The capability approach

The capability approach was originally conceived by welfare economist Amartya Sen. It aimed to assess well-being from a new perspective. Sen asserts that social evaluations based on wealth or income are flawed and potentially misrepresent the reality of an individual's well-being (Robyens, Reference ROBYENS2003). For example, traditionally a higher percentage of individuals in employment equates to a better general quality of life. However, some individuals may deem their personal well-being to be greater when out of employment. By assuming that generic measures can be applied across populations the complexity of individual well-being is denied and information is potentially misconstrued.

Sen first explored the capability approach in his paper Equality of What? (Sen, Reference SEN and McMurrin1979). He asserts that human diversity should not be treated as a complication, instead it is ‘a fundamental aspect of our interest in equality’ (cited in Robyens, Reference ROBYENS2003, p. 17). The capability approach assesses well-being by treating the individual as an end rather than an agent of a greater societal group (Nussbaum, Reference NUSSBAUM2000). Its basis in ethical individualism means ‘that individuals, and only individuals, are the ultimate units of moral concern’ (Robyens, Reference ROBYENS, Comim, Qizilbash and Alkire2008, p. 34).

The capability approach is based on two key concepts: (i) capabilities and (ii) functionings. The first concept addresses the range of options available to a person, the total set of possible actions from which one must choose (Klasen, Reference KLASEN, Otto and Ziegler2010). When Sen (Reference SEN, Nussbaum and Sen1993) refers to basic capabilities this denotes fundamental freedoms that are required to avoid poverty. Nussbaum (Reference NUSSBAUM2000) explains that when dealing with adults the goal is to enable capabilities that offer choice and opportunities. Sen argues that there is no such thing as a bad capability (Saito, Reference SAITO2003). Given that capabilities are not actions themselves, but rather the freedom to act, a capability cannot in itself be bad. Many capabilities will remain hypothetical, never being realised by the person involved. It is this that separates capabilities from functionings.

Functionings are people's ‘beings and doings’; they are the capabilities that come to fruition (Sen, Reference SEN1992, p. 11). The distinction between capabilities and functionings is paramount: capabilities are the options available to a person, while functionings are the actions that they live out.

Social situations are often evaluated on the basis of functionings. By assessing functionings rather than capabilities the reality of the situation can easily be misconstrued or misrepresented. Two girls who fail a mathematics exam in doing so have the same functioning. The difference between them lies in their capabilities: one is decidedly apathetic despite a broad capability set while the other is faced with adverse circumstances narrowing her capability set (Walker & Unterhalter, Reference WALKER, UNTERHALTER, Walker and Unterhalter2007). A boxer has the capability to avoid physical harm but chooses the functioning of engaging in violent fights (Robyens, Reference ROBYENS2003). These examples illustrate that by prioritising an individual's functionings rather than their capabilities one fails to address their own life preferences (Nussbaum, Reference NUSSBAUM2000). The purpose and conception of the capability approach was to redress these inaccuracies; by assessing capabilities one can gain insight into the true level of well-being that a person experiences.

The capability approach is fundamentally concerned with the individual and rejects generalised assessments of well-being. The approach is centred around capabilities, the options available to the individual, and functionings, the actions that are ultimately realized. Traditional measures of well-being have focused on functionings. The capability approach is concerned with measuring well-being on the basis of capabilities.

The capability approach in action

Papadopoulos and Tsakloglou (Reference PAPADOPOULOS, TSAKLOGLOU, Comim, Qizilbash and Alkire2008) led an investigation into social exclusion in the EU based on the capability approach. The investigation uses data from the European Community Household Panel (ECHP) and the population of 13 European countries is the subject of enquiry. The authors’ assertion that ‘the unit of analysis is the individual’ is in keeping with the ethos of the capability approach (Papadopoulos & Tsakloglou, Reference PAPADOPOULOS, TSAKLOGLOU, Comim, Qizilbash and Alkire2008, pp. 246–7). However, given that the data were collected at a household level and their analysis often addresses the ‘reference person’ it is clear that each individual does not represent themselves (Papadopoulos & Tsakloglou, Reference PAPADOPOULOS, TSAKLOGLOU, Comim, Qizilbash and Alkire2008, p. 256). Despite their intention to assess data on an individual basis, this study falls short of the principles of ethical individualism that are vital to the capability approach.

When addressing the details of their study regarding social exclusion Papodopoulos and Tsakloglou (2008) describe the problem of identifying a list of important functionings. This focuses their study on functionings rather than capabilities; precisely what the capability approach attempts to avoid (Robyens, Reference ROBYENS2003). This problem is compounded by the fact that ECHP data is generally concerned with functionings rather than capabilities (Papadopoulos & Tsakloglou, Reference PAPADOPOULOS, TSAKLOGLOU, Comim, Qizilbash and Alkire2008). The authors appear to simultaneously acknowledge and dismiss this limitation: ‘using the information of the ECHP we cannot be sure whether the individual chose to be in this state (unlikely but not impossible) or not’ (Papadopoulos & Tsakloglou, Reference PAPADOPOULOS, TSAKLOGLOU, Comim, Qizilbash and Alkire2008, p. 252).

In their sacrifice of true ethical individualism and capability centred assessment Papadopoulos and Tsakloglou (Reference PAPADOPOULOS, TSAKLOGLOU, Comim, Qizilbash and Alkire2008) appear to show little regard for the capability approach as understood by Sen or Nussbaum. The study is a rather distant variant of the capability approach, significantly altered by the desire for an ‘operationalisation’ of Sen's work (Papadopoulos & Tsakloglou, Reference PAPADOPOULOS, TSAKLOGLOU, Comim, Qizilbash and Alkire2008).

Applying the capability approach in education and music education

Having explored the theoretical underpinnings of the capability approach, identified different interpretations of the approach and considered the practicalities of applying it in different contexts the discussion can now turn to the capability approach as understood in education and music education.

Sen describes education as one of ‘a relatively small number of centrally important beings and doings that are crucial to well-being’ (cited in Walker & Underhalter, 2007, pp. 7–8). Education is widely accepted as a basic capability; the issue of capabilities within education is a more complex matter.

Case study: children of varied ages from 45 different countries identify valued capabilities

Mario Biggeri (Reference BIGGERI, Walker and Unterhalter2007) explores this potential compromise by investigating the capabilities that children value themselves. In this study children of different ages from 45 different countries ‘are active participants in the debate around their own well-being’ (Biggeri, Reference BIGGERI, Walker and Unterhalter2007, p. 198). The children are at the centre of the investigation in what Biggeri (Reference BIGGERI, Walker and Unterhalter2007) calls a ‘bottom-up strategy’ (p. 198). Biggeri (Reference BIGGERI, Walker and Unterhalter2007) upholds the ethical individualism of the capability approach when he clarifies that the children involved ‘were not assumed to be representative of all the world's children’ (p. 200). He identifies three categories of children: street children, rehabilitated children, and a control group who had never experienced life on the streets (Biggeri, Reference BIGGERI, Walker and Unterhalter2007). The initial open question: ‘What are the most important opportunities a child should have during her/his life?’ encouraged the true uninfluenced opinions of those involved (Biggeri, Reference BIGGERI, Walker and Unterhalter2007, p. 204). From this starting point an ongoing collaboration produced a list of 14 capabilities that are identified by children as important.Footnote ² These capabilities show regard for both their present and future lives. The importance of education was recognised by 88% of the children involved. The only group who showed concern for anything above education were the street children, who as a group placed greater emphasis on the value of life and physical health.

Biggeri's method of establishing a list of relevant capabilities with children can be applied within education. In order to establish a list of capabilities relevant to music education I worked with a group of year 8 students. Following Biggeri's model I began the process by asking the following questions:

1. 1. What are the most important opportunities that a student should have in school?

2. 2. What are the most important opportunities that a student should have in classroom music lessons?

The responses that students gave were varied and in some cases very specific to them individually. These students are not intended to represent all secondary school students and the responses listed below are certainly not universal or exhaustive. Some general themes emerged from the students’ responses. Further discussion on these themes allowed them to be divided into musical, academic and social capabilities each understood in both the present and future. Figure 1 shows the list of capabilities that we established: they are flexible and can be understood in different terms depending on the student and the context.

Fig. 1

Capabilities enabled through music education identified in collaboration with a class of year 8 students

It is undeniable that collaboration with children regarding capabilities can be fruitful; children are capable of engaging maturely with important capabilities including education (Biggeri, Reference BIGGERI, Walker and Unterhalter2007).

The problem of applying the capability approach in childhood identified by Saito (Reference SAITO2003), Walker (Reference WALKER2005) and Terzi (Reference TERZI2007a, Reference TERZI, Walker and Unterhalter2007b) is valid. This is best solved through compromise as seen in the work of Biggeri (Reference BIGGERI, Walker and Unterhalter2007) and Klasen (Reference KLASEN, Otto and Ziegler2010) in which the current existence of the individual remains the central tenet of the capability approach.

Equality of capabilities in education

Promoting the capability approach within education as a means to equality has significant implications. Klasen (Reference KLASEN, Otto and Ziegler2010) explains that provision based on equal opportunities fails to redress the pre-existing inequalities arising from differences in luck, talent and advantage. Walker and Unterhalter (Reference WALKER, UNTERHALTER, Walker and Unterhalter2007) note the link between the origins and outcomes of learners, evidence that initial inequalities are often not equalized. Promoting equality in students’ capabilities addresses their individual and diverse needs in order to level the playing field. This approach aims to provide children with equal access to different capabilities (Klasen, Reference KLASEN, Otto and Ziegler2010).

The promotion of equality in education is evidently important, and the capability approach offers a means of effectively assessing the level of equality and identifying areas that call for change. In order to apply the capability approach in this context greater clarity regarding the desired equality is required. Terzi (Reference TERZI2007a) makes an important distinction: ‘What matters in terms of equality of capabilities is the equal opportunity that people have to secure educational functionings, rather than equality in achieved functionings’ (p. 763). The promotion of equality through the capability approach does not demand equal outcomes. Instead, education should promote equality in the fundamental functionings that are required for equal participation in society (Terzi, Reference TERZI2007a). If the provision of basic educational capabilities is unequal this in turn leads to unequal freedom to function effectively in society (Terzi, Reference TERZI2007a).

For some students securing access to this basic capability equality is a challenge. A new arrival EAL student has to work hard to gain skills that will allow them to communicate effectively with people. Students with profound multiple learning difficulties (PMLD) may struggle to develop the skills required to gain employment of any type. There are multiple reasons why students may be particularly challenged when securing basic capability equality. For these students this becomes the top priority of education. When studying the development of a year 7 student with Asperger's syndrome I focused on the capabilities identified in Fig. 1. The student struggled to play in time with other members of his group and the quality of his musical contributions suffered. Although this impacted on his access to the subject-specific capabilities I naturally found myself prioritising his access to basic non-musical capability equality.

Terzi (Reference TERZI2007a) established the concept of a ‘threshold level of achieved functionings that educational institutions should promote and foster’ (p. 764). The threshold level denotes the capabilities that need to be equalised in order to enable equal functioning within society. The threshold not only secures this basic equality but also ensures that students who are more able or simply do not suffer from disadvantage will not be treated with disregard:

These arguments for equality in education assert that basic capabilities should be established for all students to enable equality in fundamental societal functionings. Beyond this threshold students are treated individually and their development is understood to be unique to them. This personalisation allows gifted and talented students to be appropriately challenged. When teaching a talented percussionist many of the capabilities outlined in Fig. 1 were relatively secure. The challenge as his musical educator was to facilitate as many experiences as possible to enable the broadest and most advanced set of musical capabilities in the present and future.

Robyens (Reference ROBYENS2003) explains that the principle of equality that drives the capability approach can result in a distribution of resources that appears unfair. However, in the context of education equality of resources does not equate to equality of capabilities (Klasen, Reference KLASEN, Otto and Ziegler2010). Terzi (Reference TERZI2007a) argues that it is not simply a matter of ‘fairness of the share’ (p. 766). Instead, she perceives the provision of additional opportunities and resources for those who need them as ‘requirements of justice’ (Terzi, Reference TERZI2007a, p. 766). The additional challenges faced by those with special educational needs and disabilities are met through such redistribution of resources.

Equality of capabilities in education can go some way to redress initial inequalities and hopefully secure access for all students to basic capabilities to allow them to function equally in society. There are some students for whom this becomes the overwhelming focus of their entire education and many subject-specific capabilities may consequently be sacrificed. The concept of a threshold level helps ensure that these students have a minimum capability set that education should equip them with. For students who are more able their capability aspirations can go beyond this threshold level. In order to secure the broadest and fairest capability set for all students, resources should be allocated accordingly, even if this may in itself appear unfair.