Capability approach and ICTs for development

While CA for development has evolved over a number of decades- mainly as an economic theory- scholars have recently employed CA in studies on communication, ICTs and development (Alampay 2006; Alsop & Heinsohn 2005; Andersson, Grönlund & Wicander 2012; Gigler 2004; Hamel 2010; Johnstone 2007; Kleine 2011; Smith, Spence & Rashid 2011; Zheng 2007; Zheng & Stahl 2011).

Drawing on Walsham (2001), Zheng and Stahl (2011, p. 69) claim that the central role placed on agency in CA shifts the perception of ICT users in developing countries from passive receivers of technologies transferred from advanced countries to active users, because it highlights the needs and aspirations of ICT users and their agency. Kleine (2010, p. 675) suggests that ICTs need to be considered as ‘multi- purpose technologies, which could empower individuals to attain development outcomes of their own choice’. Technologies are useful in human advancement as they allow individuals to expand their capabilities to do what they value and do more and different things in life (Hamel 2010 cited in Zheng & Stahl 2011). This is because the information or knowledge provided by these technologies enable their capability enhancement through better decision-making.

There are two advantages of employing individual agency in Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) studies (Zheng 2009). First, it allows for public discussion, participation and social inclusion in the process of ICT adoption and diffusion. Second, it allows evaluation of ICT adoption focusing on the extent to which it meets the needs and expectations of users, but not their designers or economic outcomes (Zheng & Stahl 2011, p. 70).

Smith, Spence and Rashid (2011) discuss how mobile phones have contributed to expanding human capabilities. The mobile phone and mobile networks provide

access to resources previously inaccessible, such as to timely and/or relevant information and to expanded possibilities for connectedness between people, as information is a key component of development. Hence, human capabilities are expanded in developing countries due to the ability of mobile phones to send and receive asynchronous and synchronous information from anywhere at an affordable cost.

Information sharing and new connectedness made possible between individuals as well as between individuals and institutions, have enabled new functionings by strengthening existing social networks (Mascarenhas 2010; Samuel, Shah, & Hadingham, 2005; Rashid & Elder, 2009 cited in Smith, Spence & Rashid 2011, p. 79), economic networks (Aker & Mbiti, 2010; Waverman, Meschi, & Fuss, 2005 cited in Smith, Spence & Rashid 2011) and governance networks (Ramos 2008; Valk, Rashid, & Elder 2010; Goldstein & Rotich, 2008 cited in Smith, Spence & Rashid 2011).

Despite the examples cited above on the incorporation of the CA in ICT- related studies, scholars find it difficult to define and measure key concepts in CA, such as functionings and capabilities (Malhotra & Schuler 2005; Peter 2003; Zheng & Stahl 2011). However, the choice framework developed by Dorothea Kleine (2010), based on Alsop and Heinsohn (2005), the UK Department for International Development (DFID) (1999) and Kleine’s research project with micro entrepreneurs on their use of ICTs in Chile, attempt to operationalise CA to ICT4D. It uses the elements of structure, agency and degrees of empowerment, to measure development outcomes combining ‘the people-centred and holistic view of the capabilities approach with a systemic understanding and diagrammatic representation of the development process’ (Kleine 2013, p. 5).

The primary outcome of the choice framework (Fig. 3.) is choice itself- the aim and principal means of development. Secondary outcomes are those a person values in his/her life, such as easier communication, more income and time saved, achieved with ICT use. Dimensions of choice or degrees of empowerment, according to Alsop and Heinsohn (2005), refer to the existence of choice (between different possibilities), a sense of choice (an individual’s awareness of the possibilities that new technology

offers them), use of choice (whether or not an individual actually makes the choice) and achievement of choice (whether the outcome matches the choice expressed).

With respect to agency, Kleine (2010, p. 53) defines resources as ‘individual agency-based capability inputs, which together with structure-based capability inputs, can be converted into capabilities’. An individual’s personal characteristics, including age, gender, and ethnicity, can determine their level of access to resources. Kleine (2010) defines a ‘resource portfolio’ as material resources (objects owned such as machinery or computer hardware); financial resources (cash, savings, shares); natural resources (geomorphological and climatic conditions, soil quality, availability of and access to water); geographical resources (practical implications of location and relative distances); human resources (health, education and skills); psychological resources

Fig. 3. The Choice Framework by Dorothea Kleine (2010). Source: (Kleine 2010, p. 680)

(self-confidence, tenacity, optimism, creativity, spiritual or religious beliefs); information; cultural resources (the three states of cultural capital of Bourdieu (1986)- viz. the embodied, objectified and institutionalised states); and social resources (social capital as outlined by Bourdieu (1986).

Resource-based agency can only be achieved through systematic interaction with a given structure (Kleine 2010). Structure includes several areas: institutions and organisations, discourses, policies and programs, and formal and informal laws such as norms regulating the usage of space. Structural factors and an individual’s resource portfolio are in a complex relationship (Kleine 2010). For example, a person with higher educational resources and more information would find it easier to access and use existing facilities to improve their skills and acquire information, reflecting a combination of opportunity structure and individual agency, while structural constraints can limit individual agency. Due to the high relevance of structure in determining individual agency, Kleine (2010) places structure above agency in the choice framework diagram (Fig. 3). Hence, the choice framework allows evaluation of non-economic or personal uses of ICTs, such as contacting family and friends, which contribute considerably to the well-being and capability expansion of individuals previously deprived of such opportunities, with high importance placed on the structure.