Sen's Capabilities Approach, International Institutions, and Applicability

I have been very critical of “development” ever since my introduction to international politics class last semester.  Oftentimes, institutions such as the World Bank or IMF prescribe overarching policies in emerging economies that exacerbate the political, economic, and social inequalities, as well as raise the barriers to participation in the political, economic, and social spheres. For example, an influx of capital to a developing country and restructuring of its economy can pose not only a double burden, but also a triple burden, to women in these societies. First, women who desire to take advantage of the income-generating opportunities in the private sector are also expected to maintain full responsibility of the home due to strong and inflexible gendered social norms, constituting the double burden. To remedy this situation, development institutions will withhold funding from emerging economies that do not prescribe policies that help alleviate the double burden on women. Yet, this tactic often has adverse effects on women’s social positions because: 1) the policies are westernized and do not reflect the values of the emerging economy, 2) the policies include prescriptions that are not possible for emerging economies to implement due to the high costs of maintaining them, 3) due to problems 1 and 2, the policies become watered down versions of themselves, instigating no real change, and 4) the policies ultimately adversely affect women as government officials (often male) disagree with the so-called “accommodations” made for women. Thus, the double burden prevails, and women within an emerging economy have the added burden of negotiating gender norms within their societal constraints due to the fact that this development policy cannot adequately assist them.

Sen’s capabilities approach to development is very intriguing to me, and I would like to analyze it in terms of its effects on international institutions’ development approaches. Sen’s shift of focus from capital to capabilities could potentially change the lives of disadvantaged groups within emerging economies. Sen’s framework could help international institutions prescribe individualized policies for countries they attempt to aid with the knowledge of what matters to individuals in these countries and what the basic capabilities necessary to participate in these societies encompass. These international institutions could still use capital as a means of ensuring these policies take hold (without economic repercussions I do not see why certain countries would “buy into” development policy, please feel free to push back on this statement if you have an answer to my worry! Essentially I am asking, how can these international institutions necessarily enforce changing the necessary capabilities and the norms surrounding these capabilities besides through money?). These policies could evade the criticisms that “overarching policies” fall prey to, including the adverse effects on women’s positions, as Sen’s capabilities approach allows for flexibility in both the selection and weight of capabilities that encompass individuals’ “freedom to lead lives…they have reason to value” (85). As there are no objectively correct capabilities, policies could include input from developing countries in regards to what values their citizens hold and what capabilities they need to participate in society. 

However, I see a practical issue with this policy-making approach. If certain group’s interests are not part of the policy negotiation process with international institutions (which are the primary aids in development), how will these development institutions know which individualized policies to implement? Many disadvantaged groups in emerging economies have significant barriers to participating in these policy discussions due to ingrained social norms. While Sen’s capabilities approach shifts the way international institutions think about development, I do not see how this approach can be implemented (specifically in regards to development institutions who I see as one of the only organizations to effectively aid in development). If these policies are not individualized enough to help disadvantaged groups within an emerging economy, the capabilities approach could then fall prey to the criticisms of previous approaches, including those of the capital infusion approach and the overarching policy approach.

I believe that Sen’s shift of what constitutes development from income to the removal of unfreedoms and growth of substantive freedoms is integral to creating good development policy. While I really like Sen’s approach, though, I am critical of its application in regards to development policy with regards to international development institutions.