can be used as a model to describe how transportation inequality compounds disadvantage. Despite some limitations, CA can be used by transport activist groups and transport policy-makers to inform how to develop a more just and equal transport system from the current systems that disproportionately exclude those who are in the mobile underclass of society.
References:
Brunner, Richard. 2017. “Why do people with mental distress have poor social outcomes? Four lessons from the capabilities approach.” Social Science and Medicine 191:160-167.
Burchardt Tania and Rod Hick. 2018. “Inequality, Advantage and the Capability Approach.” Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 19(1):38-52.
Fraser Nancy. 2000. “Rethinking Recognition.” The New Left Review 3:107-120.
Fraser, Nancy. 2008. “Abnormal Justice.” Critical Inquiry 34(3): 393-422.
Goodhart, Michael. 2020 “Revisiting interdependence in times and terms of Crisis”. Journal of Human Rights, 19:5, 520-527.
Gössling, Stephan. 2015. “Urban Transport Justice.” Journal of Transport Geography 54:1-9.
Honneth, Axel. 2004. “Recognition and Justice: Outline of a Plural Theory of Justice.” Acta Sociologica 47(4):351-364.
Javornik, Jana. 2019. “Creating capabilities: Childcare Policies in Comparative Perspective.” Journal of European Social Policy 29(4): 529-544.
Kumar, Malreddy Pavan. 2011. “(An)other Way of Being Human: ‘indigenous’ alternative(s) to postcolonial humanism.” Third World Quarterly 32(9):1558-1572.
Luz, Gregório and Licinio Portugal. 2021 “Understanding Transport Related Social Exclusion through the Lens of Capabilities Approach”. Transport Reviews, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2021.2005183.
Nussbaum, Martha. 2003. “Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice.” Feminist Economics 9(2-3):33-59.
Nussbaum, Martha. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Randall, Edward, Caroline Shaw, Alistair Woodward, Philippa Howden-Chapman, Alex Macmillan, Jamie Hosking, Ralph Chapman, Andrew Waa, and Michel Keall. 2020. “Fairness in Transport Policy: A New Approach to Applying Distributive Justice Theories.” Sustainability 12:1-20.
Robeyns, Ingrid. 2017. Wellbeing, Freedom, and Social Justice: The Capability Approach Re-Examined. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.
Sen, Amartya. 1995. Inequality Re-examined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sheller, Mimi. 2015. “Racialized Mobility Transitions in Philadelphia: Connecting Urban Sustainability and Transport Justice.” City and Society 27(1): 70-91.
Sheller, Mimi. 2018. Mobility Justice: The Politics of Movement in an Age of Extremes. London: Verso.
Vecchio, Giovanni, and Karel Martens. 2021. “Accessibility and the Capabilities Approach: a review of the literature and proposal for conceptual advancements.” Transport Reviews 41(6): 833-854
Venkatapuram, Sridhar. 2020. “Human Capabilities and Pandemics”. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 21(3): 280-286.
Wellman, Gerard C. 2015. “The Social Justice (of) Movement: How Public Transportation Administrators Define Social Justice.” Public Administration Quarterly 39(1): 117 – 146.
Wolff, Jonathan and Avner de-Shalit. 2013. “On Fertile Functionings: A Response to Martha Nussbaum.” Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 14(1):161-165.
Comments